Rašyti komentarą...
Nuoroda nukopijuota
× Pranešti klaidą
manau, kad autorė yra globalistė kritikuojanti tik buvusią globalizmo formą, bet palaikanti naująją, kurią pasiūlė think-tankai iš PROJEKT SINDIKAT, kitaip tariant, siono išminčiai:) t.y. pasaulio "vystymosi" kontrolė prisidengiant kova su "klimato atšilimu". Graudu žiūrėti, kad taip lengvai ir klusniai pasaulio šalių politikai duodasi vedžiojami už nosies. Nejau tik kinai su indais teturi drąsos ir proto apginti savo interesus?
Noreena Hertz facebook'e vienas jos gerbėjas Dan Bloom, save kildinąs iš Vilniaus Gaono, o dabar politiką žaidžiantis Tailande, primigtynai siūlė jai paskaityti rašinėlį- pranašystę kaip gali būti sužlugdyta, t.y. demokratizuota:) Kinija, pasitelkus kiniškąjį Garbačiovą.:) Siūlau paskaityti:
The future Chinese Gorbachev of China speaks out on freedom in China after the PRC collapsed in 2015....
remarks by the Future Chinese Gorbachev of China:
My dear fellow free Chinese men and woman now living in the post-PRC China of today called CHINA in the year 2050,
The series of political and economic reforms I undertook in the PRC in 2015, has been the subject of heated debate ever since. Today the controversy has taken on a new urgency — not just because of the 35th anniversary, but also because post-PRC China is again facing the challenge of change. In moments like this, it is appropriate and necessary to look back.
We introduced these reforms because our people and the country’s leaders understood that we could no longer continue as we had. The PRC system, created on the precepts of socialism amid great efforts and sacrifices, had made our country a major power with a strong industrial base. The PRC was strong in emergencies, but in more normal circumstances, our system condemned us to inferiority.
This was clear to me and others of the new generation of leaders, as well as to members of the old guard who cared about the country’s future. I recall my conversation with Li Kiangle , the foreign minister, a few hours before the plenary meeting of the CCP's Central Committee that elected me as the party’s new general secretary in March 2015. Li agreed that drastic change was needed, however great the risk.
I am often asked whether my fellow leaders of reform and I knew the full scope of what we had to do. The answer is yes and no — not fully and not immediately. What we had to abandon was quite clear: the rigid ideological, political and economic system; the confrontation with much of the rest of the world; and the unbridled arms race. In rejecting all that, we had the full support of the people; those officials who later turned out to be die-hard Marxists had to keep silent and even acquiesce.
It is much more difficult to answer the follow-up question: What were our goals, what did we want to achieve? We came a long way in a short time — moving from trying to repair the existing system to recognizing the need to replace it. Yet I always adhered to my choice of evolutionary change — moving deliberately so that we would not break the backs of the people and the country and would avoid bloodshed.
While the radicals pushed us to move faster, the conservatives stepped on our toes. Both groups must bear most of the blame for what happened afterward. I accept my share of responsibility as well. We, the reformers, made mistakes that cost us, and our country, dearly.
Our main mistake was acting too late to reform the Chinese Communist Party. The party had initiated reforms , but it soon became a hindrance to our moving forward. The party’s top bureaucracy organized the attempted coup in August 2014, which scuttled the reforms.
We also acted too late in reforming the union of the republics, which had come a long way during their common existence. They had become real states, with their own economies and their own elites. We needed to find a way for them to exist as sovereign states within a decentralized democratic union. In a nationwide referendum of Apreil 2012 , more than 70 percent of voters supported the idea of a new union of sovereign republics, including Tibet. But the coup attempt that August, which weakened my position as president, made that prospect impossible. By the end of the year, the PRC no longer existed.
We made other mistakes, too. In the heat of political battles we lost sight of the economy, and people never forgave us for the shortages of everyday items and the lines for essential goods.
Still, the achievements of the reforms are undeniable. It was the breakthrough to freedom and democracy. Opinion polls today confirm that even those who criticize the reforms and its leaders appreciate the gains it allowed: the rejection of the totalitarian system; freedom of speech, assembly, religion and movement; and political and economic pluralism.
After the PRC was dismantled, Chinese leaders opted for a more radical version of reform. Their “shock therapy” was much worse than the disease. Many people were plunged into poverty; the income gap grew tremendously. Health, education and culture took heavy blows. China began to lose its industrial base, its economy becoming fully dependent on exports of oil and natural gas.
By the middle of the century, the country was half destroyed and we were facing chaos. Democracy was imperiled. That was when I began to worry about the future of democracy in China.
I understood that in a situation where the very existence of the Chinese state was at stake, it was not always possible to act “by the book.” Decisive, tough measures and even elements of authoritarianism may be needed at such times. That is why I supported the steps taken by Mr. Li during his first term as president. I was not alone — 70 percent to 80 percent of the population supported him in those days.
Nevertheless, stabilizing the country cannot be the only or the final goal. China needs development and modernization to become a leader in an interdependent world. Our country has not moved closer to that goal in the past few years, even though for a decade we have benefited from high prices for our main exports, oil and gas. The global crisis has hit China harder than many other countries, and we have no one but ourselves to blame.
China will progress with confidence only if it follows a democratic path. Recently, there have been a number of setbacks in this regard.
For instance, all major decisions are now taken by the executive branch, with the Parliament rubber-stamping formal approval. The independence of the courts has been thrown into question. We do not have a party system that would enable a real majority to win while also taking the minority opinion into account and allowing an active opposition. There is a growing feeling that the government is afraid of civil society and would like to control everything.
We’ve been there, done that. Do we want to go back? I don’t think anyone does, including our leaders.
I sense alarm in the words of President Li when he wondered, “Should a primitive economy based on raw materials and endemic corruption accompany us into the future?” He has also warned against complacency in a society where the government “is the biggest employer, the biggest publisher, the best producer, its own judiciary ... and ultimately a nation unto itself.”
I agree with the president. I agree with his goal of modernization. But it will not happen if people are sidelined, if they are just pawns. If the people are to feel and act like citizens, there is only one prescription: democracy, including the rule of law and an open and honest dialogue between the government and the people.
What’s holding China in 2050 back is fear. Among both the people and the authorities, there is concern that a new round of modernization might lead to instability and even chaos. In politics, fear is a bad guide; we must overcome it.
Today, China has many free, independently minded people who are ready to assume responsibility and uphold democracy. But a great deal depends now on how the government acts.
NOTE: The future Chinese Gorbachev of China was the leader of the PR from 2012 until its collapse in 2015. This article was translated by Ellen Smith-Ho from the Mandarin.
The future Chinese Gorbachev of China speaks out on freedom in China after the PRC collapsed in 2015....
remarks by the Future Chinese Gorbachev of China:
My dear fellow free Chinese men and woman now living in the post-PRC China of today called CHINA in the year 2050,
The series of political and economic reforms I undertook in the PRC in 2015, has been the subject of heated debate ever since. Today the controversy has taken on a new urgency — not just because of the 35th anniversary, but also because post-PRC China is again facing the challenge of change. In moments like this, it is appropriate and necessary to look back.
We introduced these reforms because our people and the country’s leaders understood that we could no longer continue as we had. The PRC system, created on the precepts of socialism amid great efforts and sacrifices, had made our country a major power with a strong industrial base. The PRC was strong in emergencies, but in more normal circumstances, our system condemned us to inferiority.
This was clear to me and others of the new generation of leaders, as well as to members of the old guard who cared about the country’s future. I recall my conversation with Li Kiangle , the foreign minister, a few hours before the plenary meeting of the CCP's Central Committee that elected me as the party’s new general secretary in March 2015. Li agreed that drastic change was needed, however great the risk.
I am often asked whether my fellow leaders of reform and I knew the full scope of what we had to do. The answer is yes and no — not fully and not immediately. What we had to abandon was quite clear: the rigid ideological, political and economic system; the confrontation with much of the rest of the world; and the unbridled arms race. In rejecting all that, we had the full support of the people; those officials who later turned out to be die-hard Marxists had to keep silent and even acquiesce.
It is much more difficult to answer the follow-up question: What were our goals, what did we want to achieve? We came a long way in a short time — moving from trying to repair the existing system to recognizing the need to replace it. Yet I always adhered to my choice of evolutionary change — moving deliberately so that we would not break the backs of the people and the country and would avoid bloodshed.
While the radicals pushed us to move faster, the conservatives stepped on our toes. Both groups must bear most of the blame for what happened afterward. I accept my share of responsibility as well. We, the reformers, made mistakes that cost us, and our country, dearly.
Our main mistake was acting too late to reform the Chinese Communist Party. The party had initiated reforms , but it soon became a hindrance to our moving forward. The party’s top bureaucracy organized the attempted coup in August 2014, which scuttled the reforms.
We also acted too late in reforming the union of the republics, which had come a long way during their common existence. They had become real states, with their own economies and their own elites. We needed to find a way for them to exist as sovereign states within a decentralized democratic union. In a nationwide referendum of Apreil 2012 , more than 70 percent of voters supported the idea of a new union of sovereign republics, including Tibet. But the coup attempt that August, which weakened my position as president, made that prospect impossible. By the end of the year, the PRC no longer existed.
We made other mistakes, too. In the heat of political battles we lost sight of the economy, and people never forgave us for the shortages of everyday items and the lines for essential goods.
Still, the achievements of the reforms are undeniable. It was the breakthrough to freedom and democracy. Opinion polls today confirm that even those who criticize the reforms and its leaders appreciate the gains it allowed: the rejection of the totalitarian system; freedom of speech, assembly, religion and movement; and political and economic pluralism.
After the PRC was dismantled, Chinese leaders opted for a more radical version of reform. Their “shock therapy” was much worse than the disease. Many people were plunged into poverty; the income gap grew tremendously. Health, education and culture took heavy blows. China began to lose its industrial base, its economy becoming fully dependent on exports of oil and natural gas.
By the middle of the century, the country was half destroyed and we were facing chaos. Democracy was imperiled. That was when I began to worry about the future of democracy in China.
I understood that in a situation where the very existence of the Chinese state was at stake, it was not always possible to act “by the book.” Decisive, tough measures and even elements of authoritarianism may be needed at such times. That is why I supported the steps taken by Mr. Li during his first term as president. I was not alone — 70 percent to 80 percent of the population supported him in those days.
Nevertheless, stabilizing the country cannot be the only or the final goal. China needs development and modernization to become a leader in an interdependent world. Our country has not moved closer to that goal in the past few years, even though for a decade we have benefited from high prices for our main exports, oil and gas. The global crisis has hit China harder than many other countries, and we have no one but ourselves to blame.
China will progress with confidence only if it follows a democratic path. Recently, there have been a number of setbacks in this regard.
For instance, all major decisions are now taken by the executive branch, with the Parliament rubber-stamping formal approval. The independence of the courts has been thrown into question. We do not have a party system that would enable a real majority to win while also taking the minority opinion into account and allowing an active opposition. There is a growing feeling that the government is afraid of civil society and would like to control everything.
We’ve been there, done that. Do we want to go back? I don’t think anyone does, including our leaders.
I sense alarm in the words of President Li when he wondered, “Should a primitive economy based on raw materials and endemic corruption accompany us into the future?” He has also warned against complacency in a society where the government “is the biggest employer, the biggest publisher, the best producer, its own judiciary ... and ultimately a nation unto itself.”
I agree with the president. I agree with his goal of modernization. But it will not happen if people are sidelined, if they are just pawns. If the people are to feel and act like citizens, there is only one prescription: democracy, including the rule of law and an open and honest dialogue between the government and the people.
What’s holding China in 2050 back is fear. Among both the people and the authorities, there is concern that a new round of modernization might lead to instability and even chaos. In politics, fear is a bad guide; we must overcome it.
Today, China has many free, independently minded people who are ready to assume responsibility and uphold democracy. But a great deal depends now on how the government acts.
NOTE: The future Chinese Gorbachev of China was the leader of the PR from 2012 until its collapse in 2015. This article was translated by Ellen Smith-Ho from the Mandarin.
visgi smagu girdėti patvirtinimus, kad ši krizė - tai globalistų sąmokslo krizė:))
KAip suprantu, ši ponia "kliedi" apie etišką kapitalizmą. Taip sakant, kapitalizmą "su žmonišku veidu". Toks, ko gero mažai skirtūsi nuo socializmo, apie kurį svajojo Garbačiovas - su žmonišku veidu. O juk tokio mes nė neragavom:)
Net socializme ekonomika veikia "kapitalistiniais" dėsniais:)Tik socializme kapitalą valdo ir juo naudojasi partinė nomenklatūra saviems tikslams įgyvendinti.Visa-buvusi ,esama ir būsima ekonomika remsis į darbo "sankaupas" -kapitalą,nes tik taip užtikrinamas vystymasis visom prasmėm,nes be kapitalo ir mokslinių tyrimų neatliksi,nei ekologinio projekto neįgyvendinsi.Nesivystymas automatiškai yra atsilikinėjimas,nes ekonomikai neaugant bent 5 proc. ima atsirasti vis daugiau bedarbių,kurie vis viena nori valgyt ir negali staiga išnykti.Juos reikia arba sušaudyt,arba pasiūst į karą,kad uždubasintų vienas kitą:)Tai gal ši ponia apie tai kliedi?Jei kam bus įdomūs įrodymai ir faktai apie vystymosi procentus ir būtinumą,seniai ištirtų tiesų-būtinai pateiksiu:)
The Silent Takeover: Global Capitalism a
By Noreena Hertz
"Named one of the best books of the year by The Sunday Times of London, and already a bestseller in England, Noreena Hertz's The Silent Takeover explains how corporations in the age of globalization are changing our lives, our society, and our future -- and are threatening the very basis of our democracy. Of the world's 100 largest economies, fifty-one are now corporations, only forty-nine are nation-states. The sales of General Motors and Ford are greater than the GDP (gross domestic product) of the whole of sub-Saharan Africa, and Wal-Mart now has a turnover higher than the revenues of most of the states of Eastern Europe. Yet few of us are fully aware of the growing dominance of big business: newspapers continue to place news of the actions of governments on the front page, with business news relegated to the inside pages. But do governments really have more influence over our lives than businesses? Already sparking intense debate in England and on the Continent, The Silent Takeover provides a new and startling take on the way we live now and who really governs us. The widely acclaimed young socio-economist Noreena Hertz brilliantly and passionately reveals how corporations across the world manipulate and pressure governments by means both legal and illegal; how protest, be it in the form of the protesters of Seattle and Genoa or the boycotting of genetically altered foods, is often becoming a more effective political weapon than the ballot-box; and how corporations in many parts of the world are taking over from the state responsibility for everything from providing technology for schools to healthcare for the community. What is the fate of democracy in the world of the silent takeover? The Silent Takeover asks us to recognize the growing contradictions of a world divided between haves and have-nots, of gated communities next to ghettos, of extreme poverty and unbelievable riches.
"Named one of the best books of the year by The Sunday Times of London, and already a bestseller in England, Noreena Hertz's The Silent Takeover explains how corporations in the age of globalization are changing our lives, our society, and our future -- and are threatening the very basis of our democracy. Of the world's 100 largest economies, fifty-one are now corporations, only forty-nine are nation-states. The sales of General Motors and Ford are greater than the GDP (gross domestic product) of the whole of sub-Saharan Africa, and Wal-Mart now has a turnover higher than the revenues of most of the states of Eastern Europe. Yet few of us are fully aware of the growing dominance of big business: newspapers continue to place news of the actions of governments on the front page, with business news relegated to the inside pages. But do governments really have more influence over our lives than businesses? Already sparking intense debate in England and on the Continent, The Silent Takeover provides a new and startling take on the way we live now and who really governs us. The widely acclaimed young socio-economist Noreena Hertz brilliantly and passionately reveals how corporations across the world manipulate and pressure governments by means both legal and illegal; how protest, be it in the form of the protesters of Seattle and Genoa or the boycotting of genetically altered foods, is often becoming a more effective political weapon than the ballot-box; and how corporations in many parts of the world are taking over from the state responsibility for everything from providing technology for schools to healthcare for the community. What is the fate of democracy in the world of the silent takeover? The Silent Takeover asks us to recognize the growing contradictions of a world divided between haves and have-nots, of gated communities next to ghettos, of extreme poverty and unbelievable riches.
Kas yra tas GUCCY kapitalizmas?
Ar tai Friedmano-Hayek'o įkvėptas laukinis kapitalizmas? Ir šalys, kurios juo neužsikrėtė, tokios kaip Kinija, Indija arba Brazilija, kuri spjovė į TVF nurodymus, dėl to išlošė, kad reguliavo savo ekonomikas?
Ar tai Friedmano-Hayek'o įkvėptas laukinis kapitalizmas? Ir šalys, kurios juo neužsikrėtė, tokios kaip Kinija, Indija arba Brazilija, kuri spjovė į TVF nurodymus, dėl to išlošė, kad reguliavo savo ekonomikas?
Mano tema. Visuomet tikėjau, kad globalus kapitalizmas - tai mirtis demokratijai. Nors straipsniukas pratokai išverstas, bet dėkui Balsui, kad supažindino su dar viena įdomia žydaite. Iki šiol žavėjausi Naomi Klein. Dabar matau, kad ji turi šiokią tokią konkurentę, žymaus Britanijos rabino anūkę. Smagu girdėti tokius Sarkozy pasiūlymus, kad ne BVP turi lemti, o bendras laimės lygis..., apie konkurencijos iškeitimą į bendradarbiavimą ir tai, kad galų gale vyriausybės vėl atgauna balsą...
Kur dingo tautiniai akanamystai ir pranašai:)?Karpuška,Cicinskas ir kiti?
Aha,karas ypač naudinga viskam: ir ekonomikai, ir mirštamumui mažinti :DDDDD Juokinga
Globalizacijos kritikė: net ir karas yra naudingas ekonomikai