The current ruling political party in China is the Communist Party of China. The communist ideology puts personal possessions and consumer goods second to 'equality' in the community. The government even had control over the number of children the family could have - the one-child policy was only phased out in 2015; this was a rule that families could only have one child (unless the first child was a girl) or they would pay significant fines. Rousseau says that at some point, humans need to collaborate in order to survive as population grows. This creates three axioms: first, everyone must unconditionally give up their rights, which means they are interested in making the contract easy for everyone including themselves. Secondly, they have given up their rights without reservation, so no rights now oppose the state. Third, everyone is equal, therefore no one loses their natural freedom.
In a communist society everyone has given up their rights to their own property because everything is publicly owned. Since everyone is technically equal, does this mean they are "free"? I feel that after many failed and terrible events such as the Great Leap Forward, Tienanmen Square Massacre, and ongoing propaganda and censorship, there should be people living in China who have recognised an issue with their government. However, their population is so big and there have been starvations in the past, so most people are mainly concerned first about their own survival -- an interesting cultural difference I learned about in a documentary is that Chinese children are taught to push and shove to the front of the line, because if they don't behave this way there may not be enough food for them to be fed. This demonstrates the instinct of self-preservation also discussed in Rousseau. If everyone is concerned about their own survival, is there any way to help the community move toward a better government system? The sovereign should act in the best interest of everyone, since hurting others also hurts himself; since civilians were killed in the Massacre I don't feel that the government has the public good in their best interests. Moreover, Rousseau says that if a man surrenders and puts his arms down during war, they've given up their lives and should not be killed because he simply becomes a man -- this also further shows that killing the civilians was wrong!!!
Another question - in North Korea, Kim Jong Un is the dictator ruling over all of the people. This is an example of private will versus general will - the private will tends toward giving some people advantages and not others, but the general will should tend toward equality for the people. Kim Jong Un has almost all of the wealth and controls the community such that it spends as little money as possible, while he himself lives a luxurious life. For example, here is a picture of North Korea at night. The people must turn off their lights by a certain time or they will be in big trouble! But there is a small dot of light, which is probably where the government officials are.
As outsiders to this country we see that their people are significantly smaller in stature, probably because of malnutrition, and live very restricted lifestyles. However, almost all of the North Korean people are brainwashed, since they are not allowed outside of North Korea and they only learn about the world through the propaganda fed to them by their government. Tourists who visit North Korea are often surprised to see that a lot of the people are happy. This is probably because they don't know of any better lifestyle, since this is how they've survived all this time. If they are content under this kind of government, are these people experiencing natural freedom? Are they really free? Rousseau says that a master and slaves relationship is different from ruler of a society in that a master is about private interests so when he dies, the slaves can scatter, whereas a society forms when the people deliberate what is best for the public good, and they choose a sovereign who acts in the best interest of everyone. If they are happy, believe that their best interests are being taken care of, and decide as a society that this is best for the public good (since they believe through the propaganda that Kim Jong Un is always right), should outside governments really intervene? Are these people actually free because they are happy and are not aware of the outside world (like prisoners stuck in Plato's cave)?
No comments:
Post a Comment