#westernism

'Illegitimate son of a Moscow nobleman, ardent habitue of the Westernizing kruzhki, enthusiastic proponent of (successively) German idealism and French socialism, Aleksandr Herzen was outspoken in discussion in his criticism of autocracy, serfdom, and police arbitrariness. In his youth he believed, in Hegelian spirit, that socialism of the kind preached by the French thinker Saint-Simon would bring the Absolute Spirit to fulfillment in western Europe in a reign of freedom and justice. These beliefs twice led to his arrest and exile, where, as a minor official, he had ample opportunity to observe the abuse of personal power prevalent in Nicholas I's Russia. Inheriting his father's fortune in 1847, he was able to travel to western Europe, where he arrived just in time to see the revolutions of 1848 in France and Italy. What he witnessed disabused him of his admiration for Western liberty. … The spectacle of the republican General Cavaignac crushing a workers' rising in Paris in June 1848 finally convinced him that bourgeois "freedom" was mercenary, egoistic, and repressive - more or less as the Slavophiles contended. Here was a "Westernizer" confronted with the actual West, and as a result seeing new virtues in his homeland. Perhaps "young" Russia, unencumbered by the weight of deadening social institutions, might lead humanity toward the great future. Perhaps too, the peasant commune, which he had once pilloried the Slavophiles for extolling, might have a positive role to play, especially since, in a primitive and unconscious manner, it embodied the virtues of socialism. … Later in life he urged that the commune and the workers' artel should be set free from "lifeless Asiatic crystallizations" by contact with European socialism, so that they could develop their potential. Herzen combined Westernism and Slavophilism in a new hybrid. He was the founder of the distinctively Russian style of socialism, which rejected parliaments, constitutions, and the rule of law in favor of the free cooperation of equals exemplified in the commune and artel. What Russian peasants and workers needed to make it work, he preached, were "land and freedom," a slogan which became the watchword of the first generation of Russian socialists.'

In a now famous "rationalist" blog there is an interesting and all too typical argument about "western culture" not being western but universal:

Let me say again that this universal culture, though it started in the West, was western only in the most cosmetic ways. If China or the Caliphate had industrialized first, they would have been the ones who developed it, and it would have been much the same. The new sodas and medicines and gender norms invented in Beijing or Baghdad would have spread throughout the world, and they would have looked very familiar. The best way to industrialize is the best way to industrialize.

This argument is so precious because it is based on some amazingly "optimistic" assumptions:

That there exactly one “universal culture” compatible with what is the “best way to industrialize”.

That what we have is indeed the “best way to industrialize” rather than one relatively better than others discovered so far.

That even if it were the absolute “best way to industrialize” it would have to be unique.

That somehow the enormous budgets and efforts devoted to propaganda about the “best way to industrialize” and the “universal culture” by those interests that do the best out of them have not had any effect.

The argument therefore looks like noddy-marxist vulgar economicism, of the "end of history" variety though, where the inevitable march of progress delivers the best of all possible worlds, reminding us of Plato, Leibnitz, Voltaire, Hegel, Fukuyama.

But the really big objection is of quite a different nature: whether they are unique or not, whether they are the best or not, whether they have been pushed forward by relentless propaganda, whether they are universal or contingent, the western "way to industrialize" and "culture" are quite successful, and most people imitate those who are successful, because cargo-cultism is widespread.

That is both as a to economist systems and culture, in both the small scale and the large scale, there is a tendency to "follow the leader", or more simply "do as the boss does".

That is not just a yearning to learn from others and adopt their "best practices", it goes all the way to cargo cultism: simple imitation of behaviour in the hope that somehow matters to achieving the same results.

There are so many cases of simple cargo cultism where worldwide culture has simply being americanized, not just because american sodas are simply better, for example:

When England ruled 1/3 of the world the english style of business dress became the european and american style of business dress, and also that of Japan. There cannot be an argument that such managerial dress style is "better" in any sense of effectiveness.

As to sodas, before WW2 all european countries had their own often excellent soda brands and beverages, and even the USA had many different variants and brands. During and after WW2 american soda brands were widely consumed by USA soldiers occupying most countries, and since they were the winners, the local populations started to imitate them.

A long time ago during the roman empire the ideal physical type for women included auburn hair (because roman ladies had auburn hair), and blond hair was regarded as vulgar (because many slaves were purchased from northern europe and were blond). The ideal hair color only switched to blond after the successful germanic invasions defeated the ruling class of which auburn haired roman women were part.

From contemporary asian movies it is clear that even in universities, even in those in the People's Republic Of China, even elite ones, there are cheerleaders dancing with pon-pons at university basketball matches. Again there cannot be such celebratory acts are "better" in any sense of effectiveness.

http://whylorinda.tumblr.com/post/108211577873/littlegoythings-danielpico

http://whylorinda.tumblr.com/post/108212706833/theroguefeminist-littlegoythings

The highlight of the electoral process, in the view of most Western democracies, is the Presidential election. The battles and debates between party leaders as the various members of the political elite never fail to rile and stir up the populous. The elections for the People's Assembly in Egypt and the House of Representatives in the US got little media attention here in the UK, while the Presidential elections in these countries dominate the airwaves. The apex of democracy is seen as the ability for citizens to choose their head of state - this is frankly insane.

There is a huge range of opinions in society. Left and right, libertarian and authoritarian, traditionalist and progressive. A fully functioning democracy (this is not the horrific bourgeois Westernist democracy - this is literally a government by the people, what it actually means) must represent, reflect and include all these views. A Head of State is just one person. Unless this person is a neutral robot, they cannot possibly represent all those different opinions and views. Also, in Weternist democracy the victorious president belongs to a single party and therefore a single interpretation of politics. Democracy is not about 'winning' an election. It's about representation. It's about taking the views of every citizen from every walk of life when formulating policy. A president, given a mandate by the group which makes up the majority of citizens, will never be able to do that.