AI WEIWEI, REDS & TEA PARTY

I just finished reading an article in Newsweek -- which is getting better, by the way -- about the famed Chinese artist Ai Weiwei, (which I guess is pronounced "Eye Way-way," rather than "I Wee-wee"): 
http://www.newsweek.com/2011/04/10/a-provocateur-finds-out-just-how-far-he-can-go.html

Here is a photo of Ai Weiwei, from the AP:

 Weiwei says his political actions are works of art. Reminds me of my old argument over whether serving a bowl of soup is a work of art. Well, I just made a work of "art" in the bathroom, if you get my drift. Getting my drift is another work of art, BTW. 

Anyway, my question is this: Which is worse, the brutal repression the Communists do in China or the ruthless capitalism the Tea Party wants to effect in the good old USA? 

Both are forms of social engineering, and I think they are both pretty bad.

It seems to me the Communists and the Tea Party are a lot alike. Both care more about their ideology than they do about people.

Both want to protect their own interests. In China, those are the Party leaders and apparatchiks. In the USA, the Tea Party wants to protect the rich.

Is either one good for their country? No.

Political activists in the USA divide themselves into two camps: those who care more about people, and those who care more about money. In this country, the USA, the former are liberals and the latter are conservatives. 

Pretty neat division, huh? That's so you can tell the good guys from the bad guys. Obviously, the good guys want to help people, more or less unselfishly, and the bad guys want to screw poor people out of their money and help the rich get richer.

In the USA, our right wingers think it's OK to screw the poor, but they don't want to screw the rich, who they think are more valuable, for some reason that I can't fathom.

In China, there are those who follow the party line and those who want to speak for themselves. The Communists think it's OK to screw anyone whom they can't control or who won't kow-tow to the party line.

Communism was supposed to help the poor, but it doesn't really do that. What it has done, in China and in the former Soviet Union, is create a social system that is just as bad as rampant capitalism. Those who rise to the top screw those on the bottom, in both systems.

So there are bad guys on both sides. Which kind of bad guy do you prefer? 

But I think both sides need reform. We need to do more to help the working poor rise up out of poverty. The Chinese need to level their playing field, too, I think.

In this country, the poor carry the capitalists on their backs, it seems to me. I wouldn't mind screwing the rich a little bit; that would help the poor a lot.

In China, the working people carry the apparatus of the state on their backs. Both systems are equally at fault, I think.

I prefer this country, of course, because we can speak our mind. Now if we could just get rid of those Tea Party jerks.

Weiwei's family was repressed, in 1958, because of his father, a poet. Today, Weiwei is similarly treated. 

Meanwhile, Weiwei is nowhere to be found. We don't know if he is in prison or what. Here is a recent update:
http://preview.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-24/detained-ai-weiwei-s-supporters-march-in-hong-kong-scmp-says.html

About China, there are two issues here:

1. Are Weiwei's political statements art? No, they are not.
2. Is the Chinese government in the right to suppress Weiwei and people like him? No, it is not.

So what should we do about all this? We should do whatever we can, short of going to war, to support Weiwei and his "art." It's about freedom of speech. We should always support that.

What should we do about the Tea Party people? Maybe if we ignore them long enough, they will go away. Or grow up.  

-- Roger

© Copyright 2011, Roger R. Angle

(Ai Weiwei links:)
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/features/heads-up-ai-weiwei-2274341.html