Go West

Go or Weiqi is an ancient Chinese tactics game. Its rules are staggering simple. Black and White stones placed alternatively on the grid of a board by the two competing players with the aim of encircling the opponent and covering most territory. The game is very popular in East Asia, especially in Japan. Despite its simple rules, the complexity of the game is so great that a computerized player is still to be constructed, as opposed to chess, for instance. It has been argued that the strategies involved in the game describe the eastern strategic thinking as opposed to the western way of thinking. I dare to say that it even describes the different approaches to the fundamental values of life in the two societies. An ancient Chinese proverb related to Weiqi says “The real master is known by how much he can accomplish with little resources”
After the collapse of the Soviet Union an all its forged international structures, the Cold War ended. The Western world was breathing easier. It was obvious that the system they proposed was better and likely to succeed in the long run. The former communist countries turned quickly to the market economy and to the western social models. It is obvious that the enhanced competitiveness and productivity induced by the functioning of free markets was essential in creating the technological advance and the better social models of the Western world. Of course, the former communist countries were poised with other problems as well, aside from the economic ones. The ideology was wrong, people were lacking fundamental liberties, oppression and political terror was omnipresent. In all these dimensions, the western countries were far better off. At this point, we can arguably assert that democracy is the best social system we know, for promoting the values enlisted in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
However, in the aftermath of the Cold War, no one seemed to be much concerned with the question of whether the democracy is really a one-size hat that fits all. Even more, a pressure has been created, to point out that western world features the most advanced social system and those countries that do not adhere to the western values must be somehow lagging behind in their development. But free market comes also with the urge of consumption and with raising the living standards in what seems to be a sort of a race.
This type of consumerism behavior has been pressing hard on the secular Asian societies; China and India being the most significant new members of the consumerism club.
I do not argue that democracy is not good and market economy is not the most efficient way to redistribute resources. On the contrary, I totally agree with the fact that democracy is the best environment for human liberties to thrive, and certainly most of the market economy features are desirable for a proper development of society. However, maybe a critical approach would have been more appropriate after the communism collapse, and Western societies should have avoided creating any pressure on societies that have so different secular values.
I just don’t think that consumerism is what fits best the Chinese way of life and maybe India’s too, and I don’t think it will do them much good; not to mention the indirect effects on the wellbeing of the other parts of the world, western countries included.