5 ms·

I disagree, though I'm not particularly pleased about it. I think 25 years ago, it seemed that choice existed. You could do liberal, capitalist democracy follo

by netcan 11y ago

I disagree, though I'm not particularly pleased about it. I think 25 years ago, it seemed that choice existed. You could do liberal, capitalist democracy following the examples of Western Europe, Japan & the US. The other hand was a hodgepodge of failure, either state failure or economic failure. Most notably was the failed soviet bloc but also China, India & South America (right and left). All or nothing. Revolution or stagnation. Free your people or live in culturaly stagnant, poverty stricken destitute with . The idea that political freedoms necessary for democracy are intertwined with the economic freedoms necessary for capitalism had a lot of traction. But, with the examples of the last generation (positive and negative) I think that is no longer conventional wisdom. China's been very successful at growing economically by hand selecting policies and freedoms they want and keeping other out. You could call it non-fundamentalist or you could call it unprincipled depending on your biases and judgements, but it's hard to ignore it. China has been selectively liberalizing economically, socially and (to a lesser extent) politically. It doesn't see how you could argue that a sudden democratization in 1980 or 1990 would have gotten them further along. The reality is that the choices are nowhere near black and white. There is such a thing as a soft authoritarian, single party, free market state. They are doing it. Its nice to think that liberal democracy and prosperity are intertwined because I like democracy. But, I think democracy must be justified on its own merits. The conic advantages…. They're debatable.

hellbanner 11y ago
For a great read on government role in modern capitalism, I recommend http://www.amazon.com/Things-They-Dont-About-Capitalism/dp/1608193381 http://www.amazon.com/Things-They-Dont-About-Capitalism/dp/1...
spiralpolitik 11y ago
China is a somewhat unique example as they are operating at a scale that no other country has to deal with. So solutions that work at the 300 million people scale, simply don't work at 2 billion people scale. While this doesn't justify China's actions, it does provide an explanation for them.
- drzaiusapelord 11y ago
  Meh, this is a weak argument. Not too long ago people were saying "Of course the small eastern european states need authoritarian communism! They aren't rich like the USA! They need a strongman to lead them and to control the weak economy or they'll fall into starvation. Ceausescu keeps the lights on and our bellies full!" Capitalism scales just fine. So does democracy, ask India. Lets stop giving authoritarians more excuses.
  - debrangy 11y ago
    India may not be the best example, considering there have been several organizations that have rated it more corrupt than China. Furthermore, while they both started in similar economic positions, China has pretty much left India in the dust at the moment in many metrics.
    - drzaiusapelord 11y ago
      I'm not saying these are perfect solutions but they are doable. Also comparing India to China, economically, is a bit tough. China wasn't occupied by the British Empire for 100 plus years. The history of colonialism can't be dismissed overnight. Ironically, India's many communist parties and communist-influenced legislation is still hurting it, notable the law that companies larger than x size are more or less nationally controlled in a de facto sense - for example it is illegal to fire anyone, you actually need to ask the government to fire them which involves trials and years of work. Companies in India try to stay under that size, thus a lack of proper economic growth due to lack of scale. The new guy in charge is up for liberalization, so lets see how that works out.
AJ007 11y ago
Let it play out, China's growth isn't remarkable and people said the same things when other countries where undergoing the same type of growth -- Japan, Brazil, and even the USSR. There are malinvestments. There has not been a significant correction so no one knows what % of their economy is sustainable or waste. What will things look like after a correction is complete, politically or economically?
jacquesm 11y ago
China is being run by a cabal of scared, mostly old (average age is 64, one woman in the politbureau) men. They're using every trick in the book to hold on to their power while trying to appease the crowds with shiny new trinkets. The question is if they can manage to consolidate before the crowds realize they don't actually need the old men and that the old men are still the biggest brake on their development. That's why you get things like what the article discusses and why you get the great firewall. It's all about crowd control on a very large scale and it is driven by fear of what that crowd could do once it realizes there are no chains. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politburo_of_the_Communist_Party_of_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politburo_of_the_Communist_Par...
- pjc50 11y ago
  brake on their development Well, at the moment the economy is still growing and that makes a huge difference. Even in the west, people who feel that their lives are improving are much less interested in political reform.(+) If the economy experiences a serious recession, then things could get much nastier. (+) this does not apply to Tibet
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    Yes. That's why the fact that China had such a huge backlog actually works in favor of the current leadership, and it is a very strong incentive for them to keep applying the brakes. Too much growth in too short a time could easily lead to things plateauing well before parity is achieved which would wake up some nasty sentiments but as long as there is growth there is hope that one day parity will be achieved. It's a very difficult balancing act. If the economy should crash (and there are definitely signs this may be in the cards) then all bets are off.
- alextgordon 11y ago
  > ____ is being run by a cabal of scared, mostly 60-year old men. They're using every trick in the book to hold on to their power while trying to appease the crowds with shiny new trinkets. You could literally be describing any country on earth with that.
drzaiusapelord 11y ago
>There is such a thing as a soft authoritarian, single party, free market state. They are doing it. Even the worst leadership can make the jump from farming to industry. This is more or less the story of communism in the 50s and 60s. Suddenly, a lot of farmers went from backbreaking work just being able to feed themselves to making products. This is an economic force multiplier. The problem is autocratic states can't get past this stage very well. Compare N Korea and S Korea's GDP per capita over the decades, past the 1970s, the South led and had to liberalize a lot to continue growth. Now they're seen as a economic miracle at $26,000 GDP per capita compared to the North's $1,800. In the 50s and 60s we all sat stunned at how well the North was beating the South! Now they're an international laughingstock. >The idea that political freedoms necessary for democracy are intertwined with the economic freedoms necessary for capitalism had a lot of traction When everyone gets sick of factory work and realizes they own no property, can't give their children a better life, can't open their own businesses, have to bribe everyone to get even the basic services, etc they will have problems the same way N Korea, Cuba, and the USSR did. They just haven't hit that wall yet. That wall is coming. There's no avoiding it. They will either liberalize to stay competitive or pull a Putin and say "This is good enough, right here" and fall deeper into isolation, autocracy, corruption, economic stagnation, and more mindless jingoism/island annexation.
- netcan 11y ago
  I agree, to an extent but I think you are overstating it. Russian Communism had similar results (I think it's the 20s-40s though. They moved from Czarism to communism. That's either proof that it's easy to grow from a low base or that communism is good at it. It might be that the two are unrelated. Overall, I tend to agree that degree to which China was depressed under Maoism needs to be accounted for. Still, China's been doing better than India and a lot of other more liberal places. I think the general point is inconclusive, but it's the specific point that matters. China over the last generation got a lot richer and there is no reason to think it would have done better economically if it was more liberal politically. I think that even with the Stasi, corruption and the appeal of western culture to East Germans, the regime would still exist had it not failed economically. And, like I said at the start I think it's a stretch to tell China that they're in the same boat as N Korea, Cuba, and the USSR.
mc32 11y ago
It seems clear China among others, has successfully decoupled democracy from capitalism. It has proven the two don't necessarily go hand in hand. Well have to see how things play out, but it does not seem very promising. On the other hand, it'll be interesting to see which system can provide a better life for its population. It's not a given democratic capitalism is the only or best solution. Perhaps a different mix will win out.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  > It seems clear China among others, has successfully decoupled democracy from capitalism. It has proven the two don't necessarily go hand in hand. I think it is a bit early to call that. They avoided all-out revolution by letting go of the reins a bit, but in the slightly longer term things could very well still go pear shaped or result in a re-assertion of power. You seem to acknowledge that in the rest of your comment but that's inconsistent with claiming it is a success already, it's mostly early days in a pretty risky experiment.
  - mc32 11y ago
    China is but one example. Singapore is another. Russia is still undecided, but certainly not democratic. Long term, it's hard to say what political-economic systems will look like. However, it appears China has so far achieved economic success via capitalistic economics without democracy. It does not seem that China is in any hurry to democratize. In its history, there has been at least weak centralization, never the less, centralization and strong central gov't is embedded in their collective psyche.
- adventured 11y ago
  China has 500 million people living on not much more than $2 per day. And another 300 million above that, living on $3 to $5 per day. It's already very well understood which system works better. Those bottom 500 million have seen zero improvement in 50 years inflation adjusted. They're also mostly peasant farmers, and it's illegal for them to own farm land - they're land slaves accordingly. They have no prospects, and have seen no real benefit from the labor utilization system, it has completely failed them. The only meaningful thing China's system accomplished, was absorbing some of the vast, slack labor capacity for manufacturing. That would have happened by default minus the economic controls they previously had in place. China didn't have to do anything but take their boot off the throat of manufacturing. And now the manufacturing party is over, so they've turned to extreme debt acquisition and forced asset bubbles to fake growth. There may not have been a greater economic myth than the story of China's rise, in the last century.
prewett 11y ago
We already have lots of history showing that capitalism and democracy are unrelated. France and Germany between the Renaissance and about 1800, for example: politically a monarchy, but economically capitalistic.

by netcan 11y ago

hellbanner 11y ago

For a great read on government role in modern capitalism, I recommend http://www.amazon.com/Things-They-Dont-About-Capitalism/dp/1608193381 http://www.amazon.com/Things-They-Dont-About-Capitalism/dp/1...

spiralpolitik 11y ago

China is a somewhat unique example as they are operating at a scale that no other country has to deal with. So solutions that work at the 300 million people scale, simply don't work at 2 billion people scale. While this doesn't justify China's actions, it does provide an explanation for them.

drzaiusapelord 11y ago
Meh, this is a weak argument. Not too long ago people were saying "Of course the small eastern european states need authoritarian communism! They aren't rich like the USA! They need a strongman to lead them and to control the weak economy or they'll fall into starvation. Ceausescu keeps the lights on and our bellies full!" Capitalism scales just fine. So does democracy, ask India. Lets stop giving authoritarians more excuses.
- debrangy 11y ago
  India may not be the best example, considering there have been several organizations that have rated it more corrupt than China. Furthermore, while they both started in similar economic positions, China has pretty much left India in the dust at the moment in many metrics.
  - drzaiusapelord 11y ago
    I'm not saying these are perfect solutions but they are doable. Also comparing India to China, economically, is a bit tough. China wasn't occupied by the British Empire for 100 plus years. The history of colonialism can't be dismissed overnight. Ironically, India's many communist parties and communist-influenced legislation is still hurting it, notable the law that companies larger than x size are more or less nationally controlled in a de facto sense - for example it is illegal to fire anyone, you actually need to ask the government to fire them which involves trials and years of work. Companies in India try to stay under that size, thus a lack of proper economic growth due to lack of scale. The new guy in charge is up for liberalization, so lets see how that works out.

AJ007 11y ago

Let it play out, China's growth isn't remarkable and people said the same things when other countries where undergoing the same type of growth -- Japan, Brazil, and even the USSR. There are malinvestments. There has not been a significant correction so no one knows what % of their economy is sustainable or waste. What will things look like after a correction is complete, politically or economically?

jacquesm 11y ago

China is being run by a cabal of scared, mostly old (average age is 64, one woman in the politbureau) men. They're using every trick in the book to hold on to their power while trying to appease the crowds with shiny new trinkets. The question is if they can manage to consolidate before the crowds realize they don't actually need the old men and that the old men are still the biggest brake on their development. That's why you get things like what the article discusses and why you get the great firewall. It's all about crowd control on a very large scale and it is driven by fear of what that crowd could do once it realizes there are no chains. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politburo_of_the_Communist_Party_of_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politburo_of_the_Communist_Par...

pjc50 11y ago
brake on their development Well, at the moment the economy is still growing and that makes a huge difference. Even in the west, people who feel that their lives are improving are much less interested in political reform.(+) If the economy experiences a serious recession, then things could get much nastier. (+) this does not apply to Tibet
- jacquesm 11y ago
  Yes. That's why the fact that China had such a huge backlog actually works in favor of the current leadership, and it is a very strong incentive for them to keep applying the brakes. Too much growth in too short a time could easily lead to things plateauing well before parity is achieved which would wake up some nasty sentiments but as long as there is growth there is hope that one day parity will be achieved. It's a very difficult balancing act. If the economy should crash (and there are definitely signs this may be in the cards) then all bets are off.
alextgordon 11y ago
> ____ is being run by a cabal of scared, mostly 60-year old men. They're using every trick in the book to hold on to their power while trying to appease the crowds with shiny new trinkets. You could literally be describing any country on earth with that.

drzaiusapelord 11y ago

>There is such a thing as a soft authoritarian, single party, free market state. They are doing it. Even the worst leadership can make the jump from farming to industry. This is more or less the story of communism in the 50s and 60s. Suddenly, a lot of farmers went from backbreaking work just being able to feed themselves to making products. This is an economic force multiplier. The problem is autocratic states can't get past this stage very well. Compare N Korea and S Korea's GDP per capita over the decades, past the 1970s, the South led and had to liberalize a lot to continue growth. Now they're seen as a economic miracle at $26,000 GDP per capita compared to the North's $1,800. In the 50s and 60s we all sat stunned at how well the North was beating the South! Now they're an international laughingstock. >The idea that political freedoms necessary for democracy are intertwined with the economic freedoms necessary for capitalism had a lot of traction When everyone gets sick of factory work and realizes they own no property, can't give their children a better life, can't open their own businesses, have to bribe everyone to get even the basic services, etc they will have problems the same way N Korea, Cuba, and the USSR did. They just haven't hit that wall yet. That wall is coming. There's no avoiding it. They will either liberalize to stay competitive or pull a Putin and say "This is good enough, right here" and fall deeper into isolation, autocracy, corruption, economic stagnation, and more mindless jingoism/island annexation.

netcan 11y ago
I agree, to an extent but I think you are overstating it. Russian Communism had similar results (I think it's the 20s-40s though. They moved from Czarism to communism. That's either proof that it's easy to grow from a low base or that communism is good at it. It might be that the two are unrelated. Overall, I tend to agree that degree to which China was depressed under Maoism needs to be accounted for. Still, China's been doing better than India and a lot of other more liberal places. I think the general point is inconclusive, but it's the specific point that matters. China over the last generation got a lot richer and there is no reason to think it would have done better economically if it was more liberal politically. I think that even with the Stasi, corruption and the appeal of western culture to East Germans, the regime would still exist had it not failed economically. And, like I said at the start I think it's a stretch to tell China that they're in the same boat as N Korea, Cuba, and the USSR.

mc32 11y ago

It seems clear China among others, has successfully decoupled democracy from capitalism. It has proven the two don't necessarily go hand in hand. Well have to see how things play out, but it does not seem very promising. On the other hand, it'll be interesting to see which system can provide a better life for its population. It's not a given democratic capitalism is the only or best solution. Perhaps a different mix will win out.

jacquesm 11y ago
> It seems clear China among others, has successfully decoupled democracy from capitalism. It has proven the two don't necessarily go hand in hand. I think it is a bit early to call that. They avoided all-out revolution by letting go of the reins a bit, but in the slightly longer term things could very well still go pear shaped or result in a re-assertion of power. You seem to acknowledge that in the rest of your comment but that's inconsistent with claiming it is a success already, it's mostly early days in a pretty risky experiment.
- mc32 11y ago
  China is but one example. Singapore is another. Russia is still undecided, but certainly not democratic. Long term, it's hard to say what political-economic systems will look like. However, it appears China has so far achieved economic success via capitalistic economics without democracy. It does not seem that China is in any hurry to democratize. In its history, there has been at least weak centralization, never the less, centralization and strong central gov't is embedded in their collective psyche.
adventured 11y ago
China has 500 million people living on not much more than $2 per day. And another 300 million above that, living on $3 to $5 per day. It's already very well understood which system works better. Those bottom 500 million have seen zero improvement in 50 years inflation adjusted. They're also mostly peasant farmers, and it's illegal for them to own farm land - they're land slaves accordingly. They have no prospects, and have seen no real benefit from the labor utilization system, it has completely failed them. The only meaningful thing China's system accomplished, was absorbing some of the vast, slack labor capacity for manufacturing. That would have happened by default minus the economic controls they previously had in place. China didn't have to do anything but take their boot off the throat of manufacturing. And now the manufacturing party is over, so they've turned to extreme debt acquisition and forced asset bubbles to fake growth. There may not have been a greater economic myth than the story of China's rise, in the last century.

prewett 11y ago

We already have lots of history showing that capitalism and democracy are unrelated. France and Germany between the Renaissance and about 1800, for example: politically a monarchy, but economically capitalistic.