4 ms·

Interpersonal networks are an underlying mechanism in any society and I'm not saying it's bad, but I think it needs to be counterbalanced by an impersonal funct

Interpersonal networks are an underlying mechanism in any society and I'm not saying it's bad, but I think it needs to be counterbalanced by an impersonal functional mechanism where you do your job regardless of who you know. In communist societies this functional mechanism is quasi inexistent and the only thing that keeps that society running is the guanxi . China may have its specific form but I'd say that it is rooted in our deeper human pshichological traits that are common to all of us. I live in an ex-communist state and we're still struggling with such a guanxi that trancends all major political parties and state institutions, after 26 years since we've "transitioned to democracy". The major problem is that this close-knit, closed, state parasite is blocking any change and any advancement in society.

smallnamespace 10y ago
I think it's worthwhile to remember that Europe's historical development happened on a much different path than China's, notably the fact that in Europe, no single state, religion, or any other institution was able to dominate at all levels of society, so institutions were forced to vigorously compete with one another for survival. You had the Church vying against various pre-modern states for political power, and in the shuffle there were also entire towns and regions that had de facto autonomy, as well as guilds and other medieval institutions that were allowed to mind their own business. In that vigorous competitive environment, you would expect that cleaner, less corrupt, and more transparent institutions would tend to survive. The way these institutions worked were aggressively copied across Europe, as nations vigorously competed with one another to modernize and survive. In that framework, you would see Communism as a big step back -- instead of clean, independent institutions on the 'Western' model, just replace everything with the state. China, on the other hand, was basically still a pre-modern state into the 20th century, and hadn't had non-corrupt institutions since the mid Qing dynasty. Pre-modern China had no large nationwide institutions except the state -- its communications technology lagged Europe's, and it also had a huge population. Just over a hundred years ago, the de facto ruler of China, the Empress Dowager Cixi took all the funds earmarked for naval fleets and dumped into building a palace instead. The Chinese Nationalists who eventually overthrew her in 1911 spent the next few decades failing to control endemic corruption at all levels of government. One of the reasons that the Nationalists lost the Chinese civil war was due to the deep dissatisfaction everyone had at their pervasive corruption. In fact, corruption at the bottom rungs of the bureaucracy basically didn't exist under Mao and was aggressively weeded out--corrupt officials were regularly imprisoned and shot. For the average Chinese person, Communist rule, despite its own problems, was a large step forward in terms of quality of life and quality of governance. TL;DR - Communism in Eastern Europe was probably a step back, but in China it was an improvement on what existed before. Guanxi is how things get done when you don't have strong institutions.
- zer0gravity 10y ago
  > Guanxi is how things get done when you don't have strong institutions. Totally agree. I am saying that from a point on, guanxi is the reason you don't have strong institutions, precisely because they tend to form close-knit circles of power that prevent the forming of strong institutions. It's a vicious circle.
AnAfrican 10y ago
Communist societies are more prone to "favors" because Price discrimination (and other market mechanisms) do not exist. Actually, that happens in all sort of societies that are not Legal-Rational Liberal-Capitalist.
- userulluipeste 10y ago
  "Communist societies are more prone to «favors» because Price discrimination (and other market mechanisms) do not exist." I'm not sure you got it right. Price discrimination and other market mechanisms existed, more or less, in communist societies too. The problem was that there was this seller's market. A lot of things were scarce, be it natural or artificial scarcity (a gatekeepers induced one), and besides the fact that the supplier could inflate the price a lot, you still had to have connections to have a chance to the bid. Excluding the communist idealistic selfless individuals that did their job as best as they could indiscriminately, the norm was for people to leverage their positions. For one, this way they created "markets" for their supplied services or access to goods. For another, this is how you get what you have or do to worth anything in the eyes of others. So this was besides the currency based market. It was a favor based market that overlapped the first.

smallnamespace 10y ago

I think it's worthwhile to remember that Europe's historical development happened on a much different path than China's, notably the fact that in Europe, no single state, religion, or any other institution was able to dominate at all levels of society, so institutions were forced to vigorously compete with one another for survival. You had the Church vying against various pre-modern states for political power, and in the shuffle there were also entire towns and regions that had de facto autonomy, as well as guilds and other medieval institutions that were allowed to mind their own business. In that vigorous competitive environment, you would expect that cleaner, less corrupt, and more transparent institutions would tend to survive. The way these institutions worked were aggressively copied across Europe, as nations vigorously competed with one another to modernize and survive. In that framework, you would see Communism as a big step back -- instead of clean, independent institutions on the 'Western' model, just replace everything with the state. China, on the other hand, was basically still a pre-modern state into the 20th century, and hadn't had non-corrupt institutions since the mid Qing dynasty. Pre-modern China had no large nationwide institutions except the state -- its communications technology lagged Europe's, and it also had a huge population. Just over a hundred years ago, the de facto ruler of China, the Empress Dowager Cixi took all the funds earmarked for naval fleets and dumped into building a palace instead. The Chinese Nationalists who eventually overthrew her in 1911 spent the next few decades failing to control endemic corruption at all levels of government. One of the reasons that the Nationalists lost the Chinese civil war was due to the deep dissatisfaction everyone had at their pervasive corruption. In fact, corruption at the bottom rungs of the bureaucracy basically didn't exist under Mao and was aggressively weeded out--corrupt officials were regularly imprisoned and shot. For the average Chinese person, Communist rule, despite its own problems, was a large step forward in terms of quality of life and quality of governance. TL;DR - Communism in Eastern Europe was probably a step back, but in China it was an improvement on what existed before. Guanxi is how things get done when you don't have strong institutions.

zer0gravity 10y ago
> Guanxi is how things get done when you don't have strong institutions. Totally agree. I am saying that from a point on, guanxi is the reason you don't have strong institutions, precisely because they tend to form close-knit circles of power that prevent the forming of strong institutions. It's a vicious circle.

AnAfrican 10y ago

Communist societies are more prone to "favors" because Price discrimination (and other market mechanisms) do not exist. Actually, that happens in all sort of societies that are not Legal-Rational Liberal-Capitalist.

userulluipeste 10y ago
"Communist societies are more prone to «favors» because Price discrimination (and other market mechanisms) do not exist." I'm not sure you got it right. Price discrimination and other market mechanisms existed, more or less, in communist societies too. The problem was that there was this seller's market. A lot of things were scarce, be it natural or artificial scarcity (a gatekeepers induced one), and besides the fact that the supplier could inflate the price a lot, you still had to have connections to have a chance to the bid. Excluding the communist idealistic selfless individuals that did their job as best as they could indiscriminately, the norm was for people to leverage their positions. For one, this way they created "markets" for their supplied services or access to goods. For another, this is how you get what you have or do to worth anything in the eyes of others. So this was besides the currency based market. It was a favor based market that overlapped the first.