4 ms·

For decades now we've been hearing that China will change and become more democratic as its economy grows. It's one of those issues like the Israeli/Palestinia

For decades now we've been hearing that China will change and become more democratic as its economy grows. It's one of those issues like the Israeli/Palestinian conflict that you'll read an update on every week in the NYC or The Economist for 20 years straight. China got things to work though. It did it without a free press. It did it without an independent central bank. It did it without elections. It did it without Facebook, Google, YouTube and Twitter. What did China get to work though? Nobody knows. That's because the western press ignores the inner working of the structure of their society. They only focus on what they do and how it is largely bad and can be remedied only by adopting our systems. There isn't any attempt at understanding or self-criticism. I just find it annoying when there is ideological and cultural conflict that continues in an endless stalemate and every week it's groundhog day.

seanmcdirmid 10y ago
> Nobody knows. That's because the western press ignores the inner working of the structure of their society. This is BS, even most Chinese don't know, that's because the Chinese government is pretty opaque and the media is state controlled. All decisions are well vetted before the public ever knows about them. Do you know who chose Xi Jinping to be president? Who were the other candidates? Why was he chosen and not anyone else? It was all done in a smoked filled room. > They only focus on what they do and how it is largely bad and can be remedied only by adopting our systems. There isn't any attempt at understanding or self-criticism. No, they actually report "news", the Chinese are shocked because, if you read the Chinese press, the media is simply a tool of public control. E.g. a WSJ financial article that merely reports facts about the Chinese economy is labelled as "biased" because it didn't try to inject an editorial into a news article on how great the future must be, so don't worry.
- smallnamespace 10y ago
  > the Chinese are shocked Um, every Chinese person I've ever talked to is well aware of the propaganda status of government news, and know that if you want a 3rd-party (not necessarily 'unbiased') opinion you can load up a VPN and go read some non-domestic sources, whether in English or Chinese. > even most Chinese don't know Yes, Xi Jinping's primary rival for top posts was Li Keqiang. The Chinese press regularly leaks juicy tidbits regarding political rivalries, because different factions of the CCP control different media outlets. Sometimes that rivalry breaks out so far that even Western outlets pick up on it [1]. What you have to understand is that many traditional societies (and most Asian societies) do not like to bring conflicts into public and into the open. Disputes are best resolved behind closed doors via negotiation. This isn't just how things are done in politics, but this ethic permeates every level of Chinese society. Japan is very similar in this regard, and even though Japan nominally has voting, good luck being able to tell apart their two parties in policy terms or figuring out how policies were devised. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonchang/2016/07/24/chinas-xi-li-grudge-match-paralyzing-economy/#4517c1926a15 https://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonchang/2016/07/24/chinas-x...
  - narrator 10y ago
    This is what I'm talking about. I think the sociological and political learning and culture needs to go both ways. The west takes the position of moral superiority to the East in every possible way and thus can't learn. There was some grudging implementation of "The Toyota Way" and Japanese production principles in the 90s after the American auto makers got totally destroyed by Japanese automakers in the 80s, but there needs to be more of that learning going on. Has anybody even written a book praising the Chinese government for bringing an enormous number of people out of poverty and explaining how it goes about its business?
    - seanmcdirmid 10y ago
      It is funny: the east thinks the west is trying to take the position of moral superiority while the west thinks the same about the east. In truth, there is really no such thing as moral superiority, they are just excuses for whataboutisms. Chinese people are very smart and resilient. They thrive despite the communist party, not because of it. It wasn't until Deng Xiaoping said "hey, let's get out of the way" that things really took off. Of course, if you think Mao was so great, I guess we have to agree to disagree.
mikeash 10y ago
It's been an article of faith for a long time that prosperity requires democracy, and democracy brings prosperity. It seemed reasonable during the Cold War, when the First World was democratic and prosperous, and the Second World was authoritarian and much less prosperous. But now we're seeing that maybe that was just a coincidence, or perhaps democracy helps but isn't required. I do wonder if China's prosperity will be more fragile. If the Chinese Communist Party turns more ideological, or another Mao-like figure shows up, it could all come tumbling down. On the other hand, democracy is starting to look a little more fragile these days as well.
- sqeaky 10y ago
  I do not think China would be so successful if not for the Democracy elsewhere in the world. It is not Chinese citizens, with Chinese money, buying Chinese goods and supporting the Chinese economy. It is Americans and Europeans outsourcing manufacturing to China of American and European designs and selling mostly to Americans and Europeans with China taking a cut because they can do it cheaper than locally sourced manufacturing. It really isn't that simple, of course every country has some R&D, some manufacturing and some purchasing. etc... But Expensive goods of almost any kind are American or European, if they are bought or sold. Even commodity goods aren't all made in China. Their whole country is filling gaps that Western businesses leave behind. That isn't exactly "working", but it is clearly better than it used to be. If their citizens ever get freedom to run businesses like the west has, like they used to have in Taiwan, then China would be the economic superpower instead of just a major economic power. I don't think they can have that without democracy or something equally empowering.
- oblio 10y ago
  Is there any large, populous, developed country which is non-democratic? I don't know any.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    How large, populous, and developed do they have to be to qualify? It's hard to answer that without setting some boundaries first. China still has lots of really poor people and undeveloped areas, but a huge portion of the country is developed more or less to first world standards, so China would qualify if you can accept some inconsistency. Otherwise, Saudi Arabia? 30+ million people, high per-capita GDP, fairly high Human Development Index, totally non-democratic. Russia might be a marginal example, with a moderately high HDI and a government at least pretends to be democratic. I think Germany is a pretty good example if we're allowed to look at the past rather than just the present.
pjc50 10y ago
> What did China get to work though? Nobody knows. Well, due to criminalisation of reporting we can only see the successes, and hear rumours about the failures and costs. The "inner working of the structure of their society" is not so much ignored as it's unknowable - to Chinese as well. It's covered in state secrecy. There's stuff that "everyone knows" but cannot be specific about such as corruption. And the Chinese path to success is not unique except in scale. It's very similar to that of Singapore and South Korea. Or even Taiwan. (It's important to remember that in the West much of the economic success pre-dates the liberalisation. At the time of the industrial revolution the UK was a deeply malfunctioning democracy of "rotten boroughs" until 1832. Parts of "liberal" Europe were dictatorships into the 1970s: Spain, Portugal, Greece. France (+) had a civil war in the 1960s. In the US the civil rights struggle and the Moon landings ran concurrently.) (+) Constitutionally Algeria was "France" at the time
rdtsc 10y ago
> For decades now we've been hearing that China will change and become more democratic as its economy grows. That's the interesting thing. Slavoj Zizek likes to talk about this topic. He calls it "Capitalism with Asian Values". I don't usually agree with him but I like that bit and well, he is entertaining to listen to. He posits there is a breakdown in an official stand of the West where it was assumed Capitalism will eventually be followed with Democracy. The West has usually meddled and installed in dictators and supported brutal regime in many countries. The idea there was ok, they'll torture, murder, and abuse their people for a while, but at least as long as the capital revolves, eventually people will get Democracy. So that's why we tell everyone "We export Democracy" we fight for "Democracy" and so on. The breakdown is that China and Singapore and other countries, mostly in Asia have shown that Capitalism and Democracy don't have to walk hand-in-hand. One can argue those non-Democratic countries can do capitalism better than we can even. Here is an informal talk he gives on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ADfH9Rt6pc&t=116 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ADfH9Rt6pc&t=116
- smallnamespace 10y ago
  If 'capitalism' just refers to a strong, independent market economy, then it's pretty easy to see why China rejects the contention that capitalism leads to democracy: China historically independently invented money, banking, and has had long, long periods of time with robust markets far earlier than the West. We can trace the monetization of the European economy to sometime between the Late Middle Ages and the Renaissance (e.g. 13-15th centuries). China invented fiat currency in the 2nd century BC [1] and first issued paper currency during the late Song dynasty in 1024 AD [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash_(Chinese_coin) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash_(Chinese_coin) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_banking_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_banking_in_China
- euyyn 10y ago
  > The idea there was ok, they'll torture, murder, and abuse their people for a while, but at least as long as the capital revolves, eventually people will get Democracy. Does anybody really believe that's the real reason? > that's why we tell everyone "We export Democracy" we fight for "Democracy" and so on. I think we tell everyone that as propaganda.
justicezyx 10y ago
Not that I disagree there is no change in fundemantals in China's government and democratic system, but "For decades now we've been hearing that China will change and become more democratic as its economy grows." This is definitely true and happening.
vorotato 10y ago
Progress without mindfulness is unsustainable. Until China is able to be aware of where they actually are through adequate reporting it doesn't really matter much how far they've gotten, because it could be undone overnight without much fuss.
woodandsteel 10y ago
> That's because the western press ignores the inner working of the structure of their society That implies that you know what those inner working are, and if we in the West knew, we would have a much more positive view of China. Well if you really thought that was true, then you would have explained those inner workings to us, or at least given us some links.

seanmcdirmid 10y ago

> Nobody knows. That's because the western press ignores the inner working of the structure of their society. This is BS, even most Chinese don't know, that's because the Chinese government is pretty opaque and the media is state controlled. All decisions are well vetted before the public ever knows about them. Do you know who chose Xi Jinping to be president? Who were the other candidates? Why was he chosen and not anyone else? It was all done in a smoked filled room. > They only focus on what they do and how it is largely bad and can be remedied only by adopting our systems. There isn't any attempt at understanding or self-criticism. No, they actually report "news", the Chinese are shocked because, if you read the Chinese press, the media is simply a tool of public control. E.g. a WSJ financial article that merely reports facts about the Chinese economy is labelled as "biased" because it didn't try to inject an editorial into a news article on how great the future must be, so don't worry.

smallnamespace 10y ago
> the Chinese are shocked Um, every Chinese person I've ever talked to is well aware of the propaganda status of government news, and know that if you want a 3rd-party (not necessarily 'unbiased') opinion you can load up a VPN and go read some non-domestic sources, whether in English or Chinese. > even most Chinese don't know Yes, Xi Jinping's primary rival for top posts was Li Keqiang. The Chinese press regularly leaks juicy tidbits regarding political rivalries, because different factions of the CCP control different media outlets. Sometimes that rivalry breaks out so far that even Western outlets pick up on it [1]. What you have to understand is that many traditional societies (and most Asian societies) do not like to bring conflicts into public and into the open. Disputes are best resolved behind closed doors via negotiation. This isn't just how things are done in politics, but this ethic permeates every level of Chinese society. Japan is very similar in this regard, and even though Japan nominally has voting, good luck being able to tell apart their two parties in policy terms or figuring out how policies were devised. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonchang/2016/07/24/chinas-xi-li-grudge-match-paralyzing-economy/#4517c1926a15 https://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonchang/2016/07/24/chinas-x...
- narrator 10y ago
  This is what I'm talking about. I think the sociological and political learning and culture needs to go both ways. The west takes the position of moral superiority to the East in every possible way and thus can't learn. There was some grudging implementation of "The Toyota Way" and Japanese production principles in the 90s after the American auto makers got totally destroyed by Japanese automakers in the 80s, but there needs to be more of that learning going on. Has anybody even written a book praising the Chinese government for bringing an enormous number of people out of poverty and explaining how it goes about its business?
  - seanmcdirmid 10y ago
    It is funny: the east thinks the west is trying to take the position of moral superiority while the west thinks the same about the east. In truth, there is really no such thing as moral superiority, they are just excuses for whataboutisms. Chinese people are very smart and resilient. They thrive despite the communist party, not because of it. It wasn't until Deng Xiaoping said "hey, let's get out of the way" that things really took off. Of course, if you think Mao was so great, I guess we have to agree to disagree.

mikeash 10y ago

It's been an article of faith for a long time that prosperity requires democracy, and democracy brings prosperity. It seemed reasonable during the Cold War, when the First World was democratic and prosperous, and the Second World was authoritarian and much less prosperous. But now we're seeing that maybe that was just a coincidence, or perhaps democracy helps but isn't required. I do wonder if China's prosperity will be more fragile. If the Chinese Communist Party turns more ideological, or another Mao-like figure shows up, it could all come tumbling down. On the other hand, democracy is starting to look a little more fragile these days as well.

sqeaky 10y ago
I do not think China would be so successful if not for the Democracy elsewhere in the world. It is not Chinese citizens, with Chinese money, buying Chinese goods and supporting the Chinese economy. It is Americans and Europeans outsourcing manufacturing to China of American and European designs and selling mostly to Americans and Europeans with China taking a cut because they can do it cheaper than locally sourced manufacturing. It really isn't that simple, of course every country has some R&D, some manufacturing and some purchasing. etc... But Expensive goods of almost any kind are American or European, if they are bought or sold. Even commodity goods aren't all made in China. Their whole country is filling gaps that Western businesses leave behind. That isn't exactly "working", but it is clearly better than it used to be. If their citizens ever get freedom to run businesses like the west has, like they used to have in Taiwan, then China would be the economic superpower instead of just a major economic power. I don't think they can have that without democracy or something equally empowering.
oblio 10y ago
Is there any large, populous, developed country which is non-democratic? I don't know any.
- mikeash 10y ago
  How large, populous, and developed do they have to be to qualify? It's hard to answer that without setting some boundaries first. China still has lots of really poor people and undeveloped areas, but a huge portion of the country is developed more or less to first world standards, so China would qualify if you can accept some inconsistency. Otherwise, Saudi Arabia? 30+ million people, high per-capita GDP, fairly high Human Development Index, totally non-democratic. Russia might be a marginal example, with a moderately high HDI and a government at least pretends to be democratic. I think Germany is a pretty good example if we're allowed to look at the past rather than just the present.

pjc50 10y ago

> What did China get to work though? Nobody knows. Well, due to criminalisation of reporting we can only see the successes, and hear rumours about the failures and costs. The "inner working of the structure of their society" is not so much ignored as it's unknowable - to Chinese as well. It's covered in state secrecy. There's stuff that "everyone knows" but cannot be specific about such as corruption. And the Chinese path to success is not unique except in scale. It's very similar to that of Singapore and South Korea. Or even Taiwan. (It's important to remember that in the West much of the economic success pre-dates the liberalisation. At the time of the industrial revolution the UK was a deeply malfunctioning democracy of "rotten boroughs" until 1832. Parts of "liberal" Europe were dictatorships into the 1970s: Spain, Portugal, Greece. France (+) had a civil war in the 1960s. In the US the civil rights struggle and the Moon landings ran concurrently.) (+) Constitutionally Algeria was "France" at the time

rdtsc 10y ago

> For decades now we've been hearing that China will change and become more democratic as its economy grows. That's the interesting thing. Slavoj Zizek likes to talk about this topic. He calls it "Capitalism with Asian Values". I don't usually agree with him but I like that bit and well, he is entertaining to listen to. He posits there is a breakdown in an official stand of the West where it was assumed Capitalism will eventually be followed with Democracy. The West has usually meddled and installed in dictators and supported brutal regime in many countries. The idea there was ok, they'll torture, murder, and abuse their people for a while, but at least as long as the capital revolves, eventually people will get Democracy. So that's why we tell everyone "We export Democracy" we fight for "Democracy" and so on. The breakdown is that China and Singapore and other countries, mostly in Asia have shown that Capitalism and Democracy don't have to walk hand-in-hand. One can argue those non-Democratic countries can do capitalism better than we can even. Here is an informal talk he gives on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ADfH9Rt6pc&t=116 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ADfH9Rt6pc&t=116

smallnamespace 10y ago
If 'capitalism' just refers to a strong, independent market economy, then it's pretty easy to see why China rejects the contention that capitalism leads to democracy: China historically independently invented money, banking, and has had long, long periods of time with robust markets far earlier than the West. We can trace the monetization of the European economy to sometime between the Late Middle Ages and the Renaissance (e.g. 13-15th centuries). China invented fiat currency in the 2nd century BC [1] and first issued paper currency during the late Song dynasty in 1024 AD [2]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash_(Chinese_coin) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash_(Chinese_coin) [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_banking_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_banking_in_China
euyyn 10y ago
> The idea there was ok, they'll torture, murder, and abuse their people for a while, but at least as long as the capital revolves, eventually people will get Democracy. Does anybody really believe that's the real reason? > that's why we tell everyone "We export Democracy" we fight for "Democracy" and so on. I think we tell everyone that as propaganda.

justicezyx 10y ago

Not that I disagree there is no change in fundemantals in China's government and democratic system, but "For decades now we've been hearing that China will change and become more democratic as its economy grows." This is definitely true and happening.

vorotato 10y ago

Progress without mindfulness is unsustainable. Until China is able to be aware of where they actually are through adequate reporting it doesn't really matter much how far they've gotten, because it could be undone overnight without much fuss.

woodandsteel 10y ago

> That's because the western press ignores the inner working of the structure of their society That implies that you know what those inner working are, and if we in the West knew, we would have a much more positive view of China. Well if you really thought that was true, then you would have explained those inner workings to us, or at least given us some links.