4 ms·

I wouldn't go so far as to call it benevolent. Just because it's not Idi Amin or Pol Pot doesn't mean it's benevolent. In fact, there is a valid question as to

I wouldn't go so far as to call it benevolent. Just because it's not Idi Amin or Pol Pot doesn't mean it's benevolent. In fact, there is a valid question as to whether any regime, anywhere is benevolent[1]. But rather than getting bogged down in quantifying the exact degree of its benevolence, it's key not to let your larger and more important point get lost alongside that red herring, and it's one that gets little press here: China and SE Asia have shown, over a period of decades, that heavy-handed state-guided development alongside market forces is a credible third alternative to the One True neoliberal agenda the West has pushed since the 1980s. Japan and South Korea also "grew up" in a heavily state-sponsored manner and with closed private economies. Despite its visible lack of conformity to official American prescriptions about how to do things, the US tolerated it during the Cold War as part of the general bargain with those countries, in which they were allowed to develop as they saw fit and to have unrestricted and preferential access to America's bottomless consumer market. In return, they paid in unwavering anticommunist allegiance. [1] https://www.amazon.com/dp/B005GPSLHI/ https://www.amazon.com/dp/B005GPSLHI/

mistermann 9y ago
> it's key not to let your larger and more important point get lost alongside that red herring, and it's one that gets little press here: China and SE Asia have shown, over a period of decades, that heavy-handed state-guided development alongside market forces is a credible third alternative to the One True neoliberal agenda the West has pushed since the 1980s. Thank you for being a refreshing voice of reason. I think China's "benevolence", if that's what it indeed is (only time will tell), may not look like it because they are working towards a longer term goal, and for reasons of prudence, sometimes you have to make unfortunate compromises (such as absolutely violating basic human rights of some of your citizens) to achieve goals in a timely manner (strike while the iron is hot). This is just my theory, there's no way of knowing if it is correct.

mistermann 9y ago

> it's key not to let your larger and more important point get lost alongside that red herring, and it's one that gets little press here: China and SE Asia have shown, over a period of decades, that heavy-handed state-guided development alongside market forces is a credible third alternative to the One True neoliberal agenda the West has pushed since the 1980s. Thank you for being a refreshing voice of reason. I think China's "benevolence", if that's what it indeed is (only time will tell), may not look like it because they are working towards a longer term goal, and for reasons of prudence, sometimes you have to make unfortunate compromises (such as absolutely violating basic human rights of some of your citizens) to achieve goals in a timely manner (strike while the iron is hot). This is just my theory, there's no way of knowing if it is correct.