5 ms·

Well, at least Mark didn't sacrifice his child for that. What's the end game here? In the early 2000s it seemed like China was going to become this liberal dem

Well, at least Mark didn't sacrifice his child for that. What's the end game here? In the early 2000s it seemed like China was going to become this liberal democracy, but it just seems like the government is getting more and more power and control. Is there any sign this (and the rise of several authoritarians) is gonna stop? This made me think of Fukuyama (1989): What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_History_and_the_Last_Man https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_End_of_History_and_the_Las... That looks really funny in hindsight. He's actually changed his position: http://www.npr.org/2017/04/04/522554630/francis-fukuyama-on-why-liberal-democracy-is-in-trouble http://www.npr.org/2017/04/04/522554630/francis-fukuyama-on-...

mikeash 9y ago
I don't think there's any sign it will stop. The standard prediction used to be that prosperity would bring democracy, but that's looking to be either wishful thinking or bad extrapolation from past events.
- SirensOfTitan 9y ago
  It feels to me that stability brings prosperity, and democracy represents one of several paths to stability.
- azurezyq 9y ago
  Democracy and prosperity are orthogonal concepts. I agree both of them are good but prosperity without democracy exist (China and in some sense Singapore) and democracy without prosperity also exists (everywhere).
  - adventured 9y ago
    > prosperity without democracy exist There has never been a large nation example of that in world history. China has yet to get there in any broad sense. Further, there are exceptionally few examples of it, regardless of nation size. A solid 80% to 90% of the prosperous, well developed nations use representative government systems, and not a single large nation that is prosperous at the median doesn't. Most of the exceptions are smaller, resource nations like Qatar (even Saudi Arabia hasn't achieved high-level prosperity at the median, their median income is nearly 1/3 that of the US). Here's the list of nations that are prosperous at the median - Democratic: US, Canada, France, Germany, Britain, Ireland, Japan, Italy, Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Belgium, Netherlands, Austria, Spain, Israel, South Korea Not Democratic: Singapore, Qatar, Kuwait, Brunei, UAE Questionable inclusions: Czech, Portugal, Taiwan, Slovenia, Greece, Estonia, Slovakia; vs Saudi Arabia on the other side I don't see how this could be any more blatant.
    - zabana 9y ago
      Are you saying that before democracy appeared (300 or so years ago) humankind didn't prosper economically, financially and culturally ?
      - jerf 9y ago
        In the modern sense of the term, they did not. 300 years ago, almost everyone alive would be considered catastrophically poor by modern standards, and even the elites would be considered to have some serious gaps in their wealth. This is relevant because one of the perennial questions of history has been "Why didn't high tech civilization arise centuries or millenia earlier?", and governance issues like this are at least one of the defensible answers. Though not the only one by any means.
- adventured 9y ago
  > The standard prediction used to be that prosperity would bring democracy They're about 10-15 years into a widening low level prosperity. As recently as just ten years ago, their GDP per capita was still a mere $2,000 and they had ~750 million people living on less than $5 per day. It's a bit early to call it on how wider prosperity will impact their government system. The median income in China is still about 1/20th that of the US and 1/15th that of Germany or the UK. They haven't reached wide-spread prosperity in any regard yet (and by prosperity, I mean they're nowhere near even the second-tier prosperity level of a Czech or Portugal).
- CuriouslyC 9y ago
  People tolerate the authoritarian government because of the rapid improvements in standard of living. Once living standards plateau we will see growing unrest and a gradual shift to a more open government (or a violent revolution).
godzillabrennus 9y ago
The whole world is in a giant financial bubble. These acts are desperate measures to control people because they know how bad things are going to get. They need to be able to control the channels of communication to stamp out dissent.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
stevenwoo 9y ago
Small sample size, but I had a close friend in the 90's who came from China, got her masters and phd here, and still parrotted the Communist party line when talking about the Tibet or the Tianamen square massacre or Taiwan - in their view the US is worse in a lot of ways with native Americans, prisons and treatment of minorities. She and all of her peers (graduate degrees earned in the USA) also survived the Cultural Revolution and in spite of that none of them supported liberal democracy for China.
chrpeterson 9y ago
>In the early 2000s it seemed like China was going to become this liberal democracy Whoever told you that was lying to you. Mainland elites have been very clear since the 90s that they want the economic benefits of markets but not democracy. They've explicitly said they don't want democracy. There is widespread consensus on this issue. You should stop reading whichever propaganda outlet sold you that fools gold.

mikeash 9y ago

I don't think there's any sign it will stop. The standard prediction used to be that prosperity would bring democracy, but that's looking to be either wishful thinking or bad extrapolation from past events.

SirensOfTitan 9y ago
It feels to me that stability brings prosperity, and democracy represents one of several paths to stability.
azurezyq 9y ago
Democracy and prosperity are orthogonal concepts. I agree both of them are good but prosperity without democracy exist (China and in some sense Singapore) and democracy without prosperity also exists (everywhere).
- adventured 9y ago
  > prosperity without democracy exist There has never been a large nation example of that in world history. China has yet to get there in any broad sense. Further, there are exceptionally few examples of it, regardless of nation size. A solid 80% to 90% of the prosperous, well developed nations use representative government systems, and not a single large nation that is prosperous at the median doesn't. Most of the exceptions are smaller, resource nations like Qatar (even Saudi Arabia hasn't achieved high-level prosperity at the median, their median income is nearly 1/3 that of the US). Here's the list of nations that are prosperous at the median - Democratic: US, Canada, France, Germany, Britain, Ireland, Japan, Italy, Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Sweden, Norway, Belgium, Netherlands, Austria, Spain, Israel, South Korea Not Democratic: Singapore, Qatar, Kuwait, Brunei, UAE Questionable inclusions: Czech, Portugal, Taiwan, Slovenia, Greece, Estonia, Slovakia; vs Saudi Arabia on the other side I don't see how this could be any more blatant.
  - zabana 9y ago
    Are you saying that before democracy appeared (300 or so years ago) humankind didn't prosper economically, financially and culturally ?
    - jerf 9y ago
      In the modern sense of the term, they did not. 300 years ago, almost everyone alive would be considered catastrophically poor by modern standards, and even the elites would be considered to have some serious gaps in their wealth. This is relevant because one of the perennial questions of history has been "Why didn't high tech civilization arise centuries or millenia earlier?", and governance issues like this are at least one of the defensible answers. Though not the only one by any means.
adventured 9y ago
> The standard prediction used to be that prosperity would bring democracy They're about 10-15 years into a widening low level prosperity. As recently as just ten years ago, their GDP per capita was still a mere $2,000 and they had ~750 million people living on less than $5 per day. It's a bit early to call it on how wider prosperity will impact their government system. The median income in China is still about 1/20th that of the US and 1/15th that of Germany or the UK. They haven't reached wide-spread prosperity in any regard yet (and by prosperity, I mean they're nowhere near even the second-tier prosperity level of a Czech or Portugal).
CuriouslyC 9y ago
People tolerate the authoritarian government because of the rapid improvements in standard of living. Once living standards plateau we will see growing unrest and a gradual shift to a more open government (or a violent revolution).

godzillabrennus 9y ago

The whole world is in a giant financial bubble. These acts are desperate measures to control people because they know how bad things are going to get. They need to be able to control the channels of communication to stamp out dissent.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

stevenwoo 9y ago

Small sample size, but I had a close friend in the 90's who came from China, got her masters and phd here, and still parrotted the Communist party line when talking about the Tibet or the Tianamen square massacre or Taiwan - in their view the US is worse in a lot of ways with native Americans, prisons and treatment of minorities. She and all of her peers (graduate degrees earned in the USA) also survived the Cultural Revolution and in spite of that none of them supported liberal democracy for China.

chrpeterson 9y ago

>In the early 2000s it seemed like China was going to become this liberal democracy Whoever told you that was lying to you. Mainland elites have been very clear since the 90s that they want the economic benefits of markets but not democracy. They've explicitly said they don't want democracy. There is widespread consensus on this issue. You should stop reading whichever propaganda outlet sold you that fools gold.