5 ms·

China abandoned communism with Deng Xiaoping's reforms. They are fiercely capitalist, with strong authoritarian political structure.

JoeAltmaier 9y ago
At different levels, right? There's still a party; they still run things. So at the local level its capitalist, but not at the city or federal planning level?
- SauciestGNU 9y ago
  It's murky because they call themselves communist, but it's in name only. If anything I'd call it state capitalism, where the government is the biggest player in the market, but it's a market nonetheless.
  - mistermann 9y ago
    With benevolent and competent leaders, I believe this is the optimum approach, which is one of the main reasons China will be the undisputed global leader very soon. Obviously this requires ongoing benevolence and competency though.
    - ameister14 9y ago
      With benevolent and competent leadership, it's the most efficient approach. Unfortunately, benevolent and competent leadership has never lasted in the history of human civilization. Sooner or later, usually sooner, someone really nasty or incompetent takes over.
      - AstralStorm 9y ago
        Like they did in the US therefore capitalism failed it? (No, I am not talking about current politics but economy.)
        ameister14 9y ago
        I don't really understand your question. I'm saying that if you concentrate power into one person's hands, it's awesome and efficient if that person is competent and benevolent. If he is not, it's really bad. Unfortunately, in the history of the world, there has been no government continuously run by benevolent and competent leaders. The US arguably concentrates too much power into the hands of a single person, but not nearly to the same extent as a centralized and managed economy does. This has nothing to do with capitalism.
        AstralStorm 9y ago
        Nor does it have to do with communism. Specifically communism does not require nationalisation nor centralization of power. In fact the Marxist roots expect the workers to own and run the factories collectively and resolve conflicts by vote and consensus. The ideology called "communism" in the US is actually national socialism. Not to be mistaken with fascism, but close. (Yes, it is Nazism. Soviet ideology was actually identical.) Alleged soviet collectivism was actually nationalisation.
        ameister14 9y ago
        I wasn't talking about that, though - I was talking about State Capitalism and the efficiency of a concentration of power, responding to a person that said that was the optimal system.
      - mistermann 9y ago
        People should be mindful of the sample size they're dealing with when making predictions based on the history of civilizations.
        ameister14 9y ago
        Sure...roughly 11,000 years of history, hundreds of cultures and civilizations; that work? Can you find a civilization that has lasted with continuous benevolent and competent leadership? Because I can give you hundreds that haven't.
        mistermann 9y ago
        > Sure...roughly 11,000 years of history, hundreds of cultures and civilizations; that work? No, not for me to draw conclusions with extreme certainty as so many others do, especially considering the complexity of the systems involved and the unreliability of the historic record. It's certainly not enough data for an arrogantly overconfident position. > Can you find a civilization that has lasted with continuous benevolent and competent leadership? I cannot, hence my usage of the phrase "I believe". To me, it's an interesting idea to ponder, not a showdown.
        ameister14 9y ago
        >It's certainly not enough data for an arrogantly overconfident position. If that is not enough data, I doubt any amount of data is. Interesting ideas to ponder are all well and good, but you're positing that a system of government is the best one and making a fairly outlandish claim about China with absolutely no supporting evidence of such a system being sustainable.
        mistermann 9y ago
        > If that is not enough data, I doubt any amount of data is. I wonder if that same logic holds in medical trials, which are a far more simplistic and controlled study.
      - namlem 9y ago
        If only we had a benevolent, competent AI to run things.
        ameister14 9y ago
        It'd probably be pretty efficient, but my ideal is as close to the state of nature as possible balanced with the benefits of a human society, so it's not really the way I'd want to go.
baursak 9y ago
Half of China's economy are state-owned enterprises (SOEs). China is still way more centrally planned than people think, including good old Soviet-style 5-year plans. Most of strategically important industries have not been "liberalized". When compared to places like Venezuela, which people love to bring up as socialist disaster of sorts, but which has way more people employed in private enterprises than China, China looks more socialist by your standard mainstream definition of "socialism".
api 9y ago
China is something new. It's capitalism without freedom and with a Soviet "politburo" type structure acting not as agency of the proletariat but as a hyper-Keynesian backstop to markets. Tangent but: I think this really killed Libertarianism. Libertarians and classical liberals from Adam Smith to Ayn Rand said this wasn't possible. Capitalism and freedom are inseparable, they said. China proves that Capitalism works perfectly well and in fact may work better under a more authoritarian system. Freedom is not required beyond a few degrees of freedom to act economically. The presence of a totalitarian ruler willing to constantly backstop markets prevents panics and actually makes the system work better. ... or seems to so far. History isn't over. China could crash.
- ameister14 9y ago
  >The presence of a totalitarian ruler willing to constantly backstop markets prevents panics and actually makes the system work better. Not really. Remember this? https://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonchang/2014/01/19/mega-default-in-china-scheduled-for-january-31/#628a39ec5e00 https://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonchang/2014/01/19/mega-def... If the government backs everything, people will engage in riskier behavior because they don't accurately assess risk. That creates a massive bubble of risky investments until it's too large for the government to effectively control. There's an interesting book on the subject you might want to check out: https://www.amazon.com/Chinas-Guaranteed-Bubble-government-propelled/dp/1259644588/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1511885714&sr=8-1&keywords=China%E2%80%99s+Guaranteed+Bubble%3A+How+Implicit+Government+Support+Has+Propelled+China%E2%80%99s+Economy+While+Creating+Systemic+Risk https://www.amazon.com/Chinas-Guaranteed-Bubble-government-p....
  - api 9y ago
    I think you are right, but it hasn't happened yet. China keeps growing and developing with what seems to outside observers such unbelievable might that it's psyching people out. I think the rise of strong man rule and neo-fascist ideologies in the West and elsewhere is a reaction. "We need to become more totalitarian now or we will be left behind!" Bubbles always psych people out. They always go higher than anyone expects. They always make the nay-sayers look like fools... until they don't, and the nay-sayers end up looking like prophets. My brother in law lived and worked in China for about 10 years. He went from thinking China would conquer the world in the first few to thinking China is Enron.

JoeAltmaier 9y ago

At different levels, right? There's still a party; they still run things. So at the local level its capitalist, but not at the city or federal planning level?

SauciestGNU 9y ago
It's murky because they call themselves communist, but it's in name only. If anything I'd call it state capitalism, where the government is the biggest player in the market, but it's a market nonetheless.
- mistermann 9y ago
  With benevolent and competent leaders, I believe this is the optimum approach, which is one of the main reasons China will be the undisputed global leader very soon. Obviously this requires ongoing benevolence and competency though.
  - ameister14 9y ago
    With benevolent and competent leadership, it's the most efficient approach. Unfortunately, benevolent and competent leadership has never lasted in the history of human civilization. Sooner or later, usually sooner, someone really nasty or incompetent takes over.
    - AstralStorm 9y ago
      Like they did in the US therefore capitalism failed it? (No, I am not talking about current politics but economy.)
      - ameister14 9y ago
        I don't really understand your question. I'm saying that if you concentrate power into one person's hands, it's awesome and efficient if that person is competent and benevolent. If he is not, it's really bad. Unfortunately, in the history of the world, there has been no government continuously run by benevolent and competent leaders. The US arguably concentrates too much power into the hands of a single person, but not nearly to the same extent as a centralized and managed economy does. This has nothing to do with capitalism.
        AstralStorm 9y ago
        Nor does it have to do with communism. Specifically communism does not require nationalisation nor centralization of power. In fact the Marxist roots expect the workers to own and run the factories collectively and resolve conflicts by vote and consensus. The ideology called "communism" in the US is actually national socialism. Not to be mistaken with fascism, but close. (Yes, it is Nazism. Soviet ideology was actually identical.) Alleged soviet collectivism was actually nationalisation.
        ameister14 9y ago
        I wasn't talking about that, though - I was talking about State Capitalism and the efficiency of a concentration of power, responding to a person that said that was the optimal system.
    - mistermann 9y ago
      People should be mindful of the sample size they're dealing with when making predictions based on the history of civilizations.
      - ameister14 9y ago
        Sure...roughly 11,000 years of history, hundreds of cultures and civilizations; that work? Can you find a civilization that has lasted with continuous benevolent and competent leadership? Because I can give you hundreds that haven't.
        mistermann 9y ago
        > Sure...roughly 11,000 years of history, hundreds of cultures and civilizations; that work? No, not for me to draw conclusions with extreme certainty as so many others do, especially considering the complexity of the systems involved and the unreliability of the historic record. It's certainly not enough data for an arrogantly overconfident position. > Can you find a civilization that has lasted with continuous benevolent and competent leadership? I cannot, hence my usage of the phrase "I believe". To me, it's an interesting idea to ponder, not a showdown.
        ameister14 9y ago
        >It's certainly not enough data for an arrogantly overconfident position. If that is not enough data, I doubt any amount of data is. Interesting ideas to ponder are all well and good, but you're positing that a system of government is the best one and making a fairly outlandish claim about China with absolutely no supporting evidence of such a system being sustainable.
        mistermann 9y ago
        > If that is not enough data, I doubt any amount of data is. I wonder if that same logic holds in medical trials, which are a far more simplistic and controlled study.
    - namlem 9y ago
      If only we had a benevolent, competent AI to run things.
      - ameister14 9y ago
        It'd probably be pretty efficient, but my ideal is as close to the state of nature as possible balanced with the benefits of a human society, so it's not really the way I'd want to go.

baursak 9y ago

Half of China's economy are state-owned enterprises (SOEs). China is still way more centrally planned than people think, including good old Soviet-style 5-year plans. Most of strategically important industries have not been "liberalized". When compared to places like Venezuela, which people love to bring up as socialist disaster of sorts, but which has way more people employed in private enterprises than China, China looks more socialist by your standard mainstream definition of "socialism".

api 9y ago

China is something new. It's capitalism without freedom and with a Soviet "politburo" type structure acting not as agency of the proletariat but as a hyper-Keynesian backstop to markets. Tangent but: I think this really killed Libertarianism. Libertarians and classical liberals from Adam Smith to Ayn Rand said this wasn't possible. Capitalism and freedom are inseparable, they said. China proves that Capitalism works perfectly well and in fact may work better under a more authoritarian system. Freedom is not required beyond a few degrees of freedom to act economically. The presence of a totalitarian ruler willing to constantly backstop markets prevents panics and actually makes the system work better. ... or seems to so far. History isn't over. China could crash.

ameister14 9y ago
>The presence of a totalitarian ruler willing to constantly backstop markets prevents panics and actually makes the system work better. Not really. Remember this? https://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonchang/2014/01/19/mega-default-in-china-scheduled-for-january-31/#628a39ec5e00 https://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonchang/2014/01/19/mega-def... If the government backs everything, people will engage in riskier behavior because they don't accurately assess risk. That creates a massive bubble of risky investments until it's too large for the government to effectively control. There's an interesting book on the subject you might want to check out: https://www.amazon.com/Chinas-Guaranteed-Bubble-government-propelled/dp/1259644588/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1511885714&sr=8-1&keywords=China%E2%80%99s+Guaranteed+Bubble%3A+How+Implicit+Government+Support+Has+Propelled+China%E2%80%99s+Economy+While+Creating+Systemic+Risk https://www.amazon.com/Chinas-Guaranteed-Bubble-government-p....
- api 9y ago
  I think you are right, but it hasn't happened yet. China keeps growing and developing with what seems to outside observers such unbelievable might that it's psyching people out. I think the rise of strong man rule and neo-fascist ideologies in the West and elsewhere is a reaction. "We need to become more totalitarian now or we will be left behind!" Bubbles always psych people out. They always go higher than anyone expects. They always make the nay-sayers look like fools... until they don't, and the nay-sayers end up looking like prophets. My brother in law lived and worked in China for about 10 years. He went from thinking China would conquer the world in the first few to thinking China is Enron.