5 ms·

I have one Chinese friend who employs a double entendre, calling him "Xitler" In all seriousness, this is a black period for Chinese people and China's neighbo

I have one Chinese friend who employs a double entendre, calling him "Xitler" In all seriousness, this is a black period for Chinese people and China's neighbors. The fledgling democracy in Hong Kong, and democratic nations around China's periphery including Taiwan, Japan, Nepal, and India should be very wary dealing with a strongman who will stop at nothing to further his power and nationalism-focused legacy.

antichronology 9y ago
I wonder if it will have some sort of long term impact on the economy. Is there a way of measuring relative government authoritarianism on economic development of a nation?
- woolvalley 9y ago
  China was already an authoritarian nation, how much of an effective difference would this make?
  - antichronology 9y ago
    provide an economic argument for not implementing additional authoritarian policies. Seems that these decisions are incredibly hard to measure. For example how much did Turkey's economy suffer from the previous failed coup?
    - martimarkov 9y ago
      That for me personally only strengthens my belief that it was orchestrated.
  - ilamont 9y ago
    When strongman-based cults of personality (real or wannabe) appoint themselves ruler for life, policy can go off the rails. Wars, purges, persecution of minority groups, and civil unrest are more likely. Corrupt systems of checks and balances, which may have already been weak, slide ever further. Mao, Stalin, Chavez, Castro, Hitler, Mussolini, Chiang Kai-Shek ... a few of these strongmen presided over brief periods of spectacular economic growth, but always under unsustainable conditions. Many citizens (and the citizens of neighboring countries) paid a terrible price.
    - kevin_thibedeau 9y ago
      And then there's Singapore. Ruled by an authoritarian, gum hating despot who provides nice civic infrastructure for the populace.
      - narrator 9y ago
        With a dictatorship it really depends on the competence of the leadership. This is not a robust strategy for organizing human civilizations.
        jack9 9y ago
        Really? Because stable singular hierarchies is exactly how we evolved to have civilization.
        disgruntledphd2 9y ago
        Not sure if I would agree, given that estimates suggest that homo sapiens had evolved approx 400k years ago, and most of recorded history (with the somewhat stable hierarchies) lasts, at most, 20k years. So potentially much of recorded history, but certainly not proven to be necessary for evolution.
      - ericd 9y ago
        When you have a great king, it's among the best forms of government. The problem is that that great king's successor is probably not also great, and under a bad ruler, it's among the worst forms of government, and that bad king can last for your entire lifetime. It's never spectacularly efficient, but the US' form of democracy is meant to be much lower variance. I think it's a good tradeoff.
        liberte82 9y ago
        > When you have a great king, it's among the best forms of government. citation needed
  - leggomylibro 9y ago
    What happened when Mao unilaterally declared that ploughshares should be melted down for the good of the economy? I'm not a huge fan of authoritarian systems, but individual people are even more fallible. Laying decision-making power on one individual is a recipe for failure; they're going to be wrong eventually, and chances are people will be reluctant to speak out against their god-emperor when that happens in a system where power is so ridiculously centralized.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  Political stability encourages growth [1]. The form of government seems largely irrelevant [2]. China is moving from a stable if novel mode (small-group democratic dictatorship) to an unstable mode (single-leader dictatorship). [1] https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/4553024/alesina_instabilitygrowth.pdf?s https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/4553024/alesina_... [2] https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdf/10.1257/jep.7.3.51 https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdf/10.1257/jep.7.3.51
  - woodandsteel 9y ago
    >Political stability encourages growth Absolutely. That is why the US, thanks to having a multi-party democracy, never got anywhere with the industrial revolution. And that is why Putin's Russia is leading the world in technological innovation and economic growth. Of course, if when you say "political stability" you mean the absence of things like civil wars and coups, well yes, that really helps economic growth. But I don't think Xi is making himself dictator-for-life because China is on the verge of that sort of instability.
narrator 9y ago
Even if someone is a lover of the communist party, isn't it somewhat of a bad idea to have a cult of personality style leader? Wasn't that what the party wanted to put an end to after Mao?
- ilamont 9y ago
  They may have said it, but the CCP nevertheless used propaganda, Han-centric nationalism, and control of the news media to elevate certain leaders into cult status. Xi and Deng are obvious examples, but I also recall the Jiang apparatus trying to play that card as well.
ender89 9y ago
Japan has nothing to worry about. The Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security Between the United States and Japan, signed after WWII, basically means that Japan AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA are responsible to ensure the national security of Japan (It's actually mutual with the understanding that the Japanese constitution forbids deploying armed forces abroad). In other words, if china is actually aggressive towards Japan in any way, the full force of the United States armed forces will stand with them. As one of China's main trading partners, China doesn't want to pick a fight with the united states any more than we want to pick a fight with China. Similarly, South Korea has little to fear from China (even if they're propping up North Korea to do it), since the US has a similar relationship there. Nepal and Taiwan are screwed. India... its hard to imagine things going worse for India to be honest. Lets focus on getting most of their people clean, proper toilets before we start worrying about the influence of communist dictatorships, eh?
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > The Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security Between the United States and Japan, signed after WWII, basically means that Japan AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA are responsible to ensure the national security of Japan China has long-range nukes. Behind every treat is political resolve. Would America risk lighting its cities on fire to defend a country across the ocean? (I hope so. But I'm not sure.)
  - Slansitartop 9y ago
    > China has long-range nukes. Behind every [th]reat is political resolve. Would America risk lighting its cities on fire to defend a country across the ocean? (I hope so. But I'm not sure.) The same could be said of China. Would it risk MAD by invading Japan? The US could be spurred to act due to the threat of eventual isolation and defeat after its allies are picked off. That fear is what fueled the regional wars like Vietnam fought during the Cold War. In any case, it's estimated that Japan could develop its own indigenous nuclear capability very quickly if the need arose. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_nuclear_weapon_program#De_facto_nuclear_state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_nuclear_weapon_progra... https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/06/24/national/politics-diplomacy/japan-get-nuclear-weapons-virtually-overnight-biden-tells-xi/ https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/06/24/national/politi...
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

antichronology 9y ago

I wonder if it will have some sort of long term impact on the economy. Is there a way of measuring relative government authoritarianism on economic development of a nation?

woolvalley 9y ago
China was already an authoritarian nation, how much of an effective difference would this make?
- antichronology 9y ago
  provide an economic argument for not implementing additional authoritarian policies. Seems that these decisions are incredibly hard to measure. For example how much did Turkey's economy suffer from the previous failed coup?
  - martimarkov 9y ago
    That for me personally only strengthens my belief that it was orchestrated.
- ilamont 9y ago
  When strongman-based cults of personality (real or wannabe) appoint themselves ruler for life, policy can go off the rails. Wars, purges, persecution of minority groups, and civil unrest are more likely. Corrupt systems of checks and balances, which may have already been weak, slide ever further. Mao, Stalin, Chavez, Castro, Hitler, Mussolini, Chiang Kai-Shek ... a few of these strongmen presided over brief periods of spectacular economic growth, but always under unsustainable conditions. Many citizens (and the citizens of neighboring countries) paid a terrible price.
  - kevin_thibedeau 9y ago
    And then there's Singapore. Ruled by an authoritarian, gum hating despot who provides nice civic infrastructure for the populace.
    - narrator 9y ago
      With a dictatorship it really depends on the competence of the leadership. This is not a robust strategy for organizing human civilizations.
      - jack9 9y ago
        Really? Because stable singular hierarchies is exactly how we evolved to have civilization.
        disgruntledphd2 9y ago
        Not sure if I would agree, given that estimates suggest that homo sapiens had evolved approx 400k years ago, and most of recorded history (with the somewhat stable hierarchies) lasts, at most, 20k years. So potentially much of recorded history, but certainly not proven to be necessary for evolution.
    - ericd 9y ago
      When you have a great king, it's among the best forms of government. The problem is that that great king's successor is probably not also great, and under a bad ruler, it's among the worst forms of government, and that bad king can last for your entire lifetime. It's never spectacularly efficient, but the US' form of democracy is meant to be much lower variance. I think it's a good tradeoff.
      - liberte82 9y ago
        > When you have a great king, it's among the best forms of government. citation needed
- leggomylibro 9y ago
  What happened when Mao unilaterally declared that ploughshares should be melted down for the good of the economy? I'm not a huge fan of authoritarian systems, but individual people are even more fallible. Laying decision-making power on one individual is a recipe for failure; they're going to be wrong eventually, and chances are people will be reluctant to speak out against their god-emperor when that happens in a system where power is so ridiculously centralized.
JumpCrisscross 9y ago
Political stability encourages growth [1]. The form of government seems largely irrelevant [2]. China is moving from a stable if novel mode (small-group democratic dictatorship) to an unstable mode (single-leader dictatorship). [1] https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/4553024/alesina_instabilitygrowth.pdf?s https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/4553024/alesina_... [2] https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdf/10.1257/jep.7.3.51 https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdf/10.1257/jep.7.3.51
- woodandsteel 9y ago
  >Political stability encourages growth Absolutely. That is why the US, thanks to having a multi-party democracy, never got anywhere with the industrial revolution. And that is why Putin's Russia is leading the world in technological innovation and economic growth. Of course, if when you say "political stability" you mean the absence of things like civil wars and coups, well yes, that really helps economic growth. But I don't think Xi is making himself dictator-for-life because China is on the verge of that sort of instability.

narrator 9y ago

Even if someone is a lover of the communist party, isn't it somewhat of a bad idea to have a cult of personality style leader? Wasn't that what the party wanted to put an end to after Mao?

ilamont 9y ago
They may have said it, but the CCP nevertheless used propaganda, Han-centric nationalism, and control of the news media to elevate certain leaders into cult status. Xi and Deng are obvious examples, but I also recall the Jiang apparatus trying to play that card as well.

ender89 9y ago

Japan has nothing to worry about. The Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security Between the United States and Japan, signed after WWII, basically means that Japan AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA are responsible to ensure the national security of Japan (It's actually mutual with the understanding that the Japanese constitution forbids deploying armed forces abroad). In other words, if china is actually aggressive towards Japan in any way, the full force of the United States armed forces will stand with them. As one of China's main trading partners, China doesn't want to pick a fight with the united states any more than we want to pick a fight with China. Similarly, South Korea has little to fear from China (even if they're propping up North Korea to do it), since the US has a similar relationship there. Nepal and Taiwan are screwed. India... its hard to imagine things going worse for India to be honest. Lets focus on getting most of their people clean, proper toilets before we start worrying about the influence of communist dictatorships, eh?

JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> The Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security Between the United States and Japan, signed after WWII, basically means that Japan AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA are responsible to ensure the national security of Japan China has long-range nukes. Behind every treat is political resolve. Would America risk lighting its cities on fire to defend a country across the ocean? (I hope so. But I'm not sure.)
- Slansitartop 9y ago
  > China has long-range nukes. Behind every [th]reat is political resolve. Would America risk lighting its cities on fire to defend a country across the ocean? (I hope so. But I'm not sure.) The same could be said of China. Would it risk MAD by invading Japan? The US could be spurred to act due to the threat of eventual isolation and defeat after its allies are picked off. That fear is what fueled the regional wars like Vietnam fought during the Cold War. In any case, it's estimated that Japan could develop its own indigenous nuclear capability very quickly if the need arose. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_nuclear_weapon_program#De_facto_nuclear_state https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_nuclear_weapon_progra... https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/06/24/national/politics-diplomacy/japan-get-nuclear-weapons-virtually-overnight-biden-tells-xi/ https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/06/24/national/politi...

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]