3 ms·

The great mistake was in thinking "liberal western-style democracies" were the natural end-state of human societies, and that all states are historically determ

The great mistake was in thinking "liberal western-style democracies" were the natural end-state of human societies, and that all states are historically determined to reach this point sooner or later. That the West was both Exceptional and Normal at the same time. This was pride. Then there were those who didn't care about the human rights issue and just wanted to make money, who thought they could use China as a massive cheap factory forever. Never thinking (or caring) that China could one day surpass us and turn the tables. This was greed.

coffeeacc 9y ago
A sort of naive liberal narcissism. Or happy go lucky. If I'm nice then everyone else will be nice. And I'll take that smile at face value. Alas, the world's a big place.
- mistermann 9y ago
  On the bright side, it seems like some people here are finally waking up to the fact that China may soon be imposing it's will on the world. The Economist must be very influential.
corey_moncure 9y ago
Behind western capitalism is a long tapestry of human exploitation punctuated by periods of total war. Pre 18th Century there was slavery. Then when that became unpalatable we moved to colonialism. Finally we have used modern globalism and information technology to abstract the exploitation out of sight.
- coffeeacc 9y ago
  "Behind western capitalism is a long tapestry of human exploitation punctuated by periods of total war." Behind numerous cultures is a long tapestry of human exploitation punctuated by periods of total war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_the_Muslim_world https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_the_Musl... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery
dlwdlw 9y ago
The tone of article also implies (and I think is true) that the west views/viewed China from a position of moral authority. Like a parent being disappointed in a kid because it should know better. Culturally this leads to to the idea of "punishment" or reinforcing the parents idea of quality. The issue is that countries see each other as equals and the punishment trick can't be easily used when nuclear weapons are involved. Should we dehumanize those who dehumanize others? I don't think so. The US for a very long time has grown in a moral authority that is overreaching and over simplistic in it's definition of humanity. The only way to break cycles of hate is to show that there is a better way, not through the domination/punishment lens. We're all products of rape and murder. To see rape and murder and not remember our past is to bask in cultural wealth wondering why everyone else is so poor.
- Certhas 9y ago
  Plus of course that the West in general and the US in particular are standing on shaky ground when making any moral argument. I believe that on the balance the systems as currently in place are relatively moral. Especially compared to historic precedent (also compare Russias war in Syria to the US wars, having to convince a domestic audience that you're the good guy puts real constraint on the use of military power). But the level of immoral behavior even just focusing on past WWII/Post-colonial times is still staggering and easy to point towards for others. "He may be a bastard, but he's our bastard."
matthewdgreen 9y ago
I don't think it's accurate to say that "liberal western-style democracies" are the natural end-state. I think it's accurate that history has shown that such democracies work better than authoritarian regimes for various reasons -- largely economic. I don't think that China's recent success disproves this. China spent decades experimenting with ruthless authoritarianism, and wound up decades behind the world. They relaxed their hold for a time, and experienced massive catch-up growth -- growth they would have experienced much earlier if their government had been properly managed. The real question is whether they'll be able to continue that growth if they turn to a much more authoritarian model, which seems to be the direction they're going. And I'll be frank that there seems to be very little historical evidence that this approach will lead to continued economic (and thus political) dominance. In fact, all signs point the other way. It's just unfortunate that we keep trying the experiment.
- Slansitartop 9y ago
  I think what's really been shown is that ruthless centralization clearly doesn't work. China's trying to develop an alternative that includes some economic decentralization but doesn't include liberal values and democracy. Western capitalism may be like a pack of wolves freely cooperating without leashes, but China's is like a pack of wolves wearing shock collars. Most of the time they're on their own, but they have to be mindful of what their master wants or they'll get zapped. That latter system might be good enough to compete with the West.
nezzle 9y ago
"Liberal western-style democracies" were only the best option at the time to maximize productivity. So was the thinking that they are the "natural end-state of human societies".

coffeeacc 9y ago

A sort of naive liberal narcissism. Or happy go lucky. If I'm nice then everyone else will be nice. And I'll take that smile at face value. Alas, the world's a big place.

mistermann 9y ago
On the bright side, it seems like some people here are finally waking up to the fact that China may soon be imposing it's will on the world. The Economist must be very influential.

corey_moncure 9y ago

Behind western capitalism is a long tapestry of human exploitation punctuated by periods of total war. Pre 18th Century there was slavery. Then when that became unpalatable we moved to colonialism. Finally we have used modern globalism and information technology to abstract the exploitation out of sight.

coffeeacc 9y ago
"Behind western capitalism is a long tapestry of human exploitation punctuated by periods of total war." Behind numerous cultures is a long tapestry of human exploitation punctuated by periods of total war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_the_Muslim_world https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_the_Musl... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery

dlwdlw 9y ago

The tone of article also implies (and I think is true) that the west views/viewed China from a position of moral authority. Like a parent being disappointed in a kid because it should know better. Culturally this leads to to the idea of "punishment" or reinforcing the parents idea of quality. The issue is that countries see each other as equals and the punishment trick can't be easily used when nuclear weapons are involved. Should we dehumanize those who dehumanize others? I don't think so. The US for a very long time has grown in a moral authority that is overreaching and over simplistic in it's definition of humanity. The only way to break cycles of hate is to show that there is a better way, not through the domination/punishment lens. We're all products of rape and murder. To see rape and murder and not remember our past is to bask in cultural wealth wondering why everyone else is so poor.

Certhas 9y ago
Plus of course that the West in general and the US in particular are standing on shaky ground when making any moral argument. I believe that on the balance the systems as currently in place are relatively moral. Especially compared to historic precedent (also compare Russias war in Syria to the US wars, having to convince a domestic audience that you're the good guy puts real constraint on the use of military power). But the level of immoral behavior even just focusing on past WWII/Post-colonial times is still staggering and easy to point towards for others. "He may be a bastard, but he's our bastard."

matthewdgreen 9y ago

I don't think it's accurate to say that "liberal western-style democracies" are the natural end-state. I think it's accurate that history has shown that such democracies work better than authoritarian regimes for various reasons -- largely economic. I don't think that China's recent success disproves this. China spent decades experimenting with ruthless authoritarianism, and wound up decades behind the world. They relaxed their hold for a time, and experienced massive catch-up growth -- growth they would have experienced much earlier if their government had been properly managed. The real question is whether they'll be able to continue that growth if they turn to a much more authoritarian model, which seems to be the direction they're going. And I'll be frank that there seems to be very little historical evidence that this approach will lead to continued economic (and thus political) dominance. In fact, all signs point the other way. It's just unfortunate that we keep trying the experiment.

Slansitartop 9y ago
I think what's really been shown is that ruthless centralization clearly doesn't work. China's trying to develop an alternative that includes some economic decentralization but doesn't include liberal values and democracy. Western capitalism may be like a pack of wolves freely cooperating without leashes, but China's is like a pack of wolves wearing shock collars. Most of the time they're on their own, but they have to be mindful of what their master wants or they'll get zapped. That latter system might be good enough to compete with the West.

nezzle 9y ago

"Liberal western-style democracies" were only the best option at the time to maximize productivity. So was the thinking that they are the "natural end-state of human societies".