4 ms·

You claim: > The objective is not "control" of the tech sector as the article pretends, it is just greater collaboration. From the article: > This quasi-nati

You claim: > The objective is not "control" of the tech sector as the article pretends, it is just greater collaboration. From the article: > This quasi-nationalization applies to China's startup scene, too. One recent report found that 60 percent of Chinese unicorns have either direct or indirect investment from the BATs. China's venture-capital sector is dominated not by traditional tech dealmakers but by the state: There are more than 1,000 government-owned VC firms in China, controlling more than $750 billion. So the Chinese government buys stakes in most Chinese startups, through its wholly-owned VCs and other vehicles. These stakes give the Chinese government control over these startups. You further claim: > You can say they are making a police state, but at least they can maintain law and order, and are willing to keep thinking long-term and keep innovating even in government. Which frankly sounds like PRC propaganda.

mistermann 9y ago
> These stakes give the Chinese government control over these startups. Does it? Any more than it already has, what with China being communist and all. I don't see why the general ideas /u/reeedom discusses can't be true, and can't turn out to in fact be a perfectly workable way to successfully run an economy. This isn't to say it's not risky and scary, with so much power in the state, all it takes is one tyrant to come along and screw everything up, but this is something altogether different than believing it is impossible to govern a society successfully in this form, for a very long period of time.
- smallnamespace 9y ago
  > but this is something altogether different than believing it is impossible to govern a society successfully in this form, for a very long period of time. The West seems to have forgotten its own political history, which was based on the divine right of kings far longer than the current populist democratic consensus, which only has a 100-year history. As for China——well, it's had something like 2500+ years of cycling between Imperial dynasties. China (along with India) was the world's pre-eminent economic power for the majority of that period. The hubris of the West is that anything it does necessarily represents a permanent form of progress, rather than a single swing of the pendulum. That's not to say that societies that are more rooted in common law and popular representation aren't desirable, but blithely assuming that the 'end of history' has arrived is a bit silly.

mistermann 9y ago

> These stakes give the Chinese government control over these startups. Does it? Any more than it already has, what with China being communist and all. I don't see why the general ideas /u/reeedom discusses can't be true, and can't turn out to in fact be a perfectly workable way to successfully run an economy. This isn't to say it's not risky and scary, with so much power in the state, all it takes is one tyrant to come along and screw everything up, but this is something altogether different than believing it is impossible to govern a society successfully in this form, for a very long period of time.

smallnamespace 9y ago
> but this is something altogether different than believing it is impossible to govern a society successfully in this form, for a very long period of time. The West seems to have forgotten its own political history, which was based on the divine right of kings far longer than the current populist democratic consensus, which only has a 100-year history. As for China——well, it's had something like 2500+ years of cycling between Imperial dynasties. China (along with India) was the world's pre-eminent economic power for the majority of that period. The hubris of the West is that anything it does necessarily represents a permanent form of progress, rather than a single swing of the pendulum. That's not to say that societies that are more rooted in common law and popular representation aren't desirable, but blithely assuming that the 'end of history' has arrived is a bit silly.