3 ms·

The rise of China will most likely prove the communist model to be the best model of governance. The growth that China has seen over the last 20 years has surp

The rise of China will most likely prove the communist model to be the best model of governance. The growth that China has seen over the last 20 years has surpassed anything that any other country has ever achieved - even the US. And if a country throws up a George Bush for 10 years and then an Obama who doesnt seem to deliver much, democracy has already lost. Similarly with India, democracy simply does not work, and Singapore where communism has done wonders. Somehow I have always seen an American corporation as having a communist structure and rarely experimented (mostly unsuccessfully) with a democratic one.

drinian 16y ago
China is not a Communist country, and is not following a "communist model." Not to mention Singapore -- who on earth are you? Moreover, China's growth is nothing compared to Japan's economic miracle. The fact of the matter is that China has far better national resources than Japan ever did, and should have succeeded decades ago. It was the early leadership that held it back.
- mrtron 16y ago
  Another Asian tiger, Taiwan is democratic and had one of the fastest and most sustainable growth stories from the 60s onward. Their government picked some key industries like semiconductors and invested a lot of resources towards training a workforce and stimulating business. It has paid off in huge dividends. All done democratically. Additionally their recent environmental push is driven by local people and very democratic - individual recycling rates have skyrocketed. It will be interesting to see if they can do the same with renewable energy.
  - simc 16y ago
    Taiwan's first election was in 1996, though there was very gradual political reform from 1978 onwards. Before that the Guomindang Party ruled Taiwan using the sort of party-state capitalist Leninist system that the Chinese Communist Party rules mainland China with today.
    - drinian 16y ago
      A good model, perhaps, for the Beijing government?
- bluethunder 16y ago
  When I said communist, I meant it with an obvious context to China - essentially not meant to say a communist society(as in socialism) but instead a communist single-party government. Similarly for Singapore. I understand China to be a lot more capitalist than India for example. It is true that Japan and a lot of european countries have done better with democracy, however they typically have a lot homogenous populations - very unlike of bigger countries like the US, China and India and also unlike some smaller countries like Singapore. Even then there is little reason to believe if a communist form of government would not have done better in these countries also.
  - drinian 16y ago
    I would argue that Singapore espouses democratic ideals like transparency, tolerance, a fair court system, etc., even if their government has effectively gerrymandered the city's population to ensure the ruling party stays in place. The elections are certainly not shams, and the ruling party would win them in a fair fight regardless. It is a very Confucian form of democratic society, but democracy it is. I do think that China's more enlightened leaders are probably hoping that they'll be able to use Singapore as a model for their own society at some point in the future.
    - bluethunder 16y ago
      I am essentially questioning the fact that 'transparency, tolerance and a fair court system' might not really be democratic ideals, or rather cannot consistently be associated with democracy. It is definitely possibly to acheive all of them in a communist system of governance. India is a democracy, but the state is hardly transparent, tolerance has given way to appeasement for vote politics and the court/legal system does not work anymore.
prodigal_erik 16y ago
Once you've perfected the sweatshop and found customers willing to look the other way, it would be hard for any form of government to fail at showing massive economic growth. They're raking it in because anyone who treats workers like human beings rather than robots is at a competitive disadvantage in the race to the bottom.
- metamemetics 16y ago
  Unfortunately the race to the bottom has not been nearly quick enough. There are still .8 billion living (starving\dying) in unseen rural poverty without the royal luxury of a sweat-shop manufacturing job that provides enough to not go hungry.
skowmunk 16y ago
China will most likely prove the communist model to be the best model of governance That is a joke. I read somewhere that the US is more socialist than China these days and I would have to agree. US has social security and apparently China has done away with the state income to people or something like that. China is just an authoritarian(currently) country marching towards capitalism and actually democracy also - they have started experimenting with some low level elections. It cannot sustain itself as a authoritarian nation in the long run. When people start being materially well, then they will focus more on demanding intellectual freedom. With increased technology it will also be difficult for the government to control people forever. The electronic great wall of china will fall down sooner or later like the berlin wall. Moreover, communism, as great the ideal of equality is, in practice it simply cannot survive the most predominant characteristic of human nature - the 'self'. Would have to admire the way the Chinese leadership does things in measured increments but more or less sure footed way. Russia is too much of a bad example on what will happen when a government system changes suddenly without preparation. It took them almost 10 years to recover.
- bluethunder 16y ago
  Again, I only referred to a communist form of governance, not the market. I understand China to have a communist form of governance (single party) and a capitalist market. India is definitely a lot more socialist than China and even the US. My guess is also that US is more socialist than China now, but this was not the case 20years ago - this also is indicative of the strengths of a communist form of governance.
  - skowmunk 16y ago
    I would still have to disagree that the communist form of government is good in all situations, or if good at all. A single party government can as easily cause surefooted definitive action in mass killing (like the Nazi's), or subjugation of people of a nation (Venezuela, China under Mao), or fast development (Singapore and China under Xiaoping). It completely depends on the nature, intentions and wisdom of the leadership. On India, being socialist, yes in the official name. For practical purposes, it was(please note the past) controlled semi-capitalism, where the control was used to line up the politicians and bureaucrats pockets. - if you are an indian, you might recognize this term "license raj" Thank god for capitalism, it ain't perfect, but its the best out there. About the indication of the strengths of a communist form of governance, nope your example doesn't take into consideration certain very important factors working here. If you compare India and China - China had a head start of 20 years, when Deng Xiaoping opened up China to the West for setting up their factories, in the 70's. India started opening up only in early 90's under P.V. Narasimha Rao (and, to give due credit - Dr. Manmohan Singh the then Finance minister and current Prime Minister) So, its more an example for 'its better to have wise leaders as early as possible' than 'communist form of government is better than non-communist governments' my $0.0000002
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

drinian 16y ago

China is not a Communist country, and is not following a "communist model." Not to mention Singapore -- who on earth are you? Moreover, China's growth is nothing compared to Japan's economic miracle. The fact of the matter is that China has far better national resources than Japan ever did, and should have succeeded decades ago. It was the early leadership that held it back.

mrtron 16y ago
Another Asian tiger, Taiwan is democratic and had one of the fastest and most sustainable growth stories from the 60s onward. Their government picked some key industries like semiconductors and invested a lot of resources towards training a workforce and stimulating business. It has paid off in huge dividends. All done democratically. Additionally their recent environmental push is driven by local people and very democratic - individual recycling rates have skyrocketed. It will be interesting to see if they can do the same with renewable energy.
- simc 16y ago
  Taiwan's first election was in 1996, though there was very gradual political reform from 1978 onwards. Before that the Guomindang Party ruled Taiwan using the sort of party-state capitalist Leninist system that the Chinese Communist Party rules mainland China with today.
  - drinian 16y ago
    A good model, perhaps, for the Beijing government?
bluethunder 16y ago
When I said communist, I meant it with an obvious context to China - essentially not meant to say a communist society(as in socialism) but instead a communist single-party government. Similarly for Singapore. I understand China to be a lot more capitalist than India for example. It is true that Japan and a lot of european countries have done better with democracy, however they typically have a lot homogenous populations - very unlike of bigger countries like the US, China and India and also unlike some smaller countries like Singapore. Even then there is little reason to believe if a communist form of government would not have done better in these countries also.
- drinian 16y ago
  I would argue that Singapore espouses democratic ideals like transparency, tolerance, a fair court system, etc., even if their government has effectively gerrymandered the city's population to ensure the ruling party stays in place. The elections are certainly not shams, and the ruling party would win them in a fair fight regardless. It is a very Confucian form of democratic society, but democracy it is. I do think that China's more enlightened leaders are probably hoping that they'll be able to use Singapore as a model for their own society at some point in the future.
  - bluethunder 16y ago
    I am essentially questioning the fact that 'transparency, tolerance and a fair court system' might not really be democratic ideals, or rather cannot consistently be associated with democracy. It is definitely possibly to acheive all of them in a communist system of governance. India is a democracy, but the state is hardly transparent, tolerance has given way to appeasement for vote politics and the court/legal system does not work anymore.

prodigal_erik 16y ago

Once you've perfected the sweatshop and found customers willing to look the other way, it would be hard for any form of government to fail at showing massive economic growth. They're raking it in because anyone who treats workers like human beings rather than robots is at a competitive disadvantage in the race to the bottom.

metamemetics 16y ago
Unfortunately the race to the bottom has not been nearly quick enough. There are still .8 billion living (starving\dying) in unseen rural poverty without the royal luxury of a sweat-shop manufacturing job that provides enough to not go hungry.

skowmunk 16y ago

China will most likely prove the communist model to be the best model of governance That is a joke. I read somewhere that the US is more socialist than China these days and I would have to agree. US has social security and apparently China has done away with the state income to people or something like that. China is just an authoritarian(currently) country marching towards capitalism and actually democracy also - they have started experimenting with some low level elections. It cannot sustain itself as a authoritarian nation in the long run. When people start being materially well, then they will focus more on demanding intellectual freedom. With increased technology it will also be difficult for the government to control people forever. The electronic great wall of china will fall down sooner or later like the berlin wall. Moreover, communism, as great the ideal of equality is, in practice it simply cannot survive the most predominant characteristic of human nature - the 'self'. Would have to admire the way the Chinese leadership does things in measured increments but more or less sure footed way. Russia is too much of a bad example on what will happen when a government system changes suddenly without preparation. It took them almost 10 years to recover.

bluethunder 16y ago
Again, I only referred to a communist form of governance, not the market. I understand China to have a communist form of governance (single party) and a capitalist market. India is definitely a lot more socialist than China and even the US. My guess is also that US is more socialist than China now, but this was not the case 20years ago - this also is indicative of the strengths of a communist form of governance.
- skowmunk 16y ago
  I would still have to disagree that the communist form of government is good in all situations, or if good at all. A single party government can as easily cause surefooted definitive action in mass killing (like the Nazi's), or subjugation of people of a nation (Venezuela, China under Mao), or fast development (Singapore and China under Xiaoping). It completely depends on the nature, intentions and wisdom of the leadership. On India, being socialist, yes in the official name. For practical purposes, it was(please note the past) controlled semi-capitalism, where the control was used to line up the politicians and bureaucrats pockets. - if you are an indian, you might recognize this term "license raj" Thank god for capitalism, it ain't perfect, but its the best out there. About the indication of the strengths of a communist form of governance, nope your example doesn't take into consideration certain very important factors working here. If you compare India and China - China had a head start of 20 years, when Deng Xiaoping opened up China to the West for setting up their factories, in the 70's. India started opening up only in early 90's under P.V. Narasimha Rao (and, to give due credit - Dr. Manmohan Singh the then Finance minister and current Prime Minister) So, its more an example for 'its better to have wise leaders as early as possible' than 'communist form of government is better than non-communist governments' my $0.0000002

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]