4 ms·

IP norms are a small reason among many related reasons why China will outgrow US/EU/Japan. In China, everything is for the collective, the nation, the 100-year

IP norms are a small reason among many related reasons why China will outgrow US/EU/Japan. In China, everything is for the collective, the nation, the 100-year plan. In the West everything is for the self. We're happy to tear each other apart for the chance at getting some individual gains. I think it's pretty clear which of these cultures wins out in the long term.

JadeNB 6y ago
It's pretty clear which of those better achieves the goals of the nation, but the question is who sets the goals of the nation. The individualistic Western way makes incremental progress on a lot of goals, some of which will be good and some of which will be bad. The totalitarian way makes enormous progress on a single goal (or small packet of goals), which is amazing to the extent that they're good and devastating to the extent that they're bad. (Unfortunately, both ways lead to the concentration of power in a few hands—either the hands of those with the most wealth to advance their individual agenda, or the hands of those with the power to make their individual agenda the collective agenda.)
pnw_hazor 6y ago
Its only about 45 years since the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976). Before that it was the Communist Revolution (1946-1949). Before that there were other cultural and political upheavals where the victors re-wrote history and changed the culture of China. So at least to me it is not clear what Chinese culture will look like in 50 years let alone a 100.
- chance_state 6y ago
  That's an interesting point. I don't know enough about Chinese history to know how to evaluate the present. Is it realistic thought that a similar revolution could even happen in 21st century China? It seems like they have all the apparatus in place to prevent that (mass surveillance, information controls, no freedom to protest/demand, a strong and stable military, etc).
- tsimionescu 6y ago
  I think predicting any kind of social behavior 50 years in advance is well beyond any scientific method at the moment. Before those two revolutions that you mention, and even in spite of them in some areas, China has also had remarkable stability for hundreds if not thousands of years. Are these revolutions just blips? Are they a new pattern? And for that matter, are the Maoist and current regime that different for the common people of China from the Imperial regime before them? Or are these revolutions more just changes in window-dressing and in the upper echelons, like the Mongol conquest before them?
  - pnw_hazor 6y ago
    Certainly some common threads seem to remain from ancient China, perhaps the same could be said for many places. I don't how many threads it takes to suggest that a culture has been sustained over time. Though I think I was thinking more in terms of political culture in terms of the long term durability of the authoritarian CCP vs. the liberal West.
dntbnmpls 6y ago
> In the West everything is for the self. We're happy to tear each other apart for the chance at getting some individual gains. If that were the case, we wouldn't have the concept of "the West". The West is a collectivist idea. As a matter of fact, "the West" is even more of a collectivist idea than china since china is a nation but "the West" is a collection of nations centered around race/culture. For china to be "collectivistic" on our level, they'd have to build up an idea of "the East" or "East Asia" Or "Asia" to counter "the West". They, being too shortsighted or individualistic, haven't created such an idea/institution. The "individualistic" west and "collectivist" east is nonsense. People are people and it's the same all around. Was the US, british empire or nazi germany any less collectivistic than china today? Is white supremacy or german nationalism any less collectivistic than chinese nationalism or japanese nationalism? I don't see the difference.
- chance_state 6y ago
  I think you're playing semantics here. The collective, nationalistic culture of China isn't a fact in dispute. The fact that the West acts as a union of extremely disparate and unique nations in league is not even remotely comparable to China's united national front.
  - dntbnmpls 6y ago
    > I think you're playing semantics here. Where? > The collective, nationalistic culture of China isn't a fact in dispute. Really? If they are so collectivistic and nationalistic, how come there is two of them ( china and taiwan )? > The fact that the West acts as a union of extremely disparate and unique nations Extremely disparate and unique? It's pretty much a white western european club. If we are so different what is this borg-like idea of "western values"? There is nothing unique about "the West". Actually, "the West" is the antithesis of unique. We are borg-like in our insistence that everyone adopt "western values" - whatever nonsense that is. > in league is not even remotely comparable to China's united national front. I know. That's my point. The West is even a greater kind of collectivism. It's a higher form of collectivism which allows the West to rule "the Rest". At a national level, the collectivism is pretty much the same. What makes the West unique is that have a higher form of collectivism. It's why "the West", not an individual country is attacking china. It's also why there is no "the East" backing/helping china. The silliness about western individuality and eastern collectivism is a decades old trope not born out in reality - at an individual, national or supranational level.

JadeNB 6y ago

It's pretty clear which of those better achieves the goals of the nation, but the question is who sets the goals of the nation. The individualistic Western way makes incremental progress on a lot of goals, some of which will be good and some of which will be bad. The totalitarian way makes enormous progress on a single goal (or small packet of goals), which is amazing to the extent that they're good and devastating to the extent that they're bad. (Unfortunately, both ways lead to the concentration of power in a few hands—either the hands of those with the most wealth to advance their individual agenda, or the hands of those with the power to make their individual agenda the collective agenda.)

pnw_hazor 6y ago

Its only about 45 years since the Cultural Revolution (1966-1976). Before that it was the Communist Revolution (1946-1949). Before that there were other cultural and political upheavals where the victors re-wrote history and changed the culture of China. So at least to me it is not clear what Chinese culture will look like in 50 years let alone a 100.

chance_state 6y ago
That's an interesting point. I don't know enough about Chinese history to know how to evaluate the present. Is it realistic thought that a similar revolution could even happen in 21st century China? It seems like they have all the apparatus in place to prevent that (mass surveillance, information controls, no freedom to protest/demand, a strong and stable military, etc).
tsimionescu 6y ago
I think predicting any kind of social behavior 50 years in advance is well beyond any scientific method at the moment. Before those two revolutions that you mention, and even in spite of them in some areas, China has also had remarkable stability for hundreds if not thousands of years. Are these revolutions just blips? Are they a new pattern? And for that matter, are the Maoist and current regime that different for the common people of China from the Imperial regime before them? Or are these revolutions more just changes in window-dressing and in the upper echelons, like the Mongol conquest before them?
- pnw_hazor 6y ago
  Certainly some common threads seem to remain from ancient China, perhaps the same could be said for many places. I don't how many threads it takes to suggest that a culture has been sustained over time. Though I think I was thinking more in terms of political culture in terms of the long term durability of the authoritarian CCP vs. the liberal West.

dntbnmpls 6y ago

> In the West everything is for the self. We're happy to tear each other apart for the chance at getting some individual gains. If that were the case, we wouldn't have the concept of "the West". The West is a collectivist idea. As a matter of fact, "the West" is even more of a collectivist idea than china since china is a nation but "the West" is a collection of nations centered around race/culture. For china to be "collectivistic" on our level, they'd have to build up an idea of "the East" or "East Asia" Or "Asia" to counter "the West". They, being too shortsighted or individualistic, haven't created such an idea/institution. The "individualistic" west and "collectivist" east is nonsense. People are people and it's the same all around. Was the US, british empire or nazi germany any less collectivistic than china today? Is white supremacy or german nationalism any less collectivistic than chinese nationalism or japanese nationalism? I don't see the difference.

chance_state 6y ago
I think you're playing semantics here. The collective, nationalistic culture of China isn't a fact in dispute. The fact that the West acts as a union of extremely disparate and unique nations in league is not even remotely comparable to China's united national front.
- dntbnmpls 6y ago
  > I think you're playing semantics here. Where? > The collective, nationalistic culture of China isn't a fact in dispute. Really? If they are so collectivistic and nationalistic, how come there is two of them ( china and taiwan )? > The fact that the West acts as a union of extremely disparate and unique nations Extremely disparate and unique? It's pretty much a white western european club. If we are so different what is this borg-like idea of "western values"? There is nothing unique about "the West". Actually, "the West" is the antithesis of unique. We are borg-like in our insistence that everyone adopt "western values" - whatever nonsense that is. > in league is not even remotely comparable to China's united national front. I know. That's my point. The West is even a greater kind of collectivism. It's a higher form of collectivism which allows the West to rule "the Rest". At a national level, the collectivism is pretty much the same. What makes the West unique is that have a higher form of collectivism. It's why "the West", not an individual country is attacking china. It's also why there is no "the East" backing/helping china. The silliness about western individuality and eastern collectivism is a decades old trope not born out in reality - at an individual, national or supranational level.