6 ms·

It's hard to reconcile the words in a textbook that says an authoritarian society is doomed to fail, then go home and watch rice paddies turn to skyscrapers in

It's hard to reconcile the words in a textbook that says an authoritarian society is doomed to fail, then go home and watch rice paddies turn to skyscrapers in a generation. In a competition between academia and the real world, the real world always wins out.

DangitBobby 6y ago
I don't remember reading that in any textbook. I'm not sure potential failure is the problem we've been taught to have with authoritarianism.
chadcmulligan 6y ago
Your comments are interesting (in this and other threads), as others have mentioned - authoritarian societies are good for those in authority - less so for the others. If the authoritarian society is so good, why is it necessary to disallow conversation? Surely if everyone was doing well, conversation would be encouraged - because everyone would be saying how well things are going. The assumption of any reasonable person is, that if conversation and dissent is not allowed then there must be a reason, otherwise what are they scared of?
- magicsmoke 6y ago
  The issue is that in China's case, authoritarianism has been good for both people in authority and the majority, as evidenced by increasing economic growth and standards of living. You could make a theoretical argument that if China was democratic, then everyone would be even better off. But people in China use India as a mirror since both countries had massive populations, were underdeveloped, and gained independence at roughly the same time. That's not a flattering comparison. As for suppression of free speech, the attitude in China is much more pessimistic about the ability of free speech among the public to produce good governing decisions. There is a difference between speech that can be used to gauge public opinion, and speech that seeks to spur the public into taking rash actions. Currently, governing decisions are made behind closed doors by a group of elites that carefully deliberate their choices after taking public opinion into account. Free speech that attempts to sidestep this process by not just allowing people to air their grievances, but tries to rally people into pressuring the government and seizing the decision-making levers directly are suppressed. At the end of the day, it is an authoritarian system to tries to keep the existing holders of power entrenched. But when the current philosopher kings are doing so well, only a minority of people on the margins of society really want to rock the boat. At the end of the day, every society limits free speech in some way. The US sets that limit at threatening physical harm on specific individuals. China sets that limit at upsetting the status quo without going through the proper channels.
  - WiseWeasel 6y ago
    With speech suppressed, and a population trained to avoid unflattering expression, how do you suppose the group of elites behind the closed doors of their ivory tower are able to collect public opinion in order to take it into account?
    - magicsmoke 6y ago
      There's a lot of variance between 0% and 100% suppression of speech.
  - MarkSweep 6y ago
    > Currently, governing decisions are made behind closed doors by a group of elites that carefully deliberate their choices after taking public opinion into account. How do you know how carefully choices are deliberated and how much public opinion is taken into account if decisions are being made behind closed doors?
    - magicsmoke 6y ago
      You don't. You just have faith that's being done, like you have faith that democracy will always produce the best outcome eventually. Which of those two assertions above makes you more uncomfortable reflects the education system you went to, the society you grew up in, the people you interact with, and your sense of identity. I'm reminded of how Greek city states all used to have their own deities, believed their deities would lead them to wealth and glory, and that war between cities would prove who had the more powerful divine protector. Swap out deities for government systems and the world doesn't seem to have changed all that much.
      - MarkSweep 6y ago
        All other things being equal, a government that limits freedom of speech, freedom of speech, and is secretive will compare favorable to a government that does not try to hide its problems. We don’t have enough information to compare the authoritarian system with the liberal democracy. In an uptrend comment you said: > when the current philosopher kings are doing so well, only a minority of people on the margins of society really want to rock the boat. There are interesting trade offs along of the spectrum of individualism and collectivism. It’s hard to talk about whether or not China has gotten that trade off right when information about the “margins of society” is suppressed.
- justicezyx 6y ago
  > Surely if everyone was doing well, conversation would be encouraged CCP encourage very open discussion on anything except political issues. While presumably one day that won't work, because absolute power brings absolute corruption. How long until that happens and backfires, it's not clear.
  - DrJaws 6y ago
    everything is political what are they going to encourage, talk about music?

DangitBobby 6y ago

I don't remember reading that in any textbook. I'm not sure potential failure is the problem we've been taught to have with authoritarianism.

chadcmulligan 6y ago

Your comments are interesting (in this and other threads), as others have mentioned - authoritarian societies are good for those in authority - less so for the others. If the authoritarian society is so good, why is it necessary to disallow conversation? Surely if everyone was doing well, conversation would be encouraged - because everyone would be saying how well things are going. The assumption of any reasonable person is, that if conversation and dissent is not allowed then there must be a reason, otherwise what are they scared of?

magicsmoke 6y ago
The issue is that in China's case, authoritarianism has been good for both people in authority and the majority, as evidenced by increasing economic growth and standards of living. You could make a theoretical argument that if China was democratic, then everyone would be even better off. But people in China use India as a mirror since both countries had massive populations, were underdeveloped, and gained independence at roughly the same time. That's not a flattering comparison. As for suppression of free speech, the attitude in China is much more pessimistic about the ability of free speech among the public to produce good governing decisions. There is a difference between speech that can be used to gauge public opinion, and speech that seeks to spur the public into taking rash actions. Currently, governing decisions are made behind closed doors by a group of elites that carefully deliberate their choices after taking public opinion into account. Free speech that attempts to sidestep this process by not just allowing people to air their grievances, but tries to rally people into pressuring the government and seizing the decision-making levers directly are suppressed. At the end of the day, it is an authoritarian system to tries to keep the existing holders of power entrenched. But when the current philosopher kings are doing so well, only a minority of people on the margins of society really want to rock the boat. At the end of the day, every society limits free speech in some way. The US sets that limit at threatening physical harm on specific individuals. China sets that limit at upsetting the status quo without going through the proper channels.
- WiseWeasel 6y ago
  With speech suppressed, and a population trained to avoid unflattering expression, how do you suppose the group of elites behind the closed doors of their ivory tower are able to collect public opinion in order to take it into account?
  - magicsmoke 6y ago
    There's a lot of variance between 0% and 100% suppression of speech.
- MarkSweep 6y ago
  > Currently, governing decisions are made behind closed doors by a group of elites that carefully deliberate their choices after taking public opinion into account. How do you know how carefully choices are deliberated and how much public opinion is taken into account if decisions are being made behind closed doors?
  - magicsmoke 6y ago
    You don't. You just have faith that's being done, like you have faith that democracy will always produce the best outcome eventually. Which of those two assertions above makes you more uncomfortable reflects the education system you went to, the society you grew up in, the people you interact with, and your sense of identity. I'm reminded of how Greek city states all used to have their own deities, believed their deities would lead them to wealth and glory, and that war between cities would prove who had the more powerful divine protector. Swap out deities for government systems and the world doesn't seem to have changed all that much.
    - MarkSweep 6y ago
      All other things being equal, a government that limits freedom of speech, freedom of speech, and is secretive will compare favorable to a government that does not try to hide its problems. We don’t have enough information to compare the authoritarian system with the liberal democracy. In an uptrend comment you said: > when the current philosopher kings are doing so well, only a minority of people on the margins of society really want to rock the boat. There are interesting trade offs along of the spectrum of individualism and collectivism. It’s hard to talk about whether or not China has gotten that trade off right when information about the “margins of society” is suppressed.
justicezyx 6y ago
> Surely if everyone was doing well, conversation would be encouraged CCP encourage very open discussion on anything except political issues. While presumably one day that won't work, because absolute power brings absolute corruption. How long until that happens and backfires, it's not clear.
- DrJaws 6y ago
  everything is political what are they going to encourage, talk about music?