4 ms·
> The more important part is technological innovation, and so far, I remain unconvinced that a closed totalitarian system will have as much innovation as an ope
by blueblisters 6y ago
> The more important part is technological innovation, and so far, I remain unconvinced that a closed totalitarian system will have as much innovation as an open one, in the long term.
It's better to characterize/qualify Chinese style of governance as a top-down meritocratic totalitarian government. Policymakers in China are theoretically able to make decisions that are optimal to achieve certain policy goals, say x% economic growth. In contrast, democracies set policy goals and make decisions through the messy process of achieving political consensus.
IMO, private innovation happens when a combination of factors align: free consumer choice, a large market under a common set of rules and stable political conditions. I don't think the Chinese style of governance prevents any of this.
Public innovation happens through well-funded universities and taxpayer-funded research grants. China pushes one step further at times by funding new technology/research directly through state owned/sponsored enterprises.
I think there are genuine fears within US policy circles that the stability afforded by economic growth under a meritocratic totalitarian government could give China an edge over countries like the US, which have to work with the overheads of a democracy. I believe observers in the future will agree that these fears were not unfounded.
- keiferski 6y agoI agree with most of what you’re saying. I would just add that much of the US’s power comes from cultural capital. New York, Hollywood, the widespread use of English, tech companies that rely on free speech (e.g. Twitter or YouTube), and so on. I’d argue that it is impossible to separate culture from technology. I don’t believe that China can ever get remotely close to this cultural influence if it retains an authoritarian system. The artistic ecosystem will never form.
- pishpash 6y agoThat's directly contradicted by the success of media exports from China lately, already in Asia but it's beginning to cross the language barrier into English Youtube, despite the firewall. In fact it shows it's money and competition that matter, and there is plenty of both in China.
- keiferski 6y agoLinks? Examples? Some obscure series on YouTube isn’t particularly relevant. My narrative will be “directly contradicted” when the Chinese equivalent of Brad Pitt, Disney, NBA, MLB, NFL, Warner Brothers, etc. are household names in America and the world.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- sbmthakur 6y agoMy country shares a border with China and we have negligible media imports from China. I can only think of Vietnam where a Chinese TV series got quite popular.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- owenmarshall 6y agoCultural capital feels like a classic lagging indicator. You pave the roads in your feudal states first then the culture spreads in.
- rorykoehler 6y agoChinese restricts thought which by definition will take a whole range of creative ideas off the table. They're limiting their tool set in ways that can't be overcome within their governance system.
- kortilla 6y agoThat’s not meritocratic in the normal sense of the word. Nobody is allowed to ignore CCP policy goals hoping to prove that they are flawed with data later. You’ll be in a re-education camp long before then. Now it may be true that you can quickly climb the ladder if you never challenge anything, but that’s a pretty narrow set of merit being recognized. It’s just barely an improvement over promoting family members. In both cases, no fundamental change can legitimately bubble up based on merit.
- chrischen 6y agoA system that does not respond well to criticism will inevitably fail on its own... in which case they don't need their apps to be banned for that to happen.
- kortilla 6y agoHistory has shown that countries can suppress dissidents for hundreds of years. This current rendition of the Chinese government could easily survive decades while suppressing criticism (which they obviously do).
- chrischen 6y agoSo you are justifying American imperialism in "helping countries along" by forcibly collapsing unfavorable regimes? If only the US motives were actually that altruistic, but in reality US intervention in foreign regimes were mostly to protect its interests rather than any actual ideals.