5 ms·

You admit that the Western evaluation of China was wrong, but then persist in describing their system as “capitalism under authoritarianism”. The Chinese call i

by xtian 5y ago

You admit that the Western evaluation of China was wrong, but then persist in describing their system as “capitalism under authoritarianism”. The Chinese call it the early stage of socialism. It might be worth listening at this point. As you say, their rise is undeniable, and I think there’s a lot we can learn from them in the West.

InvertedRhodium 5y ago
Blink twice if you/your family is being held hostage.
- xtian 5y ago
  Pardon me for sitting here in the middle of the US and having the intellectual curiosity to wonder why the US’ middle class is shrinking while China’s middle class is growing. Must be because I’m brainwashed or coerced.
  - morpheos137 5y ago
    Main difference seems to be that China has a nationalist government...i.e. it pursues an economic policy that benefits a broad range of its population while the USA has a plutocratic government...i.e. it pursues an economic policy that mainly benefits the transnational business elite. USA is pro-gobalist. China is pro-China. Wonder how things would be different if USA was pro-USA. Much is made of the supposed lower labour costs in China. Initially that may have been the fuel that enabled off shoring to launch. I don't think it is what sustains it in the present time. What sustains it is the network effects industries that China dominates. I.e. electronic assembly in the Shenzhen area is maintained by the vast ecosystem suppliers and manufacturers there not just low labour costs. That ecosystem does not exist in say, SV because in recent years investment has not been made in such things as hardware assembly. Investment improves capital, capital enables productive and comparative advantage that reduces the relative importance of "dumb" low wages.
bserge 5y ago
Judging by history, it's the permanent stage of socialism, and that's the problem.
- mola 5y ago
  History is a bit longer than 50~ years. And, at least internally, European social democratic system is rather good at balancing both for well being, and freedom. While the US system less so. I don't think the problem is "socialism"
  - bserge 5y ago
    Me neither. The problem is the all powerful government that doesn't answer to the general population. It's great when they're doing what's best for the majority. But inevitably they start doing things for the powerful minority (themselves) at the expense of the rest. In a democratic system (which can, in fact, have heavy socialist elements) there are ways to legally and peacefully change the government. The public officials are servants of the people (well, ideally). In the Soviet/Chinese/other "communist" style system, they take all the power with the promise of bringing true communism/socialism later, and they keep that power and never fulfill the promise. Public officials are strong "leaders" (read "rulers") of the people. It's not that different from monarchy or feudalism, actually.
    - xtian 5y ago
      > In the Soviet/Chinese/other "communist" style system, they take all the power with the promise of bringing true communism/socialism later, and they keep that power and never fulfill the promise. Of course US leaders are famous worldwide for keeping their promises. Are you able to describe Soviet democracy or any of the democratic systems that exist within China today? Generally people who say these kinds of things are not.
      - bserge 5y ago
        They do keep promises, otherwise they never get voted for again. I am able to describe the systems that exist, but I am not willing. If the majority of the Chinese like their system, good for them. And if the majority in the US or EU honestly decide they want it, too, I can live with that. People lived and thrived in the USSR, after all. But I would prefer not to.
jlokier 5y ago
According to the political compass view, socialism is authoritarian. Not the only kind of authoritarian, but one of them. https://www.politicalcompass.org/authLeftBooks https://www.politicalcompass.org/authLeftBooks
- xtian 5y ago
  Do you know of any historians or academics who base their analysis of politics and economics on the political compass?

by xtian 5y ago

InvertedRhodium 5y ago

Blink twice if you/your family is being held hostage.

xtian 5y ago
Pardon me for sitting here in the middle of the US and having the intellectual curiosity to wonder why the US’ middle class is shrinking while China’s middle class is growing. Must be because I’m brainwashed or coerced.
- morpheos137 5y ago
  Main difference seems to be that China has a nationalist government...i.e. it pursues an economic policy that benefits a broad range of its population while the USA has a plutocratic government...i.e. it pursues an economic policy that mainly benefits the transnational business elite. USA is pro-gobalist. China is pro-China. Wonder how things would be different if USA was pro-USA. Much is made of the supposed lower labour costs in China. Initially that may have been the fuel that enabled off shoring to launch. I don't think it is what sustains it in the present time. What sustains it is the network effects industries that China dominates. I.e. electronic assembly in the Shenzhen area is maintained by the vast ecosystem suppliers and manufacturers there not just low labour costs. That ecosystem does not exist in say, SV because in recent years investment has not been made in such things as hardware assembly. Investment improves capital, capital enables productive and comparative advantage that reduces the relative importance of "dumb" low wages.

bserge 5y ago

Judging by history, it's the permanent stage of socialism, and that's the problem.

mola 5y ago
History is a bit longer than 50~ years. And, at least internally, European social democratic system is rather good at balancing both for well being, and freedom. While the US system less so. I don't think the problem is "socialism"
- bserge 5y ago
  Me neither. The problem is the all powerful government that doesn't answer to the general population. It's great when they're doing what's best for the majority. But inevitably they start doing things for the powerful minority (themselves) at the expense of the rest. In a democratic system (which can, in fact, have heavy socialist elements) there are ways to legally and peacefully change the government. The public officials are servants of the people (well, ideally). In the Soviet/Chinese/other "communist" style system, they take all the power with the promise of bringing true communism/socialism later, and they keep that power and never fulfill the promise. Public officials are strong "leaders" (read "rulers") of the people. It's not that different from monarchy or feudalism, actually.
  - xtian 5y ago
    > In the Soviet/Chinese/other "communist" style system, they take all the power with the promise of bringing true communism/socialism later, and they keep that power and never fulfill the promise. Of course US leaders are famous worldwide for keeping their promises. Are you able to describe Soviet democracy or any of the democratic systems that exist within China today? Generally people who say these kinds of things are not.
    - bserge 5y ago
      They do keep promises, otherwise they never get voted for again. I am able to describe the systems that exist, but I am not willing. If the majority of the Chinese like their system, good for them. And if the majority in the US or EU honestly decide they want it, too, I can live with that. People lived and thrived in the USSR, after all. But I would prefer not to.

jlokier 5y ago

According to the political compass view, socialism is authoritarian. Not the only kind of authoritarian, but one of them. https://www.politicalcompass.org/authLeftBooks https://www.politicalcompass.org/authLeftBooks

xtian 5y ago
Do you know of any historians or academics who base their analysis of politics and economics on the political compass?