4 ms·

At the time, the belief among most policy people was that China’s economic growth would lead to democracy. Obviously, that didn’t happen, but I don’t think it’s

by meany 4y ago

At the time, the belief among most policy people was that China’s economic growth would lead to democracy. Obviously, that didn’t happen, but I don’t think it’s accurate to suggest they traded against the worlds interest for profit. In the early 90s after the fall of the communist bloc, it seemed to many that global liberal democracy was inevitable.

ImHereToVote 4y ago
Perhaps if current oligopolies like the United States were to turn into democracies. That would have led the way.
- mikrotikker 4y ago
  We can dream but I fear its getting worse. IMO organizations like the WEF are spreading neo feudalism via globalism, empowering the corporations at the expense of the everyday individual and the environment.
wkat4242 4y ago
I did also think that, but I don't think many people had expected China to become more authoritarian as it has. Though democracy isn't a guarantee that politics can't be hijacked by oligarch interests. Hungary and (until 5 days ago) Brazil are some typical examples.
adventured 4y ago
> At the time, the belief among most policy people was that China’s economic growth would lead to democracy. Obviously, that didn’t happen A late point to this discussion. Democracy is the wrong bar. Increased liberalism is the measurement, and the vast economic expansion was made possible by the same exact (slowly expanding) liberalism that was going on in China in the post Mao era. China was legitimately on a liberalization path, quite clearly, prior to Xi. People very commonly get all of this confused. The thing - the cultural decisions - that made the economic opening possible, is the liberalization (letting people be more free in numerous ways, simply put). It wasn't the economic expansion that might lead to democracy, it was the same thing that was causing the economic expansion, that made that vast expansion possible. That expansion would not have been nearly so powerful if Xi had had the same control, he would have (by necessity of his survival) smothered much of it just as he's doing now. And now Xi can't turn back, they (the remaining old power in the system) will kill him at this point. Xi would be executed for "corruption." So he'll have to keep going forward in terms of more rigid authoritarianism to protect himself, and it's obvious what that's going to cause.

by meany 4y ago

ImHereToVote 4y ago

Perhaps if current oligopolies like the United States were to turn into democracies. That would have led the way.

mikrotikker 4y ago
We can dream but I fear its getting worse. IMO organizations like the WEF are spreading neo feudalism via globalism, empowering the corporations at the expense of the everyday individual and the environment.

wkat4242 4y ago

I did also think that, but I don't think many people had expected China to become more authoritarian as it has. Though democracy isn't a guarantee that politics can't be hijacked by oligarch interests. Hungary and (until 5 days ago) Brazil are some typical examples.

adventured 4y ago

> At the time, the belief among most policy people was that China’s economic growth would lead to democracy. Obviously, that didn’t happen A late point to this discussion. Democracy is the wrong bar. Increased liberalism is the measurement, and the vast economic expansion was made possible by the same exact (slowly expanding) liberalism that was going on in China in the post Mao era. China was legitimately on a liberalization path, quite clearly, prior to Xi. People very commonly get all of this confused. The thing - the cultural decisions - that made the economic opening possible, is the liberalization (letting people be more free in numerous ways, simply put). It wasn't the economic expansion that might lead to democracy, it was the same thing that was causing the economic expansion, that made that vast expansion possible. That expansion would not have been nearly so powerful if Xi had had the same control, he would have (by necessity of his survival) smothered much of it just as he's doing now. And now Xi can't turn back, they (the remaining old power in the system) will kill him at this point. Xi would be executed for "corruption." So he'll have to keep going forward in terms of more rigid authoritarianism to protect himself, and it's obvious what that's going to cause.