4 ms·

The China thing people always bring up, but it's notable that the complete expropriation of private property and radical communist central planning preceded the

The China thing people always bring up, but it's notable that the complete expropriation of private property and radical communist central planning preceded the massive periods of famine in China from 1950-1970, and only after free market reforms, creation of the special economic zones and integration into the world market did China see massive growth in general welfare. Notably, Japan, South Korea, Hong Kong and Taiwan had much faster improvements in GDP per capita and general welfare compared to mainland China, and today enjoy a higher standard of living, despite starting from a similar point in the 1950s. Still, I agree with you, social programs are necessary, and China's top-down programs have perhaps given it distinct advantages it otherwise would not have now, but fundamentally free market capitalism as a foundation has routinely been the biggest driver of wealth over the 20th century. My examples (the "Asian tigers") do have strong social welfare programs, workers rights, etc, but they all fundamentally are capitalist countries whose wealth came largely from the benefits of commerce, free market incentives for technological innovation, and free enterprise.

grafmax 1y ago
I guess my concern is about the living standards of workers not creation of wealth. I think your argument is that growing wealth helps the working class as it creates more wealth, and thus a bigger pie. My argument is that a bigger pie does not benefit the working class without external forces pressuring the capitalist class. I agree markets can be beneficial in some ways but they also have pathological behaviors left on their own. In capitalist countries the capitalist class more or less runs the government, even in so-called democracies. This is because wealth and thus power sits with the capitalist class. In our society market effects over time have produced a wealth disparity so great that the capitalist class is pushing austerity measures that will likely succeed in further enriching itself at the expense of the working class - lowering living standards while increasing profits. In the meantime existential risks to the human race like climate change or nuclear war are not only neglected but actively stoked. I also would caution against the use of the term “free” market; China directs its markets; even the “Asian tigers” story was the outcome of state policies deliberately building a manufacturing base including measures such as education and land reform - admittedly a much freer hand given was given to markets compared to China; yet in neither case would I characterize these gains as the result of markets operating truly independently or freely; in both cases market effects were guided and channeled toward specific desired outcomes.

grafmax 1y ago

I guess my concern is about the living standards of workers not creation of wealth. I think your argument is that growing wealth helps the working class as it creates more wealth, and thus a bigger pie. My argument is that a bigger pie does not benefit the working class without external forces pressuring the capitalist class. I agree markets can be beneficial in some ways but they also have pathological behaviors left on their own. In capitalist countries the capitalist class more or less runs the government, even in so-called democracies. This is because wealth and thus power sits with the capitalist class. In our society market effects over time have produced a wealth disparity so great that the capitalist class is pushing austerity measures that will likely succeed in further enriching itself at the expense of the working class - lowering living standards while increasing profits. In the meantime existential risks to the human race like climate change or nuclear war are not only neglected but actively stoked. I also would caution against the use of the term “free” market; China directs its markets; even the “Asian tigers” story was the outcome of state policies deliberately building a manufacturing base including measures such as education and land reform - admittedly a much freer hand given was given to markets compared to China; yet in neither case would I characterize these gains as the result of markets operating truly independently or freely; in both cases market effects were guided and channeled toward specific desired outcomes.