4 ms·

I guess no society can keep itself developing beyond a certain point without becoming a democracy. The point is simple: when the vast majority of population sta

I guess no society can keep itself developing beyond a certain point without becoming a democracy. The point is simple: when the vast majority of population starts taking for granted that they will never face starvation (meaning: they never experienced real long-term hunger in their lifetime). For Soviet Union, it came in the late 1970s - with median age about 30 years back then, and last major famine with mass casualties in 1946, most people never knew the fear of hunger. They naturally moved up the Maslow ladder, demanding human rights and freedom, and while it took another 10 to 15 years to happen, it was inevitable. For China, that moment is probably still in the future, as far as i understand, mass hunger was still a norm in 1980s, so most people remember it, and they rather obey the oppressive government.

tuananh 14y ago
in my language we have a similar quote saying like when hunger isn't an issue to worry about, there will be other demands, needs.
- anovikov 14y ago
  Apart for this 'push' for democracy, there is also a 'pull': industrial society has its limits (no industrial country is rich now, Germany is closest, but it's already more of post-industrial these days), and post-industrial societies are less about discipline (for which dictatorship is good), more about flexibility, self-expression and creativity. How can an information society exist with no freedom of speech? It is an oxymoron. And China rulers cannot afford their development to get stuck: people want to move to cities, so forcibly stopping urbanization risks rural revolt (of which China has a long and bloody history, so they will take that threat seriously), and maintaining the rate of urbanization requires quick economic growth, and at some point, they will have to make concessions in the human rights field to maintain it. Opening up information, on the other hands, quickly wipes dictatorships: there is no way it can exist with everyone speaking openly, Soviet Glasnost quickly led to collapse, for example.

tuananh 14y ago

in my language we have a similar quote saying like when hunger isn't an issue to worry about, there will be other demands, needs.

anovikov 14y ago
Apart for this 'push' for democracy, there is also a 'pull': industrial society has its limits (no industrial country is rich now, Germany is closest, but it's already more of post-industrial these days), and post-industrial societies are less about discipline (for which dictatorship is good), more about flexibility, self-expression and creativity. How can an information society exist with no freedom of speech? It is an oxymoron. And China rulers cannot afford their development to get stuck: people want to move to cities, so forcibly stopping urbanization risks rural revolt (of which China has a long and bloody history, so they will take that threat seriously), and maintaining the rate of urbanization requires quick economic growth, and at some point, they will have to make concessions in the human rights field to maintain it. Opening up information, on the other hands, quickly wipes dictatorships: there is no way it can exist with everyone speaking openly, Soviet Glasnost quickly led to collapse, for example.