3 ms·

Actually, for much of the 20th century most Chinese were suffering a lot more from poverty than from individual rights. Even if they were able to overthrow thei

Actually, for much of the 20th century most Chinese were suffering a lot more from poverty than from individual rights. Even if they were able to overthrow their feudal masters, and later the government functionaries, there still wasn't enough wealth to alleviate their suffering (for example food shortages, violence, dangerous and damaging working conditions, no health care...). Today in China this suffering is reduced more and more, despite a growing population. That in itself is a good thing. However, the Chinese don't have the amount of freedom we are enjoying. But how do you compare non-freedom versus material suffering? I believe that eventually China will have to establish these freedoms to keep improving their economy. And we are already seeing signs of the limitations: Innovation in China is hard to come by, and corruption on any level is uncontrollable with citizens afraid to speak up.

vidarh 12y ago
Whether or not you believe that the current Chinese leadership cares at all about marxism, one of Marx' key predictions regarding socialism was that a socialist revolution can only be successful in a society that has a sufficiently well developed capitalism to allow redistribution to satisfy the basic wants of the entire population. Otherwise, claimed Marx, the class struggle would just reassert itself. This was a big problem for revolutionaries of the 19th and 20th centuries that were eager to overthrow various regimes in relatively undeveloped countries, yet who looked to socialist ideas for inspiration: They wanted to agitate for socialism. Marx explicitly had said they'd fail. Lenin attempted to solve that after the Russian civil war by instituting NEP - New Economic Policy: semi-free markets, private ownership on the small scale, coupled with tight regulation. The intent was to shepherd the country through capitalist development as quickly as possible, and bring about the advanced capitalist stage that Marx had claimed would be necessary for a successful socialist revolution, without giving up the political control, and while trying to counter the worst excesses. Lenin hinted he believed the SSSR would need NEP for decades before it would be ready for an actually socialist system, but Stalin undid most of the reforms shortly after he took charge. The stratification that the Bolsheviks oversaw, coupled with the ultimate failure of the Soviet system was a fairly solid demonstration of what Marx had warned about. While Mao seemed to believe China could take another path, and leapfrog all of the capitalist development entirely, China has gradually taken a similar approach to that of Lenin ever since Deng Xiaoping gained the upper hand: Loosen the economic reigns slowly, but try to retain the political control, with the ultimate goal at least on paper still ultimately being to develop society enough to make socialism possible. As long as they manage to keep the material growth, this creates a way of pacifying the population fairly effectively whether or not they actually have any intent of ever softening up their political control: There's an "end game" that is appealing, and as long as it seems like things are going in the right way, and people generally feel their lives keep getting better, there's little reason for most people to want to rock the boat. The danger with that, of course, is that the moment they fail to keep up the forward momentum in material wealth, people will increasingly start to question their policies, and want a greater say, and start caring about all kinds of other problems, and then their options becomes to yield, and lose control, or apply more and more violence to keep on top.
logicchains 12y ago
>However, the Chinese don't have the amount of freedom we are enjoying. But how do you compare non-freedom versus material suffering? I think this is a false dilemma. Taiwan, Singapore and Hong Kong all managed to develop into wealthy nations (PPP GDPs per capita of around 35k, 60k and 40k respectively compared to 12k in the mainland), in spite of having far greater degrees of freedom than Mainland China. >most Chinese were suffering a lot more from poverty than from individual rights The poverty was to a degree due to the lack of individual rights. In Maoist China, you literally didn't even have the right to the grain you farmed in your field; you had to give it to the Party and then wait in line for whatever they decided you deserved. There was no opportunity to save up and improve your lot; starting a business, privately buying and selling things, was literally grounds for execution.
- vidarh 12y ago
  Taiwan was a one-party dictatorship until the mid 90's. Singapore is generally not considered a functioning democracy, given that the country's politics is totally controlled by the People's Action Party and there are severe restrictions on things like rights of assembly. Hong Kong also had very limited democratic control until the 80's (being a British Crown Dependency until then) and was in an extremely special situation by acting as a place that received a massive inflow of people and capital fleeing from the PRC when CPC took control, and that was able to capitalise massively on trade with the rapidly growing Shenzhen. It is in any case moot, as the point is not that it isn't possible, but that if faced with the choice - whether or not the choice is a false dilemma or a total fabrication - it is not at all clear, nor even likely, that people will pick freedom over material wealth. It is not an excuse for dictatorship, but an explanation for peoples willingness to put up for them in certain situations. > The poverty was to a degree due to the lack of individual rights. In Maoist China, you literally didn't even have the right to the grain you farmed in your field; you had to give it to the Party and then wait in line for whatever they decided you deserved. There was no opportunity to save up and improve your lot; starting a business, privately buying and selling things, was literally grounds for execution. The poverty didn't start when Mao gained control. This was a response to widespread poverty previously. One can certainly make the argument that they could have developed faster with a different system. But that is not the point that was being made. The point being made was that when your population is poor - to the point of starvation - their priority is material improvements, not freedom of speech - and this largely explains why a dictatorial government that manages to feed their population and produce growth gets so little opposition. It's not that there might not be better alternatives, but that if most people feel they're doing better than last year, they will not rebel. It's worth noting that the effect of steady improvement on people's overall happiness is quantifiable, and there are theories that claim that major societal upheaval in general can be tied back not to high degrees of poverty or oppression, but to "backsliding". That is, people will for the most part put up with bad situations, but not put up with things getting steadily worse for long periods. Conversely, societies are at their most stable not when they are wealthiest, but when they see slow, steady growth. (Jonathan Haidt's "The Happiness Hypothesis" covers this in more detail and with some references to related research)

vidarh 12y ago

Whether or not you believe that the current Chinese leadership cares at all about marxism, one of Marx' key predictions regarding socialism was that a socialist revolution can only be successful in a society that has a sufficiently well developed capitalism to allow redistribution to satisfy the basic wants of the entire population. Otherwise, claimed Marx, the class struggle would just reassert itself. This was a big problem for revolutionaries of the 19th and 20th centuries that were eager to overthrow various regimes in relatively undeveloped countries, yet who looked to socialist ideas for inspiration: They wanted to agitate for socialism. Marx explicitly had said they'd fail. Lenin attempted to solve that after the Russian civil war by instituting NEP - New Economic Policy: semi-free markets, private ownership on the small scale, coupled with tight regulation. The intent was to shepherd the country through capitalist development as quickly as possible, and bring about the advanced capitalist stage that Marx had claimed would be necessary for a successful socialist revolution, without giving up the political control, and while trying to counter the worst excesses. Lenin hinted he believed the SSSR would need NEP for decades before it would be ready for an actually socialist system, but Stalin undid most of the reforms shortly after he took charge. The stratification that the Bolsheviks oversaw, coupled with the ultimate failure of the Soviet system was a fairly solid demonstration of what Marx had warned about. While Mao seemed to believe China could take another path, and leapfrog all of the capitalist development entirely, China has gradually taken a similar approach to that of Lenin ever since Deng Xiaoping gained the upper hand: Loosen the economic reigns slowly, but try to retain the political control, with the ultimate goal at least on paper still ultimately being to develop society enough to make socialism possible. As long as they manage to keep the material growth, this creates a way of pacifying the population fairly effectively whether or not they actually have any intent of ever softening up their political control: There's an "end game" that is appealing, and as long as it seems like things are going in the right way, and people generally feel their lives keep getting better, there's little reason for most people to want to rock the boat. The danger with that, of course, is that the moment they fail to keep up the forward momentum in material wealth, people will increasingly start to question their policies, and want a greater say, and start caring about all kinds of other problems, and then their options becomes to yield, and lose control, or apply more and more violence to keep on top.

logicchains 12y ago

>However, the Chinese don't have the amount of freedom we are enjoying. But how do you compare non-freedom versus material suffering? I think this is a false dilemma. Taiwan, Singapore and Hong Kong all managed to develop into wealthy nations (PPP GDPs per capita of around 35k, 60k and 40k respectively compared to 12k in the mainland), in spite of having far greater degrees of freedom than Mainland China. >most Chinese were suffering a lot more from poverty than from individual rights The poverty was to a degree due to the lack of individual rights. In Maoist China, you literally didn't even have the right to the grain you farmed in your field; you had to give it to the Party and then wait in line for whatever they decided you deserved. There was no opportunity to save up and improve your lot; starting a business, privately buying and selling things, was literally grounds for execution.

vidarh 12y ago
Taiwan was a one-party dictatorship until the mid 90's. Singapore is generally not considered a functioning democracy, given that the country's politics is totally controlled by the People's Action Party and there are severe restrictions on things like rights of assembly. Hong Kong also had very limited democratic control until the 80's (being a British Crown Dependency until then) and was in an extremely special situation by acting as a place that received a massive inflow of people and capital fleeing from the PRC when CPC took control, and that was able to capitalise massively on trade with the rapidly growing Shenzhen. It is in any case moot, as the point is not that it isn't possible, but that if faced with the choice - whether or not the choice is a false dilemma or a total fabrication - it is not at all clear, nor even likely, that people will pick freedom over material wealth. It is not an excuse for dictatorship, but an explanation for peoples willingness to put up for them in certain situations. > The poverty was to a degree due to the lack of individual rights. In Maoist China, you literally didn't even have the right to the grain you farmed in your field; you had to give it to the Party and then wait in line for whatever they decided you deserved. There was no opportunity to save up and improve your lot; starting a business, privately buying and selling things, was literally grounds for execution. The poverty didn't start when Mao gained control. This was a response to widespread poverty previously. One can certainly make the argument that they could have developed faster with a different system. But that is not the point that was being made. The point being made was that when your population is poor - to the point of starvation - their priority is material improvements, not freedom of speech - and this largely explains why a dictatorial government that manages to feed their population and produce growth gets so little opposition. It's not that there might not be better alternatives, but that if most people feel they're doing better than last year, they will not rebel. It's worth noting that the effect of steady improvement on people's overall happiness is quantifiable, and there are theories that claim that major societal upheaval in general can be tied back not to high degrees of poverty or oppression, but to "backsliding". That is, people will for the most part put up with bad situations, but not put up with things getting steadily worse for long periods. Conversely, societies are at their most stable not when they are wealthiest, but when they see slow, steady growth. (Jonathan Haidt's "The Happiness Hypothesis" covers this in more detail and with some references to related research)