3 ms·

If you built your success on theft when and how do you migrate to a non-theft approach? How do you overcome cultural inertia? How do you deal with falling behin

If you built your success on theft when and how do you migrate to a non-theft approach? How do you overcome cultural inertia? How do you deal with falling behind in the years (decades?) it'll take to build the universities, industry, salaries, regulations, free market concessions, fair labor rights, etc to support real domestic innovation and a workforce incentivized to not steal? Theft is the only way they can remain competitive and I don't believe they have or want an exit plan. The Chinese don't care about legitimacy. No autocratic one-party state does.

Kalium 11y ago
China's approach has been to steal, but also send out massive numbers of students and bring them back. They've invested heavily in educational infrastructure. But don't assume that that means moving towards a society that believes in things like fair labor rights. The Communist party isn't much on giving up power.
- drzaiusapelord 11y ago
  What do they bring back? A mentality of theft and copying. Unless they can pivot their values to ownership, creativity, rewarding chance taking, free speech, etc then it won't work for them. This is like all those failed attempts to make a silicon valley in other countries. They overlook the values argument because its politically difficult for them to address it. Autocracies have historically been failures in this regard. Even the entire USSR in its heyday couldn't compete with Intel in the 70s and had to steal technology. Looks like the Chinese are doing the same today with these filter chips.
  - Kalium 11y ago
    What they bring back is knowledge and expertise. China is pursuing a strategy with two forks. Theft to catch up, and education to secure a future. It's unwise to treat so large a country as only capable of doing one thing at a time. Similarly, it's unwise to assume that only western values can produce useful innovative outcomes. Cuba is nobody's idea of a free society, but they've done a huge amount of groundbreaking medical research and development.
konsptheory 11y ago
No autocratic one-party state does. What makes you think that a two party system is drastically better? The illusion of choice is way more dangerous and treacherous than blunt and in your face authoritarianism and despotism.
- Retric 11y ago
  Primaries are generally far more meaningful in a two party system than a one party system. So people often get meaningful choice in a two party system. Also of note, in some multi party systems like Britton a minority party’s can end up with vastly outstated control. EX: The largest party got < 37% of the vote but they are a clear majority right now. One party got 3.8% of the vote and got 1 seat another got 4.7% of the vote and 56 seats. http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/05/britain-s-election-2015-seats-votes-calculator http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/05/britain... PS: You really can't design a voting system without clear downsides, but zero voting is clearly worse.
- drzaiusapelord 11y ago
  Its not the number of parties, its the freedom and autonomy to challenge the incumbent party. A two party state is as free as a 10 party state. Euro-style multi-party governments fall into 2 major parties with smaller, often extremist (racists, etc), smaller parties anyway. Because the two parties need to court these smaller parties for votes, minority views like racism, get majority exposure and unequivocal representation. A one-party state isn't free at all. Its just old fashioned autocracy. A shade less than a total dictator.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > Its not the number of parties, its the freedom and autonomy to challenge the incumbent party. Without effective choice, which arguably is substantially lacking when the structural features that preserve duopoly is in place, there may be theoretical freedom to challenge the incumbent party, but there isn't necessarily real practical choice. This is evident when there are numerous policies that remain in place despite large majorities opposed (or which are not adopted despite large majorities in favor), which are frequently seen in the US system. Duopoly results from structural features which obstruct effective democratic accountability, and which therefore produce a government which is not effectively accountable to the nominal electorate. > A two party state is as free as a 10 party state. No, its not, which is why "democracies" which few effective competitive parties also have measurably poorer satisfaction with their governments than those with more effective competitive parties: a state with only two viable parties is, while likely freer than one-party state, one with a government less accountable to the people -- and therefore one which is less ruled by and more ruling over the people -- than is the case in one which supports a multiplicity of competitive parties.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

Kalium 11y ago

China's approach has been to steal, but also send out massive numbers of students and bring them back. They've invested heavily in educational infrastructure. But don't assume that that means moving towards a society that believes in things like fair labor rights. The Communist party isn't much on giving up power.

drzaiusapelord 11y ago
What do they bring back? A mentality of theft and copying. Unless they can pivot their values to ownership, creativity, rewarding chance taking, free speech, etc then it won't work for them. This is like all those failed attempts to make a silicon valley in other countries. They overlook the values argument because its politically difficult for them to address it. Autocracies have historically been failures in this regard. Even the entire USSR in its heyday couldn't compete with Intel in the 70s and had to steal technology. Looks like the Chinese are doing the same today with these filter chips.
- Kalium 11y ago
  What they bring back is knowledge and expertise. China is pursuing a strategy with two forks. Theft to catch up, and education to secure a future. It's unwise to treat so large a country as only capable of doing one thing at a time. Similarly, it's unwise to assume that only western values can produce useful innovative outcomes. Cuba is nobody's idea of a free society, but they've done a huge amount of groundbreaking medical research and development.

konsptheory 11y ago

No autocratic one-party state does. What makes you think that a two party system is drastically better? The illusion of choice is way more dangerous and treacherous than blunt and in your face authoritarianism and despotism.

Retric 11y ago
Primaries are generally far more meaningful in a two party system than a one party system. So people often get meaningful choice in a two party system. Also of note, in some multi party systems like Britton a minority party’s can end up with vastly outstated control. EX: The largest party got < 37% of the vote but they are a clear majority right now. One party got 3.8% of the vote and got 1 seat another got 4.7% of the vote and 56 seats. http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/05/britain-s-election-2015-seats-votes-calculator http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2015/05/britain... PS: You really can't design a voting system without clear downsides, but zero voting is clearly worse.
drzaiusapelord 11y ago
Its not the number of parties, its the freedom and autonomy to challenge the incumbent party. A two party state is as free as a 10 party state. Euro-style multi-party governments fall into 2 major parties with smaller, often extremist (racists, etc), smaller parties anyway. Because the two parties need to court these smaller parties for votes, minority views like racism, get majority exposure and unequivocal representation. A one-party state isn't free at all. Its just old fashioned autocracy. A shade less than a total dictator.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Its not the number of parties, its the freedom and autonomy to challenge the incumbent party. Without effective choice, which arguably is substantially lacking when the structural features that preserve duopoly is in place, there may be theoretical freedom to challenge the incumbent party, but there isn't necessarily real practical choice. This is evident when there are numerous policies that remain in place despite large majorities opposed (or which are not adopted despite large majorities in favor), which are frequently seen in the US system. Duopoly results from structural features which obstruct effective democratic accountability, and which therefore produce a government which is not effectively accountable to the nominal electorate. > A two party state is as free as a 10 party state. No, its not, which is why "democracies" which few effective competitive parties also have measurably poorer satisfaction with their governments than those with more effective competitive parties: a state with only two viable parties is, while likely freer than one-party state, one with a government less accountable to the people -- and therefore one which is less ruled by and more ruling over the people -- than is the case in one which supports a multiplicity of competitive parties.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]