I think 25 years ago, it seemed that choice existed. You could do liberal, capitalist democracy following the examples of Western Europe, Japan & the US. The other hand was a hodgepodge of failure, either state failure or economic failure. Most notably was the failed soviet bloc but also China, India & South America (right and left). All or nothing. Revolution or stagnation. Free your people or live in culturaly stagnant, poverty stricken destitute with .
The idea that political freedoms necessary for democracy are intertwined with the economic freedoms necessary for capitalism had a lot of traction. But, with the examples of the last generation (positive and negative) I think that is no longer conventional wisdom. China's been very successful at growing economically by hand selecting policies and freedoms they want and keeping other out. You could call it non-fundamentalist or you could call it unprincipled depending on your biases and judgements, but it's hard to ignore it.
China has been selectively liberalizing economically, socially and (to a lesser extent) politically. It doesn't see how you could argue that a sudden democratization in 1980 or 1990 would have gotten them further along.
The reality is that the choices are nowhere near black and white. There is such a thing as a soft authoritarian, single party, free market state. They are doing it.
Its nice to think that liberal democracy and prosperity are intertwined because I like democracy. But, I think democracy must be justified on its own merits. The conic advantages…. They're debatable.
That's why you get things like what the article discusses and why you get the great firewall. It's all about crowd control on a very large scale and it is driven by fear of what that crowd could do once it realizes there are no chains.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politburo_of_the_Communist_Par...
You could literally be describing any country on earth with that.
For instance, NL has a 10/5 split m/f and the average age of the ministers is 52.
Well, at the moment the economy is still growing and that makes a huge difference. Even in the west, people who feel that their lives are improving are much less interested in political reform.(+)
If the economy experiences a serious recession, then things could get much nastier.
(+) this does not apply to Tibet
What I can't figure out is why they think they need to retain power. Is it because they are scared of what will happen to them if they don't? Do they feel that China without Communism will be chaos? Or is it just institutional momentum?
Even the worst leadership can make the jump from farming to industry. This is more or less the story of communism in the 50s and 60s. Suddenly, a lot of farmers went from backbreaking work just being able to feed themselves to making products. This is an economic force multiplier. The problem is autocratic states can't get past this stage very well. Compare N Korea and S Korea's GDP per capita over the decades, past the 1970s, the South led and had to liberalize a lot to continue growth. Now they're seen as a economic miracle at $26,000 GDP per capita compared to the North's $1,800. In the 50s and 60s we all sat stunned at how well the North was beating the South! Now they're an international laughingstock.
>The idea that political freedoms necessary for democracy are intertwined with the economic freedoms necessary for capitalism had a lot of traction
When everyone gets sick of factory work and realizes they own no property, can't give their children a better life, can't open their own businesses, have to bribe everyone to get even the basic services, etc they will have problems the same way N Korea, Cuba, and the USSR did. They just haven't hit that wall yet. That wall is coming. There's no avoiding it. They will either liberalize to stay competitive or pull a Putin and say "This is good enough, right here" and fall deeper into isolation, autocracy, corruption, economic stagnation, and more mindless jingoism/island annexation.
Still, China's been doing better than India and a lot of other more liberal places.
I think the general point is inconclusive, but it's the specific point that matters. China over the last generation got a lot richer and there is no reason to think it would have done better economically if it was more liberal politically.
I think that even with the Stasi, corruption and the appeal of western culture to East Germans, the regime would still exist had it not failed economically. And, like I said at the start I think it's a stretch to tell China that they're in the same boat as N Korea, Cuba, and the USSR.
Well have to see how things play out, but it does not seem very promising. On the other hand, it'll be interesting to see which system can provide a better life for its population. It's not a given democratic capitalism is the only or best solution. Perhaps a different mix will win out.
Those bottom 500 million have seen zero improvement in 50 years inflation adjusted. They're also mostly peasant farmers, and it's illegal for them to own farm land - they're land slaves accordingly. They have no prospects, and have seen no real benefit from the labor utilization system, it has completely failed them.
The only meaningful thing China's system accomplished, was absorbing some of the vast, slack labor capacity for manufacturing. That would have happened by default minus the economic controls they previously had in place. China didn't have to do anything but take their boot off the throat of manufacturing. And now the manufacturing party is over, so they've turned to extreme debt acquisition and forced asset bubbles to fake growth.
There may not have been a greater economic myth than the story of China's rise, in the last century.
Firstly, dollar figures are useless in China as the USD/CNY exchange rate has varied significantly, the domestic economy is very dynamic (high inflation) and has surprisingly little to do with the international economy. The quoted figures, probably dodgy in the first place, are likely 15 years old.
Rapid evidence: I live in a 85% agricultural zone (5% concrete factories, 5% tourism to a nearby lake, 5% military) where people spend easily $1 each on breakfast, $2 each per dish at lunch or dinner, and up to $13 per dish if meat or seasonal mushrooms. Beers are $1-2 and people drink every day. Non-showy cigarettes are $2-$4/pack and the whole male population smokes, often easily 1/2 to a pack a day. Almost everyone has flat screen TVs (with a huge VoD library plus tens of cable TV channels), mobile phones, electric scooters (or cars, or motorbikes, or electric tractors), literacy and internet access (albeit with Chinese characteristics). Most people can afford to eat out almost every day. Looking west, all I can see are four storey private houses. Looking east, I see a small factory or two and more four storey private houses in a neighbouring village, beyond rich agricultural fields. A few year old major airport lies an hour to the northeast, and a city of six million to the northwest, currently building an extension of its subway line and a new highway here. People are materially doing very well - better than many part of the US - and this is a relatively poor province.
If you want to wax lyrical about China's rise being false, come and live here before doing so. I am currently putting together a documentary on the foreign community in the nearest city, which should dispel many of these myths. (TLDW; people from everywhere, lots of art, music, short working hours, safe, pluralistic society. Way comfier than the US. To quote a Californian I interviewed on the US, who has lived in Tokyo, SF, SoCal and Thailand but chooses to live in this part of China: "not my circus, not my monkeys")
I think it is a bit early to call that. They avoided all-out revolution by letting go of the reins a bit, but in the slightly longer term things could very well still go pear shaped or result in a re-assertion of power.
You seem to acknowledge that in the rest of your comment but that's inconsistent with claiming it is a success already, it's mostly early days in a pretty risky experiment.
Long term, it's hard to say what political-economic systems will look like. However, it appears China has so far achieved economic success via capitalistic economics without democracy. It does not seem that China is in any hurry to democratize. In its history, there has been at least weak centralization, never the less, centralization and strong central gov't is embedded in their collective psyche.
While this doesn't justify China's actions, it does provide an explanation for them.
Capitalism scales just fine. So does democracy, ask India. Lets stop giving authoritarians more excuses.
It's not censorship; it's purification.