Japan and South Korea are both democratic republics. South Korea's economic seemed to transform overnight, once they transitioned from a dictatorship into a democratic republic. Like it or not, the lack of free speech has an economic cost.

> Singapore has an authoritarian government and also managed the leap.

Isn't Singapore more or less a democratic republic now? Singapore is also able to mitigate their own lack of creativity with immigration. I do not believe China has the same views regarding foreigners. I view Singapore more as an Asian Switzerland than a tech leader anyways. I also do not believe that Singapore's leaders believe in Mao style centralist control (of the economy at least)

> Has China gotten to that point yet for planes? No, they clearly just started.

They've been copying Russian aircraft for a while now. They haven't "just started".

Before Xi, China was slowly moving in the right direction for global dominance. China under Xi is moving backwards.

China under Xi is going in the right direction for global dominance for the simple reason that he's one of the first leader since Mao to take military modernization seriously. Chinese money talks, but military hardware gatekeeps whether that conversation to happen in the first place. Which matters more and more now that China containment is official US policy. The alternative to Xi was Bo Xilai who would never have reformed the corrupt and ineffective military old guard. Now China has a massively expanding Navy with growing blue water capabilities, SCS bases, space infrastructure and enough indigenous weapons that even belligerent US under Pompeo doesn't have the guts to sail carrier through the Taiwan strait anymore. Clinton sent two. I use to be a Xi doubter, but it's hard to argue he's not doing an incredible job.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_X-2_Shinshin

F-X2 was primarily indigenous effort after US refused to export F22s. IIRC another factor was US was not forthcoming with tech/knowledge transfer on F2 project. F-X2 still had some US help, but stopped after demonstrator. Then rebooted into F-X / F-3 Godzilla recently, international project in draft stage. So to date, no tangible gen5 effort.

That's only part of the picture. I'm talking more lower level ie. artists, engineers and scientists

Sure, you need the infrastructure for investment and manufacturing but that doesn't solve the problem of nationally, stunted creativity

> Free speech doesn't matter when building electronics or military hardware

It does matter if you want to build something original and innovative, instead of yet another cheap copy. That requires creativity, which is dependent on free speech. I mean just take a look at mainland entertainment. Most of it consists of movies and shows about the distant past. It's not even close to what could have been done like what you see in Japan or SK. Maybe if China had a more individualist society, you'd have a better argument or even proof beyond one off exceptions like DJI

> China under Xi is going in the right direction for global dominance for the simple reason that he's one of the first leader since Mao to take military modernization seriously... Now China has a massively expanding Navy with growing blue water capabilities, SCS bases, space infrastructure and enough indigenous weapons that even belligerent US under Pompeo doesn't have the guts to sail carrier through the Taiwan strait anymore.

What does this matter when everyone important already has global, ballistic nuclear missiles? One could argue that it's a drain on GDP when it could be spent elsewhere. Most of the US deficit is due to wasteful, military spending.

> The alternative to Xi was Bo Xilai who would never have reformed the corrupt and ineffective military old guard.

How do you even know there are actual reforms vs Xi just having a good excuse for rounding up his enemies like Putin, when there's no free press?

>That requires creativity, which is dependent on free speech.

Citation needed. There's more to "entertainment" than mass media subject to rigorous censorship. Chinese entertainment is great if you don't care about politics. Great soviet artists existed under USSR. Chinese cinema tackled politics under CCP pre 90s when political discussion was less restricted. Censorship redirects where creativity goes, Chinese market likes their entertainment fine.

>original and innovative

Those aren't important priorities for military acquisition. Copy what works if it fits needs, innovate where it doesn't. China innovates on rocket force to sink US carriers, hence ahead in hypersonics. It matters because before nuclear war is conventional war. Conventional capability require to solve border disputes, become regional hegemon of a bunch of middle powers without nukes. And at minimum they need conventional capabilities to retake Taiwan.

> actual reforms

CCDI investigated/punished over 1M+ party officials, even Xi doesn't have that many enemies. But of course there was element of power consolidation, and completely justified in retrospect now that CIA confirmed (just this month) how far they've infiltrated CCP under Hu. This was suspected at time of CIA China debacle, but recent confirmation solidified that Xi was the right choice. As for actual reforms, PLAN building more tonnage in new ships per year than entire region combined. Western thinktanks analyze Chinese military modernization to death.

You're asking for evidence, yet you're not providing any either. You're partially right though. With China's gradual opening, there have been more mainland Chinese entering higher tiers in various disciplines. Still, that's not to say that China's creativity isn't crippled by its government. Personally, I feel it's a drop compared to what could be with a more democratic government. Also everything that we've seen so far is due to China opening up and decentralizing. I predict the opposite will happen in the future as Xi reverses the trend. Yes, it's conjecture, and I hope I'm wrong.

> Chinese entertainment is great if you don't care about politics.

This is just personal taste but imo it's terrible. The only works that have freedom are nationalistic in nature like the Three Body Problem, where it's easy to see what it really is once you substitute the West for the "aliens". Everything else is mostly historical fiction set in ancient times, or maybe some time around WWII. My guess for this is because it's easier not to run the ire of the CCP if you're doing fictional work in a setting that happened hundreds of years ago.

> China innovates on rocket force to sink US carriers, hence ahead in hypersonics.

Are they really Chinese innovations or Chinese retrofitted Russian designs? I don't know enough about modern Chinese rockets, so I'm actually asking a question, because historically most Chinese military equipment are variants of Russian models.

> It matters because before nuclear war is conventional war. Conventional capability require to solve border disputes, become regional hegemon of a bunch of middle powers without nukes.

India also has ballistic nuclear weapons, and so does Japan... It's good to know that China's leaders have the same logic as US leadership. For the US, imo our defense budget is a mainly a cover for massive corruption.

> CCDI investigated/punished over 1M+ party officials, even Xi doesn't have that many enemies. But of course there was element of power consolidation, and completely justified in retrospect now that CIA confirmed (just this month) how far they've infiltrated CCP under Hu.

Chinese politics have varying factions which are made up of many members. It's not like anti-corruption drives are a new tactic to remove your rivals in China. I mean you even admit it.

This is not an emotional discussion for me, but I feel that it is for you. If I'm right on this, I'm not looking to insult you, and if continuing this discussion is going to make you angry; I'd rather end it now because it's not going to change anyone's views.

It's a fictional depiction of investigations of corrupt CCP officials. It's quite good.

China is a place full of contradictions so I would avoid analyzing it through the lens of ideology

>personal taste / it's a drop compared / evidence

Mainstream TV/film is trash because of censorship. Ditto with Chinese journalism under Xi, lots of talent left. Point is censorship constraints industries, but not the entire creative talent pool. Rote Chinese education system + current level of censorship is not strong enough to blunt creative outflow in a nation with as much human capita as China, output not a drop but also not close to full potential. There's probably negative per capita affects, but it hasn't stopped China from climbing ranking polls in science, innovation indexes (the evidence) etc, and in terms of strategic global competition that's enough. It will hit future Chinese cultural export and soft power, but I don't see east asian culture substantively competing with Hollywood/US culture, who is simply too strong. Consequence of inertia of being wealthy superpower that can brain drain/poach talent from entire world. It's not just because of democracy, otherwise we'd all be into Norwegian media and Swedish Gripen would be the best fighter in the world.

>Chinese hypersonics

DF missiles started as Soviet R2 & R5 copies designs in 60s. Developments after have been indigenous efforts, there's been many iterations. Chinese hypersonics are ahead of Russian designs. Like Huawei indigenous 5G innovations after copying western vendors. Familiar copy, iternate, innovate pattern. People are still fixated on the copy part when much of Chinese hardware is at iterate or innovate phase.

>defense budget cover for massive corruption

US MIC is big drain. Entrenched interests, pork barrel waste tied to political process etc. But at least enough inertia that US military is largely unrivalled. PLA very corrupt and useless before Xi, less so now. This is evident because Chinese military under Xi reforms is an actual acquisition powerhouse while capabilities are constantly improving (from huge deficit gap), and Chinese military expenditure is ~2% of GDP, aka appropriate NATO commitment. Chinese military is not that exceptional relative to GDP and population. Of course things stretch further in China due to PPP but there hasn't been massive waste. That's why neighbours are shitting bricks, China spending modest amount on military efficiently has disproportionate effect on regional power balance. But the alternative is not modernizing with modest budget, which is an unrealistic expectation. Of course the real issue is there's a bunch of disputes to resolve. Also Japan has no nuclear weapons.

>anti-corruption drives

There is nothing wrong with anti-corruption drives nor political consolidation if it serves purpose. Corruption + incentives is the mechanism that made rapid Chinese development possible. China is the only country where increased corruption correlated with increased growth. Corruption is good. Until it's not. And by Xi, the corrosive effects of corruption outweighed its use as development instrument. So corruption was reigned in because it reached level that destabilized social order and undermined the political system (CIA infiltration). So not just Xi's enemies but literal enemies of the state.

Last point on Xi and I'm disengaging because too much screetime. Leaked US intelligence of Xi, roughly "not very smart, but incorruptible, except maybe by power". Not very smart feels true, but it's hard to argue his policies have largely delivered in areas that matter. Morally incorruptible seems true, Xi believes in socialism a little to hard, which ties back to the not very smart part. Corrupt by power also rings true. These are all terrible qualities, but somehow he's making it work. I say this begrudingly because anti-corruption drive killed the gift-giving industry that some family made livelihood in. Anyway, it's working until it doesn't since he'll be around for a while. But the alternative would have been BoXiLai and US carriers still sailing through Taiwan strait. There was a very small window while US was distracted by ME where China could make gains in the region, but Xi seems to have pulled it off. Doesn't mean things can't be better domestically (i.e. XJ shitshow) but short medium term Xi has priorities right. When people say Xi is causing China to regress, they are typically not cognizant of all the essential things he did for progress, and that the alternative to him would have been much worse, at least for Chinese interests. This is not a position I thought I could hold a couple years ago.

If you look at actual data https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD.ZG?locat... , you'll see that Korea has had high GDP-per-capita growth since as far back as the 1960s, with two years of shrinking: 1980 after the assassination of the dictator Park Chung-hee and 1998 after the Asian Financial Crisis, which was also the first time the ruling party let go of their power after losing a democratic election.

The economic cost of lack of free speech isn't as great as the economic cost of uncertainty (because it discourages investing). Not knowing who the next dictator will be and not knowing who will win the next election are both sources of uncertainty.

So if democracy actually has some effect on economic performance, it's not strong enough to overcome broader trends. Which makes sense if you consider that authoritarians like making money, too, so blocking obvious productivity improvements would only be shooting themselves in the foot.

Not much, no. Single party state, been in power forever, tame opposition parties allowed, ruling party never had anything less than a supermajority, individual leaders stay in power for decades, fines and jail sentences for questioning the independence of the judiciary.

I think we should be crisp on the difference between government systems and culture. East asian culture tends to be very collectivist regardless of the government system. When you originally said "collectivist culture" I assumed you were referring to this culture (tallest hammer gets nailed down, route memorization learning, respect for seniority over ability, etc).

But if you were referring to the political system then that's true now, though this might be putting the cart before the horse. SK, Taiwan, and even Japan all got a lot of economic development done under authoritarian regimes (even if they were democracy in name). Only once economic development came did they transition. Ironically the growth slowed after that so if you think political system is a causal factor of economic growth, it might appear at first glance that democracy is bad for economic growth.

> Isn't Singapore more or less a democratic republic now?

Haha, well, maybe formally. As others have pointed out Singapore has practically single-party-rule. By some accounts, China owes much of its modern success to copying Singapore's flavor of state capitalism. Deng Xiaoping visited Lee Kwan Yew in 1978 and that set the course for China to pivot away from communism to state capitalism. https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/lee-kuan-yew-lauded-for-cr...

> Before Xi, China was slowly moving in the right direction for global dominance. China under Xi is moving backwards.

I agree with that statement, though time will tell.

----

To sum up this discussion:

1. if it's ultimately a question of whether democracy is a necessary condition of economic growth or even creativity, I would say no. Plenty of good science was done in Germany in the 40s or the Soviet Union, and economic growth in South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan under military dictatorships.

2. Would more creative work have been done with more freedom? Hard to prove or disprove but I intuitively would lean towards yes, especially for disruptive innovation (the kind that the folks in charge wouldn't like or be able to see). I think we agree here.

3. Is democracy a sufficient to create economic growth? I would say no, looking at some of the other non-western democracies out there, or democracies which failed.

However: this does not mean that every non-democratic leader is going to make mistakes, and certainly not at all phases of their leadership career. (Mistakes are, however, more probable than not over the long term in the typical authoritarian society. It’s noteworthy that we mostly point to Singapore as the sole counterexample of an economically successful authoritarian regime that didn’t revert to democracy or suffer decades of needless economic self-harm.)