dagblog - Comments for "China: Tiger on a Leash"

While I love the idea of

Michael Wolraich — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 17:00:14 +0000

While I love the idea of dagblog invading the China market, I'm going with bots. We're google-news indexed, so it probably came from there.

I look forward to your post which I'm sure will be more informed than my highminded ass-blathering. I encourage you to cross-post it as a reader blog.

Congratulations! You have

GeofhrisKhzn — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 15:20:34 +0000

In reply to I'm less optimistic than you

Congratulations! You have been invaded by Chinese "leftist angry (shitty) young man"! (In Chinese, the characters for "angry" 愤 and "shitty" 粪 sound the same.)

Either you've got a huge following in China by now, or they have bots that scour the blogospere for any mentioning of China.

I have a somewhat simplistic pet theory to explain China's explosive growth in the last 30 years, and why it will crash and burn very badly. It's too long for a comment, so I'll write a blog piece and link it back here (don't hold your breath).

I'm less optimistic than you

Michael Wolraich — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 13:01:36 +0000

In reply to As I come from China,

I'm less optimistic than you about the earth ever becoming harmonious, but I expect that the U.S. and China can get along for the most part.

I think that you've misunderstood my point though. I'm not writing about freedom. I even argued that freedom is not necessary for a robust economy. I'm writing about democracy. Your leaders today are managing the country well, and the people are content. But one day in the future, the leaders will be less effective, and the people will have no way to replace them.

Of course democracy is not

Michael Wolraich — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 12:51:10 +0000

In reply to I'd bet on China surpassing

Of course democracy is not the only possible method of organizing society; it's not even the prevalent method of organizing society. It's simply the best method (that we've found) for ensuring consistent change. And change, I've argued, is necessary to avoid ossification and stagnation. The "Marxist" party mechanism isn't horrible in this regard. China has been able to ensure a new premiere every decade or so, as the Soviet Union once did. But like the USSR, China also has an entrenched political hierarchy and a culture of corruption which I'm willing to guarantee will eventually hobble its leadership if they don't reform.

All economies go bad. You don't need a crystal ball to predict that. The question is what happens to the leadership when the economy goes bad. In the U.S., we boot the bastards out and get ourselves some new bastards with new ideas. In China, they won't boot the bastards out because their political system, as it stands, will prevent them from doing so. (Or else, as Deadman suggests, they'll boot them out in a violent conflaguration.)

I'd bet on China surpassing

acanuck — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 07:14:34 +0000

In reply to the only change its leaders

I'd bet on China surpassing the Soviet Union as the longest-running nominally Marxist economy. I happen to like multi-party democracy, with all its inefficiencies, but there's no way it's the only possible method of organizing a society. And it's a bit ironic for North Americans to predict that at some point the Chinese economy will go bad.

Understood that you were

acanuck — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 07:03:08 +0000

In reply to China has been going through

Understood that you were comparing them only economically. Nazi Germany is a problematic yardstick to use even for that, since its six years of "peace" were entirely devoted to girding up for war. Odd the way that always seems to give the economy a jolt.

As I come from China,

Anonymous — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 06:21:40 +0000

In reply to China: Tiger on a Leash

As I come from China, I should say thay our country maybe have some limitation at freedom. But It's a must by some means. China is so large, has so many people that hold different opinions, we must focus our effort on one point. If we don't do this, we maybe come back to the time when western countris establish colony on our country!

At last, what I want to say is that we are not so foolish as you thought!

Be friendly, with the devolopment, all difficulty will be solved and the earth will finally be harmonious

the only change its leaders

Deadman — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 05:08:00 +0000

In reply to For a country supposedly

the only change its leaders are ruling out is western style, multi-party democracy?!? a) that's a pretty big one B) there are others, like free speech and free press. don't be fooled - china may not have the one, all-powerful leader to call its system despotic or totalitarian but it still is ruled with an iron fist, or at least a steel one.

anyway, nice post, g. the big question is how will the system evolve? it's very unlikely that an economically capitalistic and politically communistic system will be able to live peacefully together forever. the success of the experiment so far has certainly postponed the day of reckoning, but at some point, the economy will go bad, and one of them will be compromised, either by popular demand or government force. the questions are - how long will it take, which one will win out, and how much violence will occur in the process?

China has been going through

Michael Wolraich — Thu, 19 Mar 2009 02:20:57 +0000

In reply to For a country supposedly

China has been going through a period of dynamic change. They have had a series of strong leaders with bold ideas, particularly Jiang Zemin. Perhaps they will continue to do so and prove the exception, but I don't know of any examples of single-party regimes that proved capable of remaining dynamic for more than a few decades.

PS I wasn't comparing China to Nazi Germany, just using them both as examples to demonstrate the point that non-democracies are capable of rapid economic growth. At least for a time.

For a country supposedly

acanuck — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 22:40:28 +0000

In reply to China: Tiger on a Leash

For a country supposedly resistant to change, China has managed an incredible amount of the economic and social kind. The only change its leaders seem to be ruling out specifically is Western-style multi-party democracy.

It's true that corruption reached intolerable levels as the aging revolutionary elite (and their slightly younger acolytes) clung to power. In fact, I'd suggest Tienanmen Square was as much an anti-corruption protest as it was a pro-democracy one. Since then, however, a less ossified, more pragmatic leadership has emerged. Chinese political culture has evolved, is evolving, and will continue to evolve.

Comparing modern China to Nazi Germany is quite a leap. The government may be single-party, but it's neither despotic nor totalitarian. The majority of the people are not ruled by fear, and the Communist Party has long dumped its ideological rigidity. Sure, I'd like to see more generous treatment of minorities and a more independent judiciary. But we North Americans don't have unblemished records on those scores.