Interesting read. Is it possible to sustain the growth of a country for say hundreds of years without democracy? Previously this has never worked due to the wrong leadership at the top (typically less than 4 generations of leaders in succession). However, if it works, does it bring a feasible competing model of government to the current western democracy? link China's Biggest Gamble Can it have capitalism without democracy? A prediction. By Henry Blodget Posted Friday, April 22, 2005, at 12:38 PM ET Western-style laissez-faire expected any minute now On my last evening in Beijing, I walked west on the long blocks of the city's main drag toward Tiananmen Square. The sun was setting when I arrived, and, on the north side of the road, beneath the portrait of Chairman Mao on the Gate of Heavenly Peace, crowds of tourists were streaming out of the Forbidden City. On the south side, in Tiananmen Square itself, kites and flags were flying, and entrepreneurs posing as "students" were cruising around entreating foreigners to visit a nearby art "exhibit" in which their works were purportedly displayed. The students' story was clever and well-choreographed, but I'd already fallen for it once that day (enduring a guided tour of machine-made paintings being sold to fund a "trip to America"). So, I just wandered around the square and watched the sun set over the Chinese flag. The story of what happened in Tiananmen in June of 1989 is different in China than the one we tell in the United States. In America, we remember the student protests as a plea for democracy, for our form of government (who has forgotten the students' mock-up of the Statue of Liberty?). But in China, people describe the students' goals as not democracy, per se, but as the end to corruption, the ability to air grievances, and the right to more control over their lives (or, as one person put it, the right to refuse to be shipped off to some dumpy factory for 40 years—a fate that would drive anyone into the streets). Although these ideals were closer to our form of government than China's was in 1989, they were not the "one man, one vote" system we hold so dear, the one that, in America, we herald the Tiananmen students as having died for. And, by local estimation, Chinese have gotten much of what the students were really hoping for 16 years ago. In Beijing, as in Shanghai, the businesspeople I spoke to seemed more concerned about preserving their ability to make money than about gaining the ability to vote leaders out of office or to express themselves however they pleased. One expects businesspeople to tend toward this end of the idealism scale, but in the U.S., democracy and freedom of speech are so fundamental to our sense of ourselves and our country that even our businesspeople can't imagine life (or economic success) without them. So, it is interesting to see China succeeding—on the surface, anyway—without them. Continue Article -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The question remains: Can the Chinese model—capitalism without elections or free expression—succeed forever? The common Western theory is that the more China's wealth grows, the more the pressure will build, until one day, the Communist Party's chokehold on power will break and American-style freedom of speech and democracy will follow (or, alternatively, that, in a desperate attempt to preserve itself, the party will revert to Cultural Revolution-style oppression and stop the economy cold). Both theories presume that free speech and elections are high on the average Chinese citizen's agenda, but, for now, a strong economy seems to take priority. ("The average guy wants to buy a car, eat vitamins, and get his kids into Berkeley," said one Beijing entrepreneur. "As long as the government doesn't screw that up, he's willing to play along.") The Western theories also presume that the transition from socialism to capitalism inevitably includes a transition from one-party rule to elected, multiparty democracy, but perhaps this isn't so. Especially when the leaders of the one party know exactly what keeps them in power—fat consumer wallets—and are willing to go to extraordinary lengths to control the spread of potentially destabilizing ideas. For China's economy to continue to thrive—and for its companies to grow strong enough to compete globally on something other than price—the government will have to continue to reduce corruption, strengthen property and legal rights, and develop a more efficient capital allocation system (including a securities market in which government connections are not a prerequisite for raising cash). In a democracy with a free press, the pressure that forces such changes often comes from decision-makers' fear of being ravaged in the media and/or voted out of office. In China, the repercussions may not be so immediate and direct, but based on the government's actions over the last decade, it knows well that continued economic reform and success are not only good for the country but key to its survival. The pressure is there, in other words, with or without the media, and the government continues to make progress in reducing corruption and buttressing legal and property rights. The government also seems to be deciding that, at least in the realm of business and finance, greater press freedom helps advance its economic goals and lessen its regulatory burden. Business journalism keeps companies honest and makes customers and investors comfortable that they at least have a forum in which to complain. Such freedom is not all good—in the media's eagerness to advance its own economic agenda, it often manufactures scandals where there are none and spins normal free-market processes into institutional or regulatory failures. But just as a free market is more effective than central planning at, say, managing crop production and pricing, a free press enhances the regulatory abilities of a government and creates the information flow that capitalism requires. But the Chinese government will probably continue to stifle the press's freedom to criticize it. As demonstrated by the government's subtle, sophisticated control of all forms of media and its ongoing penchant for firing, beating up, jailing, and perhaps even killing journalists who cross vaguely defined lines, we won't see a Michael Moore of China anytime soon (see Perry Link's essay in the New York Review of Books). But I doubt this will hinder the ongoing development of China's vibrant economy. The key test of China's version of capitalism, of course, will be during the bust that inevitably will follow the current boom (some day). If elections were held today, many in China suggest, the current leaders would win the popular vote. On the whole, thanks to the economy, people feel they have done a good job. During the bust, the pressure for change will increase, with or without the press. If the government is to maintain control in such an environment, it will probably have to engage in a practice that has long been a fixture of oligarchies and democracies alike: blame. As long as the countrywide pain can be laid at the feet of an individual or group, instead of the system—and as long as the scapegoats can be tossed out on their respective rears—the public pressure for revolutionary change can probably be controlled. If China can survive that inevitable economic crisis without a political uprising, we will probably be able to conclude that a dynamic free-market economy need not, in fact, go hand in hand with democracy. Addendum: A few weeks ago, in a piece about the fake-DVD business, we met the American fake-DVD entrepreneur Randolph Hobson Guthrie III, who was awaiting a verdict and sentencing in Shanghai after being tried for "operating an illegal business," a crime that carries a maximum sentence of 15 years in a Chinese prison. The Wall Street Journal reported recently that Guthrie was convicted of a lesser crime, selling fake goods, and sentenced to a lighter-than-expected two and a half years. Henry Blodget, a former securities analyst, lives in New York City.
I dont see why not. Capitalism and Democracy are two totally different things, like science and religion. Capitalism is how the economy is run, Democracy is how the government is run. The only people who probably thought that you need to have capitalism in order to have a Democracy are probably rich industrialists who were scared by communism.
As I said, people wrongly equate communism to dictatorship government, and capitalism to democracy. EDIT: These myths were perpetuated by rich capitalists who were afraid of what commuism would do to their bank accounts and as a result made everyone believe that if you have communism, you can't have democracy
Democracy(in practice)- Wealthy elite use political parties to control elections. Communism(in practice)- Weathly elite use political parties to control elections. What was the question?
Tell that to Mao Tse-Tung... Eventually China will need to embrace a true free market system, they can only dump there low wage products on the world for so long. The equallibrium will swing back to a more open society with higher wages and basic human rights for the population.
Please provide a specific example of where this is the case. Utopian communism is only a falicacy that will always lead to some sort of authoritative governing body.
Good post. As we have seen in Nazi Germany and Pinochet's Chile, capitalism and democracy are not the same thing. The only thing I would add is that when you have extreme inequality in the economic realm and virtually unfettered ability for the wealthy to invest in politicians, your democratic political system can be undemined. Sort of like the present day US, in whiich we are moving from one "man"one vote to somethiing like $20 dollars one vote, with the wealthy being able to out influence and "out vote" the many.
If you haven't noticed, the China Mao created vanished long time ago. As to the second part of your statement, I do not know the answer, I am sure the whole world is eager to find out the result too (check back in 50 years).
Most economists will tell you China has a more capitalistic market system than even the US in some aspects. As for their low wages, it's simply the most basic of capitalism, supply and demand (lots of workers, therefore lower wages). its honestly ignorant to say that the CHinese population doesn't have basic human rights. You would think that a people with a history of constant rebellion, that out of that 1.3 billion people, someone would get real pissed off and start something. But you don't, so maybe they're in pretty good shape. We should stop worrying about people like the Deli Lama who only complains to rich Hollywood types, and start worrying more about human rights abuses here in America like being eavesdropped on, or having 50% of our earnings taken away by the government.
China is an example of this right now. France and Canada have socialistic econmies that border on communism, and they're democracies.
Does China block websites? Yes Does China suppress protest? Yes Does China force child labor? Yes Is Hotballa ignorant? Yes You need to put down the jar of vaseline and stop whacking off to your Stalin photo layout. You are becoming blind to the truth!
True words coming from a Red State.... I agree. China's challenge will be to marginalize or abandon its practice of stripping away freedoms and inherent property rights. As their middle class and rural villages increase in income, they're less willing to be "eminent domained" by corrupt politicians who pocket most of the land that was sold. It's an interesting experiment, but when you have 1.5 billion different interests, even a minority will be large enough to field an army....
Does the US block websites? yes (including their own soldiers) Does the US suppress protest? yes (witness the Republican convention protests in NYC recently) China does not force child labor. What decade are you getting your books from? Do you know what they force children to do? Goto school. They got that stuff painted on mountains in the poorest regions of the country ("It is against the law to not have your child goto school"). Are you ignorant? yes, very.
Here is proof of your ignorance: http://www.dol.gov/ilab/media/reports/iclp/sweat/china.htm As far as suppressing protest, I guess you don't remember Tenamen Square. I did see any tanks rolling over protestors at the RNC convention. As far as blocking soldier blogs or websites. I guess you have never been in the military because you would know that it is illegal for Soldiers to comment on what they are doing in a WAR!
Nowhere in that article does it say that the Chinese government FORCES children to work. It's private factories who incidentally create products sold by American companies that hire these kids (NIKE?). And you saw tanks rolling over protesters in Tiananmen Square? No you didn't. What you are is someone who's seen snipets of info, caught some gossip, watched a little of this and a little of that, and listened to too many comedians so now you think you have all the answers about a place that you 1) have never been to 2) never did significant research on and 3) have never talked to anyone who is from there.
No way that China is as far as US has become in democracy, but that doesn't mean that China is still what it was 50 years ago. Ignorant and blind to the truth are not immune to people living in democracy either. China has never forced child labor. There are child labor and local government should have done a better job to crack that down, but to say that China force it, is just as ridiculous and ignorant as to say that Western governments force child porno because there are child porno produced in those countries. Cheap labour in China is reality, not something the evil commie government invented on their own. It's pure capitalism - supply and demand. The labor in China will be cheaper than it is in developed countries for a long long time, simply because of the huge population and relatively low standard of life. It's not as you would think that China just export low technology cheap stuff, but rather everything China exported are cheaper because of low labor, no matter how much technology is invloved, as long as Chinese possess it. Chinese are making computer components just like textiles, because of cheap labor, and they are going to continue to do that, with more and more stuff. yes, salary will be increased, but it will still be lower than it's in developed countries. It certainly has nothing to do with democracy. That being said, I still believe that democracy will be somehow achieved in China. Simply because I don't think they can really get corruption under control under the current one party system. However, if the country isn't that big, and the officials aren't that corrupted already, I can imagine countries prosper without democracy, just like Singapore.
So this is caused by American Companies... Son, you were probably still nursing off your mothers tit when that actually happen and did see it on TV. You need to review that inciteful propaganda you are pushing and reflect on what the real data says. That is your problem, you can't accept real data or facts. I have actually produced real data, you produce crap. I can tell that you are so nieve that you will be leave anything a socialogy professor tells you as fact without doing any real research on your own. You seem somewhat smart and will on day make a great custodial engineer, but you need to review your facts and think for once!
Don't go off topic, you said China forces child labor, I pointed out it didn't. oh is that comment supposed to mean you're older and more mature than me? noone got rolled over by tanks, you saw too many political cartoons. Try to be a lil more mature ok? Your data doesn't prove anything other than that private companies hire underage workers despite it being against the law, a problem that every contry in the world has. I'm trying ot be mature with this discussion, you should do likewise
