I first went to China in 2012 and lived there for seven years beginning in 2014. For the first several years, I was quite impressed with China’s meritocratic system. I liken it to corporate governance, where a board of directors, (Politburo Standing Committee) oversees the operation, and advancement requires competence at lower level jobs. For three decades, from Deng until Xi, this system served China well. Despite my preference for democracy, the Chinese model has advantages, and may work particularly well for developing countries.
Unfortunately for China, President Xi figured out how to fail upward several times during his career. Now that he has risen well beyond his capability, China’s growth and development has slowed considerably. Furthermore, in 2012, it looked like Chinese civil society was reaching a point where a smooth transition to representative democracy was possible. Such a transition may be the only way for a country like China to avoid the middle income trap. Now that Xi has grabbed all the reins of power and kneecapped any civil organization outside of the Party, the path to democracy, or any type of decentralization of power is blocked. Stagnation will be the likely result. That probably makes China more dangerous, not less so for the next couple of decades.
That's the problem with any authoritarian political system.
We don't have a problem with authoritarian corporate agents (and corporations are set up as authoritarian organizations) because they do not hold ultimate power (including the power of violence) and can fail gracefully enough (people lose their jobs but they can find other jobs if the political-economic system is set up right and they don't lose their lives).
True, but as authoritarian systems go, a having multi-member Politburo and real meritocracy in the middle ranks made for better governance than a typical strong-man dictatorship like Hussein in Iraq or Mugabe in Zimbabwe. And that’s why, even as Xi’s consolidation of power is nullifying the good points of the system Deng built, the rest of the world had to deal with the very powerful nation that has been built since 1980.
Right, but what was there to keep a multi-faction Politburo and meritocracy in the middle ranks a stable state?
Granted, some folks in the US (and elsewhere in the West) seem to be trying their darndest to destroy liberal democracy as well but checks and balances and free (and somewhat fair) elections can push back against that.
I don’t think we actually disagree. The checks and balances in US democracy have served us well for 240 years. Even so, they are being tested by bad actors trying to co-oped the system. So far, the system is holding together. Without any similar restraints, it was comparatively easy for Xi to consolidate control in China.
But if you think about the infighting that took place during the time after Mao’s death in 1976, the government that Deng put together in the 1980s handled the nuts and bolts of governing quite well. Had a visionary leader become president in 2012, the transition to a more open society and eventually democracy was possible. Instead, they got Xi, a man who has risen well past his ability level. And with nothing in the system to check his power, China is likely to face malaise and isolation for a generation.
Seems like these models ignore decision-making agents' incentives. Wise and benevolent autocratic probably always will play whatever hand they ate dealt well. But a system that relies on wise and benevolent leaders seems... problematic.
I find that a lot of people's pet political-economic systems ignore too much the central role of power. That is definitely true of both libertarianism and Communism, for instance. With free-market democracy, at least the founders of the American Republic were aware of its danger so strove to craft a system where power checked power and ambition checked ambition. Adam Smith didn't have a great explanation for why capitalism worked besides the invisible hand but the same underlying principles are at work.
The thing that’s good about democracy isn’t that is the best system for choosing great leaders or the best leaders, it’s that it’s the best system for getting rid of the duds and demagogues
Americans and Chinese, alike, are trying to do the same thing, anticipate the future. As conditions keep changing, whose country is better positioned to do so?
Of course most of us would rather live in a country with civil liberties, and yes, freedom. And if you are pessimistic about China you can easily point to China's troubled real estate sector, and its decelerating economic growth rate. Not that rocket ship growth could ever have been sustainable, and the inevitable adjustment is bringing some equally inevitable pain.
That said, China has figured out how to dominate world manufacturing, and to spend enough on R&D to do it. China's BYD is now the world's leading electric car maker, and given the switch from internal combustion engines to electrics, that is a good place to be. With that economic power and know-how comes increasing military power. Who cares about a lousy real estate sector when its strategically important sector, manufacturing, leads the world? In the US we fight company against company and labor against management. China plays all these interests off against each other, as well as playing US companies against EU competitors. If we continue in this way the West will be in ever greater trouble.
During WWII, the US modified its model of competitive economics so that the nation's resources could be directed to beating the Axis powers. China has done something similar, but America is asleep at the switch.
I understand the concerns about increasing centralization of economic power in order to compete with China but America was able to centralize its economic direction during the Second World War and still remain a democracy. We know how to do this. And Japan and Germany have shown how labor and management can work together in service to national goals while maintaining democratic political institutions.
But today the wealthy donors who so strongly influence the US political system, are more concerned about low taxes than the sustainability of a free society. Biden barely got the Chips & Science Act passed but Build Back Better had to be severely pared down. America just doesn't understand what it takes to compete in the 21st century. If we don't spend enough on R&D and infrastructure, we are done.
If people desire civil liberties and freedom (and rule of law, protection from capricious authoritarians, etc.), I don't know why you can be so sure China will remain the leader in world manufacturing for long. The USSR had gang-busters economic growth its first few decades. The problem with (large) authoritarian countries (so not counting city-states like Singapore that face competitive pressures to survive) is that their leaders seem to inevitably eventually make big mistakes.
I don't pretend to know what will happen. But I do know a few things. First, we kept high technology away from the USSR, but we gave it to China, so your analogy is in no way apposite. Second, Russian culture (heavy drinking to deal with the terrible weather, pervasive pessimism) is very different than Chinese culture, which has always stressed hard work and entrepreneurship. Moreover, China has historically had long periods of success under imperial dynasties that were not democratic but did have a meritocratic civil service. Over the millennia the various dynasties rose and fell, none was forever, but some maintained real power for centuries. Which leads me to my final point:
Waiting for the other guy to make a mistake is not a strategy. It is always best to hope for good outcomes while planning for bad ones.
We actually gave a ton of technology to the USSR in it's first decades too (Stalin's USSR was essentially built with American engineering and know-how). Not as much later in the Cold War (though even during the Cold War, the USSR was kept afloat with Western European industrial tech transfers), but in that sense, Cold War 2 is mirroring Cold War 1, in that the US is now clamping down on tech transfers to China. What doomed the USSR is that while they built a mighty industrial/engineering/scientific power, they never nurtured entrepreneurship so never was able to keep up in the computer age and top-down command and corruption led to sclerosis.
I don't see how the PRC can avoid that fate.
BTW, while I very much admire the East Asian work ethic, I reckon you'll admit that Maoist China and N Korea under the Kims were and are economic basketcases, which tells me that the political/economic system matters far more than culture. There's zero difference in genetics or deep cultural background between N and S Korea. There's zero difference in genetics or deep cultural background between Chinese under Mao or Chinese under Deng.
Finally, yes, autocratic dynasties lasted as major powers for centuries back in the old days but
1. How many have lasted that long when they had to compete with liberal democracies?
2. Most of even the major Chinese dynasties did not have centuries of peace. The Han had major insurrections/civil wars/dysfunction (and wars with the Xiongnu) every or every other generation. The Tang golden age lasted less than 130 years (until the An Lushan rebellion, after which the Tang emperor was essentially a figurehead while civil war raged in China) and even during its golden age, the Tang was usurped and there were coups and palace intrigue and killings. The Song kept losing wars before losing its capital and half the country roughly halfway through. The Ming golden age really lasted only a little over a century as well. The Qing actually had the longest period of peace and prosperity (about 2 centuries) before the Opium Wars and Taiping rebellion, but the point is that while China's major dynasties have lasted several centuries, for most of them, the latter half tended to stink for regular people (and even the golden eras weren't always so awesome).
I first went to China in 2012 and lived there for seven years beginning in 2014. For the first several years, I was quite impressed with China’s meritocratic system. I liken it to corporate governance, where a board of directors, (Politburo Standing Committee) oversees the operation, and advancement requires competence at lower level jobs. For three decades, from Deng until Xi, this system served China well. Despite my preference for democracy, the Chinese model has advantages, and may work particularly well for developing countries.
Unfortunately for China, President Xi figured out how to fail upward several times during his career. Now that he has risen well beyond his capability, China’s growth and development has slowed considerably. Furthermore, in 2012, it looked like Chinese civil society was reaching a point where a smooth transition to representative democracy was possible. Such a transition may be the only way for a country like China to avoid the middle income trap. Now that Xi has grabbed all the reins of power and kneecapped any civil organization outside of the Party, the path to democracy, or any type of decentralization of power is blocked. Stagnation will be the likely result. That probably makes China more dangerous, not less so for the next couple of decades.
That's the problem with any authoritarian political system.
We don't have a problem with authoritarian corporate agents (and corporations are set up as authoritarian organizations) because they do not hold ultimate power (including the power of violence) and can fail gracefully enough (people lose their jobs but they can find other jobs if the political-economic system is set up right and they don't lose their lives).
True, but as authoritarian systems go, a having multi-member Politburo and real meritocracy in the middle ranks made for better governance than a typical strong-man dictatorship like Hussein in Iraq or Mugabe in Zimbabwe. And that’s why, even as Xi’s consolidation of power is nullifying the good points of the system Deng built, the rest of the world had to deal with the very powerful nation that has been built since 1980.
Right, but what was there to keep a multi-faction Politburo and meritocracy in the middle ranks a stable state?
Granted, some folks in the US (and elsewhere in the West) seem to be trying their darndest to destroy liberal democracy as well but checks and balances and free (and somewhat fair) elections can push back against that.
I don’t think we actually disagree. The checks and balances in US democracy have served us well for 240 years. Even so, they are being tested by bad actors trying to co-oped the system. So far, the system is holding together. Without any similar restraints, it was comparatively easy for Xi to consolidate control in China.
But if you think about the infighting that took place during the time after Mao’s death in 1976, the government that Deng put together in the 1980s handled the nuts and bolts of governing quite well. Had a visionary leader become president in 2012, the transition to a more open society and eventually democracy was possible. Instead, they got Xi, a man who has risen well past his ability level. And with nothing in the system to check his power, China is likely to face malaise and isolation for a generation.
Seems like these models ignore decision-making agents' incentives. Wise and benevolent autocratic probably always will play whatever hand they ate dealt well. But a system that relies on wise and benevolent leaders seems... problematic.
I find that a lot of people's pet political-economic systems ignore too much the central role of power. That is definitely true of both libertarianism and Communism, for instance. With free-market democracy, at least the founders of the American Republic were aware of its danger so strove to craft a system where power checked power and ambition checked ambition. Adam Smith didn't have a great explanation for why capitalism worked besides the invisible hand but the same underlying principles are at work.
The thing that’s good about democracy isn’t that is the best system for choosing great leaders or the best leaders, it’s that it’s the best system for getting rid of the duds and demagogues
Americans and Chinese, alike, are trying to do the same thing, anticipate the future. As conditions keep changing, whose country is better positioned to do so?
Of course most of us would rather live in a country with civil liberties, and yes, freedom. And if you are pessimistic about China you can easily point to China's troubled real estate sector, and its decelerating economic growth rate. Not that rocket ship growth could ever have been sustainable, and the inevitable adjustment is bringing some equally inevitable pain.
That said, China has figured out how to dominate world manufacturing, and to spend enough on R&D to do it. China's BYD is now the world's leading electric car maker, and given the switch from internal combustion engines to electrics, that is a good place to be. With that economic power and know-how comes increasing military power. Who cares about a lousy real estate sector when its strategically important sector, manufacturing, leads the world? In the US we fight company against company and labor against management. China plays all these interests off against each other, as well as playing US companies against EU competitors. If we continue in this way the West will be in ever greater trouble.
During WWII, the US modified its model of competitive economics so that the nation's resources could be directed to beating the Axis powers. China has done something similar, but America is asleep at the switch.
I understand the concerns about increasing centralization of economic power in order to compete with China but America was able to centralize its economic direction during the Second World War and still remain a democracy. We know how to do this. And Japan and Germany have shown how labor and management can work together in service to national goals while maintaining democratic political institutions.
But today the wealthy donors who so strongly influence the US political system, are more concerned about low taxes than the sustainability of a free society. Biden barely got the Chips & Science Act passed but Build Back Better had to be severely pared down. America just doesn't understand what it takes to compete in the 21st century. If we don't spend enough on R&D and infrastructure, we are done.
If people desire civil liberties and freedom (and rule of law, protection from capricious authoritarians, etc.), I don't know why you can be so sure China will remain the leader in world manufacturing for long. The USSR had gang-busters economic growth its first few decades. The problem with (large) authoritarian countries (so not counting city-states like Singapore that face competitive pressures to survive) is that their leaders seem to inevitably eventually make big mistakes.
I don't pretend to know what will happen. But I do know a few things. First, we kept high technology away from the USSR, but we gave it to China, so your analogy is in no way apposite. Second, Russian culture (heavy drinking to deal with the terrible weather, pervasive pessimism) is very different than Chinese culture, which has always stressed hard work and entrepreneurship. Moreover, China has historically had long periods of success under imperial dynasties that were not democratic but did have a meritocratic civil service. Over the millennia the various dynasties rose and fell, none was forever, but some maintained real power for centuries. Which leads me to my final point:
Waiting for the other guy to make a mistake is not a strategy. It is always best to hope for good outcomes while planning for bad ones.
We actually gave a ton of technology to the USSR in it's first decades too (Stalin's USSR was essentially built with American engineering and know-how). Not as much later in the Cold War (though even during the Cold War, the USSR was kept afloat with Western European industrial tech transfers), but in that sense, Cold War 2 is mirroring Cold War 1, in that the US is now clamping down on tech transfers to China. What doomed the USSR is that while they built a mighty industrial/engineering/scientific power, they never nurtured entrepreneurship so never was able to keep up in the computer age and top-down command and corruption led to sclerosis.
I don't see how the PRC can avoid that fate.
BTW, while I very much admire the East Asian work ethic, I reckon you'll admit that Maoist China and N Korea under the Kims were and are economic basketcases, which tells me that the political/economic system matters far more than culture. There's zero difference in genetics or deep cultural background between N and S Korea. There's zero difference in genetics or deep cultural background between Chinese under Mao or Chinese under Deng.
Finally, yes, autocratic dynasties lasted as major powers for centuries back in the old days but
1. How many have lasted that long when they had to compete with liberal democracies?
2. Most of even the major Chinese dynasties did not have centuries of peace. The Han had major insurrections/civil wars/dysfunction (and wars with the Xiongnu) every or every other generation. The Tang golden age lasted less than 130 years (until the An Lushan rebellion, after which the Tang emperor was essentially a figurehead while civil war raged in China) and even during its golden age, the Tang was usurped and there were coups and palace intrigue and killings. The Song kept losing wars before losing its capital and half the country roughly halfway through. The Ming golden age really lasted only a little over a century as well. The Qing actually had the longest period of peace and prosperity (about 2 centuries) before the Opium Wars and Taiping rebellion, but the point is that while China's major dynasties have lasted several centuries, for most of them, the latter half tended to stink for regular people (and even the golden eras weren't always so awesome).