State capitalism is marxism with a little air let out.
There’s a reason giant empty cities exist in China. The government thinks it knows better than the market.
China only improves the more it embraces truly free markets. Similarly, China will continue to live in 1984 until its people demand liberal freedoms and the government acquiesces.
Why anyone should be a “big China supporter” and proclaim it as a great benefactor to humanity is beyond the scope of rational debate. China is the world’s largest polluter and rapes the third-world’s resources all the same as the rest of us.
While a lot of what you say is true, your first sentence is a little simplistic, especially when you then complain about China’s pollution levels.
After all, to the extent that modern economies like the United States have improved their own record regarding pollution, it’s often because government has seen fit to interfere in the free market with things like regulatory agencies, emissions standards, and other similar interventions. While improved technology helps to reduce pollution, many of America’s most significant limitations on pollution have not been a result of free market responses, and even with the regulatory environment there are still plenty of companies who do everything possible to avoid or skirt pollution limits because it’s good for the bottom line to do so.
Yes, there are now a bunch of market-based incentives (actual and proposed) for reducing pollution. But even some of those, like carbon offsets and carbon trading, often result mainly from markets created by regulation. The whole cap and trade system, for example, works largely because it allows a free market for trading emissions within a framework of limits set by governments and international protocols.
Yes, but Africans are also not passive victims. They are able negotiate beneficial deals. That’s how business works.
There is a lightrail system being installed in Addis Ababa. It’s pretty incredible. China is bringing the one thing we never could to Africa-- and probably the only thing that is useful-- business.
And you know what? They know what they are doing. It worked in China. When my mom grew up, they’d talk about the hungry kids in China, not Africa. China is one of the extremely small set of countries that has actually managed solve extreme poverty. So we should probably step back a moment before saying we know better.
We’ve spent decades and billions of dollars trying to do the same thing in Africa. It doesn’t hurt Africans to have another choice than the system that has been not working for the last fifty-odd years.
And there are 49 million Americans that struggle to put food on the table. You are right that no country has literally eliminated hunger, and of course there are a lot of people in China.
Ok fine. “Kids in the new generation will not know hunger in excess of the somewhat inevitable hunger found in every country in the world that does not have a 100% social safety net.”
China’s rate on the Global Hunger Index is 5.4 (down from 13.6-- on par with modern Malawi-- in 1990). Developed countries are ranked as “<5”.
So you are implying the average citizen in China cares more about government censorship/oppression than they do about earning a living or about environmental pollution?
You may have misread my statement. What I said was that the average Chinese citizen (not the government) cares more about environmental pollution and escaping from poverty than they do about government oppression. If so, as China gets wealthier and fewer people are poor and pollution goes down people may redirect their anger at government oppression instead. Maslows hierarchy of needs. Economic survival and avoiding pollution seem more important to the average Chinese citizen than fighting against censorship.
Having said that, what have I said about China that is untrue? They are a country that is going to do great things this century, and they are just beginning. Forty years ago the Chinese were more poor than Ethiopia. now they are the world’s #1 investor in renewable energy and they are doing things like building IT and cell phone infrastructure all across Africa, so Africans can experience the health/economic/social benefits of phones and internet.
China is just getting started contributing to solving humanities biggest problems and obstacles in the 21st century, and stories like their orwellian system are very disappointing.
Do you have a guess as to a timeline for when China will be a first world nation?
If they can maintain 7% growth rates, that means their economy will be 400% bigger by 2035, assuming they can maintain those rates (that’d be a per capita GDP of over 30k). I think I’ve heard some people compare modern China to where Taiwan and South Korea were in the mid/late 70s. Maybe China will maintain 7% for a few years, then drop to 4-5% when per capita income hits the mid teens, then drop to 2-3%. I think that is what the other Asian tigers did.
Aren’t the large cities developed? maybe not by US or European standards, but someone here on the board compared them to cities in eastern Europe where per capita GDP is about 15-20k.
Yes right now China is known for shit manufacturing. But in order to keep their economy relevant they know they need to be known for higher quality manufacturing, as well as innovative technologies.
More than that, China will have 340 million citizens age 60+ in 2030, more than the entire population of the US right now (and many of them will have worked jobs of hard manual labor so their bodies will be shit). How are they going to afford health care for all of them? They probably can’t, so China will be heavily incentivized to find ways to provide chronic health care and elder care on a shoestring budget. China will innovate $500 heart surgeries, $30 MRIs, robotic nurses, nursing homes that cost $600/month, etc. because they will have no other choice as they will not be able to spend huge sums on health care and still keep their economy going.
The same China that would rather you kill a pedestrian with you car than injure him is gonna magically start spending extra money to take care of old people who don’t physically or monetarily contribute to society anymore?
My guess is that it will stay “middle income” for the foreseeable future. And that’s not a bad place to be, especially if they can work through some of the problems caused by growth outpacing regulatory capavility. I think that too many people get caught up with the idea of China “catching up” or not to the US, when the real story is about how spectacular it is to have a country that large reach comfortably middle income status.
It’s hard for me to compare China to other places, as mid-tier cities are just so massive and populated. A teacher at a low-ranked state college in my smallish city could expect to live with their spouse and parents/in-laws in a newly renovated condominium that was well appointed but not spacious. They probably wouldn’t own a car, but might be taking driving lessons in anticipation of getting one. They would have a good food an entertainment budget, and would eat out on the weekends at local restaurants and maybe see a movie. But they probably couldn’t afford more expensive restaurants regularly, including the newly opened KFC. They could have a nice wardrobe from very good mid-scale Chinese retailers, but couldn’t afford the Western brands regularly. They’d be able to go to massages and day spas now and then, and maybe belong to a yoga club. Lots of money would go back home to the relatives in the village, or to tutors and piano lessons for the kid.
I don’t think it’s a sign of weakness-- you can allow more freedom without giving up a lick of power. But maybe an acknowledgement that good, hardworking citizens can be allowed to be a little naughty, as long as they understand they are being watched.
I can’t really comment on the level of control that was there. It definitely existed. I knew of people (or more often families) that had permanently hobbled prospects for one reason or another. Screw up and not only will you lose your job, but your sister will also lose her job and your nephew will be mysteriously rejected from college. But I couldn’t tell you what it takes for that to happen or if that’s more of a “party blacklist” thing or something more local and personal.
I know my students were fairly vocal, despite knowing there were informants in every class. I had one student refuse to present a current even because “the news here is bullshit.” I had a few pretty edgy discussions. But most of the time people would say a bit then steer to safer topics. There are lines, but not always the ones I expected. And private concessions were usually completely frank.
And of course, some people agree with the government control, saying it is necessary to get China- a historically difficult to manage place- to stay save and stable and to work together toward larger goals.
I think I really saw a mix. A lot of frustration, a little fear, a lot of hope and a lot of optimism. Worries about the government was just one small piece of my students life.