It’s indisputable that the government of China is brutal and authoritarian. And also, arguably, the most effective government in absolute terms of the last 20-30 years.
(In absolute terms they have increased their economic power and standards of living more than anyone else)
So I wonder a couple things:
I thought authoritarian governments were hideously inefficient, tying everything up in endless paperwork, with “one to watch and one to work”, a phrase from a book about the Soviet gulag. How does the Chinese government get anything done and build more high speed rail than all of Europe in a fraction of the time?
What benefits of communism are still in place? “Too each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs”. Is any of that still true? Do unemployed Chinese workers get any benefits or assigned a new job like it was in the Soviet Union? Is there national health insurance or free bread or ration cards or any of the other trappings of Communism? Are income taxes progressive?
it never was, really. one of the core tenets of Marxist communism was collective ownership of the “means of production.” As far as I can tell, in the vast majority of cases (Soviet Bloc, China, etc.) the supposed “communist” revolutionaries never actually took it past seizing the means of production. They decided they very much liked being in charge and stayed put as the new ruling class.
They still maintain a one-party system and censor information that is available to the people. And some of the cosmetic aspects are still there (for example, the flag of Hong Kong, which was adopted on its being repatriated from the UK, has an original design, but they included very small, subtle five-pointed stars in it). It is not the kind of Stalinist-type of communism that existed under Mao, but some of the basic ideas of Marxism continue to be formally maintained.
So uh all I am hearing about are costs. Any benefits to communism? Even in the worst of Soviet Russia you would be assigned a job and a ration card, unless someone reported on you, and the job might suck but probably better than being homeless.
Authoritarian regimes can be tough on individuals but they are capable to getting things done at a larger scale. China has been very effective in building up its infrastructure; if the government decides a dam or a bridge or a highway is a good idea, it will be built in short order.
Communist regimes are also fairly egalitarian (at least in comparison to the regimes they tend to replace). Women, for example, have many rights now that they didn’t have before the communists took over.
I would say that it is a benefit, just not a net benefit. Absolutely, slavery is awful overall, just like Communism, but you need to be consistent. One alleged ‘perk’ of slavery was that more blacks were skilled tradesmen than they were during the Jim Crowe era because the owner has an incentive to invest in long term training. Was it better to be destitute and unskilled, doing scut work, but free, than being a skilled slave under slavery? I cannot answer that as I have not experienced either, but I might point out that “freedom” doesn’t mean anything if it grants you no measurable or tangible benefits.
I think the important distinction is that China is a communist country which contains capitalism, whereas countries like the United States are capitalist countries. The distinction is the United States sees capitalism as something which is a worthwhile goal for its own sake. In China, capitalism is seen as a resource. Capitalism in China is like oil in Saudi Arabia; it’s not seen as being valuable for its own sake - its value is that it produces assets that the government can use to further its own agenda.
China is not communist; no society ever has been since the primitive communalism of the hunter gatherers. The constitution of the Communist Party of China says:
“The highest ideal of communism pursued by the Chinese Communists can be realized only when the socialist society is fully developed and highly advanced. The development and improvement of the socialist system is a long historical process.”
This is why China is full of private businesses. The CPC encourages entrepreneurship and doesn’t punish rich people or even billionaires, but they have no political power, but people like Jack Ma have a serious advisory role.
State owned enterprises constitute the backbone of the economy, but they are run like Google, not like the post office or the DMV. Most important is that the four largest banks are government owned which allows it to direct resources.
A key characteristic of China’s system is the setting of long term goals. This allows businesses to plan accordingly. These plans include the usual five year plans and longer goals up to and including plans to become a global leader by 2049.
There are popular Chinese jokes to the effect that, right from the beginning and most definitely now, China was “communist” in name only (to get popular support) and wholeheartedly embraced capitalism. (See the above post- the quote from the CCP giving lip service to communism as something to maybe aspire to far in the future is especially rich.)
Maybe some of the Chinese users of this forum can quote some of the latest political jokes, so that you will not be stuck with the garbled third-hand versions I remember…
Note, having, say, a universal health care system, like China now does (or wants to say it does), or a functioning railway network, are not hallmarks of a true hard-core left-wing government, just basic services that any government is expected to provide. I don’t think state-owned enterprises are a decisive sign, either.
That doesn’t seem to match Chinese history. Mao certainly did not view himself as a capitalist. He was the guy who promoted the Great Leap Forward (and the Cultural Revolution). Big on central planning and collectivism.
It wasn’t until Mao was dead and Deng rose to power in the eighties that you started seeing some support for capitalism. (Deng was still a communist and no true believer in capitalism. But he saw capitalism as something that was necessary for developing China.)
I stand corrected. The joke I heard started with China coming to a fork in the river where it had to choose between communism and capitalism, so it may very well have been about Deng, not Mao.
Dictatorships have one HUGE advantage over other forms of government when it comes to capital projects: namely, if anybody is foolish enough to protest that the project would harm the environment, destroy historic buildings, displace people, etc.–the government rides roughshod over them. Anybody in China who dared to wave signs, chain themselves to trees, etc. would find themselves in prison or a work camp in short order.
I don’t know about other Western nations, but in the US, the environmental studies for widening a road or building something often take longer than the actual construction. And that doesn’t even take into account the public-input part of the process.
The amount of high speed rail, subways, airports, tollroads, dams and other infrastructure built in the last 20 years isn’t true? Care to back this up? Imminent domain is lighting quick, labor is cheap, and leading projects are worked on 24/7. It’s freaking astonishing how fast things move compared with the geriatric US.
Happy to see cites that speak otherwise, but I’ve got to call you on this facet.
An advantage to the government itself, perhaps. To the people, not so much. :dubious:
Unless of course, you LIKE living in a nation where the government can kick you out of your home, rampantly pollute your town, destroy your city, etc. :rolleyes:
You’re shifting the goalposts. I said they got things built; I didn’t say they built things wisely. The Three Gorges Dam, to cite a well known example, was probably a bad idea - but it got built anyway.
As the government doing what it wants - I think that’s pretty accurate. Who do you think is supposedly telling the Chinese government no?