Democratic versus Authoritarian Capitalism

Robert Reich is back from vacation:

The Real Competition Behind the Olympic Games, Robert Reich: The real competition lurking behind the upcoming Olympic games is between democratic capitalism and authoritarian capitalism.

For years American policy toward China assumed that trade and economic growth would generate a large Chinese middle class, and this middle class would demand democratic reforms. We were right on the first part. ... But we were wrong about the democracy part. We thought capitalism and democracy went hand in glove. They don't. Economic reforms are well underway in China. Individual Chinese can own property and invest, trade and buy almost whatever they want. Private enterprise is in, collectives are out. But when it comes to civil and political rights, China today is where it was almost two decades ago at the time of Tiananmen Square.

Authoritarian capitalism works wonders if all you care about is getting ahead economically... Never before in history have so many people gained economic ground so fast as in China over the last two decades. But if you're someone with a grievance, or you want to criticize those in power, or you're a Tibetan or ethnic minority, or you happen to like clean air, you're out of luck.

Democratic capitalism should win in the end because it responds far better to what people want -- not only as consumers but also as citizens. Yet right now the outcome of the competition doesn't seem so clear. The Chinese economy is booming while we're in deep trouble. Eighty percent of Chinese are optimistic about the future but only 20 percent of Americans say this nation is on the right track. And most Americans tell pollsters they don't trust politicians and believe our government is run by big corporations and the rich.

In terms of this large underlying competition, think of our upcoming presidential election is our own Olympic games. It will showcase to the world whether, and how well, democratic capitalism still works.

Will authoritarian capitalism become the next economic development model as other countries try to mimic China's success? If so, is that a good thing? Will democracy, in fact, win in the end?

Comments

[dWj]

Democracy has the long-term advantage, as Reich says, but it could well take a long time.

The vast majority of people around the world are very pragmatic in their wishes. They wish not to starve to death; self-rule falls lower on Maslow's hierarchy. China can continue to grow rapidly through investment and exploitation of Western technology until they get to at least half of Western per-capita income; it's only as they start to approach our level of wealth that growth will necessarily slow down and nonpecuniary desires become relatively more important. Optimistically, you start to see those pressures come about in a real way in the 2030s. If you want reform to come sooner, it will have to be triggered by something else.

[save_the_rustbelt]

Authoritarian anything is not a "good thing."

[bakho]

The former FSU underwent a similar transformation from peasant country to industrial power in about 25 years.

Does the authoritarianism/democracy axis matter more than plutocracy/meritocracy axis?

[Plac Ebo]

"Will democracy, in fact, win in the end?"

It's too early to tell. Currently America is more concerned with security and materialism than it is with democracy. We hear barely a whimper as freedoms are lost to the excuse of terrorist threats- real or imagined. And we Americans are too busy acquiring things and being mesmerized by the television to be the informed and involved citizens that it takes to keep our elected representatives honest and "representative."

[STS]

Bravo, Mr. Reich! This is the key question for the 21st Century. Will government "of the people, by the people, for the people" perish from the earth?

Condoleezza Rice was quoted in 1999 as saying:
"The Chinese Communists are living on borrowed time; economic liberalization is going to create pressure for political freedom.” This is a perfect expression of Friedmanite Economic Determinism: economic freedom is more important than political freedom because economic freedom PRODUCES political freedom. Our present leaders are almost unanimous in their conviction that this highly optimistic view of the world is absolutely true. I don't share their confidence. I have a sneaking suspicion that some political consciousness and struggle is also required, not just retail shopping.

[a random reader]

Democracy will always win in the end, because the stability of a democratic system does not rely on the goodwill/foresight/capabilities of one small group of individuals. Authoritarian regimes are ultimately doomed to fail because at some point, a foolish or evil person will come to be the ruler and take the country down the wrong path. Then, because it's an authoritarian regime, that person or group of people will cling to power even when the population no longer prospers under them and wants change.

[a random reader]

Also, I don't think emulating China is a good idea for the rest of the developing world. The system under which a country thrives is largely determined by that country's characteristics and history - China is a huge, diverse country, with thousands of years of authoritarian rule. Perhaps a strong hand is required to keep such an empire together -- at least in the initial stages of development. Countries in Africa have tried the 'strong hand' approach for decades and all that has produced is cruel tyrants, wars and poverty.

[One Salient Oversight]

One advantage that the authoritarian capitalist system has is that its beneficiaries - the rich - end up using their money to buy political favours and keep the system running so that industrialists and politicians benefit from the system.

Not unlike the US, really.

[german_reader]

Is not nearly every form of capitalism we have today authoritarian by nature?

A correct description would be authoritarian capitalism with a democratic political superstructure or authoritarian capitalism with a dictatorial political superstructure.

What we would need to reach further social progress would be better and more democratic forms of economic organization which give people more control over their own fate and daily life, not only as company owners or consumers, but also as employees and workers.

To define maximal economic outcomes - often only for a few - as the most important goal of a society or even as the only form of "freedom", as currently is often the case, is in my opinion a bizarre reduction of human life.

Do we want a society with a maximum of economic performance or do we want a society which allows all of its members a maximum of individual freedom and wellbeing in every regard, not only the economic one?

Besides, is China really that impressive? On a per capita base, in absolute values, Western nations are still growing faster than China. Two percent real per capita growth per year in a Western nation means $600-$900 dollar of additional GDP for every citizen, ten percent in China is $250 ( $530 in purchasing power ). How were the growth rates of Western nations when they had a similar per capita income as China today? Can China hold its growth rates when it becomes wealthier? And does China currently not profit from the fact that it can simply import and adapt ready solutions from more developed nations? How will it perform if real innovations are needed? And do the enormous environmental and social costs of the Chinese growth not eat up most of the economic gains in the longer run?

I think the main reason why so many people fear and are impressed by China is that China is a giant country which will change the power balance of the world even with a mediocre economic performance. It's in every case a threat for the dominance of the western world.

What China demonstrates is not that authoritarian regimes are more sucessful than democratic ones. What China demonstrates is that intelligent government intervention can improve the economic performance of a country. If many western economists concentrate on the authoritarian aspects of the Chinese society, it shows more the intellectual limitations that the ruling neoliberal ideology causes in some western minds than the true reasons behind the Chinese success. And it's for certain often another attempt to accelerate the demontage of democratic control over economic processes in many western nations.

Look at China, give the "elites" what the "elites" want and it will serve the progress of the whole society. That's in a few words the core of the neoliberal ideology which currently dominates the western world. And it's probably no fortuity that many neoliberal ideologues celebrate Chile or China as their favorite "success" models.

[odograph]

I heard years ago that Singapore provided the then-new model, capitalism with strong leadership. I think it's late to call this a Chinese discovery.

(Remember when the WSJ was banned in Singapore for covering ... Singaporean censorship?)

[dissent]

epi hammers on China in their latest press release...

WASHINGTON – As the nation’s economic woes mount, a new study details the devastating impact that the growing U.S. trade deficit with China is having on American jobs, wages and key industries. Between 2001 and 2007, 2.3 million American jobs were lost due to the China trade gap, including 366,000 last year, according to the report released today by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI).
NEWS FROM EPI
CONTACT
Nancy Coleman
Karen Conner
202-775-8810 news@epi.org
Those displaced workers lost an average of $8,146 in wages last year, a total of $19.4 billion, as they took lower-paying jobs. China is also the predominant source of downward pressure on wages of other production workers, about 100 million Americans. Competition from low-wage workers in less developed countries and less bargaining power here at home pushed the median wage for full-time workers without a college degree – about 70 percent of the U.S. workforce – down about $1,400 in 2006.
Contrary to the stereotype and to some economic theories which hold that jobs lost are predominantly in low-skill, low-pay industries, the trade deficit with China has in fact forced workers from better-paying jobs to lower-paying sectors. More than half (55.6 percent) of the displaced jobs were in the top half of American wage earners. Nearly a third (31 percent) of the jobs lost were among workers with a college degree. Growing China trade deficits have contributed to the loss of 200,000 scientist and engineer jobs within the manufacturing sector, a 10.7 percent drop.
The U.S. trade deficit with China increased from $84 billion in 2001, when China was granted entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO), to $262 billion last year. Proponents claimed China’s admission to the WTO would increase U.S. exports and reduce the trade deficit, but instead the gap has increased by an average of $30 billion a year, or 21 percent annually.
“This new data is a wake-up call about the devastating effect of our unbalanced China trade on American jobs, wages and our economy,” said EPI senior economist Robert Scott, author of the report. “The damage is being felt in every state. And as the trade deficit continues to grow and China moves into higher-wage sectors, the trend lines on the future loss of jobs and depression of incomes are especially alarming.”
The jobs lost due to the China-trade deficit range from those in traditional manufacturing to newer technology sectors. The largest states lost the most jobs since 2001 – with California losing over 325,000, Texas nearly 203,000 and New York about 127,000. Eleven states lost more than 10,000 jobs last year alone. But smaller states, in many cases, lost the largest share of their total state employment to the China trade gap...

“The major causes of the skyrocketing trade deficit with China are no mystery,” said Scott. “China’s manipulation of its currency makes the yuan artificially cheap, effectively subsidizing exports. Beijing’s suppression of labor rights lowers wages. China subsidizes some key industries and maintains barriers to some imports. We must demand a fundamental change in exchange rate policies and labor standards in the Chinese economy as a critical first step toward restoring a level playing field where American workers can compete fairly.”
Read the full report here: http://www.epi.org/content.cfm/bp219
# # #

It's ironic that the authoritarian capitalist state is more sensitive to its citizens needs for jobs than our democratic state. Money talks, jobs walk.

[ken melvin]

Thanks german reader for saying what so needs be said and saying it very well.

In re China's growth; it's not too hard being successful when you're competing with a 10 t0 1 advantage. Kinda like in thee old days when construction unions were strong and rat contractors could make a good living due the high union scale; what if Chinese wages double and/or American keep falling?

[Massimo]

The expansion of the economic sphere has now reached almost all States, in a positive sense when it contributed to growth and development, in the negative when it led both human exploitation and natural resources. Even some goods and services that once were not exchangeable now have become transportable. And here came the latest wave of modern globalization. Instead democracy is not a model extended everywhere, unfortunately...
I have written more on this matter on this website:
http://massimowho.blogspot.com

[Alex Tolley]

"Will democracy, in fact, win in the end?"

Historically, the picture hasn't been that good. How many democracies have lasted to the end of that particular civilization, rather than being abandoned to authoritarian modes of government?

[cm]

random reader: A succession of authoritarian leaderships is likely to be self-limiting or self-destructive in the long run. But, as the phrase goes, in the long run we will all be dead. Like it applied to many generations in the Dark Ages and the centuries leading up to and following them.

Modern technology has greatly amplified central planners' ability to screw up the environment. In the preindustrial ages, destructive forces were largely limited to fire and manual deforestation.

[Gegner]

Um, I'm not sure how to break this to you folks but the US ISN'T a democracy...it's a 'representative republic'.

Which is to point out that you, the voter, only have a limited voice in the running of our government.

Think about it...you only get to choose is who will make decisions in your name without they're ever consulting you.

And if you don't like how your representative chooses, tough! There's nothing you can do about it!

This is not 'democracy' by any stretch of the imagination.

[hari]

Reich claim that democratic capitalism will win at the end - is essentially a dream and not much more - current plutocracy rule notwithstanding, US representative system is not up to the task of meeting the basic needs of the sovereign. Otherwise, how do you explain the deficiencies in healthcare, education and welfare constraints?

Autocratic capitalism may be easier to govern because once decision made to move forward there are few, if any, roadblocks on the way. Yet authority of the state demands legitimacy, if it is to continue to govern effectively.

My reading of Chinese Revolution - compared to American - illustrates a pivitol weakness of democratic capitalism - namely, inability to *enforce* equality of opportunity and upward mobility of working/lower classes. From a purely Marxist perspective, a (democratic capitalist) class society is fundamentally a formula for (constant) social/political struggle/conflict.

If Australia, Canada and India are examples of parliamentary Federalism, endowed with British sense of fairness, India is still a difficult country to govern with its multi-polarity of political parties and racial/caste divide.

Progress along the road of democratic capitalism is enshrined with a lot of corruption and inconsistencies - invariably part and parcel of a *worst* system - compared to all others (Churchill's dictum).

Although, unlike Russia, if mainland China can eventually and legally unite with Taiwan and formally integrate it into its state system, along with Hong Kong, my feeling is that history of Chinese civilization - from the Manchus - will reinvigorate Confucionist moral principles and give rise to an alternative order of state capitalism.

[Lafayette]

One must learn to walk

arr: Perhaps a strong hand is required to keep such an empire together -- at least in the initial stages of development.

It is in this sense that I was about to comment.

One does not judge, or should not judge, a people or their government based upon one’s personal cultural values. Democracy is not an easy political system of government, because it takes a certain maturity of the people for it to function successfully.

No Western society, at present, has a democratic system of government that it might announce to the world is “the best possible”. We have seen, sadly, how our much vaunted “balance of powers” can be employed to overturn constitutional law, destabilize democracy and make for a quasi-totalitarian sitting PotUS.

We have nothing to crow about –the value of lead-head’s crony administration, if any at all, shows us precisely the shortcomings of ours when put in the wrong hands.

So Reich preaching to the faithful about the democratic values by which he measures China, is a bit overdone. He should run China and he’d see his task differently.

Meaning this: the Chinese, if handed “democracy” on a silver platter tomorrow, probably would not know what to do with it. And, if seeking advice, they came to America to study our system, they might likely walk away with a common observation: One needs a lot of money to become PotUS, which can only give vested interest to a rule of plutocracy. Damn few plutocrats are altruistic to an extent that they give their money to a candidate without expecting consideration in return.

What, pray tell, is the lesser evil, autocracy or plutocracy? Abject poverty but also a nascent middle-class existence under autocracy or a solid middle-class existence but serious signs of Income Unfairness under a plutocracy? The latter obviously, but neither is optimal.

For the moment, the only Gini coefficient worse than the US is China’s. What if, to get to our system the passage from the Chinese system was obligatory? When the economy has evolved further, then the Chinese can implement the strong taxation that provides Public Services so direly needed by China’s vast population -- as has been implemented in other Western developed countries (such as the EU).

A country must generate riches, before it can share them equitably.

And, maybe even, along the way, a rudimentary democracy at the grass roots that allows the people to see the benefits of choosing their own leaders, locally first and nationally afterwards.

Even with democracy, one must learn to walk before running.

[hari]

@ german reader -

Thanks for a historical perspective based on German experience with both autocratic despots and (now) democoratic parliamentary system of rule.

If you consider Bismarkian rule, Napoleonic Empire and British Imperialism from their historical perspective, it's quite interesting to note which of the dominant state system has succeeded in formenting (a) pluralistic democracy based on equality and welfare of the sovereign.

And, for example, if you chose to sit-in on a parliamentary debate in German Riksdag (which normally starts at 8 a.m.!)
you'll be surprised at the business like conduct of the floor debate from both opposition and government benches.
It may be dull and not so noisey, as French or British counterparts, yet it demonstrates the sovereign legitimacy of the victory over Narzism and autocratic rule.

Therefore, may be, American democracy needs a serious fork-on-the-road to wake-up and recognize what ails the current system of free market capitalism.

[Ryan]

China has the benefit of increasing returns to capital investments, and that is the only reason they are growing at the rate they are. It is the second-mover advantage on an aggregate scale. As for the comparative governments; I'm not even sure the cultural histories of the two countries would make for a fair analysis.

bakho says...

"Does the authoritarianism/democracy axis matter more than plutocracy/meritocracy axis?"

That certainly is a question worth pondering; my gut reaction would that the plutocracy/meritocracy axis is far more important in terms of Economic well being.

Anyway, I would like to make a small proposition about Economic Determinism, and why it is incorrect. The opportunity cost of rebellion/revolution (violent or peaceful) rises with the accumulation of material wealth. High-minded concepts like human rights, freedoms, etc take a backseat when you stand to lose a lot of awesome stuff.

On the flip side, being extremely impoverished, your basic goal in life is essentially sustenance. There is simply no time to demand that your voice be heard.

However, I do believe that it is when wealth begins to evaporate that political change is most likely to occur. Once China gets to the point that investments in capital no longer results in huge returns; the middle-class will be squeezed, and then perhaps a democratic revolution may occur.

[jonfernquest]

"Will authoritarian capitalism become the next economic development model as other countries try to mimic China's success?"

South Korea's development was "authoritarian capitalism" so I don't think this model can be seen as the "next economic development model" and what about Germany in the late 19th century? I don't think this idea is new.

[ndd]

This is yet again another discussion of Globalization's Biggest Most Dangerous Lie.

The late 19th century was characterized by rampant free trade within Europe as "autocratic capitalist" Germany competed with "democratic capitalist" Britain. World War I is the complete and devastating utter refutation of neoliberal free trade wet dreams.

And by the way, historians have studied the causes of revolutions. Subjects will not rise up against autocrats so long as their economy is doing well. Kicking evil foreigners' butts is viewed as pretty nice too. It is when a period of well-being is interrupted by an economic reverse, and all of the sacrifice is placed on small business and those not on the autocrat's list of favorite cronies, that revolts occur.

[Ryan]

True enough jon. Then again, most new ideas aren't new at all.

[Ryan]

'It is when a period of well-being is interrupted by an economic reverse, and all of the sacrifice is placed on small business and those not on the autocrat's list of favorite cronies, that revolts occur."

I'm no historian, but that seems a logical conclussion.

[swells]

I think the premise of the article is off base. One won't win over the other. The two will converge. The more power the government asserts to determine who wins and who loses the higher the incentives become for manipulating government.

The end result of this process will be two systems that are only superficially different from each other. They will both wind up being arbitrary and tyrannical systems who attempt to keep the populace placated in much the same way a farmer attempts to keep his dairy cattle tranquil so he may expropriate more of their milk.

[reason]

swells
No the difference is in the form the revolution takes. In a democratic system the change is allowed to happen in a non-violent way. In a authoritarian system, the autocrat loses the support of his army and police.
You sound like JK Galbraith. Or George Orwell. But I think you are wrong.
But none the less, if we don't wake up, we will get what we deserve. Who was it said "the price of freedom is eternal vigilance".

[cm]

hari: "Yet authority of the state demands legitimacy, if it is to continue to govern effectively."

Equally and perhaps more importantly, effective leadership requires checks and balances, i.e. feedback from "the governed" and input from them and subordinate government bodies that are closer to reality to begin with. Eventually (sustained) legitimacy derives from those very modes of participation. A tyrant by definition can never have legitimacy, only be the current holder of power in his domain.

Feedback, esp. negative or unfavorable feedback, is where most autocratic system fall short and suppression of which eventually limits their effectiveness.

[Lafayette]

Hari: wake-up and recognize what ails the current system of free market capitalism.

I think we know what that ailment is, hari. It's called Greed.

The challenge is what to do about greed in a nation all too willing to forget the word momentarily, for even a brief chance at making a megabuck.

The issue is therefor moral not economic. And, the best one can do is to think of de-incentivizing people in the temptation -- by taxing the hell out of any gain.

[S Brennan]

"...and authoritarian capitalism"

Didn't we used to call this fascism?

Have liberals of all stripes have been cowed to the point where they adopt the toxic orwellian language?

[reason]

S. Brennan,
no actually fascism is a subset of authoritarian capitalism. Go to Dave Neiwert's site Orcinus if you want to read more on the definition of fascism. I think the current US comes closer (though not too close) to it than China does.

[anne]

"Economic reforms are well underway in China. Individual Chinese can own property and invest, trade and buy almost whatever they want. Private enterprise is in, collectives are out. But when it comes to civil and political rights, China today is where it was almost two decades ago at the time of Tiananmen Square."

Rubbish....

[reason]

As other people have pointed out, the monarchial late 19th Century Germany is a very successful example of non-fascist, authoritarian capitalism.

[anne]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/02/world/asia/02china.html?ref=world&pagewanted=print

August 2, 2008

Despite Flaws, Rights in China Have Expanded
By HOWARD W. FRENCH

SHANGHAI — For the past two decades, China's people became richer but not much freer, and the Communist Party has staked its future on their willingness to live with that tradeoff.

That, at least, is the conventional wisdom. But as the Olympic Games approach, training a spotlight on China's rights record, that view obscures a more complex reality: political change, however gradual and inconsistent, has made China a significantly more open place for average people than it was a generation ago.

Much remains unfree here. The rights of public expression and assembly are sharply limited; minorities, especially in Tibet and Xinjiang Province, are repressed; and the party exercises a nearly complete monopoly on political decision making.

But Chinese people also increasingly live where they want to live. They travel abroad in ever larger numbers. Property rights have found broader support in the courts. Within well-defined limits, people also enjoy the fruits of the technological revolution, from cellphones to the Internet, and can communicate or find information with an ease that has few parallels in authoritarian countries of the past.

"Some people will tell you, look at the walls, and say they are still pretty high, while others will tell you that there is a lot of space between the walls," said Nicholas Bequelin, a China specialist at Human Rights Watch. "Both things are true."

Chinese who try to challenge the one-party state directly say authorities are no more tolerant of dissent than they were in the 1980s, and in some cases they are tougher on citizen-led campaigns to enforce legal rights or stop environmental abuses.

On the other hand, the definition of what constitutes a political challenge has changed. Individuals are far less likely to run afoul of a system that no longer demands conformity in political views or personal lifestyles.

The shift toward a more diverse society helps explain some anomalies in perceptions of life inside China. Amnesty International, the human rights group, reported this week that the rights situation had deteriorated significantly in the months before the Olympics despite China's pledges to improve its record as a condition for hosting the games.

But a survey conducted by the Pew Global Attitudes Project this spring and issued last month found that an astounding 86 percent of Chinese said they were content with their country's direction, double the percentage who said the same thing in 2002. Only 23 percent of Americans polled in the survey said they were satisfied with their country's direction.

The speeches of China's leaders, with their gray imagery and paternalistic phrasings, have changed relatively little, emphasizing unity, harmony and economic growth under party rule. The reality on the ground, though, has been transformed, partly because a more dynamic economy necessitates a more dynamic society, partly because money gives people options they did not have when they were poor.

Arguably the most dramatic change in the freedoms enjoyed by most Chinese has been the gradual erosion of a population registration system that tied people to their places of birth, preventing internal migration or, at its height, even tourism.

China has not formally abandoned the system, known as hukou, and it can still prove a nuisance. But as hundreds of millions of people have moved from the inland provinces to wealthier coastal cities in search of economic opportunity, authorities in one place after another have found themselves making concessions to this new reality.

Song Daqing, who lives in a single-room home here with his wife and three children, counts himself as a beneficiary of these changes. Born into poverty in Sichuan Province, he worked as a cattle herder, bricklayer and coal miner, earning as little as 60 cents a day before coming to Shanghai in 1998. His early years in this city were marked by frequent mass roundups of migrants by the police, and he was twice held in crowded detention centers before being expelled from the city.

"Now we all have residence permits," said Mr. Song, who supports his family by selling vegetables. "The police don't check our paperwork anymore, and even if they found you without a permit, they won't arrest you, but rather would suggest you get one as soon as possible."

Reality Trumps Ideology

The relative flexibility the government has shown in allowing this to happen is more a matter of pragmatism than any overt ideological shift, a grudging concession to economic reality.

"China's economic development relies on the flow of migrants into cities," said Wei Wei, the founder of Little Bird, an organization that runs a special phone line to help migrant workers protect their rights. "The country's growth depends on it."

Little Bird itself is an example of incremental openness. It is a nongovernmental organization, one of thousands addressing social, economic and environmental issues that the party once insisted it could handle by itself. The leeway private groups have to influence public policy is still limited. Those that cross unwritten lines into political opposition often are shut down.

But China's bureaucracy is more contentious than it was under Mao. Policy advocates within the government — including officials representing weak bureaucracies, like those charged with fighting pollution, improving education and broadening women's rights — often seek popular support to increase their clout.

A recent example involved a revision of a law covering rights for the handicapped, which the government undertook after several organizations banded together in 2004 to advocate change on the issue. The activists also contacted Chinese legislators and provided a report to the official Chinese Disabled Person's Federation.

The government never publicly acknowledged the citizens' action, but a revised law incorporating some of their recommendations was enacted earlier this year. "The pressure came from both inside and outside," said Wu Runling, director of the Beijing Huitianyu Information Consulting Center, one of the groups involved. "You can't tell me that our appeal and calls for revision of the law had no meaning at all."

Although a powerful system of censorship remains a fact of life, and journalists are frequently jailed and detained, feisty publications with mass audiences in print and on the Internet report forthrightly about ills in society.

Greater access to information has emboldened people to assert some rights. Homeowners in cities like Shanghai and Chongqing have resisted government development schemes with some success, and the proliferation of petitioners with all kinds of grievances presents the authorities with an informal check on their power.

"After 30 years, everybody knows about democracy and freedom," said Wang Xiaodong, a researcher at the China Youth Research Center, a wing of the Communist Youth League. "They know that as taxpayers, we support the government, not the opposite."

Before the Olympics, Beijing demolished a favorite pilgrimage spot for petitioners who flow to the capital from all over the country to seek redress from perceived injustice. According to a recent report in a Hong Kong magazine, Phoenix Weekly, the government has also hired thugs to intimidate or kidnap petitioners to prevent them from making their cases. Critics of such abuses say that in an indirect way, the state is acknowledging the power of such protest.

"Human rights has become more than just a theory for the public," said Jiang Qisheng, a student leader during the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and former political prisoner. "In the past they petitioned and complained about injustice, but that wasn't about defending their rights. They let the higher authorities to decide their rights.

"What they are asking for now is a change in the system, and this reflects a widespread change in attitude," he said....

[swells]

Anne, I don't think anyone would dispute that "rights" in China have expanded. However, what has expanded shouldn't really be called rights. They are instead priviledges that the government grants and/or takes away, depending on whether the government thinks the priviledge will result in a bit more wealth to expropriate or not.

It's really an awful lot like the US in that regard.

[swells]

reason, I disagree that the form the revolution takes will make one bit of difference in the long term. An apt analogy might be to talk about a wave in an ocean. It could start from an earthquake or it could be a particular and rare confluence of waves that just happen to be complementary, building on each other.

When the beach goers get drowned by the wave, it won't make any difference which way it started.

Power corrupts and the closer it gets to being absolute the more it corrupts.

There is a lot less difference between the US and China than any would like to admit I think.

[S Brennan]

Reason,

I used to read Dave Neiwert's site, but his penchant for calling everybody who disagrees with him a racist left me cold. I don't think given my low opinion of him that I would trust him to define an important word for me. That's not to refute that the redefinition of Fascism like the rewriting of history isn't a cottage industry.

However, my use of the word is:

"A philosophy or system of government that is marked by stringent social and economic control, a strong, centralized government usually headed by a dictator, and often a policy of belligerent nationalism." (From The American Heritage Dictionary)

another:

from Merriam-Webster
"..often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

[hari]

@ S Brennan -

Sounds more like GWB after 9/11....!

Recall his (mis)use of FacistIslam!

From a (European) historical perspective you guys shld try/avoid academic definitions with little or no relevance to actual experience in places like Italy, Portugal and Spain. Relevance of fascist thinking is (also) closely linked with social classes and racist dogma....

[ken melvin]

Ask Tibet.

[btg]

I would agree with the definitions in Brenns post, with the caveat that some of the regimes thought of as being the exemplars of fascism weren't all that capitalist...

after all, "National Socialism" - that is, Nazi Germany, was a kind of welfare state - not a bastian of right-wing anglo-american capitalism - but one where the welfare state was paid for out of the plunder from Jews and military conquest, rather than through high taxes on the rich.

[hari]

@ Swell -

You know I got a lot of entertainment from you when we discussed emergence of BO during the primary....

Now, you're dead wrong if you think or even suggest mainland China will converge with US *kleptocracy* - you and I won't live that long to wintness it (I guess).

I must point out (specially for our younger minds) that mainland China is a product of The Long March and Mao's proletarian revolution including Cultural Revolution. It's like a menu from which current leadership must choose the way forward - while simultaneously justifying their revolutionary fervour. Legitimacy naturally comes from authority and enlightened self-preservation of the Communist Revolution. Unlike Russians, Chinese are capable of making it succeed in one form or another. They've proven it after Mao.

The Marquis (Lafayette) is right when he says even if you offered the mainland Chinese - on a platter - US style democratic governance, they wouldn't know what to do with it.

I'd suggest it takes a bit of social imagination to understand what ticks the Chinese Communists today....besides material consumption.

[swells]

hari, I would say that for the most part the convergence has already taken place so I disagree whether either of us will live to see it. Yes, there are many, many differences between the US and China. However, I would argue that the differences are mostly superficial and trivial and that the commonalities are far more fundamental.

Most people in the US and in China are content to believe things that aren't true and care mostly about improving their material position with as little effort as is possible.

[Zaizai]

The "market" for democracy just isn't there. In other words, the demand for democracy may be low because as it may be hard to believe, our version of democracy just isn't compelling enough for them to buy in.

[Bruce Wilder]

I would humbly submit that the body politic, any body politic, is organic, and being organic is subject to inevitable decay and death, reprieved from that fate only by its capacity for renewal and regeneration.

I would go further and assert that that framework ecology of communities, within which the body politic of this nation-state or that, exists, and which we might call Civilization, is also organic and subject, as well, to the hazards of existence, and the entropic tendency to decay and death.

In the gradual evolution of modern Western Civilization, representative or Parliamentary Democracy claimed pride of place, because of its superior adaptability, in comparison to, and in competition with, more autocratic or aristocratic regimes.

The U.S. Constitution (or constitution -- small 'c') has proven to have many weaknesses, including the failure to anticipate the advantages of Prime Ministers and Party in Parliament. But, it's redeeming virtue has been its malleability, as it has successfully morphed with the passing of generations. A simple survey of Presidential elections at generational intervals so vividly illustrates this principle that I need only give dates: 1788, 1828, 1860, 1896, 1932, 1968, 2008.

Every great, enduring State of the modern world, with sufficient insulation against external force, has a similar series of red-letter dates, at generational intervals. Under less adaptable regimes, such dates mark failed revolutions, followed at subsequent generational intervals by quiescence, and then, more violent upheavals.

The U.S. is at one of those generational divides, where we will see whether mere democratic elections can provide the necessary lubrication to keep the machine in motion, or whether the gears will seize, and the wheels spin, stuck in the mire. Thoughtful observers fear that our partisan election contest will offer only a change in the cast of characters; the imperial plutocracy will endure unmolested by our nominally democratic politics, and the nation will continue driving toward destruction.

About China, I cannot pretend to understand anything about the mechanics of their political constitution. I would not venture that any state capable of the adaptation of 1978 cannot manage some improvisation in the near future. But, the challenge to the system is necessarily great.

The conceit that the authoritarian capitalism of China is, somehow, stupider than the authoritarian capitalism of Tom DeLay, Grover Norquist, Angelo Mozilo, and George W. Bush seems a dubious construction.

Reich's Whiggish faith that all states evolve "upward" toward the ordered liberty of representative democracy seems less realistic than a Darwinian recognition that evolution is effectively blind and hazardous.

[S Brennan]

Btg,

The Nazis were "socialist" in name only, the fact of the matter is they shot communists with same regularity that they gave lucrative contracts to businesses that supported them.

The Nazi "enterprise" paid businesses the same way the US Government buys products from US businesses.

The Nazis were capitalist. Ironically, many of the businesses that were their biggest supporters are still in business today.

[hari]

@ Swell -

I wish I could use your *blinders*....

You're a real optimist. For which I congratulate and commend you - inspite of the fundamental contradictions; GWB designated China *as an adversary* (not a competitor, mind you). Red China still exists in the American conservative mindset, I think.

[swells]

hari, I assume you call me an optimist in a suitably tongue in cheek manner. I am not at all optimistic. I am very pessimistic. But then again, I live in a society in which a lot of people still think how one's body evolved to manufacture vitamin D determines one's worth as an individual. Obama said yesterday, 'these guys take pride in being ignorant".

My pessimism derives from a recognition that "these guys" is, with vary rare exceptions of which I am not one, all of us.

[swells]

Bruce Wilder, it is a joy to read your writing.

[daveNYC]

"Authoritarian anything is not a "good thing.""

It's good to be the king.

-M. Brooks

[save_the_rustbelt]

The NYT wrote glowing reports about Stalin.

While he was starving 10 million Ukrainians.

[save_the_rustbelt]

Dave:

good catch

[X Man]

It's amazing to me how many people think politics and economics are the same thing. China is the number one example of why they are two totally different animals.

As for the Chinese economy: any random group of idiots can run an economy growing at 9-10% and posting a decent trade surplus. Nearly all of these gains can be ascribed to the government simply letting the natural entrepreneurial spirit of the Chinese people out of the bottle. The real question is what happens next- can Beijing manage a more modest rate of growth? What if a global slowdown crimps China's exports and they have to start drawing down their foreign reserves?

[btg]

"“Hitler’s Beneficiaries” argues that nothing more than an unremarkable pursuit of self-interest led most Germans to pledge allegiance to the Nazi regime. Germans wanted their children to have nice Christmas gifts. They wanted to set aside money for retirement. They wanted to send a special someone back home a pretty sweater from Holland or perfumed soap from France. Citizens were sated with decent wages, generous overtime pay and innovative pension plans — that is, through the establishment of a complex, if absolutely amoral, welfare state."

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/18/books/review/Herzog.t.html
New York Times review of

HITLER’S BENEFICIARIES
Plunder, Racial War, and the Nazi Welfare State.
By Götz Aly. Translated by Jefferson Chase.

[btg]

"Aly, in short, makes a serious and well-researched attempt to put the “socialism” back in National Socialism."

[Lafayette]

Darwin had it right

Xman: the government simply letting the natural entrepreneurial spirit of the Chinese people out of the bottle.
The problem is that there is a good number of other spirits-in-the-bottle that are worth leaving there.

And, one day they will return to haunt the authorities, as they have in Tibet and, even, elsewhere. (That explosion reported in the Turkoman part of China last week wasn't firecrackers.) China is not a nation ready for individual responsibility expressed democratically. The walls are there for a reason.

Let's remember, it is a country that has been an autocracy for thousands of years. If left to their own devices, the Chinese would not know how to assume responsibility, meaning they would flounder to find how.

And, the baser instincts would also emerge, particularly in the use of controlled substances, a penchant for which the Chinese had sharp usage in pre-communist days.

It will take at least two generations on the road to increasing self-autonomy, but the way will be hard and difficult. For all the 21st-Century standard-of-living that will be splashed across our TV sets during the Olympics, the real purpose of which is to showcase modern day China, life in the countryside is one of abject poverty. Cruel, back-breaking and short-lived.

And, it is the latter, in terms of numbers, who are the great majority in China today, by as much as a 1000 to every city dweller, that are a menace to China's integrity. Don't expect to see much of them on TV. They don't correspond to the image of a "modern China", that the authorities want to convey.

What worries the Chinese is the differential in well-being between the city and country folk. Income Inequity is aberrant.

Bush is going to tell them they shouldn't worry. The US is not that much better in terms of Income Inequality -- and even if one is "free" to complain till exhausted on a blog or a soap box in a park, not much will change.

Darwin had it right all along.

[Bruce Wilder]

X-man: ". . . any random group of idiots can run an economy growing at 9-10% and posting a decent trade surplus."

!?

[ndd]

Lafayette: "If left to their own devices, the Chinese would not know how to assume responsibility, meaning they would flounder to find how."

Yes, exactly. Just look at how they have been floundering in Taiwan and in Hong Kong's legislative elections.

[anne]

"If left to their own devices, the Chinese would not know how to assume responsibility, meaning they would flounder to find how."

Huh??? OMG!

[reason]

Bruce Wilder,
has won the thread here.

[Lafayette]

ndd: Just look at how they have been floundering in Taiwan and in Hong Kong's legislative elections.

Chiang Kai-shek took the remnants of his Kuomintang power base and fled China to Taiwan in 1950 -- which has been protected ever since by the US. (Lest we not forget Quemoy?)

Taiwan may be indeed an example of Chinese democracy -- more than half a century in the making, which is my point. It will take the mainland Chinese probably just as long.

Let's wish them a safe journey ... but first they must get started on their Long Long March (pun intended).

PS: Those who got to Hong Kong were lucky. If you think that HK is democratically run, think again. Peking has it in its back pocket.

[ken melvin]

Lafayette, Bruce, ... all - Good Stuff. So few seem to want admit the role of culture, but 'tis real.

[Cynthia]

Wow, Lafayette! You never cease to amaze me with your insightful thinking and ability to put into words what so many of us think and feel but can't express so eloquently.

In fact, if Mark were ever to start a Molly-bloggy award here, you'd make the shortlist of winners (along with Bruce and Bruce, to name a few) -- plus giving paine honorable mention for his showstopping creativity, of course.:^)

[paine]

"Democratic capitalism should win in the end because it responds far better to what people want -- not only as consumers but also as citizens "

brave hopeful little guy

democratic corporatism mayhaps ???

i prefer the glibertarians on this point
if its capitalistic
whether its top down or bottom up oriented
the only good state
is a dramatically rapidly withered away state
ie
a collapsed state not a reforming state

but hey
i'm an unrecovering red guard

[paine]

bruce

"the body politic, any body politic, is organic, and being organic is subject to inevitable decay and death, reprieved from that fate only by its capacity for renewal and regeneration."

as u know dear soul
i gather many olives in your orchard

but a mild warning here

reify too deeply and too long
them organic metaphors ...and ....
starts to smell like decaying flowers
not darwin eh ???

for our very own social system
with its hu-headed basic units
and the meme web so produced ...
well our notion's
of mother nature knows no
ready analogue

its to our own god like images
of ourselves incarnating our memes
like so many angels and devils

we ultimately must turn to our projected
creation
holy beings battling for control of the sky

[reason]

Paine
"Democratic capitalism should win in the end because it responds far better to what people want -- not only as consumers but also as citizens "

I think you parsed this wrong - you asked the wrong question. "Win what" is the right question. The reasoning is circular, because is implied is popularity - it gives the little people what they want. But the plutocrat replies - "who cares about the little people?". That is the system may be better (because the evolving process is based on a better worth agorithm) but that doesn't mean it will win, because the worth algorithm of the world of competing systems may be different.

[reason]

I wonder if people understood what I meant (internal versus external evolutionary pressures).

[ndd]

Lafayette, I am well aware of the modern history of Taiwan and HK. That's why, for example, I specificied HK "legislative elections".

Your initial comment made no mention of a 50 year time frame. I'm certainly prepared to accept your refinement, but that begs the point: where to start? Taiwan's democracy didn't spring full grown in the late 1980s. A autocracy with democratic trappings was allowed to become more real.

Should we then accept that the PRC's legislature might decide rather like Britain's Pariiament of several centuries back, that it wants more real power?

And BTW as to free trade leading to democracy leading to Kum-Bai-Yah, this Pew international poll does not bode well for China's future peaceful international coexistence.

[kthomas]

ndd, that poll isn't worth one iota. All it will take is one good solid recession (exactly how long to Chinese leaders expect 10%+ growth rates?) and those same numbers will look a lot different. China can barely feed her people.....tough times will come, and when they do, the AK-47s will determine, once again, who is in charge of China.

[ndd]

kthomas: If you go back and read my first comment on this thread, I said exactly what you have just said -- with the addition that, so long as the economy is expanding and benefits can be shared, autocrats can be very popular. That second part of the statement is what the Pew poll shows.

[anne]

"China can barely feed her people.....tough times will come, and when they do, the AK-47s will determine, once again, who is in charge of China."

Hateful lying, but do keep on trying.

[ndd]

Anne, you may well be correct about the first part of your criticism. But when you make a personal accusation against somebody else here of "hateful lying", I think you owe it to them to justify why "tough times will come, and when they do, the AK-47s will determine, once again, who is in charge of China" is false.

If you read the blog entry I've linked to in my first comment here, it refers to what historians call "the J curve", and that is essentially exactly what the J curve concludes.

[anne]

I could care less; the comment is barbaric, and entirely false. We evidently have a need that knows no bounds to belittle others, especially those who we think are sufficiently different from our stereotypes of ourselves and who we think the least vulnerable.

[kthomas]

Sorry, anne. I'm simply not as optomistic on China as you are. Politics is barbaric. Would that more souls like you ran the world it would be a much much better place for all. I'm a huge fan of Mao, and I really don't think China has a better model for leadership than him. There will never be democracy in China, but there's no doubt she will be a power for a long time to come.

[Lafayette]

The Butcher of Lhasa and BigOil

kt: I'm simply not as optomistic on China as you are. Politics is barbaric.

This choice of words is appropriate.

The present President of China, Hu Jintao, is also supposedly the "Butcher of Lhasa" for when he was head of the region of Tibet. In the riots of 1988, he is accused of being responsible for the harsh repression that cost a good number of lives. (Of course, this may also be hearsay, since there does not seem to be any clear, definitive reporting regarding these incidents. There were severe restrictions of foreigners travelling to Lhasa in 1988.)

Anyway, the head of Reporters Without Borders in Paris is all over French TV presently with this "Butcher of Lhasa" accusation. Though, I must add, the guy rants like a typical French leftist hothead, which makes him less than believable.

If anyone can verify the allegations against Jintao, regarding his time as head of the Tibet region during the Lhasa riots, then they should post them here. This would surprise me, since the net has virtually nothing regarding these riots except anecdotal reports.

My point is nonetheless this: The ruling class of China, unelected and intensely ambitious apparatchiks, are not the sort of people your mother would want you hanging around.

China has a long row to hoe before it reaches democracy. Given the ambitious and often aggressive manner that it is presently seeking to assure mineral/petroleum/coal supplies, China is on a crash course with the US, the largest energy user in the world.

Something has gotta give and - if it is not to be a war over energy resources -- then that something must be BigOil. It seems patently obvious that we must unhook our energy supplies from petroleum, gas and coal as quickly as possible and adopt strategically (meaning quickly) other alternative resources.

[Dirk van Dijk]

I suspect that over time there might be some limited form of democracy in china, but it will be slow in coming. Most likely it will be at the very local level and the choice will be between 2 people appoved by the central party. Nothing that could challange the central system, but enough that locals could kick out particularly corrupt local pols. Continuation of more lifestyle freedoms, but direct challanges to the overall authority of the party will never be allowed.
Sort of a matter of perspective, i'm sure that everyone here would chafe under the Chinese system, however, relative to anything they have had in the last 5000 years, it is a Ron Paul wet dream.

Kthomas, how could you possibly be a fan of Mao? In raw death toll he is on par with Hitler and Stalin, the Great Leap Forward was perhaps the worst (and craziest) economic eperiment of all time (well Khumer Cambodia might beat it). The Cultural Revolution distroyed more great Cultural treasures than the Goths or Vandals ever did in Rome. Quite simply, Mao was an asshole (not that Chang Kai Sheik was a Saint). Deng on the other hand saw on to the great figures of the 20th Century, one that historians will put on par with Churchill, Ghandi and FDR.

[Patricia Shannon]

Anne, if you lived in China, you would not be able to comment freely on a blog like this. You might very well be in prison.

[Karl Bonner]

If you want to see other examples of authoritarian capitalism become reality, just register as Republicans en masse and nominate a hard-line, Christian Right candidate and find a way to get him (I guess it could be a her though you wouldn't expect it that way) elected.

As it is the Christian Right will probably come to pass without ever having fully implemented its agenda. But if it had, you would have had many forms of uncomfortably repressive government control working with a capitalist economic system. You could buy cars and houses - but not rap music or porn. Gay bars would probably be raided by SWAT teams. And there would probably be massive police intimidation of activist and protest groups if the far right fully got its way.

[Milten Fried]

The problem is people who have wealth believe liberty is capitalism. It's not, but don't bother trying to explain this to them.

Liberty and justice for all is what made this country great and allowed us to move foreward generation after generation. Free market capitalism was an outcome of liberty, not the other way around. People had been trading for centuries with basically free markets if they were brave enough and they had almost zero liberty but instead resorted to might makes right.

The problem is we need conservatives to acknowledge this but they never will. They care to much about protecting their wealth and the freedom it brings them compared to the rest of society.

The only real problem will be is when the economy fails. When the economy fails and we move towards authoritarian government the likely result is those with capital will completely hijack it to protect their wealth from the citizens who are going to showing up on their door step to lynch them.