I looked at this rather amazing article this morning and started to write a post about it, then gave up because of time constraints – and because the article is so massive and goes into so many areas and addresses so many conflicting points that summarizing it is nearly impossible, as you say. So thanks for doing such a great job, and I really do hope everyone visits the links.

I think this post confirms my own thoughts about China at this point: Its successes and its signficance are undeniable. And it is no longer just becuase they are selling cheap shoes and toys. Many of China’s factories are applying Six Sigma rules and conforming to the highest international standards (and yes, I know, many aren’t). So the success is real and dazzling and totally beyond belief – absolutely unprecedented in the history of the planet, as the authors make clear. But they also make clear the darker side, the corruption, the hypocrisy, the scheming and the brutal inequities and, of course, the apartheid-like system where CCP members get the perks. Something for everyone – panda huggers and dragon slayers. And it makes damned good reading.

March 2, 2007 @ 7:36 pm | Comment

For an interesting comparison / contrast vis-a-vis India, see Spiegel’s piece on Mumbai (India’s Shanghai).

THE PARADOX OF MUMBAI
Slums, Stocks, Stars and the New India

http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,469031,00.html

March 2, 2007 @ 9:13 pm | Comment

A very interesting and balanced article indeed.

Another paradox, I came across this today. I generally dont trust think tanks with political affiliations much but worth a read.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/TradeandForeignAid/wm1375.cfm

“The reminder is that the economies of China and America are deeply integrated— the Sino-American engine is at the heart of globalization, after all. The warning is that the Sino side of the engine is strong but not stable.
”

Amusing – “The simple answer is that searching for a direct link between the level of freedom and growth in income is futile. This is not a confession, but a suggestion that those who care about human progress drop the dogma and think about the economics.”

and also “Clearly, the freedom-to-prosperity relationship is strong. What the Chinese government has done is raised China’s growth potential by enhancing economic freedom.”

March 2, 2007 @ 10:52 pm | Comment

One point:

>>Do China’s successes fly in the face of every critic and skeptic who believes that Marxism-Leninism and capitalism are as incompatible as the devil and holy water?

I guess that would depend on whether China was actually still practicing anything at all approaching “Marxism-Leninism.” As most Chinese never tire of pointing out (and they are correct), China is communist in name only, so calling the current system a triumph of “Marxism-Leninism” that “flies in the face of its critics” is beyond absurd. The reason for China’s success (not the only reason, but the main one) is that the CCP abandoned “Marxism-Leninism” for a form of authoritarian crony-capitalism.

I don’t think any observer anywhere on the political spectrum back in 1980, let’s say, would call China’s current system “communist” or “Marxist-Leninist.” Most important, no observer in the communist world itself would have — and for obvious reasons.

March 2, 2007 @ 11:38 pm | Comment

88,

Great point as always.

March 2, 2007 @ 11:44 pm | Comment

Excellent article. Detailed, comprehensive (at least within the space given), and well written, it puts most other recent accounts in Western media to shame.

The question of whether China is “Marxist-Leninist”, socialist, or capitalist can be left to the political theorists working on textbooks. The labels are quite simply, irrelevant. Policies speak for themselves.

And I’m more than a little proud that China, after two decades of remarkable results, has dragged even institutions like the Heritage Foundation (kicking and screaming) into accepting that “those who care about human progress drop the dogma and think about the economics”.

Exactly. Drop the dogma. There’s a lot of very interesting, challenging events going on in China today. There are far too many who hold preconceived notions about what “must” be happening; this only obscures the truth of what actually is.

March 3, 2007 @ 2:31 am | Comment

>>The labels are quite simply, irrelevant.

“The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names.”

Confucius

March 3, 2007 @ 6:51 am | Comment

From earlier in the same section:

君子于其所不知，盖阙如也。

March 3, 2007 @ 7:25 am | Comment

“The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names.”

Posted by: 88

There is a reason that Hu Yangbao and Zhao Ziyang spent so much energy trying to come up with a theory consistent with with Marxism-Leninism-Deng Xiaoping thought that provided allowances for their reforms.

There is still an air of Marxist historical analysis that hangs over the CCP, it’s just that theorists don’t posit China can skip from feudalism to socialist nirvana without passing through the capitalist stage the way that Mao thought.

March 3, 2007 @ 9:06 am | Comment

Jeremiah —

I, like Richard, read the article and started posting on it and then gave up. You truly have done a great job with it and I know it was not easy.

March 3, 2007 @ 3:24 pm | Comment

One could come away from reading that article forgetting that there is anything to China other than the coast, Chongqing and Chengdu, some unidentified number of poor farmers who would benefit from land ownership, and some migrant workers who come from somewhere and are happily strung along with modest improvements in wages.

I don’t mean to simply be a contrarian, but I don’t think you can have any serious, honest look at the economic progress of China without clearly identifying that there are some 500+ million poor farmers in the countryside that have been almost completely forgotten, if not outright abused.

Contrast this largely glowing article with the article about Bombay that highlights the contrast between rich and poor, and the deplorable conditions. Don’t for once think that such poverty does not exist in China. If all you ever do is go to the major cities of China you will never see it, but it most certainly exists. The poor are conveniently kept out of site, out in the countryside, quietly toiling away, feeding the nation for mere pennies.

China has made a lot of money and spent a good deal of it very wisely. But it has also failed and is failing a large segment of its population. This is the defining factor for me. If China can integrate the forgotten segment of its population into its prosperity and prove that it can govern without exploiting, than I will be fully won over. Sorry if, for the time being, I remain a skeptic.

March 4, 2007 @ 1:43 am | Comment

First, thanks for this blog, I have found many interesting opinions about China in particular and politics in general.
I use to read the Spiegel ( in german). I also found the mentioned article interesting, one reason to buy it that week, but I always find, from my point of view, a common mistake.
The mistake is to call that system communist or socialist, that is a wrong use of those words.
They are in reality totalitarian systems of government. The words socialism/comunism are only there to mislead the people, just a coat of paint to hide what it is really hiden inside
The only real comunist institutions I can remember were, and I think still are, the Kibbutz in Israel.
Most is not all self called comunist, real socialism, Popular Democracies (whatever that means. A democracy so polular that is has no democratic institutions?), etc, etc.. are just totalitarian systems which only end is to maintain a reduced group of people in power by more or less violent or coercitive means.
Those system of government, through lack of accountability and transparency use to have dire consequences in the society, economy and environment of the countries where they exist.
I know it from self experience, I had the opportunity to visit the other side of the iron courtain while it existed and see the consequences by myself.
Ah, yes… I also know the right side of the coin. I lived for some year in one of the Right totalitarian systems. Did not defined itself as comunist/socialist but suffered somewhat .. lets say.. similar inefficiencies
I think the consequences in China were and still are direr than in East Europe, no matter the latter improvements
George Orwell described these governtment systems quite brillianty in “The Animal Farm”
The old Greeks have also a definition for it. Oligarchy: government of a few people, and not necessarily the best people. ( Aristochracy was the opposite: government of the best, problem always was… Who are the best? 😉
I always was interested in old and also modern China. Its History, engineering, society, arts, etc. , but specially in the technical and engineering side, specially of old China.
I always wondered what China could have become or/and could still become if the country were free from the, lets say.., inefficiencies of the current sociopolitical system.
I had the luck to meet a few but interesting chinese people in my life. Never been there though, but I would like to visit the country sometime in the future. Maybe after the olimpic games, I fear there will be too many tourist by then 🙂

March 4, 2007 @ 1:48 am | Comment

I agree with 88 and EcoDelta that calling the current system in China ‘communism’ is simply a mistake. It is a totalitarian system practicing capitalism. The word ‘communism’ has been hijacked by the Soviet Union, who used ‘communism’ as a bluff to get rid of their enemies and practice totalitarianism. Since there is no independently developed communist country that actually practices Marxism. This word communisim has been ‘borrowed’ to described a totalitarian region of soviet style most of the time. Well, you cannot seriously call a system communist when its social welfare system is almost a total non-existance, can you?

Another point. According to Jared Diamond’s ‘Guns, Germs, and Steel’ and ‘Collapse: how Societies choose to fail or succeed’, China’s unification in early histroy, which was greatly due to its simple geographical features’ (see the books for detailed explanation), and the centralized government make it possible to push the government policies throughout the country effectively, say, either the earlier catastrophe such as the great leap forward or the current economical miracle. I still remember when I was little my history teachers always told us the success of each of the Chinese past society totally depended on the luck of having a good emperor (or a good PM) or not. The difference is so great that it is either great evil or great glory. Therefore, I think any analysis about China (at least while it still has a centrailized government) will be incomplete without taking this into account and without noting the great danger of it if something goes wrong.

Finally, although I also find the economical progress in China rather impressive, I somehow think people might be a bit too much in awe to be more critical about it. For me,
to judge the deed of a person is to see how he treats his inferiors; and to judge how
successful a country is to see how it treats its peasants and workers. For example, while
I lived in Germany, I was quite impressed by the life in their country side, so peaceful and quaint. For me that is an indication of a healthy society. Therefore I think rural lifestyle should have a certain weight in measuring a country’s success as well.

March 4, 2007 @ 4:47 am | Comment

My old man who passed away a few years ago, was from mountainous and dirt-poor Sichuan. Afraid of his son growing up in a big city and forgeting his root, He sent me back to my ancestral home (migrated to during late Ming’s 湖广填四川) often. I’ve been back multiple times in the 80s, 90s and 00s. The last time I went back was to bury my old man.

As much as it’s still very poor compared to big city living, the progress has been amazing. In the 80s, many villages had no electricity. In the 90s, the new things were color TVs but it’s very rare. In the 00s, each home has multiple big color TVs and some even start having rudimentary in-door plumbing systems.

March 4, 2007 @ 8:07 am | Comment

Forgot to mention that the village now is directly connected to the new Chinese highway system. In the old day, to get there, one needed to walk in the muddy country trail for close to an hour. The travel time from Chongqing (the closest big city) has been cut down from about 10 hours to less than 2 hours.

China has done a lot to reduce rural poverty than some of you care to give credit to.

March 4, 2007 @ 8:20 am | Comment

EcoDelta, a very interested piece indeed!

You ought to go. Just pick a time. It’s easy. You can even find a cheap travel package online. While you are in Beijing, you may be able to hook up with Richard and co.

The first thing you will notice is how fast your passport will be stamped and how few questions, if any, will be asked… After that, if you keep an open mind, you will be in for a treat.

March 4, 2007 @ 8:36 am | Comment

One other point:

>>”Does Communism work after all?”

I eagerly await Spiegel online’s essay entitled “Democracy just doesn’t work after all?” about the DPRK. It is a “democratic people’s republic” after all. It says so right there in the title of the country.

I’m not knocking the entire article, but I think the author has a serious case of “She blinded me with Shanghai.”

March 4, 2007 @ 3:14 pm | Comment

Meg, very good points there about how to treat those at the bottom of the pile. I think that’s what irritates me the most, that people without any power are effectively told to “lump it” by the politicians and rich Chinese who don’t want to change the system.

EcoDelta is right in saying China is an oligarchy. A few people in governemnt and the wider society have all the power. You can also see aspects of that in Hong Kong, where it’s not just the politicians but also the upper classes who don’t want to sacrifice the disproportionate amount of influence their wield through the “functional constituencies”.

88, it’s ridiculous when that happens. Some people get so blinkered by “shiny thinks”.

March 4, 2007 @ 8:13 pm | Comment

I don’t want to say too much about China’s uneven development. But I want to say this story:

In this year’s CCTV’s Spring Festival Gala, there’s a special program devoted to migrant workers: a large group of migrant workers’ children were asked to recite a poem about the sufferings of the migrant workers in the city. This totally shocked the audience, because the Spring Festival Gala was always about achievements and happiness, but this is the first time “sadness” and “problems” were loudly said in front of all Chinese on CCTV! Here is a translation of that poem recited on CCTV:

Words from the bottom of the heart

When people ask me who I am

I always did not want to answer

because I was afraid city kids would laugh at me

our school campus is small

it can’t even fit a pommel horse

our school dorms are in bad conditions

and we often have to move

our classrooms are dim

the lights are only a few watts

our chairs are old

they often squeaks when sat

but, our homeworks are excellent

our grades are good

If you ask me what I want to say the most now

I want to say I love my mom, I love my dad

because it’s mom who is making the streets of our city clean

it’s dad who are making the buildings of our city taller

Beijing’s 2008

is also our 2008

the teachers made them into songs

the students drew them into paintings

In our essay classes, we wrote this:

Others try to compare our parents, we will compare our futures!

Migrant workers children are the same as other children

they are all children of China, all flowers of the motherland

Dear grandparents, dear dads and moms, dear children of China.

We wish you a happy new year!

心里话

要问我是谁，
过去 我总不愿回答，
因为我怕，
我怕城里的孩子笑话，
我们的校园很小，
放不下一个鞍马，
我们的校舍简陋，
还经常搬家，
我们的教室很暗，
灯光只有几瓦，
我们的座椅很旧，
坐上去吱吱哑哑，
但是 我们作业工整，
我们的成绩不差，
要问我此刻最想说什么，
我爱我的妈妈，我爱我的爸爸，
因为
是妈妈把城市的马路越扫越宽，
因为
是爸爸建起了新世纪的高楼大厦，
北京的2008，
也是我们的2008，
老师把她谱成了歌，
同学把她画成了画，
作文课上 我们写下了这样的话，
别人与我比父母，我和别人比明天，
打工子弟和城里的小朋友一样，
都是中国的娃，都是祖国的花。
亲爱的爷爷奶奶 爸爸妈妈，
全国的小朋友们，
我们向你们拜年啦。

Video of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8plH8DNPrH0

Many people cried after watching this program on CCTV. China has many problems, I don’t want to say anything about this. But at least I think the gov’t has the right heart, this I feel very touched.

March 5, 2007 @ 12:53 am | Comment

The success of China in the last two decades is not based on the comparison with current life as we know it in healthy countries today; it is based on the comparison with the China of three decades ago, the one just after the ashes from the cultural revolution. And the changes have been dramatic from this comparison. In the same period, living standard in most healthy countries have been in decline steadily. So we are going to see the this convergence to get closer and closer.

March 5, 2007 @ 1:46 am | Comment

z said

“living standards in most healthy countries have been in decline steadily”

Sorry z but I have to disagree. I recently made a visit to the UK and the living standards of my friends and family are anything but in decline, quite the opposite in fact. This notion that a rising China means a falling west (that is so popular among commenters at China Daily) is, in my experience not true.

Hong xing,

I was with you until your comment about the “gov’t”

As to the question “Does Communism work after all?”, well for a select few it works very very well.

March 5, 2007 @ 12:58 pm | Comment

“communism” and “the communist party” were only selling points at a time when peasants in China were subject to landlords as serfs in the same mechanism as Europe had. After the commies won the civil war, all land was transferred to “the people’s government”, another marketing ploy to make people feel like the land was theirs to share and the gov’t was a caretaker, but for the peasants it never really mattered, centralized economics and the need to build a nuke bomb led to the great famine in the 50s, then there was a period of organic technological and economic achievement until the cultural revolution.

All in all, the chinese gov’t hasn’t changed much since the Tang dynasty and has actually become much less liberal.

As much as some would like to credit big central planning with China’s success, there was no such success in E. Europe or the USSR. Why? Soviet Bloc didn’t get free rides in economics and finance at top US universities (in hopes of future market access) so that they could improve economic development, the Soviet Bloc didn’t get tons of tech transfers, gratuitous FDI, favorable trading status or any of the other goodies that everyone gave to China in hopes of future market access. Basically we gave China just about everything it wanted merely on the promise we’d get something in return and we swallowed the bait hook, line and sinker.

Now we have a giant with an inferiority complex coupled with a belief that it has a divine right to replace the US that belches the most foul chemicals into the air as gas and sandstorms, fouls waters around Japan and Taiwan and makes dual claims of being developed (to get trade barriers lowered as a “market economy”, cough) and being a developing country (to get UN and NGO handouts, pander to other developing countries and get waivers on pollution controls).

We built this beast at the behest of greedy corporations hoping to pay 1 billion people next to nothing and at the same time entice them to buy their wares with what little disposable income they might have left.

Memorize the words of “Losing the New China”.

March 5, 2007 @ 1:10 pm | Comment

@nanheyangrouchuan

————————————————————
As much as some would like to credit big central planning with China’s success, there was no such success in E. Europe or the USSR. Why? Soviet Bloc didn’t get free rides in economics and finance at top US universities (in hopes of future market access) so that they could improve economic development, the Soviet Bloc didn’t get tons of tech transfers, gratuitous FDI, favorable trading status or any of the other goodies that everyone gave to China in hopes of future market access. Basically we gave China just about everything it wanted merely on the promise we’d get something in return and we swallowed the bait hook, line and sinker.
———————————————————-

Well, if several hundred millions have improved significantly their lives it is not so bad a strategy after at all. Maybe that should have been used with the East Block ;-).
If the chinese had really tricked us to give them almost freely so much, then they may be far clever than we think and may have more surprises for us in the future ;-).
Now, if we gave the chinese also a free ride with energy efficiency, anti pollutions and renovable energies technologies, etc, etc and convince them that that could be also a good bussines line for them they may solve their enviromental problem in one go. Who else need more these technologies anyway?
Ok. I was a little ironic, sorry for that ;-). But regarding the last paragraph. I have seen a lot of enviromental friendly solutions not been applied in the west because of high production cost here. For example, several models of enviromental friendly cars from Volkswagen and Mercedes: Lupo eco, Smart and some Concept cars build with composite material. If would give the patents and technologies for such cars freely to China so they could produce it at much lower cost. It would help them to put more people in China on wheels in a more energy efficient way, and export them to the west so we could buy them at knock out prices. The price barrier is the main obstable for this car to become popular
By the way, these cars are also more labor intensive than traditional cars. Was not the chinese governtment looking for additional jobs opportunities….? Sorry, ironic again.. well, almost.
Similar things have already been done before, look at the back side of most electronic devices you can buy, specially computers, and you will find made in China behind. I would not mind an composite material ecological car with a made in China sticker on it….
Eco friendly Chinese Technology anyone? 😉

March 5, 2007 @ 3:27 pm | Comment

@ecodelta:

“For example, several models of enviromental friendly cars from Volkswagen and Mercedes: Lupo eco, Smart and some Concept cars build with composite material. If would give the patents and technologies for such cars freely to China”

Irony? I could pick a few other words 😉

Have you seen chinese cars as they are now? So many corners are cut that when one of the top selling local models was crash tested in Brussels as a prerequisite to being sold in the EU, the car completely went to pieces. It was described as the worst crash test ever in EU history. Why? Not due to lack of know-how, the chinese car company cut corners by reducing the number of cross bars on the frame and not using crumple zones. It was an erector set on wheels hitting the wall at about 35 mph.

We didn’t give technology to the Soviet Bloc because they were very upfront about being enemies of the West. China’s ambitions are kept seething just below the surface but they do pop up from time to time, that is why Russia WON’T do any military related R&D JVs with China.

I suppose you wouldn’t mind seeing everyone in the west flipping burgers and deliving pizzas so that China can turn out carbon fiber death buggies at low, low prices? China is sold and given green technology now and instead of using it, they simply try to reverse engineer it and sell it to less developed countries at discount prices.

Of course, remediation technology is actually very tricky, sensitive and expensive and a baghouse consisting of cheap sheet metal ducts and some old potato sacks doesn’t get the job done at any price.

I’ll buy any good quality car even if it costs more and that is why the Japanese and Europeans are crushing American car companies.

March 5, 2007 @ 3:39 pm | Comment

There are instances where democracy did not work to uplift their people with economic gains. Haiti and the Phillipines comes to mind. India with its “Hindu rate of growth” nearly failed in 1991.

China do not hold the title of the first communist country to succeed. As Chalmers Johnson once noted, Japan can be described as “the only communist nation that works.” Why did he said that? Maybe because Japan exhibited some communitarian norms, like, lifetime employment system, seniority-based wages, a centralized credit-based financial system, keiretsus and MITI (once feared by the West, now METI). Farther put, Japan could be a “social market economy with Japanese characteristics”.

Anyway “social market economy” or mixed economy is pioneered in West Germany. I don’t know what is so surprising to the author of Speigel in regard to this – “a market economy cannot be socialist at the same time.” Should be interesting to see what other Germans have to say 🙂

I would think China is in good hands since post Mao-era. After Deng’s visit to Singapore, People’s Daily no longer view them as running dogs of the Americans. He even use a famous striking aphorism and I’m sure everybody knows about the black or white mice. Of course Deng could use the other 3 tigers as models but it would be difficult for us to accept Japan and Korea (traditional Chinese culture satellites) as role models. Taiwan and Hong Kong is out of the question too as both are living symbols of the most humiliating period of Chinese history. Dr. Goh Keng Swee, one of the founders of modern Singapore was invited to serve as economic advisor to the State Council of China from 1985 to the mid 1990s. To build Singapore, Dr. Goh studied the Meiji reformers. Therefore it is unlikely he did not share his study of Meiji Japan with his Chinese hosts.
Some of the new

Soviet blocs don’t get FDIs because there was a Cold War going on. To have FDIs you have to do your homework – build up your infrastructures, good govt policies to attract FDIs etc. Investors aren’t going to go into any banana republics. The whole world gets cheap products because of China. Unless somebody is living as a caveman, then you might not benefit from it. If by liberal during Tang Dynasty, you mean their palace girl dressing, then you might look at this. Strange though, I kind of remember ppl saying how useless Japanese cars were in the 70s. Let history be the judge of chinese cars then. What’s the incentive for the Russians to JV with China? Selling military technology is a form of revenue for Russia.

Who’s the guy with the inferiority complex now? Flipping burgers? During the 80s Japanese were a threat. Now the Chinese. What’s new.

March 5, 2007 @ 4:17 pm | Comment

Some of the new policies that Wen put out this week to tackle Chinese problems.
China’s PM puts focus on environment.
New bill finally puts private ownership on legal footing.

March 5, 2007 @ 4:44 pm | Comment

>>There are instances where democracy did not work to uplift their people with economic gains.

Democracy is not an economic system.

>>China do not hold the title of the first communist country to succeed.

China is not a communist country. Please look up the word “communist” in a dictionary (for starters) and let us know if that describes China’s current economic system.

>>Anyway “social market economy” or mixed economy is pioneered in West Germany.

A “Social market economy” is not “communism.” Communism by definition implies a command economy. Also, virtually every economy on earth is a mixed economy — they are just mixed to varying degrees. And the range of variation has been contracting over the past 60 years.

>>During the 80s Japanese were a threat. Now the Chinese. What’s new.

I agree with that one. We all saw how Japan took over the US.

I find this whole “communist” issue hilarious: on virtually a daily basis for the past 5 years I’ve heard many Chinese of every political stripe (including die-hard Marxists and real communists) argue that China isn’t really communist and how people in the west are just hung up on that word. Now all of a sudden China really is communist — not only that, being “communist” is the cause of China’s success!

China has only succeeded economically in so far as it has abandoned communism. Calling one of the most unequal societies on earth that is run by crony capitalists “communist” is either Orwellian or just plain ignorant. It would even be hard to call China’s current system “socialist,” although you could point to the rapidly dwindling state-owned sector — the albatross around China’s neck, by the way– according to the CCP’s own economists.

March 5, 2007 @ 10:38 pm | Comment

“Some of the new policies that Wen put out this week to tackle Chinese problems.
China’s PM puts focus on environment.
New bill finally puts private ownership on legal footing.”

Real environmental action requires real law enforcement, that means that all convicted violators go directly to jail. Heavy fines are levied, humiliation and loss of face are widespread and yes, factories are closed.

The gov’t has shown no will to do that.

Private ownership? How does Beijing plan on protecting local “landowners” from local officials? Something that has been nearly impossible to date.

Is the CCP willing to give up its collective control over all privately occupied land in China and not just for the benefit of extremely wealthy developers?

March 5, 2007 @ 11:44 pm | Comment

Educational comments by 88. Perhaps a better title for the Spiegal article would have been: Does dumping Communism Work? Whatever success China obtains, its economic and political development will inevitably be compared with Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore. Perhaps communism will be viewed as an enormous bump in the road to economic prosperity (and possibly a more democratic government?) that China had to overcome.

ps, I find it amusing that one commenter would find China’s 19th century history more humiliating than its complete complete conquest and subjugation by alien peoples as occurred under the Yuan and Ching dynasties. Perhaps the west’s crime was in not totally overthrowing the Qings and placing Kaiser Bill or Queen Victoria on the throne.

March 6, 2007 @ 8:51 am | Comment

Communism is also a system of government which is what my comments are based on. You should recheck your definitions again. In this context, the article’s title is correct. What I have issue with is why the author makes the mixed economy bit sound “exotic” when the whole world is a mixed economy in varying degrees. Therefore it is perfectly sound that a communist PRC (governance) have its “social economy with chinese characteristics”. (economic system)

If the article is read entirely, the will of the chinese government to protect peasants by enacting that law makes it harder for officials to seize land without adequate compensation – the main cause of the tens of thousands of public protests that have shaken China in recent years.

Both Yuan and Qing were reverted back to Han governance. When Deng wanted to follow a model, Hong Kong was still a British colony.

We shouldn’t let Western-centric sensibilities ruined a great discussion.

March 6, 2007 @ 5:37 pm | Comment

Agreed, communism is a system of government. But I can’t help but notice that China’s 2006 GDP is only 3.5 times larger than the combined GDP for Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Singapore. Considering the size of China versus those three, I’m not sure that wondering what China’s GDP would be had it never been governed by a communist system is necessarily western-centric. The pure numbers, which I pulled of the 2006 economist intelligence unit report for HK were: (billions) China: 2,263.6 HK: 177.2 TW: 346.4 SI: 116.8.

March 7, 2007 @ 4:06 pm | Comment

3.5 times comes from comparison with regards to GDP (nominal exchange rate). If you compare GDP (PPP) its about 10 times larger. This suggests that productivity in China is still low in comparison.

The answer to your hypothethical question can go both ways. It could be lower, as in the case of India (wrong policies). Or it might just be like Japan. It all depends on the pragmatism of the government policies.

You should go read this post. After that, come back and tell me if China is still a threat or not 🙂

March 7, 2007 @ 9:03 pm | Comment

>>Communism is also a system of government

I was never arguing that communism was not a system of government; however, how do you distinguish the communist system of government from other one-party, authoritarian systems (like fascism, for example)? By its economic theories and organization. (Also, keep in mind that Nazism was explicitly “socialist” although vehemently anti-communist — but you might call it a socialism of the right rather than of the left).

So what aspect of the “system of government” of communism specifically has led to China’s economic success? Authoritarianism? Control of the media? The one-party state? The lack of the rule of law? Endemic corruption? Permanent revolution to overthrow capitalism?

It is always helpful to look at the actual definitions of words so we can be clear about these concepts:

OED:

communism. n.

a. A theory which advocates a state of society in which there should be no private ownership, all property being vested in the community and labour organized for the common benefit of all members; the professed principle being that each should work according to his capacity, and receive according to his wants.

b. A political doctrine or movement based on Marxism and later developed by Lenin, seeking the overthrow of capitalism through a proletarian revolution.

Well, that obviously describes modern China. Why just the other day the CCP reiterated its support for the abolishment of private property and the overthrow of capitalism, right? Or maybe they sought to protect private property rights through legal means, co-opt capitalists into the CCP and encourage capitalism through the Three Represents, and to virtually abandon the “proletariat” for the development of the bourgeoisie, etc., etc., on and on.

When the DPRK, Vietnam, and Cuba abandon communism for hyper-capitalism while maintaining the authoritarian trappings of communism, will you also claim that this is proof that “communism” works?

One other point, in keeping with Godwin’s Law: Fascist Germany had probably the most successful economy of the 1930’s. By the late 1930’s it had the strongest industrial economy in Europe. I guess we should conclude from this that “fascism works.” I think a better approach is to look at the specifics and to analyze carefully what is going on behind these labels. The same applies to “capitalism.”

March 8, 2007 @ 12:32 am | Comment

Feedmeister: 2006 GDP in PPP terms:
HK: 33,144; SI: 34,223; TW: 29,320 CHINA: 6,337. No matter which way you cut it, the Chinese who have not been governed by communism are way ahead of those who have. Perhaps the secret to China’s success is … the Chinese?

March 8, 2007 @ 7:55 am | Comment

When I read the title, it was asking whether communism is working in China or not. Well, why not? The results are there. Does communism work anywhere else? I dunno. That is not what the article is about.

To the credit of the CCP’s governance, it has fostered a stable environment where its economic policies have bettered 300 million Chinese lives. This cannot be underestimated because some democracies have failed to improve their citizen’s life. This was my point all along. This is the first time I’ve heard of Godwin’s Law. Thanks for the heads-up.

lirelou:
The other Chinese do have better lives because there were capital injected into their economies. Mainland China did not have that luxury. Blame it on the ideology war going on back then. Democratic India suffered the same fate as China because it rejects foreign capital then.

Each “little dragon”, well except HK, came to be, out of failures. Taiwan lost the mainland. Singapore was expelled from Malaysia and left to ‘die’. Maybe the urge to succeed out of the ashes of failure made them success stories. Now, China came out of its Mao-era failure.

Nah, who am I kidding. The Chinese are succeeding because they are emulating the Japanese success. 🙂

March 8, 2007 @ 7:50 pm | Comment

>>it was asking whether communism is working in China or not. Well, why not? The results are there.

The point is that both the article and you seem to think “CCP governance” equals “communism.” We already know that “communism” didn’t work in China or anywhere else that it has been tried, which is why China abandoned communism for an authoritarian form of capitalism.

You can certainly argue that “CCP governance” has led to some positive economic results, but that has little to do with communism. These positive results are in fact the direct result of the CCP moving away from communism. I thought that was pretty obvious.

March 9, 2007 @ 3:25 am | Comment

nanheyangrouchuan: With all due respect, your comparison about Chinese car with Japanese and Europe car is unfair. Of course Chinese car is inferior to Japanese and western car now. Chinese automaker just began to produce its own car a few years ago. When Japanese automakers began their business, it was a joke to GM and FORD at that time. I only hope Chinese automake will catch up faster.

March 9, 2007 @ 3:49 am | Comment

It is evident now you do not know how to differentiate between Communism and communism when I wrote “… communism is working in China or not. Well, why not? The results are there. Does communism work anywhere else?”.

Pls doublecheck your definitions again and then reread the title of the article because you have been barking at the wrong tree the whole time.

March 9, 2007 @ 8:03 am | Comment

@feedmeister,

Sorry, I think you need to check the defintions. You are making a phony distinction.

For example, the Merriam-Webster dictionary has this for communism:

1 a: a theory advocating elimination of private property b: a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed

and this for Communism:

2 capitalized a: a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics b: a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production c: a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably d: communist systems collectively

So which version (c/C) of communism does China currently practice? And which one were you referring to?

You and the article use the lower case version, so you are claiming that “a theory advocating elimination of private property” works???

Or maybe you are both mistakenly using the wrong case and are claiming that “a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics” works?

???

The OED doesn’t make any distinction between C/c, by the way.

March 9, 2007 @ 9:10 am | Comment

Feedmeister. You might have noted that all three were initially governed by authoritarian regimes (perhaps three, if we count GB’s Crown colonialism) two of which played an important role in directing their economies. Somewhat like the Communist model, though with differences (earlier recognition of market forces, more informal business networks). But, all three recognized the principle of multiple party democracy, however flawed their recognition of the rights of those parties may have been in their early periods. My concern for China is that its single party structure may, in the end, trigger some crisis that will unravel everything that they have accomplished. I cannot compare the FDI record of all three with China’s FDI of today, but FDI alone does not guarantee economic success. My view may be simplistic, but I see the Asian Tigers success as the result of the Chinese work ethic combined with their well-known community organizational skills. More to the point, I see it as “up from the bottom” as much as “top down”. What I have not considered is the possible Japanese legacy. (“Imitating the Colonizers: The Legacy of the Disciplining State from Manchukuo to South Korea” by Suk-Jung Han, once available on japanfocus.org)

March 9, 2007 @ 10:08 am | Comment

American Heritage Dictionary

Comparing “Communism” to “communism” … communism and derived words are written with the lower case c except when they refer to a political party of that name, a member of that party, or a government led by such a party, in which case the word is written “Communist”

March 9, 2007 @ 4:26 pm | Comment

@feedmeister,

You’ve ignored every point I’ve raised and every question I’ve asked you — not that that is surprising.

In any case, what does your link supposedly prove again? I guess it might prove that both you and the article are the ones who don’t know the actual distinction in usage between c and C, since you were both using “communism.” If that wasn’t a mistake, then you actually are claiming that “communism” (a system which advocates the abolition of private property and the overthrow of capitalism) “works.”

>>Communism is also a system of government which is what my comments are based on.

>>China do not hold the title of the first communist country to succeed. As Chalmers Johnson once noted, Japan can be described as “the only communist nation that works.” Why did he said that? Maybe because Japan exhibited some communitarian norms

Hmm. It sure looks as if you were claiming that “communism” as a system of government (your own words), which is marked by “communitarian norms” in fact “works.”

If you are going to make phony distinctions, you should make sure the distinction actually helps your argument in some way.

March 10, 2007 @ 12:25 am | Comment

Good grief. I put the lower case c (mistakes) in my posts to make it a test if you knew the difference in my 03/08 post.

The whole reason was you were always thinking about [c]ommunism (the economic aspect of it) while the point of the article is “Does [C]ommunism work after all?” (the governance aspect).

You asked me what aspect of Communist governance distinguished itself from other autocratic governernments. You differentiate them by giving them names like fascism (like you mentioned) and Communism as per the definitions I have provided links to. Fine if you want to view them economically.

Then you asked what kind of governance is working for the CCP. I said the very nature of the CCP providing a stable environment and governmental polices have maintained gains for the people of China no matter how Western-centric you view their inadequacies (Authoritarianism? Control of the media? The one-party state? The lack of the rule of law? Endemic corruption? Permanent revolution to overthrow capitalism?)

Your use of the Merriam dictionary is inadequate. I have provided an American Heritage definition and another link which you do not accept.

Communitarian norms points to both political and economical aspect of Japan. I can’t be putting [C][c]ommunist in one word, can’t I. Anyway its another “could-be” scholarly point of view from a Japan expert. Japanese and the world don’t view them as Ccommunist.

If you want the last word, be my guest. I think this thread has gone long-winded enough.

March 10, 2007 @ 8:37 am | Comment

>> I put the lower case c (mistakes) in my posts to make it a test if you knew the difference in my 03/08 post.

You are joking, right?

>>while the point of the article is “Does [C]ommunism work after all?” (the governance aspect).

Huh? This is the title of the article: “Does Communism Work After All?” Right after the title, it says this: “The development has left many wondering: Does communism work after all?” In fact, NO WHERE in that entire article is the upper-case “Communism” used, except maybe at the beginning of a sentence or in the title of the article itself, in which all words are capitalized as a matter of form.

Some people might find it either entirely disengenous or funny that you claimed I didn’t know the (phony) distinction between C/c communism….

>>You asked me what aspect of Communist governance distinguished itself from other autocratic governernments.

You restated my question without answering it.

>>Then you asked what kind of governance is working for the CCP.

No. I asked what aspects of communism have contributed to the economic successes you are touting. The silence is still deafening.

>>Your use of the Merriam dictionary is inadequate. I have provided an American Heritage definition and another link which you do not accept.

You may want to cherry-pick definitions; I don’t. I listed both the OED (considered the authority) and Merriam-Webster. I did not “reject” the wikipedia link you offered. I merely pointed out that that definition does nothing whatsoever to advance your argument.

>I think this thread has gone long-winded enough.

We agree on that. I think our positions and statements speak for themselves at this point.

March 11, 2007 @ 4:22 am | Comment