quote:

---

Beijing - With its soaring glass towers and giant neon signs, Beijing looks like the new Mecca of global capitalism. But behind the glitz, there's growing disenchantment with the relentless market reforms that have shrunken social services and thrown hundreds of millions out of work.

The echo of this disillusionment within intellectual circles has become the rallying cry of a group of intellectuals known as China's New Left.

This loose coalition comprises leading academics, many of whom have studied in the West and are disenchanted by it. They're challenging China's current market reforms with a simple message: that China's failed 20th-century experiment with communism cannot be undone in the 21st century by embracing 19th-century-style, laissez-faire capitalism.

China is "caught between the two extremes of misguided socialism and crony capitalism, and suffering from the worst of both systems," says Wang Hui, a professor of literature at Beijing's Tsinghua University. His passionate denouncements of China's market reforms in Du Shu, a magazine he edits, are partly credited with energizing China's New Left intellectuals. "We have to find an alternate way. This is the great mission of our generation."

---

Story Link

[ 01 May 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

quote:

---

Since initiating the reforms and open policy, China has achieved tremendous success. Growth of about 9% per annum since the late 1970s has helped to lift several hundred million people out of absolute poverty, with the result that China alone accounted for over 75% of poverty reduction in the developing world over the last 20 years. Between 1990 and 2000 the number of people living on a dollar per day fell by 170 million, while total population rose by over 125 million. Besides raising incomes, China's market-oriented reforms over the last two decades also dramatically improved the dynamism of both the rural and urban economies and resulted in substantial improvements in human development indicators. Official estimates of the adult illiteracy rate fell by more than half, from 37% in 1978 to less than 5% in 2002, and, indicative of health indices, the infant mortality rate fell from 41 per 1,000 live births in 1978 to 30 in 2002.

---

First of all, this is not so. The pace of transition is glacial by Western standards, and these improvements have taken place during a time when:

1. There was still substantial intervention in the Chinese economy, far more so than in any Western nation.
2. China still maintains an internal passport system and unabashedly exploits prison labor without any of the legal constraints that nominally prohibit Western nations from exploiting their prison populations to the same extent (in the USA, some state governments have passed laws that explicitly prohibit the use of prison labor for the production of goods for profit, with the result that the jobs are often of the licence-plate-making variety)
3. China maintains substantial controls over inbound and outbound capital flows. The currency has, since 1949, been in a fixed-exchange-rate regime against the US dollar and is still only partially convertible (by the definition of a convertible currency as used in Western monetary theory, a currency must go on a floating-rate regime and not be subject to official sanctions as regards who can exchange currency, except when countries like the United States impose regulations on the movement of currency for the purpose of combatting drug traffickers).

I don't really see myself as an unconditional advocate of the Washington consensus. I would argue that it's hard to see how a country can attain rich-country status without satisfying the WC conditions eventually, but I'm pretty agnostic about how those principles should be applied to developing countries. We've learned that one size definitely doesn't fit all.

In the case of China, the obvious development strategy is trade-based: it has a comparative advantage in industries that are require unskilled workers. It's true that the Chinese govt is still heavily involved, but the way I see it, they're heading down the right road, but they've not yet arrived at their final destination.

1) Every Chinese had an initial income of $1,000/year. The initial Gini coefficient is zero.

2) Liberalisation had the effect of giving 1% of the population an income of $20,000/year.

Here's what happens to the Gini coefficient and average income over time:

After 20 years, average income has increased by a factor of 5 - which pretty much corresponds to what has happened in China since the late '70s. Coincidentally (or not), the Gini index attains its maximum after 20 years.

Stephen, it's hard to see how people can become rich when hundreds of millions of them are making less than 50 cents an hour, don't have the right to join independent trade unions, suffer from horribly exploitative working conditions, and experience levels of inequality not seen since 19th Britain.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
It's true that the Chinese govt is still heavily involved, but the way I see it, they're heading down the right road, but they've not yet arrived at their final destination.

This was the same argument made by Stalin about the Soviet Union during the 1950s. Despite massive displacement, harsh working conditions and economic exploitation, the average Soviet citizen was a hell of a lot better of economically in 1955 than say, 1925. Does this justify brutal working conditions and the murder of tens of millions of innocent people at the hands of a tyrannical regime? I would certainly hope not.

If Canadians were to switch to the "Chinese Model" and work for terrible wages for 70 hours a week with poor working conditions, there is no doubt that foreign investment would increase and we wouls also attain higher annual GDP growth rates. This certainly doesn't mean that a majority of Canadians would become "rich" as well. Quite the opposite.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
If China wants to be a rich country, it will eventually have to implement policies that conform to the WC. But I'm much less dogmatic about how fast, or in which order, those policies should be implemented.

I sincerely doubt this. How is a country supposed to become rich under ever-worsening working conditions for the vast majority of labourers in a country where corporations seek to maximize profit and minimize the social wage?

This doesn't even take into account the fact that the Chinese economy is completely overvalued or that unfortunately, it is only a matter of time before a major "correction" takes place as it did in the South-East Asia during the 1990s.

Having said all this, the goals of a really-existing socialism remains for hundreds of millions of Chinese and billions of people around the world: an economy that is controlled and managed by working people, where production is planned democratically for the benefit of everyone, not the wealthy few, and where all working people enjoy equal social, environmental, civil and economic rights.

Stephen, I have no doubt that even the most right-wing of economists at the University of Chicago would prefer working and living in this kind of economy than the one which currently exists throughout the world.

[ 01 May 2005: Message edited by: Sean Cain ]

[ 01 May 2005: Message edited by: Sean Cain ]

[ 01 May 2005: Message edited by: Sean Cain ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hinterland:
What's a gini coefficient?

---

quote:

---

Check out this page, and then this one. The Gini coefficient is equal to zero if everyone is the same, and is equal to 1 if one person has everything. I'm given to understand that it has weaknesses as a measure on inequality, but it's still widely used, faute de mieux.

---

So, basically, if I understand you correctly, faute de mieux, the Gini Coefficient is meaningless to most people, right?

[ 01 May 2005: Message edited by: Hinterland ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
About the increase in inequality in China. I did a little experiment in which:

1) Every Chinese had an initial income of $1,000/year. The initial Gini coefficient is zero.

2) Liberalisation had the effect of giving 1% of the population an income of $20,000/year.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by robbie_dee:
Story Link

[ 01 May 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ][

---

I didn't mean that; I think the graphical representation on that second page is pretty intuitive. And the extremes of perfect equality (Gini = 0)and of perfect inequality (Gini = 1) seem sensible enough, at least to me. Generally, I'd expect that many/most episodes of what we would call increases in inquality would be reflected in increases in the Gini coefficient.

But since I've seen many seminars given by Jean-Yves Duclos (A colleague who works in this area), I thought it prudent to give the disclaimer, even if I still don't fully understand the weaknesses of the Gini index.

In another thread, I mentioned that I had some homework to do in this area, and I'll start a new thread on it when I understand things better. But first, I'm going to have to ask Jean-Yves to give me a reading list.

[ 01 May 2005: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Other Todd:

So, in the Realm of Pure Thought, Life is Perfect, right?

---

When I was in university, in the mid 1960's, we saw many, many, many graphs showing that third world countries were just on the point of what was then called "take-off", ie. their economies were going to soar.

In short, nations need not adopt the WC in order to become wealthy. They need to adopt an industrialized economic structure which distributes the rewards of that structure not just to the very wealthy, but to all members of the society that contribute to that industrial structure's growth and endurance.

from the Washington Post, 2004

Chile Prospers via a Balanced Market Economy; Snubs "Free Market" Pedagogy

quote:

---

...While many Latin American countries have whittled government's role in business affairs, Chile has gone largely in the other direction. Not only has it wielded influence in getting to market its key exports, from table grapes to goat cheese to sofas, but it also has used more legislation, regulation and taxes to tame a feral free-market system that failed to deliver in the 1970s and '80s...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

---

That after the collapse of the Soviet Union Russia had a pretty good shot at putting together a pretty stable mixed economy, but tried to fast track IMF reforms and "consulted" to way to many Harvard economists and looked at way too many pretty graphs and fucked up what was able and capable in the Soviet Economy.

Russia now is neither a half tolerable socialist economy nor an effective capitalist one, it is a basket case, where once it was a leader in science, medicine, and sports, lending substantial aid to less well off conutries in the world.

I think the Chinese have looked at that pretty closely, and I think they would be polite to your presentation of the Gini model and then file it in the dustbin, and not take any "consultations" with economists too seriously.

Sans economist, as in the OP article.

I think they are interested in preserving the what they have achieved, which is substantial as Fidel has pointed out, while looking toward the futire, and that probably means not listening to a lot of stary-eyed idealist free-market capitalist economists who have neverhad to clean dirt from between their finger nails.

In other words they will put the emphasis on the may in this inocuous sentence of yours:

quote:

---

It may be that inequality in China will start to decrease as average incomes increase.

---

More or less.

[ 02 May 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

This government is still) more focused on helping export manufacturers than agriculture and rural welfare," which affect far more people, says Cui Zhi Yuan, a professor at Tsinghua University's School of Public Policy and Management in Beijing. "(One of) the largest expenditure items in (China's) budget is not education or health care but tax rebates to exporters. So essentially, the government is returning money to (domestic and multinational) exporters while cutting welfare programs."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:

Not exactly. In the Realm of Those Who Have Analytical Skills, empty sarcasm is shown up for what it is.

---

Ooohhh!

quote:

---

Originally posted by swallow:
I read the whole thread. I still don't know what a Gini co-efficient is, or what it has to do with the new left in China.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by DrConway:
1. There was still substantial intervention in the Chinese economy, far more so than in any Western nation.

---

quote:

---

2. China still maintains an internal passport system and unabashedly exploits prison labor without any of the legal constraints that nominally prohibit Western nations from exploiting their prison populations to the same extent (in the USA, some state governments have passed laws that explicitly prohibit the use of prison labor for the production of goods for profit, with the result that the jobs are often of the licence-plate-making variety)

---

edited to remove rogue tags

[ 02 May 2005: Message edited by: Dex ]

Or, those who get too uppity can just get kicked out and their passports marked to prevent them coming back in.

I thought you brought up the whole prison labor force and internal passport thing as a means of demonstrating the way in which Chinese policy affects the supply of cheap labor. I provided a counter example of how the US assures its supply of cheap labor. You reply saying by saying that the two are the same with the exception of the formal planning on the part of the Chinese government. And that was my point all along.

If I follow your argument, it seems to me that your problem is with Chiness labor/social policy and not its movement toward capitalism. I got confused because it really felt to me like a lot of the posts on this thread were objecting to China's move toward capitalism.

[ 02 May 2005: Message edited by: Mandos ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dex:
While this is undoubtedly true, I'm not sure that it bolsters your argument. The point is that China has experienced absolutely phenomenal economic growth and decreases in poverty since the intervention has lessened. Your point only works in your favor if you can somehow argue that moving toward a more capitalist system has somehow slowed these dramatic improvements.

---

China's remarkable transformation from fourth world nation in 1949 to what it is now required a series of major achievements. The first was to get rid of imperialism and an Anglo-American-backed nationalist who fled the country with the Bank of China and over 10 million dead in the aftermath of civil war.

The next achievement under Mao was to bring China's infant mortality rate to a reasonable levels and approximately doubling average life expectancy. As literacy rates improved, agricultural managers would eventually learn to assess the needs of tens of millions of people in their locales. Those steps were absolutely necessary before any kind of economic plan could be implemented. For example, what's stopping corporations from taking advantage of low wage labour in Haiti or Guatemala or even the right-to-work States where tens of millions of American worker's are categorized as being level I/semi-literate ?.

In fact, IBM and Intel are not setting up R&D facilities in right-to-work states. And not in Haiti or Nicaragua or El Salvador where labour unions are non-existent and wage expectations low. In fact, they are choosing to invest in a country all the way on the other side of the planet. A country does not advance from fourth world status to being a good place to do business with overnight. A real secret here, and it's called socialism for the people.

And China's is still a very interventionist economy as Doc points out.

• capital flows in and out of the country are highly regulated by the communists
• the Yuan is pegged to the dollar, in conflict with liberalized capital markets;
• state-owned banks still exist and loaning money to Russia for the re-nationalisation of oil and other resources privatised during glasnost
• foreign corporations doing business in China cede controlling interest or a large minority share to the Chinese state
  

In fact, China's economy is more interventionist now than any economy outside of Cuba, North Korea and Vietnam. We've been told for decades that this kind of economy, and anything close to it, is not supposed to work. And yet China there goes.

And about prison labour watering down unemployment data; the US has the largest incarcerated population as well as percentage of total than any other nation at just over two million now. Another four million are estimated to be on probation or on parole, the majority of which are charged with petty drug offenses and misdemenors. Those millions of American's are not counted as unemployed and forfeit their right to vote. Voting is considered a basic human right in all first world nations around the world, except the USA.

But what is a free market, and why do multinational corporations insist on massive public subsidization for transportation of their goods, and of which a great deal is simply moving manufactured goods across borders to subsidiaries where labour is cheapest ?. A significant amount of trade amounts to shifting goods from one warehouse to another in another for the sake of avoiding taxes and pitting international labour against itself. Energy costs are continually manipulated by corporations with the aid of state intervention in Middle Eastern affairs. And as it turns out, two American-based multinationals have been manipulating the price of gold since about 1987 in creating huge market distortions. Corporations themselves are centrally planned entities run by visible interventionist 'hands' and creating the grossest market distortions. This all adds up to corporate mercantilism more than anything resembling a free market. In fact, real laissez-faire capitalism was a 30 year experiment which ended in 1929-33, around the world. As JK Galbraith has said, none of us would endure that kind of an economic rigor ever again.

What we have now is called socialism for the rich. Even the super-wealthy don't desire a return to the bad old days of soup line capitalism, which was repeated in 1970's-1980's Chile and Argentina and swept under the rug of posterity for all times.

[ 03 May 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mandos:
Because wealth (and therefore power) is relative, especially since wealth is finite or is at least a limiting factor at any moment in time.

---

quote:

---

While this is undoubtedly true, I'm not sure that it bolsters your argument. The point is that China has experienced absolutely phenomenal economic growth and decreases in poverty since the intervention has lessened. Your point only works in your favor if you can somehow argue that moving toward a more capitalist system has somehow slowed these dramatic improvements.

---

It's all about how you interpet the facts. And also how you make comparisons. First of all look at China in comparison to the dramatic failures of neo-liberal interventions in Latin America, and more importantly Russia, post USSR. The record is abysmal.

So we can see that free-market capitalism is not a fix all panacea for all problems.

Now contextualize China historically, don't just set day zero at the moment China loosened laws restricting capital, but look at the whole history from 1900. We might draw the conclusion that the reason that China's economy has boomed is because the Chinese have taken the lid off the economy that was made robust under socialist protectionsim. In other words, the latent potential now expressed might not have been available for exploitation was China still broken into a series of cantons ruled by individual European powers, as it looked like would have happened had not the Chinese themselves intervened.

In other words, the "dramatic imporvements" of which you speak, may not have been possible had in not been working from the prior achievments of the Chinese socialized economy. How about: you are blowing a horn made of communist brass but remarking only that it was wholely machined by capitalists.

Lets not forget that the major Eruopean powers and the US all used protectionist market control policies to a greater or lesser extent during the formative years of their indistrialization, calling only for 'free trade' when the inevitable strength of their economy would overwhelm local competition. Whatever one may think about socialism as the means that the Chinese used to organize its economy internally, the fact is that it was heavily protectionsist, to the point of exclusion.

I have been toying with the possibility that state intervention is an better mechanism for dealing with a backward economy, while a developed economy prospers with a more liberalized market -- when it is stronger and more able to compete.

It should also be observed that China, unlike the USSR, did not set itself up in a direct all-encompassing military competition with the USA, contenting itself to influencing politics only within its immediate group of neighbours, for instance by only developing a limited nuclear arsenal to act as a deterent. This itself has meant that much of the economic power is directed into more conventionally profitable arenas, unlike the USSR, which allowed itself to be consumed by the arms race.

[ 03 May 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

And I'm struggling mightily to reconcile how many of the very same people here who complain about free trade, outsourcing, and cheap imports on the one hand are so quick to say that a place like China is worse off because it is becoming more integrated into the world economy. I mean, those of you who are doing so are trying to have your cake and eat it too. Either billions of foreign dollars are flowing into China as a result of massive imports and outsourcing or they aren't. You can't have it both ways. Can anyone here, with any sincerity, claim that China would have been able to eliminate as much poverty as it has without the influx of foreign dollars?

The vast majority of 'counterpoints' offered up thus far have had absolutely zero to do with economic policy. They're about social policy and labor laws and immigration laws and any number of other things, but they don't have ANYTHING to do with the ability of people own the means of production.

edited to clarify definition of capitalism.

[ 03 May 2005: Message edited by: Dex ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pogo:
The unfortunate core part of this thread is that success as a political system is measured by products/money and the distribution of the products and money. I know a few people from China who willingly say that they are doing far better under the reforms, but that they still long for the days when earnings and consumption weren't the be all and end all.

The move away from Mao is not universally supported.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dex:

The vast majority of 'counterpoints' offered up thus far have had absolutely zero to do with economic policy. They're about social policy and labor laws and immigration laws and any number of other things, but they don't have ANYTHING to do with the ability of people own the means of production.

edited to clarify definition of capitalism.

[ 03 May 2005: Message edited by: Dex ]

---

I too am impressed by the way that the proponents neo-liberal economics resort to sweeping generalizations about arguements made by strawpersons, (whom are perforce unavailable to defend themselves,) anytime anyone suggests that the quality of peoples lives might not be definable within the scope of a graph and the mathematically reductionist formula used to create them. What makes me curious though, is wherein the graphs or formula, are the equations that reflect the reality that moralizing by the proponents of Neo-liberalism increases exponentially relative to the voiced opposition to neo-liberal policies?*

What give you the right to establish that "social policy and labor laws and immigration laws" are unrelated to what you call economics? Why is that? Is it because those things have a way of intruding on the purity of the mathematical fantasy land you inhabit?

You attempt to divorce the debate from the reality of peoples lives is indicative of the problem of your "theories," both in the specific and in the general, and is just a cheap attempt to authorize your view within the rarified context of a theoretical debate that is designed to exclude opposition, by simply defining opposition as irrelevant to what you call 'economic policy.'

*This moralizing effect can be seen here, for instance:

quote:

---

That might be true, but look, I live in Indiana where the idea that the earth is flat is not universally held. And we're talking about China here. The funny thing about China is that you can have all of the money on the face of the earth but if you were to publicly denounce the government or practice Christianity or with Falun Gong, you'd at a minimum have the opportunity to be carted off to a hard labor camp for 3 years without trial. Or if you went on the un-censored internet. Or had the audacity to simply discuss aloud the passing of a famous protestor. Prisons are treated like organ donor farms. Have more than one child? It gets taken away. I have to got to say at this point that the hand-wringing I've seen here about a handful of people getting wealthy is pretty disturbing.

---

On the one hand we are chastized for bringing in discussion points outisde of what you like to define as economics, such as "social policy and labor laws and immigration laws," and in the next breath, introduce the repression of Christianiy, the Falun Gong, prisons as organ donor farms and birth contorl legislation, as part of the evidence you present.

According to your original logic these "'counterpoints' offered up" should "have had absolutely zero to do with economic policy." But they are here, for some reason and you brought them in. Or is moralizing on social issues only allowable in defence of the Holy Graph, peace be upon it.?

P=MH (squared)

Power = Money x the amount of Hypocirisy squared.

[ 03 May 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Much as you would love it to be otherwise, neither my nor Stephen's position at any point was that instantaneous transition to a completely open economy was the best solution.

If you were paying attention to the thread, you would have seen that I simply provided a definition of the Gini coefficient because multiple people had complained about the lack of definition. Although I suppose I can see how people would find my clarification of the concept as tacit support of the idea. In fact, if you weren't so eager to disagree with me, you also might have internalized the fact that when I went on at length about economic policy not being the central problem here, you would have realized that, if anything, it was a slam at Stephen's thought experiment. No, I didn't come out and say it, and that's my fault.

I suspect a lot of what we're going round about here is the fact that we hold different interpretations of the same words.

I maintain the following: China is more wealthy and has less poverty today as a direct result of having a more open and capitalistic economy. Full stop. For quite a few years now, China has been producing tons of cheap goods and shipping them around the world in exchage for foreign currency. I believe that they have generated MUCH more wealth for China than they could have with a completely closed and 'communist' economy. I'm hoping against hope here that this is not a controversial statement.

quote:

---

On the one hand we are chastized for bringing in discussion points outisde of what you like to define as economics, such as "social policy and labor laws and immigration laws," and in the next breath, introduce the repression of Christianiy, the Falun Gong, prisons as organ donor farms and birth contorl legislation, as part of the evidence you present.

According to your original logic these "'counterpoints' offered up" should "have had absolutely zero to do with economic policy." But they are here, for some reason and you brought them in. Or is moralizing on social issues only allowable in defence of the Holy Graph, peace be upon it.?

---

Ok. I dealt with the graph thing already. But this wasn't in the original post.

I do not believe it fair to blame more than a small portion of problems in China on a move toward a more liberal and capitalistic society. The internal passport system is not a part of the neo-liberal agenda. Neo-liberal economies allow currency trade across the country and across borders. Neo-liberal economies support rule of law and they support due process. Neo-liberal economies support property rights (i.e., the government can't just waltz in and seize everything you own like they do in China). All-- and I do mean all-- of the most successful economies in the world are capitalistic in nature and embrace relatively free trade. Neo-liberal economies are, at their heart, based on democracy. You don't like income inequality? Fine, implement a progressive tax and welfare.

You guys are bitching a moaning about neo-liberalism. You can make claims all you want, but any reasonable person can see that is not neo-liberalism that is causing the problems here.

quote:

---

The thread opened with an article that basically claimed that China is suffering from the worst of both worlds as it liberalizes its economy.

---

Seems to me the thread started off with an article on the rise of new social movements in China. That to me is what is interesting. It may be that economic growth may be a factor stimulating this new activism (Lipset's law* and all that) but the spread of new left thinking in China is quite possibly a more significant development than anything happening in the economic field. If anti-globalizaiton activism is becoming important in China, then that is a very big deal.

quote:

---

With all of your colourful prose it seems like you took great delight in accusing me of divorcing the debate of people's lives from economics. And it puzzles me greatly. What I was trying to do was to point out that you can't lay the blame for the plight of China's people solely at the feet of a transition to a more liberal economy.

---

Who said I was arguing that. I don't think anyone was. There is your straw man.

I was trying to discuss this idea:

quote:

---

I maintain the following: China is more wealthy and has less poverty today as a direct result of having a more open and capitalistic economy. Full stop. For quite a few years now, China has been producing tons of cheap goods and shipping them around the world in exchage for foreign currency. I believe that they have generated MUCH more wealth for China than they could have with a completely closed and 'communist' economy. I'm hoping against hope here that this is not a controversial statement.

---

I was suggesting that it is a mistake to set date zero at, say, the death of Mao, for instance. I was also arguing that I don't think you can look at China's recent rapid growth as being entirely the product of the recent liberalization. I was suggesting that you have to look at the whole evolution of the Chinese economy post Sun Yat Sen, the eviction of the imperial powers etc, the creation of an industrial base, etc. Then I was suggesting that there was another way of interpreting the present growth.

I was suggesting that China might not have the essential qualities to build an expanding economy were it not for the socialist protectionism that went before it. I am saying that the fundamental elements of the strong growth you are seeing may have been pre-existing, and they have simply been uncorked. I wasn't even arguing that the liberalization was necessarily a bad thing, only cautioning that it should be properly managed.

I was suggesting that you might consider this possibility, rather than arguing as if China came into existance in 1975.

I was talking about evolution of the economy, and specifically trying to avoid entrenched ideas about what you think my ideas are. i.e Sociallized vs. Free Market, I even went so far as to suggest:

quote:

---

I have been toying with the possibility that state intervention is an better mechanism for dealing with a backward economy, while a developed economy prospers with a more liberalized market -- when it is stronger and more able to compete.

---

A point you seemed intent on ignoring in your desire to pursue the stayed but well travelled and hackneyed Socialist Vs. Free market deabte.

To support the arguement that free-market capitalism is not a panacea for everything, I pointed at the most relevant example, (that being the Soviet Union) and the dismal failure of the neo-liberal policy there. It is so bad that the present president (a former KGB guy) of the Russia made the point last week that the collapse of the Soviet Union was the greatest catastrophe of the last century. In addition to that there has been a marked wave of Stalanist nostalgia sweeping the country. Harldy a ringing endorsement for free-market reform.

A joke that everyone seems to enjoy, especially Russians:

Q: What could capitalism do in 10 years that communism couldn't do in 70?

A: Make communism look good.

[ 04 May 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

The funniest thing in all of this? The school where I'm at has more international students here than any other public university in the US. I spend every day with people from the former Soviet Union and China and I can tell you right now that they would be laughing their asses off if they were reading this thread.

---

Ultimately, though, I think the Chinese people will be far better off in the long run if China continues down the road of economic, social and political reform. I think it's fine to keep your foot on the brakes, but I think it would be a terrible mistake to put stop the progress entirely or, worse still, to put the car in reverse. Maybe they can stave off a monumental collapse such as happened in the former Soviet Union. I've been reading a lot of stuff recently that suggests we're in for a pretty big correction in China here shortly, so I guess we'll see in the coming months and years.

Edited for punctuation. Fuck, what I wouldn't give for a preview button.

[ 04 May 2005: Message edited by: Dex ]

quote:

---

It's always messy when an ideology is toppled.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dex:
Cueball,
Ultimately, though, I think the Chinese people will be far better off in the long run if China continues down the road of economic, social and political reform. I think it's fine to keep your foot on the brakes, but I think it would be a terrible mistake to put stop the progress entirely or, worse still, to put the car in reverse. Maybe they can stave off a monumental collapse such as happened in the former Soviet Union. I've been reading a lot of stuff recently that suggests we're in for a pretty big correction in China here shortly, so I guess we'll see in the coming months and years.
[ 04 May 2005: Message edited by: Dex ]

---

Actually, the Russian economy was in worse shape in the years during glasnost than at any time in Soviet history. There are more Russian's living in poverty now than was true of the Soviet era. Africa and Latin America are still awaiting the economic long run you mention to finally kick-in.
As Joe Stiglitz has pointed out, those countries that have adhered to Washington's reforms for liberal democracy to the letter have faired about the worst over the past decade. Not to mention that Russia, Africa and Latin America own vast repositories of natural wealth. Whereas in China, and India to some extent, Washington consensus has not been followed, and there aren't nearly the natural resources. Thailand probably followed WC the closest, and yet that country has faired about the worst economically. Chile and Argentina were supposed to be showcases for laissez-faire capitalism beginning in the 1970's. So far, it's been mainly socialist policies in the Chilean market economy that have turned that nation into a winner for South America.

[ 04 May 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Seems to me the thread started off with an article on the rise of new social movements in China. That to me is what is interesting. It may be that economic growth may be a factor stimulating this new activism (Lipset's law* and all that) but the spread of new left thinking in China is quite possibly a more significant development than anything happening in the economic field. If anti-globalizaiton activism is becoming important in China, then that is a very big deal.

---

Yeah, that was actually the idea I had when I posted the article, although I am finding the economic discussion interesting, too.

I intended this article as a follow up to the discussion on the Taiwan thread in this forum. I thought this passage was kind of intriguing:

quote:

---

Chen Xin, a professor of sociology at the Chinese Academy of Social Science (CASS) in Beijing and a self-described New Lefter, says Hu realizes he must correct the imbalances created during Jiang's term because while a democracy can balance between extremes by throwing a party or president who's gone too far out of power, "in a one-party system, the party must have its own self-correcting mechanisms. Or else, it will lose touch with the people."

To unite people and buy time for a ?x to these problems both Hu's government and the New Left have increasingly been relying on a nationalist populism. By draping themselves in the Chinese flag, many New Left thinkers such as Chen are also stoking China's rising anti-Americanism to discredit capitalism and the Washington consensus.

"The (US's) real aim is to keep China down-I think they use the word contain," says Chen. "If we follow the global system the US created we will always be a junior player (so) to protect our interests we need to be independent and make our own system."

The military spillover of this nationalist economic thinking is most troublingly evident over Taiwan, which Chen says China should retain sovereignty over "even if it means war" with the US.

---

What are your thoughts on this, swallow?

[ 04 May 2005: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

This new movement might, by knowing Western systems from the inside and still rejecting them, make a much larger impact. It makes me think of the May 4 movement back in the early 20th C, which demanded a liberalized China but was also deeply nationalistic, drawing on some Western influences but rejecting the idea that Chian should be re-invented in the Western image. The May 4 movement defined 20th C China by combining new thinking with Chinese nationalism (it gave birth to the Chinese Communist party among many other groups). It's at least possible that the same synthesis may be in the making today, and that it could define 21st C China.

On the other hand, it may be a few academics talking to each other who will be crushed as soon as they step out of line (as Dai Qing was when she tried to campaign on green issues against the Yangtze dam megaproject). It's too soon to tell, but it definitely bears watching.