Thanks for the thorough reply! I think it shifted a bit from answering how China coordinates industrial development into defending why China has its current political-economic system. This is appreciated context, but I’m not sure it helps me understand the answer to my question wholly.
My question is narrower: which mechanisms behind China’s manufacturing and innovation (state-owned banks, industrial policy, procurement, local government competition, subsidies, etc.) are actually necessary, and which of those could realistically exist within a liberal democratic system?
The west is a dying imperialist power, where super profits of exploiting the global south are declining. The west is also largely de-industrialized.
When I say west, I really mean democratic governance with capitalistic economics — would that be modern liberalism? I don’t believe liberalism is dying, but I do think the western stranglehold on global economics (I.e., imperialistic capitalism) is failing in its later stages. I also think something like democratic socialism could come as a natural result, having come from a democratic capitalist society.
My thing is, though, China saved itself using tactics that I’m not really sure are compatible with modern liberal ideology. Probably not even compatible with democratic socialism. What do you think?
The context was necessary because it stands in stark contrast to western capitalism. To shift to your narrowed question:
My question is narrower: which mechanisms behind China’s manufacturing and innovation (state-owned banks, industrial policy, procurement, local government competition, subsidies, etc.) are actually necessary, and which of those could realistically exist within a liberal democratic system?
All of China’s advancements and structures work precisely because they have a socialist economy, democratically run by the working classes. A liberal, capitalist economy could make use of some of these aspects, however they would ultimately fall victim to the very fact that private ownership is the principal aspect of western economies, with capitalists controlling the state. Therefore these would not be used for pro-social ends, but instead for profit. That’s why I centered the importance of socialism in my explanation. It’s a cohesive system, not parts to cut out and Frankenstein together.
I think the bigger picture here is that you frame western society as democratic, and China as not. I see it in the opposite manner, because a small class of individuals handles the running and gains the benefits of the majority in the west, it cannot be truly seen as democratic. In China, however, it’s the broad majority that controls society and directs the social surplus, that proposes policy and runs the country. China’s form of democracy is structured in a manner that suits China’s characteristics as a socialist country, and therefore liberal democracy as you imagine it wouldn’t really work, as its designed to protect capitalists.
The form of democracy and the mode of production in China ensures that there is a connection between the people and the state. Policies like the mass line are in place to ensure this direct connection remains. This is why over 90% of the Chinese population supports the government, and why they have such strong perceptions around democracy:
The Chinese political system is based on whole-process people’s democracy, a form of consultative democracy. The local government is directly elected, and then these governments elect people to higher rungs, meaning any candidate at the top level must have worked their way up from the bottom and directly proved themselves. Combining this consultative, ground-up democracy with top-down economic planning is the key to China’s success.
I highly recommend Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance. Socialist democracy has been imperfect, but has gone through a number of changes and adaptations over the years as we’ve learned more from testing theory to practice. Boer goes over the history behind socialist democracy in this textbook.
Further, capitalist society cannot smoothly transition in a reformist manner to socialism. This circles back to capitalist control of the state, it would be like depending on your boss giving you control of the company willingly, but at mass scale. This is why socialism has only really been established via revolution.
Thanks for the thorough reply! I think it shifted a bit from answering how China coordinates industrial development into defending why China has its current political-economic system. This is appreciated context, but I’m not sure it helps me understand the answer to my question wholly.
My question is narrower: which mechanisms behind China’s manufacturing and innovation (state-owned banks, industrial policy, procurement, local government competition, subsidies, etc.) are actually necessary, and which of those could realistically exist within a liberal democratic system?
When I say west, I really mean democratic governance with capitalistic economics — would that be modern liberalism? I don’t believe liberalism is dying, but I do think the western stranglehold on global economics (I.e., imperialistic capitalism) is failing in its later stages. I also think something like democratic socialism could come as a natural result, having come from a democratic capitalist society.
My thing is, though, China saved itself using tactics that I’m not really sure are compatible with modern liberal ideology. Probably not even compatible with democratic socialism. What do you think?
The context was necessary because it stands in stark contrast to western capitalism. To shift to your narrowed question:
All of China’s advancements and structures work precisely because they have a socialist economy, democratically run by the working classes. A liberal, capitalist economy could make use of some of these aspects, however they would ultimately fall victim to the very fact that private ownership is the principal aspect of western economies, with capitalists controlling the state. Therefore these would not be used for pro-social ends, but instead for profit. That’s why I centered the importance of socialism in my explanation. It’s a cohesive system, not parts to cut out and Frankenstein together.
I think the bigger picture here is that you frame western society as democratic, and China as not. I see it in the opposite manner, because a small class of individuals handles the running and gains the benefits of the majority in the west, it cannot be truly seen as democratic. In China, however, it’s the broad majority that controls society and directs the social surplus, that proposes policy and runs the country. China’s form of democracy is structured in a manner that suits China’s characteristics as a socialist country, and therefore liberal democracy as you imagine it wouldn’t really work, as its designed to protect capitalists.
The form of democracy and the mode of production in China ensures that there is a connection between the people and the state. Policies like the mass line are in place to ensure this direct connection remains. This is why over 90% of the Chinese population supports the government, and why they have such strong perceptions around democracy:
The Chinese political system is based on whole-process people’s democracy, a form of consultative democracy. The local government is directly elected, and then these governments elect people to higher rungs, meaning any candidate at the top level must have worked their way up from the bottom and directly proved themselves. Combining this consultative, ground-up democracy with top-down economic planning is the key to China’s success.
I highly recommend Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance. Socialist democracy has been imperfect, but has gone through a number of changes and adaptations over the years as we’ve learned more from testing theory to practice. Boer goes over the history behind socialist democracy in this textbook.
Further, capitalist society cannot smoothly transition in a reformist manner to socialism. This circles back to capitalist control of the state, it would be like depending on your boss giving you control of the company willingly, but at mass scale. This is why socialism has only really been established via revolution.
I hope that makes sense!