[0898]

Could one make a case in favour of China's one party system by likening it to Apple's tightly integrated ecosystem?

I mean, people argue that technology works better when one system controls the hardware, the software and the ecosystem around it.

Could the same principle apply to human society? Which is an order of magnitude more complex than a piece of technology.

Again, I don't know if this argument has been made before – or if it's even one I'd want to make. But I'm just curious if this is something people say?

[huffmsa]

Yes. It's easier to run an entirely unified society in a centralized fashion than it is to run a free-for-all.

Your monoculture must necessarily be authoritarian to enforce the cultural and ideological policies.

It's also extremely fragile. Cut off the head and everything turns to anarchy. Which is what has happened over and over throughout China's history.

Versus somewhere on the polar opposite end like Switzerland where the national government is basically non-existent and could disappear tomorrow and there wouldn't be much disruption.

[lolc]

Oh sure lots of people argue for this. The scheme has been tried to death literally. Particularily egregious implementations were started by people invested in the Führerprinzip[0]. That idea has a German name because it was developed there. It happens that the worst (in terms of resulting misery) implementation came from Germany too. Luckily such constellations are always unstable due to infighting. The Chinese government will come down due to this if not for any other reason. If you want a stable government, make it so that competition between individuals stabilizes the group.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F%C3%BChrerprinzip

With humans having supersocial traits like ants or bees, the idea of societies where everybody works towards a common goal does appeal to our senses. The reason they don't work so easily is because we have individual interests. Keeping part with the group is part of our desires, but this is a much weaker force than it is in bees, for example. That's because we breed as individuals, and not as a group. So group selection is much weaker. (Check out "Darwin's Cathedral" if you're interested in that topic.)

Now imagine if we did have the ability to form supersocial groups like ants do. We'd try to wipe out each other's group[1] and given today's technology we'd succeed!

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war

In the end, just because it works for a company doesn't mean it works for a society. Companies can fail. They can fight. And they can be selective in who they include. Societies will create the boundaries of fair competition.

[abtinf]

A hundred million dead in the 20th century wasn’t enough for you?

[0898]

If you read my post instead of downvoting, I'm not calling for the end of Western democracy.

I'm just curious whether people who are in favour of the One Party system use arguments or metaphors like these.

[FabHK]

Yes, this argument has been made.

China apologists frequently cite the higher efficiency of the one party system compared to democracies hampered by due process.

During the Roman Republic, in time of crisis a dictator could be installed (for a 6 month period) to "sort things out".

So, the tradeoff between accountability and efficacy has been around for a while.

[hker]

> China apologists frequently cite the higher efficiency of the one party system compared to democracies hampered by due process.

In fact, China cannot even claim superiority in terms of economic growth, because their per capita GDP grows much slower than Taiwan, South Korea, and Japan for the same period during high growth (see the graph in [1]).

Hence the argument for higher efficiency is in fact misplaced, mostly based on her accumulated power largely due to huge population. But her population is aging quickly, and so will her productivity and growth.

[1]: https://www.wsj.com/articles/chinas-state-driven-growth-mode...

[basementcat]

If one is a USA citizen one might look at certain state governments in the USA with essentially single party rule (e.g. Utah, Oklahoma) and compare if they are run more efficiently and/or effectively than states with more than one strong party.