[JumpCrisscross]

"I believe, however, that Putin and the siloviki (though not many in the wider elites) welcome this isolation [from the west]. They are becoming impressed with the Chinese model: a tremendously dynamic economy, a disciplined society and a growing military superpower ruled over with iron control by a hereditary elite that combines huge wealth with deep patriotism, promoting the idea of China as a separate and superior civilisation."

Money quote.

[hcarvalhoalves]

The idea of a centralised planned state fell with the USSR, and it was widely argued that it fell _because_ of central planning. China is becoming a counter-example for the people who have always been fond of the idea of having a state ruled by an "elite", with the perception that democracy is fragile and doesn't work for long-term (more than a 4/5 years mandate) planning.

[the_lonely_road]

The world changed in a very significant way over the last 70 years. Even more so over the last 20 years. It may very well end up that the Information Age has tipped the scales and our large meandering decentralized democracies are no longer the superior model they were back when it took 4 weeks to get a letter from New York City to Washington DC. Now it’s a synchronous call with satellite footage of every inch of the earth. It may very be that centralized planned economies are now the superior model and only the test of time will unveil which is true.

I’ve lost a bit of sleep wondering about this over the years.

[refurb]

I wouldn’t lose sleep.

Central planning hasn’t been “hard to implement” its been a absolute disaster not just due to information scarcity, but for the same reason massive organizations in free markets rot from within.

[DenisM]

Monoculture kills its host, nothing to do with communication speed.

[throw0101a]

> It may very well end up that the Information Age has tipped the scales and our large meandering decentralized democracies are no longer the superior model they were back when it took 4 weeks to get a letter from New York City to Washington DC.

There are more and less (de)centralized democracies. The US (and others) are formed from federated regional governments:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism

But there are unitary states (France, Spain) as well:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_state

As for democracies: one problem with non-democracies is negative feedback can be difficult. If things are headed in a bad direction, it can be hard to get that message through to those in charge if they lean autocratic and become isolated from reality. Folks are afraid to bear bad news because messenger get shot (proverbially or literally).

[JumpCrisscross]

> the Information Age has tipped the scales and our large meandering decentralized democracies are no longer the superior model they were back when it took 4 weeks to get a letter from New York City to Washington DC

Telegraphs were used in the 1840s [1]. They went transatlantic in the 1850s [2]. The game change is not in modern autocracies being better at planning. It's in surveillance. What took the KGB and Stasi armies of informants filling cabinets of index cards can now be run out of a single data centre by a small team of loyalists.

The common failure mode of centralized systems, peaceful transitions of power and/or long-run economic power, is thus not addressed. (Founders have a decent record, at least in their early years [3]. But with each subsequent generation, the gap between the stability of monarchies and eccentricity of dictatorships widens. Putin is a first-generation autocrat. Xi is a bit more complicated, though I'd argue the CCP hasn't had power so concentrated since Mao, and China barely limped through that transition.

Maybe the efficiency gains in surveillance and repression will turn what would have been a revolutionary failure into a slow-burn diminishment. Whereas previously a resistance could have festered and grown, today it can be nipped in the bud, preventing the internal power competition that rejuvenates the system.

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

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_telegraph_cable

[3] https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/54717/1/670514403.pd...

[khuey]

The CCP had a power transition model mostly worked out that Xi tore apart. Interesting times ahead there.

[singularity2001]

On the other hand, the Information Age might for the first time in history enable true democracy, where every political decision can instantaneously be made by the voting populous. (not that farce of a democracy where a highspeed jet is allegedly steered by the binary input of "left" or "right" every four years)

[heavenlyblue]

You can technically vote on any little detail but it doesn’t mean you have time to analyse every one of those little details.

[JumpCrisscross]

> the Information Age might for the first time in history enable true democracy

We’ve had true democracy. It doesn’t work. It careens into majoritarianism while hyperpartisanship tears it apart. The American system balances democracy against oligarchic and monarchic stabilisers. One could argue that our present situation results from forgetting the need for that balance.

[tenpies]

Governments can be learning organizations, especially when they have long time horizons and balance agenda with reality. If anything, I think China has shown that central planning can work and is even the envy of Western leaders (see: Canadian PM Trudeau's admiration).

The implicit agreement in China is that in exchange for your freedom, you receive prosperity.

Russia - especially after the West seriously damages their economy - can easily form a similar narrative, especially when the West is being sadistic about it. Nationalize most things now when the equity is dirt-cheap because unwise Western governments have forced the hands of banks, investors, and funds; then privatize things as the new anointed class rises. Key for them will be to reward merit and capability, not just loyalty.

[scoopertrooper]

China doesn't have a centrally planned economy though. It certainly has a lot of state intervention, but resources are primarily allocated through market mechanisms.

Much of its industrial policy actually resembles that of democratic states like Korea and Japan.

I'd argue China's experience presents a great argument for a mixed market economy that allows state intervention, while also recognising the importance of markets and decentralised economic coordination.

However, we shouldn't overhype China's progress. The fact of the matter is that China was always destined to become an economic juggernaut given its population size, stability, and resources.

It's just China had been tied down by Mao and his supporters managed to hijack the government for several decades and hindered China's ascent with their whacky policies. We're now seeing it snap back to where it belongs.

[refurb]

China abandoned central planning back in the 80’s.

The current system is more similar to Japan with strong oversight and occasional intervention to nudge the economy towards the right goals.

[petre]

> democracy is fragile and doesn't work for long-term (more than a 4/5 years mandate) planning

Which is moot, because the USSR planning model also had 5 year plans. Also some European democracies are run by a coalition. See for example the Nederlands and also Germany to a lower degree. It's less efficient in case of armed conflict, but most people are represented in times of peace.

[khuey]

"The Chinese model" is fundamentally underwritten by exporting vast quantities of goods to the West which Putin just blew up any hope of doing.

[AussieWog93]

The CCP is moving away from that, though, and towards an economy driven more by domestic consumption.

[ajross]

Yes, but the success of China was built on an export economy. They're consuming more internally as they become wealthier, but it remains to be seen how smooth that transition will be. There have been many burps already (Evergrande, the banning of crypto mining to prevent wealth flight, etc...).

Turning China into an inward-looking closed market is an idea still, not a recipe.

[scrubs]

Correct! Now not to say some basic competency was not there - b/c it was - but trade with west is a major part of their success sort of like Japan kind of presaged for them in the 1980s.

[pstuart]

Other than fossil fuels and vodka, what does Russia have to offer the world?

[s5300]

Suicidal novelists of course.

[just-ok]

Russia is the world’s largest exporter of wheat and second-largest exporter of weapons. Ignorant comments like these do nothing to reduce tensions between Russians and the West.

[pstuart]

Oops, forgot about wheat -- that's a real concern. I was going to add weapons to my list but it was more along the lines of "consumer oriented" goods.

On the other hand, my comment does diddly squat to our relations. Please go on and explain how I'm contributing to international tensions with my not-fully-informed question.

[khuey]

Can't imagine this war is doing any favors to the Russian arms exporters.

[pstuart]

Can't image this war is doing any favors for anybody, including Putin.

[petre]

Russian literature, ballet, gymnastics, classical music among other things. Come on, you can't possibly equate a 144M country with gas, vodka or Putin.

[rnd0]

Malware, pirate software havens, hacking organizations?

[tapas73]

bad examples

[AnimalMuppet]

But Putin and Co don't seem to have the tools to create a dynamic economy or a disciplined society. They may admire China; they can't follow the pattern.

[petre]

They're a mafia and a bad one at that. Russia will become a Chinese satellite just like Kazahstan and Mongolia. It was probably going to anyway, but Putin just made sure of that when he attacked Ukraine. At least China had a mechanism for continuation of power, which Russia doesn't appear to have. What happens if Putin dies or is toppled? They'll put the next NATO paranoid FSB boss in charge? Compared to the Gorbachev era USSR they look like a bunch of juveniles playing with nukes they've inherited from their parents.

[scrubs]

Agreed. And the reverse ... Russia may talk up china and vice versa but china more likely does that to annoy the west. China cannot see Russia as a going concern or model except for 1-3 year tactical eg. import Russian energy that Europe is buying anymore

[outside1234]

We'll see how that works in China in the first serious recession

[yborg]

The "Chinese model" is as old as civilization and has been implemented and collapsed many times in China itself. If Putin establishes a new czarist dynasty in Russia, it will end up just like the last one.

[pwillia7]

To be fair, so far it seems all empires will fall eventually.