[cowmoo]

"Don't care if the cat is a black cat or a white cat, as long as it catches the mouse, it's a good cat."

Basically for those who are interested in the background of the quote, Deng arose to power at the end of the Cultural Revolution, at the height of Chinese communism ideology when the government was so communist that they broke away from the Soviet's and accused of USSR as "revisionist"; destroyed all of the Buddhist temples in China as "backwards and Confucius," imprisoned the sons and daughters of former capitalists (because there were no current one's left) for being "Western corrupution," and stripped intellectual's of their post in Universities and forced them to "country-side re-education camps" for being "radical leftists against communism." Before he rose to power, Deng himself was denounced and stripped of his political post, and sent down for "re-education."

In little as four or five years, in that kind of environment, Deng has reformed the former Chinese market-command economy to become more capitalistic. Liberalized the political and free-speech in China, that allowed for media/film/journalism criticize the Chinese Communist party which eventually led to the Tienanmen Incident. Deng, confronted tremendous criticism and resistance from the hardliners of the Community party when he tried enact his reform. He used this quote about "black cat" or "white cat" in a speech he delivered to the political cadres to persuade them to be a bit more pragmatic and less ideological about their communism, after 43 million people have died from Great Leap Forward and the Culture Revolution. It was also Deng who eventually issued the order to strike down the student protesters in Tienanmen.

This ambivalent character of Deng, of balancing liberalization versus stability has become a hallmark quality of the Chinese government. See how the Chinese government encourages citizens towards private asset ownership and entrepreneurship, but not towards democratic representation. See how the Chinese government agrees in principle to a Korea/Iran nuke disarmament, but they are more so wary of the stability of Korea/Iran region in the event of a international escalation - that they block the UN Security Council sanctions. Whether the current Chinese/Russian model of free markets but central strong political oligarchy without an ideological emphasis, versus the American model of free markets and free democracy with a strong ideology (leader of the free world), the viability of either models remains to be seem.

[chrischen]

> he viability of either models remains to be seem.

I think it's safe to say that any model which encourages individual freedoms would be superior. And the reason relates to my beliefs in self-education vs school education. It's more efficient if people do what they want. So even an oligarchy with an emphasis on practical results will still be less efficient than individual people managing themselves freely.

[johnnybgoode]

> And the reason relates to my beliefs in self-education vs school education. It's more efficient if people do what they want. So even an oligarchy with an emphasis on practical results will still be less efficient than individual people managing themselves freely.

I actually completely agree with this, but regarding your first sentence:

> I think it's safe to say that any model which encourages individual freedoms would be superior.

I agree with this, too, but neither of the two models being discussed here actually does this. Perhaps the question, then, is which of the two models does a relatively better job, and the answer is not so obvious. There are some who would argue that the Chinese model does a better job of it, and they are not completely nuts.

Edit: I wanted to add that your post deserves praise, because you have made an essential connection that few people have. It is more efficient when people do what they want, this does indeed apply to schools/education as well as large-scale economic organization, and in no way is this a coincidence!

[chrischen]

I agree, people who praise China's system isn't completely nuts. I have lived in China though, and I have a bunch of relatives there. I also visit regularly. But the fact is that the general consensus among Chinese youth (both from those I've encountered and from sentiments I've read on the web) is that even they don't like their current system. Even older generations acknowledge the fact that their standard of living is lower, and that China is basically unstable, and hostile to free individual thought. My dad grew up in in China (grew up poor might I add) and does not believe in the Chinese system.

What does China have right now? Authoritarian style government. It's not near pure communism, just as America is not near pure capitalism. But the main difference between China and America is that China is authoritarian and America (and all the developed world) is democratic.

I agree mob rule is bad. Can democracy work for China? Maybe. Democracy depends on the population to be educated in order to work ideally. Obviously 40 years ago many Chinese were uneducated and poor. Today many are still poor, but there is a growing middle class. More people are educated now and that number is continuously increasing. And as evident in the development of a society: as the standard of living and education of the population rises, they tend to convert to democracy. This is probably why all developed nations are democratic.

Obviously uneducated poor populations cannot govern themselves. One bad idea from one uneducated person will be echoed by 100 uneducated if democratic rule would take place. Therefore it is up to the few in that society who are educated to take charge. So in such situations an authoritarian style may be more effective. But when there is less of an education gap, it not only becomes more fair to adopt a democratic process, but more effective since there is inherent risk in granting power to select few in a more equal society. Of course the same risk is present in a society with a large education gap, but the benefits of having the smart making the decisions outweighs that risk. In the United States there is less of an education gap and people are more equal. Therefore the risk in having the smartest and best govern is not worth the fewer benefits (because an authoritarian regime can definitely be more effective if done right than a slow democratic system).

The risk I am talking about is of course having someone corrupt step into power. Democracy is slow and ineffective by design for this very reason.

Establishing country is analogous to a startup (I love startup analogies). You start with a startup and few people have complete and utter control. These few people mean less checks on bad decisions. Why? Because if it fails, there is very little to lose, and if it succeeds, very much to gain. This is analogous to the authoritarian phase of a society where it is much more ideal to take big risks since everyone's life is already shit (excuse my language). Of course once your company hits it big and has lots more to lose if a bad decision is made, your company has to be very careful. This is analogous to the democratic phase of a society where incremental benefits in management or efficiency no longer outweigh the risks which could topple the established welfare of said society/company.

So the question now is what stage is China at? Are the citizens of China smart enough to make their own decisions now?

[johnnybgoode]

> But the main difference between China and America is that China is authoritarian and America (and all the developed world) is democratic.

The problem is that "democratic" is not the opposite of "authoritarian". China and the US both have authoritarian governments, although they do of course differ in certain ways.

> And as evident in the development of a society: as the standard of living and education of the population rises, they tend to convert to democracy. This is probably why all developed nations are democratic.

I don't think this is what has happened at all. Your suggestion that

> the few in that society who are educated...take charge

is not too far off from describing the strategy of the ruling class in most modern democracies. Take the US, for example. It is run by a massive, permanent bureaucracy. In practice, a democracy always grants power to a select few; democracy is inherently unequal in this sense.

> Democracy is slow and ineffective by design for this very reason.

The key question when it comes to political systems is, who is making the decisions? Let's take education, a subject I think we're both interested in.

In Country A, the decision of how a person is to be educated is made by a large, government bureaucracy, supposedly filled with experts. The decision is not made by the person in question or even his/her parents. They have no choice but to pay for the government schools.

Meanwhile, in Country B, a student and/or his/her parents have full control over their own education and what is spent on it. In this case, they are making the decisions.

I would call Country A "authoritarian" and Country B "free". My question is, which is the US, and which is China?

[chrischen]

> The problem is that "democratic" is not the opposite of "authoritarian".

Sorry bad choice of word I guess. What I meant is that China's government is authoritarian but it is also closed, whereas the US government, although it has authority, it is responsible to the people, even though indirectly.

> is not too far off from describing the strategy of the ruling class in most modern democracies.

The ruling class in modern democracy is composed of those naturally fit to rule. There is nothing wrong with that in my opinion. So basically what I'm saying in that when a society advances and more people are educated, there are enough people to fill in that ruling class naturally.

> In practice, a democracy always grants power to a select few; democracy is inherently unequal in this sense.

Democracy's advantage is not in equality, but in allowing those fit to have more, have more, and those fit to rule, to rule. Those fit to rule would,on average, rule better than constantly selecting random small group of people to rule.

As for your education point, China has restrictions on information, and it has a similar style of education as the US, but with an even more mechanistic approach.

So while the education system in US is not ideal, the one in China is less ideal, but in the US you at least have freedom of information, which permits and promotes anyone to self educate if he or she wants to.

[johnnybgoode]

> What I meant is that China's government is authoritarian but it is also closed, whereas the US government, although it has authority, it is responsible to the people, even though indirectly.

Every government answers to the people in some sense, because no government really wants all of its people to be against it. That would cause problems. This is one reason both the Chinese and US governments expend so many resources on propagandizing their populations.

> The ruling class in modern democracy is composed of those naturally fit to rule. There is nothing wrong with that in my opinion. So basically what I'm saying in that when a society advances and more people are educated, there are enough people to fill in that ruling class naturally.

I have to disagree with you here. As you pointed out, it's more efficient when people are generally left to do as they wish, including in the area of education, for example. Yet, the ruling classes in both countries have decided against this and are enforcing their views. In fact, your idea, fully applied, precludes the existence of a ruling class.

> Democracy's advantage is not in equality, but in allowing those fit to have more, have more, and those fit to rule, to rule. Those fit to rule would,on average, rule better than constantly selecting random small group of people to rule.

This paragraph would honestly make more sense if you replaced "democracy" with "aristocracy". In fact, many proponents of aristocracy make essentially the same argument you just did.

> So while the education system in US is not ideal, the one in China is less ideal,

I agree, China's education system is even worse. But my main point is that we're talking about two bad options now, not one good option and one bad option.

[thismat]

the US is definitely B. Because my parents did just that, they didn't like the public (or private) schools in my area, and instead mixed homeschool/unschooling principals for me and my brothers.

I don't know enough about China to say it's "A", I can assume it is, but I could be very wrong.

[johnnybgoode]

No doubt there is still some flexibility in the US, but unfortunately the US is also A, not B. I'm assuming you and your parents did not receive exemptions from taxes, legal credentialing requirements, and the like.

[johnnybgoode]

Thanks for the informative post. I do have one quibble though:

> Whether the current Chinese/Russian model of free markets but central strong political oligarchy without an ideological emphasis, versus the American model of free markets and free democracy with a strong ideology (leader of the free world), the viability of either models remains to be seem.

Neither of these models can accurately be described as consisting of "free markets". All three governments you mention exercise total control over their respective territories.