Login/Sign up

World Association of International Studies

PAX, LUX ET VERITAS SINCE 1965
Post China as a Fascist State?
Created by John Eipper on 10/26/17 4:11 AM

Previous posts in this discussion:

Post

China as a Fascist State? (Cameron Sawyer, Russia, 10/26/17 4:11 am)

Eugenio Battaglia, who sometimes apologizes for his English (although he obviously speaks it better than most of us native speakers), has produced a superb formulation of Fascist economics, actually one of the clearest and best I've ever seen.

This formulation underlines the fact that Fascism, in economics, as in other things, is the opposite of liberalism. It is the State unbound and freed from any subordination to liberty. The State so unbound becomes Total--and that's Totalitarianism; the total subordination of the individual to the State.

I think we can all agree that extreme degrees of economic liberty do not produce ideal results--even most libertarians agree that some degree of regulation, including taxation, of some kinds of economic activity, is necessary. But the absence of any economic freedom has also been shown, by extensive experimentation during the 20th century, to produce poor results. The lack of liberty, in the economic sphere too, degrades the quality of human life in non-material ways, and illiberal economies don't work economically. The market, in some role or another, is essential to economic progress and growth--to the creation of wealth in the first place, which we now know pretty well can't be produced by decree, by central planning, by top-down organization by the State.

China is not at all an example of Fascism--China has extremely illiberal politics, and is a quite oppressive state in my respects, but economic freedom is probably greater than in the US, and the Chinese (and the world) are reaping the rewards of this.

Of course there are different definitions of "economic freedom," and I am using the term strictly defined--the right to engage in economic activity, negotiate prices, and to reap the rewards of that activity, with minimal interference by the State.*

*I disagree with the Heritage Foundation's definition of economic freedom which includes many non-economic factors like freedom of expression, environmental problems, etc., all of which are important issues but not part of economic freedom per se.

JE comments:  With China's heavy reliance on SOEs (state-owned enterprises) and the ubiquitous cronyism and graft of the 10 million party members who run them, can we really call its economic system liberal or "free"?

Has anyone in WAISworld done business in China?  I'd love to hear an anecdote or two.


SHARE:
Rate this post
Informational value 
Insight 
Fairness 
Reader Ratings (0)
0%
Informational value0%
Insight0%
Fairness0%

Visits: 320

Comments/Replies

Please login/register to reply or comment: Login/Sign up

  • Doing Business in China: A Friend's Saga (Nigel Jones, -UK 10/26/17 6:10 PM)
    It's a while back now, but a Californian friend in the mortgage business saw the crash of 2008 coming and while standing by the Pacific one day decided to relocate to China.

    He went to live in a provincial Chinese city, and before succumbing to a fatal heart attack, experienced a mix of personal freedom and business frustration. On the one hand he acquired two Chinese girlfriends and roared about the country on a vintage WWII Nazi motorbike, proudly sporting Iron Cross livery; on the other, he found it impossible for a Westerner to get a business off the ground.


    His conclusion was that the Chinese are great at business..but only for the Chinese.


    JE comments:  What a sad ending for an intrepid soul.  The chutzpah required to pilot a 70-year-old motorcycle in Chinese traffic speaks volumes.  Nigel's friend experienced personal freedom and business frustration; the stereotypical image for China is the other way around.


    Did you friend ever write about his adventures, Nigel?


    Please login/register to reply or comment:


  • Doing Business in China (Cameron Sawyer, Russia 10/27/17 10:15 AM)
    John E asked, "Has anyone in WAISworld done business in China? I'd love to hear an anecdote or two."

    I visited China twice in the last year, and have done some business there.


    I think it's fair to say that corruption degrades economic freedom, and significantly. But conditions for entrepreneurship in China are amazing.


    Here is a good article on it: https://www.forbes.com/sites/tseedward/2016/04/05/the-rise-of-entrepreneurship-in-china/#498b9eff3efc


    State-owned enterprises (SOEs) employ only 16% of Chinese workers, and their role in the Chinese economy is shrinking.


    JE comments:  Istvan Simon has also written on business and entrepreneurship in China.  His take is less sanguine.  I'll try to post Istvan's comment before the end of today.


    Please login/register to reply or comment:


  • Doing Business in China: Frustrating (Istvan Simon, USA 10/28/17 7:55 AM)
    I have done business in China, and given that I have lived in China and that my wife is Chinese, I could probably say that I am fairly well informed about the country. Though I am sure that Cameron Sawyer is well informed about China as well, I'd have to say that I disagree with Cameron (October 26th) that China is a freer market than the United States. That is not even close to the truth in my opinion.

    The Chinese economy is a mixture of statism and free enterprise. The government reserves to itself large sectors of the economy which it considers strategic assets. Thus all communications in China are under government control, including telephones, the generation and distribution of energy, roads, the famous disgraceful attempt to censor the Internet, and all banking.  Together that must be more than 50% of the economy I'd say, though I do not have exact statistics at the moment. This is a subjective but well-informed personal assessment.


    The fact that all banking is in the government's control is particularly disastrous to the Chinese economy. That is because small businesses do not have access to capital, which is dispensed by political influence, and is essentially a corrupt system. Those who have access to the Communist Party bigwigs, have everything. Those that do not, are up the famous Sh*t Creek.


    As WAISers who have followed my activities know, I have researched renewable energy for the past 15 years or so. I had a supplier in China that made the prototypes of my Solar Collecting Panels, which was a very high technology contraption, that followed the sun, and had 1 cm square "panels" which worked with highly concentrated solar radiation at 1000 suns. A 1 cm square "panel" would produce 25 watts of energy all day long, from sunrise to sunset, as long as it received direct sunlight. The company that made my prototypes was a small company that made Chinese telescope parts. The technology for telescopes is the same as what I needed for my panels, because to watch a star one needs to compensate also for the rotation and movement of the Earth in its orbit.


    This company is everything that proves how wrong Cameron Sawyer is in his assessment. Because there is no venture capital in China, and because the banking system is corrupt, as I explained above, this small company struggled against incredible odds. They succeeded, but their survival is hardly an advertisement for the Chinese economic model and system.  Much to the contrary.


    I'd like to add a few more observations about China. After Deng Xiaoping started the ground-shaking capitalist reform that ended the disastrous reign of Mao Zedong, Chinese universities recovered from the terrible depredations of Mao's criminal cultural revolution which destroyed a whole generation. Chinese universities are very good at some things, but not so good at other things. The Chinese are practical people. So they educate fabulous engineers, but not-so-fabulous scientists. Considering that China has 1/5 of the world's population, one could expect about 1/5 of the World's Nobel Prizes to go to Chinese scientists. Yet that is not at all the case, almost all Chinese Nobel Prize winning scientists live in the West. I think that this is due to the cultural character of the Chinese. The Chinese are not curious, and they do not routinely ask why something works the way it does. They are happy that it works and do not usually ask the question why. This leads to great engineers but lousy scientists.


    Russia is almost the exact opposite of the Chinese. Russian scientists are great, but Russian engineers are usually lousy.


    Finally, I enclose the following reference that has some interesting commentary on what has been happening with China's economy in recent years, and sheds further light on my qualitative comments above. It includes some statistical data relevant to our discussions. In particular it points out falling growth, problems of the banking sector with bad loans, and an excess in real estate inventory.


    https://www.americanfunds.com/individual/insights/investment-insights/spg-andd-china-slow-growth.html?cid=ps_ggl_32589384942


    Cumulatively these problems are very significant, because China's economy since Deng Xiaoping has used a model of economic growth primarily fueled by taking land away from peasants and building real estate on it, apartments, offices, etc., coupled with enormous investments in infrastructure. This model has reached its limits which points to the need for a major change in China's economic model of development. At this point this is not yet happening. Xi Jinping has used an anti-corruption crackdown within the Communist party as an excuse to consolidate his powers. There is a danger that China will revert to an even more authoritarian government than in recent years. Xi Jinping might change the healthy major reform first introduced by Deng Xiaoping that limited the term in office of the top leader, and established procedures on how the next leader was to be chosen.


    JE comments:  Istvan Simon raises a point for further discussion:  is the Chinese development model at its limits?  Even more fundamentally, is Istvan's description of this model (confiscate land, build stuff) accurate?


    (Istvan, one of my best friends is a Russian engineer.  And he's really good at it!  He probably designed the seating in your car.  Maybe it's because of his 20 years in the US?)


    Please login/register to reply or comment:

    • Attempting to Do Business in China; from Ric Mauricio (John Eipper, USA 10/29/17 8:17 AM)

      Ric Mauricio writes:



      I too have attempted to do business in China. My clients have done or attempted to do business in China. However, not being a good little Communist, I found it to be extremely challenging. Like Istvan, my wife is Chinese, but that did not help at all, since she is as American as one can be (San Francisco-born). I guess since I am also as American as one can be, it would in itself be challenging.


      My client shared with me the nuances of owning property in the PRC. Unlike the US (which is why many PRC citizens love to buy US real estate), you cannot own the land. You just own the property on the land. The land belongs to the "people." She told me that the escrow process is fraught with danger, with escrow officers taking the funds and investing elsewhere while waiting for the sale to close.


      By the way, in a previous post, someone stated that China has no venture capitalists. Ah, but there are. You see, China's VCs are based in Taiwan. So the saber-rattling that you see is just that--all show, no substance.


      The PRC, although Communist in government, is one of the most capitalistic societies today. When I was last in Beijing, in 2012, my tour group was approached by a gentleman selling doodads, and I blurted out, "Good ole capitalism." Oops.


      It is possible to do business in China, but you must have a trustworthy Chinese partner. Hmm.  It is easier to just buy Alibaba.


      BTW, 67% of China's GDP is attributed to the SOEs (State Owned Enterprises).


      JE comments:  Cameron Sawyer recently wrote that the SOEs employ just 16% of China's population.  Are both numbers correct--meaning, do 16% of the Chinese produce 67% of the GDP?  This doesn't make sense, especially given the assumption that the SOEs are less productive than their private-sector counterparts.

      Please login/register to reply or comment:



Trending Now



All Forums with Published Content (44645 posts)

- Unassigned

Culture & Language

American Indians Art Awards Bestiary of Insults Books Conspiracy Theories Culture Ethics Film Food Futurology Gender Issues Humor Intellectuals Jews Language Literature Media Coverage Movies Music Newspapers Numismatics Philosophy Plagiarism Prisons Racial Issues Sports Tattoos Western Civilization World Communications

Economics

Capitalism Economics International Finance World Bank World Economy

Education

Education Hoover Institution Journal Publications Libraries Universities World Bibliography Series

History

Biographies Conspiracies Crime Decline of West German Holocaust Historical Figures History Holocausts Individuals Japanese Holocaust Leaders Learning Biographies Learning History Russian Holocaust Turkish Holocaust

Nations

Afghanistan Africa Albania Algeria Argentina Asia Australia Austria Bangladesh Belgium Belize Bolivia Brazil Canada Central America Chechnya Chile China Colombia Costa Rica Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark East Europe East Timor Ecuador Egypt El Salvador England Estonia Ethiopia Europe European Union Finland France French Guiana Germany Greece Guatemala Haiti Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran (Persia) Iraq Ireland Israel/Palestine Italy Japan Jordan Kenya Korea Kosovo Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Latin America Liberia Libya Mali Mexico Middle East Mongolia Morocco Namibia Nations Compared Netherlands New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria North America Norway Pacific Islands Pakistan Palestine Paraguay Peru Philippines Poland Polombia Portugal Romania Saudi Arabia Scandinavia Scotland Serbia Singapore Slovakia South Africa South America Southeast Asia Spain Sudan Sweden Switzerland Syria Thailand The Pacific Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan UK (United Kingdom) Ukraine USA (America) USSR/Russia Uzbekistan Venezuela Vietnam West Europe Yemen Yugoslavia Zaire

Politics

Balkanization Communism Constitutions Democracy Dictators Diplomacy Floism Global Issues Hegemony Homeland Security Human Rights Immigration International Events Law Nationalism NATO Organizations Peace Politics Terrorism United Nations US Elections 2008 US Elections 2012 US Elections 2016 US Elections 2020 Violence War War Crimes Within the US

Religion

Christianity Hinduism Islam Judaism Liberation Theology Religion

Science & Technology

Alcohol Anthropology Automotives Biological Weapons Design and Architecture Drugs Energy Environment Internet Landmines Mathematics Medicine Natural Disasters Psychology Recycling Research Science and Humanities Sexuality Space Technology World Wide Web (Internet)

Travel

Geography Maps Tourism Transportation

WAIS

1-TRIBUTES TO PROFESSOR HILTON 2001 Conference on Globalizations Academic WAR Forums Ask WAIS Experts Benefactors Chairman General News Member Information Member Nomination PAIS Research News Ronald Hilton Quotes Seasonal Messages Tributes to Prof. Hilton Varia Various Topics WAIS WAIS 2006 Conference WAIS Board Members WAIS History WAIS Interviews WAIS NEWS waisworld.org launch WAR Forums on Media & Research Who's Who