You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
China-Japan-Koreas
The Problem with China Envy
2011-12-02
Jonah Goldberg, National Review

In 2008, I wrote a book called “Liberal Fascism.” That title came from H. G. Wells, one of the most important socialist writers in the English language. He believed, as did his fellow Fabian socialists, that Western democratic capitalism had outlived its usefulness....

Wells was hardly alone. Such arguments were being made in all the Western democracies, under a thousand different banners. Most progressives rejected terms like “fascist” or “Communist,” but they still touted foreign tyrannies as superior to the outmoded democratic capitalism of the 19th century.

Lincoln Steffens, the muckraking journalist, was a great fan of both Italian fascism and Soviet Communism. He returned from a trip to Russia to proclaim, “I have seen the future, and it works!”

Some things never change.

Andy Stern announced recently that he’s been to the future, and it works. In this case, the future resides in China, which he says has a superior economic system. “The conservative-preferred, free-market fundamentalist, shareholder-only model — so successful in the 20th century — is being thrown onto the trash heap of history in the 21st century.”

WhoÂ’s Andy Stern? HeÂ’s just the guy who, until last year, ran the Service Employees International Union, which under his leadership spent more than any organization to get Obama elected in 2008, some $28 million. Comparatively, SternÂ’s influence in the Democratic party eclipses that of, say, the allegedly sinister Koch brothers or anti-tax activist Grover Norquist among Republicans. Stern himself visited the White House more than any other person during ObamaÂ’s first year in office (53 times).

Stern sees the Chinese government’s allegedly keen ability to “plan” its way to prosperity as the new model for America. It is an argument of profound asininity. China had five-year plans before it started getting rich. Under the old five-year plans, China killed tens of millions of its own people and remained mired in poverty. What made China rich wasn’t planning, it was the decision to switch to markets (albeit corrupt ones). The planners were merely in charge of distributing the wealth that markets created....

...the core problem with China envy is not economic but moral. To the extent that China’s economic planning “works,” it does so because China is an authoritarian country. (Japan has been planning its economy within democratic restraints and has been dying on the economic vine for nearly 20 years.) You can hit your building quota a lot more easily when you can shoot inconvenient people and trample property rights at will. The Three Gorges Dam displaced more than a million people who were given three choices: move, jail, death.

Stern joins a long list of liberals who’ve seen China embrace authoritarian capitalism and conclude that the secret to that success had to be the authoritarianism. New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, my usual whipping boy in this department, has written thousands of words rhapsodizing about his “envy” of China. President Obama himself has said he’s envious of China’s president and has touted China’s infrastructure spending as something to emulate.

If you want to copy China because its authoritarian capitalism is better than our democratic capitalism, it seems pretty obvious that what you envy is the authoritarianism. H. G. Wells had a phrase for that.
Posted by:Mike

#12  Brew! Ha-ha. Ha-ha-ha. Heh...heh-heh-heh. Zzzzzz...
Posted by: Grease Jith3343   2011-12-03 00:01  

#11  Rj, spelling lesson of the day; from a former English teacher -- you get credit for proper usage, but points off for spelling:

>brouhaha
  /ˈbruhɑˌhɑ, ˌbruhɑˈhɑ, bruˈhɑhɑ/
1. excited public interest, discussion, or the like, as the clamor attending some sensational event; hullabaloo: The brouhaha followed disclosures of graft at City Hall.
2. an episode involving excitement, confusion, turmoil, etc., especially a broil over a minor or ridiculous cause: A brouhaha by the baseball players resulted in three black eyes.
Origin: 1885–90; < French, orig. brou, ha, ha! exclamation used by characters representing the devil in the 16th-cent. drama; perhaps < Hebrew, distortion of the recited phrase bārūkh habbā ( beshēm ădhōnai ) “blessed is he who comes (in the name of the Lord)”
Posted by: Scooter McGruder   2011-12-02 21:07  

#10  Political and economic inequality is much worse in China. And those of good measures of human development.
Posted by: Clem Unort1053   2011-12-02 19:43  

#9  Can't be - I know for a fact that many of my University professors labeled FASCISTS as the "Authoritarians", while COMMIES were the "Totalitarians"???
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2011-12-02 19:25  

#8  "The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power."

Boy, that sums up Bambi and today's Dems, Dr. Steve. >:-(
Posted by: Barbara   2011-12-02 14:11  

#7  ...as Steve's posting articulates - it's not about success or failure - its about power.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2011-12-02 12:09  

#6  Such envy lies amongst the progressive elite. It has a resurgence every so often when it happens to get a boost from an admirer such as BO and his followers. It dies away under a leader such as Reagan.

I don't know why the admirers of such a system don't realize it doesn't work.
Posted by: JohnQC   2011-12-02 10:57  

#5  Of course 'authoritarianism' is the point. H. G. Wells may not have captured it as succinctly as Orwell did in Nineteen Eighty Four:

"The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power. What pure power means you will understand presently. We are different from all the oligarchies of the past, in that we know what we are doing. All the others, even those who resembled ourselves, were cowards and hypocrites. The German Nazis and the Russian Communists came very close to us in their methods, but they never had the courage to recognize their own motives. They pretended, perhaps they even believed, that they had seized power unwillingly and for a limited time, and that just round the corner there lay a paradise where human beings would be free and equal. We are not like that. We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power."
Posted by: Steve White   2011-12-02 10:41  

#4  Are they willfully ignorant or just plain ignorant?

Can it be both?
Posted by: Beavis   2011-12-02 10:35  

#3  Let's see what those now-gleaming airports and train systems look like in 25 years.
Posted by: Perfesser   2011-12-02 10:27  

#2  The envy takes different forms. During the brew-ha-ha of the Florida recounts I remember a number of my friends opining over the superiority of the parliamentary system that allows for rapid elections and provides the party in power with a majority in Parliament as well as the executive position.

I'm not bashing the parliamentary system, mind you, just pointing out the habit of grass is greener.

What I find truly interesting is that liberals can go on a carefully crafted tour of Cuba or China that avoids the poverty and still remain clueless. Are they willfully ignorant or just plain ignorant?
Posted by: rjschwarz   2011-12-02 10:17  

#1  This envy of other systems has gone on for years. What we have had for the last three years is not Capitalism. Western Capitalism works period. I remember hearing a story about the best economic plan under Stalin. Stalin was given several ideas but one fellow said that Western Capitalism was the best. The idea was that when economic winter came under a Capitalist economic system the winter was much shorter. That recovery was more vigorous. Well that man was dead in two months time I understand. Russia at this time is more Capitalism than we are in my opinion. With Obama people another story can be told of two men walking down a street and one has a dog. The one is envious so kills the others dog. Why did you do that?. You had a dog and I didn't so now we are equal.
Posted by: Dale   2011-12-02 10:02  

00:00