But if France and England had used military force as early as that, how much madder, more bitter, and more milataristic would the German population have become?

Who knows? Perhaps an easy victory by France and Britain (and in 1936, it would have been an easy victory) would have humiliated the German population and made them realise that the Nazis were not the answer to anything.

But worrying about possible outcomes was not the reason France and Britain didn't go to war. They didn't go to war because their populations had no interest in going to war. Sure, the Germans were technically violating the Versailles treaty by moving troops into the Rhineland, but the devastation of World War I was still fresh in everyone's mind, and nobody wanted another war over a technicality.

But if France and England had used military force as early as that, how much madder, more bitter, and more milataristic would the German population have become? It's easy to see what an appeasement strategy led to, but that doesn't necessarily mean another course would have been preferable. Germany was a growing power with an axe to grind...no matter what France and England did, there was probably going to be another war. Maybe if they kept Germany down another 5-10 years, another charismatic leader comes along to incite the country to war...after Germany develops nukes.

There actually was an incident, about 10-15 years earlier, that sort of laid the groundwork for the inevitably re-occupation of the Rhineland. Due to German non-payment of Versailles reparations, the French occupied the Ruhr valley with an eye towards basically 'seizing' payment... this led to whispers/designs in certain French quarters about annexing the area outright. This went nowhere -- the population basically staged a sit down strike... trains and mines were completely shut down. It was a disaster for both Germany -- which couldn't afford to have the area supplying most of its raw materials, especially with its colonies gone -- shut down, and for France... occupations aren't cheap.

Acknowledging these two basic points should keep any outsider relatively humble about his criticisms and observations about China. But it shouldn't act as an excuse to shut off legitimate observations about disturbing trends in Chinese policies. China can use a bit more fresh air in more ways than one.

I'm curious. Are you saying that China's progress since 1979 is anything but stunningly successful? What are these "disturbing trends"? Are you really saying that policies in 2008 are in any way worse (defined however you want) than in 1978?

I'm equally curious as to how you think that I'm saying that the Chinese government of today is "worse" than it was in 1978, let alone at any point during Mao's lifetime, or under the Kuomintang for that matter. The disturbing trends are the ones you can read about in any good newspaper. You certainly don't need to be told what they are.

Now if you read "trends" to mean "worse than 30 years ago," then I apologize for a poor choice of words. But that's not at all what I meant.

Regarding China being able to use more fresh air, I don't think anyone disputes that. What the Chinese I've met, and I, dispute is who is qualified to lecture them on this point. I know I'm not.

Fine, but who's doing any "lecturing?" I've described certain specific parallels I see between China and Nazi Germany. If you want to challenge these specific points, go right ahead. But try to stick to facts rather than polemics. And don't pretend that I've equated the two countries. I'd also see many parallels between Jackson, Mississippi and the Johannesburg of the 1950's, but that doesn't mean I'm "equating" those two cities, either, let alone equating the U.S. under Eisenhower and South Africa under Verwoerd.

They, and I, also question the motives of those doing the lecturing -- is it because the lecturers are genuinely concerned about the best interests of the Chinese citizenry, or that they want to feel morally superior and compete for influence on the world stage? They, and I, suspect the latter.

I'll let you do the third degree bit on my motives all you want, but in return I'd like for you to identify anything I've written that suggests any sense of inherent American moral superiority. I could just as easily question the "motives" of a multi-national businessman like yourself, who obviously stands to benefit from being in the good graces of the Chinese regime. But unlike you, I don't assume bad motives from anyone making a case I don't agree with.

And BTW, what do you think were the "motives" of Grace Wang, the Chinese student at Duke who was threatened and hounded by her fellow Chinese students for her attempt to open a dialogue with members of the Free Tibet movement? Are her "motives" suspect as well?

Chinese politics are fundamentally unfree and the Great Leap Forward bears little resemblance to US segregation.

I was drawing a parallel, not a resemblance. Both the Great Leap Forward and segregation were policies that were wrong, but really have little to do with the current governments.

The fundamental point being that Mao's philosophy has very little to do with how China wields policy nowadays.

is it because the lecturers are genuinely concerned about the best interests of the Chinese citizenry, or that they want to feel morally superior and compete for influence on the world stage? They, and I, suspect the latter.

More than that, is it not in part due to sense of insecurity? The time of American domination - both economic and political - has passed, and perhaps that has contributed to the backlash.

Both the Great Leap Forward and segregation were policies that were wrong, but really have little to do with the current governments.

Not to mention that the Great Leap Forward was a crackpot economic plan, while segregation was---segregation. They were about as comparable as supply side economics and racial profiling.

is it because the lecturers are genuinely concerned about the best interests of the Chinese citizenry, or that they want to feel morally superior and compete for influence on the world stage? They, and I, suspect the latter.

More than that, is it not in part due to sense of insecurity? The time of American domination - both economic and political - has passed, and perhaps that has contributed to the backlash.

That would be a pertinent point but for the fact that the Americans most critical of the Chinese government are not exactly the same people who thrill at the thought of "American domination." If anything, the Americans who are most critical of Chinese repression are more likely to be the ones who are also most critical of our own government. It's the American capitalists looking for favors from the Chinese government who are the most likely to defend Chinese policies.

This isn't always the case, and there are plenty of American conservatives who are critical of Chinese repression as well. But "American insecurity" has little to do with any of this. It's about concepts of basic human rights.

I learn more history from this site than I did in HS and college combined.

Now if you read "trends" to mean "worse than 30 years ago," then I apologize for a poor choice of words. But that's not at all what I meant.

I did read it that way. Thanks for the clarification.

Fine, but who's doing any "lecturing?" I've described certain specific parallels I see between China and Nazi Germany. If you want to challenge these specific points, go right ahead. But try to stick to facts rather than polemics. And don't pretend that I've equated the two countries. I'd also see many parallels between Jackson, Mississippi and the Johannesburg of the 1950's, but that doesn't mean I'm "equating" those two cities, either, let alone equating the U.S. under Eisenhower and South Africa under Verwoerd.

I wasn't referring to this statement. I was more referring to statements that I've heard, that state or imply that America is a morally superior country to China, or that American people are "free" and Chinese people are "brainwashed", that Americans are "kind" and Chinese people are "untrustworthy". I believe that these types of statements shed more heat than light on the situation and are massively counterproductive. It's not something that anyone is morally qualified to do, especially not me.

I'll let you do the third degree bit on my motives all you want, but in return I'd like for you to identify anything I've written that suggests any sense of inherent American moral superiority. I could just as easily question the "motives" of a multi-national businessman like yourself, who obviously stands to benefit from being in the good graces of the Chinese regime. But unlike you, I don't assume bad motives from anyone making a case I don't agree with.

Again, I wasn't referring to your statement.

And BTW, what do you think were the "motives" of Grace Wang, the Chinese student at Duke who was threatened and hounded by her fellow Chinese students for her attempt to open a dialogue with members of the Free Tibet movement? Are her "motives" suspect as well?

I'm not familiar with her case, and I don't know her motives. In general I do suspect the motives of Western people who take up the cause of Tibet, because I do not believe they have the best interests of Tibetans at heart. As far as I'm aware almost all of them would like the Dalai Lama to return as ruler, and nearly all of them praise him to the skies. In fact the Dalai Lama historically has been as a God-King, an infallible, absolute ruler and leader of the sole state religion. This system is not a democracy, republic nor a meritocracy. I really doubt any American involved with the Free Tibet movement would actually want to live in Tibet under those rules. On the other hand, I've no problem opening a dialogue with anyone.

It's about concepts of basic human rights.

One of the biggest reasons to suspect the motives of those who claim this, is the selectivity with which the US and other governments express concerns about human rights. Let's review:

Tibetan theocracy (Dalai Lama) = good
Iranian theocracy (Ayatollah) = bad

Saudi Totalitarian state = good
Cuban Totalitarian state = bad
Chinese Totalitarian State = good or bad depending on how much business you do with China

Pakistani military rule = good
Libyan military rule = bad, until Qaddafi promised to cooperate with the US

Iranian democracy = bad
Iranian monarchy = good

Indonesian dictator = good
Iraqi dictator = bad

I realize that some of these examples are historical, but people remember these things.

This isn't always the case, and there are plenty of American conservatives who are critical of Chinese repression as well. But "American insecurity" has little to do with any of this. It's about concepts of basic human rights.

No, for a lot of conservatives, it's about wanting war with anyone who looks at us funny.

I'm not familiar with her case, and I don't know her motives. In general I do suspect the motives of Western people who take up the cause of Tibet, because I do not believe they have the best interests of Tibetans at heart. As far as I'm aware almost all of them would like the Dalai Lama to return as ruler, and nearly all of them praise him to the skies. In fact the Dalai Lama historically has been as a God-King, an infallible, absolute ruler and leader of the sole state religion. This system is not a democracy, republic nor a meritocracy. I really doubt any American involved with the Free Tibet movement would actually want to live in Tibet under those rules. On the other hand, I've no problem opening a dialogue with anyone.

But -- assuming for the sake of argument that they seek to reinstate the Dalai Lama as ruler, as opposed to merely seeking to free Tibet from the Beijing dictatorship -- do you think they're aware of Tibetan governance pre-1951? In other words, rather than assuming that their motives are suspect, isn't it more reasonable to assume that they're just ill-informed?

the selectivity with which the US and other governments express concerns about human rights.

Just as there are huge differences between condemning the Chinese government and the people, there is no need for our own stance to allign with the stance of the American government. Not to mention that your view of American foreign policy is simplistic to the point of silliness. This is especially unfair to Andy, who I gather is usually against the foreign policies of the current administration. I happen to be generally in favor of the present administration's foreign policy but have no qualms to say that Bush's close relationship with the Saudi Arabian regime, for example, is a gross embarrassment.

In general I do suspect the motives of Western people who take up the cause of Tibet, because I do not believe they have the best interests of Tibetans at heart.

That's quite a bit more suspecting than you have directed towards the Chinese government that is doing the real-life, concrete opression right this moment.

But -- assuming for the sake of argument that they seek to reinstate the Dalai Lama as ruler, as opposed to merely seeking to free Tibet from the Beijing dictatorship -- do you think they're aware of Tibetan governance pre-1951? In other words, rather than assuming that their motives are suspect, isn't it more reasonable to assume that they're just ill-informed?

You mean Free Tibet is made up entirely of Emily Litella's relatives? It's a pretty big, serious and vocal movement. You'd think somebody would have employed a fact-checker.

Just as there are huge differences between condemning the Chinese government and the people, there is no need for our own stance to allign with the stance of the American government. Not to mention that your view of American foreign policy is simplistic to the point of silliness... I happen to be generally in favor of the present administration but have no qualms to say that Bush's close relationship with the Saudi Arabian regime, for example, is a gross embarrassment.

You are making a nuanced argument. The problem is that reputations of countries typically do not consider these nuances. You may view it as "simplistic to the point of silliness", but people generally don't take the time to understand the nuances of distant peoples political views.

The three biggest reasons for many people to doubt the America as altruistic upholder of democratic values position are:

1) The apparent contradictions listed above.

2) The view that America has its own human rights abuses -- genocide of native peoples, capital punishment, oppression of blacks, discrimination against Asians (this is particularly harmful in Asia, where I work)

3) Interventionist foreign policies that include pre-emptive military action, without adequate regard for civilian casualties

I want to emphasize that the above are not my personal views (other than the Free Tibet part). Rather they are my impressions from 25 years of working with Asians, 15 of which I spent in Hong Kong, India and Southeast Asia.

That's quite a bit more suspecting than you have directed towards the Chinese government that is doing the real-life, concrete opression right this moment.

I don't recall ever defending oppression anywhere by anyone.

You mean Free Tibet is made up entirely of Emily Litella's relatives? It's a pretty big, serious and vocal movement. You'd think somebody would have employed a fact-checker.

How long have you been on the internet, exactly?

That's quite a bit more suspecting than you have directed towards the Chinese government that is doing the real-life, concrete opression right this moment.

I don't recall ever defending oppression anywhere by anyone.

Weren't saying you did. But that's not what I was addressing.

I don't agree with repressive policies of the Chinese, or any other government, but I do feel encouraged by the progress they've made.

seems to be a lot more benefit of the doubt than

In general I do suspect the motives of Western people who take up the cause of Tibet, because I do not believe they have the best interests of Tibetans at heart.

If anything, the Free Tibet supporters deserve more benefit of the doubt than the Chinese government.

The three biggest reasons for many people to doubt the America as altruistic upholder of democratic values position are:

1) Anybody expecting altruistic anything in international politics is a fool.
2) For Asian democrats, it matters far more that America promotes democracy than the motives behind it.

As for "the Asians" you worked with who do not agree with 2), they are usually
a) not in favor of democracy in their own countries, and
b) anti-American because of its role as a promoter of democracy, among other reasons.

I learn more history from this site than I did in HS and college combined.

Did you go to Harvard by chance?

How long have you been on the internet, exactly?

I'm not sure, but I'm confident someone in Beijing could tell you.

For Asian democrats, it matters far more that America promotes democracy than the motives behind it.

Not really. America has not been particularly relevant in the spread of Asian democracy. The democratic countries in the region -- India, Pakistan, Nepal, Thailand, Philipines, South Korea and Taiwan all achieved whatever democracy they have without a lot of help from America.

Indeed America was seen as a friend to the British Empire, Ferdinand Marcos, Roh Tae-woo, Chiang Kai-shek, Pervez Musharraf, and Suharto.

If anything, the Free Tibet supporters deserve more benefit of the doubt than the Chinese government.

I guess the difference to me is that the Chinese government has made massive real improvements in the lives of Chinese people, albeit with repressive techniques. Within 30 years China has improved the lot of its people maybe more than any other regime ever. If not, it has to be pretty high on the list.

I'm not sure what the Free Tibet movement has accomplished other than to make themselves feel better about their own moral superiority. Their apparent belief that they're on the right track combined with their adulation for the Dalai Lama make me doubt their motives.

Ivan, regarding your answers to me in post # 109, there's a repeated pattern: First, you copy something I write, but then you either distort it or misinterpret it in order to attack it. Then, after I point this out, you say that you weren't really referring to me, but to someone else. But if you first copy a specific person's words and then answer them directly below, you're supposed to address that person, not some third or fourth party whose actual words you haven't quoted. It's as if I quoted your words and then "answered" you by implying that you represent the views of the Kuomintang, or that you were in favor of the Cultural Revolution. This is a pretty basic point, since that sort of thing merely sidetracks the discussion.

If anything, the Free Tibet supporters deserve more benefit of the doubt than the Chinese government.

I guess the difference to me is that the Chinese government has made massive real improvements in the lives of Chinese people, albeit with repressive techniques. Within 30 years China has improved the lot of its people maybe more than any other regime ever. If not, it has to be pretty high on the list.

There's something to be said for that argument, but then this largely reflects the low starting point of 1978, which was itself the product of the same one party rule that governs China today. If 1949's founding fathers hadn't made such a complete disaster of the preceding 29 years, the growth statistics since then wouldn't look nearly as impressive. Not that you're not aware of that.

Of course with China's unique situation as a country of over a billion people, it's impossible for anyone, let alone an outsider, to be able to say with any exactness what would happen if China allowed more political and social freedom. But as with our own country, the key basis of judgment down the road won't be the GDP statistics, important as they may be. It's not going to be how many millionaires China produces, and certainly not how many international sports spectacles it can dazzle the world with.

What will matter is the quality of life for those Chinese who don't have connections, or who don't have the sort of world class "entrepreneurial" talent that results in gushing writeups in the business press. Only a tiny fraction of the population will fall into either of those two groups. But all of the Chinese people will still have to be able to breathe unpolluted air, and if our standards for quality of life are to be set a bit higher than mere material subsistence, there are eventually going to have to be increasing outlets for individual expression that doesn't necessarily dovetail with the interests of the Chinese government. Including the right to agitate for "reactionary" political positions.

I'm not saying that the relative lack of these freedoms today should mean international boycotts and political isolation. As you'd certainly point out, the double standard there would be blatant, and beyond that, "we" need the Chinese as much as they need us. Endless confrontations tend to lead us nowhere.

But by the year 2050, if the Chinese government hasn't figured out a way to address these real issues---including air pollution---then I'm not sure how stable that China is going to be. It doesn't take much of a glance at history to see that government-fostered economic "miracles" can come and go very quickly. And the sheer size of the population is an enormously complicating factor.

And BTW, what do you think were the "motives" of Grace Wang, the Chinese student at Duke who was threatened and hounded by her fellow Chinese students for her attempt to open a dialogue with members of the Free Tibet movement? Are her "motives" suspect as well?

I'm not familiar with her case, and I don't know her motives. In general I do suspect the motives of Western people who take up the cause of Tibet, because I do not believe they have the best interests of Tibetans at heart.

Grace Wang is Chinese, not Chinese-American. And if China's going to make it through the 21st century in one piece, it's going to need a hell of a lot of Grace Wangs, every bit as much as it's going to need economic efficiency experts.

The Nazis also really impoved their nation's economy in their brief time in power. There is no doubt the current Chinese government has done a hell of a job in growing the Chinese economy. But that speaks neither to the morality of the Chinese government nor the health of Chinese politics.

2) The view that America has its own human rights abuses -- genocide of native peoples, capital punishment, oppression of blacks, discrimination against Asians (this is particularly harmful in Asia, where I work)

I'm Asian. From personal experience, East Asians, at least, are much more racist towards blacks, than Americans / Europeans.

I'm not sure what the Free Tibet movement has accomplished other than to make themselves feel better about their own moral superiority. Their apparent belief that they're on the right track combined with their adulation for the Dalai Lama make me doubt their motives.

Do you believe that Tibetans have the right to self determination?

The Nazis also really impoved their nation's economy in their brief time in power. There is no doubt the current Chinese government has done a hell of a job in growing the Chinese economy. But that speaks neither to the morality of the Chinese government nor the health of Chinese politics.

I'd go a step further. The Chinese regime seeks to grow the Chinese economy for the very purpose of maintaining one-party rule and staving off demands for political freedom -- a point its apologist unwittingly confirmed around 80 posts ago.

The irony of businesspeople lecturing us about "lecturing" others is also rather rich.

I'm not sure what the Free Tibet movement has accomplished other than to make themselves feel better about their own moral superiority.

Criticizing the Free Tibet movement for not having made "massive real improvements in the lives of" the Tibetan people is like criticizing Mark Cuban for not having brought the World Series to Wrigley.

Not really. America has not been particularly relevant in the spread of Asian democracy. The democratic countries in the region -- India, Pakistan, Nepal, Thailand, Philipines, South Korea and Taiwan all achieved whatever democracy they have without a lot of help from America.

Sure, unless you want to count the 350,000 American casualties in WW2, or the 140,000 in Korea. Or the billions spent containing Soviet expansion. Which might have had a little something to do with democracy in Japan, the Phillipines, Thailand, South Korea, Taiwan...

There's something to be said for that argument, but then this largely reflects the low starting point of 1978, which was itself the product of the same one party rule that governs China today. If 1949's founding fathers hadn't made such a complete disaster of the preceding 29 years, the growth statistics since then wouldn't look nearly as impressive. Not that you're not aware of that.

You're too generous to the argument; I don't think there's anything to be said for it. Have the lives of Chinese gotten much better? Yes, absolutely -- and not just the handful of elites you identify, but hundreds of millions of people. But crediting the Chinese government for that is like crediting Willie Horton for my family's happiness because he didn't rape my wife. The Chinese government is only responsible for the increased wealth because it is (slowly, gradually) getting out of the way and allowing the public to begin to prosper. Crediting a thief for my success because he adopted a no-more-stealing-from-me policy is ludicrous.

(My disagreement with you is in the fact that it doesn't matter whether we pick 1978 or 1949 as the starting point. Yes, they made a particularly bad hash of things before 1978, which makes the recent success stand out even more, but even if they had merely been "average" communists, they wouldn't have seen this sort of success until they reformed.)

The Chinese regime seeks to grow the Chinese economy for the very purpose of maintaining one-party rule and staving off demands for political freedom -- a point its apologist unwittingly confirmed around 80 posts ago.

Yes, the Chinese government seems committed to one-party rule. I'm not quite sure why that should be surprising.

The Chinese government is only responsible for the increased wealth because it is (slowly, gradually) getting out of the way and allowing the public to begin to prosper. Crediting a thief for my success because he adopted a no-more-stealing-from-me policy is ludicrous.

I don't think that's completely right. It's much more difficult to generate a successful market economy than simply to go by laissez-faire regulation. India has been stumbling for many decades.

Part of the misconception may be that there has been a complete identity change in the Chinese Communist party over the past few decades. Mao vs. Deng Xiaopeng vs. Hu Jintao is a great shift in political goals and identities, which is why most reasonable scholars would agree that Chinese society is one which is udnergoing great dynamic transformation.

Mao vs. Deng Xiaopeng vs. Hu Jintao is a great shift in political goals and identities

Check out the pictures hanging over the podium of every recent Party Congress and this point is disproven.

which is why most reasonable scholars would agree that Chinese society is one which is udnergoing great dynamic transformation.

Nobody here is arguing that Chinese society is not changing drastically.

Chinese government, however, has changed little.

. It's much more difficult to generate a successful market economy than simply to go by laissez-faire regulation. India has been stumbling for many decades.


India has hardly had a laissez-fairy regulatory regime. They have had punitive tariffs, quasisocialistic experiments and much red tape through the years. It's just lately that they have had much deregularization of the economy.

Check out the pictures hanging over the podium of every recent Party Congress and this point is disproven.
Chinese government, however, has changed little.

If you think Mao Tse-tung and Deng Xiaopeng were similar in ideology, then I don't even know where to start.

I don't see how the Chinese government hasn't changed drastically - at all levels.

If you think Mao Tse-tung and Deng Xiaopeng were similar in ideology, then I don't even know where to start.

If you think their ideology differ completely, then there is indeed very little to talk about. Remember Deng and his hand-picked cabal directed the brutal 1989 supression, very far from the idealized capitalist reformer some imgaine him to be.

Their methods are indeed different. But Deng's main motivation to diverge from Mao was expediency and not a fundamental change in his ideological goals. I know because I have actually read a lot of his speeches and writings. It is not recommended reading for a general audience because it's dull and venal. But you should perhaps read some of that drivel if you want to speak like an expert on the subject.

If you think their ideology differ completely, then there is indeed very little to talk about. Remember Deng and his hand-picked cabal directed the brutal 1989 supression, very far from the idealized capitalist reformer some imgaine him to be.

Their methods are indeed different. But Deng's main motivation to diverge from Mao was expediency and not a fundamental change in his ideological goals. I know because I have actually read a lot of his speeches and writings. It is not recommended reading for a general audience because it's dull and venal. But you should perhaps read some of that drivel if you want to speak like an expert on the subject.

We can start at the fundamental level - Mao was a fierce believer in peasant empowerment and state run economy.
Deng initiated the wide-sweeping reforms which led to the development of the market economy in China and the emergence of the urban power centers. One was a ruthless idealist, the other a pragmatist. Again, this is so fundamental that I can hardly believe we're debating this point.

I guess the difference to me is that the Chinese government has made massive real improvements in the lives of Chinese people, albeit with repressive techniques. Within 30 years China has improved the lot of its people maybe more than any other regime ever. If not, it has to be pretty high on the list.

I'm not sure what the Free Tibet movement has accomplished other than to make themselves feel better about their own moral superiority. Their apparent belief that they're on the right track combined with their adulation for the Dalai Lama make me doubt their motives.

Three arguments have been advanced against your argument. All of them I agree with.

1) Economic growth not uber alles argument. (bunyon)
2) The Libertarian argument. China's recent economic growth should be mainly credited with its natually industrious people and not the government, which is still very restrictive. (David)
3) The Bill Bavasi argument. China's government self-acknowledges and is acknowledged as the contiuation of the 1949 regime. To credit recent economic growth to the regime the way you did is analogous to crediting Bill Bavasi for the Mariners' miraculous improvement from '06 to '07 without mentioning the fact that he ran the franchise to the ground. (Andy)

To those I would add one more argument specifically addressing you perspective on the Chinese government vs. Free Tibet.
4) The Chinese government, right this minute, is still repressing the Tibetan people. Stories are legion of repression by the government against Tibetan Buddhists in Tibet and Tibetan students studying in the rest of China. The Chinese government's program of systematic and intense Han immigration into Tibet is undeniable. Lhasa is now a Han city. I contend the Chinese government even now is bringing more harm than benefit to the Tibetans within its border.

It would be hardly fair to credit the improvement of non-Tibetan peoples against the Free Tibet movement. Your attitude rests on the alleged improvements the government brought the people. Since the benefits don't exists for the Tibetan people, your argument cannot justify your more stringent attitudes against Free Tibet.

I don't think that's completely right. It's much more difficult to generate a successful market economy than simply to go by laissez-faire regulation. India has been stumbling for many decades.

That's because India has never come close to a laissez-faire system. For most of its history it was about as far as one could be on the socialist side of the ledger without tumbling into authoritarianism. High trade barriers, nationalization of much heavy industry, forbidding or restricting most foreign investment, strict regulation of business to the point where it was almost impossible to start one, etc.

Okay, if you want to nitpick. Brazil has been stumbling for many decades now.

Sheesh, I just want to point out that "not getting in the way" is a lot more credit to a government than you seem to concede.

Deng initiated the wide-sweeping reforms which led to the development of the market economy in China and the emergence of the urban power centers.

Frankly I feel the debate between you and I are not going anywhere because your understanding of China and its recent history is not extensive or nuanced enough to allow a productive dialogue on the internet.

I would like to bring up clarification on one of your misconceptions. The Chinese Communist regime has always relied on ruthless exploitation of the Chinese peasantry for the sake of industrialization. To think that "urban power centers" emerged under Deng is flatly false. China maintained a "Dual-Register" citizenry divided between "urban" and "rural" from the mid-50's until very recently. What it entails is that the rural population cannot freely seek jobs in cities; they are not entitled to purchase grain in the cities if they do; and their children cannot enroll in urban elementary and secondary schools. Urban dwellers (and by extention the ideolized class of industrial workers) have enjoyed artifially higher standard of living since early Mao. This was the reality instituted under Mao and continued throughout Deng.

Deng is different from Mao in that he is a pragmatist. To elevated the difference any higher is unwise. To state they fundamentally differ ideologically is ludicrous. Deng's main achievement was his understanding of the fundamental law of pre-industrial agrarian economics: The morale of those doing the farming is above all else, and the most motivated are small-holding indepedent farmers.

Wait, I think I got it.

You all think the other person is wrong.

Even if the competitors/press guard their laptops so that the Chinese authorities don't bug/tap/steal/block information, they still have to worry about Homeland Security confiscating the laptops when they come back through customs for an indefinite amount of time in order to examine all the information the hard drives to make sure there is nothing there that might be considered a "national threat".

You know, for your own safety.

Three arguments have been advanced against your argument. All of them I agree with.

2) The Libertarian argument. China's recent economic growth should be mainly credited with its natually industrious people and not the government, which is still very restrictive. (David)

Beyond this, to what extent is the Chinese economy genuinely capitalist in the true free market sense? As opposed to a form of cartel capitalism in which individuals are totally dependent upon being on the good side of the government.

IOW are private businesses truly "private" in any meaningful way, or are they disproportionately dependent on a combination of connections and bribery in order to exist at all? Not that this phenomenon is exactly nonexistent in the West, but does is hold true in China even beyond the point that it does here?

By coincidence, a front page article in today's New York Times stresses exactly the same point I was making above:

The [Communist] party has absorbed entrepreneurs, urban professionals and university students into an elite class that is invested in the political status quo, if not necessarily enthralled with it. Private capitalists may be symbols of a changing China. But the party has also clung tenaciously to the most profitable pillar industries and the financial system, and it is not always easy to distinguish the biggest private companies from their state-run counterparts in China’s hybrid economy....

Reformers hoped private businesspeople might one day prove a force for democratization. But today, together with the flow of party officials into the business sector, the mixing of money and power has rendered sharp distinctions about the state and private sectors less meaningful than they seem in the West. Businessmen have established closer links to the government and the party to get access to state bank loans and tap into the network of officials who control land and government contracts. College students eyeing a career in government or academia often make the same calculation....

The state’s share of the economy fell to about 35 percent in 2006 from 80 percent in 1997, according to a recent analysis in China Economic Quarterly. But that declining share does not reflect declining influence. The party’s analysis of the collapse of the Soviet bloc faulted post-Communist countries for rushing too recklessly into privatization. To preserve the party’s pre-eminence, senior officials adopted a policy of selling off small enterprises with lower profit margins while keeping a grip on the biggest industries.

Today, the state still exercises effective control over natural resources like oil, gas and coal; oil refining; production of steel and ferrous metals; telecommunications, transportation and power generation; and the financial system....

All this may be "capitalism," but it sure sounds a hell of a lot closer to the Mussolini model than in does to anything in the 21st century western world.

All this may be "capitalism," but it sure sounds a hell of a lot closer to the Mussolini model than in does to anything in the 21st century western world.
What DO we call this model? Fasciocommunitalism?

What DO we call this model? Fasciocommunitalism?

Good question. But since the main point of the Chinese "reforms" seems to be to keep the ruling Communist Party in power, perhaps the more accurate term might be good old fashioned Machiavellianism.