He only said dictatorship will get it wrong eventually.
He didn’t say democracy will always get it right.
Two different statements you don’t think?
What I mean is the cause of the economic contraction is not due to governing system. Allow me to illustrate,
manch occasionally make illogical assertion because he is from HK. Hence people from HK is illogical.
It makes no sense because BAGB from India also occasionally make illogical assertion and I from Singapore also occasionally make illogical assertion. By highlighting HK and silent about other places give the wrong impression that only people from HK make illogical assertion.
Dictatorship will get it wrong eventually. Democracy will also get it wrong eventually. That is the first statement is biased thinking because it intentionally silent about other governing system.
I read that and I had the same feeling. No good. Well, hopefully the BATs will stay strong…
As long as China embraces capitalism there should be nothing to worry about. Money will drive forward progress.
1 Like
Both a dictatorship and the ruling party in a democracy will both get it wrong at some point.
In a democracy, when the ruling party gets it wrong, the people have the option of changing the ruling party through a system of elections. (Whether or not the replacement ruling party can get it right though is another affair.)
The difference though is that in a one-party system the people don’t have the option of changing the ruling party and consequently the direction (short of a revolution).
3 Likes
No. That’s not @aalj’s point at all. He did not say which political system will produce better economic policies.
What he said is that Chinese dictatorship derives their legitimacy from the success of their economic policy. When it failed it may lead to unrest.
That’s the Chinese concept of “heaven mandate” 天命。if the emperor has the heaven’s mandate he will improve his subjects’ lives. So what will people conclude if their lives get worse?
I think you added more color in his statement 
Chinese party does not derive legitimacy from economic success. 1960s was an economic disaster. However, the party did not collapse and continued to be legitimate.
If it failed and led to unrest, the party will have the army to strike down the unrest.
1 Like
I am not sure a whole-hearted embracing of capitalism will result in a pendulum that “averages out” over time to the benefit of society as a whole. I fear relying purely on “money to drive forward progress” will result in a two tier society – an extreme if you will … with no pendulum action to cancel it all out. A middle class is good for stability.
I agree, the 1960s were an economic disaster for China. That said, the CCCP did employ its army to strike down unrest (1989, Tiananmen) when it felt that its “legitimacy” was being threatened by student protestors in Beijing.
1 Like
Actually, that is exactly what I meant.
Middle class is created by capitalism. Before that there was no middle class. It was only the nobility and the serfs, the 2-tier system you were talking about. So, you are wrong about capitalism. It’s the wonder that created a middle class in the first place.
1 Like
The original statement didn’t say which political system will produce better economic policies but highlighting one-party system implies … as pointed out previously.
This is a good topic - i enjoy reading perspective of chinese born people (and others). Thanks.
1 Like
China was on the brink of collapse by the end of the cultural revolution. I don’t think the elders will allow Deng to bring in capitalist ideas if they were not desperate.
CCP is actually pretty responsive to popular demand. In recent years there was huge popular outcry about the environment and the government responds.
3 Likes
Actually all of us are biased because we are educated under the Western system, I need to check with my Chinese educated friends. Btw, I am not born in mainland China or Taiwan or HK. I am born in a country that is heavily influenced by the British and is now very Americanized.
1 Like
I’m not biased. I give credit where credit’s due. 
1 Like
Influenced by British colonial mandarins is not entirely the same as influenced by British culture.
I think stating that “Capitalism creates middle class” is perhaps an oversimplification. Capitalism certainly creates economic activity that can be conducive to growing and sustaining a middle class but the actual mechanics of this I believe are much more sophisticated than equating capitalism with the creating of a middle class.
My sense is that political construct AND freedom of economic activity work hand-in-hand to grow and maintain a middle class. What one needs is a political construct that is attuned to the middle class and promotes policies that benefit the middle class.
A democracy can be characterized as political system that is automatically biased towards the largest voting block. If the largest voting block is the middle class, then the middle class is almost guaranteed to prosper in the long run (I place emphasis on long run, as opposed to short-term hysteresis.) I would place the USA in this category.
However, in a single party system, the ruling class may not always have the middle class’ best interests in mind. Now, at some points in history, the ruling class may actually institute policies that favor the middle class. Perhaps we can make the argument that both Singapore and China have been implementing middle-class-friendly policies for the past 2-3 decades.
However, there will come a time though, in a single party system, where the ruling class will not see serving the middle class as being in their best interests — and this is where the danger is. This is related to my statement that the Chinese dictatorship derives its legitimacy from the success of their economic policy [and the fruits of which are enjoyed by the middle class] — and is as well related to Manch’s observations of the Chinese concept of the “heaven mandate 天命.”
1 Like
Btw, I feel that China is correct to do away with the 2-term limitation. Have been anticipated that they might do so. It would be a lengthy debate whether it is correct or not… so won’t respond to disagreement 
Absolutely not. China has had pretty much no political freedom the last 30 years yet it managed to create a 400 million strong middle class from nothing. What enabled that? Capitalism.
There’s no need for a political system to do anything besides enabling people to accumulate capital and innovate technologically. Everything else will resolve itself.
The problem with the one party system and lack of political freedom is the possibility that the party might turn its back in capitalism. However, I think China has gone down a path of no return towards capitalism. There’s nothing the CCP can do to “move China backward” on that. So I’m still very bullish about China’s prospects, despite authoritarianism.
1 Like