There is a connection between political and material advancement.
In its last posting Duly Noted reacted to a new catchphrase of the Left. The words that provoked the riposte were can democracy survive capitalism?"
The response emphasized that the suggested incompatibility is a verbal trick. Freedom as a system cannot prevail without a matching economic order. That means laissez faire. Attempts to abolish the capitalism of individual holders will not produce a capital-free order. State capitalism is the achievable alternative. With the added economic means that order will complete total dictatorial control. Elites convinced of their moral superiority are tempted to welcome such an arrangement.
A special connection between concentrated economic and political power could not be included into the original essay. It was the crucial case of Mainland China that needs examination in a context that connects liberty and capitalism. Insert into that thought a while maintaining single-party dictatorship".
From the modern perspective we find a correlation between dictatorship and backwardness. At the dawn of what is by Western reckoning the Modern Era we find tyrannies that have supported progress. The case of the Enlightened Despots" comes to mind. So do Prussian reforms". Peter the Great applied old-fashioned autocratic power to modernize his reluctant Russia. The motive of reforms by fiat was not the improvement of the lot of the common man. The goal was to enable useful subjects to bear the burden of expansion to dominate the region and in the 20th century the world.
The pursuit of power being its motor modernization was wanted not for the sake of the subjects but for its military consequence. Through this process the soldiers" became the most modern" component of left-behind societies. Modernization pursued to attain more clout meant that the updating would be followed by aggression and expansion. In Europe Prussias and Russias example illustrate this. Japans modernization during the Meiji Restoration in reality a power-oriented revolution from above - fits the pattern. We may add that Ataturks measures were also reactions to weakness and a nationalist resistance to humiliations. It is to be underlined that democratization has not been the motive of accelerated modernization ordained from above." In practice increasing efficiency and augmenting freedom are separated entities.
Admittedly the modernization initiated from below" by society enabled a middleclass to rise. These efforts were not only progressive in intent but also democratic" in their effect and augmented the international might of the state. Americas rise and Englands role as a world power are suitable examples.
Chinas modernization is unfolding. Notable is that it happens in response to the will of a single party dictatorship. The power monopoly of the Party is not based on a majority but is justified by political orthodoxy. It does not matter that this orthodoxy cannot invoke centuries as its precedent. The ruling orthodoxy is legitimized by a modernistic secular faith namely Marxism.
Marxism sold itself as an answer to industrializations problems and was meant to show the way to the perfect social order based upon material progress. In reality Marxism made bad economics into a dogma. Regardless of its claimed progressiveness where it became state doctrine it cemented backwardness and hindered development. By this standard the ultimate Marxist society is found in North Koreas praxis. If we extrapolate from Communisms record what has evolved and continues to evolve in China is rather unexpected.
China combines a tyranny with progress through state controlled capitalism. Unusual is that Chinas economy is internationally competitive. A reminder: German National Socialism combined totalitarian power with reliance on an inherited advanced economy. Thanks to the limited freedom of enterprise the Nazis approach resulted in a highly competitive military economy. Pekings stash of Americas debt substantiates the claim of success - even if abetted by an American majoritys consent to bankrupt the country. We are left here with the image of an authoritarian system that modernizes in order to improve its bite. This juncture demands a caveat. Knowing history provides useful precedents to hone judgments. However understanding history demands that the shift of the fundamentals be recognized.
Contemporary modernization requires new qualities. From a work and resource based economy we have gone to a skill and innovation based one. Originality flexibility and entrepreneurial skills are crucial. Chinas success is the result of a mixing capitalism and dictatorship. This raises the question whether the required capitalism is compatible with the dictatorship. Chinas leadership as affirmed lately is determined to maintain a one party-system run according to the matching centralistic blueprint.
This concept demands the coexistence of the authoritarian political system and the increasingly free market oriented economy. This ignores the difficulty of indulging in two things at the same time. One is a social-economic order that develops by efficiency-derived free market-inspired rules. The second one is political system whose ticking mechanism is driven by springs that contradict the forces that move the economy. The image the discrepancy creates is an odd clock. Its two hands are driven by dissimilar mechanisms and are made to turn in different directions.
Post-Mao modernization has served China well as a country and so she has gained global weight. Millions of Chinese have earned a life of relative luxury and a multitude could develop the hope to share that good life. Ultimately this process will make the presents controlled transformation by tutelage into a self-driven process. As it unfolds the Party will lose its relevance for those busy climbing up the stepladder of mobility. Invoking Lincoln we ask whether in the long run a country be half-free and half-slave?
In time the Partys choice could become twofold. It might join the process and adjust its role. That would make its political rule match the increasingly pluralistic system that
evolves spontaneously. The other would be to react to its growing redundancy to repress societys threatening autonomous development. As he contemplates the latter the Chairman of that moment should be reminded of bit of history that remains relevant. Revolutions are not so much the product of brutal oppression but of frustrated hopes.