Resilience

What Ross and Daniel Larison say about Robert Kagan's observations on the alleged "resilience" of autocracy in Venezuela and Russia. That leaves the case of China, where both important elements of the neoconservative right (à la Kagan) and of the labor-liberal left (à la several of my old editors at The American Prospect) would like us to believe that the links between globalization, the market economy, political liberalization, and human freedom have all been broken.

The trouble here is that I've rarely if ever heard from a Chinese person or a person who lives in China anything other than that China is, in fact, freer than it was twenty years ago. Is that in large part a reflection of how bad things used to be? Sure. Does that make China a liberal democracy? Of course not. But are things moving in a positive direction? Yes.

The unfortunate reality for those like Kagan who'd like to believe that an incredibly aggressive, violent, coercion-oriented US foreign policy is the height of moral probity is that living conditions around the world are, in general, improving for the better without us. There are major exceptions in Sub-Saharan Africa and North Korea but there's nothing about a glance at those places — Iraq, Lebanon, the Palestinian territories — that have benefitted from American "democracy promotion" policy that would make any sane person think we need to Kaganize our approach to Russia or China.

Comments

I've rarely if ever heard from a Chinese person or a person who lives in China anything other than that China is, in fact, freer than it was twenty years ago.

That's probably because you (MY) don't hear much from Chinese people in general. To take an example, people who go to Chinese professional colleges (like learning how to use computer) still have to take political indoctrination classes.

It's certainly true that China's more prosperous than 20 years ago but that doesn't make it freer. And in fact there is good reason to believe China was freer and had a greater possibility of greater freedom in the future than now.

20 years ago was 1987, 2 years before T-i-a-n-a-n*m*e*n Square (that's to get pass the great firewall for people who live in China now). The Chinese leaders then were much more open to greater democracy and freedoms in the future. But after T-i-a-n-a-n*m*e*n, Deng replaced them with the Chinese neo-cons to take over and their goal is perpetual rule. If anything, China is probably less free now.

Posted by Dan the Man | October 30, 2007 2:03 PM

Dan,
You attempt to rebut MY's argument by saying that... Chinese people "STILL" have to take political indoctrination classes?

Posted by Rickm | October 30, 2007 2:08 PM

Matt, I think a concept called the "uncanny valley" comes into play here. Basically, China starts as a brutal totalitarian state. It begins improving, so now it looks like a somewhat less brutal totalitarian state, with a liiittle bit of liberalism creeping in. Then, it gets a little bit better, and a little bit better, but at the same time, this trajectory begins people to see China more in terms of what it could be than what it is. By the end of the 20 year period, China doesn't look like a slightly-reformed totalitarian state so much as it looks like The Worst Liberal State Ever.

Posted by Daniel Munz | October 30, 2007 2:14 PM

Dan, I must say, that analysis is really poopy.

Greater prosperity among the citizenry by definition correlates to greater freedom.

How can you say the Chinese leaders were "much more opan to democracy" 2 years before Tiananmen? Since Tiananmen then, you know, happened, apparently they weren't were they.

The leaders' goal can be perpetual rule; that doesn't automatically exclude the possibility that the Chinese people are experiencing greater freedom overall. The current regime has opened up the economy. Greater economic freedom = greater freedom.

Posted by Bill | October 30, 2007 2:17 PM

Because of its enormous size, the morality of China's government looks good when viewed from a utilitarian perspective (the hundreds of millions of Chinese who have migrated from poverty to the middle class) and bad when you consider smaller (though nevertheless large) groups (occupied Tibetans, political prisoners, victims of polluted industrial cities, aspiring Hong Kong democrats, etc.).

Posted by Fred | October 30, 2007 2:26 PM

In China there are something in the ballpark of 70 million Christians; and 30 million Communist Party members. Things have changed.

Posted by Clark | October 30, 2007 2:32 PM

Dan, you're a moron. I've lived in China. Everyone you speak to there says life is freer than 20 years ago. Most everyone treats political indoctrination as a joke.

Posted by Ryan | October 30, 2007 2:36 PM

Anecdotal evidence is a bit of dicey proposition when talking about a country as large as China, but my personal experience backs up what Matt is saying. The Chinese are both wealthier and *far freer* than they were in the past. They enjoy much greater basic freedoms, such as freedom of movement, as well as a variety of improving political freedoms, on top of their much improved economic freedom. It was occasionally frustrating to me as a foreign visitor that the Chinese weren't more annoyed with their authoritarian government, but generally speaking, they weren't. They were mostly just really psyched about living under a relatively less heavy-handed state and getting rich.

(Major caveat here is that there is a lot of regional and racial variation to this picture. It's not good to be a minority in China.)

So, are the Chinese free? Not by our standard. Are they freer than they once were? You betcha.

Posted by Adam | October 30, 2007 2:39 PM

Everyone you speak to there says life is freer than 20 years ago.

You're awfully silly. Few people probably even think about such questions let alone speak about them.

Posted by Dan the Man | October 30, 2007 2:46 PM

I don't think is China freer than twenty years ago is the relevant question here. Unless everyone is positing a straight line forecast in which China will inevitably be the most free country ever in 100 years.

Yes, China is freer than 1987, does that mean they are on the road to democracy? I'd say no, there are many examples of crony capitalist authoritarian countries throughout history including today.

Posted by AJ | October 30, 2007 2:52 PM

It's relevant that what the Chinese government is trying to do is precisely what Matt praises, i.e., keep the country totally unfree while using economic growth to buy off demands for the citizens' fundamental right to choose their own leaders.

So, when Matt says that life in China is better now, sure it is. But that's all part of the plan. To have the largest nation on earth be ruled by evil dictators is a very bad thing, and the fact that they are able to grow the economy, gain more power, and enshrine the status quo in some senses makes it worse, not better.

Posted by Dilan Esper | October 30, 2007 3:17 PM

The premise is wrong. Venezuela is a democracy, and Russia is a democracy. China, of course, is not, but lumping together disparate cases doesn't help even the most tendentious argument.

Posted by Rich | October 30, 2007 3:50 PM

What do Venezuela and Russia have in common? Oil.

Posted by bjk | October 30, 2007 3:56 PM

China is undoubtedly more free than it was 30 years ago, but that's almost by default.

The big question is, has China become more free since it joined the WTO. Anecdotal evidence suggests that the opposite has happened. Of course, it's only been four years...maybe brighter days are right around the corner.

Posted by Mr. Noah | October 30, 2007 5:24 PM

living conditions around the world are, in general, improving for the better without us

I don't quite understand what Yglesias means by this. Is he saying that living conditions in China (et. al) are improving independent of US central foreign policy or independent of the US itself?

If trade is an aspect of US foreign policy, the uptick in Chinese living conditions seems completely dependent on US foreign policy. If we were to impose prohibitive (Lou Dobbs/Duncan Hunter) trade restrictions on China, I expect you'd see Chinese growth slow considerably (which could easily lead to the Central government tightening its grip).

I suppose the case for improvement independent to the US could be made in Estonia or Romania, but what about Russia?

Living conditions in Russia are very much deteriorating (which is why we're starting to see more Russian immigrants here), but the situation gets worse as Russian opposition to the US increases (not to imply a causal relationship between the two; in fact, Russia's situation is deteriorating almost exclusively due to internal elements). Sure, you see new billionaires in Russia, but the existance of Robber Barons doesn't exactly make for an increase in living conditions.

Saying that "living conditions are, in general, improving" globally, and that US existence is irrelevant to this phenomenon, is a pretty bold statement that could be argued, but I don't see how it's evidenced by citing China and Russia.

Posted by Shinyk | October 30, 2007 5:36 PM

If we were to impose prohibitive (Lou Dobbs/Duncan Hunter) trade restrictions on China, I expect you'd see Chinese growth slow considerably (which could easily lead to the Central government tightening its grip).

Exactly. It would be Smoot Hawley II Electric Boogaloo.

The big test of everybody's pet theory of China will happen the first time the China economy hiccups, a la Asian meltdown of 1997. (and I do not trust this current administation to handle such an occurence a deftly as Rubin & Co; fortunately I do not think it likely to occur until mid 2009 at the earliest)

Posted by Kenny | October 30, 2007 7:07 PM

Russia and Venezuela (and Saudia Arabia and Iran) can afford authoritarianism and autocracy and whatever you like because it's paid for out of oil revenues. If they had to tax the populace, then they'd have to rely on some degree of popular consent.

Posted by bjk | October 30, 2007 7:58 PM

"It's relevant that what the Chinese government is trying to do is precisely what Matt praises, i.e., keep the country totally unfree while using economic growth to buy off demands for the citizens' fundamental right to choose their own leaders."

In other words, China is like the United States now, right?

So what's the problem?

Oh, the United States...

Right.

Let's stop worrying about China learning what Russia learned twenty years ago - that buying your citizenry's loyalty is easier than trying to force it.

Let's start worrying about the entire concept of buying your citizenry's loyalty with "The Spectacle" - as the Situationists pointed out back in the 1960's - which is what the United States has been doing for, oh, the last hundred years or so.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 30, 2007 10:06 PM

China's press was actually freer circa 1987 or so, when large protests erupted on college campuses in cities such as Shanghai. In those days, Chinese university students were far more explicit about calling for democracy than they are today. Tiananmen Square nipped that in the bud.

On the other hand, each individual Chinese has far more personal freedom today than in the past. Market reforms have allowed university graduates access to a wider variety of industries and jobs, far more Chinese have been permitted to travel overseas than ever before, and in terms of lifestyle, Chinese society has opened up considerably.

And Dan- few people even think about it let alone speak about it? Where do you get that? I've been living here for three years and routinely have conversations with Chinese people about the rise in prosperity and differences from the past. The portrait you have of contemporary China does not resemble reality, as evinced by your idiotic self-censorship of the word "Tiananmen".

To conclude this long-winded comment, let me say that the general point stands: China is no closer to becoming a Western-style democracy now than it was 20 years ago, but at the same time, life for Chinese people on the whole has become far, far more liberal and prosperous. A lot of Americans fall into the trap of believing only an American or European system of government exists as an alternative to complete misery.

Posted by Matt Schiavenza | October 30, 2007 10:42 PM

China's press was actually freer circa 1987 or so,

Dude, didn't you read the response above from whatshisname? S/he said since Tiananmen happened in 1989 so it couldn't have been much freer.

I've been living here for three years and routinely have conversations with Chinese people about the rise in prosperity and differences from the past.

We weren't talking about "prosperity". We weren't talking about "differences". We were talking about "freer than 20 years ago".

The portrait you have of contemporary China does not resemble reality, as evinced by your idiotic self-censorship of the word "Tiananmen".

It was a joke. S*H*E*E*S*H. (asterisks to get pass the great firewall again).

life for Chinese people on the whole has become far, far more liberal and prosperous.

More prosperous sure. But we shouldn't forget this is still a country where (in 2001) 16.6% of population live below US$1 a day and 46.7% below US$2 a day.

Posted by Dan the Man | October 31, 2007 1:38 AM

On Tianenmen-
I have a hunch (but no actual data or for that matter anecdotal evidence) that a sizable portion of the new "petit bourgeoisie" of China (especially the post Cultural Revolution generation) view the Tiananmen protesters in a negative light, sort of like the scene around 1968 Chicago Democratic convention is sometimes perceived nowadays as more a riot than a protest.

I base this on an incident when I was in college in the early 90's. The university had a speaker that was actually there at Tiananmen and managed to get out of the country shortly after the crackdown. I was expecting an uncontroversial event - Tiananmen protesters were good, crackdown was bad, right? However, periodically during her speech, several of members of the audience stood up an shouted at her that she was a traitor and was destroying China. These Chinese students studying in America is the early 90's are basically running the country now at the retail level.

Posted by Kenny | October 31, 2007 2:07 AM

A lot of Americans fall into the trap of believing only an American or European system of government exists as an alternative to complete misery.

A lot of apologists for the evil dictators in Beijing who suppress protestors and Falun Gong adherents, sell the organs of executed political prisoners for profit, destroy the beautiful Tibetan Buddhist faith, threaten to attack the wonderful, prosperous, and democratic nation-state of Taiwan, etc., fall into the trap of believing that the Chinese people don't deserve to have the inalienable right to vote the Communist Party out of office.

Posted by Dilan Esper | October 31, 2007 2:51 AM

Dilan,

Where on earth do you get the idea that I said that the Chinese people don't deserve to have the inalienable right to vote them out of office? Also, nobody denies that the Communist Party is a bad government, though I think your "evil dictator" shtick is a tad over-dramatic.

Yet how many actual Chinese people, living in China, have you talked to? Most I've met are actually satisfied with their lives, and while several have candidly told me that they're not enamored with the CCP, they don't necessarily support a great democratic revolution sweeping through the country, toppling the current system, and installing an American style liberal democracy. Really.

Chinese people don't regard themselves as living under tyranny, like the Burmese (for example) do. Acknowledging this isn't a defense of the Party (whom I've criticized at great length) but merely a recognition of what, you know, actual Chinese people say. That seems to matter more than your self-righteous whinge above.

Posted by Matt Schiavenza | October 31, 2007 8:16 PM

Dan,

Apologies for not picking up on your sarcasm- you got me there.

But then again, I'm not ready to concede that China isn't freer now than it was just because the press is more tightly controlled. For one thing, Chinese students now have far more freedom to enter the job market rather than being selected for a profession by the government, which was the case during the pre-Tiananmen days. Several of the specific reforms the 6/4 students clamored for were actually implemented in the early 90s. Nobody who went to China in the 90s and has been recently will tell you with a straight face that China, on the whole, was more open and free then.

Posted by Matt Schiavenza | October 31, 2007 8:21 PM

But then again, I'm not ready to concede that China isn't freer now than it was just because the press is more tightly controlled.

In America, when we talk about which countries are more "free", we usually mean political freedoms not economic freedoms. For example, at the wiki definition of freedom, (which, incidentally, you might not be able to read if you're in China) one of the definitions of freedoms is "Freedom (political)". And under that is freedom of the press.

If Chinese people think of their freedoms as economic freedoms, that's fine. But for us that's economic liberalism (in the Europeon sense) not political freedom.

Posted by Dan the Man | October 31, 2007 9:47 PM