NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm not trying to say that totalitariansm is better then democracy, i'm just saying that it is a more efficient way in changing the economy from an agrarian society into a developing society

I'm not trying to say that totalitariansm is better then democracy, i'm just saying that it is a more efficient way in changing the economy from an agrarian society into a developing society

Looks like it cut some of your post off. Bummer.

Tell that to the Cambodians...

Tell that to the Cambodians...

What Cambodians? They're all dead! *ba da CHING!*

What Cambodians? They're all dead! *ba da CHING!*
Dog, TeH BURNZ!

be reasonable, of course not every totalitarian government is not going to hit an economic growth, but not every governmnt hits an economic growth

A Benevolent Dictatorship would be best. "Frightening" for Civil Rights and "Outlawed" for Political Freedom.

Totalitarianism over my dead body. How is that for an answer?

A Benevolent Dictatorship would be best. "Frightening" for Civil Rights and "Outlawed" for Political Freedom.
But what happens when the benevolent dictator dies?

take for example the incredible efficiency of the Soviet Union during its prime. Under the rulership of one figure (stalin) this newly formed government could compete with a superpower nation that was long established and hold its ground very well, and as i'm sure you know the USSR was a despotism

But what happens when the benevolent dictator dies?

Hmmm...another benevolent dictator. Or, if the people are ready for democracy, give it to 'em.

take for example the incredible efficiency of the Soviet Union during its prime. Under the rulership of one figure (stalin) this newly formed government could compete with a superpower nation that was long established and hold its ground very well, and as i'm sure you know the USSR was a despotism

Note how quickly they fell behind the technological curve.

the ideal situation would be to start as a benevolent dictator wait until you become a developing nation and then swith over to a republic or democracy

Note how quickly they fell behind the technological curve.

thats a very good point, however it is not about how they fell behind, but how they rose up so quickly

But what happens when the benevolent dictator dies?We all drink champaigne and piss on his grave.

I think Taiwan and South Korea are successful examples of Authoritarian Governments that transformed a poor country into an industal powerhouse. Both countries where dictatorships until the late 80's.

South Korea's GDP per capita in 1960: $79
South Korea's GDP per capita in 2005: $14,000 nominal 22,000 P.P.P.

They are hardly authoritarian governments. At least what my concept of authoritarian is.

another example: China's form of governement has allowed it to develop quicker than, say, India, which has a democratically elected government. In the 1980s, before either had embraced either capitalism or an opening of the borders to capital from abroad, India was most certainly in the lead economically, from either a total or per capita perspective.

Jump forward 25 years: China is now leading the economic race. This is at least partially because the handful of Chinese rulers at the top can do whatever they like without asking others, which means they can open capital flows and deregulate large sectors of the country without the typical bickering you see in India's huge governement. China can simply get things done quicker - if the things getting done are sound economic policies, then of course China is going to be winnig in the economic race.

China gets there statistically on sheer strength of numbers. India really isn't that far behind if they are behind at all.

I'm not trying to say that totalitariansm is better then democracy, i'm just saying that it is a more efficient way in changing the economy from an agrarian society into a developing society

2 problems
1) I think you might mean authoritarian? I can't think of any totalitarian sucesses - the USSR, pre-reform PRC, DPRK, etc. were/are all failures at building economies. The GDR is about the closest I can think of to a sucessful totalitarian economy, and they started from an industrial base (yes, one wrecked by the war, but the social and cultural bases were there).

2) Even in the case of authoritarians, it only works if the proper cultural factors are in place. The only examples I can think of where this actually worked were the "Asian tigers" and Meiji Japan. All had similar cultural factors that played a significant role. Many other authoritarian regimes have failed -
Africa and Latin America are full of them.

2 problems
Even in the case of authoritarians, it only works if the proper cultural factors are in place. The only examples I can think of where this actually worked were the "Asian tigers"

can you elaborate?

They are hardly authoritarian governments. At least what my concept of authoritarian is.

They were not totalitarian, but authoritarian. South Korea and Taiwan did not have democracy until the late 80's.

From Wikipedia

(South Korea) "After the war, the autocratic government of Syngman Rhee was thrown out of power by student uprising and a brief period of civil rule was established in 1960. However, a military coup led by general Park Chung-hee in the next year turned the nation into a dictatorship that lasted 18 years, during which period it achieved rapid economic growth. Park was assassinated in 1979, and general Chun Doo-hwan seized power with another coup. Massive student demonstrations in the spring of 1980 resulted in a military crackdown and the Gwangju Massacre. Civil unrest forced the end of military rule, and progressively democratic reforms continued under the presidencies of Roh Tae-woo, Kim Young-sam, and Kim Dae-jung."


"Taiwan has been transformed into a major industrialized economy and is touted as one of the East Asian Tigers. Meanwhile, political reforms beginning in the late 1970s and continuing through the early 1990s liberalized the Republic of China from an authoritarian one-party state into a localized multiparty democracy."

Neither were bastions of freedom and democracy until resently.

another example: China's form of governement has allowed it to develop quicker than, say, India, which has a democratically elected government. In the 1980s, before either had embraced either capitalism or an opening of the borders to capital from abroad, India was most certainly in the lead economically, from either a total or per capita perspective.

Jump forward 25 years: China is now leading the economic race. This is at least partially because the handful of Chinese rulers at the top can do whatever they like without asking others, which means they can open capital flows and deregulate large sectors of the country without the typical bickering you see in India's huge governement. China can simply get things done quicker - if the things getting done are sound economic policies, then of course China is going to be winnig in the economic race.

Make that a 30 year jump. And that 30 year jump was most definately marked by a loosening up. I certainly wouldn't qualify todays PRC as totalitarian - it's certainly authoritarian though.

China gets there statistically on sheer strength of numbers. India really isn't that far behind if they are behind at all.

IIRC it's supposed to be around 2015-2025 when India's population tops the PRCs. (And the subcontinent already tops it.)

can you elaborate?

Here's a nice monograph on it. (http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:m6BmYMhzfQUJ:orpheus.ucsd.edu/las/studies/pdfs/jiang.pdf)

I have to take off now, I'll post more later.

explain why authoritarian and totalitarian can't be used interchangebly

They are hardly authoritarian governments. At least what my concept of authoritarian is.

They were prior to the mid-80's.

explain why authoritarian and totalitarian can't be used interchangebly

Authoritarian governments are highly repressive and ruthless toward dissent, yet for the most part, allow people the freedom to live their lives as they wish, so long as they pose no threat to the state.

Totalitarian governments permit no freedom whatsoever.

I'm not trying to say that totalitariansm is better then democracy, i'm just saying that it is a more efficient way in changing the economy from an agrarian society into a developing society
you mean like china's great leap forward in the late 50s? it failed utterly and drove the country into a famine that killed about 10million people with starvation.

revolutionary totalitarian regimes are good at killing enough people to erase the past and force people into a new way of life. i guess it can get the job done as long as you dont mind the price of massive numbers of deaths.

another example: China's form of governement has allowed it to develop quicker than, say, India, which has a democratically elected government. In the 1980s, before either had embraced either capitalism or an opening of the borders to capital from abroad, India was most certainly in the lead economically, from either a total or per capita perspective.

Jump forward 25 years: China is now leading the economic race. This is at least partially because the handful of Chinese rulers at the top can do whatever they like without asking others, which means they can open capital flows and deregulate large sectors of the country without the typical bickering you see in India's huge governement. China can simply get things done quicker - if the things getting done are sound economic policies, then of course China is going to be winnig in the economic race.

They may have won the sprint, but the marathon is still on and a democratic India may very well get ahead over a totalitarian China.

Also, remember that we only hear news from China, what the CPC wants us to hear. There is no report of the cost of the CPC policies.

Tens of thousands had their ancestral homes demolished to give way to swanky highrise buildings and infrastructure. This is unimaginable in India. We cannot even evict illegal slum dwellers hoarding govt land.

All things considered, though there were a lot of missed opportunities and wrong policies, and there is still a lot to be done, I would rather be an Indian citizen with my rights intact than a Chinese citizen who has no rights.

The cage may be golden, but this parrot likes its freedom.:D

They may have won the sprint, but the marathon is still on and a democratic India may very well get ahead over a totalitarian China.

Also, remember that we only hear news from China, what the CPC wants us to hear. There is no report of the cost of the CPC policies.

Tens of thousands had their ancestral homes demolished to give way to swanky highrise buildings and infrastructure. This is unimaginable in India. We cannot even evict illegal slum dwellers hoarding govt land.

All things considered, though there were a lot of missed opportunities and wrong policies, and there is still a lot to be done, I would rather be an Indian citizen with my rights intact than a Chinese citizen who has no rights.

The cage may be golden, but this parrot likes its freedom.:D

i think you may well be right. india is really just starting on the road to the economic powerhouse that it can develop into. its progress will speed up as it succeeds in developing the education and infrastructure needed. at that point the freedom of the population to choose its own direction could easily outpace china's more rigid structure

the only reason china has been doing so well in the past 15 years is because the government has started to get out of the way. not because it suddenly figured out how to run the economy. to keep going, its going to have to get completely out of the way. i dont know that it will be willing to do that.

another example: China's form of governement has allowed it to develop quicker than, say, India, which has a democratically elected government. In the 1980s, before either had embraced either capitalism or an opening of the borders to capital from abroad, India was most certainly in the lead economically, from either a total or per capita perspective.

Jump forward 25 years: China is now leading the economic race. This is at least partially because the handful of Chinese rulers at the top can do whatever they like without asking others, which means they can open capital flows and deregulate large sectors of the country without the typical bickering you see in India's huge governement. China can simply get things done quicker - if the things getting done are sound economic policies, then of course China is going to be winnig in the economic race.
Um, no... just no. China leads the economic race because of a hell of a lot more natural resources, but India's economy is still growing faster per capita despite all of the resource advantages China has.

i think you may well be right. india is really just starting on the road to the economic powerhouse that it can develop into. its progress will speed up as it succeeds in developing the education and infrastructure needed. at that point the freedom of the population to choose its own direction could easily outpace china's more rigid structure

Exactly. India has better IP regulations regime and better financial, political and judicial strcuture that encourages openness and innovation - a must for making the transition from making low-tech goods using cheap labor and competing by cost to making high tech innovative products and services.

Not to say that the Chinese are not innovatice or that they cannot do it, but the CPC would be hard pressed to do it all the while maintaining strict political control.

You can build nice infrastructure and make people work. But you cannot make people think and if you allow them to think, then they will get the wrong ideas...like...freedom, democracy etc.;)

Exactly. India has better IP regulations regime and better financial, political and judicial strcuture that encourages openness and innovation - a must for making the transition from making low-tech goods using cheap labor and competing by cost to making high tech innovative products and services.

Not to say that the Chinese are not innovatice or that they cannot do it, but the CPC would be hard pressed to do it all the while maintaining strict political control.

You can build nice infrastructure and make people work. But you cannot make people think and if you allow them to think, then they will get the wrong ideas...like...freedom, democracy etc.;)

Both China and India will lead the world in high tech in the next few decades. China's GDP per capita is double that of India's currently and China's economy is still growing faster for various reasons I will not get into right now. China is hardly "free", but the people there have more freedoms then ever before. People are allowed to demonstate now, openly critize the government. etc. The only thing you can't to is suggest an overthrough of the government. Of course in the West we are allowed to overthough governments(voting), but not the system itself. I 'm not from China or Chinese, I am just going by what Chinese in China and abroad have told me.

Now, the one "moral advantage" of capitalism is supposed to be a higher standard of living (that it is, that it isn't - who is to tell when looking where? not making a topic out of it).
First of all, most of the regimes debated here are hardly totalitarian, rather austere or dictatorial (which does not make them good, of course). A totalitarian regime "being good" for capitalism is like free-trade trade "being good" for state planning, if you get my point (if not: the main definition of totalitarianism is state hegemony over the individual).
Back to my first point. What is a higher standard of living in the future (and, by definition, one that is not ensured against the fluctuations of interntl. markets) going to mean when "this much" of the population is living in prisons, or being forced to work for half of a decent pay, or enslaved to some political goal etc.? What the hell is the quality of life in such a regime?
India and China may not look much different when it comes to endemic problems. But India strikes me as the more (good-kind-of-)socialist of the two, even if it would be for just the simple fact that it does not profit of the said problems to present them as "advantages" to irresposible foreign investors. India has my admiration for being decent.

Totalitarianism by itself does little, it is probably state control of the vital projects that you mean.

And in some situations, you're right, centralisation can be great. I'm pretty sure an Imperial Russia of 1941 would not have been able to defeat Germany.
It's the total focussing of all resources on one goal that can make stuff happen, but only at the expence of other stuff.

Central to development is having enough money for entrepreneurs with good ideas to use. So either savings or investment.
Savings only works if people actually have some money (Singapore required all citizens by law to save half (!) their income for a while. It worked well)
Much of Africa doesn't have that much income, so foreign investment is good.

Foreign Investment needs stability, and many totalitarian states have the tendency to be rather erratic, or fight civil wars.
That being said, young democracies are not exactly stable either.

Singapore is a good example of how an authoritarian government can sometimes be good for a country. I think they got lucky, as Lee Kwan Yew seemed to be pretty un-corrupt and genuinely tried to improve Singapore instead of running it for his own benefit. When they became independent they were a third world nation with no resources but they've gained a strong economy and a good standard of living. While I prefer democracy, the advantage of undemocratic governments is that they can think in the long term, instead of three or four year terms. But you have to be pretty damn lucky not to get a bastard...

I actually think that democracy is generally better for economic growth, but that state planning of the economy is better to facilitate growth. Case in point, South Korea and Japan.

...but that state planning of the economy is better to facilitate growth. Case in point, South Korea and Japan.
Or that it can fuck up a state mighty quick, case in point USSR, DPRK, GDR, Zaire.

Or that it can fuck up a state mighty quick, case in point USSR, DPRK, GDR, Zaire.

That list could go on for quite a while.

I wonder why no one's mentioned Hong Kong. Although Hong Kong, being a Crown Colony before 1997, didn't have an elected government, it had full rights for all its people, and it developed from a slum devastated by Japanese occupation, to one of the greatest economies on Earth in a matter of 30 years. Less than it took for the Tigers.

Of course, the Hong Kong Government did none of this: they allowed virtually complete economic freedom. It is still the freest economy on Earth.

Of course, the Hong Kong Government did none of this: they allowed virtually complete economic freedom. It is still the freest economy on Earth.
Apart from of course intervening heavily in the forex market, and in the stock market (after the Asian crisis), and then they have laws for when and how much land can be sold.

Still, freer than anyone else. I don't much like the land regulation, but I can see the argument.

I'm not trying to say that totalitariansm is better then democracy, i'm just saying that it is a more efficient way in changing the economy from an agrarian society into a developing society

its probably more effiecient, because you don't have to worry about the voters. But whether its more effective is something else....
For the change is society to be made, the gov only needs to supply security and lessen the amount of bureaucratic red tape. There is a world bank survey that shows a direct corelation between this and growth, which of course i cannot find now!:(
It was in an issue of the economist from about 2/3months ago....

Again, most of the posters seem to make one very annoying mistake: totalitarianism means state supremacy, as in a state that has elevated politics to the level of a secular religion, that has a will to regulate every part of a human life, that is ideology driven etc.
This amounts to the hegemony of the Party-State, in an economy that is by the state, for the state. My exact point: this cannot encourage, nor permit a proper market economy.
As much as I hate to be favourable to the following regimes, these were/are not totalitarian: Singapore, S. Korea, Nigeria or whatever. Not even China! At least, not since the late 1970s.
They are mostly described as "authoritarian" or "dictatorial" or "rigid" - depending on the case.
This is not a nuance that I would emphasise because I am picky. "Totalitarianism is efficient in transforming an undeveloped nation into a developing" - this statement is a contradiction in terms.