Replies

China has cheap labor, but cheap labor isn't necessarily slave labor.

Agreed. "Slave" labor may have been used too generally here.

Nonetheless, the PRC seems to have imported only those aspects of a Free-market that suit those in power, which therefore is not a Free market at all. I think we can both agree that the "collusion of government and business to the exclusion of the people" is a good working definition of a Facist State. For a Free Market to work efficiently the people, both the owners of the stores, shops and factories AND those that work in those businesses, the laborers, must be free to choose (see FREE TO CHOOSE by Nobel prize-winning Economist, Milton Friedman). When both sides of this equation are allowed to act and react freely towards one another is when the Market will work most efficiently.

Currently in China "The Communist Party" does not allow the free association of the people in ANY organization that is outside, and not sanctioned by, the Communist Party itself. There is coersion of the people that are caught in the grip of a group of individuals that meet in private to decide the fate of the country at a sea-side resort. From the Chinese Communist Party control over the "State-run" Catholic churches, to the placement of relatives in the newly created businesses, in a type of hereditary-succession, "The Party" does not want to give up its ultimate control of the country.

"Solidarity" in Poland was the result of the free-association of workers. The formation of an independent trade union in a communist country that did not allow any such group to be formed unless sanctioned by The Party was revolutionary. It was an alternate expression of the revolutionary "will-of-the-people" versus that sanction wholely claimed by "The Party" itself. I am still waiting for the formation of a single independent labor union in China that is not controlled ultimately by the Communist Party.

Yes, I understand China is changing, and any change involves dislocation and pain. Yes, the Communist rulers there, ever nervous over any hint of chaos and loss of control, are also allowing, and are responsible for, THAT verysame change. I have read that "The Party" is even beginning to allow the input of business leaders in the economic decisions that were once solely made by "The Party". These changes ARE good. But it would be better if the people had some input. In some respects the workers may as well be slaves.

Yes, this is a time of transition and things that were true yesterday may rapidly become false tomorrow, so rapid is the change. Still, my final comment then is half-jokingly directed at the people in China: "Workers of China unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains".

In Asia, business and government activity is often blurred. In Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and even mainland China, one can only really say that about 50% of their GDP's derive from the private sector while the rest still derives from the public sector. A 50% ratio isn't bad. European countries also have about a 50% ratio. The US is unique in that it has a 67% ratio of private-vs.-public economic activity. In Taiwan today, much of "democratic" Taiwan's major industries are still government-owned. For example, Taiwan's #1 airline. While it would be desirable if China had a 67% or higher ratio right now, China's only been capitalist for 20 years or so, so 50% now isn't so bad. You can't turn a 100% communist economy into a 100% laissez-faire capitalist economy overnight. Russia actually tried that but "shock therapy" there wasn't particularly effective. You mentioned Poland's Solidarity labor movement, but are you aware that the Polish government is about to re-nationalize the shipyard from which Lech Walesa led that labor movement. After 10 years of being disillusioned with democracy and capitalism, the Polish want to renationalize their industries! Similarly, throughout democratic Latin America today, people are disillusioned with the democratic/capitalistic model and voting into leftist socialists back into power as we speak. Witness Brazil today where socialist Lula got elected by a wide majority. You gave these people the vote, but now they're voting to put the big-government socialists back into power! It's bad bad Latin American countries first adopted democracy about 20 years in the first place. Their GDP growth rates today are only 1/10th what they were in the prior 20 years, when they were led by authoritarian regimes. At the end of the day, the issue is whether the government has improved the quality of the people's lives or not, regarless of the form of the government. Two generations of poor, illiterate Indians have wasted their lives and continue to live in poverty during the past 50 years, while the one-party regimes of E. Asia leaped from Third to First World status in a generation. India is "free" and democratic, but mostly they use this freedom to engage in neverending gridlock in their legislatures with the result that needed economic reforms never see the light of day. Democracy works well in countries that are already rich and have already developed majority-middle class populations, but in majority-poor Third World countries, democracy is a formula for majority-socialist politicians to come to power and block every economic reform imaginable such as privatization because their majority-poor constituents don't want to lose their welfare and jobs in the welfare state anytime soon.