Alex Rajewski

Response to November 9th Post

I think that the interesting blend of communism and capitalism is working very well for China. Their flexibility regarding economic matters has allowed them to adapt to the changing global marketplace while also allowing them to gain both economic and political prominence. The Chinese blend has several advantages. Since the Chinese government is essentially a technocracy, the people holding political power are very highly skilled in their field. This combined with the command economy that China has means that the Chinese government can institute very intelligent, well thought-out, and sweeping changes much more rapidly than any laissez-faire capitalist economy ever could. The downside to this blend is that capitalism is insidious. As an example, in the 1980s China created 3 special economic zones to facilitate free trade and foreign investment. These are areas where the communist economy does not apply so strictly and capitalism is allowed in. Since then the number of special economic zones has swollen, approaching 100. This includes the capital cities of all provinces, certain coastal areas, and the Yangzi river valley. The fact is that once capitalism was allowed into China, China’s conversion to at least a semi-capitalist states was ensured. This can be taken as either a negative or positive side-effect; creeping capitalism erodes the communist power base and efficacy, but at the same time leads to an increase in the quality of life.

The policies of the Chinese government to prevent or fix a recession are very good and will no doubt have a positive effect on the Chinese economy. These policies however are not suitable for America. The policies described are those of a socialist country, which the US is not, at least not to the extent of many other countries. The last time such a policy was enacted was the New Deal period, which provided massive public works campaigns as well as the basis for the current welfare state. The sweeping socialist assistance programs used by the Chinese would never gain popular support in America because of our more individualistic, capitalist mindset. Separate from that, I believe that they could be helpful to the American people, in fact many of the programs are already in place albeit on a smaller and less integrated level.

Response to Sept 28 Post

I think that the Chinese government, like any responsible government should take a certain level of responsibility for the quality of the products its companies produce. The government should have a branch set up so that it can control the safety of products. The Chinese government already has this agency, The General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection, and Quarantine (AQSIQ), but this organization must deal with an enormous amount of rules regulations and companies all operating with different goals. The AQSIQ is essentially every US regulatory agency rolled into one giant one. It encompasses anything from food safety to law enforcement, and regulates both entry and exits rules.
Because of the sheer amount of companies and potential violators that AQSIQ has to deal with it is understandable, though not excusable that there are often slip ups. The result of this is that we as consumers see things like tainted toothpaste, lead painted toys, and contaminated milk. The Chinese have certainly not ignored this mistakes.
There have been huge numbers of students applying to and graduating from Chinese Law Schools. Their goal in doing this is to help promote the rule of law. China has always strived to be a harmonious and legal country, and with more people, corporations and scrutiny than ever, more legal professionals are needed than ever.

I applaud the Chinese government in their advancement, and I certainly hope that the break out of China into the group of space-faring nations will have no negative effect, but I don’t think this is realistic. I do think that at some point in the near future, the US, Russia, and China will have to make some sort of lasting agreement with regards to space exploration and colonization. I can’t imagine that the Chinese goal of a lunar colony will go past US officials without a reaction.

There certainly seems to be a trade-off in communist countries between rapid technological advancement and social welfare advancement. It seems that the artificial advancement of technology precludes or lessens the advancement of the people. This has happened before in China with the Great Leap Forward. I must say though that this is not a uniquely Chinese or communist problem. Lop-sided development is also present in the United States. As some are quick to point out, we have explored the moon, but can not ensure universal health care for our citizens. In researching the question I came across the example of the United Arab Emirates. They have recently experienced a developmental boon similar to that of China. They have also been funneling some of the money from this boon into housing and such for the lower classes. This main difference is that of scale. There are just over 5 million Emirati, while there are over 1 billion Chinese. So it is easier for a small rich country to take care of its lower classes than for a large country to do the same.
To improve the best way would be to commit to elevating the poor. I feel that China would be able to do this very easily, given the structure of its government, but at the same time, there are lots of poor to elevate.