When the world gets closer.

We help you see farther.

Sign up to our expressly international daily newsletter.

CAIXINMEDIA

Confucianism, Socialism And The USA: A False Search For A 'Chinese Model'

China's modern-day schizophrenia
China's modern-day schizophrenia
Li Huafang

BEIJINGThe recent government shutdown in the United States prompted a chorus of comparisons in China of the two countries’ political systems. The general sentiment? "The American model of democracy is not the only way. The Chinese style may be another option."

But the comparison is inappropriate because it is based on two false assumptions. First, there is the belief that the political institution is the only variable that affects economic growth. Second, the idea that rapid economic growth is always positive.

Herbert Simon, the late American Nobel laureate in economics, explained that the factors that lead to growth are a subject that should be studied scientifically. Simply declaring growth a good thing is a value judgment, not a scientific one.

In the face of rapid economic growth, people might have different views. For example, those who haven’t seen their share of the benefits from growth may be more inclined to focus on the corruption that accompanies it.

We can of course agree that “American democracy is not the only way.” After all, the only country that exercises American democracy is indeed the United States itself. There are no two identical democratic states in the world. But we must also remember that “democracy” is a principle, which can be applied in many ways.

More than 2,000 years

As for China’s institutional evolution, it follows a unique path linked to its traditions. At the heart are two different approaches: one is Confucian constitutionalism, the other is social constitutionalism. The Confucian culture has more than 2,000 years of history, compared to the socialist imprint of just the past 64 years. Whatever impact these two principles together can have on China remains to be seen.

The crucial point that people often ignore is the interruption of Confucianism by socialism, in particular between 1949 and 1978, before China’s reform and opening-up. A variety of Chinese Communist Party movements landed fatal blows upon the Confucian tradition. It will take a lot for Chinese society to reconnect with this ancient tradition.

What has resulted is a form of schizophrenia in modern-day China. For instance, when talking about the nation’s current position, Confucianism becomes part of China’s long history to be flaunted. When faced with problems, the current preliminary stage of socialism is largely blamed. All aspects of incompletion or imperfection in Chinese society are due to this particular “Chinese condition,” and a failure to reach any level of conciliation.

Naturally, apart from Confucianism and socialism, “Chinese-style capitalism” is to be closely noted. Ronald Harry Coase, another Nobel Prize laureate who died recently, wrote How expand=1] China Became Capitalist, co-authored with his student Wang Ning. Coase and Wang argue that China’s development is destined to follow the usual rules of capitalism, such as the clarification of property rights, the opening of markets, and trade with other countries.

Meanwhile, the subsequent economic development has left its mark on both socialism and Confucianism. Not only has it raised living standards, but it has also given Chinese people the chance to open their eyes to see the world and absorb the latest experiences in other capitalist countries to apply in their own lives. This is a brand new factor that has not been part of either socialism or Confucianism.

Universal principles

Still, the underlying principles for China’s development are universal. It was by opening up that China imported technology as well as managerial experience that are forcing state-owned enterprises to reform, as well as market competition that led to survival of the fittest.

The Chinese economy has come all this way one step at a time. Rural areas’ living improvements owe a debt to the market and urbanization, as well as grassroots democratization. Where local elections have been implemented, though inevitably sometimes with electoral fraud, villages now enjoy on the whole more public services than those without elections.

So whether it is the definition of property rights or the opening-up to economic development or direct voting rights, no particularity exists in China’s development. Successful experiences are bound to be emulated and spread out further.

What direction should China’s reform take is the crucial question. On one hand, there is the model of the Shanghai Free Trade Zone, where local competition spurs reform and Chinese companies can expand internationally while foreign enterprises enter China and push local businesses to raise their efficiency.

For China to open up it requires the overcoming of both the narrow-minded “traditional theory” and the closed-minded “special condition theory.” Saying that America is no good does nothing to prove China’s value.

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

Geopolitics

Modi Is Wrong: Russia's War Also Creates Real Risks For India

By shrugging aside Russia’s aggression, India has shown indifference to fears that China could follow Russia’s example.

Photo of India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Russian President Vladimir Putin

India's Prime Minister Narendra Modi Visits Russia

Anita Inder Singh*

-OpEd-

NEW DELHI — India is wrong to dismiss Russia’s war in Ukraine as Europe’s problem. The illegality and destructiveness of the invasion, and consequential food and energy crises, have global ramifications.

Stay up-to-date with the latest on the Russia-Ukraine war, with our exclusive international coverage.

Sign up to our free daily newsletter.

This explains why 143 out of the 193 member-states of the UN General Assembly voted against recognizing Russia’s illegal annexation of four Ukrainian regions after holding sham referenda there. Ninety-three voted in favor of expelling Russia from the UN Human Rights Council.

India has abstained from every vote in the UN condemning Russia’s aggression in Ukraine. The reason? Moscow is India’s top arms supplier and some 70% of India’s military platforms are of Russian origin.

Keep reading...Show less

You've reached your limit of free articles.

To read the full story, start your free trial today.

Get unlimited access. Cancel anytime.

Exclusive coverage from the world's top sources, in English for the first time.

Insights from the widest range of perspectives, languages and countries.

The latest