What a depressing post!

And if they are deemed more successful than we are, or as a threat, we will (being a democracy) naturally gravitate toward their system.

Welcome to our fascist future, where the next President authored legislation restricting political speech, where the courts muffle talk radio and blogs through campaign finance laws (see Washington State), and the people, filled with bread and distracted by circuses, don't really care.

(Sigh) I guess it had to happen eventually.

I may have posted this already, but 2000+ years later, and Caesar still rules.

Like most reporters of my generation I spent a certain amount of the 1980s in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe ...

These same reporters who didn't know the Soviet Union was collapsing until pieces of the Berlin Wall started falling on their heads are offering their analyses of China as though they have some insight into Chinese society.

What maroons.

erp: No, they were sure that the USSR would collapse at any time--Mr Johnson says so in his story! Can he point to any writings where he expressed such an opinion? Doubtful.

Bruno: "And if they are deemed more successful than we are, or as a threat, we will (being a democracy) naturally gravitate toward their system."

Right. Americans are desperately jealous of a system that can produce a per capita GDP of ~$5000 (if you even believe the gov't numbers) and will do anything to ape such "success". Sheesh.

Peter -- I'm unclear what you say in your comment ... do you mean that that almost all of the Western intelligentsia, media and business communities sympathize with the Chinese tyrants?

If so, I tend to agree with that statement. It's very interesting how the business and political leaders of Seattle, all very liberal and "progressive" and horrified by Bush's dictatorial tendencies, were kissing up to Hu Jin Tao on his visit here this week. Honestly, their lust for tyrants and money spoke volumes.

I also do not have very high hopes for liberal democracy and stability in China. However, it is for different reasons. The better question for Mainland China is, will thy ever get it together?

Meanwhile: "This may be technically a communist country, but in some universities 50 per cent of total funds are fees paid by the students, their families and even their neighbours (whereas top-up fees will contribute about 2 per cent of Cambridge�s budget). Oh, and just to freeze your marrow further, the Chinese turn out millions of highly qualified scientists and mathematicians, at a time when 30 per cent of British university physics departments have closed in the last eight years. You cannot hope to pass the gaokao, the fearsome Chinese university entrance exam which is sat by eight million 18-year-olds a year (and failed by three million of them), unless you have the equivalent of a B or better at maths A-level."

Brother:

Yes, that is what I meant. This is not an area of any particular expertise for me, but we all know China is lost in historical paranoia about chaos, order, etc. That force is obviously much stronger than we would like to believe, and it is troubling indeed to see it combined with traditional Chinese industry and sacrifice. Throw in America's bizarre, timeless emotional soft-spot for China and it's easy to see plenty of reasons to be nervous. I know our host here draws a direct link between democracy and overall prowess, but I have a hard time being so sanguine some days. But, hey, I'm a Canadian.

Without in any way defending or deferring to them, it's not hard to see why the Japanese have such a flinty attitutde about Western attitudes towards them and why that has been so disastrous historically. I wish I had some good answers here, but the best I can come up with is: "Go, India, go".

Just re-reading a biography of JFK. In 1960, the CIA estimated the USSR was averaging 6-10 percent yearly increase in GNP and that the USSR's GNP would TRIPLE ours in 2000.

wf:

Sobering, eh? Good to remember the next time your kids' teacher organizes a free-wheeling self-esteem workshop for the little darlings.

Of course, there is a lot of hype involved regarding China. But the analogy to the USSR has broken down already. The USSR was never the "workshop of the world", never attracted any foreign investment and never integrated into the global economy. The question is what China�s future will look like now that they have already achieved all of that to varying degrees. That is uncharted territory, in my opinion.

By the way, this is just awful:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4921116.stm

The Chinese don't turn out millions of highly qualified scientists and mathematicians, if by "highly qualified" we mean "equal to American standards".

Most of the engineers that China and India produce are the equivalent of American community college and trade school graduates. While millions of skilled workers are indeed great for building the Chinese and Indian economies, those scientists, engineers, and mathematicians aren't designing or creating anything new or revolutionary.

They're just helping India and China to create what the West and some parts of the East already have.

Further, even under the very best case scenario, by 2050 China's economy won't be any larger than half of that of the U.S. - and since even that would require TREMENDOUS sustained growth, it's far more likely that China's economy in 2050 will be a quarter of the size of America's, or even less.
And that's if the PRC avoids a prolonged civil war.

Still, if China manages to grow their economy to be a quarter the size of America's by 2050, that would be at least 1000% growth, maybe 2000%, and that ain't bad.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at April 21, 2006 8:25 AM

Here's a better link: by 2050 China's economy won't be any larger than half of that of the U.S.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at April 21, 2006 8:35 AM

Also, regarding Google and China, it seems to me that a third of a loaf is better than none. The Chinese gov't may restrict some sites, but by allowing 'net search and the 'net at all, they're letting half of the camel into the tent.

Ask Gorbachev how well it works for totalitarian regimes to allow freedom, even if limited at first.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at April 21, 2006 9:14 AM