Freedom and Scholarship
My uber-insider sources tell me that for years now there's been a running debate about whether China's adoption of a more open economic system will eventually lead to political changes. I think that along with the point about US domestic politics, this business of China trying to build a world-class university system suggests that it just may. It's very hard to see, after all, how in the long-term you're going to get a corps of top-notch scholars and researchers to live and work in a country that doesn't feature free speech.
The Soviet Union managed impressive scientific achievements in the fields of nuclear bombs and rocketry in the 1940s and 50s but this turned out to be largely based on spying and personnel imported from Germany, whose scientific tradition was firmly grounded in the pre-Hitler era. As the Cold War wore on, the USSR fell ridiculously behind in technical research even though Soviet secondary education was generally much better than its American equivalent. Contemporary Chinese politics are less suffocating than pre-Gorbachev Soviet politics, but by the same token it's a more open society that has less ability to prevent its most talented members from simply leaving the country.
Which isn't to say that political reforms are inevitable in the near-term. The national leadership can and will do what it wants to. But insofar as they genuinely want to make China a center for learning and research, it seems to me that more openness is going to have to be part of the picture.
It will be particularly interesting to see what kind of economic research comes out of China. Will the party enforce doctrine, or will the unique situations and explosive growth in China point in interesting new directions?
Maybe Max Sawicky could get a big signing bonus.
Anything is possible now in China, and I imagine there will be some tension moving forward, but it appears to be good example of Robert Wright's 'Nonzero' -- eventually the benefits to Chinese society will require them to move toward emprical solutions.
October 28, 2005 8:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
The national leadership can and will do what it wants to. But insofar as they genuinely want to make China a center for learning and research, it seems to me that more openness is going to have to be part of the picture.
That the "national leadership" can do what it wants, seems to me to be the important issue. Having functioning universities (instead of communist-style indoctrination centers) would seem to contribute to pressure, but that doesn't mean it contributes enough pressure to topple the now non-communist communists.
China has the internet and it is heavily censored. So much for freedom of information. I expect the universities can be operated in the same way, given that the sciences tend to be a-political.
So we have the DeLong school of China liberation (Brad functions as a representative for all the people who believe similarly) that says that if they have enough money, they'll become democrats of some sort, and then they'll be our friends thereafter.
And there's me who says that 1> the Soviet Union continued to exist as long as it did because the West in one way or another over time, propped it up, and that China is no different in this regard, and 2> if the Chinese government senses too much trouble to remain in control, they'll just take the trouble-makers out and shoot them. End of democratic impulse. Note that this would not differ in any way from the functional reality of every Chinese imperial government since EVER. 3> Even if democracy does heave into view in China, there is no reason to think that this will not be followed by civil war, and dread of civil war, chaos and anarchy (for good and bad reasons) is embedded more deeply in Chinese culture than just about any other feeling. (See ancestor worship and obedience to parents.) Civil war may produce democracy if it breaks up China into its constituent bits or maybe we'll just wind up with a replacement imperial class. I'd bet on the latter, since the Chinese are well-practiced at this sort of thing.
DeLong's bet looks like ultra-high risk (for both the Chinese and for Americans) and low return to me. On a scale similar to easily imposing democracy on Iraq.
Note here that I am not a China hawk and do not desire a war with Chinese, whom I like very much and respect a great deal on an individual basis.
ash
['Save the world! Kill the the utopians!']
October 28, 2005 8:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Germany, whose scientific tradition was firmly grounded in the pre-Hitler era."
The german scientific tradition was firmly grounded in the reactionary junker german empire of bismark, which wasn't ,uch different.
October 28, 2005 9:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
The Singapore model has been very effective with minimal civil liberties and political participation. Singapore avoided the specific ideological dogmatism and inefficiency of Communism, but it's far from liberal and has stated its intention of remaining illiberal.
Discussions of this type should always key on Singapore, which is a successful test case for illiberal development, and which has been looked at as a model by many larger third-world nations.
October 28, 2005 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Does anyone seriously believe that we would even be having this discussion without an open society?
Would we have personal computers or would there only be main frames? Would the internet still be restricted to the use of the DOD and some supporting government agencies?
I don't think we are the only society capable of having ideas and inventing things but we have been one of the best at letting individuals develop them for alternate uses.
October 28, 2005 9:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
While I agree, the whole question is "relative to what?" Soviet science sucked, but only in comparison to American science.
If the theocrats get their way and we stop teaching science and start teaching the bible in our schools, I'm sure in 40 years Chinese scientific breakthroughs will exceed our own. I can see where working with pi=3 is going to hold us back more than a bit...
October 28, 2005 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Matthew Yglesias wrote:
The Soviet Union managed impressive scientific achievements in fields that did not rely on the acquisition of expensive hardware. Soviet physicists provided a level of mathematical rigor that many western physicists were either unwilling or unable to provide. They worked on unfashionable problems that were unlikely to gain favor with either the public or the Nobel Prize committees.
October 28, 2005 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Point of fact: the USSR had outstanding scholars in math and physics throughout the Cold War era, not just a bunch of rocket and bomb guys whose accomplishments were based on espionage. Now this was largely the result of factors that the Chinese would not care to emulate, like making all alternative careers for highly intelligent people less rewarding, and making it difficult for people to emigrate. But they were undeniably world class until 1989, after which all the best people left.
October 28, 2005 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Continuing the thread of "Soviet science not ALL stolen":
Although the early Soviet fission bomb work was based largely on stolen knowledge, I don't think anyone has plausibly put forward information that the much more complicated fusion work was stolen. Sakharov is credited with coming up independently with the Ulam-Teller idea. And the technology required to implement the fusion weapon, even if the knowledge is a given, is incredibly intricate.
Source: Dark Sun, by Richard Rhodes.
October 28, 2005 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're totally wrong about Soviet scholarship. Other than the undeniable fact that their country was extremeley poor, their level of scholarship is amazing. Soviet era mathematics (the only subject I know well) was extremely high quality. See Voevodsky, Kontsevich, Zelmanov, Drinfeld, Margulis, Nokikov, to name just the Fields medalists. That's 6. The U.S. only has had 9. France also has 6. No one else is close.
The math department at Berkeley still has a Russian language exam because there's so much great mathematics that is still only in Russian.
Of course the moment the borders opened half of them ended up here. That's the problem. Such a repressive system can only keep the scholars who aren't allowed to leave. But if China can stop people from leaving and do a good job educating, there's no reason they can't produce their own top-notch scholarship.
October 28, 2005 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll go even further. The whole idea that capitalism somehow means freedom and democracy is just silly. Look at the governance of almost any corporation and they are among the least democratic institutions ever devised by man. Generally they resemble the Soviet Politburo (and stockholder votes are as meaningless as Soviet elections) more than anything we would think of as a democratic instution.
The only way China will become more free will be when the continuing disparity between rich and poor finally leads to collapse of the ruling party. Of course the end result could easily be an even more repressive society. Either way it won't be pretty.
October 29, 2005 7:32 AM | Reply | Permalink