
The Secret Document That Transformed China - nantes
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/01/20/145360447/the-secret-document-that-transformed-china
======
Jun8
"Work hard, don't work hard — everyone gets the same," he says. "So people
don't want to work."

Many people point to this idea as the main weakness (or stupidity, depending
on whom you speak) of Socialism as originally proposed by Marx. However, AFAIK
(and I'm definitely not an expert on this), Marx saw socialism as a post-
industrial step, to be developed in countries like German, France and the UK.
On the other hand, his ideas were instituted mainly in mostly feudal countries
like Russia and China. His model of human nature and projections for
capitalistic growth were also totally off.

Wikipedia says "Despite Marx's stress on critique of capitalism and discussion
of the new communist society that should replace it, his explicit critique of
capitalism is guarded, as he saw it as an improved society compared to the
past ones (slavery and feudal)."

~~~
tokenadult
_His model of human nature and projections for capitalistic growth were also
totally off._

Correct. The model of human nature proposed by Karl Marx was demonstrably
incorrect, and the demonstration continues in the few countries that continue
to proclaim allegiance to Marxist thought.

An interesting fact about free-enterprise (Marx might say, "capitalist")
economies is that they are based in part on the writings of Adam Smith in the
book On the Wealth of Nations. But before Smith wrote The Wealth of Nations,
he first wrote a book called The Theory of Moral Sentiments, pondering what
motivates human beings to behave morally. Smith had deeper insight into human
nature even before he began writing about economics proper than Marx ever had.

~~~
forensic
They aren't in competition. They both were geniuses.

Smith did not advocate laissez-faire capitalism. He was against any kind of
cartel, oligopoly, or monopoly, and wanted the state to be more powerful than
corporations, not controlled by corporations. Marx was right about capitalism
but wrong about incentives.

Both of them should be drawn from in the creation of a next generation
economic system.

~~~
nextparadigms
How do you get a state that is "more powerful" than Corporations? I don't
think Government size has anything to do with it. Are you referring to having
many strong law enforcement agencies to threaten the corporations? I'd say the
US Government already has that, and Corporations still seem to control it. And
if you want to give China as an example, that's not an acceptable model.

In a democracy, the best way for the Government to be more powerful than
Corporations, is for the people themselves to have more direct power over the
Government. The more the people loosen up their grip on the Government, the
more one of the 2 things happen:

1\. The Government becomes more powerful than both the people _and_ the
Corporations.

2\. The Corporations become more powerful than the Government, who in turn is
also more powerful than the people.

~~~
forensic
The solution is radical meritocracy and an end to privileged elites (nepotism
& cronyism).

Society must not tolerate the creation of an aristocratic class, or that class
will engage in anti-meritocratic privilege (nepotism & cronyism).

Meritocracy is the next step from democracy. In a meritocracy, ONLY non-
privileged competent people are allowed to hold positions of power.

Corporations control the government through privilege games (cronyism and
nepotism).

End the privilege games by outlawing elites from government.

End the dumbocracy (rule by the dumb) in favor of meritocracy (rule by those
who have proven scientific credentials)

So the health minister should be elected by all who can prove they are
informed about health - they hold medical degrees, biology degrees, or can
pass the relevant exams. These educated meritocratic voters from the science
community elect the health minister.

The real problem of corporations controlling government is a problem of
aristocratic dynasties and privileged super-rich elites gaming the system to
consolidate wealth and power. It's simple game theory.

The solution is cutting off the power of elites and placing power in the hands
of non-superrich meritocratic highly educated experts who have no sex appeal
but do have proven competence in their scientific field. These meritocrats,
given power by the votes of informed people, would be able to reign in the out
of control disasterous cronyism and nepotism that has destroyed our economy.

The solution is meritocracy. Democracy itself needs to be modified in such a
way that a tiny group of elite families no longer dominate it. One big way to
remove their power is instituting a wealth cap, say $100 million per person.
Another way is through inheritance tax. The tax dollars from the superrich
should go to empower the poor through high quality education at the private
schools where the superrich send their children currently.

When stupid people ask you how our country is going to get out this mess, you
respond, "by empowering scientific experts and disempowering the (a) stupid
Christians (b) privileged war-mongers (c) nepotists and (d) crony capitalists"

Meritocracy is the only way out of this broken country. Credible, sensible,
rational scientific policies can save us. Dumbocracy and privilege will
destroy us.

~~~
kstenerud
It sounds very pretty, but our evolutionary heritage is all about exploiting
opportunities in order to secure a more advantaged position.

The problem with a meritocracy is that it must be policed in order to make
sure that it is indeed operating as a meritocracy. However, all it takes is a
little leverage over the watchmen to change it into a meritocracy in name
only. All systems requiring policing have this weakness. And since there is a
strong economic incentive to subverting the system for personal gain,
corruption is an eventuality.

------
tnuc
The article is well written but a little light on facts.

From my bad and distant memory;

The terms of the contract stated that you had to give X amount to the
collective from your land, anything over and above this you kept. The X amount
was originally set to be the same as the previous years harvest. The local
collective had to raise the amount X a few times so it would appear that they
where role models within the system.

It was only after other farmers in the region saw the results that they copied
the process. It was eventually turned into the standard for a lot of China.

There are differing versions of the same story around depending on what the
politics are for the writer. This version sticks to the American line of "The
officials swore at him, treated him like he was on death row.". The Chinese
version probably made the villagers look like model, conforming, hardworking
and communist loving citizens.

I am neither American or Chinese, I am just fascinated by history and the
differing ways it is represented. "History is written by the winners."

~~~
learc83
>"The officials swore at him, treated him like he was on death row."

Presumably since they interviewed him, this is his account of the story, not
an American slanted version.

~~~
icebraining
In fact, you can hear him speak on the podcast:
[https://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/01/13/145184551/the-
fri...](https://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/01/13/145184551/the-friday-
podcast-the-secret-document-that-transformed-china)

------
guano___
Interesting article, but I find this part a bit disingenuous:

 _Within a few years, farms all over China adopted the principles in that
secret document. People could own what they grew. The government launched
other economic reforms, and China's economy started to grow like crazy. Since
1978, something like 500 million people have risen out of poverty in China._

Though not explicitly stated, the passage seems to imply that the rise from
poverty is wholly due to the capitalistic reforms, and a china without these
reforms would not have seen any (at least major) similar change. Now this is a
china that just decades earlier was destroyed by both the japanese and a civil
war. Improvements take time, and these kind of cheap tricks ignore both that
and a historical perspective. Sorry for the rant, but these tricks are all too
common, and I think we can afford ourselves some more intellectual honesty
rather then let things pass with these ideological slants, unintentional
though they may be.

~~~
jacques_chester
Western Europe was destroyed by the bombing campaigns of World War II, yet
sprung back to wealth within 20 years.

China was devastated by Japan, by civil war, _and_ by ruinously stupid
communist policies. The Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution were
directly imposed by the CCP with Mao as the leading figure.

It is not a "trick" to point out the objectively verifiable consequences of
the decisions made.

------
llimllib
How in the world does the article end where it does? It finally gets
interesting and then it cuts off.

------
joejohnson
What?! Right as that was getting good, it ended. I looked to see if there was
a second page. How does it go from the changes in the 1970s to empty factories
today?

------
twelvechairs
> "Each family agreed to turn over some of what they grew to the government,
> and to the collective"

Despite the articles pro-capitalist rhetoric, note that the 'collective' is
also creating its own taxes (presumably to help those less well off) - though
it unhelpfully doesnt say what these were.

~~~
fuzzix
"Despite the articles pro-capitalist rhetoric"

Ah, so it wasn't just me who heard "Closer to the Heart" play ;)

------
kylebrown
For an interesting twist on the tired old communism vs capitalism debate, read
Michel Bauwens of the p2p foundation philosophize on how aspects of Marxism
were 'ill-conceived' while alternativley, the thriving p2p economy is a viable
successor to capitalism.

[https://snuproject.wordpress.com/2012/01/03/and-the-
debate-b...](https://snuproject.wordpress.com/2012/01/03/and-the-debate-
begins-peer-to-peer-and-marxism-analogies-and-differences-jean-lievens-
interviewed-with-michel-bauwens/)

------
grecy
I'm getting down voted to oblivion for this...

Even in the year 2012, after all these years, Americans still need to hear
stories that directly outline why communism doesn't work, and good old
competitive capitalism is the way of the future.

I wonder how many of you reading this in America even stopped to think about
the message you're being fed.

I wonder how many of you reading this in America have absolutely no clue the
rest of the developed world does not feed this kind of thing to it's citizens.

Stay clear of those evil commies...

~~~
coryl
What? So you think this is nothing more than propaganda?

~~~
tnuc
Pretty much everything written by one country's media about another country is
propaganda.

There is just as much propaganda in American media as there is in Chinese
Media.

Does Rupert Murdoch support SOPA or is it the fine informed editors at the
Wall Street Journal? Rupert wouldn't use his media as a propaganda network for
his own benefit would he?

There is no propaganda in American Media, none at all. It's only the evil
commies that have propaganda.

~~~
pyre

      > Pretty much everything written by one country's media
      > about another country is propaganda.
    

You say this, yet you only attack American media for propaganda. Would you say
the same thing about a BBC article on Iraq? A French article on Spain?

~~~
tnuc
In general, yes I would say the same thing. I am certain a German article on
the economic situation in Greece is going to be quite different to an article
in a Greek newspaper.

My intent wasn't to attack Americans or American media so much as to outline
an example as to how Rupert Murdoch (and others) uses the media for his own
gain. This is by no means limited to the US. He has a multinational media
network.

People like Kim Jong-un also write propaganda but are limited by the reach of
their media network.

My apologies if I offended any anyone, this was certainly not my intent.

------
bconway
It's interesting to revisit events like this in the present-day US. One can
only wonder what sort of change might take place if rather than giving up 50%
of what we make, we were allowed to reinvest it into our homes, businesses,
and communities. Perhaps states like Texas and New Hampshire could be held up
as the poster-children for a new direction in US policy? Unlikely, but one can
dream, I suppose.

------
re_format
If everyone works hard, everyone gets to keep more. Because more is produced.
If only some work hard, then the whole group cannot produce as much.

Perhaps every worker has a different threshhold for what they will settle for
in terms of what amount of the harvest they would like to retain.

All the HR people reading HN know exactly what I'm talking about.

~~~
sliverstorm
You're missing the classic game theory element. If everyone is working hard,
everyone gets X. But if I decide to slack off, everyone gets X minus some tiny
fraction, _including me_.

Game theory tells us this kind of system will fall apart practically
instantly.

I forget the details, but I think Marx tried to dismiss that problem through
an appeal to nationalism.

~~~
derleth
Marx also believed that no capitalist country would ever, say, abolish child
labor, institute universal education, and create universal health care.

He further believed that a government can 'wither away'.

Marx has been proven wrong in ways that have nothing to do with how well
Communism/Socialism works as a system.

~~~
gphilip
> Marx also believed that no capitalist country would ever, say, abolish child
> labor, institute universal education, and create universal health care.

Could you provide some reference to support that, please?

~~~
derleth
This is a surprisingly good summary:

<http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Marxism.html>

Aside from that, you can read Marx in translation or in the original.

------
georgieporgie
This was a Planet Money podcast. I don't know if it was any different (I just
skimmed it), but I always really enjoy the presentation and style of Planet
Money.

[http://www.npr.org/rss/podcast/podcast_detail.php?siteId=944...](http://www.npr.org/rss/podcast/podcast_detail.php?siteId=94411890)

