Many people hope that China's economic development will lead to democracy, as was the case in Taiwan and South Korea. That, however, is a vain hope.
When civilization moved towards capitalism, which led to rapid economic development, the first step was both painful and cruel. In England in the 1500s, farmers were evicted from almost 10 million hectares of land. They were forced to the cities where they worked for low wages, while five-year-old children worked 10-hour-days in mines and textile factories.
That was how the "original capital accumulation" by the nobility came about.
Taiwan was far luckier. The four Asian tigers -- Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong and Singapore -- started labor-intensive production for export to the US, Japan and Europe. This transferred the local contradiction between exploiter and exploited to Europe and the US. Taiwan's miraculous economic growth then allowed it to escape the excessive exploitation of domestic labor that occurred during the early stages of the industrial revolution. Despite rapid economic growth, the gap between rich and poor diminished.
China's growing economy is now copying the Asian tigers' export-oriented approach. But although China tries to export its internal contradictions, it cannot do so successfully, which led to China's US$70 billion trade surplus with the US last year, while the manufacturing industry has entered an era of "microprofits."
If China wants to turn to domestic demand, the amount of natural resources that would be consumed by 1.4 billion people is frightening, and certain to cause an explosion of raw materials.
An increase in raw materials and a decrease in finished products would lead to even smaller profits. With no colonies to plunder, the only route remaining is harsh exploitation of local labor.
The development strategy established by Deng Xiaoping (
The so-called socialist market economy was divided into two parts -- a socialist-style control of labor and a market economy where employers were free to exploit labor, allowing quick accumulation of capital.
Since this rapid economic growth is built on depriving people of democracy and freedom, it is strange to think that economic growth will bring democracy in its wake.
Income inequality in today's China is severe. The difference in average income between Guizhou and Shanghai is tenfold. There is also a big difference in legal salaries between different provinces, and the difference is even greater in illegal salaries.
There is a huge army of laborers ready to be further exploited. China has been turned into a giant camp for slave labor.
Chinese President Hu Jintao (
I cannot see any chance of changing a system that exploits the domestic "colonized," the laborers. Economic and social rights have been restricted, and democracy and freedom will be more forcefully controlled. In this area, Hu has a tighter grip than both Deng and Jiang.
If one looks to the people and to actual experience, there is a chance that the Chinese people would be able to build a democratic politics. But a look at the system, however, gives no reason for hope.
Lin Cho-shui is a Democratic Progressive Party legislator.
Translated by Perry Svensson
Labubu, an elf-like plush toy with pointy ears and nine serrated teeth, has become a global sensation, worn by celebrities including Rihanna and Dua Lipa. These dolls are sold out in stores from Singapore to London; a human-sized version recently fetched a whopping US$150,000 at an auction in Beijing. With all the social media buzz, it is worth asking if we are witnessing the rise of a new-age collectible, or whether Labubu is a mere fad destined to fade. Investors certainly want to know. Pop Mart International Group Ltd, the Chinese manufacturer behind this trendy toy, has rallied 178 percent
My youngest son attends a university in Taipei. Throughout the past two years, whenever I have brought him his luggage or picked him up for the end of a semester or the start of a break, I have stayed at a hotel near his campus. In doing so, I have noticed a strange phenomenon: The hotel’s TV contained an unusual number of Chinese channels, filled with accents that would make a person feel as if they are in China. It is quite exhausting. A few days ago, while staying in the hotel, I found that of the 50 available TV channels,
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
There is no such thing as a “silicon shield.” This trope has gained traction in the world of Taiwanese news, likely with the best intentions. Anything that breaks the China-controlled narrative that Taiwan is doomed to be conquered is welcome, but after observing its rise in recent months, I now believe that the “silicon shield” is a myth — one that is ultimately working against Taiwan. The basic silicon shield idea is that the world, particularly the US, would rush to defend Taiwan against a Chinese invasion because they do not want Beijing to seize the nation’s vital and unique chip industry. However,
RSS