This is topic Totalitarianism is efficient in transforming an undeveloped nation into a developing in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.
I'm not trying to say that totalitariansm is better then democracy, i'm just saying that it is more efficient in changing the economy from an agrarian society into a developing society
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Can you find a single example where this has worked?
Posted by Jonathan K. (Member # 7720) on :
easily, soviet union, korea, plenty of asian countries transformed their countries into a developing nation
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:soviet union, korea
By Korea I'm assuming you mean North Korea, where much of the population is on the brink of starvation?
By the Soviet Union I think you mean the country that is now riddled with corruption and, as a result, is largely controlled by the incredibly rich while there are 50,000 homeless children on the streets of Moscow?
EDIT: It's worth noting that both these countries enjoyed intial economic success before collapsing into their present state.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
"Developing nation" is sort of vague. If you're going to argue that totalitarianism was economically successful in the Soviet Union or Asia, I think the point is more than a little debatable. On the other hand, contrast Korea's economic growth with that of a non-totalitarian Asian country: Japan. In the case of China, their economic jewel is Hong Kong, which was ruled by outsiders under a non-totalitarian approach, and is still being run more liberally than the rest of China.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
And what Icarus said. What exactly isn't a developing nation?
Posted by Jonathan K. (Member # 7720) on :
For this purpose, my definition of a developing nation is a nation where about half of the population lives on the farmland and supports themselves, and the other half live in the cities and surrounding suburbs, where they work in the industry and service sector
Posted by Jonathan K. (Member # 7720) on :
i'm not saying that it's not possible for a non-totalitarian government to reach an economic growth i'm just saying that a totalitarian government can do it more efficiently
Posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan (Member # 5626) on :
Why?
Posted by Jonathan K. (Member # 7720) on :
Developing nations require above all else extreme efficiency and speed. Representative Democracies, Direct Democracies all go through long processes taht require the equal say of many people. A well organized and benevolent monarchy or other totalitarian government would allow a government to make economic decisions faster and therefore tackle the industrial hurdles of development with much more ease therefore, a nation could advance industrially and economically much faster
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
That's assuming that the totalitarian leader is so disposed.
Posted by Jonathan K. (Member # 7720) on :
most government leaders want their country to grow
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
I'm not sure whether I'd agree that Totalitarian government allows for more efficient progress. Totalitarian rulers seem to be largely driven by their own self interest and not the interests of their nation or their people.
Are you sure you're not talking about Absolute Monarchy?
Posted by Jonathan K. (Member # 7720) on :
absolute monarchys are a type of totalitarian government
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
When one person has the power and no one else has a hope of reaping the benefits you won't get good results.
Just check your local lower-end fast food joint on a Thursday afternoon.
Posted by Jonathan K. (Member # 7720) on :
don't compare governments to fast food joints, unless you want to talk about small scale governments which is a completely different topics, kibbutzes work well in Isreal, but not for the Soviet Union
Posted by Jacob Porter (Member # 31) on :
Assume that a totalitarian ruler is interested in the welfare of the state. This doesn't mean that the ruler's decisions actually improve the economy because no one can really predict what sort of industries/products/services/methods will be successful. In fact, a ruler might continue to pursue unprofitable ventures with the belief that they will be profitable only to find that they never will be profitable. There was a Russian minister of agriculture or something that visited the US and was impressed with the maize fields in the midwest. He decided to grow a lot of maize, but it never really worked.
Under a capitalist society, successful industries/products/services, etc. are automatically awarded because they will be profitable while unsuccessful ventures go bankrupt. I think this is why capitalism will work better because a totalitarian just never knows what will work while capitalism has a mechanism (profitability) that will weed out ventures that don't work.
So speed of making decisions isn't the crucial factor here; it's the successfullness of the decisions.
Posted by Jonathan K. (Member # 7720) on :
that is a wonderful point
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I think a plausable argument can be made that China's form of governement has allowed it to develop quicker than, say, India, which has a democratically elected government. In the 1980s, before either had embraced either capitalism or an opening of the borders to capital from abroad, India was most certainly in the lead economically, from either a total or per capita perspective.
Jump forward 25 years: China is now leading the economic race. This is at least partially because the handful of Chinese rulers at the top can do whatever they like without asking others, which means they can open capital flows and deregulate large sectors of the country without the typical bickering you see in India's huge governement. China can simply get things done quicker - if the things getting done are sound economic policies, then of course China is going to be winnig in the economic race.
I think the main question, however, is not which form of governement can lead to a more economically developed nation, but which form of government is better for the country's people. I think the gain derived from totalitarianism isn't worth the cost, and I have a feeling most people would agree with me. For all it's faults, I'd much rather live in India than China.
Posted by Jonathan K. (Member # 7720) on :
You cannot argue about their success though, look at the incredible efficiency of the Soviet Union during its prime. Under the rulership of one figure (stalin) this newly formed government could compete with a superpower nation that was long established and hold its ground very well
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
The Soviet Union was not efficient. Ever. It was large, and started out with many natural and human capital resources, which allowed it to keep up with the United States for a short time. Then it became very good at keeping quiet just how inefficient it was.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Their were several major developments of Russia during Stalin's time, the starvation that occured during stalin's time was a result of the socialism and the lack of will to make products, not due to an authoritarian government, do not confuse the two
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Someone has played too much CivIII, I think. Posted by Jonathan K. (Member # 7720) on :
i'm more of a CivII man myself never got into III
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
Are you kidding me. The very premise of this is idiotic. Look at Zimbabwe, Sierra Leone, Ivory Coast, Liberia- all of these were nations on their way to development that got destroyed by totalitarian dictators.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
I'm not confusing the two. But perhaps we’re not communicating well. When you said "efficiency" I assumed that meant economic efficiency, as that was the thread’s main topic. The USSR wasn’t economic efficient because it operated under an economic system that doesn’t make efficiency one of it’s goals: communism. I don’t think the term “efficient” can be applied to political decisions, simply because there’s no clear consensus on what laws are more effective (unless you move back into the realm of economics), which is a key part of efficiency.
A totalitarian government or a dictatorship can, of course, make political decisions quickly – but that’s not the same as making efficient decisions.
In regards to China and India, however, it’s pretty clear what political measures are needed to develop their economies further – allow freer markets, so that the invisible hand of capitalism can get things moving. This being the case, China has an advantage in its form of government in regards to this economic development because it can enact these changes quicker.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I think you are misusing a few terms.
First of all, totalitarianism. An "absolute monarchy"--um, what precisely do you mean by this phrase? I'm not aware of any modern monarchy that has been totalitarian. There is a difference between totalitarianism and authoritarianism, and I believe you have them confused.
Second, efficiency. You claimed that totalitarian governments were more economically efficient, and when presented with the more economically successful counterexamples of Japan and Hong Kong, you simply say, well, other strategies can be successful, too. My point is that these non-totalitarian Asian examples were economically far more successful that the Soviet Union and China.
Finally, you confuse military strength with economic power, I think. I would agree if you claimed that totalitarianism can make a country militarily powerful in the short term--though I would argue that this is unsustainable in the long haul. But totalitarian regimes typically turn their entire output into making the military strong. That doesn't make them economically successful, much less efficient. (The meaning of "efficient" in this context is also not clear.) So while the Soviet Union was able to become a military threat quickly, their economy was, in fact, a shambles. In fact, it was this economic failure that lead to the collapse of the USSR.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
Towards whom was that comment directed, Icky?
Posted by Jacob Porter (Member # 31) on :
Socialism could be an Authoritarian approach to economy because socialism involves intervention and state control of the economy.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Jhai, that post was directed at Jonathan K.
-o-
Socialism could be authoritarian, totalitarian (as in the case of communist regimes such as Cuba and the USSR), or neither (as in the case of democratic socialist countries).
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
And I would argue your Chinese/India comparison. You forget the 40 years in which China's Totalitarian government sent all its best engineers, doctors, etc out to the farms to be laborers and basically diddled around not developing a powerful industrial system. It has only been in the last 20 years, thanks to democratic movements in China, that they have made such stunning success. Only when power was to be obtained by success were people willing to work toward success.
When you have a democratic process, you have multiple variations on ways to succeed. Statistacilly, its more possible that one of these will succeed than in a totalitarian state where the powers that be choose one way to succeed.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
Jonathan, I think your thesis is clear (except possibly for things like defining "efficient"). To convince, you'll need to do 2 things: provide arguments for your position, and answer arguments against.
The most prosperous nations are democratic. The fastest growth has been in non-totalitarian dictatorships (S Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, in the 50's to 80's).
Some totalitarian nations have not been totally backward. WWII Germany (which inherited its success from earlier); Japan; USSR (which nonetheless fell behind); China (ditto, until it loosened up in the 1980's). Other totalitarian nations have been complete disasters. Democracies that last have ranged from mediocre economically (India) to stellar. The data aren't firmly on your side.
You may be able to come up with a powerful image of totalitarianism working, and a set of reasons why it should, but because of what's happened in the actual world, I won't be able to believe it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Sure, it's more effient. Right.
I mean, the USSR, N. Korea, China, have definitely been more efficient than the UK, the US, much of Western Europe...
Right? Right?
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
At its peak, the Soviet Union could compete with the US in military terms only. Economically, it was crippled. This is one of the major reasons that they were so voracious in their appetites for conquest and expansion. Their military strength allowed the Union to survive for almost a century. However, once the ability to expand and control countries that were actually developing disappeard entirely and the Union colapsed under its own weight.
Furthermore, if you look at the development of all the countries in the world over the past two centuries, you'll notice how much quicker the countries under democratic and similar governments have developed. The United States went from agrarian to industrial in a few decades.
Sure, it may be easier for a country to switch from agrarian to industrial and commercial economy under heavy handed rule, but the effects of such a switch cannot be felt until that hand is lightened, and even then it takes far longer for the effects to be seen.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)