首页 >  网贴 > 美国 > 为什么中国能涅槃重生再次成为世界强国,而这对如埃及、印度等的文明古国却极具挑战性? [美国网评]

为什么中国能涅槃重生再次成为世界强国,而这对如埃及、印度等的文明古国却极具挑战性? [美国网评]

五毛网 美国 2017年11月06日 来源:龙腾网


Why has China been able to re-emerge as a world power again while it has been challenging for other old civilizations like Egypt and India?


Balaji Viswanathan History buff.
upxed May 3 2015
Let's take the simpler case of Egypt out. Their glorious times came when the rest of the world didn't realize how glorious they were. Since the Hittites found out about Egypt for the past 3500 years their civilization has become the battleground of outside civilizations - Persians Greeks Romans Arabs Ottomans British. To this day they are dragged into the wars of Middle East. Fortunes of Egypt will primarily depend on peace in West Asia.

In case of China the deviation in their fortunes came only a generation ago. Until 1980 both China and India were evenly matched in infrastructure and economy. In short after first 3 decades of Communist rule in China and democratic rule in India both nations ended up at the same point. So is democracy holding India? If Communist Party was helping China why didn't they not zoom in the first 3 decades post the war? What changed in 1978?



What changed in 1978? That was the start of the Open Door Policy by Deng Xiaoping. China let foreign companies and investors in. They effectively became capitalist. That caused an economic explosion.


Look at the blue worm. Until recently it didn't show up.
India didn't do that way. Not because we were democratic. But because we grew up in socialism. If India were not a democracy it would have been ruled by dictators such as Indira Gandhi who was far from capitalism. India waited for 13 more years and only in 1991 India opened up. And that opening up was not as grand as Deng's policy but much more cautious. Indian leaders have since then been always at the door not sure if they should become capitalist or not. Not because of democracy. But because they themselves were not sure of capitalism.



Now India has finally got a leader who appreciates capitalism. And the countries are now equally matched in GDP growth. See you don't need communist party to get 8% or 10% growth. You just need a leader who understands capitalism. He/She could be democratic or autocratic.

Of course India has a lot of catching up to do given that India took so long a time to appreciate capitalism.  That is from that 13 years of extra time lost. China's per capita income of 2004 is same as India's in 2014. The difference in the per-capita incomes of India and China is about $5000. To put that in context United States & Western Europe have nearly $50000 more per-capita income than either country [List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita]. In other words both have such a long way to go.


Finally it is not democracy or the Communist Party. It is all about attitudes towards capitalism and markets. China is far more capitalist than India and opened up more than a decade early. That's it.


Alex Jouravlev know some History...
Answered May 4 2015
IMHO because of one particular factor. This one:



Deng Xiaoping started transitioning to Capitalism 6 years after the death of Mao Zedung China's Lenin/Stalin. That means he could harness the repressive structure to develop the country while it was still following the orders. Compare that to Russia that spent 35 years sinking into corruption so when Gorbachev asked Young Communists (Komsomol) to facilitate innovation and small business they instead implemented the money laundering scheme at the scale that brought down the economy.


Paul Denlinger US_2016 = Germany_1933
Answered May 1 2015
I would say that China has been able to re-emerge as a world power because it is under the rule of the Chinese Communist Party. The Chinese Communist Party is an authoritarian party which holds all the big levers of the Chinese economy and its resources and has been able to mobilize the Chinese in a way which India and Egypt have not been able to.

The most ironic thing about the Chinese Communist Party is that it was created largely as a reaction to western economic and imperialist aggression against China. There is a strong argument for saying that the West created its own monster in China by pushing too far and too hard in China. For the supporters of the CCP it has been the Chinese peoples' first line of defense against western economic aggression and imperialism.

Some in the west have argued that the west simply wanted to bring freedom and Christianity to ordinary Chinese not oil interests and opium. In fact it was not nearly as simple. If you want to get a deeper understanding of official US policy towards east Asia then the book Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: The Imperial Cruise: A Secret History of Empire and War is a good introduction.

In contrast Egypt chose pan-Arab socialism under Gamal Abdul Nasser to try to bring Egypt out of third world status. However unlike China Egypt never became self-reliant. Instead it relied on Soviet help to build the Aswan Dam. While the ancient Egyptians were able to build the pyramids modern Egyptians have never been able to build anything on that scale.

When pan-Arab socialism failed Egypt decided to throw in its lot with the west under Sadat but that really only helped Sadat not ordinary Egyptians. Then it tried Islamic fundamentalism under the Muslim Brotherhood but that didn't improve the lives of ordinary Egyptians either because it offered no blueprint for economic development. Now it is back to military rule.


Unlike China Egypt has no single organization which can mobilize Egyptians and has monopoly control over the economy. This is what is needed to jumpstart the economy in its early phase. Also Egypt never had a class of technocrats who had strong ideas about economic development and were able to implement them. Instead the only institution which was able to prevent Egyptian society from descending into anarchy and religious warfare has proven to be the Egyptian army.

The early years of India's development seem to have successfully combined the worst aspects of democracy and socialism without having any of their individual advantages. Because of democracy policies were easily vetoed and it was impossible to do the large-scale infrastructure development which China did. Because of socialism there was no strong profit motive to support development. Smart Indians with ambition would choose to emigrate to the US and Europe instead of remaining in India.

The administration of PM Modi now seems to be addressing these shortcomings of the Indian model of development.

To sum up while westerners frequently criticize the Chinese Communist Party on human rights grounds it has been able to revive an old culture and civilization and make it a major player on the world stage again after 200 years of decline.

The party though should not be given all the credit. A lot of credit needs to go to the hard work industriousness and intelligence of ordinary Chinese.


Joseph Boyle
Answered May 1 2015
India is perhaps 2 decades behind. That is short in historical terms.

Egypt is a much smaller region though densely populated.

China had a cultural history of trade literacy hard work etc. that was quickly unleashed under Deng Xiaoping. But India had much of this too. Was the Indian bureaucracy that much more smothering? Perhaps it's hard to tell.

One factor not mentioned yet is East Asia as a connected area. Despite the conflicts between Japan and China Japan did serve as an early center of modernization and adapting Western ideas to East Asia and it seems like ideas and culture spread easily between the East Asian countries regardless of wars.



Robin Daverman world traveler
Answered May 2 2015
Because the Chinese-style of governmental administration is actually not bad at least for the Chinese.

In both Egypt and India the ancient civilizations have very little to do with the modern day society. Egypt was conquered by Rome first followed by a series of Caliphate finally became a British protectorate before gaining its independence. India was also a British colony before its independence. The civil and political institutions from both Egypt and India are largely British copies which has very little to do with their own culture and civilization. Neither country has had a lot of experience managing this "foreign" style of governing and both of them run into trouble soon after independence.

China on the other hand has kept her own style of government for thousands of years and thus it has had thousands of years building and improving its own civil and political institutions. For example Egypt ran into the problem of military junta. China experienced military rebellions from powerful viceroys in Tang dynasty around 800 AD. Learning from that experience China implemented a strict separation of military and civilian administration ever since. So right at the time of PRC foundation China implemented 10 military administrative areas and 35 civilian administrative provinces periodic rotation of senior military officers and complete separation of military from civilian affair. This largely eliminated the risk of military junta interference in civilian administration.

China really benefited from being able to build its own civil institutions taking the most suitable pieces from both China's own history and the rest of the world. For example China has long had a system that promotes government officials based on a set of criteria including social harmony tax revenue number of students passing the national exams etc. When the people decided to focus more on economy the central government simply added local economic output as one of the official uation criteria. That was all it took to shift the whole government bureaucracy towards economic development. There was no whole-sale auction of public assets the way the IMF would have prescribed. Public assets remained public assets and private companies grew out of private effort on its own. The result speaks for itself.

So I agree with Paul Denlinger - it's really important to have an indigenous government with a profound understanding of its own country its own people and its own culture to start with. You can't go chase the latest "-ism" fad while running a huge country!

所以我同意Paul Denlinger的看法——有一个对自己的国家、人民和文化有着深刻理解的当地政府是非常重要的。你不能在管理运行一个大国的同时还追逐所谓的最新“主义”时尚!

Borislav Agapiev Macroeconomics accidental tourist
Answered Mon
Picture is worth a thousand words so here is your answer:



Chinese banking system has generated almost $35T (!) of capital amounting to more than 300% of their 2016 GDP of $11.2T. In contrast the US banking system has assets of about $16T compared to the US GDP of $18.2T.

The main point is not that China has done this just because it turned capitalist which it did. Most of the world did the same after the fall of communism. The key is to generate capital not just proclaim to be a capitalist.

The principal asset used to build up this leverage has been their foreign reserves of about $3.2T as of 2017. Most misunderstand their reserves thinking China spent them to build all the things they did. They actually did not spend any apart from some to offset recent capital outflows. Instead they effectively used them and still do as collateral and base for all this leverage.
There are more and more critics coming out that this build-up is unsustainable and the tower of leverage is about to collapse. China retorts that they are awesome and the critics should mind their own bubbles.

This is the situation the world finds itself in in 2017. All are warning about others and proclaiming everything is peachy in their own backyard.

In summary China did not became rich just turning capitalist. The notion is actually comical as they are ruled by the Communist party with 5-year congresses and all. They actually taught the entire world a great lesson the trick is to actually create lots of capital regardless of political show to put on.


Kamal Gupta Student of economics since 1972Answered May 1 2015
A country's history can be looked at through the prism of "challenge and response" a view articulated by Arnold Toynbee in his book "Choose Life".
一个国家的历史可以以“挑战和回应”的视角来看待,这是英国历史学者阿诺尔德汤因比博士(Arnold Toynbee)在《展望二十一世纪》(Choose Life)一书中所表达的观点。

A young civilization faces challenge and its survival and growth depends upon the adequacy of its response. Over time the civilization becomes addicted to its response even while the challenges change. That makes it stagnate or collapse. Most civilizations have gone through these phases some like Egyptian Mesopotamian Assyrian Greek and Roman have disappeared.

India as we know it today came into being in 1947. China came under communist dictatorship in 1949. We chose the slow path of a liberal secular republic while China had a brutal period including the Cultural Revolution of late 1960s when millions were slaughtered or put to slavery.

Both countries opened up their economies within a couple of years. But the dictatorship in China did not have to answer to its people who in any case did not have even basic rights as human beings. Therefore they could move faster. For example they decided to build the Three Gorges hydropower project which made millions homeless.


Modern China is powerful but they have lost their ancient civilization. That exists only in Taiwan.