Why did the Soviet attempt at reform end in debacle and collapse, while China’s reforms led to the creation of the world’s richest country? This is the question that my colleague Professor Krejci asked in his lecture a few days ago.
There are many differences, but the most interesting one for us: It is not that the Chinese Communist dynasty took some brilliant step or miraculous measure. Cautious market opening was the strategy of all socialist regimes. What was much more significant was that China realised from the beginning that there was no genius solution forever. More and more problems would emerge and would need to be solved. Instead of pushing for the best concept, it is about growing the skills of the people in charge and maintaining sufficient powers.
This is one of the things that distinguishes the Chinese approach from the Russian and Czech strategy of ‘if we privatise everything, it will be solved once and for all’. So let’s do it as quickly as possible.” The examples of Russia and Hungary show that this too can be fixed, but it is difficult.
May I refer again to Curtis Yarvin: “Your main problem is not migration and drugs. Your main problem is that you don’t have the power to enforce solutions.”
The most important thing is to build a power structure so that the possibilities for abuse are not too great and yet the powers are sufficient