Money quote.
I’ve lost a bit of sleep wondering about this over the years.
Central planning hasn’t been “hard to implement” its been a absolute disaster not just due to information scarcity, but for the same reason massive organizations in free markets rot from within.
There are more and less (de)centralized democracies. The US (and others) are formed from federated regional governments:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism
But there are unitary states (France, Spain) as well:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_state
As for democracies: one problem with non-democracies is negative feedback can be difficult. If things are headed in a bad direction, it can be hard to get that message through to those in charge if they lean autocratic and become isolated from reality. Folks are afraid to bear bad news because messenger get shot (proverbially or literally).
Telegraphs were used in the 1840s [1]. They went transatlantic in the 1850s [2]. The game change is not in modern autocracies being better at planning. It's in surveillance. What took the KGB and Stasi armies of informants filling cabinets of index cards can now be run out of a single data centre by a small team of loyalists.
The common failure mode of centralized systems, peaceful transitions of power and/or long-run economic power, is thus not addressed. (Founders have a decent record, at least in their early years [3]. But with each subsequent generation, the gap between the stability of monarchies and eccentricity of dictatorships widens. Putin is a first-generation autocrat. Xi is a bit more complicated, though I'd argue the CCP hasn't had power so concentrated since Mao, and China barely limped through that transition.
Maybe the efficiency gains in surveillance and repression will turn what would have been a revolutionary failure into a slow-burn diminishment. Whereas previously a resistance could have festered and grown, today it can be nipped in the bud, preventing the internal power competition that rejuvenates the system.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_telegraph
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transatlantic_telegraph_cable
[3] https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/54717/1/670514403.pd...
We’ve had true democracy. It doesn’t work. It careens into majoritarianism while hyperpartisanship tears it apart. The American system balances democracy against oligarchic and monarchic stabilisers. One could argue that our present situation results from forgetting the need for that balance.
The implicit agreement in China is that in exchange for your freedom, you receive prosperity.
Russia - especially after the West seriously damages their economy - can easily form a similar narrative, especially when the West is being sadistic about it. Nationalize most things now when the equity is dirt-cheap because unwise Western governments have forced the hands of banks, investors, and funds; then privatize things as the new anointed class rises. Key for them will be to reward merit and capability, not just loyalty.
Much of its industrial policy actually resembles that of democratic states like Korea and Japan.
I'd argue China's experience presents a great argument for a mixed market economy that allows state intervention, while also recognising the importance of markets and decentralised economic coordination.
However, we shouldn't overhype China's progress. The fact of the matter is that China was always destined to become an economic juggernaut given its population size, stability, and resources.
It's just China had been tied down by Mao and his supporters managed to hijack the government for several decades and hindered China's ascent with their whacky policies. We're now seeing it snap back to where it belongs.
The current system is more similar to Japan with strong oversight and occasional intervention to nudge the economy towards the right goals.
Which is moot, because the USSR planning model also had 5 year plans. Also some European democracies are run by a coalition. See for example the Nederlands and also Germany to a lower degree. It's less efficient in case of armed conflict, but most people are represented in times of peace.
Turning China into an inward-looking closed market is an idea still, not a recipe.
On the other hand, my comment does diddly squat to our relations. Please go on and explain how I'm contributing to international tensions with my not-fully-informed question.