China, could be described as one of the ancient, and one of the modern, ‘wonders’ of the world. Populous, vibrant, and full of energy it amazes economists, is the ‘darling’ of organizations, and frightens a lot of other people.

This paper explores a theory of evolutionary systems change. The theory considers that China is leading the world economies into a new order of economic and politicization, challenging the established norms of capitalism as defined for one and a half centuries from Adam Smith’s first attempt. Seeking to challenge communism with communism and illiberal democracy, coercing its way toward being a major regional power, both economically and politically.

The intention in this paper is to ‘introduce’ this theory from established thought and perspectives and to take a step, not back, not forward, but sideways and consider an alternate. Not an easy path, not always a humane one, but let us put aside our backgrounds and our preconceived notions of how ‘things should work’ and look at ‘how things could work’. 

Capitalism versus Communism. A notion we have all grown up with for most of our lives, whether from the east or the west, the story is always the same, the teachings carry on. Capitalism, seen as the almost ‘enemy’ of the ‘popular’ working man. Considered for a long time by those of socialist tendencies to be the tool of the corporation whose function it was to maximize profit at the cost of those it employed. F W Taylor and his early theories have been cited as an example of the way capitalism lowers the status of the worker to that of a tool, to be timed, watched, checked, monitored and disposed off when not a compliant being within the system. When unions sprang up to challenge the corporations and to protect the workers they were automatically assumed to be the enemies of the corporation, by the corporation. 

This is a simplistic viewpoint of course and can be argued either in the pro or anti capitalist camp. We need to understand that capitalism is fairly new, stemming from the eighteenth century when agricultural dependency by the state started to break down. Of course there were people who took advantage of this type of breakdown and profited from it, the first capitalists could see a profit to be made from production of a different type, and hence the system started to emerge (Tilly, 1990 and Giddens, 1985).

Control by these organizations then began to build up, control over the markets that is, and hence things began to get more organized. Hilferding, 1981, called this ‘organized capitalism’.

This was when market-orientated industrial capitalism was to be changed to organized or planned economic advance (Held, 1987). Hence the resultant phenomena included structured control mechanisms, market regulation, management which was bureaucratic and the concentration of capital for investment within the system by the emerging corporations.

Of course the state now came to start playing a role in this ‘free trade’ but ‘controlled trade’, through regulation of the markets and the tightening of the rules within which the corporations could play. We now have to consider what the effect of capitalism had on Democracy, firstly assuming that the emerging corporations were indeed operating within democratic states, and not all were of course.

Let us assume that democracy is about the citizens of the state allowing that state a degree of control over those same citizens, that the minority are ‘controlled’ by the will of the majority through the free and fair ballot box system. If that is the case then as the corporations are in the minority and the state has a mandate, by popular demand, to control such organizations. This is so that they act humanly, and fairly to all citizens of the state and keep within established rules of law and behaviors that all the capitalist-democratic citizens agree with.

So, therefore we have a conflict between democracy and capitalism, in that the power of the state could, in theory, overwhelm the power of the organization and hence dilute the fundamentals of capitalism as seem by the corporation. The state could decide to be ‘too’ humane, ‘too’ regulatory and reduce the effect of free markets to foster the notion of capitalism. Some people would say that this is justifiable political intervention in order to stop the economy from damaging the same state. This could be one defense of Hayek’s distinction between ‘law’ and ‘legislation’, as long as ‘law’ is understood as democratic law and ‘legislation’ is geared into the promotion of this law. It should be pointed out that Hayek did emphasize the market economy as an effective mechanism which can be used to co ordinate decisions of producers and consumers over extended territories.

The claim from some is that there is an underlying purpose of democratic political intervention in the market, and that is a will to ensure the conditions are there which encourage projects with a minimum of intrusion from political, or social powers or economic powers.

If democracy is rejected then the politics of other forms of governance will emerge.

Communism is seen as the ‘flip side’ of the coin to capitalism. Here control of the corporations and the state are seen as uni functional, that is united in a common function to ‘serve’ and ‘be served’, the state is the citizen and the citizen is the state.

The control structure seems to be held by one group or ‘party’ which ‘dictates’ to the producers what they should produce and when, and sometimes how, and what everything will cost in order to promote the idea of ‘fairness’ to all citizens. Hence the idea is that the state will ‘look after’ everyone and no one go hungry or homeless, no matter what they eat, or what they are homed in. That is not a cynical statement, it is fact that these citizens have limited freedom to choose what they will eat or what they will live in due to the control of the state.

However I want to quote something from Galbraith now;

"there is, first, the absolute, inescapable requirement that everyone in the good.....society has a basic source of income. And if this is not available from the market system......it must come from the state. Nothing, let us not forget, sets a stronger limit on the liberty of the citizen than a total absence of money" (1994, p.2).

Galbraith is fairly widely known as a supporter of capitalism, and it is presumed that the quote referred to the so called ‘safety net’ that exists in most free market economies to protect those who fall outside the income generating mechanisms of the market. (Minimum wage and social assistance being examples of this idea)

Where capitalism could be said to be entrenched in spontaneity, where chaos comes about because of unregulated cycles and speculation, the controlled economy has a deliberate order to it. It has a central economic plan which specifies the workings of the economy for the period ahead, the firms and the people within the firms. Absolute Ignorance taking the place of Absolute Wisdom, where the proponents of this idea want to plan the whole thing to ensure a utopia for the citizens. This is the command economy as opposed to the free market economy.

The Market Economy has derived some interesting ‘benchmarks’ by which it measures itself for success.

Full Employment, which is a concept economists have imagined would result from the full utilization of the available resources. Unemployment has been regarded as a temporary phenomenon, because it indicates a surplus of labor in the market.

Economic Efficiency, relies on the concept that the model builders are confident that the self-interested behaviors of people and corporations in this world of perfect competition would lead to a fulfillment of every condition of economic efficiency.

Technical Efficiency, raising profit margins through the use of technology and thus raising the output of the producer to the maximum and thereby maintaining competitive advantage over other competitors.

Economic Growth, this is the sustained expansion over time of the society’s per capita output. This can be measured by quality of output with the corporation using technology or new knowledge, or by the quantities of human , capital and resources which has increased over a period. The first being intensive growth and the second being extensive growth.

(When looking at China later it will be interesting to cover this area from the viewpoint of a capitalist within a communist society)

Economic Justice, this is an important benchmark to realize because of the differences between the free market economies and the planned economies and the emphasis each places on this area. The free market system implies that there is no one authority which distributes this on a fairness for all basis. The market economy rejects the concept of the society in which we all live ‘apportioning’ rewards to the workers and rather advises the viewpoint that people must be given ‘differential’ rewards. So in this system the idea of re-distribution of wealth is not accepted but encourages wealth to be gathered and increased by stint of labor and innovation as the early entrepreneurs did.

So these are the usually accepted modes of measurement of the free market system and later they will be compared to the planned economic model. However for this discussion the ability to express freedom needs to be taken as a benchmark of such free market economies. The reason for this is the great passion the west has for encouraging emerging states toward the path of democracy whilst encouraging a free market economy in these states. The shear leverage the west has with instruments such as the International Monetary Fund and American financial support do tend to sway such states toward the democratic model.

The west has a tendency to intertwine the concept of the free market with that of freedom to choose politicians, freedom of speech and opinion, freedom of travel and the right to own and dispose of property. So therefore the supports of the free market are asking people to accept whatever the consequences of the market actions give to the state and hence society. It seems they are purposefully ignoring, and may indeed be against, policies which care for those who just cannot make it in the free market economy. There is always a minority within each society who fall into this category. An example of this is the case of the United Kingdom under the rule of the Thatcher government, right wing and very much advocates of freedom to choose within the system. This government decided to legislate against trade unions, extend share ownership, increase property owing rights to the poorer sections of the population and to go on a course of privatizing everything it could, including water supply and distribution.

The previous socialist governments had a policy of centralized control of the economy through privatization, strong trade unions, strict bureaucratic rules governing corporations and so on.

The turning point came in 1978 when the IMF had to loan the country huge sums of money to prop up the currency and restore confidence in what was once the largest and wealthiest empire the world had ever seen.

The people had had enough and the free market economists came out with their liberalization theories and over 10 years changed the society toward a more radical perfectly competitive model of the free market.

This was how that particular government defined freedom, it was already a democratic society, indeed a lot of countries use the ‘Westminster Model’ as an example of democracy for their own states.

However once the reforms were in place the population noticed a strong shift toward corruption, arrogance and, to a lesser extent, fraud by the governing party.

Also this version of economic justice was supplemented with new laws which restricted the population by increasing powers of the police during times of unpopular economic decisions, such as the outlawing of the right of trade unions to gather and support other trade unionists who were in grievance with the corporations. Unions were seen not as a bargaining tool and protector of the workers but as troublemakers to be dealt with under the new laws.

It was of course not just the United Kingdom that went through this ‘love affair’ with economic freedom, France, the Low Countries of Europe, Australia, New Zealand were but some that went down the same path. the result in each country was the introduction of laws to restrict the democratic freedom of certain types of expression by those opposed to these reforms.

So the point to this is to ask the question, "Did the perfect model of free market compassion in these capitalist countries sacrifice personal freedom for economic freedom?"

It of course depends upon an individuals perspective as to how the question will be answered. Those who benefit, such as the new middle class, welcomed these reforms and took part in the fruits of their labors as markets were opened up, new technology introduced, regulation by the state lessened.

However the poor did become poorer, civil unrest did increase and the new economic justice was shared amongst a few and not a lot.

Remember, these comments relate to states which had strong capitalist and democratic societies to start with. so it can be argued that where does the degree of the free market model stop? How far does the state go toward capitalism, as there are obviously varying levels?

Fareed Zakaria points out in the journal ‘Foreign Affairs, (Nov/Dec. 1997)’ that until a short time ago, within the last 50 years most European countries were liberal autocracies or, at best, semi-democracies. Also that the elected legislatures had little power., claiming that only in the late 1940’s did most western countries become democracies. But even 100 years before the benchmarks of the free market had been established such as property rights, rule of law, economic growth.

The Command Economy has also derived some benchmarks for establishing a measure of its success. This economy does not have many players, it has one and that is the state or the government.

Collectivism is a benchmark of the success of this type of economy because it encourages all members of society to work as one for the good of the all. Acting together means that all are self helping through the actions of the command of the state government.

The centralization of power and decision making produces a plan which is ‘forced’ upon the workers and the producers alike. From this plan certain requirements are demanded, such as output quotas, input norms, incentives. The mode of measurement is an internal structure based on compliance to the will of the party through the watchful eyes of the party members at various levels in the collective. Those not seeking to ‘toe the party line’ are dealt with, in the case of the Soviet system in a harsh manner.

Full Employment is worked out by the central planners who decide with elaborate models and plans how to achieve this. There is no free market force which determines the level of employment because the markets are under the plan as well so both work hand in hand to assist each other. It is difficult to see how this can be measured in such a system because to admit there is unemployment must surely mean that the plan has failed and the planners are not doing their job correctly? Taking into account the penalties for letting the collective down it is unlikely a planner would admit a mistake, it is presumed.

Technical Efficiency seems to be defined as the planners knowing the amount of output that is related to the amount of input and thus being able to determine the correct output levels by command. Technical efficiency must be a utopian concept in this command economy which must also be very difficult to measure. How would inefficiency be dealt with? In the free market producers can, and do, go out of business as a measure, or they introduce strategies of the market to assist in returning to profitability. But then profitability in the command economy is not as important, so is not considered a measure of success.

Economic Efficiency is one of those capitalistic benchmarks which the planners of the command economy find difficult to come to terms with. Some of the reasons being; the measurement of efficiency within socialism is related to the collective will of the people to produce as they are told with or without rewards, in the free market system profit can be a measure which in the command system seems not relevant to success, the secrecy and the complexity surrounding the way the plans are put together by the planners with information not being available to the public domain.

We have seen from the above that both systems have differing types of measurements of their success with the free market system being more interested in profit and openness of efficiency than the command economy. At first it could be said that these are totally ‘opposite’ systems which are in conflict with each other. However, there are fundamental similarities such as ;

Both have a reward system, in one it is materialism and a rise to the middle classes or on the streets as a person who cannot compete and is therefore of no use to the system, and in the other it could make one end up in a prison camp or an esteemed and respected member of the ruling party with privileges to go with it.

Both have a, for want of a better term, social and collective responsibility to the system the citizens are in. True there are people within each system who complain about it, but how many in large numbers actually disrupt the system. If large numbers do cause a disruption then it is usually termed a ‘revolution’ and so the system would change anyway, but we assume here that no revolutions are taking place in each system.

It is better to disrupt the system by being part of it rather than trying from outside and so radicals are sometimes found buried within the bowels of the services of the system, attempting to emerge but never actually making any difference with their views. They never get too high up anyway as the rest of the collective soon put a stop to them.

Also people, as the younger generation, have attitudes which the older generation call ‘rebellious’, but when the younger generation become the older then they ‘settle down’ as has so often been remarked.

The commanding hand of authority exists within each system as we have seen with the rise of extreme capitalism and communism. Neither system has governments which are really going to yield power. In fact over the past two decades a lot of countries have accepted the road toward free market economies with a token gesture toward democracy. The west does not censure a lot of the Asia countries as the corporations find them useful for cheap and subservient labor forces. Most east Asian countries have become authoritarian after making a few mild attempts at western style democracy.

Patriarchs or one -party systems are common place with the promotion of economic liberalization to its citizens, these are generally referred to as ’liberalizing autocracies’.

Corruption seems to come with the mantle of political power in either system. Many countries which are autocratic have been reported as having leaders with Swiss bank accounts salted away for later. Then in the free market the publicity surrounding corruption is more due to a freer press, but what a shambles when the offenders go to court. The power of money and influence being used to defend corporate offenders. Look at the case of the Canadian Bre-X company, the main executive having just resigned from the board so his assets cannot be touched by creditors, the Guinness Affair where the offenders were given one year jail terms and then were realized only to write books telling everyone how they committed the crimes they were imprisoned for.

With the command economies the special shops for the party members and ruling classes, the holidays, the payment in US dollars, the travel and the privileges.

Globalization. The control exercised by corporations within their internal states has many levels, from the coercion of employees through the fear of job lose and thereby a persons ability to survive in the system to the manipulation of governments through bribery.

Corporations of the free market and the agents of the ideology of the command economy both tread rather similar paths when leaving the boundaries of their home states. Both seek a competitive advantage against each other in their own ways. It was not usual a few years ago to see a major capitalistic corporation in a communist country which had been ‘bribed’ by the communist party doctrine and adopted that party line. Indeed this was the fundamental principle of ‘east versus west’, who could exert more influence in other nations and thus impose their will on those nations. Cuba is an example which the Soviets found irresistible due to its proximity to the United States and encouraged communism through subsidies of basic goods such as cheap oil and Soviet made goods. However the Americans are hardly virtuous when it comes to supporting regimes which are not treading the path of freedom and true democracy, such as Indonesia, Nigeria, Kenya, and Singapore to name but a few where the Americans and corporations of America have influence but do not use it where it could ‘upset’ the government of these countries.

Let us now consider in its basic form the events which occurred when the Soviet Union failed and with the encouragement of the west, went down the path of capitalism.

First of all this was a very fast change which was watched by all the world through the international media as the first days unfolded. The events as to why this ‘mild initial revolution’ happened were clear enough with the realization that Soviet inefficiency could not continue to battle with the western corporations. These corporations had the advantages of world trade, investment in technology for enhanced quality and efficiency, a ‘lure’ of materialism for the citizens of other countries and the prospect of better, or westernized standards of living.

Change always involves psychological trauma, whether it happens in corporations or in large masses of people, induces anxiety and fast decision making and fear in people. There are varying degrees of these symptoms of course and in Russia the initial reaction was one of jubilation due to the ability to express without the KGB watching every move, freedom to choose to live in a materialistic system, travel, property rights and so on.

So it started off with the population wanting more than it could possible get over night.

The realization soon came round to the people when unemployment, inflation and the value of the currency declined as would be fostered by the free market for the conditions which were prevalent at the time in Russian industry. All the previously mentioned benchmarks for the measurement of the free market system were in ‘free fall’ very quickly.

Taking a look two years after the ‘change’ at the countries which changed with the Soviet Union what do we see?

Several have trodden the path of the free market only to find their economies crushed by budget deficits, inflation, massive unemployment. One result has been the initial move toward democracy has slowed down or come to an end. Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary and several former Soviet Republics have voted back in the very people who were running the states under the command economy structures! They may not be calling themselves communists but how can decades of indoctrination in an ideology be changed or forgotten overnight? In the case of the former Soviet Republics some have been voted to power and then turned on their political opponents and either ‘got rid’ of them or just outlawed other parties altogether.

With these initial changes the corporations of the free markets come into the picture, sensing an opportunity to use their resources to exploit such areas as natural resources of these changing countries, or the cheap labor they can use, both with the intention of enhancing the organizations profits. As far as the corporations are concerned they are doing nothing wrong as their actions are justified by the parameters of the system from which they have evolved, capitalism. However what of the process of democratization of these countries which the IMF and America make so much fuss about?

The recent events of the collapse of the Asia currencies has forced the IMF and America to intervene with huge amounts of ‘bail out’ dollars to prop these countries up whilst they re-adjust their economies and take the heat out of extensive growth.

It therefore seems that with these emerging countries the process of democracy is side stepped when economics come into play.

It is now time to deal with China which has been singled out as an example of how a communist country, with a once very strong command economy, is dealing with the introduction of a new theory of economic and political reality.

This theory is not something that has been pulled out of a bag and surprised the world, but it is one of evolution, of a gradual change from one state to another.

Indeed Darwin’s theory of evolution which talks about the survival of the strongest is relevant here. The Chinese may have made some mistakes in the past but the fact they have learnt from these mistakes indicates they are a force to be reckoned with when it comes to the economic world stage.

The China under Mao Zedong was a recent event in the history of a country which stretches back 3,000 years and during this recent period the Chinese were subjected to an ideology which started off with Karl Marx and his ideas of a perfect utopia.

Mao therefore went down the road of several ‘plans’ and ‘revolutions’ with the intention of cleansing the people themselves as well as the society they were part of.

The collectivization of the effort of the people did indeed lead to a large increase in the gross domestic product of the country, but this was at a cost of personal liberty and freedom of expression which was alien to the way Mao was thinking. He also utilized the one huge resource that China had, and still does have, that of the quantity of people in the country.

Putting so many people to work on infrastructure projects and agriculture could only increase the overall wealth of China but not of each individual.

The command economy benchmarks were used whilst trying to achieve this utopia and for a while this was successful with huge rises in the country’s GNP.

Several factors contributed to a decline in the initial fever that gripped the masses. Mao did not take into account the fact that his ideas of turning everyone into what could for all intents and purposes be called ‘one individual’ took away elements of the psychology of the person. The self-fulfilling interest that humans have evolved over the centuries cannot just be turned off by one man and one party with an ideology.

Exhaustion, both physically and mentally, comes into play and people start to reject the pace, a type of mass ‘burn out’ happened. This along with attempts to challenge the ideology of communism with the Soviets, which diverted resources to the military, lead to severe problems. Problems for the Chinese economy which even the command structure of the system had to hid from their own people and the world. But behind the scenes battles were raging such as the cultural revolution of 1966-1969, and the fight of the state bureaucracy with Mao.

Mao responded with force and the Red Guards, he used pure collectivist ideas of communism to rule the people as well as fear.

While this ideological fight was going on throughout China the economic had almost collapsed due to lack of production and efficiency.

Around 1971 a change took place with another member of the party, Zhou Enlai, took control of the party and thereby the economy and established a degree of normality by relaxing international tensions and allowing the GNP to increase.

From this period on there would be phases of reforms sent through the economy which were encouraged by more leaders, an evolution of the system in China was well under way, but it was not like the Russian model of change, this one was slower and more deliberate and the leaders had more control.

The change started in 1978 when Deng Xiaoping was leader and he introduced agricultural reforms called household contract responsibility system, which started the road toward property rights in China for the individual. It was not sudden change to the individual as the commune still owned the land, but each household was given a plot of land as its own.

After a levy was given to the commune the household could sell the rest on the market, and this market was free at any amounts the household could manage.

Between 1978 and 1984 output grew by 55%. Then in the 1980’s the households could hire other workers to assist, so they were becoming self-interest groups for the benefit of the masses and the country.

Industrial reforms also happened from 1978 with the creation of the ‘socialist market economy’ where the state gradually realized its hold on prices of goods and allowed managers to make decisions for themselves rather than follow the central planners.

The increase in private enterprise continued and grew in pace, and in 1987 a stock market emerged in Beijing. In 1988 there were 20million private firms.

In the mid 1990’s the number of the population who depended upon the state in China for work had reduced dramatically but still included pensioners and some government enterprises which were a mix of the old style command economy central planners and the new free market philosophy.

Funding for investment has been encouraged through bonds and the stock markets that opened upin a similar way to the free market economies.

The western corporations have not been slow to get in on the act and have invested heavily in China due to the open door policy of the government, the fact that government officials have gone into business and have connections to help themselves and the corporations make a profit.

These persons in China have been used as ‘door openers’ by the corporations taking advantage also of the low wages of the masses and the enthusiasm that has been generated.

One of the major problems experienced by a considerable number of the corporations that went into China was the habit of the Chinese to copy and pirate the ideas and products of the western corporations. The United States has been particularly vocal in its condemnation of this practice and has threatened sanctions if the Chinese government did not act to stem this activity.

This debate is still going on as the western corporations apply pressure their respective governments on this issue.

Another problem has been the requirement to disclose research and development information before being allowed to get into the Chinese markets. This also went so far as to compel the corporations to tell on everything they did from the R&D to the packaging processes used.

Of course with so many officials now on the free market ‘band wagon’ it has been difficult for the corporations to seek a stop to this copying legally, especially as the legal system in China has not been set up to deal with this sort of thing.

The Chinese officials of course are also self serving and are hardly likely to allow western corporations to make huge profits while they stand ideally by and watch. For the corporations to think they could have it their own way is naive indeed, so this seems to be one of the disadvantages of going into China, especially with high technology. The idea that the corporations would be protected is of course a free market concept practiced by the western democracies, but they are not in a true democratic society here so the rules are different.

The ‘problem’ of operating in a none democratic society seems to have been left to one side when dealing in China by the large corporations. Because China is currently seem as the place to be and the area where the profits are made the requirements that have been imposed on lesser countries before being allowed to trade with the west and receive investment have been ignored. As the Chinese government have made it clear that they are communist in ideology and are not going to introduce democracy they have been seen as autocratic by the liberal democratic champions but accepted as strong by the corporations. Indeed to deal with labor problems the Chinese way must suit the companies as they do not have to worry about industrial unrest and it helps that the population is ‘controlled ‘ in this manner.

With a strong central government which still uses the old communism ideologies of control the population could be controlled for a long time ahead. This is especially so if the west continues its policies of ignoring the human rights abuses and lack of democratic freedom in China. But really if the human rights issues were one day to be resolved to the satisfaction of the world, would this control be so bad in a country with such a large population?

Earlier the UK government was shown to be almost as controlling, but more humane, and that economy is firmly entrenched in the free market economy. With the population of China being so large could the freedoms that ideal democracy asks for be really practical?

Is it possible that extreme forms of capitalism and a socialist free markets are coming together to form a new system of control over the producers and hence the markets of the world? After all a lot of the countries that tried democracy have stalled and become autocratic or semi-autocratic democracies, and a lot employ the abuse of its citizens as a control mechanism.

It is no good saying that the old communist states are riddled with crime without mentioning that America is also riddled.

Corruption is rife in the free market economies as well as the old communist ones.

The benchmarks of measurement as to how the economy is doing is similar in both societies so they cannot be used to judge.

If we have a convergence of the two systems which is being lead by China in a systematic manner then in the future things could look on the face of it the same as they are now, but under the public glare they will be very much the same. The words may be different but the actions are becoming similar.

Assumptions are made that the natural rights of man to live in peace and without harassment are of course taken here for granted and we may be a long way off from this state of affairs.

There are the downturns to face as well for the emerging China, the road to free markets is not all paved with gold. Recent events in the currency markets and on the world’s stock exchanges have introduced the Chinese to the concept of ‘confidence’ which is important for economies in the west.

Also budget deficits are a lesson for the Chinese economy and they need to get their housekeeping in order.

These deficits are bigger than the west due to the larger social programmes still in place and the subsidies given to the remaining state industries. So it is likely that China will start to reduce the populations dependency on the remaining socialist aspects of society. When that happens it could signal the end of the communist grip on power due to their own weaknesses to continue to control due to the harshness of the regime.

People expect governments to govern in a strong and fair manner, in the west or the east, and another form of politics could emerge which is being carried along by the market reforms in China at the moment. The slow but steady relaxation of the iron grip of communism is happening at a different pace to such places as Russia where it could come back, albeit in a weaker form and under a different name, if the population perceive that the government is not in control of the economy.

None control of the economy has been one of the downfalls of several economies which have attempted the same change as China, such as Bulgaria which has elected the old communists back to govern. Maybe the negatives of the free market will cause too much anxiety in the population and they could loose the will to change and go back to the ‘stable’ past. Although the west does not consider it to be stable at least the people were not starving or riddled with crime,

as they are in Russia. It is clear that the old style of capitalism and communism has no place in the modern world of communications where people can now freely see what is happening within different systems. But it is also clear that both systems have to change and re-emerge as something akin to what the citizens of the countries need, blend of social responsibility and freedom combined with a degree of materialism as a reward for their labors.

(Note: this article may be re-produced, the author asks for credit)

Click to go back to the Home page...

You really can earn money from this system with AllAdvantage!

I have managed to get a few hundred dollars just by

 surfing and using the web, try it and see for a while.