from the world's big
What is socialism like in China?
What is socialism with Chinese characteristics, and is it just capitalism?
- China has undergone massive economic reforms over the last few decades while remaining officially communist.
- The state still has tremendous power over the economy, but private enterprise and markets dominate daily life.
- The question of if the Chinese economy is technically capitalist remains unanswered.
When people today think of a communist country, they often think of The People's Republic of China. Once known as a promoter of global revolution, it is now better known as the workshop of the world and an increasingly powerful global influencer. But while most people know China is communist, they don't know how that communism works. Is there a softer version we can more comfortably call socialism? If so, what is socialism like in China?
What is socialism like in China? How does it work? How did it get to be the way it is now?
After the establishment of the People's Republic, Mao and his government got to work establishing a communist system in China. The system they instituted, known as Maoism, had more than a few problems.
During the Great Leap Forward, the overzealous name for the second five-year plan, the tendency for political goals to replace common sense had drastic consequences. General incompetence in agricultural planning, crack downs on dissent, and bad crop conditions caused a famine that killed around fifty million people.
After this fiasco, Mao was sidelined until he launched the Cultural Revolution, a socio-political movement dedicated to driving out perceived capitalistic influence in China. This event also wreaked havoc on the economy and resulted in the death of millions. It ended only with the death of Mao and the arrest of his high-level supporters in 1976.
Enter Deng Xiaoping and “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics”
In the late 70s, a moderate named Deng Xiaoping came to power. His administration was marked by various economic reforms that he collectively named "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics."
Agriculture was de-collectivized, and farmers gained the right to sell their surplus. Special economic zones where foreign investment was allowed and state regulation was reduced were created. Price controls were relaxed for urban industries. Private businesses were allowed to exist again for the first time in decades. The Shanghai Stock exchange reopened, and many state corporations were privatized.
Unlike Gorbachev's reforms in the USSR, many of these were first tried on a local level and then applied to China as a whole after they were proven to work. Many observers argue that this is why reform was successful in China while it was disastrous in Russia.
Since the beginning of these reforms, China has seen meteoric economic growth. As a result of this growth, the standard of living of millions upon millions of people has improved and the food shortages that plagued China vanished. There has been considerable liberalization of Chinese society as a whole, though it has been less than what Western analysts predicted it would be.
This sounds revisionist! Xiaoping sold out to Capitalism!
Lots of people argue that these reforms effectively abandoned communism in favor of state-guided capitalism, but there is a method to it that grants ideological justification. Xiaoping took a page out of Lenin's playbook and was able to show how his actions were in line with accepted communist theory.
In 1921, the Soviet economy was in trouble. After a long and brutal civil war, food shortages were common and factories found it hard to find enough workers because of how many people had left the cities for the countryside. Popular discontent was rising. Lenin, having to think quickly or risk the collapse of the brand-new USSR, retreated from War Communism to the New Economic Policy, also known as the NEP.
This program allowed for some private control over the economy, especially in agriculture, and entrepreneurs known as NEPmen made decent amounts of money running small businesses in the urban areas. Heavy industries, banking, trade, and mining remained under state control. The system worked, and by 1928 the Russian economy had recovered from the triple punch of World War One, the revolution, and the civil war.
While the Bolsheviks understood that this was a new form of capitalism rather than a socialist system, Lenin argued this was acceptable. He pointed to Marx and his arguments that communism was only possible in countries that had reached the highest level of capitalism. The NEP was merely a transitionary period between the pre-war system of the Tsarist regime and the future communist utopia he presumed would come to pass. It lasted until 1928 when Joseph Stalin, initially a supporter of the program, abolished it in favor of central planning.
Socialism with Chinese Characteristics has a similar motivation. Deng Xiaoping understood and admired the NEP and referred to it several times during the reform process.
So, what does the state do today?
The Chinese government still controls a large portion of the economy. The commanding heights are still under state control, and government monopolies exist in some industries. Five-year plans are issued, but the goals are broader than they used to be and direct planning of output goals is typically limited to state-owned enterprises. They also now call them "guidelines" instead of "plans."
Many private companies are at least partly owned by the state. This partial ownership is so prevalent that it is difficult for some observers to decide how large the private sector in China is. Other companies which are firmly in private hands often have association or partnership with the government. Sometimes, this association is written into their charters. All private companies are required by law to have a party organization in them, although until recently this was mostly a symbolic gesture.
How does it work in practice?
I lived in Beijing for a year as an English teacher and found myself looking for the differences between American capitalism and Chinese socialism fairly frequently. It wasn't anywhere near the clubs at Worker's Gymnasium or its parking lot filled with luxury cars driven by the playboy children of well-connected industrialists. I looked at the luxury malls and couldn't find it there either. It certainly wasn't to be found at the gift shop behind the tomb of Mao Zedong.
I did my banking at a state-run bank, but the experience of doing business there was the same as it is at any privately-owned bank in the West. I often traveled by state-owned train and found that it could either be top of the line and luxurious or crowded and somewhat outdated depending on what route you were taking. I shopped at convenience stores owned by my neighbors which were never short of anything.
Socialism with Chinese Characteristics is a strange thing. Fusing state control of the commanding heights of the economy with a high amount of foreign investment and regulated capitalism, the question of it is a capitalist or socialist system isn't one that is easily answered. It might not matter very much though, as China's more recent leaders have been more pragmatic than ideological. Deng Xiaoping once famously compared capitalism and socialism to a black and white cat and argued that "It doesn't matter whether the cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice."
Given how China is likely to surpass the United States economically by 2020, it seems they found a great cat.
Andy Samberg and Cristin Milioti get stuck in an infinite wedding time loop.
- Two wedding guests discover they're trapped in an infinite time loop, waking up in Palm Springs over and over and over.
- As the reality of their situation sets in, Nyles and Sarah decide to enjoy the repetitive awakenings.
- The film is perfectly timed for a world sheltering at home during a pandemic.
Richard Feynman once asked a silly question. Two MIT students just answered it.
Here's a fun experiment to try. Go to your pantry and see if you have a box of spaghetti. If you do, take out a noodle. Grab both ends of it and bend it until it breaks in half. How many pieces did it break into? If you got two large pieces and at least one small piece you're not alone.
But science loves a good challenge<p>The mystery remained unsolved until 2005, when French scientists <a href="http://www.lmm.jussieu.fr/~audoly/" target="_blank">Basile Audoly</a> and <a href="http://www.lmm.jussieu.fr/~neukirch/" target="_blank">Sebastien Neukirch </a>won an <a href="https://www.improbable.com/ig/" target="_blank">Ig Nobel Prize</a>, an award given to scientists for real work which is of a less serious nature than the discoveries that win Nobel prizes, for finally determining why this happens. <a href="http://www.lmm.jussieu.fr/spaghetti/audoly_neukirch_fragmentation.pdf" target="_blank">Their paper describing the effect is wonderfully funny to read</a>, as it takes such a banal issue so seriously. </p><p>They demonstrated that when a rod is bent past a certain point, such as when spaghetti is snapped in half by bending it at the ends, a "snapback effect" is created. This causes energy to reverberate from the initial break to other parts of the rod, often leading to a second break elsewhere.</p><p>While this settled the issue of <em>why </em>spaghetti noodles break into three or more pieces, it didn't establish if they always had to break this way. The question of if the snapback could be regulated remained unsettled.</p>
Physicists, being themselves, immediately wanted to try and break pasta into two pieces using this info<p><a href="https://roheiss.wordpress.com/fun/" target="_blank">Ronald Heisser</a> and <a href="https://math.mit.edu/directory/profile.php?pid=1787" target="_blank">Vishal Patil</a>, two graduate students currently at Cornell and MIT respectively, read about Feynman's night of noodle snapping in class and were inspired to try and find what could be done to make sure the pasta always broke in two.</p><p><a href="http://news.mit.edu/2018/mit-mathematicians-solve-age-old-spaghetti-mystery-0813" target="_blank">By placing the noodles in a special machine</a> built for the task and recording the bending with a high-powered camera, the young scientists were able to observe in extreme detail exactly what each change in their snapping method did to the pasta. After breaking more than 500 noodles, they found the solution.</p>
The apparatus the MIT researchers built specifically for the task of snapping hundreds of spaghetti sticks.
(Courtesy of the researchers)
What possible application could this have?<p>The snapback effect is not limited to uncooked pasta noodles and can be applied to rods of all sorts. The discovery of how to cleanly break them in two could be applied to future engineering projects.</p><p>Likewise, knowing how things fragment and fail is always handy to know when you're trying to build things. Carbon Nanotubes, <a href="https://bigthink.com/ideafeed/carbon-nanotube-space-elevator" target="_self">super strong cylinders often hailed as the building material of the future</a>, are also rods which can be better understood thanks to this odd experiment.</p><p>Sometimes big discoveries can be inspired by silly questions. If it hadn't been for Richard Feynman bending noodles seventy years ago, we wouldn't know what we know now about how energy is dispersed through rods and how to control their fracturing. While not all silly questions will lead to such a significant discovery, they can all help us learn.</p>
The multifaceted cerebellum is large — it's just tightly folded.
- A powerful MRI combined with modeling software results in a totally new view of the human cerebellum.
- The so-called 'little brain' is nearly 80% the size of the cerebral cortex when it's unfolded.
- This part of the brain is associated with a lot of things, and a new virtual map is suitably chaotic and complex.
Just under our brain's cortex and close to our brain stem sits the cerebellum, also known as the "little brain." It's an organ many animals have, and we're still learning what it does in humans. It's long been thought to be involved in sensory input and motor control, but recent studies suggests it also plays a role in a lot of other things, including emotion, thought, and pain. After all, about half of the brain's neurons reside there. But it's so small. Except it's not, according to a new study from San Diego State University (SDSU) published in PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences).
A neural crêpe
A new imaging study led by psychology professor and cognitive neuroscientist Martin Sereno of the SDSU MRI Imaging Center reveals that the cerebellum is actually an intricately folded organ that has a surface area equal in size to 78 percent of the cerebral cortex. Sereno, a pioneer in MRI brain imaging, collaborated with other experts from the U.K., Canada, and the Netherlands.
So what does it look like? Unfolded, the cerebellum is reminiscent of a crêpe, according to Sereno, about four inches wide and three feet long.
The team didn't physically unfold a cerebellum in their research. Instead, they worked with brain scans from a 9.4 Tesla MRI machine, and virtually unfolded and mapped the organ. Custom software was developed for the project, based on the open-source FreeSurfer app developed by Sereno and others. Their model allowed the scientists to unpack the virtual cerebellum down to each individual fold, or "folia."
Study's cross-sections of a folded cerebellum
Image source: Sereno, et al.
A complicated map
Sereno tells SDSU NewsCenter that "Until now we only had crude models of what it looked like. We now have a complete map or surface representation of the cerebellum, much like cities, counties, and states."
That map is a bit surprising, too, in that regions associated with different functions are scattered across the organ in peculiar ways, unlike the cortex where it's all pretty orderly. "You get a little chunk of the lip, next to a chunk of the shoulder or face, like jumbled puzzle pieces," says Sereno. This may have to do with the fact that when the cerebellum is folded, its elements line up differently than they do when the organ is unfolded.
It seems the folded structure of the cerebellum is a configuration that facilitates access to information coming from places all over the body. Sereno says, "Now that we have the first high resolution base map of the human cerebellum, there are many possibilities for researchers to start filling in what is certain to be a complex quilt of inputs, from many different parts of the cerebral cortex in more detail than ever before."
This makes sense if the cerebellum is involved in highly complex, advanced cognitive functions, such as handling language or performing abstract reasoning as scientists suspect. "When you think of the cognition required to write a scientific paper or explain a concept," says Sereno, "you have to pull in information from many different sources. And that's just how the cerebellum is set up."
Bigger and bigger
The study also suggests that the large size of their virtual human cerebellum is likely to be related to the sheer number of tasks with which the organ is involved in the complex human brain. The macaque cerebellum that the team analyzed, for example, amounts to just 30 percent the size of the animal's cortex.
"The fact that [the cerebellum] has such a large surface area speaks to the evolution of distinctively human behaviors and cognition," says Sereno. "It has expanded so much that the folding patterns are very complex."
As the study says, "Rather than coordinating sensory signals to execute expert physical movements, parts of the cerebellum may have been extended in humans to help coordinate fictive 'conceptual movements,' such as rapidly mentally rearranging a movement plan — or, in the fullness of time, perhaps even a mathematical equation."
Sereno concludes, "The 'little brain' is quite the jack of all trades. Mapping the cerebellum will be an interesting new frontier for the next decade."
What happens if we consider welfare programs as investments?
- A recently published study suggests that some welfare programs more than pay for themselves.
- It is one of the first major reviews of welfare programs to measure so many by a single metric.
- The findings will likely inform future welfare reform and encourage debate on how to grade success.
Welfare as an investment<p>The <a href="https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/hendren/files/welfare_vnber.pdf" target="_blank">study</a>, carried out by Nathaniel Hendren and Ben Sprung-Keyser of Harvard University, reviews 133 welfare programs through a single lens. The authors measured these programs' "Marginal Value of Public Funds" (MVPF), which is defined as the ratio of the recipients' willingness to pay for a program over its cost.</p><p>A program with an MVPF of one provides precisely as much in net benefits as it costs to deliver those benefits. For an illustration, imagine a program that hands someone a dollar. If getting that dollar doesn't alter their behavior, then the MVPF of that program is one. If it discourages them from working, then the program's cost goes up, as the program causes government tax revenues to fall in addition to costing money upfront. The MVPF goes below one in this case. <br> <br> Lastly, it is possible that getting the dollar causes the recipient to further their education and get a job that pays more taxes in the future, lowering the cost of the program in the long run and raising the MVPF. The value ratio can even hit infinity when a program fully "pays for itself."</p><p> While these are only a few examples, many others exist, and they do work to show you that a high MVPF means that a program "pays for itself," a value of one indicates a program "breaks even," and a value below one shows a program costs more money than the direct cost of the benefits would suggest.</p> After determining the programs' costs using existing literature and the willingness to pay through statistical analysis, 133 programs focusing on social insurance, education and job training, tax and cash transfers, and in-kind transfers were analyzed. The results show that some programs turn a "profit" for the government, mainly when they are focused on children:
This figure shows the MVPF for a variety of polices alongside the typical age of the beneficiaries. Clearly, programs targeted at children have a higher payoff.
Nathaniel Hendren and Ben Sprung-Keyser<p>Programs like child health services and K-12 education spending have infinite MVPF values. The authors argue this is because the programs allow children to live healthier, more productive lives and earn more money, which enables them to pay more taxes later. Programs like the preschool initiatives examined don't manage to do this as well and have a lower "profit" rate despite having decent MVPF ratios.</p><p>On the other hand, things like tuition deductions for older adults don't make back the money they cost. This is likely for several reasons, not the least of which is that there is less time for the benefactor to pay the government back in taxes. Disability insurance was likewise "unprofitable," as those collecting it have a reduced need to work and pay less back in taxes. </p>