I think the idea about "完善的计划经济" and its counterpart in China



所有跟贴·加跟贴·新语丝读书论坛http://www.xys.org/cgi-bin/mainpage.pl

送交者: mangolasi 于 2006-1-07, 08:21:04:

回答: 关于苏东改革介绍一本书 由 吴礼 于 2006-1-06, 22:24:12:

is very interesting. It's not likely that I can get the book, but I am looking for the English reference on it. Is your book attached English reference (or Russian, in the hope that someone might translate it)? The question is interesting because it is two-folded: 1) Why Utopia is a Utopia (doesn't consider human nature)--SU's problem, and 2) the (techincal) difficulty of conducting a Utopia--China's problem, and of course the combination of both. If we can see which is the main machenism (reflects in the construction of models), what kind of shocks (positive or negative) are easily propagated is clearly. Their speculation is that the negative effect of shock Russia experienced would be huge but short-memory. One might extend it speculating that the same huge shock in China might be long-memory. This deconstructing Utopia is indeed interesting and have lots of implication (buy it or not).

I don't really think Russia's experience should be taken more serious than its fair share. 用苏东的成功来证明中国改革的失败 or 认为苏东的改革是失败的,因此中国应该反其道而行之 are equally terrible. They are not comparable. Entirely different countries. They have some similiarities but other difference in their nature. That degree of similarities won't exceed that between China and, say India, or China and Japan, Russia and Canada. Culture, resource, exisiting constitution, wealth, etc, need to be weighted with extrodinary cautions, especially when the implication will have effect on lots of people's live.

In the sense of pure academic purpose, I totally agree 苏东改革的实践提供了人类历史上一个难得的社会学实验室. But there is a long way to go from theory to apply technology, you know. Before a theory with good explantory power (if any does exist), we need to be careful not to generalize experience with so much confidence. My (failing to stated clearly) intention of 指出俄国经济好转还有其他原因 is not 那么要坚持说俄国的改革是失败的 (for that purpose, your critic is definitedly compelling), I am saying that Russia has some luck that China doesn't has (hence the perhas less iniquity--though that's not that much better than China as my impression goes, and less porportion of poluation in real, bear-bone destitute than China), and China has some luck Russia doesn't have (hence Russian need to experience some huge pain at the beginning). I don't care about which is more "successful" (so little boyish, and both of us are neither little nor boy). I care on how to bring up a country's potential for a happier life of its people (if I don't get you wrong, this is also your aim "而是需要论证如果没有这样的改革,俄国的经济要更好"). I believe that, bought up to their own potential, the material living standard (per capita consumption) of China will never catch that of Russia (not to mention America). But in this case, both of the policies (let's just simplify it in a static manner) are successful.

I am glad that, at least in my eyes, we reach some agreement on 比较今天的俄国和中国哪个更好是没有意义的.

Very integrated review. A slap on the face of the male Chauvinist Yanyang.

And maybe I am too sensitive on my own image in the eyes of a peer hence I can easily felt hostitility.

Memo to Self: Yanyang is really something...alas, I am too civilized to speak it out.



所有跟贴:


加跟贴

笔名: 密码(可选项): 注册笔名请按这里

标题:

内容(可选项):

URL(可选项):
URL标题(可选项):
图像(可选项):


所有跟贴·加跟贴·新语丝读书论坛http://www.xys.org/cgi-bin/mainpage.pl