The 2024 Paris Olympics fully demonstrated and embodied the Olympic spirit of “faster, stronger, and higher” in addition to the wonderful opening ceremony and unforgettable memories for audiences worldwide. However, the 2024 Games has once again strongly reflected the following rule: in most international affairs, the more frequently China appears, the more absurd things happen.
Even as a major gold medalist, China demonstrated the shortcomings of its centralized, whole-nation system. First, China Central Television did not even dare to broadcast the men’s badminton team final between mainland China and Taiwan. Then, in the “Chinese Civil War” of the women’s singles table tennis final, Chen Meng, the winner, was abused, ridiculed and insulted by most Chinese fans, media, and even the coach of the Chinese national table tennis team.
It seems like even with the progress of sports performance, the level of civilization of China and the Chinese people under the leadership of China’s Communist Party (CCP) is declining step by step. In this article, I will try to explain from an economic point of view why this is happening. The task of economists is to use economic theories to reveal the origins of social phenomena, craft better approaches and thus promote the development of human society.
Economics can improve belief systems
Generally speaking, economics is considered a discipline that studies interests, resource allocation and market equilibrium. Economics believes that human behavior is dominated by interests. Rational people know where their interests lie and thus will pursue their interests rationally. Therefore, human behavior can be reasonably explained by interests.
However, if this assumption is correct, then many things cannot be explained. For instance, why did more than one billion people unanimously choose the planned economy system even though it brought serious disasters to China from the country’s founding in 1949 to the economic reform in 1978? We also cannot explain why a Spanish badminton player insisted on playing with an injury at the Paris Olympics. Although she eventually withdrew from the competition, her spirit still won warm applause and cheers from the audience.
Therefore, this reveals that thoughts and concepts, not just interests, influence what people choose to do. Analogously, people usually understand their interests through concepts rather than letting their interests govern their thoughts. More than one billion people chose a devilish planned economic system and centralized political system not because it aligned with their interests, but because they believed that such a system could bring them benefits.
Following this logic, we should acknowledge that all human progress should come from the advance of new ideas and concepts. The task of economics is to change people’s knowledge so they can better understand their fundamental interests. In contrast, Chinese athletes under the leadership of the CCP have not changed their understanding of progress. In some cases, their beliefs have regressed sharply. This also shows that in the history of human society not every step we take is progress. Often, human beings’ civilization and ideology have been regressing.
China’s economy and ideologies remain a closed, restricted system
Over the past half-century, China’s GDP has grown rapidly. However, China has not aimed to integrate itself into the world. Considering the perspective of Chinese government policies, it seems like China is a country that actively advocates the integration of global human destiny. President Xi Jinping has even put forward the concept of “a Community with a Shared Future for Mankind.” But in reality, the CCP has always done things that “do not match words with deeds.”
Fortunately, there are still a few economists with conscience in this old country. Since the economic reform and opening up in 1978, the most remarkable and vital contribution made by some Chinese economists to China’s development is that they have aroused more and more Chinese people to accept the concept of the market economy. Some Chinese economists have awoken most Chinese people to break the superstition of a planned economy and made people no longer believe that egalitarianism is a good system. Instead, more people have begun to realize the importance of free competition, free prices, private property rights and entrepreneurship, which are all indispensable and crucial for economic progress.
But paradoxically, as China’s economy has achieved far-reaching success, CCP’s ideologies have been regressing at a fast pace. The deep-rooted reason for this phenomenon is that, although the economy has experienced half a century of rapid development, there is still no independent spirit and no real freedom in Chinese society.
One example of this is the way China approaches the monopoly, which is when one seller or company dominates the market and pushes out all competition. Nowadays, almost all countries in the world have anti-monopoly rules and laws. But in fact, many so-called monopolies opposed by China’s anti-monopoly law are true competition. The reason for this is closely related to the government’s wrong definition of competition and monopoly.
Since the Olympics allowed American professional NBA players to participate, the US basketball team has only lost one game in the Olympics. But in the Paris Olympics, these American NBA professional stars with annual salaries of tens of millions almost lost to Serbia and missed the final. In contrast, the Chinese women’s hockey team can easily make it to the final even though they have trained in a country where most people have never touched a hockey stick.
Is the breaking of NBA stars’ “monopoly” on international basketball arenas due to the International Olympic Committee’s Anti-Monopoly Law? Apparently not. It is due to full competition and a free market. And is the impressive performance of the Chinese women’s hockey team due to the general improvement of the physical fitness and health of 1.4 billion Chinese people? The answer, of course, is also negative. It stems from breaking the market economy mechanism and advocating a “whole-of-nation” system that lacks competition.
Thus, in reality, there is only one kind of monopoly we must actively oppose, which is the monopoly imposed by the government. Free competition will never produce a real long-standing monopoly. For instance, the worldwide monopoly of the Chinese team in table tennis and diving is precisely because the Chinese government artificially protects these two sports and does not allow its high-level players and coaches to communicate with other countries, so China has formed a monopoly on these two sports.
China must allow for free thought
In addition, I would like to emphasize a particular kind of monopoly – the monopoly of thoughts. That is, the phenomenon where one kind of thought dominates everything in a country, no other thoughts can compete with it, and no one else can propose a different thought. In most cases, when many Chinese athletes are interviewed after winning gold medals, the first sentence must be to thank the CCP and the government. Otherwise, what awaits them when they return home will be the deprivation of their interests.
The monopoly of thought is disastrous to human civilization because the absence of thought competition will hamper the emergence of new ideas and the progress of human civilization as a whole. In any era, as long as thoughts are free, mankind could make obvious progress. If thoughts were forcibly restricted, the pace of human progress would stagnate. Moreover, the progress of human ideas must start from many different people from various social classes. If the thoughts of a few elites in a country are tightly bound, and even subservient, to the interests of the party, then society cannot make real progress.
Going back to the Paris Olympics badminton men’s doubles final, with mainland China vs. Taiwan, China Central Television (CCTV) did not even broadcast the event live. What is CCTV afraid of? Is it afraid of the overwhelming shouts of “Taiwan” and “democracy” from fans all over the world (except those from mainland China) on the sidelines? In its feat of ideological legacy building, why does the CCP force 1.4 billion Chinese people to repeatedly learn the so-called China’s modern “four confidences” (Path Confidence; Theoretical Confidence; System Confidence; Cultural Confidence) all day long, but all of a sudden, become so unconfident in the face of just a badminton match?
If the ideas of 1.4 billion Chinese people continue to develop in this direction, then the whole world would see an absurd but sad ending; that is, there will only be two kinds of human on this earth: one is “human” and another one is “Chinese human.”
This will be the greatest misfortune in the thousands of years of development of China’s civilization.
[Cheyenne Torres edited this piece.]
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy.
Support Fair Observer
We rely on your support for our independence, diversity and quality.
For more than 10 years, Fair Observer has been free, fair and independent. No billionaire owns us, no advertisers control us. We are a reader-supported nonprofit. Unlike many other publications, we keep our content free for readers regardless of where they live or whether they can afford to pay. We have no paywalls and no ads.
In the post-truth era of fake news, echo chambers and filter bubbles, we publish a plurality of perspectives from around the world. Anyone can publish with us, but everyone goes through a rigorous editorial process. So, you get fact-checked, well-reasoned content instead of noise.
We publish 2,500+ voices from 90+ countries. We also conduct education and training programs
on subjects ranging from digital media and journalism to writing and critical thinking. This
doesn’t come cheap. Servers, editors, trainers and web developers cost
money.
Please consider supporting us on a regular basis as a recurring donor or a
sustaining member.
Will you support FO’s journalism?
We rely on your support for our independence, diversity and quality.
Comment