Brooks is confusing collectivism with dictatorship, and they're not related. You can have a collectivist democracy, like Japan, or an individualist dictatorship, like Saddam's Iraq or Nazi Germany.
China's recent economic improvements have nothing to do with its collectivism. They're due to more freedom, both economic and personal, for its citizens. Taiwan, whose people are arguably very similar to the Chinese in cultural outlook, started prospering as they emerged from martial law under the Kuomintang to democracy. Hopefully China will follow the same path as Taiwan and South Korea in this respect.
I get the sense that Brooks wants to prove that dictatorships are just as morally legitimate as democracies, and that the people of Asia (or the Middle East, or wherever) are somehow culturally programmed to thrive under a dictatorship. He's got it backwards -- the people thrive not because of the dictatorship, but in spite of it. Once they're freed, they'll thrive all the more.
Sweeping generalization after sweeping generalization, this article not only provides no substance, but then starts bringing up some of the stupidest "what if" scenarios I've ever read.
"What if Asia all of a sudden started doing well economically?" -- Has this person been under a rock for the past 50 years? East Asia has consistently grown economically since the mid 20th century and and some nations currently rank with the nations of the Western World: Japan, Singapore, South Korea, etc.
Granted, some Asian economies have their problems, but so do many so called individualist Western economies. Mexico, for example, is easily no better off than China.
It's an 800-word op-ed column. The essence of the form is generalizations, vague trend-spotting, and suggestive questions.
You've also deceptively misquoted the article to make it easier to mock. Brooks' actual question is "What happens if collectivist societies, especially those in Asia, rise economically and come to rival the West?"
There's a lot more nuance to that question than your rephrasing, and Brooks is just as aware of Japan, Singapore, and South Korea as you are.
I didn't quote him, I paraphrased him, If the quotation marks put you off, then I'm sorry.
However, the answer is the same. 'Collectivist,' Asian societies have risen economically and do rival the West. Even the many of the Communist ones which are collectivist, not due to their Asianess, but due to a certain Western import.
One of the interesting things about the world is that it has provided a laboratory in which we can actually see. Compare East and West Germany pre-unification. Compare North and South Korea. Compare Cuba and Florida.
I would argue that the China example is somewhat invalid. Seems to me that China's economy has been expanding because they've begun to mimic "western" capitalistic principles more closely than in the past. That is, Chinese citizens are more able and willing to start up businesses for personal gain, something that wasn't really possible a couple decades ago.
Also, I picked the cow and the hay, even though I lean more towards individualism-- maybe not compared to the average American, though (I'm Chinese, born in the US).
If you're going to make a prediction of China on which you will bet, bet that China will continue to be China.
This is more that a tautology -- I suspect there is a tremendous stability to the underlying forms of culture and society in China that seems to transcend ideology. Mao just turned out to be the latest Emperor, after all. I predict that China will more or less continue to have its current borders. It will continue to have a highly centralized government. China will ultimately defeat invasions (including cultural ones) through assimilation. If democracy ever comes to China, it will be a uniquely Chinese version that will somehow manage to resemble an imperial government.
I remember learning about China in a class and one of the things that was said was that they perceived Communism slightly differently from the old USSR, they perceived it in a more Confucian light.
Corporate capitalism, though, is a rather miraculous invention. It manages to preserve the stifling collectivism and anti-creative properties of socialism, while maintaining the greed, rampant inequality, and social devolution inherent to runaway capitalism. Worst of both worlds, yay.
China's recent economic improvements have nothing to do with its collectivism. They're due to more freedom, both economic and personal, for its citizens. Taiwan, whose people are arguably very similar to the Chinese in cultural outlook, started prospering as they emerged from martial law under the Kuomintang to democracy. Hopefully China will follow the same path as Taiwan and South Korea in this respect.
I get the sense that Brooks wants to prove that dictatorships are just as morally legitimate as democracies, and that the people of Asia (or the Middle East, or wherever) are somehow culturally programmed to thrive under a dictatorship. He's got it backwards -- the people thrive not because of the dictatorship, but in spite of it. Once they're freed, they'll thrive all the more.