Posts from Tales from a parallel world.

Anthill, heh )

there are very active attempts to develop quality science in the country, world-class science, with an understanding that now, with China "nipping at their heels" and Vietnam looming, Korea cannot do without high science and high technologies. There are no minerals here that can be dug up "for free" and sold, so they have to work.

It turns out they have brought the story of Munchausen to life. In a sense, they pulled themselves out of the swamp?

Definitely! And not just them, but all the countries of East Asia. The leap of South Korea, as well as the leap of Taiwan—there are subtle differences in strategy, but the basic principles are similar—it is the leap of countries that have no resources at all. Taiwan has at least some, but Korea has none. None at all. Zero.

Where did they start? What followed what?

The classic model of the dictatorship of development. It has been tested many times: first under a pseudo-democratic "sauce," then under a pseudo-communist one. Now Vietnam and China operate according to this model; previously, South Korea and Taiwan modernized this way, and to some extent Singapore, although it is a city-state with its own inevitable specifics.

What does this model provide for? A bet on cheap, high-quality labor. The only thing these countries had was a very large number of disciplined people prone to following orders. The key word here is the "wet-rice culture," which for centuries formed practically industrial habits regarding labor and working in collectives, and fostered high trust in the state. Accordingly, these countries bet on labor—raw materials and technologies were imported from abroad, and people sat and processed it all into finished products. Previously, Koreans did this, and now the Chinese do.

This is a standard path; Korea was simply one of the first countries to follow it. At the same time, of course, this path had many unpleasant moments; "there is no war without losses." This involved the very harsh suppression of the labor movement and the harsh, repressive suppression of the opposition—in terms of authoritarianism, these regimes varied from strongly authoritarian to overtly dictatorial; there were no democracies here. In addition, for the purpose of mobilizing the masses, the nationalist factor was actively used in forms that would cause an average Russian intellectual to have a fit of nausea—all of this definitely happened. The leadership itself often didn't believe in this nationalist nonsense much, but they used it very well for mobilizing the people.

Also, of course, a significant role was played by the most meticulous attitude toward their own international financial rating, as well as, in the case of Korea and Taiwan, the alliance with the USA as a guarantor of security. That is the model.

I will say right away that it is unpleasant, but no other model would have worked at all. There were attempts to find an alternative—all of them failed. We will never know if it could have been done differently; for centuries the intelligentsia will criticize all this, because the intelligentsia in Korea is slightly left-wing, "pink," and democratic. They criticize this model terribly and say that all this was a suppression of freedoms, and that social democracy, free medicine, and education should have been introduced immediately, and censorship removed (although free medicine and education happened quite quickly). And they would have had a complete paradise long ago. Maybe they would have—I don't know, and no one will ever know. However, they tried to test it, they tried to build a liberal democracy in the region, but it always ended badly.

If we think about the development of science, then school education must also be developed. What is its level in South Korea now?

It is very good. Also with various shortcomings, but I could talk about that for a long time. One of the characteristic features of East Asian culture is the cult of education. Education is good, it is cool. This cult is due to historical tradition: for centuries in countries of the Confucian system, education specifically was an important marker of social success. On the other hand, there was an examination system that ensured social mobility specifically based on education. If you wanted to live well, the most reliable social elevator was educational.

Currently, South Korea has 12-year secondary education. The school is built on the Soviet model, so to speak. Generally, to simplify—there are two school models in the world: the American and the Soviet. The American model means that only the elite receive a normal, quality education—those who were pushed in this direction by parents or whose brains are wired accordingly. The masses there aren't taught much book wisdom; they are taught more how to play basketball and a bit of something else.

And there is the Soviet model, in which the base model of the Prussian gymnasium, originally intended to train a few percent of the population, was spread to practically 100% of the population. They take the scheme that was originally created to train officials and managers from the elite in a society with a very strong pyramidal structure, where this elite was very small, and this scheme is made universal. This approach triumphed in the USSR and triumphed in Korea. That is, there is rigid school education here, with very little freedom in terms of choosing subjects and a very high bar of requirements.

and they've been in the politics thread lately

This is what the harsh local winter looks like (not just in Singapore, as this is rare for Singapore because they have a good drainage system. But in neighboring countries, I occasionally get caught in similar downpours where the water is up to my waist).