Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Maybe that's the key. Those three are doing extremely well.
Japan's done amazingly well in 1945, but that doesn't mean we can regard it as evidence of the success of the kind of neo-liberal capitalism that has been in vogue in the United States during the past thirties years. The people in charge of the Occupation of Japan worked mainly under the influence of the New Deal and pursued redistributive and egalitarian policies. In 1945, Douglas MacArthur himself, in a burst of distinctly socialist-sounding rhetoric, called upon the Japanese government "to insure that those who till the soil of Japan shall have a more equal opportunity to enjoy the fruits of their labour" and to "destroy the economic bondage which has enslaved the Japanese farmers through centuries of feudal oppression."
It's impossible to overestimate the importance of the land reform programme masterminded by agriculture economist Wolf Ladejinsky (an anti-Communist, pro-New Deal Democrat) and socialist Japanese minister of agriculture Hiro Wada. This turned a potentially volatile rural proletariat consisting of landless tenant farmers into small landowners with a stake in a stable society. This peaceful transformation, which avoided discontent and disruption by compensating the original landowners, was central to the stability of postwar Japan. Due to the full-scale conflict then raging between the nationalists and the Communist, Ladejinsky was unfortunately unable to implement a similar programme in mainland China. Had he been successful, China's postwar history might have been much gentler.