5 ms·

Large scale social unrest is just what the communists fear the most. To me, that's not worrisome - it's hopeful. Just opining, and I understand that the colla

• SCHiM 11y ago
  > collateral costs Read "human lives". I understand and share your sentiment regarding the fact that a chance towards a (seemingly) more liberal form of government is good. But I'd be hesitant to call the costs of unrest at such a scale merely worrisome. The only thing I hope for is that change will come slowly, if it comes at all.
  • aianus 11y ago
    > The only thing I hope for is that change will come slowly, if it comes at all. That's worse than a bloody revolution. If change comes so slowly that you don't get to experience it in your lifetime you might as well have died anyways.
    • sliverstorm 11y ago
      Only if living conditions today are so bad you might as well be dead. Which is why I speculate revolutions might become rare, as progress has improved everyone's lot, even the lowest classes. Few people live in a wood-fired dirt-floor log cabin or wash their clothes in a tub by the river these days.
    • zhemao 11y ago
      There's a vast spectrum between bloody revolution and glacial change. You only need to go across the strait to see an example of quick but bloodless regime change. From the 1950s to the 1970s, Taiwan was an authoritarian one-party state under martial law. But from the late 70s on, the Taiwanese government steadily introduced reforms until it head its first direct presidential election in 1996. Today, Taiwan is a multi-party democracy with a stable economy. Certainly, it has its fair share of problems (there's been a lot of corruption scandals), but it's definitely come a long way.
• deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
• dmoy 11y ago
  The collateral cost from civil wars, revolution movements, or other massive uprisings in China is immense. Like absolutely staggering. The "collateral costs" have previously been in the >1,000,000 death range, and this has happened multiple times in the last few centuries. E.g. taiping rebellion (>10 million), Dungan revolt, Du Wenxiu, etc... The most recent large one only killed like 8 million people though, so we've got that going for us I guess.
• _nedR 11y ago
  You probably don't know what you are wishing for. Just scroll through this list : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic... 4 out of the 10 most deadliest human conflicts in human history happened in China. I have a suspicion that the Chinese leadership is acutely aware of this, and their world-view has been moulded by this (favouring stability over everything else including justice, freedom or human rights). When things go wrong there, they tend to go wrong in a big way. edit: To get some idea of the scale, The An Lushan Rebellion that occurred in the 7th century wiped out 15% of the world population at the time.
  • mkehrt 11y ago
    The An Lushan rebellion probably did not wipe out 15% of the world's population. This number comes from comparing before and after census numbers, which is hard because (a) the census was vastly disrupted by the war, and (b) the size of the empire was decreased by the war, so former provinces weren't counted in the later censuses. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Lushan_Rebellion#Death_toll https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Lushan_Rebellion#Death_toll