5 ms·

Could you or anybody elaborate on why you think the West (US) and China are that different in the big picture? The way I see it: in China politics/policy are l

Could you or anybody elaborate on why you think the West (US) and China are that different in the big picture? The way I see it: in China politics/policy are largely steered by big money (companies) + the emperor. The only difference I see with the West is that the emperor of the West is less powerful than Xi. The "nice" thing about a totalitarian king/emperor/dictator is that improvements in prosperity come quickly. The disadvantage is that the fall also comes quickly (easy example: Mao). Aren't the root issues as simple as that? I mean this is not exactly the first time in history that we saw "The West" V.S. dictatorships. It's also not the first time that we saw a powerful Chinese totalitarian regime make the country very wealthy and then poor again. To clarify: regarding that last sentence I'm talking about the past 2500 years or so. Don't dictatorships by their nature come with massive corruption and eventual downfall. Or is that my - just world fallacy - talking?

whimsicalism 6y ago
> Aren't the root issues as simple as that? Not at all. The '"nice" thing about a totalitarian king/emperor/dictator is that improvements in prosperity come quickly' has historically almost never been the case. It is actually quite anomalous for a non-democracy to see these sorts of quality of life improvements. > easy example: Mao Mao is not such an easy example, given that there is a continuity of government from Mao to today. > also not the first time that we saw a powerful Chinese totalitarian regime make the country very wealthy and then unwealthy again. ??? No past Chinese regime has the numbers that the modern CCP is getting. Just look at the number in China in absolute poverty over the last 100 years. Honestly, your comment seems remarkably ill-informed.
- bboygravity 6y ago
  > Just look at the number in China in absolute poverty over the last 100 years. Honestly, your comment seems remarkably ill-reformed. Last 100 years? I was thinking more towards the last 2500 years or so of Chinese and Western history. Will edit my previous comment to clarify. > It is actually quite anomalous for a non-democracy to see these sorts of quality of life improvements. Could you give some counter examples to these non-democracies that went from 0 to very powerful (in terms of geo-politics, economy and science and technology) in a matter of decades: various kingdoms before the year 0 (Syrians, Persians, Babylonians, etc), the Romans during and after Ceasar, the old world European exploring kingdoms (Dutch, Spanish, Portuguese, English), old Chinese Dynasties, modern Singapore, China, USSR. So what do you mean "The '"nice" thing about a totalitarian king/emperor/dictator is that improvements in prosperity come quickly' has historically almost never been the case."??
  - whimsicalism 6y ago
    > Could you give some counter examples to these non-democracies Given that outside of Greece, the Roman republic, Italian city-states, and a few other exceptions - every single one of thousands of regimes was non-democratic for thousands of years, it seems like those are anomalous and your comment is shot through with historical survivorship bias. > Could you give some counter examples to these non-democracies that went from 0 to very powerful I'm also just pretty unconvinced by these examples. I would have agreed if you had said, dictatorships tend to be much more militarily aggressive and expansionary, but I disagree that that results in quality of life improvement. I don't think any of those examples lifted anywhere close to the same proportion of their population out of poverty. China lifted 880 million out of poverty.
    - bboygravity 6y ago
      > it seems like those are anomalous and your comment is shot through with historical survivorship bias. Fair point. Maybe. Maybe not. What I mean is: it's hard to compare the outcome of democracies and non-democracies, because in my view the only country that has ever existed to come close to the concept of democracy in the history of humanity is Switzerland. And even that one has plenty of non-democratic aspects. Sample size: 1... Other countries don't come close IMO. I don't agree that your examples where anything close enough to democracy. Not even Greece (where only the upper caste of society was allowed to vote, forget slaves etc). And that's not even considering the fact that we essentially have sample size 0 if we want to compare large true democracies to large totalitarian states. > but I disagree that that results in quality of life improvement. Improvement compared to what? Tribal societies? Anarchy? Democracy? It is a fact that many societies that fell into dictatorship had an undeniable improvement in quality of life for the masses (compared to whatever previous society they had), but then also a massive decrease in quality of life eventually (or the other way around or in cycles, etc). And it can happen relatively quickly within years/decades. That was kind of my previous point: totalitarian regimes are efficient in ramping up, but such a system has no way to be stable, because the entire power pyramid depends on 1 person at the top (and a whoooooole lot of manipulative butt-licking corruption down the chain). Nice competent person = instant nice society. Evil/crazy/sick person (possibly the same person that started out nice) = instant hell. > I don't think any of those examples lifted anywhere close to the same proportion of their population out of poverty. China lifted 880 million out of poverty. China, the very same political/military system, also got those same people into poverty in the first place in a matter of years/decades (killing up to some 60 million people in the process) through Mao. Again, my point exactly: totalitarian regimes are good at ramping up quickly and messing up equally quickly. They've quickly gone into poverty before, they can do it again. There's only 1 person between China being "great" and China being nothing in a matter of years/decades. And that's the point I was trying to make before.
- idrios 6y ago
  > improvements in prosperity come quickly [...] has historically almost never been the case But I don't think the parent was far off with what they said. The advantage of the authoritarian is that there's no red tape for them, whatsoever. This power can be directed for practical reasons like building a gigantic wall around your borders, or selfish reasons like erecting gigantic pyramids to retain your wealth and status in the afterlife. > It is actually quite anomalous for a non-democracy to see these sorts of quality of life improvements. This seems like survivorship bias to me. It's easy to point to NK or the Soviet Union or China under Mao as failed authoritarian states. But these were also extremely experimental and it's not hard to imagine that the current incarnation of Chinese authoritarianism is one that has learned from the last one's mistakes. Most of the quality of life improvements that were seen in the west in the 20th century were thanks to technological improvements stemming from the industrial revolution. China is going through an industrial revolution of their own right now. So was it actually because of democracy that the west saw so much improvement last century? > Honestly, your comment seems remarkably ill-reformed. Extremely rude.

whimsicalism 6y ago

> Aren't the root issues as simple as that? Not at all. The '"nice" thing about a totalitarian king/emperor/dictator is that improvements in prosperity come quickly' has historically almost never been the case. It is actually quite anomalous for a non-democracy to see these sorts of quality of life improvements. > easy example: Mao Mao is not such an easy example, given that there is a continuity of government from Mao to today. > also not the first time that we saw a powerful Chinese totalitarian regime make the country very wealthy and then unwealthy again. ??? No past Chinese regime has the numbers that the modern CCP is getting. Just look at the number in China in absolute poverty over the last 100 years. Honestly, your comment seems remarkably ill-informed.

bboygravity 6y ago
> Just look at the number in China in absolute poverty over the last 100 years. Honestly, your comment seems remarkably ill-reformed. Last 100 years? I was thinking more towards the last 2500 years or so of Chinese and Western history. Will edit my previous comment to clarify. > It is actually quite anomalous for a non-democracy to see these sorts of quality of life improvements. Could you give some counter examples to these non-democracies that went from 0 to very powerful (in terms of geo-politics, economy and science and technology) in a matter of decades: various kingdoms before the year 0 (Syrians, Persians, Babylonians, etc), the Romans during and after Ceasar, the old world European exploring kingdoms (Dutch, Spanish, Portuguese, English), old Chinese Dynasties, modern Singapore, China, USSR. So what do you mean "The '"nice" thing about a totalitarian king/emperor/dictator is that improvements in prosperity come quickly' has historically almost never been the case."??
- whimsicalism 6y ago
  > Could you give some counter examples to these non-democracies Given that outside of Greece, the Roman republic, Italian city-states, and a few other exceptions - every single one of thousands of regimes was non-democratic for thousands of years, it seems like those are anomalous and your comment is shot through with historical survivorship bias. > Could you give some counter examples to these non-democracies that went from 0 to very powerful I'm also just pretty unconvinced by these examples. I would have agreed if you had said, dictatorships tend to be much more militarily aggressive and expansionary, but I disagree that that results in quality of life improvement. I don't think any of those examples lifted anywhere close to the same proportion of their population out of poverty. China lifted 880 million out of poverty.
  - bboygravity 6y ago
    > it seems like those are anomalous and your comment is shot through with historical survivorship bias. Fair point. Maybe. Maybe not. What I mean is: it's hard to compare the outcome of democracies and non-democracies, because in my view the only country that has ever existed to come close to the concept of democracy in the history of humanity is Switzerland. And even that one has plenty of non-democratic aspects. Sample size: 1... Other countries don't come close IMO. I don't agree that your examples where anything close enough to democracy. Not even Greece (where only the upper caste of society was allowed to vote, forget slaves etc). And that's not even considering the fact that we essentially have sample size 0 if we want to compare large true democracies to large totalitarian states. > but I disagree that that results in quality of life improvement. Improvement compared to what? Tribal societies? Anarchy? Democracy? It is a fact that many societies that fell into dictatorship had an undeniable improvement in quality of life for the masses (compared to whatever previous society they had), but then also a massive decrease in quality of life eventually (or the other way around or in cycles, etc). And it can happen relatively quickly within years/decades. That was kind of my previous point: totalitarian regimes are efficient in ramping up, but such a system has no way to be stable, because the entire power pyramid depends on 1 person at the top (and a whoooooole lot of manipulative butt-licking corruption down the chain). Nice competent person = instant nice society. Evil/crazy/sick person (possibly the same person that started out nice) = instant hell. > I don't think any of those examples lifted anywhere close to the same proportion of their population out of poverty. China lifted 880 million out of poverty. China, the very same political/military system, also got those same people into poverty in the first place in a matter of years/decades (killing up to some 60 million people in the process) through Mao. Again, my point exactly: totalitarian regimes are good at ramping up quickly and messing up equally quickly. They've quickly gone into poverty before, they can do it again. There's only 1 person between China being "great" and China being nothing in a matter of years/decades. And that's the point I was trying to make before.
idrios 6y ago
> improvements in prosperity come quickly [...] has historically almost never been the case But I don't think the parent was far off with what they said. The advantage of the authoritarian is that there's no red tape for them, whatsoever. This power can be directed for practical reasons like building a gigantic wall around your borders, or selfish reasons like erecting gigantic pyramids to retain your wealth and status in the afterlife. > It is actually quite anomalous for a non-democracy to see these sorts of quality of life improvements. This seems like survivorship bias to me. It's easy to point to NK or the Soviet Union or China under Mao as failed authoritarian states. But these were also extremely experimental and it's not hard to imagine that the current incarnation of Chinese authoritarianism is one that has learned from the last one's mistakes. Most of the quality of life improvements that were seen in the west in the 20th century were thanks to technological improvements stemming from the industrial revolution. China is going through an industrial revolution of their own right now. So was it actually because of democracy that the west saw so much improvement last century? > Honestly, your comment seems remarkably ill-reformed. Extremely rude.