5 ms·

> [India] has many of its own bureaucratic problems without having to be a communist state, true India's issues being the result of bureaucratic problems is no

> [India] has many of its own bureaucratic problems without having to be a communist state, true India's issues being the result of bureaucratic problems is not what I suggest. > If my family gets sick and some of them die of neglect in my house, it doesn't make my neighbor who outright starved and murdered most of his family any less reprehensible I agree. But that is not analogous to the situation with Chinese Communism. A more analogous situation is this one: A man has ten children, each of whom has fallen sick. The man decides to heal them. He has little knowledge, and due to his poor care the first three children he treats die. But he learns from his mistakes, and he successfully heals the rest of his children. At first, we thought poorly of the man. "Doesn't he know that this method of healing will only hurt his children?" we asked. But as the man learned more and more about healing, we realised that his heart had always been in the right place, and that he was now great caregiver. And, meanwhile, the neighbor's ten children had also fallen sick. This man decided it was best to let nature take its course, and he did not try to heal his children. Four passed away, three were sickly for the rest of their lives, and three fully recovered. Looking at these two fathers, at first we looked down on the one who tried to heal his children, but only hurt them. Much better to let nature take its course, we thought. But, by the end, we realised that the first man was in fact the better carer for his children. > In any case, India too saw large increases in human development as it left behind pseudo-socialist policies and embraced a more market-friendly form of governance during the same time-frame as China.. As a developing country, development is expected. The presence of development is almost irrelevant. So let's compare the rate of development of the two countries: even as India has developed, it has at the same time fallen further and further behind China. And let's compare the nature of the development: In China, unprecedented efforts have been made to ensure that the poorest of the nation are lifted up. In India, this is far from the case.

helloworld11 6y ago
And all of the things you describe about China, in both your larger analogy and in your final paragraph happened after the country abandoned its communist dogmas in favor of a market economy (a highly fascistic one to be sure but a market economy in many ways nonetheless). The original post as I interpreted it seemed to claim that China's communist experiment is what improved the lot of its people. It did not. As for India, it is falling behind and its governments since the end of colonial rule have made many mistakes to make development tragically slow but none of these are creations of market economics. They're the dredges of heavy handed and often corrupt bureaucratic administration (even if it doesn't self-label itself as socialist).
- garbagetime 6y ago
  You claim that the cause for China's success is its reduction of the state-control of its economy, and that China's Communist nature does not play a great role in its success. The countless countries with less state-control of the economy than China, but worse economic performance, stand as evidence strong that this is false. Not sure what a bureaucratic administration is meant to have to do with communism.

helloworld11 6y ago

And all of the things you describe about China, in both your larger analogy and in your final paragraph happened after the country abandoned its communist dogmas in favor of a market economy (a highly fascistic one to be sure but a market economy in many ways nonetheless). The original post as I interpreted it seemed to claim that China's communist experiment is what improved the lot of its people. It did not. As for India, it is falling behind and its governments since the end of colonial rule have made many mistakes to make development tragically slow but none of these are creations of market economics. They're the dredges of heavy handed and often corrupt bureaucratic administration (even if it doesn't self-label itself as socialist).

garbagetime 6y ago
You claim that the cause for China's success is its reduction of the state-control of its economy, and that China's Communist nature does not play a great role in its success. The countless countries with less state-control of the economy than China, but worse economic performance, stand as evidence strong that this is false. Not sure what a bureaucratic administration is meant to have to do with communism.