4 ms·
> Were they actually trying to play a better role beyond basic technocratic guidance, China wouldn't be a 2nd larger economy today, but a 1st one, and by a larg
by xtian 5y ago
> Were they actually trying to play a better role beyond basic technocratic guidance, China wouldn't be a 2nd larger economy today, but a 1st one, and by a large extend.
You know China is on track to surpass the US’ GDP in the 2030s, right? And that the Chinese middle class is growing while the US middle class is shrinking? Given that China was a completely impoverished agrarian country recovering from multiple colonial incursions in 1949, that’s a pretty remarkable accomplishment.
If no sophistication was involved, why hasn’t India seen the same outcomes since gaining its independence around the same time?
- baybal2 5y ago> If no sophistication was involved, why hasn’t India seen the same outcomes since gaining its independence around the same time? Because the West wasn't raining gold on India, and was raining gold on communist China instead. And it didn't because India wasn't willing to let in Western businesses, and give them a carte blanche to make money like China did. It also didn't because India wasn't starting from such a low base as China. It also didn't because Indian workers were a few cents per hour more expensive than Chinese. It also didn't because Indian workers had some absolutely minimal labour protections, unlike Chinese. It also didn't because India had some absolutely minimal semblance of rule of law, functioning legal system, and China didn't. It also didn't because India wasn't as completely open to corruption as the Chinese state was. The point that India was a more bureaucratic country than China back then can't hold water. Both countries were bureaucratic nightmares, and keep being them to this day, but for some reason this trope persists. As somebody who spend a big portion of my career in China, I will tell that China at no point was that libertarian capitalist paradise that the delirious Wall Street, and Silicon Valley people imagined it be.
- xtian 5y agoMy point is absolutely not that India was more bureaucratic. The decisive difference is that China was reestablished as a people’s republic led by a communist party which organizes the whole sphere of the economy to improve the overall standard of living. So now China has eliminated absolute poverty whereas India is still struggling to provide basic food security.
- baybal2 5y ago> The decisive difference is that China was reestablished as a people’s republic led by a communist party The communist party doesn't lead. Its political edicts are a complete mumbo jumbo. Tell me of a single sane person who can decipher any meaning from the phychomumbling of party heads on CCTV. Even CPC members themselves have barely any understanding what the hack their own party line is. > which organizes the whole sphere of the economy to improve the overall standard of living. The communist part did not organise anything, it literally been doing nothing except floating belly up on the water 20 years straight from 1990 to 2010, while Western money kept piling on them. I will not deny that some state companies attained a level of commercial success, and that some select municipalities had moderately competent hired hands working for them. But this was hardly a result of any deliberate effort. > China has eliminated absolute poverty whereas India is still struggling to provide basic food security. You have to say it's Chinese people who eliminated the absolute poverty, and not the talking head only showing in a village for a few hours once a few weeks to deliver ideological sermons from a loudspeaker. Saying the opposite would be an insult to ones intelligence when it's the party, and especially local party heads, which consistently keep rural people downtrodden.
- xtian 5y agoMumbo jumbo? I’ve read the CPC’s latest five-year plan, and it seemed pretty clear and concrete to me. Anyone interested can do the same: https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vQEtwcbYa9hTqs7ydJyEv2E0Z9SzAMzsD9mjwJ__wokTreiPEZGcW9hBqmsFOT8VeloCLdWLxLriRPu/pub https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vQEtwcbYa9hTqs7y... Based on my research into China’s poverty alleviation program I can only say you’re completely misrepresenting it. It’s a wide-ranging effort that includes the CPC building infrastructure, hospitals, and schools in the far reaches of the country. Of course you’re right it’s something all Chinese people should be proud of.
- yorwba 5y agoThe people's republic was established in 1949 without improving the standard of living much for the next three decades. Then Deng Xiaoping came along and abondoned organizing the whole sphere of the economy in favor of letting companies produce as much as they could sell. And the US right across the Pacific ocean happened to be very happy to buy cheap goods en masse. Without that foreign money pouring in, it would've been much harder to pay for all that poverty alleviation. India, too, has had Five Year Plans, but they don't seem to have helped that much. If they could get foreigners to give them more money, though...
- refurb 5y ago“On track” doesn’t mean much and based on population size, an equal GDP means 25% of GDP per capita which doesn’t sound quite as impressive.