4 ms·

I think many of us would be more supportive of outsourcing manufacturing to developing countries if their government aligned more with Western ideals. The fact

I think many of us would be more supportive of outsourcing manufacturing to developing countries if their government aligned more with Western ideals. The fact is many countries, like Vietnam, are still "developing" because they have authoritarian governments that have been oppressing their population to some extent keeping their labor cheap while stunting their economic potential. We see the problems with this situation right now with Russia and China, whether it's buying oil from Russia or manufacturing in China, we've given these countries enormous amounts of power and influence by essentially funding their regimes. As we can see with the situation in Ukraine and Taiwan these regimes are not our friends or allies, even though we have allowed ourselves to become attached at the hip to them economically. As a western consumer I would much rather see my money either stay in country or go to a country that is a political ally and shares more western political and economic ideals.

bigcat12345678 4y ago
Opression is necessary to development. Looking back for the cruelest opressions done by some nations towards American Indian, Asian, African in the early and haydays of industrial revolution. You are going to see opressions happening again and again in the future as well. It's just a natural process of society development.
- erichocean 4y ago
  > Opression is necessary to development. That's one of the main theme's of Hitler's Mein Kampf. Always nice to see how classy the HN comment section is. Well done, everyone.
  - nsonha 4y ago
    maybe that's true and we need to question whether development no matter what is in line with our values
  - bigcat12345678 4y ago
    No, oppression being necessary for development is an observation from history, which is true for the majority of the world's leading national economy. It's different from a political ideology. Because such observation does not justify the oppression, unlike hitler's case. But ironically, your own comment is indeed a prime example of your own ridicule: poorly informed individual making shallow derogatory snab without consecutive feedback.
- fiftyfifty 4y ago
  I can't agree with this at all. We have plenty of modern examples that show this to not be the case: West Germany versus East Germany, South Korea versus North Korea, Taiwan versus China. In all these examples less oppressions results in a stronger economy and a higher standard of living for citizens.
  - dirtyid 4y ago
    West Germany was marshal planned by US at height of economic primacy and was previously developed which made recovery to prior levels possible. SK and TW were both bloody authoritarian govs sponsored by US (for coldwar containment) who had industrial policies, again supported by US at height of economic primacy. As far as I'm aware, there are zero countries that has ever successfully developed without initial phase of authoritarianism / wide scale abuse - europeans had their colonies, US her slaves - it's basically a prerequisite. The second requirement being either on the good books and gaining the support of reigning hegemons or at least not be actively contained by them (East Germany). Historically, developing countries simply require massive repression (and the occasional dose of cultural genocide) to establish stable national identities and enviroments where people behave like good cogs in the machine to build up the material conditions to enable less opression / more liberalization for later generations. Authoritarianism is the worst form of government for developement... except for all the others that have been tried.
    - WitCanStain 4y ago
      What about Finland? Very poor in the 1800s, rapidly industrialised and became wealthy in the 20th century. They did have a civil war but I'm not quite sure that counts as oppression by itself.
      - dirtyid 4y ago
        My understanding of Finnish history is rough but from what I understand Finland was also industrialized in late 1800s as Russian Dutchy under Alexander II's reforms. IIRC reward for being loyal unlike uprising in crimea and poland. It got the benefits of empire. Granted much slower than rest of Europe due to geography. Civil war over russification not unlike purges in SKorean or Taiwan/ROC, at the end of the day you need get the population in line under a national identity either through ideology or coercsion so they can focus on development instead of be distracted by sectarian drama.
koheripbal 4y ago
It would be helpful to characterize them as "democratic" ideals - not "western" ideals. There is nothing intrinsically "western" about human rights. In fact, calling them "western" ideas is exactly how autocracies belittle them to their people.
- fiftyfifty 4y ago
  I agree, the term "Western Ideals" doesn't quite fit but it does go beyond democratic ideals which is why I didn't use that term. There are other aspects like a free market economy that extend way beyond a democratically elected government. I'm certainly open to a new term to describe it.
  - koheripbal 4y ago
    Free Market Economics is even LESS tied to the west in modern times than democracy. There are very very few countries that haven't dropped centralized gov't controlled economies - even in Asia.
- nine_k 4y ago
  > There is nothing intrinsically "western" about human rights. It would be interesting if you could give an example of similar ideas from seriously non-Western cultures. Say, Asia has plenty of cultures, a number of them with highly developed, original schools of philosophy.
  - koheripbal 4y ago
    I'm not sure what you mean by "similar ideas" to human rights, but with regard to democracies in Asia: Japan, South Korea, Thailand, Philippines, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Mongolia, Taiwan, East Timor, Micronesia
    - jimbokun 4y ago
      Before or after they were majorly influenced by the West?
larme 4y ago
Western ideals like abortions should be illegal?
nsonha 4y ago
> authoritarian governments that have been oppressing their population to some extent keeping their labor cheap to think labor being cheap is the work of the communist party is pretty ridiculous. Authoritarian or not, no government benefits from their citizens being poor (capitalism does). The problem with authoritarian governments is that they are incapable of raising income, not that they do that by intent.
- gennot 4y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_leap_forward https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_leap_forward https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_korean_famine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_korean_famine > no government benefits from their citizens being poor (capitalism does) Why do you make this incredibly stupid claim?
  - nsonha 4y ago
    I suggest you learn a little bit of basic logic before calling people stupid. "Poverty happened under oppressive regimes", is pretty far from "oppressive regimes want poverty". I never said they didn't cause poverty, I said it's not what they want. I'm not sure what more insulting: you calling me "incredibly stupid", or your incredibly poor understanding of basic logic. The former is kind of personal, but the latter is insulting to humans' intellect as a whole so it's a big deal.

bigcat12345678 4y ago

Opression is necessary to development. Looking back for the cruelest opressions done by some nations towards American Indian, Asian, African in the early and haydays of industrial revolution. You are going to see opressions happening again and again in the future as well. It's just a natural process of society development.

erichocean 4y ago
> Opression is necessary to development. That's one of the main theme's of Hitler's Mein Kampf. Always nice to see how classy the HN comment section is. Well done, everyone.
- nsonha 4y ago
  maybe that's true and we need to question whether development no matter what is in line with our values
- bigcat12345678 4y ago
  No, oppression being necessary for development is an observation from history, which is true for the majority of the world's leading national economy. It's different from a political ideology. Because such observation does not justify the oppression, unlike hitler's case. But ironically, your own comment is indeed a prime example of your own ridicule: poorly informed individual making shallow derogatory snab without consecutive feedback.
fiftyfifty 4y ago
I can't agree with this at all. We have plenty of modern examples that show this to not be the case: West Germany versus East Germany, South Korea versus North Korea, Taiwan versus China. In all these examples less oppressions results in a stronger economy and a higher standard of living for citizens.
- dirtyid 4y ago
  West Germany was marshal planned by US at height of economic primacy and was previously developed which made recovery to prior levels possible. SK and TW were both bloody authoritarian govs sponsored by US (for coldwar containment) who had industrial policies, again supported by US at height of economic primacy. As far as I'm aware, there are zero countries that has ever successfully developed without initial phase of authoritarianism / wide scale abuse - europeans had their colonies, US her slaves - it's basically a prerequisite. The second requirement being either on the good books and gaining the support of reigning hegemons or at least not be actively contained by them (East Germany). Historically, developing countries simply require massive repression (and the occasional dose of cultural genocide) to establish stable national identities and enviroments where people behave like good cogs in the machine to build up the material conditions to enable less opression / more liberalization for later generations. Authoritarianism is the worst form of government for developement... except for all the others that have been tried.
  - WitCanStain 4y ago
    What about Finland? Very poor in the 1800s, rapidly industrialised and became wealthy in the 20th century. They did have a civil war but I'm not quite sure that counts as oppression by itself.
    - dirtyid 4y ago
      My understanding of Finnish history is rough but from what I understand Finland was also industrialized in late 1800s as Russian Dutchy under Alexander II's reforms. IIRC reward for being loyal unlike uprising in crimea and poland. It got the benefits of empire. Granted much slower than rest of Europe due to geography. Civil war over russification not unlike purges in SKorean or Taiwan/ROC, at the end of the day you need get the population in line under a national identity either through ideology or coercsion so they can focus on development instead of be distracted by sectarian drama.

koheripbal 4y ago

It would be helpful to characterize them as "democratic" ideals - not "western" ideals. There is nothing intrinsically "western" about human rights. In fact, calling them "western" ideas is exactly how autocracies belittle them to their people.

fiftyfifty 4y ago
I agree, the term "Western Ideals" doesn't quite fit but it does go beyond democratic ideals which is why I didn't use that term. There are other aspects like a free market economy that extend way beyond a democratically elected government. I'm certainly open to a new term to describe it.
- koheripbal 4y ago
  Free Market Economics is even LESS tied to the west in modern times than democracy. There are very very few countries that haven't dropped centralized gov't controlled economies - even in Asia.
nine_k 4y ago
> There is nothing intrinsically "western" about human rights. It would be interesting if you could give an example of similar ideas from seriously non-Western cultures. Say, Asia has plenty of cultures, a number of them with highly developed, original schools of philosophy.
- koheripbal 4y ago
  I'm not sure what you mean by "similar ideas" to human rights, but with regard to democracies in Asia: Japan, South Korea, Thailand, Philippines, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, Mongolia, Taiwan, East Timor, Micronesia
  - jimbokun 4y ago
    Before or after they were majorly influenced by the West?

larme 4y ago

Western ideals like abortions should be illegal?

nsonha 4y ago

> authoritarian governments that have been oppressing their population to some extent keeping their labor cheap to think labor being cheap is the work of the communist party is pretty ridiculous. Authoritarian or not, no government benefits from their citizens being poor (capitalism does). The problem with authoritarian governments is that they are incapable of raising income, not that they do that by intent.

gennot 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_leap_forward https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_leap_forward https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Chinese_Famine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_korean_famine https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_korean_famine > no government benefits from their citizens being poor (capitalism does) Why do you make this incredibly stupid claim?
- nsonha 4y ago
  I suggest you learn a little bit of basic logic before calling people stupid. "Poverty happened under oppressive regimes", is pretty far from "oppressive regimes want poverty". I never said they didn't cause poverty, I said it's not what they want. I'm not sure what more insulting: you calling me "incredibly stupid", or your incredibly poor understanding of basic logic. The former is kind of personal, but the latter is insulting to humans' intellect as a whole so it's a big deal.