3 ms·

Opression is necessary to development. Looking back for the cruelest opressions done by some nations towards American Indian, Asian, African in the early and ha

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.

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.