5 ms·

> China is in a state of terminal decline People have been saying this 1949.

Upvoter33 4y ago
and, wow, it was true under Mao. In 1960, something like 30 million people starved. GDP up until the 80's was like that of a small US state.
- Barrin92 4y ago
  while Mao's era was comically brutal and took a wrecking ball to economic development it also unified the country (China's foremost problem throughout thousands of years of history), life expectancy jumped by 30(!) years, and the country obtained universal literacy. Today in India a quarter of the population is still illiterate. The evaluation of Mao's legacy seems somewhat emotional, short-sighted and ahistorical given that modern state formation, for example in Europe, was almost always preceded by catastrophic violence. And of course the rise of China in the following decades invalidates the claim that China 'declined terminally', unless we're literally inverting the meaning of the word 'terminal'.
  - refurb 4y ago
    The evaluation of Mao's legacy seems somewhat emotional Sorry for getting emotional about 30 million people killed by by a brutal, dictatorial government. Thanks for putting it in perspective! /s
    - Barrin92 4y ago
      I mean does perspective not matter if we're talking about history? The Qing conquest killed 30 million, so did the Taiping Rebellion. 40 million died during the Three Kingdom wars, in 200 AD! About half the population at the time. Dynastic historical change in China was always that violent. It's not that unlikely that people in a hundred years, if China continues to develop, look at that period as the foundation for it. No different than our perspective on Napoleon. Incredibly brutal, brought war to Europe, but also implemented the civic code, arguably the most influential legal document in history.
      - refurb 4y ago
        I see a difference between millions of deaths due to war and millions of deaths due to government incompetence/policy/brutality? By your logic the 6 million killed in the Holocaust shouldn't be such a big deal either.
        Barrin92 4y ago
        Of course it's a big deal, but certainly we're more mature than descending into Godwin's law two posts into the conversation? Mao despite his failures is the foundational figure of modern China. He's not Hitler, who brought ruin not just to the Jewish population but to Germany as well. Mao still matters in China, Hitler doesn't in Germany. It's historically impoverished to grasp for Hitler analogies and having a reflexive panic attack every time Mao is up for discussion. Same with Stalin. Both still have significant influence in Russia and China, among the people as well as leaders and understanding why that is makes some sense.
        refurb 4y ago
        I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Earlier you said "The Qing conquest killed 30 million, so did the Taiping Rebellion. 40 million died during the Three Kingdom wars, in 200 AD! About half the population at the time." I'm not sure how one could interpret that as anything other "no big deal Mao killed a lot of people, lots of people have died in other empires". And you're somehow conflating their legacy with the death toll. Those are separate things. Mao's brutal rule can be condemned while at the same time acknowledging his influence on China today. And I would argue that Hitler had a massive influence on what Germany is today. Look at its role in the EU and its policy towards other countries and conflicts.
  - csomar 4y ago
    > that modern state formation, for example in Europe, was almost always preceded by catastrophic violence Am I reading this correctly? As in to have the modern Europe, you'd have needed WW2?
    - Barrin92 4y ago
      not only modern Europe itself is the consequence of war, but so are its individual nation states. Bismarck explicitly engineered the three so-called unification wars because he believed that German unity was only achievable while facing an enemy, hence the symbolic founding of the nation in Versailles. Same is true for America really. The country transformed twice, once through civil war and then into a superpower with a modern state during World War II. Military competition and war both internal and external are by far the strongest drivers of modernization.
- bigbillheck 4y ago
  > In 1960, something like 30 million people starved. Interestingly if you check wikipedia it appears that China had major famines every decade or up until that particular one, and nothing since then.
whendoyoushrink 4y ago
And they were right for 35 of those years. Will they be right or wrong in the next 35? Wealth is a headwind against bad policy. Rich nations can survive many, many bad policies simply because they are rich. The policies it takes to get rich, stay rich, and continue to grow into the future all vary, and the transition is difficult to manage. I think the relevant question is: are China's current policies pushing the country in the right direction? I don't see how they are. Jack Ma shows how dangerous it is to be truly successful, so the next generation will at best be more conservative in what they pursue, and at worst won't even try. Given Western money won't be investing any more - the ability to realise capital gains is growing more difficult - and the CCP steals the wealth of potential investors, not being able to pursue big bests is probably inevitable anyway. China has AWFUL demographics that are getting worse - their population is projected to be 650M by 2100 - and worse it is aging fast, with > 50% post retirement age in the next decade to 3. On top of that, the CCP has re-emerged as the only force in China. CCP officials see stealing the wealth of other's as their right - a twist on the old joke to "the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's fortunes to steal". Minimal foreign investment, killing internal investment by stealing the wealth of anyone rich, rising wages, awful demographics and a polity determined to remain isolationist (with few to any friends) and knock down the high achievers sounds like a recipe for imminent (in the decades sense) collapse to me. Not to levels of Sub-Saharan Africa, but even just with their population decline, China's GDP is going to fall in absolute terms, even if their GDP PPP per capita can be improved. The scary thing is a Nuclear China in decline is likely to become increasingly erratic. Hopefully, the war in Ukraine gave China some pause, but having gone from starvation to world's largest economy in a generation, I'm not sure China is equipped for stagnation, let alone decline. I feel bad rooting for a likely vicious and brutal CCP internal crackdown over invasions of their neighbours, but that seems to me the lesser of two possible evils.
- vehementi 4y ago
  Well depends on what terminal decline means. GP added the caveat of regime change. You can't be right for X years and then wrong thereafter, that just meant you were incorrect that there was terminal decline.
- hakfoo 4y ago
seanmcdirmid 4y ago
> People have been saying this 1949. ...And they would have been right until the 1980s. "If only Taiwan were unified with the mainland in the 1950s, they also could have experienced the horrors of the cultural revolution" is not great marketing for reunification.
- FooBarWidget 4y ago
  China was in terminal decline in the late 1800s. The period until 1980s was not decline, it was attempt to recover with various success. Mistakes were made, but success were also made. Despite the famine, life expectancy was steadily increasing during the Cultural Revolution, in no small part thanks to the "barefoot doctors" program of organizing and allocating medical personnel. Western comments on the Cultural Revolution is one-sided and myopic. The Great Famine was a failure to recover. It was also the last famine: famines were a regularly occurring event even before PRC. And Taiwan also wasn't a great place back then.
  - Haga 4y ago
    [dead]
- qwezxcrty 4y ago
  Well, although arguably not as bad as mainland China under Mao's rule. Taiwan didn't have any democracy back then (before late 1980s). And interestingly, the US was OK with Kuomintang's dictatorship.
  - seanmcdirmid 4y ago
    Oh for sure. The reason Taiwanese dislike mainlanders ruling them so much is probably more due to Chiang Kai Shek than Mao Zedong. They would just have nothing to do at all with Chinese politics, they don't want to be ROC as much as they don't want to be PRC. The USA was actually on China's side about supporting Pol Pot, with Vietnam against. Things are definitely blurred in history.

and, wow, it was true under Mao. In 1960, something like 30 million people starved. GDP up until the 80's was like that of a small US state.

Barrin92 4y ago
while Mao's era was comically brutal and took a wrecking ball to economic development it also unified the country (China's foremost problem throughout thousands of years of history), life expectancy jumped by 30(!) years, and the country obtained universal literacy. Today in India a quarter of the population is still illiterate. The evaluation of Mao's legacy seems somewhat emotional, short-sighted and ahistorical given that modern state formation, for example in Europe, was almost always preceded by catastrophic violence. And of course the rise of China in the following decades invalidates the claim that China 'declined terminally', unless we're literally inverting the meaning of the word 'terminal'.
- refurb 4y ago
  The evaluation of Mao's legacy seems somewhat emotional Sorry for getting emotional about 30 million people killed by by a brutal, dictatorial government. Thanks for putting it in perspective! /s
  - Barrin92 4y ago
    I mean does perspective not matter if we're talking about history? The Qing conquest killed 30 million, so did the Taiping Rebellion. 40 million died during the Three Kingdom wars, in 200 AD! About half the population at the time. Dynastic historical change in China was always that violent. It's not that unlikely that people in a hundred years, if China continues to develop, look at that period as the foundation for it. No different than our perspective on Napoleon. Incredibly brutal, brought war to Europe, but also implemented the civic code, arguably the most influential legal document in history.
    - refurb 4y ago
      I see a difference between millions of deaths due to war and millions of deaths due to government incompetence/policy/brutality? By your logic the 6 million killed in the Holocaust shouldn't be such a big deal either.
      - Barrin92 4y ago
        Of course it's a big deal, but certainly we're more mature than descending into Godwin's law two posts into the conversation? Mao despite his failures is the foundational figure of modern China. He's not Hitler, who brought ruin not just to the Jewish population but to Germany as well. Mao still matters in China, Hitler doesn't in Germany. It's historically impoverished to grasp for Hitler analogies and having a reflexive panic attack every time Mao is up for discussion. Same with Stalin. Both still have significant influence in Russia and China, among the people as well as leaders and understanding why that is makes some sense.
        refurb 4y ago
        I'm not sure what point you're trying to make. Earlier you said "The Qing conquest killed 30 million, so did the Taiping Rebellion. 40 million died during the Three Kingdom wars, in 200 AD! About half the population at the time." I'm not sure how one could interpret that as anything other "no big deal Mao killed a lot of people, lots of people have died in other empires". And you're somehow conflating their legacy with the death toll. Those are separate things. Mao's brutal rule can be condemned while at the same time acknowledging his influence on China today. And I would argue that Hitler had a massive influence on what Germany is today. Look at its role in the EU and its policy towards other countries and conflicts.
- csomar 4y ago
  > that modern state formation, for example in Europe, was almost always preceded by catastrophic violence Am I reading this correctly? As in to have the modern Europe, you'd have needed WW2?
  - Barrin92 4y ago
    not only modern Europe itself is the consequence of war, but so are its individual nation states. Bismarck explicitly engineered the three so-called unification wars because he believed that German unity was only achievable while facing an enemy, hence the symbolic founding of the nation in Versailles. Same is true for America really. The country transformed twice, once through civil war and then into a superpower with a modern state during World War II. Military competition and war both internal and external are by far the strongest drivers of modernization.
bigbillheck 4y ago
> In 1960, something like 30 million people starved. Interestingly if you check wikipedia it appears that China had major famines every decade or up until that particular one, and nothing since then.

whendoyoushrink 4y ago

And they were right for 35 of those years. Will they be right or wrong in the next 35? Wealth is a headwind against bad policy. Rich nations can survive many, many bad policies simply because they are rich. The policies it takes to get rich, stay rich, and continue to grow into the future all vary, and the transition is difficult to manage. I think the relevant question is: are China's current policies pushing the country in the right direction? I don't see how they are. Jack Ma shows how dangerous it is to be truly successful, so the next generation will at best be more conservative in what they pursue, and at worst won't even try. Given Western money won't be investing any more - the ability to realise capital gains is growing more difficult - and the CCP steals the wealth of potential investors, not being able to pursue big bests is probably inevitable anyway. China has AWFUL demographics that are getting worse - their population is projected to be 650M by 2100 - and worse it is aging fast, with > 50% post retirement age in the next decade to 3. On top of that, the CCP has re-emerged as the only force in China. CCP officials see stealing the wealth of other's as their right - a twist on the old joke to "the problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's fortunes to steal". Minimal foreign investment, killing internal investment by stealing the wealth of anyone rich, rising wages, awful demographics and a polity determined to remain isolationist (with few to any friends) and knock down the high achievers sounds like a recipe for imminent (in the decades sense) collapse to me. Not to levels of Sub-Saharan Africa, but even just with their population decline, China's GDP is going to fall in absolute terms, even if their GDP PPP per capita can be improved. The scary thing is a Nuclear China in decline is likely to become increasingly erratic. Hopefully, the war in Ukraine gave China some pause, but having gone from starvation to world's largest economy in a generation, I'm not sure China is equipped for stagnation, let alone decline. I feel bad rooting for a likely vicious and brutal CCP internal crackdown over invasions of their neighbours, but that seems to me the lesser of two possible evils.

vehementi 4y ago
Well depends on what terminal decline means. GP added the caveat of regime change. You can't be right for X years and then wrong thereafter, that just meant you were incorrect that there was terminal decline.
hakfoo 4y ago

seanmcdirmid 4y ago

> People have been saying this 1949. ...And they would have been right until the 1980s. "If only Taiwan were unified with the mainland in the 1950s, they also could have experienced the horrors of the cultural revolution" is not great marketing for reunification.

FooBarWidget 4y ago
China was in terminal decline in the late 1800s. The period until 1980s was not decline, it was attempt to recover with various success. Mistakes were made, but success were also made. Despite the famine, life expectancy was steadily increasing during the Cultural Revolution, in no small part thanks to the "barefoot doctors" program of organizing and allocating medical personnel. Western comments on the Cultural Revolution is one-sided and myopic. The Great Famine was a failure to recover. It was also the last famine: famines were a regularly occurring event even before PRC. And Taiwan also wasn't a great place back then.
- Haga 4y ago
  [dead]
qwezxcrty 4y ago
Well, although arguably not as bad as mainland China under Mao's rule. Taiwan didn't have any democracy back then (before late 1980s). And interestingly, the US was OK with Kuomintang's dictatorship.
- seanmcdirmid 4y ago
  Oh for sure. The reason Taiwanese dislike mainlanders ruling them so much is probably more due to Chiang Kai Shek than Mao Zedong. They would just have nothing to do at all with Chinese politics, they don't want to be ROC as much as they don't want to be PRC. The USA was actually on China's side about supporting Pol Pot, with Vietnam against. Things are definitely blurred in history.