Calling them socialist brings out a lot of haters with their gotchas but within the framework of global economy and its Western hegemony and looking at how poor the country of China was not even fifty years ago, I think they are doing very well especially considering that they are at the forefront of poverty amelioration, which might not seem much to someone who has not eyewitnessed the widespread poverty of the third world, but is especially impressive in comparison to the experiments of globalization around the world which have been utter failures. (Damn that is a long sentence.) I wouldn’t call them socialist yet but definitely MLs.
I can’t say whether they will reach socialism by 2050 because my understanding of history is poor but I doubt they will be allowed to run their course uninterrupted without Western interference so we will see how that goes.
Are they though? It’s absolute massive country with pretty much unlimited resources yet they are lagging behind other Asian countries on pretty much any index, especially human quality of life indexes.
If Mao’s revolution hadn’t happened and China was a divided into smaller states today it would be a much more prosperous and happy set of countries. Just take a look at Taiwan and their stuck on pretty much resource-less tiny island.
The Mao era lead to huge leaps in life expectancy. It was the second fastest industrialization in human history and the landlord and bourgeois exploiters where fought off for most of the period.
Again, you imply that that wouldn’t had happened otherwise when the rest of Asia is didn’t do the whole communism dance and ended up stronger economically and happier culturally and individually.
Your ideological fancies about how capitalist rule (which before the rise of revisionism could only have existed under the rule of the nazi-backed KMT) would have gone are completely divorced from any real concrete political understanding of the history.
No, I implied that political form seems to be more or less irrelevant for final economic outcome. The only difference is that Mao killed millions of people and other countries got around without unnecessary deaths and torture.
It’s not a coincidence that the two fastest industrializations and drops in poverty of the 20th century occurred in the USSR and China during the Stalin and Mao periods.
Why is it not a coincidence? Many countries industrialized just as fast under different political programs. Take India, Bangladesh or any other underdeveloped country starting to develop — it all happens fast because they can inherit technology from more developed nations. Even today we see it happen in Africa countries going from no electricity to super cities in two decades.
China didn’t revolutionize the world they just bootstrapped whatever was available to their own ecosystem. They could have done that under any other political system and you could even argue more successfully.
All I’m saying that political flavor of the month isn’t as important as average plebs think.
Calling them socialist brings out a lot of haters with their gotchas but within the framework of global economy and its Western hegemony and looking at how poor the country of China was not even fifty years ago, I think they are doing very well especially considering that they are at the forefront of poverty amelioration, which might not seem much to someone who has not eyewitnessed the widespread poverty of the third world, but is especially impressive in comparison to the experiments of globalization around the world which have been utter failures. (Damn that is a long sentence.) I wouldn’t call them socialist yet but definitely MLs.
I can’t say whether they will reach socialism by 2050 because my understanding of history is poor but I doubt they will be allowed to run their course uninterrupted without Western interference so we will see how that goes.
Are they though? It’s absolute massive country with pretty much unlimited resources yet they are lagging behind other Asian countries on pretty much any index, especially human quality of life indexes.
If Mao’s revolution hadn’t happened and China was a divided into smaller states today it would be a much more prosperous and happy set of countries. Just take a look at Taiwan and their stuck on pretty much resource-less tiny island.
deleted by creator
Again, you imply that that wouldn’t had happened otherwise when the rest of Asia is didn’t do the whole communism dance and ended up stronger economically and happier culturally and individually.
deleted by creator
No, I implied that political form seems to be more or less irrelevant for final economic outcome. The only difference is that Mao killed millions of people and other countries got around without unnecessary deaths and torture.
Why is it not a coincidence? Many countries industrialized just as fast under different political programs. Take India, Bangladesh or any other underdeveloped country starting to develop — it all happens fast because they can inherit technology from more developed nations. Even today we see it happen in Africa countries going from no electricity to super cities in two decades.
China didn’t revolutionize the world they just bootstrapped whatever was available to their own ecosystem. They could have done that under any other political system and you could even argue more successfully.
All I’m saying that political flavor of the month isn’t as important as average plebs think.
deleted by creator
He says that unironically and then defends China 🤣
deleted by creator