The mass starvations in the 70s and 80s were because of that same government; while Taiwan, South Korea, Japan and Hong Kong were rapidly developing, China was putting people in jail for trying to sell their goods and agricultural products on the private market. The GDP per capita of Taiwan is still three times higher than that of mainland China, which wouldn't be the case if China didn't have a government that made private enterprise illegal for a few decades.
Japan was already industrialized prior to WW2, and was basically complete in its industrialization by around WW1 if not earlier by a couple decades.
S. Korea could serve as a comparison, but there's a big difference in that it got massive influx of foreign investment from the US, with a major reason being that it serve as outpost against Communism spreading.
When the geopolitical situation started to change between US and China in the late 60s-early 70s, Mao sensed it and already started to have talks with the US as seen with Nixon + Kissinger, which later became the foundation that allowed the influx of foreign capital into the country. Prior to this, China was basically like NK today, with absolutely no outside support whatsoever, with an economy, infrastructure, etc., which includes even basic stuff like irrigation destroyed from civil war, WW2, etc. It was extremely capital deficient. People act like China prior to '49 was some wonderland, and that once the Communist came in, they destroyed everything and therefore there was mass starvation. Not really. China sucked prior to '49, and reading e.g. some statistics from American sinologists like e.g Jonathan Spence, you know that the basic peasant (which represented the large majority of China's population) daily diet consisted of almost no meat, and simply what they called gruel, every day of the year. A peasant normal diet would simply be e.g. sweet potatoes flour mixed with water everyday with maybe some vegetables.
This sounds entirely ripped off from a Joe Rogan podcast. Sounds like you are in the WASP bubble. You likely haven't experienced living in the hood, having to be treated like a Muslim in the US, having to deal with MAGA people bitching about your existence as a Mexican migrant and many other scenarios. There is plenty to improve in the US and your mentality would have ensured that we never would have gotten things like the Civil Rights act, interracial marriage, or even the immense progress made in favor of LGBTQ rights.
Its not the people that are thankful to their country that enact change. Its the rebels who go against the mainstream and demand justice that eventually make history. They are always called ungrateful haters...at least until they win.
My poorest (growing up, as in not concerned about no food, but actually no food and sometimes no housing) friends who travel internationally come back grateful for where they are.
> your mentality would have ensured that we never would have gotten things like the Civil Rights act, interracial marriage, or even the immense progress made in favor of LGBTQ rights
100% agree. That said, there is middle ground between bootlicking gratitude and cynicism that borders on complacency.
> There is plenty to improve in the US
What part of anything I said disagrees with that? You sir/madam are a prime example of the people I am talking about.
> would have ensured that we never would have gotten things like the Civil Rights act, interracial marriage, or even the immense progress made in favor of LGBTQ rights.
And you would have made sure those things would be the least of anyone's concerns as the japanese enslave half of america and the nazis genocide the crap out of all those people you listed. And if it so happens that none of that happens, if you got your way none of those things would happen because america would be too poor and miserable. Or perhaps you don't realize that the civil rights changes of the 60s were a result of post world war prosperity and peace (yes, despite vietnam). Do you think americans in the great depression would even tolerate the civil rights discussion? Do you think they'd share jobs with minorities and women or allow cheaper immigrants from other countries as they are starving?
Or so you think current civil rights can't be taken away? Do you undersrand that the civil part implies civilization? Hungry desparate people, cooking their own children for food out of despair (almost always happens in desperate prolonged famine) do not care about civilization.
> Its not the people that are thankful to their country that enact change
Yes it is, the good kind. This wonderful country allowed all the change you mentioned in the 60s without a single civil war, out of the kindness and compassion of a people who can afford it. A century earlier, millions who love their country died for the concept that all people are born equal.
> Its the rebels who go against the mainstream and demand justice that eventually make history.
No, it was the rebels in america both in the 1860s, 1960s (US military escorting kids to school because states rebelled against civil rights) and 2021(jan 6) who love their race/tribe more han their country who opposed and failed against all things you hold precious there. Rebellion is always disgusting and treasonous. You must not have heard the speeches of MLK who very much liked America just not all the things horribly wrong with it. He understood that the civil rights movement must work within the system and through civil disobedience and democratic means enact change. Loving your country and appreciating it does not mean you love the politicians or even the government in its current state. It is because you people don't get any if this that you merely pay lip service to progress and all you end up doing is alienating people and dividing up your country and increasing the number of people who share your hatred for their country except they want to do the opposite of you.
> They are always called ungrateful haters...at least until they win.
What they are called and what they said and did are different things.
Hating your country until you see change is not how democracy works.
Perhaps you should learn from immigrants who come to america seeking a better life despite their financial situation and like them find your way to a better life if you think there is one to be found.
Your problem is that of perspective. It's usually people who volunteered for a long time in poor countries or military service members who similarly been to those countries that seem to have the perspective I tried to share. A homeless, jobless person in the hood in america has a better quality of life and opportunities than an educated doctor in sub-saharan africa. Forget that, pick a single poor country randomly and and try finding a place where a poor uneducated black gay woman can be treated as a human being to begin with right along find jobs (good ones), be able to actually buy goods with money, be safe and be treated with a semblance of fairness in the work place. That rules out most of asia and easern europe. Maybe south africa (if considered poor),maybe some south american countries but that rules out the jobs and opportunities being good (perhaps brazil? But even then their black people are having an even harder time than american counterparts).
I have many comments about all the things that need changing in america far beyond what you listed. But every single one is because I think this amazing country is worth working on and improving not because I don't like america. And funnily, people have the opposite response to me thinking perhaps I should find another home. Perhaps it is our perspective that is different not what we believe needs changing.
>And you would have made sure those things would be the least of anyone's concerns as the japanese enslave half of america and the nazis genocide the crap out of all those people you listed. And if it so happens that none of that happens, if you got your way none of those things would happen because america would be too poor and miserable. Or perhaps you don't realize that the civil rights changes of the 60s were a result of post world war prosperity and peace (yes, despite vietnam). Do you think americans in the great depression would even tolerate the civil rights discussion? Do you think they'd share jobs with minorities and women or allow cheaper immigrants from other countries as they are starving?
>Or so you think current civil rights can't be taken away? Do you undersrand that the civil part implies civilization? Hungry desparate people, cooking their own children for food out of despair (almost always happens in desperate prolonged famine) do not care about civilization.
I'll concede that if we are in a civilization collapse scenario (which is not what China vs US is) than regular order will break down. But that is something that climate change protesters understand and are constantly criticized for so if you really are thinking that we are moving towards that situation then you should start blocking traffic on highways or find other ways to raise awareness of that issue.
Otherwise I dont see us entering that scenario because the elite in all of these countries would have too much to lose if that were to happen so it wont get to that. (But thats how I see things)
>Hating your country until you see change is not how democracy works.
>Perhaps you should learn from immigrants who come to america seeking a better life despite their financial situation and like them find your way to a better life if you think there is one to be found.
That anger is what drives people to keep going in the face of constant rejection so I completely disagree. We saw it in all the violent anti-government movements during the civil rights era, we see it building up again now with the right wing moving more extreme because they dont want to keep losing what little they have left, and the left wing realizing that the struggles of lower class america is the same class struggle that people in developing countries are trying to rectify.
>Your problem is that of perspective. It's usually people who volunteered for a long time in poor countries or military service members who similarly been to those countries that seem to have the perspective I tried to share. A homeless, jobless person in the hood in america has a better quality of life and opportunities than an educated doctor in sub-saharan africa. Forget that, pick a single poor country randomly and and try finding a place where a poor uneducated black gay woman can be treated as a human being to begin with right along find jobs (good ones), be able to actually buy goods with money, be safe and be treated with a semblance of fairness in the work place. That rules out most of asia and easern europe. Maybe south africa (if considered poor),maybe some south american countries but that rules out the jobs and opportunities being good (perhaps brazil? But even then their black people are having an even harder time than american counterparts).
Dont get me wrong, the military's ability to break down a human and build them back up into an obedient disciplined machine is bar none. Like I mentioned above a lot of the people railing against the US order these days have had the benefit of accessing and seeing some glimpse of what others are going through in third world countries thanks to the internet and the explosion of easily accessible information. With that has come the realization that the struggle in the US is the same as the struggle elsewhere and that it is very often the fault of the people running the US that those other countries are a complete mess. Just ask Iran, or Pakistan or the rest of the southern hemisphere.
>I have many comments about all the things that need changing in america far beyond what you listed. But every single one is because I think this amazing country is worth working on and improving not because I don't like america. And funnily, people have the opposite response to me thinking perhaps I should find another home. Perhaps it is our perspective that is different not what we believe needs changing.
Again you are clearly showing your privilege because you are not in a position to be in a day to day struggle in this country and can have the benefit of sitting back and "loving" this country while being "hopeful of positive change". You don't actually care to improve things because you yourself dont need anything more. The only thing that concerns you is to lose what you already have. As such, you implicitly serve as a hinderance to everyone else trying to enact meaningful change. You are the modern day version of the southerners who stated that President Johnson should "not go too fast" in adopting civil rights legislation "because look how good the people have it with separate but equal". Or todays Democrats who will happily appoint a black person to high office and call it groundbreaking progress but when it comes to actually changing fundamental operations of the US via legislation or otherwise well thats "too radical". Different era: same people.
> We saw it in all the violent anti-government movements during the civil rights era
You mean non-violent? Because there has never been a succesful yet violent civil rights movement.
> glimpse of what others are going through in third world countries thanks to the internet and the explosion of easily accessible information.
You don't even have a glimpse. It doesn't work that way, seeing a video or an article isn't the same as seeing and experiencing suffering in person.
> it is very often the fault of the people running the US that those other countries are a complete mess. Just ask Iran, or Pakistan or the rest of the southern hemisphere.
No it freaking is not. How clueless are you? Do you just eat up prpaganda on reddit or something? Do you understand the concept of sovreignity? Here is a clue for you, the US itself would be much more messed up than those countries , their people didn't give a shit about their country just like you, they went tribal and cared about ideologies and their tribe, they wanted violence and revolutions and they got their wish. Do you think the CIA was responsible? Just how powerful do you think the CIA is? They supported the wrong side but it took a ton of their own people killing each other over ideology independent of the US. The CIA backs whoever favors the US, as it is their job to do so. Just like with afghanistan and 20 years and trillions of dollars, their people didn't give a shit about democracy or their country, they had tribes and traditions that were more important. You just don't get that people outside if the luxurious west have completley different worldviews and experiences.
> Again you are clearly showing your privilege because you are not in a position to be in a day to day struggle in this country and can have the benefit of sitting back and "loving" this country while being "hopeful of positive change"
Again, you are being a presumptuous dick. You can try to find out who I am or what my experience and privilege is but you presume and attack my character and personality instead of attacking my argument. Look up "ad-hominem" if you get a chance.
> You don't actually care to improve things because you yourself dont need anything more. The only thing that concerns you is to lose what you already have.
You don't know a single thing about what I need, I guarantee you would feel embarrased if you knew. You are right about losing what I have though, the shame is, the saying about not knowing what you have until it is gone is true. You are a prime example of an unfloding tragedy, you are absolutley clueless as to what you have and once it is gone you can't get it back. The problem is you are dragging everyone else with you. Do the US a favor and find another country if you hate the US. If you love your country though, let's work to improve things.
> You are the modern day version of the southerners who stated that President Johnson should "not go too fast" in adopting civil rights legislation "because look how good the people have it with separate but equal". Or todays Democrats who will happily appoint a black person to high office and call it groundbreaking progress but when it comes to actually changing fundamental operations of the US via legislation or otherwise well thats "too radical". Different era: same people.
You are a mindless propaganda repeater. I cannot be any of those things because I did not say anything about any specific change or claim that things changed too fast or the wrong change is happening or everything is fine. Again, as in previous cases you are presuming, I suspect your ideology and propaganda forces you to wrongly assume a whole lot of things. I made it clear repeatedly that my comment has nothing to do with your ideology or desire for change, my comment was entirely about making sure there is a country left to change to begin with. The house is on fire and I am asking you to help save it because we all live in it and it is a nice house, but you think I am getting in the way of your house improvement plans. You think the house needs a lot of improvement and you may be right but if you don't believe the house is yours and is better than other houses you wouldn't care about putting out the fire as is the case here.
There are plenty of immigrants who love america and want to unite and improve the country, do us a favor and emigrate so they have more room here if you hate it so much. A house divided cannot stand, choose to unite or choose to leave.
No I mean violent. Those violent groups helped make MLK palatable. This is documented history. Its unclear what the trend would have been had groups like the Black Panthers(for example) not existing but it is super clear that they helped drag the leadership of the country to push forward some continued compromise because otherwise the pressure would have kept increasing and these groups were starting to affect capital. Has it accomplished everything? No. But as each one of these groups falls, another one eventually crops. up. BLM was a bust because of leadership and how they were systematically discredited before they even got going. But will it end at BLM? Of course not! It will never end until there is actual reform.
I need to stop right here: You clearly have not studied the history of the civil rights movement in the US and how violent along with non-violent struggle was a key component in getting to where we are today. The rest of your post is just strawmen because there is no cohesive argument.
Yet African Americans are WAY better off than those in Africa, and Muslims and Mexicans migrate to the US for better conditions.There is plenty to improve in the US, sure, but it's a better place than the majority of the world, why on the world do you think people go there in the first place?
Hell the US is outstanding precisely when it comes to racism, do you have any idea of how racist people are in Asia? Africa? Even Europe?
Its a desirable place to go to place BECAUSE of prior generations rebelling against the status quo.
When the Civil Rights Act was being debated, there was a push by the south to "not go too fast". The argument by the south in 1965 was that African Americans should be grateful that we have "separate but equal" and "look how far we have come from slavery"?
[1]:https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/integration-moved-fast-m...
We are experiencing the same nonsense today. Frankly I don't think we would have as many immigrants as we do if it weren't for all of these achievements that immigrants can take advantage of on day 1.
As a child of immigrants I see a common tendency of immigrants in my communities to not rock the boat. In fact Trump has stated that he will consider deporting any immigrants who express support for Palestine. They effectively have this sword of Damocles hanging over them their entire lives. Now you could argue that since they are 'citizens' they have the full suite of rights as anyone else. They only have those rights until someone decides to test the limits and then they don't anymore.
The children of immigrants born in the country have a very different outlook. They don't have the same mentality to not want to rock the boat. They are the ones who push major reform.
The CCP has honestly been fine. (See: Jintao and Xiaoping.)
The problem is Xi. He is a dictator. He repeatedly makes decisions that benefit him in the short term and the expense of China’s long-term prospects. This is very different from his predecessors, and requires treating China differently than we did when they had political competition and the capacity for reflection.
You're not going to find a lot of nuance and understanding here, I'm afraid.
FWIW I largely agree with what you've said above. The 'threat' narrative grows because the west likes the unipolar consensus, with no other economic powers having enough status and power to challenge that hegemony. Of course when other powers come to the fore they will be declared as an existential threat; nobody wants to share a throne they sat on alone.
My country shares 1300km of border with Russia, and I would choose China over Russia as a neighbour any day. China might be an oppressive dictatorship, but its still more civilized than Russia, which frankly has never left the Middle Ages in terms of mentality. Apart from perhaps North Korea, there is no worse neighbor in the world than imperialist Russia.
The biggest tragedy in america right now, one that fuels the apathy and national self-destruction is the lack of gratitude and appreciation of just how precious and priceless the peace, stability and prosperity we have now (not decades ago but today) is. Americans just simply don't know the levels of poverty and desperation much of the world has seen, it is just impossible here. They don't know that just in the 70s and 80s China was having mass starvations. Their appreciation of their government's ability to lift them out of that and the century of humiliation they had before that is not small (unlike americans).
The world is not a nice place, the CCP is much worse than putin and their goal is not to coexist with the west.
And if tiktok ends up giving the CCP an advantage, whether in the 2024 elections or future cold/hot conflict with the PLA, I for one would lay significant blame on HNers who rallied against Biden's attempt to block tiktock because of b.s. slipperly slop fallacies. They already ban US social media there! This would have been reciprocal, it might have been one of the smallest things that could have been done to avoid possible chaos and carnage in the future. The government does have power to censor foreign companies's speech. Matter of fact, the first amendment does not apply to companies, it applies to people, and no one who uses tiktok would be prevented from using another platform to make the same speech!
This about tech companies and startups worried about "what if I am next".
Your opinions have consequences because people consider many of you on HN knowledgable or experts in tech.