Uhhh China has been embracing capitalism for a few decades now, sorry to say.
China hasn’t been embracing capitalism, China has been reigning in capitalism through Dengism and Socialism with Chinese Characteristics. Why did China develop and industrialize while India didn’t? Why didn’t the same process as in China take place in Indonesia or Philippines or Bangladesh or Pakistan, all of them capitalist countries? Why didn’t Mexico or Brazil have similar growth rates?
Why did China develop and industrialize while India didn’t? Why didn’t the same process as in China take place in Indonesia or Philippines or Bangladesh or Pakistan, all of them capitalist countries
China mixes and matches capitalism with state capitalism and socialism. They use subsidies to squash overseas competition, that’s why you can get things for basically free, shipping included, from Aliexpress. China has almost as many billionaires as the US - and is going to overtake them soon enough.
They’re smart in utilizing protectionism too. It’s way harder for western companies to sell things to the Chinese than Chinese companies to sell things to the west. For an example, Volkswagen sells cars through joint ventures with Chinese companies. They can’t just have a western-owned company selling the cars.
Why not India? Tough to say. For one reason or another, China became the factory of the world. Since then, they’ve made a lot of smart decisions to both profit from it as much as possible, and retain their status (just look at Shenzhen. There’s no alternative in the world). The other countries you mentioned could never have the economies of scale that China does. India is the only one that theoretically could.
Yes. The serious analysis is that the Communist Party of China didn’t just “go capitalist”, it’s socialist with Chinese caracteristics. They did allow for a massive inflow of capital, but they reigned it in in such a way that the country would industrialize and develop, and not just be exploited for resources and cheap labour as it happens with India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia or Philippines.
If I brought up South Korea it was to explain why the capitalist model doesn’t seem to work for everyone, not because I like the south-korean fascist dictatorship. It’s very easy to industrially develop when the American policy is to industrialize you through massive investment in industry and with tech transfer because they want you as a loyal military base, and not as an enslaved peripheral colony. The problem isn’t “corruption in poor countries”, because China was poor and it did develop, and the Soviet Union was poor and it developed. The problem is finding the correct formula for industrialization while not allowing the western empire to demolish you for trying. The Soviet way was self-suficient economy, state-directed 5-year economic plans, and safety through nuclear deterrence. The Chinese way was to antagonize the Soviets to become a western pseudo-ally, attracting investment from the western capitalist companies in the sectors of the economy they wanted, and to reign in these investments so that China wouldn’t be a colony but an industrialized country with sovereignty of its own. Without communist parties at the head, Pakistan, India, Phillipines and Indonesia couldn’t manage this.
Mate, I’m Estonian. Get the fuck out of here with any soviet praise.
The soviet way was to have the elites be rich, while deporting regular people with too many cows in their barn to Siberia. They were doing pretty much what ICE is doing in the US right now - complain that your neighbour is a kulak, and they get removed. Only in the US it’s “complain that your neighbour is MS-13, and they get removed”. Plus the 5 year economic plans brought with them lovely things like the Holodomor.
China is going to have the most billionaires of any nation in probably less than a decade. “Socialism with Chinese characteristics” is just capitalism with actual oversight. Truth is, their government, particularly the court system, actually sides with corporations more than people. Try criticizing a major corporation and you’re fucked. Not even just Chinese corporations. You can’t criticize fucking Tesla in China.
If you want an actual example of the success of communism, there’s always Cuba. They’re blockaded by pretty much everyone, and yet have a pretty good standard of living. Better healthcare than many European nations, let alone the US. They may be poor, but that’s more the US’s fault than Cuba’s own.
“Mate, I’m American. Get the fuck out of here with any Mexican praise.” This is how you sound to anyone who sees through your thinly veiled racism and russophobia.
The soviet way was to have the elites be rich
Patently false propaganda. The Soviet Union was the most egalitarian that the region has ever seen.
They were doing pretty much what ICE is doing in the US right now - complain that your neighbour is a kulak, and they get removed
So you agree that people should be dying at 30 years of age in absolute poverty while working the lands for the landlords on exchange for a misery wage, dying of disease of starvation? Because that’s what led to the mass popular support for dekulakization.
Plus the 5 year economic plans brought with them lovely things like the Holodomor.
The famine of the early 30s is a sad tragedy in Soviet history, but it’s one of many famines that took place in the region from the time it was settled to begin with until the Soviets eliminated famines through industrial agriculture. While the first 5-year plans brought some misery such as the unforeseen sabotage of agriculture by kulaks, they also allowed the Soviet Union to industrialize at the quickest pace any country had industrialized up to that point, which is the main reason the Soviets were able to defeat the Nazis and save hundreds of millions of lives in the process.
China is going to have the most billionaires of any nation in probably less than a decade.
I have disagreements with some Chinese policy such as that, but the results are out there. If it weren’t for communism, China would be a western colony, and would be on a similar standing to India, to which it can be very much compared at the beginning of the 1900s. Why is China so much more developed than India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia or Philippines? It’s not a perfect country, but it’s some of the best the world has to offer.
If you want an actual example of the success of communism, there’s always Cuba.
I fully agree, but why do you criticise dekulakization in the USSR and not the repressions against landlords in Cuba? Most Cubans were literal slaves under the landowners, and worked the lands for next to nothing. There was a measurable degree of repression against landlords, why aren’t you crying your eyes out for them? Maybe just because you, as an Estonian, have been injected Russophobic racism in your life, in the same way that USians are injected anti-Mexican racism and Spaniards (like me) are injected anti-Moroccan racism? Why aren’t you complaining about the lack of freedom of press in Cuba? Why aren’t you complaining about the Cuban leaders having so much more than the Cuban people?
You’re not local so you wouldn’t know. The leaders hailed dekulakization as landlord removal but it was really just about anyone who was well off through their own family’s labor too. And political opponents obviously. It was a dark time and we still mourn all the lives lost to the labor camps.
Mexico never oppressed America like this. There’s been conflicts, but the US was never forcefully occupied by Mexico.
I understand despising the Russian Empire, but Bolsheviks really were the best Europe had to offer. Estonians had the right to an education in Estonian, had political representation of their own, Estonia was industrialised more than the rest of the Soviet block as a purposeful policy of development of minority ethnicities, Estonia had better salaries and working positions (hence many Russians migrating there during Soviet times)…
What would have been of Estonia were it not for the Bolsheviks? What would have happened under the rule of Nazism? Would you be able to talk Estonian today? Would you even be alive? Finno-Ugric peoples were certainly not as demonized as Slavs by the Nazi racial theories, but still they didn’t want you to be equal to them, unlike it can be said of Soviets.
China hasn’t been embracing capitalism, China has been reigning in capitalism through Dengism and Socialism with Chinese Characteristics. Why did China develop and industrialize while India didn’t? Why didn’t the same process as in China take place in Indonesia or Philippines or Bangladesh or Pakistan, all of them capitalist countries? Why didn’t Mexico or Brazil have similar growth rates?
China mixes and matches capitalism with state capitalism and socialism. They use subsidies to squash overseas competition, that’s why you can get things for basically free, shipping included, from Aliexpress. China has almost as many billionaires as the US - and is going to overtake them soon enough.
They’re smart in utilizing protectionism too. It’s way harder for western companies to sell things to the Chinese than Chinese companies to sell things to the west. For an example, Volkswagen sells cars through joint ventures with Chinese companies. They can’t just have a western-owned company selling the cars.
Why not India? Tough to say. For one reason or another, China became the factory of the world. Since then, they’ve made a lot of smart decisions to both profit from it as much as possible, and retain their status (just look at Shenzhen. There’s no alternative in the world). The other countries you mentioned could never have the economies of scale that China does. India is the only one that theoretically could.
i.e. you don’t have a serious analysis.
So why don’t they have South-Korean style development?
Do you?
Are Chaebols a good thing now?
Yes. The serious analysis is that the Communist Party of China didn’t just “go capitalist”, it’s socialist with Chinese caracteristics. They did allow for a massive inflow of capital, but they reigned it in in such a way that the country would industrialize and develop, and not just be exploited for resources and cheap labour as it happens with India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia or Philippines.
If I brought up South Korea it was to explain why the capitalist model doesn’t seem to work for everyone, not because I like the south-korean fascist dictatorship. It’s very easy to industrially develop when the American policy is to industrialize you through massive investment in industry and with tech transfer because they want you as a loyal military base, and not as an enslaved peripheral colony. The problem isn’t “corruption in poor countries”, because China was poor and it did develop, and the Soviet Union was poor and it developed. The problem is finding the correct formula for industrialization while not allowing the western empire to demolish you for trying. The Soviet way was self-suficient economy, state-directed 5-year economic plans, and safety through nuclear deterrence. The Chinese way was to antagonize the Soviets to become a western pseudo-ally, attracting investment from the western capitalist companies in the sectors of the economy they wanted, and to reign in these investments so that China wouldn’t be a colony but an industrialized country with sovereignty of its own. Without communist parties at the head, Pakistan, India, Phillipines and Indonesia couldn’t manage this.
Mate, I’m Estonian. Get the fuck out of here with any soviet praise.
The soviet way was to have the elites be rich, while deporting regular people with too many cows in their barn to Siberia. They were doing pretty much what ICE is doing in the US right now - complain that your neighbour is a kulak, and they get removed. Only in the US it’s “complain that your neighbour is MS-13, and they get removed”. Plus the 5 year economic plans brought with them lovely things like the Holodomor.
China is going to have the most billionaires of any nation in probably less than a decade. “Socialism with Chinese characteristics” is just capitalism with actual oversight. Truth is, their government, particularly the court system, actually sides with corporations more than people. Try criticizing a major corporation and you’re fucked. Not even just Chinese corporations. You can’t criticize fucking Tesla in China.
If you want an actual example of the success of communism, there’s always Cuba. They’re blockaded by pretty much everyone, and yet have a pretty good standard of living. Better healthcare than many European nations, let alone the US. They may be poor, but that’s more the US’s fault than Cuba’s own.
“Mate, I’m American. Get the fuck out of here with any Mexican praise.” This is how you sound to anyone who sees through your thinly veiled racism and russophobia.
Patently false propaganda. The Soviet Union was the most egalitarian that the region has ever seen.
So you agree that people should be dying at 30 years of age in absolute poverty while working the lands for the landlords on exchange for a misery wage, dying of disease of starvation? Because that’s what led to the mass popular support for dekulakization.
The famine of the early 30s is a sad tragedy in Soviet history, but it’s one of many famines that took place in the region from the time it was settled to begin with until the Soviets eliminated famines through industrial agriculture. While the first 5-year plans brought some misery such as the unforeseen sabotage of agriculture by kulaks, they also allowed the Soviet Union to industrialize at the quickest pace any country had industrialized up to that point, which is the main reason the Soviets were able to defeat the Nazis and save hundreds of millions of lives in the process.
I have disagreements with some Chinese policy such as that, but the results are out there. If it weren’t for communism, China would be a western colony, and would be on a similar standing to India, to which it can be very much compared at the beginning of the 1900s. Why is China so much more developed than India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia or Philippines? It’s not a perfect country, but it’s some of the best the world has to offer.
I fully agree, but why do you criticise dekulakization in the USSR and not the repressions against landlords in Cuba? Most Cubans were literal slaves under the landowners, and worked the lands for next to nothing. There was a measurable degree of repression against landlords, why aren’t you crying your eyes out for them? Maybe just because you, as an Estonian, have been injected Russophobic racism in your life, in the same way that USians are injected anti-Mexican racism and Spaniards (like me) are injected anti-Moroccan racism? Why aren’t you complaining about the lack of freedom of press in Cuba? Why aren’t you complaining about the Cuban leaders having so much more than the Cuban people?
You’re not local so you wouldn’t know. The leaders hailed dekulakization as landlord removal but it was really just about anyone who was well off through their own family’s labor too. And political opponents obviously. It was a dark time and we still mourn all the lives lost to the labor camps.
Mexico never oppressed America like this. There’s been conflicts, but the US was never forcefully occupied by Mexico.
I understand despising the Russian Empire, but Bolsheviks really were the best Europe had to offer. Estonians had the right to an education in Estonian, had political representation of their own, Estonia was industrialised more than the rest of the Soviet block as a purposeful policy of development of minority ethnicities, Estonia had better salaries and working positions (hence many Russians migrating there during Soviet times)…
What would have been of Estonia were it not for the Bolsheviks? What would have happened under the rule of Nazism? Would you be able to talk Estonian today? Would you even be alive? Finno-Ugric peoples were certainly not as demonized as Slavs by the Nazi racial theories, but still they didn’t want you to be equal to them, unlike it can be said of Soviets.