Would China have been better off left as a dynasty instead of being taken over by dictatoring communists?
It is remarkable how little you know about Chinese history
>>18555023>simplification means no knowledge or something
>>18555016Taiwan is evidence that China doesn't need the CCP, which is why the CCP wants to invade Taiwan
Chinese people had no energy during the end of the Qing dynasty. Communists kill the sick and dead cells in China. Chinese people are full of vitality after 80 years of rule by the CCP.
>>18555057This. Without the catastrophic famines, China would be as shit as India.
>>18555016>Would China have been better off left as a dynastyno, the people's liberation is the ultimate expression of Chinese power and they have left the rest of the world in the dust.
>>18555016The best is if the dynasty itself had embraced communism. Communo-monarchy.
>>18555119>>18555128You do realize it would be an even more extreme version of your image if they were still dynastic? The CCP seems to have opened their legs wide to capitalism and outside influence quite well.
>>18555145>The CCP seems to have opened their legs wide to capitalism and outside influence quite wellthey are a market economy anon. they get the benefits of capitalism without the threat of unrestrained billionaires. influence from other cultures is wonderful, especially if you have total control of yours.
>>18555153>they are a market economy anonThey use markets to grow their economy, but the state directs key industries and can intervene whenever it chooses.>they get the benefits of capitalism without the threat of unrestrained billionairesYou could say Chinese billionaires have less independent political influence than in countries like the USA for example, but that doesn't mean concentrated power disappears. You're just switching up who's restraining the power and what terms are imposed onto the general population.>influence from other cultures is wonderful, especially if you have total control of yours.Turkestan and Tibet would like a word with you. Say that to all the persecuted religious peoples living there, lol.You can't just try to draw a line in between two things and say you're standing in the middle of them, I think it's obvious that current China is walking onto a quite defined direction.
>>18555153>>18555166What they need to do is establish hard hegemony over the entire world and then start purging the rich from all countries.
>>18555119>>18555016USA should been communism instead China, Mongolia, Korea, and Vietnam
>>18555174this is a harsh way to do it. I think the chinese soft power and mutual success approach is the long game. China plans very long term and works towards it methodically. It makes democracy in the west look silly because we roll the dice every election and hope it turns out ok and we don't get set back too hard. Progress is luck. We should tax wealth not income, but the rich will fight hard and they control our politics. China never changes government, it's risk free. I can't help but admire some aspects of it.>>18555287the usa could be amazing, it's just been kind of ruined by corpos and extreme wealth. It's very late capitalism, end of rome kind of shit. China is immune to that too really, because if billionaires are not in the people's interest, the communist party will deal with them. And what is better than the people being the ultimate power? I must sound like a china freak but when you look into it and compare it to us, we just look like we don't take things seriously.
>Would China have been better off as an authoritarian oligarchic state instead of being taken over by an authoritarian oligarchic state?You tell me. Functionally the state of the CCP is very similar to the state of Chinese dynasties.
>>18555016I think the reason communists came to power is really because there wasn't much of an entrepeneurial business class in the first place. There was one in China but it was pretty small, not that important of a political force. The country was ruled by a combination of landed gentry not dissimilar from the slave plantation lords of the American South in the 1800s and a handful of decadent oligarchical families that made their money from banking and import-export, customs revenues, stuff like that. Those families controlled the state, it's often referred nowadays as "state capture" or "crony capitalism," but basically they were rent-seeking middlemen between sellers and foreign buyers acquiring opium or porcelain or whatever. It's a very third-world thing, a Portuguese term "comprador" was used in China for them.>>18555429I have to reign you back in because when you read about a Chinese official getting brought in for corruption, they are working to deal with it and I've heard people who are extremely cynical about the Communist Party say it is having an effect, but they're also doing it because there really is a lot of corruption. China is not "immune," it has been pretty bad. Inequality is also very high there, and aspects/sectors of their market society and economy are also more turbocharged, competitive and extreme than just about anywhere else (with both positives and negatives), and like, there's a very little to nonexistent social safety net. Also, uh, food safety. That's an issue. Scamming is a big issue. It's pretty dog-eat-dog, what's called a "low-trust" society: https://x.com/MrDikachu07/status/2066724384187007351Pretty fascinating and a huge place though. Also it's kind of relative, like look at where they used to be.
On the point about the lack of an entrepreneurial business class, my thinking about the 20th century is that it's really a story of industrial transformation. The world switched in a very rapid amount of time from a horse-drawn civilization to a horsepower one. In several countries, that historic "task" (or job or whatever, really it just needed to be done) fell to the communists because others dropped the ball, or really there just wasn't a critical mass of people who were also organized in the social-political sense to do so in a capitalist way like the industrial bourgeoisie of Britain, Germany or the United States. But basically that's what the Communist Party did in a speed-run version.
>>18555497>there really is a lot of corruptionI have heard about some of the corruption purges and I'm certainly not saying China is perfect. But they are under constant attack from western intelligence agencies, who deliberately target government officials with gambling problems or infidelity or just straight bribery and use it to blackmail them. The west is under threat from such a successful socialist country and they will never stop. So China needs to be a surveilance state, and quite authoritarian, and I have no doubt innocent government officials will get swept up by the communist party keeping everyone china first. Hopefully, if the west becomes less hostile then they can also be less authoritarian, but it still seems like the average chinese person is better off than we are having elections. I'd also say that while we think of ourselves as a high trust society, we do let people die in the street homeless and walk right past them, we aren't offended by that. We could be that homeless person tomorrow. Is that high trust? Capitalism is a rat race
