Comment by NickC25 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by NickC25 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

China's demographics are a problem, yeah. I'll give you that all day. Yes, they have a dependent economy, sure, but if you think about it, so does the US - nobody builds physical goods in the US, and American corporations are just as import-needy as China is export-needy. Food security is just a famine away, and The Party wouldn't lose any support even if a few million people died.

The Chinese people have ZERO problems overall with a dictatorship. You can't manage to take a billion people out of poverty without one, sadly. The Chinese that I've worked with not only like what the Party has done to their families and communities, but also their local economies.

Your view is that it's a brutal dictatorship. Their view is that The Party has put a roof over their heads, put food in their stomachs, developed an economy, modernized their country, educated them (and paid for them to study overseas), and has given them a good life - a much better one than their grandparents ever got a chance at.

> The Party wouldn't lose any support even if a few million people died.

Historically, famine has been a very common precursor of dynastic change in China. Famines are often interpreted as the current regime having lost what Mencius (孟子) called the "Mandate of Heaven" (天命).

> The Party wouldn't lose any support even if a few million people died.

I really doubt that you're right on this point. It plays badly with "put food in their stomachs".

Did the billion people get out of poverty because of the party or despite it?

The great leap forward killed up to 55 million people.

"You can't manage to take a billion people out of poverty without one, sadly."

Please elaborate and defend.

How about you show a country where a billion people were taken out of poverty while not governed by something westerners call a dictatorship?

Given that we have exactly two instances of countries that had a billion people, you're cherry-picking (whether or not deliberately).

You could argue that more countries have rapidly emerged from poverty while controlled by a dictatorship than controlled by a democracy. (Even South Korea would qualify for that.) But your "a billion people" threshold makes it look like you want to shut down debate, rather than actually look at data.

> you "a billion people" threshold makes it look like you want to shut down debate, rather than actually look at data.

Not so - the threshold is there for a reason. It's inherently harder to corral more people than fewer people. At the time that South Korea became a fully fledged democracy, their population was between 37 and 45 million people. That's roughly the size of the urban area of China's 3rd largest city.

You cannot control a country of 1.3 billion people (with a landmass larger than the continental USA) that has regional cultural differences such as diet and language as easily as you can a homogeneous population of ~40 million in an area the size of Indiana.

If I wanted to increase the GDP of the city block I live on, it's a lot easier than if I wanted to increase the GDP of my entire city, let alone the county, state, or country. Things are harder at scale. That's where the efficiency of a dictatorship shines. Not that I'm a fan of The Party, or of dictatorships. Fuck them both. I've done business with The Party, and 10/10 would not recommend. But credit is due where credit is due, and The Party has managed to do some things that have been incredibly beneficial to China at large, on multiple fronts - economics, infrastructure, education, etc... Part of their ability to do so comes from having a centralized dictatorship.

Please elaborate? 1 billion people+ being taken from poverty into an infinitely better standard of living within 1 generation.

Care to name me a massive country of 1 billion+ under democratic rule that manged that sort of economic growth in that same frame of time?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com