• OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    arrow-down
    28
    ·
    1 month ago

    Since China’s economic reforms in the 1980’s, 700 million Chinese people have been lifted out of poverty, accounting for three quarters of worldwide poverty reduction during that time.

    Do people here think China should’ve continued Mao’s economic policies? Or do you think the correct path is somewhere in between Mao and Deng? Or are y’all just looking to criticize China regardless of what they do or what the results are, to performatively demonstrate your loyalty to the US government?

    You don’t have to answer that. I’ve asked it many times and I know none of y’all have an answer to it, beyond calling me a bot or foreign agent, to avoid the question and to performatively demonstrate your loyalty to the US government. I’d love for someone to prove me wrong, but I also know it won’t happen.

    • Ibaudia@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      Lemmy.ml user doesn’t understand that there are more than two options for China, and their people can do better than either bad or very bad

      A tale as old as time

    • morrowind@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      How about keep the system, but stop trying to pretend it’s not primarily capitalism

      • angrymouse@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 month ago

        Well, I dont think they are socialist, not in the traditional term, but 100% they are not capitalists at all, not like any capitalist experience we had. Until a better one I always call it a post-capitalist technocracy.

          • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 month ago

            I don’t think OP would agree with the position that the economic system itself is fine and it’s just the label that needs to change. But I also don’t think they have any coherent position on the topic beyond “China Bad.” I suppose I could be wrong.

            • morrowind@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 month ago

              I have no idea what OP thinks of the economic system itself because from my understanding he is only criticizing the label. That’s all I’m saying

    • Germandaniel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 month ago

      Interesting, how do you feel about uyghurs? Also, are you aware that some of these people “lifted out of poverty” were folks in rural areas who were totally fine where they were at. I’m not a big fan of the US government either or other bodies that seriously impinge human rights. I think a correct path forward for China economically is somewhere close to where they’re at now but with more civil liberties.

      • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Also, are you aware that some of these people “lifted out of poverty” were folks in rural areas who were totally fine where they were at.

        That’s… certainly a take, alright. I suppose it’s possible that hundreds of millions of rural Chinese were voluntarily choosing to live in extreme poverty out of some sort of commitment to asceticism. I’ll admit that this was not a possibility I had considered before.

        I think a correct path forward for China economically is somewhere close to where they’re at now but with more civil liberties.

        So then the billionaires aren’t the problem you have with China then, if I’m understanding you.

        • papertowels@lemmy.one
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          Yeah it turns out they’re just forcibly uprooting people who are happy where they’re at.

          But Liu and other residents allege that the authorities are coercing them into signing away their older, much larger farm homes, demolishing them by force if necessary and not adequately compensating residents for their homes. The residents say the new, smaller houses or high-rise apartments they are being moved into are either too far from their fields, too expensive or ill-suited for their needs as farmers.

          • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 month ago

            I don’t doubt that there were some cases of the government overstepping, or that you can find a couple people out of the hundreds of millions who are dissatisfied. But the figure of hundred of millions refers to people who were living in extreme poverty, which is defined as less than $2 per day, some of the poorest people on the planet. That’s not a lifestyle that’s worth preserving.

            Coming back from that tangent though, am I correct that the general economic system and the existence of billionaires are not the problems that you have with China?

            • papertowels@lemmy.one
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              Since you bring up their income, do you have some data for the flip side of the coin - how much was cost of living for those people? I grew up with my Chinese dad telling me about buying the day’s vegetables for like a nickel. Granted that was before the 80s, so I’d be interested in any data you have to share.

              I’m not op.

              Also, a bit of a wry aside, you might actually struggle to find people voicing their dissatisfaction due to the fear of the government relayed multiple times in the article :)

              • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 month ago

                The $2 per day is a figure used by the World Bank. According to this page:

                The welfare of people living in different countries can be compared by adjusting for differences in the purchasing power of their currencies.

                I don’t know the exact details of the World Bank’s methodology, but I believe the $2 figure is adjusted based on purchasing power.

                • papertowels@lemmy.one
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  That sent me down a cool rabbit hole, thanks!

                  Industrialization is a hell of a drug. During the same period apparently the wealth gap shot up, so chinas got that to contend with. Best of luck to them.

    • assassin_aragorn@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 month ago

      I mean that’s a decent point. More government involvement in the economy, strong regulatory oversight, can stop capitalism from becoming destructive. It’s just that even China’s level of government intrusiveness isn’t enough.