Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her] @ Zuzak @hexbear.net

Posts

0

Comments

262

Joined

5 yr. ago

Well, on the one hand, you have an old book you might read all the way through once (but probably not) that says to be responsible stewards of the earth. But on the other hand, you have people on the TV every night telling you to support whatever makes corporations the most money.

Old ideas can have value but it's hard to compete with new ideas when those new ideas have a lot more money and can be crafted to appeal to a specific audience (regardless of what's true).

this is not an AO3 goth furry rp

Well maybe... maybe it SHOULD be!

:::spoiler I'll offer my own answers as well.

1. The CPC
2. I agree, though I think it may have gone too far. Allowing billionaires is a dangerous gambit due to the possibility of them gaining political influence, and allowing landlords was a mistake. However, these reforms have helped lift 800 million people out of extreme poverty and were necessary at the time.
3. Land reform, the Barefoot Doctors program, Deng's reforms, and the Belt and Road initiative have all been very successful and increased the standards of living for an enormous number of people. The CPC has had a focus on improving the lives of their poorest people, and in that regard they've done a very good job.
4. The Great Leap Forward, the Sino-Soviet split, the Cultural Revolution, LGBT rights, and past China's foreign policy such as supporting Pol Pot/the Khemer Rouge and invading Vietnam. A lot of the blame for the Sino-Soviet split lies with Khrushchev, but I think there's enough blame to go around. I think the Soviet policy of "peaceful co-existence" was more correct, and more in line with what China ended up doing anyway (libs will roast me for that, I'm sure). Some positive things did happen during the Cultural Revolution (such as the above-mentioned Barefoot Doctors program), but generally it was a chaotic mess and I'm not sure it accomplished very much. The GLF had a lot of factors, including the Sino-Soviet split, but there's plenty of blame to ascribe to Mao (the sparrows did not, in fact, deserve it)
5. Kind of trite but one take-away is "seek truth from facts." When Mao was successful, it was because of his experience living among rural Chinese, and looking at what they needed. Where he was unsuccessful was when he got too caught up in theory, sometimes assuming something would work without paying close enough attention to whether it actually was. I consider the overall political project successful due to the improvements made in people's lives, but how the devil's bargain with the capitalists will ultimately play out remains to be seen.

Did you know that Deng Xiaoping, the leader of China during the Tiananmen Square protests, resigned from all official positions shortly after the protests? I don't recall Nixon doing anything similar over Kent State, however.

So, instead of rehashing the same old talking points for the upteenth time, would anyone be interested in discussing China's political project in a broader and more mature way? Like for example:

• Who do you think should've come to power following the fall of the Qing, through to the civil war (if not the CPC)?
• Do you agree with the direction of Deng's economic reforms and opening up to foreign investment? If not, should he have stayed closer to Mao's policies, or should he have gone further towards liberalization, or something else?
• What aspects or projects of the CPC have been good or successful?
• What aspects or projects of the CPC have been flawed or unsuccessful?
• What lessons can be learned from the successes and failures of the CPC?

Ngl I don't have high hopes for this comment but I'm tryin' over here.

I believe that Russia should've waited things out because its the open state of war that gives Ukraine enough diplomatic cover to push to its pre-2014 borders.

That's kind of a fair point I think but I don't think the Donbas would ever be able to join Russia in this timeline. Without Russian intervention, the separatists likely lose and the years that follow establish precedent for Russia control of Crimea but also for Ukrainian control over Donbas. I think it's a valid, if cynical, argument to say that Russia should've cashed out with Crimea instead of going all in to try to take Donbas, but it means leaving the separatist out to dry. I do kind of agree with it though, I guess it comes down to what happens to the separatists if Ukraine wins, and I've seen people say they'd be genocided but I don't really buy that, seems speculative and like propaganda.

I can't speak for every user on my instance (nor can you for yours), but I can say that many of us also respond in kind to what we get. When you tried to dunk on me, you got PPB'd. You'll get the same if you lob baseless accusations (like calling us "the QAnon of the left") or confidently assert bad, uninformed takes.

I think your problem is that you jump to conclusions too quickly. I think you'll have better luck with Hexbears if you slow down and make sure you actually understand what our point is instead of just trying to win before you have a clear picture of what the other person's position is.

Just because it doesn't paint the full picture doesn't mean it isn't important. The data in this case shows some very clear conclusions.

Sometimes I try to post more in depth theory, the last time I tried that, everyone complained that it was TLDR.

Life expectancy doesn't always give the whole picture. For example, in my graph, there are times where China's life expectancy is rising very rapidly, but it was still considerably lower than that of other countries. It's necessary to analyze what policies lead to what results and what the reasons are for the success or failure of a given political project or policy.

I haven't studied South Korea's policies and material conditions closely enough to offer much of an informed analysis, as the world is a very big place. You could always make a thread about it on c/askchapo or something.

The entire point

That's all you fam, I never said anything like that. All I did was point to graph and say I liked it when people do things (and political projects) that make life expectancy skyrocket. You seem to have read a bunch of stuff into that.

I have no idea what thought process led you to post that but ok.

There were a lot of really simple, basic improvements that the peasants in China desperately needed. Anybody could've done what was needed, but nobody else was willing to, because nobody else cared. There was no special technical economic policy that uplifted them, it was just a willingness to address their needs that no other faction possessed.

Of course I know that, did you not read what I said?

"China's conditions were much worse off than places like the US, so obviously it's possible to improve conditions to be better than per-revolutionary China (which is not saying much) without communism."

It's not hard to double your life expectancy when you're starting out with the same life expectancy that existed in the Roman Empire almost 2,000 years prior. Thanks, Mao!

It really is wild that no other faction was willing to do anything that would increase Chinese life expectancy above that of the Roman Empire, yes. I agree, thanks, Mao!

It's pretty funny that you criticize Deng for implenting economic reforms that led to further industrialization, while also crediting the rise in life expectancy to that very same industrialization.

What even is your ideology? And can you answer my question about who should've come to power instead of the communists?

Over 60, actually. I think that doubling live expectancy over a single generation is, in fact, pretty impressive.

So I take it you're not a Maoist or a Dengist. Can you tell me who you think should've been in power in China instead? The KMT? You can see how much they did on the graph, if you don't find the CPC's numbers impressive then I'm sure you'd hate them even more. The invading Japanese perhaps? The European colonizers? Or maybe you think the Qing dynasty should never have been overthrown.

Deng was alive and well when two of those stock exchanges were opened

That's... what I said? Obviously, Deng was the one who implemented economic reforms, such as opening stock exchanges and allowing foreign investment. Some Maoists consider this to be right-deviationist and counter-revolutionary, and that he should've continued more in line with Mao's policies. That's why I asked if you're a Maoist, since you consider his reforms incompatible with socialism.

I'm not sure who's whole argument was "look at the improvements only possible under Communism." China's conditions were much worse off than places like the US, so obviously it's possible to improve conditions to be better than per-revolutionary China (which is not saying much) without communism. It's just that in China's case, it was the communists that did it.

That's what the rumor said, but googling seems to indicate it was a hoax. Though like I said the original is basically the same thing.

Oh, so you consider Deng's reforms to be right-deviationist? Are you a Maoist, then?

Whether you consider the CPC to be communist or not, the fact still remains that they've made a lot of improvements in the lives of the average Chinese person.

Yeah I got that, at least after they posted a rickroll. Guess being an idiot is a defense mechanism when they realized they had nothing.

I like good faith, nuanced discussions but it seems like a lot of times when I try to be nice people see it as a sign of weakness and go on the offense. There's a lot of interesting political and historical discussions we could have, like, "Were Deng Xiaoping's economic reforms necessary for the conditions of the time to eradicate extreme poverty in China, or were they a deviation from socialist ideals that have caused China to be irrevocably compromised by corporate interests (in which case, what should've been done differently)?" On Hexbear, that's something that we have disagreements and nuanced good faith discussions about, but it's impossible to do that in an environment where everyone accuses me of being a bot or shill or a tankie or whatever whenever I acknowledge that any policy China has ever implemented was at all successful.

I guess it's easier to get into higher-level discussion when you have a set of agreed upon values and basic assumptions. I just wish I didn't have to deal with all the accusations and name-calling, but I'm not one to roll over either. There's a reason we have Pig Poop Balls.

Yeah, they really showed that we will call someone a Nazi after they come out of the gate equating us to Nazis and then start saying transphobic shit and going off about blue-haired SJWs, we're so owned by this, somehow.