They got the shortest end of the stick of imperialism. US carried out a genocide against Vietnam, Korea, and Laos. The Japanese also carried out a genocide against the Chinese. The Chinese people started to lose faith in the KMT when it was taken over by Chiang Kai-shek, who started to get close with Nazi Germany who was allied with the Japanese and started to implement fascist policies in China. There is a much greater understanding of the evils of imperialism.
Christianity, which is one of the main material institutions used to propagate reactionary dogma, is also a pretty insignificant material force in Asian countries. The Confucian cultural institutions are much more prevalent. This matters because liberalism just believes the government should protect “individual rights” then remain entirely hands-off. It is therefore not outcome-oriented. If this leads to a horrible society, well, so be it.
Confucianism is very outcome-oriented. It directly argues the purpose of the state should be public interests, to solve problems in society, to serve the public, etc. This is why the KMT fell out of favor. Chinese people thought it was silly that Chiang Kai-shek started to ban certain hairstyles and beat people who didn’t have their hair cut to very specific lengths, when this did nothing to solve real problems in the country like mass hunger and poverty.
There is just, generally speaking, a much greater popularity in Asian countries for outcome-oriented politics. Western politics tends to be more moral-oriented. Take for example COVID-19. The USA did not have serious lockdowns because it would violate the moral principle of individual freedom, so sacrificing over a million people was deemed a worthy price to pay. The Chinese had serious lockdowns and saved the lives of millions, but they were condemned by westerners for doing so, many describing it as Orwellian 1984. Even though the outcome was better, western society is generally not outcome-oriented. The influence of Christianity promotes a good-vs-evil mentality, and so most people think in moralist terms.
The Asian communists also seem to have actually read Marx. A lot of “Marxists” seem to have never read Marx… and this sometimes even applies to those in socialist countries. Many self-proclaimed Marxists simply do not understand historical materialism and that the basis of political power ultimately rests in industry and the production process. Asian communists understood this and internalized it and thus realized if they want real independence as a country they need to develop their own industrial base, and if they want to really improve people’s lives they need to focus on developing productivity.
Marxists outside of Asia have had more of a tendency to think in moralist terms. Socialism for them is more about moral principles, like liberalism’s individual rights, but replaced by “collective rights.” There was a movement like this in China temporarily, the Gang of Four, who implemented policies based on an abstract concept of socialist morality, and this led to economic chaos. When challenged on it, they claimed it was better to be poor than to sacrifice these moralist principles. This caused them to become viewed unfavorably and later ousted from power.
But that mentality was much more persistent outside of Asia, even in other socialist countries.
They got the shortest end of the stick of imperialism. US carried out a genocide against Vietnam, Korea, and Laos. The Japanese also carried out a genocide against the Chinese. The Chinese people started to lose faith in the KMT when it was taken over by Chiang Kai-shek, who started to get close with Nazi Germany who was allied with the Japanese and started to implement fascist policies in China. There is a much greater understanding of the evils of imperialism.
Christianity, which is one of the main material institutions used to propagate reactionary dogma, is also a pretty insignificant material force in Asian countries. The Confucian cultural institutions are much more prevalent. This matters because liberalism just believes the government should protect “individual rights” then remain entirely hands-off. It is therefore not outcome-oriented. If this leads to a horrible society, well, so be it.
Confucianism is very outcome-oriented. It directly argues the purpose of the state should be public interests, to solve problems in society, to serve the public, etc. This is why the KMT fell out of favor. Chinese people thought it was silly that Chiang Kai-shek started to ban certain hairstyles and beat people who didn’t have their hair cut to very specific lengths, when this did nothing to solve real problems in the country like mass hunger and poverty.
There is just, generally speaking, a much greater popularity in Asian countries for outcome-oriented politics. Western politics tends to be more moral-oriented. Take for example COVID-19. The USA did not have serious lockdowns because it would violate the moral principle of individual freedom, so sacrificing over a million people was deemed a worthy price to pay. The Chinese had serious lockdowns and saved the lives of millions, but they were condemned by westerners for doing so, many describing it as Orwellian 1984. Even though the outcome was better, western society is generally not outcome-oriented. The influence of Christianity promotes a good-vs-evil mentality, and so most people think in moralist terms.
The Asian communists also seem to have actually read Marx. A lot of “Marxists” seem to have never read Marx… and this sometimes even applies to those in socialist countries. Many self-proclaimed Marxists simply do not understand historical materialism and that the basis of political power ultimately rests in industry and the production process. Asian communists understood this and internalized it and thus realized if they want real independence as a country they need to develop their own industrial base, and if they want to really improve people’s lives they need to focus on developing productivity.
Marxists outside of Asia have had more of a tendency to think in moralist terms. Socialism for them is more about moral principles, like liberalism’s individual rights, but replaced by “collective rights.” There was a movement like this in China temporarily, the Gang of Four, who implemented policies based on an abstract concept of socialist morality, and this led to economic chaos. When challenged on it, they claimed it was better to be poor than to sacrifice these moralist principles. This caused them to become viewed unfavorably and later ousted from power.
But that mentality was much more persistent outside of Asia, even in other socialist countries.