Things that are so obvious and ingrained that no one even thinks about them.
Here’s a few:
All US americans can go to Mexico EASILY. You’re supposed to have a passport but you don’t even need one (for car/foot crossing). Versus, it’s really hard for Mexicans, who aren’t wealthy, to secure a VISA to enter the US. I’m sure there are corollaries in other geo-regions.
Another one is wealthy countries having access to vaccines far ahead of “poor” countries.
In US, we might pay lip service to equal child-hood education but most of the funding pulls from local taxes so some kids might receive ~$10000 in spending while another receives $2000. I’m not looking it up at the moment, but I’m SURE there are strong racial stratas.
Well it was still a step in the right direction, distributing power a bit more locally instead of living as a colony under a monarchical foreign power. You may also recall that initially they went too far in decentralizing power before the Constitution replaced the articles of confederation. Even then voting rights were mostly decided by each state, some allowing non land owners and even free black men (though sometimes later removing that right) to vote pre 1800s. Whatever they may have discussed, voting and ability to participate in government was enjoyed by over half of the citizens, which is a significant improvement over the foreign tyrant they had previously. But regardless of how the British tried to label colonial rebels, and regardless of how much the rebels didn’t get right, I’m on the side of the historical revolutionaries.
I would love to know your opinion of the CPC within this context. You have made it clear that you support American revolutionaries if only because their system was ostensibly better than the one that came before. What about Chinese revolutionaries?
Hmm, interesting question. That depends if you think that the society they have now is better than the one preceding? The two situations aren’t entirely analogous since one involved separation from a foreign power while the other involved dismantling of the old culture and society in order to make a brand new one. I think that China is more powerful now than they would be otherwise, had they not gone through their cultural revolution, but it came at a great cost where centuries of culture was destroyed. I don’t think it was worth it, but that’s also easy for me to say because I don’t live there and because my perception is certainly skewed by Western perspectives. I think they lost something of great value with how the cultural revolution played out and the Chinese people are irrecoverably different as a result. Makes me a little bit sad, but we can’t change the past, so it doesn’t really matter.
You think “destroying centuries of culture” outweighs abolishing extreme poverty, ending feudalism in a country of more than a billion, redistributing land to the peasantry, taking the country from a cycle where every few years millions would die in a famine to being an economic super power, leading the world in space age scientific progress?
I couldn’t even be bothered to engage once they tried to imply that the Chinese revolution didn’t involve separation from a foreign power. what was the Shanghai International Settlement? they sure don’t know, maybe it was a floor wax or a dessert topping.
Parenti quote about evaluating how a country is before and after a revolution, but a bizarre messed up version where he decides Cuba was better off as a colony with no self determination.
Also the environment was devastated and hundreds of thousands (if not millions) died. Also how do you feel about China’s current treatment of indigenous Tibetans? Maybe you should take off your red colored glasses and look around.
The environment being devastated is mostly a fair criticism. China is making huge efforts toward sustainability today, but maybe too late to make enough of a difference.
Hundreds of millions died, yes, that’s what happens when 80 years go by in a country of hundreds of millions. I don’t see your point.
How do I feel about their treatment of indigenous Tibetans? I think China did a heroic thing by ending slave labor in Tibet. I’m not sure if they took the best path toward liberating Tibetan slaves while also not erasing their culture. I don’t know if such a thing was possible, and my personal opinion is that if it wasn’t, it’s preferable for them to be free and not keep a reactionary culture than keep their slave state intact, the same way I don’t care about preserving Confederate monuments in the US despite their cultural importance.
All in all, for a real, existing country, China has a really good batting average.
not really. it’s an entirely disingenuous criticism used by the imperial core to deflect deflect deflect.
China was years ahead on the Paris agreement while America was years behind on it. And America imports ~19% of its total annual imports from China lately. Meaning America is relying on Chinese commodity production (and Chinese emissions) for its economic needs, while failing to meet its climate agreement benchmarks. American citizens have a way higher per capita carbon emission than Chinese citizens. China is trying to prepare for climate change by reducing emissions. America is preparing for climate change by scapegoating China and militarizing its border, and enabling genocides in Israel and Yemen.
I agree that in the context of what’s going on worldwide, China is doing much better for sustainability than the rest of the world. So, in a sense, criticism is invalid because it would be better directed at the countries with higher emissions per capita, as you say. Criticism doesn’t exist in a vacuum and we should steer clear of anticommunism and sinophobia.
On the other hand, there’s no way China should keep its level of industrial growth and usage of fossil fuels indefinitely in the face of world threatening climate change. I think it’s a fair criticism to make when trying to assess how future socialism should look. In other words, China may be doing very well for itself by keeping per capita emissions very low relative to the rest of the world, but even still, it burns amounts of fossil fuels that are fundamentally at odds with trying to prevent climate collapse. Is that mostly due to Western capital? Yeah, pretty much.
I agree. That’s the scariest part of all of this. If any country decreases its industrial output, it decreases its ability to wage war, which means it increases its chances of getting invaded by a less principled country who continues to increase its industrial output. So all nations basically see decreasing industrial output as letting their guard down and opening themselves up to invasion. And if they get invaded/annexed by more powerful nations who don’t care about the climate, their industrial output will still increase, just under a new regime imposed from the outside. So there’s a global prisoners’ dilemma here. I don’t foresee anyone letting their guard down by decreasing industrial output. Significantly below international agreements which already aren’t being followed anyway.
Hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, died directly as a result of the Chinese cultural revolution and Mao’s great leap forward and I don’t think it should just be brushed off as an unfortunate side effect of a necessary revolution. But I generally agree with the principle behind the rest of it.
How many millions were dying in China in the famines that would happen every few years, in no small part due to the colonialist status quo? It doesn’t justify all the excesses of the revolution, but it doesn’t help anybody to keep looking for a nuanced position absent of context.
I agree
How many people did the American revolutionaries kill in their pursuit of manifest destiny after forming their own nation?
The PRC ended feudal theocracy and slavery in Tibet
Calling the founding fathers ”revolutionaries” belongs in this thread.
I always get a kick out of how silly they were and how bad at designing governments they ended up being. Like you pointed out their first attempt was a shitshow, and when you read the federalist papers he outright says the entire plan is for there to be no political parties, if we get those it won’t work and we’ll all be fucked.
And yet as soon as King George relinquished the presidency we had a two party system, in fact the Constitution more or less makes a two party system inevitable. And it has no provisions for the legislature being unable to legislate etc, basic stuff that the British had already had to solve with their Parliament.
And yet they’re supposed to be these incredible architects of a genius system of intricate checks and balances.
Makes you wonder if our success as a nation had more to do with explosive growth, immigration, and opportunity. Or maybe the system worked well under those conditions, but now the whole environment is steady state and it doesn’t work quite as well.