Ladakh Flash Point
- Thread starter Mt1701d
- Start date
- Status
India media and govt lie
China has video of indian soldiers getting owned
China tells India to stfu or we release this vid.
India could've been more powerful than China if they didn't go democracy.
China should send its Mig21's to deal with Rafales
China has video of indian soldiers getting owned
China tells India to stfu or we release this vid.
India could've been more powerful than China if they didn't go democracy.
China should send its Mig21's to deal with Rafales
Last edited:
India media and govt lie
China has video of indian soldiers getting owned
China tells India to stfu or we release this vid.
India could've been more powerful than China if they didn't go democracy.
China should send its Mig21's to deal with Rafales
I disagree that India would have been better if they didn't go democracy. India is terrible because it has inherent deep issues in its society that has been festering for 3000 thousand years. Ever since Aryan invasion, they have a caste system that deliberately excludes all the lower class positions to conquered Dravidians. This rigid caste system is still ongoing. They were never truly united as a single country have always had many languages, races, cultures. They have a culture that prizes laziness and religiosity over hardwork and money making.
These are things you cannot solve no matter how democratic or autoritarian your government is. There is a strong chance a unitary and strongly authoritarian Indian state would fall apart into multiple states due to all the anger from different ethnic groups. India is a loose union that is still united because it is so loose. Any attempt to forcefully create a stronger union will see a huge backlash that will cause the state to collapse. Pakistan and Bangladesh themselves were part of India and now divided and are the biggest enemies against India. This happened because Indian hindu majority could not gain the trust of the muslims. If too much force is applied, Dravidian south India could split, other potential splits could be Punjab and West Bengal or many other parts of India.
How do you think China would've turned out after WWII if it went the India route in terms of governance?
Chinese people were also superstitious and backwards, we were poorer than India due to the war.
And then there's the religious split. You don't even need to involve Muslim Indians on this one.
Hindutva/Sanghis doing the usual. This time setting their sights on southern Indians. These agenda is similar to any extremely intolerant ideology but it is naturally self-limiting. Without external "enemies" to overcome their differences, they eat each other.
The Communists really set China on a new course for better or worse. What things could/would be like isn't really something for this forum, at least certainly not this thread.
I think different government system can cause changes to countries in fundamental ways. But the nature of the society in that country is a strong factor in success and failures of governments. China has had long history of a strong central government for 2000 plus years and that strong central singular state of 2000 years has also changed the social system of China where local clans, tribes, families do not exist or have much less power and cohesion compared to the singular state that is ruled by officials. So one can say, China is the first modernized nation state that centralized its people much earlier than Europeans or any other regions.
Because China had these foundations, a single ruling communist party was able to create a state where ruling officials are chosen by merit or political connections instead of which region, religion or tribe they belong. If China did not have these foundations, communist China would have fallen apart like Soviet Union. Soviet Union did not fall apart due to Communism failing, but due to nationalism of different ethnic groups.
So the answer to your question is: China would never have gone to the India route because the nature of its society is so different. China has enough pride in its culture that it would never be a western vassal that KMT kind of was. So, if communist China did no rise up, there is a chance that a different nationalistic party would have taken power that is still anti-KMT and anti-western domination.
And whoever gained control of China would have gone for an authoritarian system anyway because that is the nature of Chinese society. This is true even for Korea and Japan which were also heavily authoritarian. Japan on the surface might look like a democracy, but its is a deeply hierarchical state where the ruling LDP has won pretty much every time since WW2. This is the same LDP that actually constituted japanese elites who rules Japan before WW2. So, Japan has not changed its ruling party ever since Meiji restoration.
Chinese society must change fundamentally before China can accept chaotic western style democracy. It could happen in the distant future when China is extremely wealthy and has vanquished the western powers and no longers feels any threat. But as long as the western powers are richer and stronger than China, it will be under threat and whenever there is a threat, people go for less chaos and more unity under authoritarian rule.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
The west has been endlessly brainwashing the world that democracy is some sort of magical panacea to all of the world’s ills. Anyone who has actually lived in the real world will easily see the lie in that. Western democracies are not immune or above the same issues and problems as China, Russia or even North Korea. That is why the west, and America in particular, is so scared the world learning about the real China, because as soon as that happens, their own citizens might start asking why things are actually better in authoritarian China compared to democratic America.
Democracy is a means of internal social control. It is about rich men being able to continue growing richer and taking an ever bigger slice of the pie without the plebs getting mad and resetting the wealth distribution with revolutions and head chopping.
No country has gotten rich by being democratic alone. The ones who did happen to be western client states, and go rich because of massive western investment, aid and favourable market access. Democracy had nothing to with it. Just look at east Asia. Both South Korea and Taiwan grew rich while being dictatorships, while Japan was the only one that can claim to have gotten rich while being a democracy. The common factor wasn’t means of government but western support.
The primary reason the west desperately wants the emerging world to go democratic isn’t out of altruism and trying to get the best for the people’s of those countries, it’s about control. Democracy is their game, and they have set the rules to be overwhelming beneficial to themselves. No local news media could hope to compete with the western MSM behemoth, nor could grass roots local support stand up to billionaire foreign donors. As soon as countries go democratic, western oligarchs own them. And they use that power ruthlessly to asset strip SOEs via privatisation and monopolise key sectors. Just look at what happened to the Western Europe countries after the fall of the USSR and how the west plundered South Korea and Japanese financial sectors as soon as they got an excuse during the Asian financial crash, a crash which was largely orchestrated by western billionaire fund managers to boot.
The only certainty from going democratic is to be forever subservient to western interests and whims.
The real reason democracy is supposed to work better than authoritarian government is accountability. But it’s not democracy itself that allows that, but rather safeguards like a free and unbiased press, independent judiciary and educated and informed electorate.
Democracy has zero inherent advantages over authoritarian rule when all those pillars and preconditions required for it to function as intended has been perverted and subverted.
A free press is meaningless when it can be bought by the highest bidder and made to print outright lies without any consequences; an independent judiciary is irrelevant when you have legislators writing unjust laws and jackbooted stormtroopers who are in charge of enforcing said laws take the law into their own hands with impunity; and a vote cast by people based on lies and manipulation is worse than meaningless, as it adds legitimacy to otherwise indefensible positions.
While corruption is legalised and injustice institutionalised in western democracies, it is in authoritarian China where officials are held accountable for their failings; and social injustices are taken seriously by authorities and acted upon swiftly. That is why while America is crumbling, China is advancing. It has nothing to do with democracy or authoritarianism and everything to do with accountability and justice.
Democracy is a means of internal social control. It is about rich men being able to continue growing richer and taking an ever bigger slice of the pie without the plebs getting mad and resetting the wealth distribution with revolutions and head chopping.
No country has gotten rich by being democratic alone. The ones who did happen to be western client states, and go rich because of massive western investment, aid and favourable market access. Democracy had nothing to with it. Just look at east Asia. Both South Korea and Taiwan grew rich while being dictatorships, while Japan was the only one that can claim to have gotten rich while being a democracy. The common factor wasn’t means of government but western support.
The primary reason the west desperately wants the emerging world to go democratic isn’t out of altruism and trying to get the best for the people’s of those countries, it’s about control. Democracy is their game, and they have set the rules to be overwhelming beneficial to themselves. No local news media could hope to compete with the western MSM behemoth, nor could grass roots local support stand up to billionaire foreign donors. As soon as countries go democratic, western oligarchs own them. And they use that power ruthlessly to asset strip SOEs via privatisation and monopolise key sectors. Just look at what happened to the Western Europe countries after the fall of the USSR and how the west plundered South Korea and Japanese financial sectors as soon as they got an excuse during the Asian financial crash, a crash which was largely orchestrated by western billionaire fund managers to boot.
The only certainty from going democratic is to be forever subservient to western interests and whims.
The real reason democracy is supposed to work better than authoritarian government is accountability. But it’s not democracy itself that allows that, but rather safeguards like a free and unbiased press, independent judiciary and educated and informed electorate.
Democracy has zero inherent advantages over authoritarian rule when all those pillars and preconditions required for it to function as intended has been perverted and subverted.
A free press is meaningless when it can be bought by the highest bidder and made to print outright lies without any consequences; an independent judiciary is irrelevant when you have legislators writing unjust laws and jackbooted stormtroopers who are in charge of enforcing said laws take the law into their own hands with impunity; and a vote cast by people based on lies and manipulation is worse than meaningless, as it adds legitimacy to otherwise indefensible positions.
While corruption is legalised and injustice institutionalised in western democracies, it is in authoritarian China where officials are held accountable for their failings; and social injustices are taken seriously by authorities and acted upon swiftly. That is why while America is crumbling, China is advancing. It has nothing to do with democracy or authoritarianism and everything to do with accountability and justice.
None of the supposed "safeguards" you mentioned guarantee accountability.
Agree with most of what you stated. At this stage of development China needs a strong government to execute needed programs and minimize undesirable external manipulation. A possible reason China has been so successful the last few decades could be because they know where the gaps are and the authoritarian government allows large scale implementation of ideas. Once China attains certain level of development they will have to chart courses in less familiar territory and in my mind it is an unknown if things will continue to work as well.
- Status