Is Republic of China's existence the ultimate proof that capitalism is far superior to socialism in every way imaginable? Literally the same people with the same starting point yet Taiwanese people have Western-tier living standards, one of the most stable democracies in Asia, one of the largest economies in the world for a small size, is a massive innovator, has a good standard of basic human rights, etc.
Whereas PRC is a shit-tier dictatorship, literally Potemkin village outside of major coastal cities with Middle Eastern living standards.
Well, if we ignore the significant difference in population and territory. But as a side note, if we take all the richest and most educated people in the mainland, the mainland could replace the entire population of Taiwan and then some.
David Morris
>Is Republic of China's existence the ultimate proof that capitalism is far superior to socialism in every way imaginable? No, that's South Korea vs North Korea.
See this. "Muh size" can't be used to juxtapose the two Korea's.
Same difference, Chang. Communism is the end goal: a stateless society where everyone works according to their ability and consumes according to their need on their own. Socialism (or the dictatorship of the proletariat) is needed to 'prepare' the people for the transition to communism. Kind of like how a cult indoctrinates you before you drink the Kool-Aid.
Dylan Roberts
You just contradicted your first point tho
John Baker
it used to be an iron-fisted dictatorship until not that long ago fact is that it benefitted from american naval support and its political/geographic proximity to japan, just like korea
Owen White
Yes I know. The same way OP ignored the significant population and territory difference in his rationale, so did I. It’s called cherry picking user, get used to it, you’re on Jow Forums.
Blake Richardson
Explain to me how size and territory make a difference. East Timor isn't rich and France isn't poor, even though East Timor fits in France 37 times.
It's not as if market freedom, average IQ (admittedly irrelevant between PRC and ROC), education and lack of corruption play a role or anything! Nope, it's just size! Because small countries are richer than big countries as demonstrated by the evid- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inequality-adjusted_HDI >Australia in 3rd place >Germany in 5th place >Canada in 11th place >UK in 13th place Oops!
Brandon Rodriguez
This is not true and you know it
Ryan Diaz
No - it proves that imperialism works.
Japan turned Taiwan into what it is.
Parker Torres
Statistics are public and available you greasy foreigner.
Colton Jackson
ppl shouldn't use us as a tool to prove the superiority of capitalism
Because larger countries are typically more difficult to administrate. Given conflicting ethnic groups, languages, cost of infrastructure, religions and various other differences.
There is no general maxim to state that all small countries will be more prosperous then larger countries. But it is objectively true that larger countries are more difficult to administrate.
Nathaniel Edwards
Also. It’s, it is not just territory size, it is also the size of the populace living in the territory.
Michael Evans
Ironic, coming from a Canadian. 11 nations -among whom the two dominant ones can't even stand eachother, the second largest country in the world and a population over thirty times as large as that of Luxembourg. Yet you manage to edge out ahead of Luxembourg which according to your standards has everything going in its favor.
It's almost as if it's a retarded theory only China apologists and third worlders use. Let me guess, you're from Hongcouver? Chinktario maybe?
If you choose to compare Canada to Luxembourg, your argument succeeds. If you compare Sweden to Canada, your argument fails. Welcome to cherry picking user. You seem to be adjusting well to it.
I said there is no maxim that dictates small countries must and will perform better in a development metric then a larger country. I said larger countries with a sizable population are objectively more difficult to administrate.
KMT government didn’t work in China, it works in Taiwan. Great. Does that mean the same government would be able to replicate the same performance in a larger country with a larger population? No. That’s a false correalation.
Benjamin Butler
More or less, but a better example would be West Germany vs East Germany or South Korea vs North Korea, but we could also see Thailand vs Vietnam/Cambodia/Laos or North Yemen vs South Yemen or even Zimbabwe vs Zambia or more broadly West Europe vs East Europe.
Andrew Morales
Esitmates of the public sector's size in modern China range from 50% to as low as 30% (ie. around France levels), down from 100% under Mao.
The thing about so-called Socialism with Chinese characteristics is that it means whatever the fuck the current chairman wants it to mean. We've also seen each successive chairman being more market-friendly than the last, so it's entirely thinkable that Xi's successor will fully liberalize the market to the point where it makes America look communist and they'll STILL call it Socialism with Chinese characteristics.
Juan Thomas
>Welcome to cherry picking user You're welcome, but you're still not proving your point. Unlike the explanations I mentioned (market freedom, average IQ, lack of corruption) there is absolutely zero evidence correlating population size to prosperity.
>I said larger countries with a sizable population are objectively more difficult to administrate. You base that on what, 16th century knowledge?
>KMT government didn’t work in China It "didn't work" because it was constantly at war and worst of all allowed Mao to escape into the mountains rather than destroying the reds once and for all when it had a chance. Communism didn't work for China either and they didn't even have warlords and Japan as an excuse.
Also this. There's loads of examples where size doesn't play a role or where the more prosperous side is larger. All of them have to do with two of the factors I mentioned though: market freedom and lack of corruption.
Ryan Wilson
Look user. You can blame the CCP for knocking the KMT out to Taiwan. That’s fine and I’m inclined to believe the CCP did play a role in that. But the KMT fell out of favour in the mainland for corruption and incompetence when they were in control. Also note, if it didn’t work, it didn’t work, excuses don’t matter. They had their chance and they blew it.
Actually I did list several reasons why it’s more difficult to administrate mainland and Taiwan. Difference in population and territory size, infrastructure costs, legacy costs, religious, ideological, demographic and language etc etc. In general, do you think it’s easier to to get 10 people to follow orders or 100 people?
I’m not correalating size and population with prosperity in general. I’m using your example. Taiwan and China.
It is objectively true that the KMT government has had success in administrating Taiwan when they failed in the mainland. Making the assumption that the KMT would have the same success in the mainland had they not lost the civil war, is a false correalation. We will never know. What we do know is that the KMT failed at administrating the mainland.
Jack Evans
The Taiwanese government is Georgist, not capitalist.
"China" as a country does not exit. Rather, it is a geographical term, meaning "mainland China". It consists of several renegade provinces that form part of the Republic of China (R.O.C.) whose provisional government is in the provisional capital city of the R.O.C., which is Taipei.
So, pals, just forget the shitty "mainland China" meme.
>Why didn't they let the commies take their property?
Asher Stewart
If you earn LESS than BIP per capita, you cannot claim this country as yours.
Wyatt Miller
>capitalism works
the best way to stop people from turning into socialists or communists is to abolish capitalism, I've lived in a capitalist society for my whole life, I've seen pretty much of all of it's deficiencies
>The problem begins with state intervention ("In order to at first concentrate wealth into the hands of investors, THE STATE must TAKE WEALTH from the many and give it to the few" >The solution to injustice caused by excessive state intervention is even more state intervention This is the problem with the "late stage capitalism" meme.
