China vs. India

[TDAS04]

India.

[Wake Me Up When The Hard Border Ends]

India.

[ElectionsGuy]

India.

[Goldwater]

India.

[moderatevoter]

India.

[Boris]

Both are horrible places, but I suppose mainland China would be more fun to visit

[RR1997]

India.

[TDAS04]

While the democracy will likely win this poll, some people will still probably vote for the country that's richer, more organized, and has more order.  

[RogueBeaver]

India.

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

Besides China's politics, I quite like China. Also like India.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

While the democracy will likely win this poll, some people will still probably vote for the country that's richer, more organized, and has more order.  

Both are fairly awful but India has a far worse human rights situation in terms of day-to-day life.

[H. Ross Peron]

India.

[ingemann]

While the democracy will likely win this poll, some people will still probably vote for the country that's richer, more organized, and has more order.  

While I voted for India, let's not forget that the average Chinese are better off than the average Indian, and the many problems India suffer under.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

While the democracy will likely win this poll, some people will still probably vote for the country that's richer, more organized, and has more order.  

Both are fairly awful but India has a far worse human rights situation in terms of day-to-day life.

Freedom House lists India as a free country (2,3) and China as a totally not free (7, 6).  India is poorer, less educated, and shorter lifespans than China, though.

While the democracy will likely win this poll, some people will still probably vote for the country that's richer, more organized, and has more order.  

While I voted for India, let's not forget that the average Chinese are better off than the average Indian, and the many problems India suffer under.

It's a question about what the poll is asking for. If it's about the government, India wins hands down. If it's about a better place to live in general, I think China has the edge.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The one that's a democracy.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

First of all, Freedom House is literally funded by the CIA, so their word on anything is worthless. Secondly, India's "democracy" is marred by a prime minister who tacitly approved of religious riots and of course the still-remaining caste system. And though I will not defend China's internet censorship or use of cheap sweatshop labor (though India is far worse in this latter category), the idea of only considering bourgeois rights rather than access to public services, literacy, extent of labor aienation, etc. is dumb.

[Antonio the Sixth]

And though I will not defend China's internet censorship or use of cheap sweatshop labor (though India is far worse in this latter category)

Those aren't even the worst things about China.

[Nhoj]

First of all, Freedom House is literally funded by the CIA, so their word on anything is worthless. Secondly, India's "democracy" is marred by a prime minister who tacitly approved of religious riots and of course the still-remaining caste system. And though I will not defend China's internet censorship or use of cheap sweatshop labor (though India is far worse in this latter category), the idea of only considering bourgeois rights rather than access to public services, literacy, extent of labor aienation, etc. is dumb.

China is more of a bourgeoise state than India is.

[Sbane]

While it is fair to criticize India for it's poverty, I can't believe you guys are trying to blame it on the "bourgeoise". The problem is people with belief systems similar to snowstalker have been in charge of India for a long, long time. India has been a closed, socialist state with an out of control bureaucracy which has led to many of the problems you see today. To create better living conditions for your people you need money, and you can't have money without economic growth. And you can't have economic growth when the government won't allow businesses to function. The only reason India has done well in the last decade is because the politicians didn't understand the IT sector and didn't regulate it. Another reason is reforms pushed through by the BJP government which led to booms in sectors such as telecom. India may have a crap ton of poor people, but most of them have a cell phone now. Yay capitalism!

To help those poor people gain more than just a cell phone, more reforms are needed. Hopefully the new government will be able to push those through. One of the biggest reforms that would help the poor would be to get rid of the current system of distributing free food to the poor and transitioning to a system similar to food stamps here in the US. Give people money to go buy food from whomever they wish to get it from. Currently, the middleman government workers in charge of distributing it sell the good food at market rates, pocket the profits, and give the rotten food to the poor.

Speaking of rotten food, more investment needs to be allowed in the agricultural sector so a cold supply chain can be created. Right now almost half the produce in India rots because people are transporting it in rickety bicycles and rickshaws. Allow companies like Walmart and others to get involved and create a proper supply chain so that farmers can actually get their produce to market without it rotting.

Lastly, we have the literacy problem. This is where the social problems of India do get in the way of progress. In the rural areas the low caste communities get the sh**ttiest schools and sometimes the classroom is actually out in the open. The blame for this should again go to the middlemen who are part of a socialist party that claims to care for the poor, but in practice help reinforce age old prejudices in order to gain political power. There is also a discrepancy in the literacy rate between men and women which is in part due to the patriarchal north Indian society and also due to the muslim community. Solving the literacy problem is probably the hardest, and also the most important. More people moving to the cities is a good thing, but staffing government schools with competent individuals is also a huge issue. Just like the unions here in America, the teachers unions in India are strong and once you get the job, you basically can't be fired even if you don't show up to teach half the time.

Also it should be noted that it is in the best interests of socialist parties to keep people poor and illiterate. That way they can keep blaming others like businesses, capitalists, neoliberals etc for poverty and gain votes from the poor.

[Sbane]

TLDR version: Stop saying ignorant sh**t.

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

Protection in developed states is silly, but it has historically been the best path for home industrialization--see the United States, Russia, China, and really much of Europe.

[Sbane]

Protection in developed states is silly, but it has historically been the best path for home industrialization--see the United States, Russia, China, and really much of Europe.

I am not saying that India should allow unfettered access to the Indian market for foreign companies, but rather allow Indian companies that lack capital access to foreign capital markets. You do that by allowing partnerships where foreign companies can own up to 49%.

That being said, the problem in many sectors is that there is too much regulation for businesses to do anything or the government is in complete control of those sectors. The government is protecting Indian businesses, it is keeping them in a straightjacket. Do you really think the government should be running phone companies and airlines? Back during British rule, Air India used to be one of the best airlines in the world and current industry leaders such as Singapore Airlines came to learn from them. It was forced to become a government entity not long after independence and now it is the laughingstock of the world.

[Beet]

India needs more development, China needs more democracy. The difference is that India's government is working to improve India's development, and all Indians agree that economic development is an important goal, they only disagree on the means of getting there. Whereas China's government doesn't make any concession to political reform, and thinks it can continue to go on with the so-called "China Model" indefinitely.

There are many problems with the "China Model". For instance, it was always weak as a "model", for even in places like India, you don't see a massive call for authoritarian oligarchy in the name of developing manufacturing infrastructure. They are trying to do it within the bounds of democracy. The real weakness of the model though, is that it makes the same mistake in the political and social realms as Mao Zedong made in the economic realm. That is, if the party allowed the political and social inclinations of the people to flourish, a marketplace of political ideas would eventually pick out those that were in the best interest of the country, which those within the party simply don't have the capacity to foresee. Social innovations in the arts, philosophy, civics, and other areas of life would make for a much richer mosaic of society. These areas are being repressed by the party, which is in turn repressing the quality of life of the people. The fundamental principle is the same as in market economics-- innovation in business is just another form of innovation in life. The party, with its repressive overconfidence in its model of governance, is repressing this potential in the 1.35 billion people it rules over.

[Sol]

It's sad but not surprising that Snowstalker supports the totalitarian, nationalist capitalist state over the democratic, multiethnic*, and quasi-socialist (though moving away from such things) one.

*though obviously also nationalistic to a certain extent.

[Beet]

It's sad but not surprising that Snowstalker supports the totalitarian, nationalist capitalist state over the democratic, multiethnic*, and quasi-socialist (though moving away from such things) one.

*though obviously also nationalistic to a certain extent.

That's a rather inaccurate description. China is authoritarian but by no means totalitarian, not nearly. Both China and India are quite nationalistic (as are numerous other states including Russia, Israel, and the United States). Both China and India are multiethnic. Both China and India have socialistic elements to their economy. Both China and India have capitalist elements. Basically, none of your distinguishing adjectives really distinguish anything.