China eases family planning policy

[mr friendly guy]

In a move which would surprise nobody except Gordon Chang and human rights groups the Chinese government has eased its family planning policy to such an extent where most people would be allowed two children instead of one. Ok, the exact timing might be a surprise, but the issue has been raised and the feeling was it was a matter of when, not if.

Back to the issue at hand, I saw this news on a few news outlets and decided to chase it to the source. The CCP's own mouthpiece.

English edition of course

BEIJING, Nov. 15 (Xinhua) -- China will loosen its decades-long one-child population policy, allowing couples to have two children if one of them is an only child, according to a key decision issued on Friday by the Communist Party of China (CPC).

China will implement this new policy while adhering to the basic state policy of family planning, according to the decision on major issues concerning comprehensively deepening reforms, which was approved at the Third Plenary Session of the 18th CPC Central Committee held from Nov. 9 to 12 in Beijing.

The birth policy will be adjusted and improved step by step to promote "long-term balanced development of the population in China," it said.

China's family planning policy was first introduced in the late 1970s to rein in the surging population by limiting most urban couples to one child and most rural couples to two children, if the first child born was a girl.

The policy was later relaxed, with its current form stipulating that both parents must be only children if they are to have a second child.

The policy was only supposed to last one generation, and having lasted 34 years I guess that's a reasonable time frame for "one generation."

The aim was to lower population growth until such time as their economic situation improves as it will create greater strain on limited resources. When it was introduced China was a poor country. Right now its classified as per World Bank definitions as a "middle income country". Population growth will most probably be less than before the policy was introduced anyway for various reasons including that richer countries tend to have slower population growth than poorer ones (the reason most likely multifactorial).

The idea that it was time or near time to relax the policy has been going on for some time. Naturally it didn't make much traction in the free western media.

[Guardsman Bass]

That's good. It's an improvement on the existing policy, which allows parents to have a second child if both of them were only children. That said, I tend not to be as worried about the whole "China aging!" factor as some (particularly since China has a lot of room to increase labor productivity and use of labor-saving technology).

The "One-Child" policy fascinates me, even if it's not always followed in China. How did that affect people, with vast populations of children that grew up with no experience of siblings?

Right now its classified as per World Bank definitions as a "middle income country". Population growth will most probably be less than before the policy was introduced anyway for various reasons including that richer countries tend to have slower population growth than poorer ones (the reason most likely multifactorial).

I'd still classify China as a "low-income country", since China's real GDP per capita is about $3348. That's getting close to Middle-Income Country status, but it's not quite there. Of course that masks some pretty serious "coast vs interior" divides - the GDP per capita in Shenzhen is ~$14,000 a year.

[energiewende]

The policy was only supposed to last one generation, and having lasted 34 years I guess that's a reasonable time frame for "one generation."

The aim was to lower population growth until such time as their economic situation improves as it will create greater strain on limited resources. When it was introduced China was a poor country. Right now its classified as per World Bank definitions as a "middle income country". Population growth will most probably be less than before the policy was introduced anyway for various reasons including that richer countries tend to have slower population growth than poorer ones (the reason most likely multifactorial).

The idea that it was time or near time to relax the policy has been going on for some time. Naturally it didn't make much traction in the free western media.

Damn those Westerners and their crazy opposition to mass infanticide! Whatever will they do next?

While I can hardly support it morally, there was a practical benefit to the one-child policy in keeping this horrible autocracy on a downward population trend into the 21st century. I imagine that is what is prompting the change; their large population is the only thing putting China in the running for superpower status, and they don't want to be a second Japan.

[mr friendly guy]

Damn those Westerners and their crazy opposition to mass infanticide! Whatever will they do next?

Damn those Westerners (well just those idiots) who sprout the same old line without knowing anything about the topic. Because advocating births and abortions are totally the same as advocating mass infanticide. Especially when its illegal and those who do so that have been caught have been punished.

Not that your spiel in any way refutes my original point. The reasoning human rights group use for predicting China isn't going to end the one child policy any time soon despite the wealth of evidence on the contrary is very shoddy indeed. But keep on simplifying complex issues into one line soundbites.

While I can hardly support it morally,

Ah yes, lets have as many children as we want even if we can't support it economically, nor environmentally. Unless you mean by support they have a shit standard of living, in which case, yeah that's certainly doable. Who was that idiot again? Malthus or something.

I bet you are one of those idiots who whine about women having abortions because they don't think they can support their kids, but have no intention of helping them or even suggesting the government helps them support the kid when they are born. Don't worry, I am sure you will simplify the issue to "freedom" to make it easy for your tiny brain to understand.

there was a practical benefit to the one-child policy in keeping this horrible autocracy on a downward population trend into the 21st century.

Their population is still increasing you idiot. The rate of increase may have slowed, but that's hardly a downward population trend into the 21st century as you put it.

I imagine that is what is prompting the change; their large population is the only thing putting China in the running for superpower status, and they don't want to be a second Japan.

Since they clearly believed a large population is awesome, what is your explanation for them to introduce a policy contradictory to that goal which you believe had already reduce the population? If large populations in and of itself helps achieve super power status, and they believe as you do in this regard, surely they wouldn't have such a family planning policy.

You being stupid is hardly strange, you assuming everyone else is just as stupid, well that's just being conceited as well.

That's good. It's an improvement on the existing policy, which allows parents to have a second child if both of them were only children. That said, I tend not to be as worried about the whole "China aging!" factor as some (particularly since China has a lot of room to increase labor productivity and use of labor-saving technology).

Nor I. Automation has been spruiked since the 80s for Japan's aging population, and certainly the technology has improved since then. Moreover China still has reserves of migrant workers it can tap in its industrialising urban areas. Finally there is still the option of raising the retirement age, a move considered by several Western nations. Keep in mind China's retirement age is much less than developed nations ie 50-55 compared to 60-65.

The "One-Child" policy fascinates me, even if it's not always followed in China. How did that affect people, with vast populations of children that grew up with no experience of siblings?

I have heard it said with armchair psychology that these now adults are more selfish, because they never learnt to share. One way of looking at this is to simply compare it to adults who were singletons in other nations, and see if they developed any differently to adults who had siblings in that same region.

I'd still classify China as a "low-income country", since China's real GDP per capita is about $3348. That's getting close to Middle-Income Country status, but it's not quite there. Of course that masks some pretty serious "coast vs interior" divides - the GDP per capita in Shenzhen is ~$14,000 a year.

Well I am using the World Bank definitions. However I think part of your thinking is that we have been kind of spoilt living in developed nations. While GDP / capita and income isn't quite the same, if someone had $40,000 per annum that would be kind of low for where I am living. Yet if a country had that kind of GDP / capita they would be in the top 25 countries, higher than the UK and the EU average.

http://data.worldbank.org/about/country-classifications

Income group: Economies are divided according to 2012 GNI per capita, calculated using the World Bank Atlas method. The groups are: low income, $1,035 or less; lower middle income, $1,036 - $4,085; upper middle income, $4,086 - $12,615; and high income,$12,616 or more.

Your link seems to do it by indexing to US dollars in the year 2000, whilst the world bank seems to do it by comparing to US dollars in 2012 (hence no need to index yet). In which case, China's GDP/capita in that regards is just over $6000 (IMF figures) putting them in the upper middle income bracket, but still a ways to go before reaching the high income state.

[energiewende]

Damn those Westerners and their crazy opposition to mass infanticide! Whatever will they do next?

Damn those Westerners (well just those idiots) who sprout the same old line without knowing anything about the topic. Because advocating births and abortions are totally the same as advocating mass infanticide. Especially when its illegal and those who do so that have been caught have been punished.

Not that your spiel in any way refutes my original point. The reasoning human rights group use for predicting China isn't going to end the one child policy any time soon despite the wealth of evidence on the contrary is very shoddy indeed. But keep on simplifying complex issues into one line soundbites.

Abortion is justified as mother's choice. Government mandated abortions and criminal punishments for refusing them are not the mother's choice. They are just as much murder as if a stranger came along and punched a pregnant woman in the stomach.

While I can hardly support it morally,

Ah yes, lets have as many children as we want even if we can't support it economically, nor environmentally. Unless you mean by support they have a shit standard of living, in which case, yeah that's certainly doable. Who was that idiot again? Malthus or something.

I bet you are one of those idiots who whine about women having abortions because they don't think they can support their kids, but have no intention of helping them or even suggesting the government helps them support the kid when they are born. Don't worry, I am sure you will simplify the issue to "freedom" to make it easy for your tiny brain to understand.

PRC had a "shit" standard of living (your words, not mine) because it was run by socialists, not because it had too many children. If PRC had been run by people with a less broken ideology ("freedom" is a good start) it would have been able to produce enough food without mass slaughter of unborn children. As in fact it is able to do now, after free market reforms.

there was a practical benefit to the one-child policy in keeping this horrible autocracy on a downward population trend into the 21st century.

Their population is still increasing you idiot. The rate of increase may have slowed, but that's hardly a downward population trend into the 21st century as you put it.

The trend, however, is downward. PRC has the worst projected population trend of the big three powers of the next century:



If this trend is played out PRC will probably never become the world's most powerful country; it will be overtaken by India before it overtakes the USA.

I imagine that is what is prompting the change; their large population is the only thing putting China in the running for superpower status, and they don't want to be a second Japan.

Since they clearly believed a large population is awesome, what is your explanation for them to introduce a policy contradictory to that goal which you believe had already reduce the population? If large populations in and of itself helps achieve super power status, and they believe as you do in this regard, surely they wouldn't have such a family planning policy.

You being stupid is hardly strange, you assuming everyone else is just as stupid, well that's just being conceited as well.

China is demonstrably run by morons. If it hadn't been they would have ruled the whole world two centuries ago. The current lot are a bit less moronic than usual, so I expect a bit better from them. They're also looking more to the ultimate prize, rather than just desperately trying to hang on to power as in the past.

[ray245]

Abortion is justified as mother's choice. Government mandated abortions and criminal punishments for refusing them are not the mother's choice. They are just as much murder as if a stranger came along and punched a pregnant woman in the stomach.

Except the one child policy was never a policy about abortion. The policy was primary about fining and discouraging people from having more than one kids in the first place. Parents are supposed to use things like birth controls.

China is demonstrably run by morons. If it hadn't been they would have ruled the whole world two centuries ago. The current lot are a bit less moronic than usual, so I expect a bit better from them. They're also looking more to the ultimate prize, rather than just desperately trying to hang on to power as in the past.

Well, even if China was not run by morons, they would not become a world power when every other regional and world power is eagerly exploiting the weakness of China. I would like you to tell me how exactly could China become a world power 250 years ago if there is no moron in power.

I wish you can read up more on China history before spouting your idiocy on this forum.

[Broomstick]

If this trend is played out PRC will probably never become the world's most powerful country; it will be overtaken by India before it overtakes the USA.

And if it does play out that way so-fucking-what? It's not like everyone in the Most Powerful Country gets a kewpie doll as a prize or something. ::: looks around home ::: Nope, no kewpie doll.

Fact is, the vast majority of people in the majority of countries have never been, are not, and will never be citizens of the Most Powerful Country. And, like I said, so-fucking-what? It's not like that's an intolerable set of circumstances.

I'm also not convinced that simply having more people than anyone else is the way to win at that game.

What China really needs to do at this point is to stop fucking up its environment. They've gotten a handle on unsustainable population - and make no mistake, if they hadn't taken draconian measures the situation would have been worse. The carrying capacity of the environment is not infinite. Restricting births is a more humane way to achieve their population goal compared to some I could envision, even if I don't approve of many of their methods.

[energiewende]

Don't get the impression I want PRC to be the most powerful country in the world, or that I think that would be a good thing. I don't at all.

[energiewende]

Except the one child policy was never a policy about abortion. The policy was primary about fining and discouraging people from having more than one kids in the first place. Parents are supposed to use things like birth controls.

And if you break the law, what happens?

China is demonstrably run by morons. If it hadn't been they would have ruled the whole world two centuries ago. The current lot are a bit less moronic than usual, so I expect a bit better from them. They're also looking more to the ultimate prize, rather than just desperately trying to hang on to power as in the past.

Well, even if China was not run by morons, they would not become a world power when every other regional and world power is eagerly exploiting the weakness of China. I would like you to tell me how exactly could China become a world power 250 years ago if there is no moron in power.

I wish you can read up more on China history before spouting your idiocy on this forum.

Why was China weak to be exploited, rather than exploiting its weak neighbours as it had done for thousands of years? Why didn't Chinese gunboats sail down the Thames and the Seine? The answer is that China was badly governed; its military weakness was a symptom, not a cause.

It's probably impossible to fix this problem without totally upending the entire governmental and social structure of the country. It's fundamentally broken. It evolved as a very successful solution to the problems of antiquity: how to assemble a very large army of spearmen and cavalry from a stagnant peasant economy. That world disappeared, but China didn't change. It couldn't. Its solution to the problems of antiquity was too successful, and therefore too stable. The revolutions it experienced only aimed at modernising the status quo, which is why they were also so unsuccessful at turning China into a powerful country. Today, it's changing a bit, since all other possible actions have been exhausted except adopting Western-style policies. But from the view of people like 'mr friendly guy' (and note, he's actually a citizen of Australia, fully exposed to a successful liberal democratic society, and not directly threatened by the PRC secret police) it doesn't seem the mindset has changed much at all.

[ray245]

And if you break the law, what happens?

You pay a fine? Of course, there are numerous accounts of forced abortion, but that isn't an official policy and more of a result of corruption.

Why was China was weak to be exploited, rather than exploiting its weak neighbours as it had done for thousands of years? Why didn't Chinese gunboats sail down the Thames and the Seine? The answer is that China was badly governed; its military weakness was a symptom, not a cause.

The failure to develop a navy capable enough to sail halfway across the world has nothing to do with whether China is badly governed or not. China was badly governed, but you cannot say good government will be enough to ensure Qing China in the 19th century can become a world power.

It's probably impossible to fix this problem without totally upending the entire governmental and social structure of the country. It's fundamentally broken. It evolved as a very successful solution to the problems of antiquity: how to assemble a very large army of spearmen and cavalry from a stagnant peasant economy. That world disappeared, but China didn't change. It couldn't. Its solution to the problems of antiquity was too successful, and therefore too stable. The revolutions it experienced only aimed at modernising the status quo, which is why they were also so unsuccessful at turning China into a powerful country. Today, it's changing a bit, since all other possible actions have been exhausted except adopting Western-style policies. But from the view of people like 'mr friendly guy' (and note, he's actually a citizen of Australia, fully exposed to a successful liberal democratic society, and not directly threatened by the PRC secret police) it doesn't seem the mindset has changed much at all.

When was the last time you actually opened a history book about Qing China or China in general? Everything you said just showcase you have not studied Chinese history at all. Apparently, attempting to turn China into a constitutional monarchy, a Republic, a dictatorship do not count as adopting western policies.

[Dr. Trainwreck]

Doesn't China have anything like an orphanage, adoption service or anything else? I'd guess that a second child could be sent there (option between fine and adoption at best, mandatory adoption at worst). It's still bad from a human rights point of view, but it's a far cry from "Auschwitz for babies lol".

Oh wait- I actually presume that the Chinese are still humans like us. If only I believed socialism=monsters like a proper cultist, it would so easier for the mind!

[ray245]

Doesn't China have anything like an orphanage, adoption service or anything else? I'd guess that a second child could be sent there (option between fine and adoption at best, mandatory adoption at worst). It's still bad from a human rights point of view, but it's a far cry from "Auschwitz for babies lol".

Oh wait- I actually presume that the Chinese are still humans like us. If only I believed socialism=monsters like a proper cultist, it would so easier for the mind!

I recall Lusankya mentioning that one of friend had siblings that were adopted by her relatives.

[energiewende]

You pay a fine? Of course, there are numerous accounts of forced abortion, but that isn't an official policy and more of a result of corruption.

A fine that is bankrupting to the rural poor, but can be avoided via abortion.

Why was China was weak to be exploited, rather than exploiting its weak neighbours as it had done for thousands of years? Why didn't Chinese gunboats sail down the Thames and the Seine? The answer is that China was badly governed; its military weakness was a symptom, not a cause.

The failure to develop a navy capable enough to sail halfway across the world has nothing to do with whether China is badly governed or not. China was badly governed, but you cannot say good government will be enough to ensure Qing China in the 19th century can become a world power.

China couldn't build such a navy because it had a low level of economic development, because it was badly governed. These factors preceded and caused China's relative weakness. China did build a fleet of Western style ships in the 19th century. It was small, poorly equipped, and badly trained, and was smashed by a much smaller but more flexible asian state that had also been the victim of foreign intervention.

It's probably impossible to fix this problem without totally upending the entire governmental and social structure of the country. It's fundamentally broken. It evolved as a very successful solution to the problems of antiquity: how to assemble a very large army of spearmen and cavalry from a stagnant peasant economy. That world disappeared, but China didn't change. It couldn't. Its solution to the problems of antiquity was too successful, and therefore too stable. The revolutions it experienced only aimed at modernising the status quo, which is why they were also so unsuccessful at turning China into a powerful country. Today, it's changing a bit, since all other possible actions have been exhausted except adopting Western-style policies. But from the view of people like 'mr friendly guy' (and note, he's actually a citizen of Australia, fully exposed to a successful liberal democratic society, and not directly threatened by the PRC secret police) it doesn't seem the mindset has changed much at all.

When was the last time you actually opened a history book about Qing China or China in general? Everything you said just showcase you have not studied Chinese history at all. Apparently, attempting to turn China into a constitutional monarchy, a Republic, a dictatorship do not count as adopting western policies.

China made no serious attempt to adopt Western policies until 1911. Actually that's not quite true, the Taiping rebellion was also based in Western thought (Christianity, which was then quite popular still), but it simply used Christianity as a justification to create another totalitarian state. The same as the KMT and the CPC. The same as China has always been. They're not indeed the stupidest people on earth; some countries don't even have real governments, and then there's North Korea. But they're well in the running. Anyway, the point isn't even attempts, the point is success, or lack of it. China had major institutional barriers to adopting a market liberal government in the style of the US or Britain, or even an authoritarian semi-market society like the German Empire. The Dynasty is founded on force, it falls, and from the vacuum arises an even more virulent strain, selected by the evolutionary pressures of a civil war. It took a peaceful acceptance of Anglo-American policy to produce serious development, and I strongly suspect this only happened because the PRC's leaders were worried about how weak they were militarily. They saw what happened to the Soviets and to the Iraqis, and realised they could be next. If we were still living in a time when military strength was proportional to arable land area for peasants to farm, rather than to per capita GDP, I doubt China would have ever changed.

[Broomstick]

Doesn't China have anything like an orphanage, adoption service or anything else?

Of course they do. Quite a few unwanted Chinese girl-children wound up being adopted by foreigners like childless American couples, which might well have been seen as doubly beneficial: you not only placed the child with parents that would take the burden and cost of raising her off the government's hands, but it was also an export of surplus children to somewhere else. I remember reading one time the vast majority of Chinese babies adopted by Americans were girls. Available boys would have also been snatched up rapidly if they were healthy, but for some reason there were always far, far fewer unwanted boys than girls in China available for adoption...

[ray245]

A fine that is bankrupting to the rural poor, but can be avoided via abortion.

The rural poor are exempted from the one child policy. Dear god, you are commenting on China without reading ANYTHING at all about the one-child policy. How ignorant are you?

China couldn't build such a navy because it had a low level of economic development, because it was badly governed. These factors preceded and caused China's relative weakness. China did build a fleet of Western style ships in the 19th century. It was small, poorly equipped, and badly trained, and was smashed by a much smaller but more flexible asian state that had also been the victim of foreign intervention.

And having a better government is somehow going to magic all the problems faced by China away? Things like trying to rebuild the Chinese economy after one of the most devastating civil wars in her history and having to pay massive amount of indemnities to the British government because they lost of the opium war?

China made no serious attempt to adopt Western policies until 1911. Actually that's not quite true, the Taiping rebellion was also based in Western thought (Christianity, which was then quite popular still), but it simply used Christianity as a justification to create another totalitarian state.

The Qing government was in the process of undergoing political reform and adopting a constitutional monarchy towards the end of the 19th century and start of the 20th century.

The same as the KMT and the CPC. The same as China has always been. They're not indeed the stupidest people on earth; some countries don't even have real governments, and then there's North Korea.

Somehow this quote seems rather racist to me.

But they're well in the running. Anyway, the point isn't even attempts, the point is success, or lack of it. China had major institutional barriers to adopting a market liberal government in the style of the US or Britain, or even an authoritarian semi-market society like the German Empire. The Dynasty is founded on force, it falls, and from the vacuum arises an even more virulent strain, selected by the evolutionary pressures of a civil war. It took a peaceful acceptance of Anglo-American policy to produce serious development, and I strongly suspect this only happened because the PRC's leaders were worried about how weak they were militarily. They saw what happened to the Soviets and to the Iraqis, and realised they could be next. If we were still living in a time when military strength was proportional to arable land area for peasants to farm, rather than to per capita GDP, I doubt China would have ever changed.

Wait, did you completely ignore the fact that KMT was a capitalistic government?

[energiewende]

A fine that is bankrupting to the rural poor, but can be avoided via abortion.

The rural poor are exempted from the one child policy. Dear god, you are commenting on China without reading ANYTHING at all about the one-child policy. How ignorant are you?

This is an extremely dishonest statement, assuming you yourself know what you are talking about. Rural poor are allowed to have a second child (but no more) if the first is a girl. So by "exemption" you mean they are subject to a 1.5 child policy instead.

China couldn't build such a navy because it had a low level of economic development, because it was badly governed. These factors preceded and caused China's relative weakness. China did build a fleet of Western style ships in the 19th century. It was small, poorly equipped, and badly trained, and was smashed by a much smaller but more flexible asian state that had also been the victim of foreign intervention.

And having a better government is somehow going to magic all the problems faced by China away? Things like trying to rebuild the Chinese economy after one of the most devastating civil wars in her history and having to pay massive amount of indemnities to the British government because they lost of the opium war?

Why did China lose the Opium War? Why didn't France collapse due to the cost and destruction of the Napoleonic Wars? The problems China faced were systemic, not just random factors with entirely external cause.

China made no serious attempt to adopt Western policies until 1911. Actually that's not quite true, the Taiping rebellion was also based in Western thought (Christianity, which was then quite popular still), but it simply used Christianity as a justification to create another totalitarian state.

The Qing government was in the process of undergoing political reform and adopting a constitutional monarchy towards the end of the 19th century and start of the 20th century.

The Guangxu Emperor seems to have tried to do this. He was immediately couped by his own generals and exiled to a small island. China was ruled in this time by the Empress Dowager who was just another racist ultra-conservative running the country into the ground.

The same as the KMT and the CPC. The same as China has always been. They're not indeed the stupidest people on earth; some countries don't even have real governments, and then there's North Korea.

Somehow this quote seems rather racist to me.

Is reality also racist against Europeans because Serbia and Russia are badly run? And not just the East; 40 years ago Spain and Ireland could go in that category. Ideas have little or nothing to do with races and everything to do with history and philosophy. The only thing they have in common is a tendancy to run in families.

But they're well in the running. Anyway, the point isn't even attempts, the point is success, or lack of it. China had major institutional barriers to adopting a market liberal government in the style of the US or Britain, or even an authoritarian semi-market society like the German Empire. The Dynasty is founded on force, it falls, and from the vacuum arises an even more virulent strain, selected by the evolutionary pressures of a civil war. It took a peaceful acceptance of Anglo-American policy to produce serious development, and I strongly suspect this only happened because the PRC's leaders were worried about how weak they were militarily. They saw what happened to the Soviets and to the Iraqis, and realised they could be next. If we were still living in a time when military strength was proportional to arable land area for peasants to farm, rather than to per capita GDP, I doubt China would have ever changed.

Wait, did you completely ignore the fact that KMT was a capitalistic government?

Really? A movement whose founder's economic buzzphrases were "equalization of land rights" and "regulation of capital"?

[Broomstick]

The rural poor are exempted from the one child policy.

Ethnic minorities are also exempted from the one child policy.

And no, he clearly doesn't know what he's talking about when a 10 minute internet search would clear up a lot of his misunderstandings.

[energiewende]

1.6% of the population of China is exempted.

[PainRack]

Why did China lose the Opium War? Why didn't France collapse due to the cost and destruction of the Napoleonic Wars? The problems China faced were systemic, not just random factors with entirely external cause.

China lost the Opium war because her technological and industrial base was widely inferior to the Europeans and has been so for CENTURIES.

Everybody keep humping the Ming fleet Big ships, while fucking ignoring that the treasure ships were literally showboats not meant for war with the workhorse of the fleet being war junks, entirely in line with standard European warships of the time. And given European likely superior canons in the 15th century, there's still no point of contention. And when the Qing dynasty wiped out the proto industrial base of Ming China in 1640, the Chinese lost the last chance to physically catch up, ESPECIALLY since Qing anti Ming controls enforced China isolation and etc.

And even here, Qing victories over Russian field armies in the north, the creation of 12 trade caravans with Russia...............

And claiming France didn't collapse due to the cost and destruction of the Napoleonic wars is insane.... Just what was the Battle of Waterloo. Or are you trying to claim that since France survived to become a world power, this means the costs of the Napoleonic wars was 'managable', despite the fact that war exhaustion has set in by the 4th/5th Coalition, to the extent that Napolean was running out of conscriptable manpower?

The Guangxu Emperor seems to have tried to do this. He was immediately couped by his own generals and exiled to a small island. China was ruled in this time by the Empress Dowager who was just another racist ultra-conservative running the country into the ground.

Lol. How droll.......... And I guess Winston Churchill was simply just a racist for wanting to keep India British?

Not to mention you utterly ignore the removal of caste and other army reforms and etc...... The key factor remains that the Manchu saw themselves as an occupying government, as such, they could never enact reforms that might weaken the state control on public affairs.

Really? A movement whose founder's economic buzzphrases were "equalization of land rights" and "regulation of capital"?

[/quote]
Really, considering that the KMT GOVERNMENT economic policies were not set by Sun 3 Principles in the first place.........

And Sun Ming Sheng economic policies is literally nothing more than progressive taxation on the rich, wealth/opportunity distribution via government spending on healthcare, education and the state purchase of land and public control of communications and transportation.

The ONLY attempt at this by the KMT was via eminent domain confisication/purchase of land for state purposes....

[PainRack]

1.6% of the population of China is exempted.

Look.... China TFR is 1.4. The EXACT same rate as say, Japan, higher than Singapore 1.29, and lower than the US at 2.0.

Now, think what that actually means if only 1.6% of the population are exempted.

[PainRack]

China couldn't build such a navy because it had a low level of economic development, because it was badly governed. These factors preceded and caused China's relative weakness. China did build a fleet of Western style ships in the 19th century. It was small, poorly equipped, and badly trained, and was smashed by a much smaller but more flexible asian state that had also been the victim of foreign intervention.

Are.... you.....fucking.......... nuts?

The Beiyang fleet in terms of tonnage outnumbered the Japanese fleet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beiyang_Fleet
Look at the numbers and the tonnage here.

In terms of size and etc, it was actually large enough to be the largest in Asia, dwarfed only by European powers. Indeed, when one adds up the remainding 3 fleets, China actually had a navy that was comparable to the smaller naval European powers(in numbers)....... although given that the remainding Fujian, Nanyang and etc ships had inferior canons, were made up of wood and were warjunks means they were singularly useless against an European power.

Calling it poorly equipped is also nuts, considering that in terms of ships, they were actually equipped with the best Germany would sell. The REAL problem was the same in every third world country operating modern equipment.
Lack of funds for maintenance and training.
Hell, improper ammunition(along with accusations of corruption) meant that her ammunition was useless in the battle against Japan.

It's probably impossible to fix this problem without totally upending the entire governmental and social structure of the country. It's fundamentally broken. It evolved as a very successful solution to the problems of antiquity: how to assemble a very large army of spearmen and cavalry from a stagnant peasant economy. That world disappeared, but China didn't change. It couldn't. Its solution to the problems of antiquity was too successful, and therefore too stable. The revolutions it experienced only aimed at modernising the status quo, which is why they were also so unsuccessful at turning China into a powerful country. Today, it's changing a bit, since all other possible actions have been exhausted except adopting Western-style policies. But from the view of people like 'mr friendly guy' (and note, he's actually a citizen of Australia, fully exposed to a successful liberal democratic society, and not directly threatened by the PRC secret police) it doesn't seem the mindset has changed much at all.

When was the last time you actually opened a history book about Qing China or China in general? Everything you said just showcase you have not studied Chinese history at all. Apparently, attempting to turn China into a constitutional monarchy, a Republic, a dictatorship do not count as adopting western policies.

China made no serious attempt to adopt Western policies until 1911. Actually that's not quite true, the Taiping rebellion was also based in Western thought (Christianity, which was then quite popular still), but it simply used Christianity as a justification to create another totalitarian state. The same as the KMT and the CPC. The same as China has always been. They're not indeed the stupidest people on earth; some countries don't even have real governments, and then there's North Korea. But they're well in the running. Anyway, the point isn't even attempts, the point is success, or lack of it. China had major institutional barriers to adopting a market liberal government in the style of the US or Britain, or even an authoritarian semi-market society like the German Empire. The Dynasty is founded on force, it falls, and from the vacuum arises an even more virulent strain, selected by the evolutionary pressures of a civil war. It took a peaceful acceptance of Anglo-American policy to produce serious development, and I strongly suspect this only happened because the PRC's leaders were worried about how weak they were militarily. They saw what happened to the Soviets and to the Iraqis, and realised they could be next. If we were still living in a time when military strength was proportional to arable land area for peasants to farm, rather than to per capita GDP, I doubt China would have ever changed.[/quote]
God.... How wrong are you?

1. To claim that China enacted no fundamental reform..... Just what was the entire Tang, Ming and then Qing dynasty? The changing of taxation? Change from goods taxation to taxation in silver? One that the Qing adopted? Or the political reforms? Or............

2. Ah, but we see your REAL goal. Your claim is that China didn't adopt WESTERN practices. Just WHAT was western practices in the contemporary era? Let see, 1800, you have the East India Company, taking over an entire country and then monopolizing trade and etc. Hmm..... just what was the Chinese bureau of trade/colonization doing in Vietnam in 1530? Oh Right. The EXACT SAME THING. The only fucking difference is that it was state run instead of corporate run. And they didn't have a technological advantage over the Vietnamese.

Trade? Well, Spain had the royal monopoly over trade with the colonies. The whole treasure fleet and so forth. Hmm...... State trade, as exemplified by the tribute system.

Oh, but free trade was popping up! Britain! France! Portugal! Oh wait. Both Spain and Portugal engaged in state maritime entrepot trade with Ming China, to the extent that half of Peru silver ended up in China.


Look. You have an axe to grind. But do it somewhere where you won't embarrass yourself. Its weird when you claim that China didn't achieve what Germany did, when she actually DID do so. Well, not on the same scale and etc etc etc, but again, are you fucking nuts?

[Simon_Jester]

I think the problem here is that he's trying to start from a general theory of history*, and work backwards to interpret all the historical details through the lens of that theory. It's as fundamentally messed an approach as that of the Marxist historians, because when a datapoint doesn't fit the theory you have to retain willful ignorance of the data instead of rethinking the theory.

*(Modernity comes from capitalism and vaguely defined "freedom," failure to become fully modern must always have roots in failure to be capitalist and/or "free").

[Dr. Trainwreck]

Of course they do. Quite a few unwanted Chinese girl-children wound up being adopted by foreigners like childless American couples, which might well have been seen as doubly beneficial: you not only placed the child with parents that would take the burden and cost of raising her off the government's hands, but it was also an export of surplus children to somewhere else. I remember reading one time the vast majority of Chinese babies adopted by Americans were girls. Available boys would have also been snatched up rapidly if they were healthy, but for some reason there were always far, far fewer unwanted boys than girls in China available for adoption...

Oh, the misoguny. Of course, my point stands that there are a lot more options than mandatory abortions and other asinine shit.

[Broomstick]

I suppose it's misogyny of a sort, but less toxic than simply killing the unwanted kids. Making them available for adoption by people who want children is a pretty benign thing.

Another thing frequently missed is that many Chinese supported the one-child policy, or willingly complied with the law, or both. Restricting births for the overall benefit of the nation seems a very Chinese thing to do, putting the good of the community over personal desires. Allowing everyone to have at least one child probably prevented some pretty nasty backlash. While there always seem to be someone yelling "restricting births is BAD!" there really was a sense through most of the 20th Century that China's population was out of control and reaching a point where massive famine and/or die-off was inevitable. Frankly, given some potential alternatives, the one-child policy was far from the worst choice.

[ray245]

I suppose it's misogyny of a sort, but less toxic than simply killing the unwanted kids. Making them available for adoption by people who want children is a pretty benign thing.

Another thing frequently missed is that many Chinese supported the one-child policy, or willingly complied with the law, or both. Restricting births for the overall benefit of the nation seems a very Chinese thing to do, putting the good of the community over personal desires. Allowing everyone to have at least one child probably prevented some pretty nasty backlash. While there always seem to be someone yelling "restricting births is BAD!" there really was a sense through most of the 20th Century that China's population was out of control and reaching a point where massive famine and/or die-off was inevitable. Frankly, given some potential alternatives, the one-child policy was far from the worst choice.

Indeed. I have yet to hear any opponents of the one child policy propose any other viable solution to limiting population growth in China. While everyone have a right to decide whether to have a child or not, it is inherently selfish to ignore the impact of overpopulation. Rights aren't absolute after all.