[ue_]

>It's incredibly Euro-centric to sit here and complain about the perceived child/human rights abuses that happen in China when those very exact things are what industrialized Europe.

It's also incredibly Euro-centric to be thinking that other countries ought to be following the path Europe and the US took to capitalism, and then to say that these countries should be implementing it in such a way that there's the same worker exploitation everywhere.

Worker exploitation isn't some thing in the past. It doesn't just happen in China, it's happening all the time and everywhere. But the case of it is so readily apparent in China it ought to be a case against worker exploitation as a whole. Yet some people still say "nevermind these countries, they're just on their way to being like us". We do not stop to question whether being like Europe is actually beneficial?

[maverick_iceman]

>It's also incredibly Euro-centric to be thinking that other countries ought to be following the path Europe and the US took to capitalism

Other countries like Soviet Union or Maoist China have tried other paths with not exactly stellar results.

[rqebmm]

Exactly. China tried one path, found it didn't work, and then chose to draft behind the best economies in the world, do what they did to get there, and do it faster because they have the benefit of hindsight.

[gertef]

You can't blindly assert that Maoist China was not Euro style and modern China is Euro style, and also claim that Maoist China has nothing to do with modern China's economy. There's a near-direct line from Maoist China to modern China -- the next generation of the same Communist Party is in charge.

[muninn_]

You did notice that they liberalized the Chinese economy, right? That's why it's Modern China and not still Maoist China. Maoist China is unequivocally not European style, and is one of the worst tragedies in all human history. Modern China has created wealth, people who can attend university, start businesses, etc. even if it has some issues as we perceive them in the West.

[parhurs]

You are not addressing gp's points - that Maoist and "Modern China" are directly related and that "Modern China" is not "Euro style".

[berntb]

The Chinese industrialization and growth was mostly based on capitalism. Which is more of a Western economy than the Great Leap. Which was the point you comment on.

(At least, compared to the failure before, with just central planning.)

If you have anything contradicting that, it would be interesting?

(Edit: Ah, I commented on a karma 23 secondary account? :-) )

[parhurs]

I don't have anything to contradict it, since I'm not arguing either way. I just like pointing out communication issues in HN's discussions. What about the second point?

[parhurs]

It's not like there are no other paths, or that there even is one 'European path' for that matter. The Nordic countries took a very different path than UK did, for example.

[berntb]

You are wrong about at least Sweden following a different path.

When Sweden had a high growth, the taxes were low and it was much more of a strict capitalist economy.

When the taxes were raised to be internationally high in the early 70s, the growth crashed and Sweden fell quite a few places in GNP/Capita.

(I am Swedish.)

[muninn_]

Worker exploitation indeed takes many forms.

I think countries should be free to choose their own paths and for those countries to find their own unique implementations of economic policy and whatnot is fascinating, and we can always learn from them and implement the good things while eschewing the bad. As long as they don't interfere with what my country wants to do, they can do whatever they want.