[hintymad]

I have an honest question: why could China catch up to the western countries in many verticals and even become the dominant player, while in history the western could stay lightyears ahead of developing countries, no matter how hard the developing countries tried, with or without government interference or industrial espionage? What's changed?

[angio]

We have an example most readers here are familiar with: the US ignored European (mostly British) intellectual property when they were developing and now they produce more innovation than any European country. Germany, Switzerland, and Italy also ignored patents for a while and now they are power houses when it comes to pharmaceuticals and chemicals.

[908B64B197]

> the US ignored European (mostly British) intellectual property when they were developing and now they produce more innovation than any European country.

There's this common trope, but there's two parts to IP; infringement and enforcement.

The British didn't enforce their patents. They could have, but they didn't.

[vkou]

> What's changed?

Colonialism ended.

The west was not light years ahead of, say, India, when it was first colonized.

In the process of colonizing it, India's industrialization was stopped.

Countries didn't somehow fall into 'developed' and 'undeveloped' buckets by divine fiat. The latter tended to be invaded by the former, with the occupiers focusing more on wealth extraction, than development.

Once that parasitic relationship has been broken, a large number of developing countries have started moving towards prosperity. Some slower than others, to be sure.

[mbrodersen]

If the west wasn’t light years ahead of India, why was it so easy for the west to take control of India and rule it for hundreds of years? I am honestly interested in what you think the reason was.

[vkou]

Britain invaded during a period of political instability, civil war, and factionalism immediately following the collapse of the Mughal empire. It then carried out divide-and conquer tactics, fighting India peacemeal.

During colonization, GDP, productive output, life expectancy, and quality of life in India plummeted.

[hintymad]

I'm not sure if we can attribute the gap solely to colonialism. Chinese rulers back in 1890s thought the products of industrialization were simply exotic crap. They despised STEM and didn't have a single school teaching STEM (there were a few such schools due to the Western Affairs Movement, but they were not created by the government). I don't think this level of barbarian culture was caused by colonialism.

[nzmsv]

In 1890s? In other words, soon after China lost the second Opium War. The British took Hong Kong and secured their right to poison the populace with opium. Are you sure colonialism was not at play?

[hintymad]

Up to 1890s. It's not like the Qing people were pursuing modern civilization like crazy and the course was reversed by the Opium War or whatever.

[vkou]

You can't speculate as to China's outcome in the 21st century, based on what its rulers may have thought in the 19th century, on an alt-historical timeline that skipped the opium wars, and the century of occupation, civil war, war, and some more civil war.

I mean, you can, but your speculation is as good as anyone else's.

In the late 19th century, Russia still had serfs, and Americans practiced chattel slavery. By the mid 20th century, both of those countries built the atomic bomb. A century is a very long time to make accurate alt-historic predictions about.

[hintymad]

I didn't speculate China's outcome. I was give an example to show that we can't blame colonialism for every country's struggle.

[vkou]

You can't blame colonialism for China's pre-colonial-period problems, but you sure as hell have to give it the lion's share of credit for it's colonial problems.

Colonialism in China ended in 1945, a generation after the Qing dynasty. That time period was not a great time to live there, between the Japanese occupation, the civil war, and the country being split amongst a gaggle of warlords.

Whether or not the country would have developed without all of that is an open question. But if we were to ask whether not all those things were preventing development, the answer is 'Obviously, yes.'