this post was submitted on 29 Dec 2025
232 points (98.3% liked)
Not The Onion
19075 readers
929 users here now
Welcome
We're not The Onion! Not affiliated with them in any way! Not operated by them in any way! All the news here is real!
The Rules
Posts must be:
- Links to news stories from...
- ...credible sources, with...
- ...their original headlines, that...
- ...would make people who see the headline think, “That has got to be a story from The Onion, America’s Finest News Source.”
Please also avoid duplicates.
Comments and post content must abide by the server rules for Lemmy.world and generally abstain from trollish, bigoted, or otherwise disruptive behavior that makes this community less fun for everyone.
And that’s basically it!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
It's a massive oversimplification that seems to whitewash China's policies.
Every country that undergoes industrialisation and urbanisation has a big drop in birth rates. Same in capitalist and socialist countries, there's no essential difference in how it plays out (the tempo is different from case to case for many reasons, but the trend is the same). But China additionally made the rates plummet through govt intervention.
So you stressed and praised the part that wasn't truly crucial for the outcome (socialism), but ignored the part (one child policy) that drastically contributed to the outcome and that can't be presented as nice or intuitively desirable (regardless of whether it objectively was or wasn't a good decision). That's not simplification but selectiveness.
(Yes, it is true that many lemmings who live outside China just project their own "China sucks" logic onto the Chinese, and their approach is wrong, I agree with you on that count.)
Yes…because those things create wealth. Sounds like you agree but are trying to find an argument. We know birth rate and wealth/poverty are directly related…it’s is what it is. Once upon a time it was just understood that was the case…before everybody injected personal politics into everything.
For the purposes of my comment I’m ambivalent about the political “vehicle”…I’m just plainly stating what happened: social policy raised billions out of poverty….then the capitalist elements of the society demanded labour. We know it’s not the other way around. If you think I’m assigning value to either capitalism or socialism, you’re projecting.
Meh…what, in your headcanon, am I “selecting” for? I don’t even know if you got “offended” about socialism or capitalism, I don’t want to debate something I didn’t say.