China Is Pressing Women to Have More Babies. Many Are Saying No.
Chinese women have had it. Their response to Beijing’s demands for more children? No.
Fed up with government harassment and wary of the sacrifices of child-rearing, many young women are putting themselves ahead of what Beijing and their families want. Their refusal has set off a crisis for the Communist Party, which desperately needs more babies to rejuvenate China’s aging population.
With the number of babies in free fall—fewer than 10 million were born in 2022, compared with around 16 million in 2012—China is headed toward a demographic collapse. China’s population, now around 1.4 billion, is likely to drop to just around half a billion by 2100, according to some projections. Women are taking the blame.
In October, Chinese Leader Xi Jinping urged the state-backed All-China Women’s Federation to “prevent and resolve risks in the women’s field,” according to an official account of the speech.
“It’s clear that he was not talking about risks faced by women but considering women as a major threat to social stability,” said Clyde Yicheng Wang, an assistant professor of politics at Washington and Lee University who studies Chinese government propaganda.
The State Council, China’s top government body, didn’t respond to questions about Beijing’s population policies.
China's problem is a universal problem. They're "communist" in name only. Their economy has capitalist demands for growth/metastasis, same as ours and most developed economies.
People want to have kids when they can expect those kids to live at minimum the same quality, and preferably better quality, than they themselves did and do. That just isn't the case anymore as the global economy has run out of massive new sectors for growth/metastasis and has begun eating itself. You can see this in all the entire sectors here merging into monopolies and duopolies. Constant merging isn't a business strategy, it's just trying to buy time in a failing economic model.
Capitalism has always been a long-term pyramid scheme to concentrate all the power/wealth/means/capital to a small owner class. The problem is, the con has run out of new places and ways to exploit people as you eventually can't squeeze more out of a fully exploited stone. No pensions, laughable pay, no future. Just expected to thanklessly generate capital for the owners in larger and larger quantities for the love of what? The nation trying to commoditize your entire life to profit the right people? Why would you bring another poor, desperate child to suffer such a world?
Now, in their desperation, these economies that lead their societies and governments around by the nose are desperately screaming "MORE LIVESTOCK TO EXPLOIT GOD DAMN IT!" because in lieu of not being able to squeeze any harder on existing capital batteries without being correctly told to 'get fucked,' that's all they have.
I firmly believe that is why the federalist society that runs our SCOTUS is trying to get abortion banned, as the most profitable capital batteries are desperate, poor ones. I also believe the intentional decline of our public education system is meant to address the same problem, if they can make the population stoooopid enough not to consider the lives the children of already struggling peasants would have.
This world is finite. Its resources finite. An economic model literally based on infinite continuous growth/metastasis or die is not compatible with the world as it is. In every sense, it is killing us, whether by climate change from without, and loss of actual personal meaning within, at least for the non-winning vast majority. The goal of global economics should have been to establish a sustainable population that could find equilibrium/homeostasis with our shared, COMMUNal environment we all rely on from one breath to the next. Not a lot of room for Super Yachts and private jets in such a world though...
This is why so many ‘industrialists’ are championing Mars bases and asteroid mining. Not because it would solve scarcity, but because it would provide another spatial fix, which like you said, is the ideal capitalist solution.
There was a 1950s radio drama show called X-Minus One that adapted stories from a science fiction magazine. There's a comedic one that is a surprising critique of capitalism in 1950s America called "Snowball Effect" [spoilers ahead] about an economics professor who comes up with a formula for unlimited growth and tests it out on a small women's organization in a small town in Wisconsin. It starts working too rapidly, but he has built a flaw into the formula where the organization will quickly collapse if they stop getting new members. But it becomes so successful that the organization takes over the world. At the end of the episode, the world leader (who started as the president of the organization in the tiny Wisconsin town) announces that they are landing the first people on Mars to look for Martians because they desperately needed new members.
If you're curious to listen, it's #64 here- https://archive.org/details/OTRR_X_Minus_One_Singles
Humanity divorced itself from nature long before capitalism existed. Without natural bounds on growth, any organism will multiply indefinitely. Every technology we've developed, from stone tools and fire to transistors and fractal antennas, has been in service of removing natural bounds. After the world wars, people were concerned about our ability to feed an exploding population, then the green revolution happened. Today, we're grappling with how to feed 3 to 4 times as many people, as well our depletion of other natural resources and the effect we're having on the planet as a whole. We're developing fusion, solar & wind, carbon sequestration, desalination, vertical farming & hydroponics, and the asteroid mining and extraterrestrial colonization you mention.
It's scary now because it feels like we're truly on the brink of destroying ourselves - outgrowing our planet's ability to host us in multiple different ways - without a nascent technology close at hand to save us from ourselves again. We're smart, but are we smart enough to defeat nature entirely? Either we stay one step ahead of perpetual growth, or we finally realize that perpetual growth is the one natural thing about ourselves that we have not managed to truly grapple with.
This is also why the Federalist Society is coming after a womens right to vote.
It won't be long until we hear MTG shouting "All MEN are created equal, not woMEN" in the halls of Congress.
Saving this so I can come back in case you're right
Exactly I don't understand how building an economy on screwing over each other is viable.. It is present in everything as corporations are running out of metrics to gain income we are seeing either lower quality products on the market, shrinking quantity of consumables or everything becoming subscriber based at ever increasing prices as everything is commodified.. If you stop producing you just die.
This despite having 2/3 of the countries GDP in SOEs and 60-90% of the workforce in SOEs, having 5 year plans, and political leadership primarily under a Communist party. Why do so many people think communism is only when everyone makes the same paycheck or when the economy is managed bureaucratically?
That’s just what kids are taught in high school in the US and most people don’t question it. You have to go out of your way to learn otherwise.
Governments and companies have gotten by in the past with a combination of factors:
Religion pressuring people into marrying and having children.
Poverty and poor education causing people to have children they weren’t prepared for. Includes lack of access to birth control and discouraging its use.
One income households made it feasible to raise large families when times were good. The rich have since siphoned off all economic growth while real wages have stagnated.
Having children is an unpaid job. If the government wants people to have children, it should start paying for it. Or, the wealthy will need to stop hoarding all the wealth and let regular people earn enough to support a family on one income again.
In the meantime, people should feel justified and good about not reproducing. The planet is already pushed to its breaking point. More humans will consume more resources and emit more CO2.
I never thought about it like that before. Having children is an unpaid job. So true.
You’re basically expected to produce new workers all at your own expense. And, who benefits? The children you raise become workers and contributors to the economy. So, it’s the capitalists that benefit from increased productivity and growth.
I realize there are other abstract and noble reasons to have children. But, capitalists don’t see it in those terms and there is this economic dimension to childrearing. You should be able to have children if you want them, but you should also be paid for doing so to the extent that it benefits society. I would argue that people were once paid, albeit indirectly through a spouse’s salary that was high enough to support a non-salaried adult to raise the children. Why are people now expected to both work and raise children? Why are they expected to fit this productive activity into their non-working hours as if raising children was a hobby.
Because capitalism is doing unbeatably well in incorporating whatever social movement and then celebrating itself as being "progressive" while just exploiting some valuable aspects of these movements. Sexual liberation? Well you get it back as "freedom" in the form of sexualized advertisement. Feminism? You get it back as women working now basically equally much (but both partners basically earning less in total). Psychedelic drugs that make you question the foundations of our materialistic world? You get it back as micro-dosing to enhance creativity (=productivity). The list goes on, and always will.
Southpark - Canada wants more money!
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Southpark - Canada wants more money!
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Been thinking about this since I got to double digits, how could adding more people solve overpopulation and overconsumption?
Overpopulation isn't the problem they want to solve. The problem they want to solve is "there are too many of us old people and not enough young people to take care of us". Since the old people with money aren't being taken care of, now it's a problem worth addressing.
This is of course oversimplified, but I don't think I'm on the wrong track.
Oh you're bang on, but in my mind I've always just kinda "known" I don't want kids, there's already too many of us. Obviously that's since been heavily reinforced based on the science 🔥
Who said it could? You can famines in rural areas and a strong walking recycling culture in urban areas. It isn't the size of your obligations it is your ability to pay.
You're not paid in dollars.
That's not what 'paid' means here. I'm a parent. I wouldn't trade it for anything because of the rewards. But children are very expensive, and if the government expected me to have a kid, I would expect them to cover the costs at the very least.
That's easy. Just quit working and descend into poverty, then the government will help you maintain that lifestyle.
{UBI peers around the corner}
Buh the welfare queens.. Dats socialism
(Bans abortion)
The point is that a lot of folks, even if they would want to can't, in good conscience, have children because they lack the resources (time or money) to do right by those children.
So to say "just have children already" does nothing for those that aren't having children. If the society truly feels they have a problem, then they need to address the factors that prevent people from properly raising children. Free services for care and feeding of children, housing for families, labor regulations to make it so parents actually have some flexibility to take care of the needs of their children.
Parenting may be very rewarding but a lot of people who would be appropriately responsible are responsible enough to not inflict a bad childhood when they know they can't make it work without changes.
In Russia, people with children get benefits that scale really quickly with the number of kids you have. This is, of course, balanced by the fact that Russia is miserable and people seldom wish to stay.
My wife and I are thinking about babies, she would love to stay at home and take care of them but it's just not that easy to make ends meet.
How much whiny shit I have seen on the internet over the years about the child income tax credit. Oh yes that tiny reduction that comes no where near the actual cost of raising a child. I can't see people who bitch and moan about this voting for even more money. Then you got the other side that cries about having to pay for schools.
Sorry I can't see any situation where we roll out something like this. We are way too short thinking and "fuck you I got mine". Which is fine since global warming is going to kill us one day and we will deserve it.
It feels so backwards, I see people admonishing the younger, more liberal generations for not having children while turning around and bragging that their wife only needed two weeks of maternity leave. Why want more children in the world if you dont want to actually take care of them?
Spot on.
100%, well said!
I think the issue could be distilled down to the fact that women globally have been forced due to economic factors to choose the workplace over the home. It's a good idea for women to have equal rights in the workplace, and they should be able to choose a career over a family. But basically, every economy shifted to the point where now you need two average salaries to support a household. This means keeping one parent home to watch the kids is financial suicide for most families.
The results are fewer children, dumber children, and a shittier society. Tax incentives for having kids are a start, but not nearly enough to tip the scales at all.
It sure looks like "the economy" is this massive religious monster that demands nonstop sacrifices for its endless growth. Not immediate sacrifices, mind you, but long and torturous ones. It managed to get a lot of people in line for the sacrifice, it only forgot that pesky part about ensuring they reproduce before dying.
I have several very close friends who are Chinese. Some from near Shanghai some from near Beijing. The reason they explain is much more cultural and not capitalist as some here suggest.
For one, it is extremely rough on women because young men act very spoiled and men in general have an abusive problem there. So they don’t want to have kids with these men and they don’t want to marry them either. Women are getting married much later with it not being completely unheard of to be 30 and unmarried anymore in China.
Second, it is also hard on women because of family. When they get married the man’s family is their new family essentially and they lose support from their blood family. This can be tough especially if the husbands family hates the woman (not that rare).
Third, divorce is still rare because of the culture of stick through it and be a good wife. Divorce is also hard when you have kids and there’s a lot of pressure to have kids right away when you get married. This is changing but it’s slow.
Finally, we arrive at feminism. This is a good change and women are realizing all the cultural problems and see they can be happier on their own and make big money on their own too. So why get married, why have kids when you can be happy by yourself?
So all in all it’s not bad changes, these are cultural changes most countries go through and I’m happy for the Chinese women and hope all goes well. If you have any questions or want me to elaborate just let me know.
Considering your first point, it might be more effective to train young men in how to be attractive husbands and co-parents than to pressure women to just lay back and think of China.
The capitalism part is culture too. You're just describing the traditional capitalist practices of treating women like commodities to use as a type of fuckable home appliance. You're using cultural language to describe commodity trade, inheritance, reproduction of human capital, property ownership, and the fact that only men were "real people" who could own capital.
I understand what you’re saying, but these Chinese cultural aspects go back far further than modern capitalism. At least in china
They are part of trade too. Dowry paid, women as furniture/appliances, trading owners from father to husband. This is all part of the economy in trade and capitalism.
Hence modern capitalism. If trade in general is capitalism then every system is capitalism
Put women in the workforce but keep the societal expectation of having them do all the housework, child rearing, cooking, cleaning, etc.
Gee I wonder why they don’t want to engage in that social contract anymore, and that doesn’t even cover how fucking expensive it is to even have one kid
Honestly kind of happy for China for a change, this is a pretty big indication of women's rights that they're able to say No to begin with. I hope they continue to resist and eventually cause a larger change for the better across the region.
From the 1 child policy to this?
I'd imagine a lot of people who were affected negatively by 1 child policy being absolutely pissed at seeing the government suddenly go "we miscalculated, pls start breeding like rabbits"
Yeah there's an example in the article
There's a lot of crazy things in China that are related to this. Not just one child policy. There's a whole crisis of sexuality in China.
Do you have an article on that? I always think of Japan with that issue, or do I have that mixed up?
I think a lot of countries are having similar issues. I think South Korea is another one.
Hell, even most western countries have the same issues
But many of those same western countries level out the population decay with immigration. To my knowledge South Korea, Japan, and China don't have as much immigration.
Well there aren't enough women because men are obsessed with family lines. Having one child. A male child was the preference, and in China older women are undesirable so I can see why there is a problem.
That keeps getting cited in western media, but it's really not the case. The obsession with bloodlines is true; however it is illegal here (I live in China, my wife is Chinese) to reveal the gender prior to birth; and punished severely. It's still possible to find a doctor and bribe them, however the risk is so high that not many are able to pay up. I've heard numbers of up to 30k USD (!) going around (and that's in today's money), which is easily 2-3x the annual salary of a local worker.
So while the top ~10% or something could have afforded it, it was in fact much easier to just have a second kid and just hide it with some relatives in a village who'd pretend it was theirs. All the good it did to enforce the one child policy was to have a ton of unaccounted offspring running around in the countryside.
Current statistics show that 48.99% of Chinese are female vs. 51.01% male, while the global statistic is 50.49% male vs. 49.51% female. (That's the global figure including China, so it's a bit distorted, but not by a huge margin).
TL;DR: While there are a bit fewer women in China than the global average, it's not really a relevant concern.
Interesting.
It says a lot about where we're at in humanity. Child-bearing-aged humans the world over want children less than ever before.
Something's fucking wrong.
Wrong? I see people deciding not to have kids as fundamentally a good thing. Coercion into having kids due to government pressure or social norms seems a whole lot more wrong to me. It's ok to not want kids, it's not some sort of disorder that needs fixing.
I would absolutely love to see the population go down, even for like a single day, within my lifetime. But considering we've added over 2 billion people to the population since I was a kid...I don't have high hopes.
as someone who does not want kids and is constantly being pressured into it by inlaws, thank you for saying this. Every time i see my screaming, trantrum throwing nephews my belief is more reinforced.
Yes, I think the person you replied to meant exactly what you put in words- they just left it vague to accommodate for all the other factors involved not only in the Chinese case at hand, but worldwide. I don't think they meant to say it's not ok to not want to have kids.
Better for the environment for sure, but less people would leave many countries bankrupt because of high senior care costs. I mean, they could just allow immigration, but that’s not gonna happen. It’s funny how the US benefits so much from immigration and yet half the country doesn’t want it
Which is basically an accounting issue. We could produce all the stuff we need with a smaller workforce, but that would squeeze a lot of profit out of the production system. Simply put billionaires would suffer. Without an ever increasing consumer population there is the horror of degrowth.
I don’t think we can and I think the ongoing labor shortage is proof of it. At least not yet, but with advances in automation and robotics, then I think it’s likely. Also we totally need something like a UBI at that point because we would surely tip the scales towards labor surplus at that point. Which is where I would like to see municipal programs pop up around the country to employ people and pay them really well to clean up the environment. Plant trees, clean up rivers, basically rehab the planet. It’s all wishful thinking but I like talking about it lol
I hope when I'm old they just decide to let my generation suffer to correct this fundamentally flawed system that will inevitably collapse at some point. It's based upon the impossible notion of infinite growth.
I totally agree with you about immigration, but I tend to look at the population issue from a world wide perspective. And from that perspective the population goes up every single year without fail, which to me is a major problem that I hope our species will find a way to overcome.
They've been telling Gen X and younger that we're going to suffer when old since we were kids.
Humanity has always taken an idea and ran with it to the breaking point and beyond, having it fall apart, take the pieces that worked and cobble together a few new idea to run with usually accompanied with a new batch of religions and cultures. But living in that falling apart time isn't the greatest experience.
Yeah, the way we have human society set up.
I think low birth rates are a product of a demanding system. In many cases it's economic suicide to even entertain the idea of having children.
There is also the fact that the economy is collapsing in on itself since companies are pulling out of China in droves. It is a toxic business environment, ever since Trump's presidency has ignited this whole nationalism tend among world politics things have been going downhill for younger generations it is like being a US citizen, and graduating in 2008 Imagine graduating with a degree, and there are no jobs available.
The allure of DINKs and solo living is too strong even when developed countries started to get really developed earlier on.
DINK life is fantastic!
DINK?
Edit: Ah, Dual Income No Kids!
Wait... Wait wait wait...
Mr. and Mrs. Dink, from the 90s cartoon 'Doug'... Was that deliberate or a coincidence!?
Deliberate. They were suppose to come across as materialistic because they chose toys over kids. Also, they were always inviting Doug over, as if they regretted not having kids.
Very expensive
Correct!!
Yeah, it's really no wonder many are choosing not to have kids these days. It's insanely expensive and inconvenient and governments do very little to make it financially attractive. At least in the US.
Ah yes, "a threat to be eliminated" is surely a stance that will get women on board with child-bearing.
China could probably stand to spend some time not having an extremely strong stance on babies.
Why would anyone want kids while they can't afford anything with no kids? If they want people to have kids, they better help them financially. You can't have a child and leave them for strangers to raise them at daycares. Or have the mother sit home and the dad works 3 jobs to put food on the table. Fuck that.
The latter is how we do it. 💀
And it shouldn't be that way. A human being doesn't need to work 3 jobs to just fucking survive. I have worked 3 jobs and it sucked. I went months without seeing my son while he is awake, I left home while he was asleep and came back while he's asleep. It was brutal.
As we all have known for a while now, capitalism has failed us. This is end game capitalism
Russia is the same. Nobody wants to immigrate to those countries. Wonder why.
Not entirely true! Tara Reade moved to Russia recently. Totally helps her credibility. Nothing fishy with that timing!
I don't know about Russia, but in china and east asia I'm pretty sure the bigger problem is that they limit immigration.
It does take two to tango.
Estimating the fuck-rate of my grandchildren's grandchildren and being very concerned in a paper that can't predict the next quarterly financial cycle correctly.
Loving this child free wave
If there's one thing I know about the Chinese Communist Party, it's that they take rejection and defiance in stride. At least this isn't anything as dangerous as hunger strikes and students assembling in public squares so maybe they can save a little gas money on tanks and pressure washers this time around.
I've seen a bunch of comments expressing interest in the population declining. Since I don't really want the Thanos approach, lowering the birth rate is great.
I propose sterilization for cash, like cash for clunkers. You get a bunch of free money if you decide you want fixed.
Think of the amount of people who'd take that deal. Long term, lower population, less social program spending, hopefully less people's wanting abortions, win win. It goes against the rich people need for more workers, but you can dangle the lower welfare receipts, they'll be all about that. 😋
Sorry, morbid humor among actual socioeconomic conversation.
I'm first in line for the nuts for bucks program!
Decreasing population hurts the economy beyond rich people's needs
As a dude planning to get a vasectomy this year, I am all for this plan, so long as it includes people who already have children.
I honestly feel we need to set a limit to human lifespan. Healthcare is advancing too fast for this to be sustainable.
Bro, you lived 75 years, please die already so new generations can have some resources for themselves, stop hogging everything, you... hogger. Lower the retirement age to 55 and let people enjoy their last 20 years with decent retirement money because there's less old people to maintain.
This is the only solution I can think of. If the population keeps growing at this rate and we don't start culling ourselves, we'll make the planet inhabitable.
Young people are necessary for the economy to bloom and to sustain old people after retirement. I don't think sterilization is an option.
No one wants to die at 75 - that's a single decade (in old age, mind you, with limited options) to enjoy retirement. IF you managed to retire. There's a lot of older people now that I work with that simply can't retire, because they can't afford it. That's only going to get worse as we grow old and need to retire.
We can't enact Logan's Run at 75 and assume it'll fix anything. We'll all work till we drop, which I don't want for my children. Hell, my parents don't want that for me now!
I feel like they'd have a point if we could reduce the standard retirement age. Theoretically, a world pushing increased automation should be able to achieve that - assuming the value generated from automation isn't going into about 5 or 6 individual bank accounts.
Their retirement money sucks because there are too many of them. Because there are too many of them, young people have no resources. Because young people have no resources, people don't want to have kids. Because they don't have kids, there aren't enough young workers to generate decent retirement money for old people.
It's a cycle.
It's really the best solution...
Seriously, I can only see positives. The only problem is that people are too attached to life. Humans are too self-centered for something like this. 75 years is enough to experience whatever. You'll retire younger and have actual money to enjoy your last 20 years.
This is a temporary solution though. The population would still grow, but at least it would be mostly workers that are probably figuring out how to solve the issues permanently.
I'd go further. Imagine if we extended the purge to the young population as well. They'd no longer need to work hard to give their children stability and a chance to succeed. No wars, no famine, no sickens... no suffering. All that, achievable right now! All it takes is to kill ourselves!
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4146128/
One day we'll look back and wonder "why did we even think it was possible for human population to keep growing without limits in a limited space with limited resources?"
Wait, that day already happened years ago.
The 1 child policy already proved to be the wrong solution. Do you have any other ideas on how to stop the population growth while keeping the population young?
We have tripled our population in 50 years. Life expectancy is higher than ever and will keep getting higher.
Solutions? Or do we just sit down mocking reality until we die?
Or just take residential property away from companies and sell it back way cheaper to first time buyers. I bet lots of people would like a kid or two but just can't afford it because of all the money spent on rent/mortgages.
Increase education rates, reduce poverty, and give women more rights = fertility goes down. This is a good thing in theory, but society has to change its approach to designing the economy to handle a declining population.
China probably wants to make more military reserves so they can have more manpower to invade Taiwan in the future after seeing their friend ruZZia flopped in Ukraine.
While I hope you are right regarding Russia, I'd be careful with sufh statements, nothing's decided yet.
Its crazy to me that countries are urging women to have children. At least they should do what Christians and Muslims do and brain wash women to have children.
Well this will most definitely end well.
/s obviously, but this type of rhetoric never leads to anything good.
Dystopian shithole.
~ Mike "Chinese Communist" Johnson, Speaker of the Beijing House of Representatives
No dispute we have a problem with fascist republican swine, but we’re a far cry from China.
There is a reflexive need among Americans to assume every other country is significantly worse than their own.
China is an authoritarian state that had a literal one-child policy until recently
My guy, I'm living in a state that tried to arrest a woman for removing an ectopic pregnancy. The border towns of my state are rapidly developing the largest per-capita prison population on the planet, thanks to the number of migrants being snatched up and forced into
concentrationdetention camps combined with our already prodigious home-grown prison population. A full third of my city budget is dedicated to funding an enormous do-nothing police force and our new mayor spent his first day doing ride-alongs with cops while promising even more money. You can get arrested in my state for simple vagrancy. You can get arrested and jailed for days at the age of 6 years old for stealing a crayon. You can get arrested and sentenced to five years in prison for submitting a provisional ballot on election day>Until as recently as 2010, US prisons had a policy of sterilizing inmates.
China's One Child policy boiled down to withholding financial benefits after the second kid, which is no different than the American EITC refundable tax credit that caps benefits at 3 dependents, along with numerous other state benefits that are capped at between two and four children depending on the state.
If you want to talk about authoritarianism, you're going to have to put more on the table than a vaguely referenced policy you know very little about. Nevermind how you're speaking about this in a state that has been caught engaging in outright genocidal conduct towards its native, african american, female, and LGBT populations within the last few news cycles.
Yep, and your state voted for that. My state amended it's constitution to prevent this situation, also through voting.
In China, you don't get that option, because China is an authoritarian state.
Authoritarian doesn't simply mean "bad" even though authoritarianism is bad.
You know what's not a sign of an authoritarian state? An appeals court overturning a bad verdict.
You should really click the links you use as evidence.
Gerrymandered districts mean 40% of the population picks 60% of the legislators.
In China, I can get an abortion any time I want. The cost is trivial, the facilities are clean, and the doctors aren't legally required to guilt trip me with far-right propaganda just for asking. I don't need to block walk for ten years, canvasing uninterested men and begging them to support some Ivy League prat (D) over Local Car Dealership creep (R), in hopes that I maybe get the supermajority of democrats necessary to repeal an ill-conceived trigger law passed before I was even legally allowed to vote. I just get to do the thing, because it has been considered a fundamental human right since the 1950s.
An unelected body of bureaucrats green-lighting a state campaign of hyper-policing aimed at a vulnerable group, for the purpose of instituting an unpopular morality code, is a textbook example of state authoritarianism.
Even then, as you note
I could at least live with a certain amount of authoritarianism (because hey, that's hierarchies for ya, and whatchagonnado?) but the current hierarchy has produced a local authoritarianist tendency that is also absolutely shit.
China's authoritarian government gets people super fast trains and world leading hospitals and salt-fusion nuclear reactors.
My authoritarian government gets people daily multi-vehicle traffic fatalities and medical bankruptcies and big holes in West Virginia where we mine burnable rocks that clog our air and waterways and fill our fish food with mercury.
I can't vote the authoritarianism out of Texas any more than I can vote the authoritarianism out of China. And since I don't speak mandarin and I've got something of a large, well-established community of friends and loved ones in Texas, I'm stuck here for the time being.
You can move within your country and your experience will be entirely different. You can't in China, because it's an authoritarian hellstate.
I agree that Republicans are authoritarians, and that sucks. I also acknowledge that you likely view hierarchies as inherently authoritarian and that we'll likely not see eye to eye on where to draw lines. Also fine - that's what liberal ideologies want, is that disagreement.
But to compare China positively with the US in terms of authoritarianism is, frankly, a bit silly.
In the US, you can move within the US whenever you please and arrive homeless if you can't afford market rents. In China, you can put out a request to move and get on a waiting list for available housing, then move when a spot opens up. China, you get arrested and returned home for moving without a permit. In the US, you get arrested and incarcerated indefinitely for living without a house.
The Authoritarian Hellstate of China is one in which state agents try to accommodate the demands of the population at-large in order to avoid the socially destabilizing effects of mass unemployment and homelessness. The Freedom-burger Utopia of America is one in which state agents simply assault and imprison anyone who steps out of line, with the expectation that we all make the consumer choice to remain in bounds.
I wish it was just Republicans. Houston and California and New York Democrats are more than happy to pile on the conservative-inspired panics, when they see these mass-media hysterics as politically convenient. Whether you're Mayor Eric Adams or Governor Gavin Newsom or Sylvester Turner, you're on the side of the police in a war against the ugly masses.
It is definitely silly to compare the Chinese Communist Party to the American Republican Party.
None of this really disproves their claim that the Chinese government is authoritarian. It just shows they aren't the only authoritarian government in the world.
Western in general really. I remember seeing here once Europeans dunking on the US for lead water pipes, and it turned out lead pipes are just as bad in the EU and actually worse in the UK.
One defining feature of Western philosophy and mythos is individualism, which explains why it's common for each Western country to think it's the best/least worst.
Lolbruh. Would you rather live in America or China?
If I was fluent in Mandarin? Chongqing is an absolutely gorgeous city with fantastic food and amazing transit. I'd take it over Houston in a heartbeat.
I imagine the climate is better, though that's a low bar to clear. We're in a very narrow band now when I enjoy spending time out of doors. Soon we'll return to the 10 month summer.
You write as if your microcosm republican shithole is your only option for living in a country with vast cultural, economic, and political diversity (let alone geography, climate, demographics, etc.). You’re arguing in bad faith. Fuck’s sake, move to Austin and it’s night-and-day compared to Houston.
They should allow immigration. There are other young countries looking for jobs. 60% of the Arab World is under 30.
That is the correct response.
Oh look, it's the same fucking problem of every fucking rich country! The "find out" part after the "fuck around" of living conditions getting ridiculously expensive, plus expecting both parents to magically have time and energy to work AND care for their child
After all, the Capital god needs offerings to maintain its power