Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

They are not always equivalent. But in the case of China, changing from the current state to some new form of government carries a high risk of a prolonged chaos, which would destroy safety and prosperity for most families.

Russia risked that chaos, but it had little choice: the USSR was a complete economic disaster. If China today was as bad economically as the USSR in 1985, a big part of my argument would disappear.

In some limited sense, I might even say that the Chinese economy today with the old regime is more promising than the Russian economy today after all the changes. And even if I'm wrong on that, still the Chinese economy is at least decent. So the people in China have a lot more to lose from chaos than the people in the USSR did.

Another thing. You're saying Russia is in a better state today than 30 years ago. Yes, but Russia is governed by a strongman, who doesn't allow much political dissent. Are you sure that without him Russia wouldn't be in chaos?

And if you think that what is going on in Russia is an acceptable compromise, then why would you be uncomfortable with the Chinese government? The difference is not that great.

By the way, authoritarian governments had been around for millennia before fascism was even a thing. I don't see why you would equate the two.



Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: