this post was submitted on 25 Oct 2023
91 points (100.0% liked)
the_dunk_tank
15914 readers
12 users here now
It's the dunk tank.
This is where you come to post big-brained hot takes by chuds, libs, or even fellow leftists, and tear them to itty-bitty pieces with precision dunkstrikes.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No ableism of any kind (that includes stuff like libt*rd)
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: The subject of a post cannot be low hanging fruit, that is comments/posts made by a private person that have low amount of upvotes/likes/views. Comments/Posts made on other instances that are accessible from hexbear are an exception to this. Posts that do not meet this requirement can be posted to !shitreactionariessay@lemmygrad.ml
Rule 9: if you post ironic rage bait im going to make a personal visit to your house to make sure you never make this mistake again
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
i'd say the level of 'modernization' in China would've been a rough parity or even less than India overall. in both cases most the rail was built to serve imperial interests, like the most developed system in Manchuria---but China had 27k km of lines in 1945 vs. probably a bit less than 77k in india (when they reorganized it in 1951, can't find earlier overall figures). i'd say most of the progress from the late Qing was more-or-less erased in the warlord era & japanese invasion
i mean it was to the point colonial-developed Manchuria is seen as a big advantage for the Communists to acquire (which btw the Soviets didn't "hand over", i don't know who started that myth the GMT occupied most of it but lost it in early fighting)
My point is that unlike China, India was "deindustrialised" over the 19th century from a fairly advanced 18th century economy.
They had approx same amounts of 19th century tech, sure, but China still had a large base of skilled artisans that could bootstrap internal development of production, while India had a much more vestigial capacity.
did they though? China wasn't industrialized yet but forcibly opened up as a market for western goods. their attempts at building a domestic industrial base were disrupted by the warlords & japan. i don't think there was a nucleic handicraft economy waiting to develop into an industrial one, at least not outside of the most remote places which factory products had never reached.