this post was submitted on 22 Feb 2024
16 points (100.0% liked)

askchapo

22768 readers
276 users here now

Ask Hexbear is the place to ask and answer ~~thought-provoking~~ questions.

Rules:

  1. Posts must ask a question.

  2. If the question asked is serious, answer seriously.

  3. Questions where you want to learn more about socialism are allowed, but questions in bad faith are not.

  4. Try !feedback@hexbear.net if you're having questions about regarding moderation, site policy, the site itself, development, volunteering or the mod team.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
all 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] KobaCumTribute@hexbear.net 20 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

It should be noted that they increased the number, and had higher numbers in rural areas and for ethnic minorities. As for why, I'd have to assume it was related to why the restrictions on where someone could live and work stuck around and have just gradually been loosened: one of the single biggest material problems China faced after the revolution was a general lack of industrial capital, a lack of industrialized agriculture, and a constant struggle with rural poverty and the pressures that creates for people to leave and move to the cities; despite the rural conditions being bad, they needed a large chunk of the population to continue to endure them in order to continue to have food for everyone. That means they needed the population to have controlled growth while they industrialized and stabilized the food supply: with only so much farmland and so much industrial capital to work with, more people would just strain their limited resources even further.

Presumably it's only in the past decade that they've felt their economic growth is outstripping possible population growth and so they'll benefit or at least not suffer for increased population growth. This is also the timeframe for Xi's anti-corruption campaigns and anti-poverty programs, so it could also be an ideological change away from the cautious liberalism that had been the status quo towards what seems to be a more leftist focus on what the public wants.

So yeah, if anyone questions it just say the one child problem was a conservative liberal policy and repealing it was a popular communist policy and watch their brain melt in real time.

[–] QueerCommie@hexbear.net 4 points 9 months ago

So, Malthusianism, but not evil?

[–] Esoteir@hexbear.net 13 points 9 months ago

my useless and mostly uneducated guess is that it was to try and make sure that population growth didn't exceed the pace of industrialization/number of houses that could be built, but that's simply just my brain from playing too many 4X games

[–] BigHaas@hexbear.net 10 points 9 months ago (2 children)

I was talking to people at a bar and they brought up the one child policy as an example of China being authoritarian and I tried to say that was a just a policy when famines were a real concern but yeah I thought this was like a 1970s thing. Why did China keep this policy for so long?

[–] EllenKelly@hexbear.net 12 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I see the word abortions in the Wikipedia article a lot, and while I haven't dont the reading to properly understand the topic, there's also mentions of 'fines', imo its comparable to western nations giving tax breaks/ financial incentive to families with x amount of children, abortions are still available in (many) places.

I'd suggest that the one child policy has been greatly blown out of proportion in terms of it's 'big scary bad communist government' propaganda

if you do the work and find more information i'm sure a lot of people here would love to read more about it

[–] Ericthescruffy@hexbear.net 1 points 9 months ago

I'd suggest that the one child policy has been greatly blown out of proportion in terms of it's 'big scary bad communist government' propaganda

When I lived in Oklahoma and went to a fundamentalist christian school, I specifically remember my social studies teacher (an Israeli christian convert I shit you not) talking about how parents in China will often drown their newborn babies either because they already have one child and/or they want a son so much that they kill the girls since they're only allowed one child.

[–] BigHaas@hexbear.net 10 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I will say I called the west an empire and the two people I was talking to didn't even blink or push back at all and the guy told me he's read confessions of an economic hitman before. Very encouraging.

[–] ReadFanon@hexbear.net 4 points 9 months ago

Not a fan of John Perkins tbh but I'll take what I can get.

[–] supafuzz@hexbear.net 9 points 9 months ago (2 children)

china got hella people

like, objectively too many

[–] SkingradGuard@hexbear.net 23 points 9 months ago (1 children)

like, objectively too many

Wtf do you mean by this lol

[–] supafuzz@hexbear.net 9 points 9 months ago

So many it was a problem

Don't take my word for it they had a whole one child policy about it

[–] infuziSporg@hexbear.net 3 points 9 months ago

The number of children people have is heavily influenced by economic factors: poor or insecure people have a lot more kids than wealthy or secure people. As soon as the overall prosperity (along with a few other factors like urbanization and healthcare) reached a certain level where the fertility rate would subside, the policy was rolled back.

After a certain point, there are aspects of liability with a greater population. More moiths to feed, more clamor for goods, but beyond a certain threshold it doesn't give you any more economic or cultural diversification. On the personal level, each person loses some of their their distinction and individuality when there are more hundreds of millions of people out there.