You must log in or # to comment.
Single party authoritarian capital system vs two party rigged democratic capital system.
The electoral system in USSR and China worked differently to suit their circumstances and culture. The US depends solely on rigged electoralism where they have two political parties that differs little other than their slogan and branding. USSR allow people to elect members of a political party instead of the election of a political party and they use a high indirect electoral system where people elect leader in the next hierarchy which works at that time due to the mass illiteracy, lack of experience of prior electoral system, political instability, and lack of resource for Western European diapora-styled electoralism. The USSR also use the rule of law and check of power by independent government departments to prevent mass corruption although the Western European diaspora say that any mass protest against Western European authoritarianism must be from one evil authoritarian mastermind that can overcome the fantasy logic of Liberalism to make a fully functioning prosperitive democratic system without the need for free riding unlike Western European diaspora countries.
Single party that produces good results that have alleviated poverty regardless of ideological definition
versus dictatorship of capital that can only become worse over time
Yeah hard choice. Let me stand on my high horse and say these are the same. Let me even joke that America is democratic in the slightest
“Our system doesn’t provide for its people very well, but at least it’s more moral” is not the strong argument you think it is.
Is the ministry of education in China a reliable source?
I’m going to go with yes. 97% isn’t an unreasonable literacy rate for a country, being similar to those of Greece, the Philippines, Turkey, and Chile. It would also make sense given the emphasis that has been put on education
Forgive me for being sceptical. I’ve worked with a lot of Chinese researchers who have said outright that I should never cite a paper from China unless it’s published in nature or I know the authors personally (because it’s so often falsified).
Fwiw the same stats (or similar ones) are corroborated by other sources
Why wouldn’t be a reliable source on education in China?
Really?
Really
Pls only cite sources vetted by the cia
Even the CIA world fact book says 97% lmao
Is the US Census Bureau a reliable source?
true that 90% in 1950 was probably padded
Now do homeownership, maternal mortality, hospital satisfaction, murder rates, suicide rates, reforestation efforts, wind/solar/water energy generation, and green technology development!
Does anyone think of the poor old GOP? The GOP needs stupid, illiterate people! Who else is going to vote for them if people got smarter and better educated?
The Dems sure weren’t thinking of the poor old GOP in the 42 years they simultaneously held both reps and senate in that era (58% of 72 years). The system needs stupid, illiterate people to tolerate it.
There is no way US literacy in the 1950s was anywhere near 90% unless you excluded marginalized and minority populations.
Ok i thought for sure this is bullshit, but apparently not:
Four in five U.S. adults (79 percent) have English literacy skills sufficient to complete tasks that require comparing and contrasting information, paraphrasing, or making low-level inferences—literacy skills at level 2 or above in PIAAC (OECD 2013). In contrast, one in five U.S. adults (21 percent) has difficulty completing these tasks (figure 1). This translates into 43.0 million U.S. adults who possess low literacy skills
I hate to rain on y’all’s parade, but the US measure of literacy is much more stringent than China’s. America is counting literacy as the ability to use print materials like brochures and manuals fluently, the rest of the world just bases literacy on the ability to read a handful of test sentences in a controlled testing context. That’s the reason that America appears to have gone down as well, they switched literacy measures. The 79% measure is people who are “at or below level 1 literacy”, meaning it counts people who met level 1, people who didn’t meet level 1, and people who couldn’t even take the test at all because of a language barrier or disability. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2019/2019179.pdf
I’m all for dunking on America but the apples to apples here would be comparing America’s 96% (just excluding those below level 1) to China’s 97%. Historical materialism requires a true material basis to work.
