668
Depression self-help
(media.piefed.world)
General rules:
Exceptions may be made at the discretion of the mods.
Probably.
It's hard to say, I don't have a time machine, and there's a lot of butterfly effect stuff.
But I'd imagine the KMT and CCP would be still be on speaking terms, maybe.
I mean, I see these timelines: (Keep in mind, I'm not an expert in history)
If Japan never invaded, and Sun Yat-sen died at the same time as current timline, KMT would've won the civil war. They wouldn't be in the aftermath of suffering from the massive losses fighing the japanese imperialists.
If Japan invades, but Sun Yat-sen was magically kep alive this entire time, I guess there might've been more cooperation during the resistance against japanese invasion. As for after the war, it's possible that:
a. the KMT beomes majority ruling party, and CCP is a major opposition party, and maybe there would be elections... Or maybe the democratization doesn't happen until like a decade, or 2 decades, or maybe much more later. I imagine there is a timeline where perhaps in the alternate 2025, CCP is one of the political parties in a sort of Taiwan-like multiparty democracy. Perhaps it could splinter into multiple groups, Democratic Socialists, and hardcore "Communists". I'd imagine there's also be some people who are more militant and probably launch random attacks sort of like the US's political violence. Perhaps like the IRA.
b. Perhaps a hot civil-war goes off, KMT probably has an advantage because of Sun Yat-sen as the unifying figure. So if KMT wins, its probably just Taiwan timeline, but perhaps the democratization could take a bit longer than Taiwan timeline since the land is bigger, and also the CCP probably goes full "IRA Mode" and start doing attacks, so KMT might've used that as an excuse to implement martial law... so we might not see a a real democracy until like 2000s, there'a gonna need to be a lot of under western pressure to do this.
Just my theories, a historian probably think a lot differently.
TLDR: I don't think the internet censorship would be as harsh, or perhaps the censorship wouldn't exist at all. No great leap forward, likely no One Child Policy. More time spend on actually fixing the country. Possibly multiparty democracy.
do you think china would still be an aes country, but recognize the other parties AND the communist party equally?
China isn't a "Actually Existing Socialist" country to be clear. I've lived there, nothing socialist. Parents were stuggling so much just working all day. My maternal grandmother had to take care of me and my older brother.
I don't think the "socialist" thing really can appear out of nowhere. Japan had just destroyed China, I think it's really unrealistic to leap from a war-torn country into a Socialist paradise, just not realistic. Not in this timeline, neither in the "KMT Wins Civil War" timeline.
In the other timeline, it's either with the KMT as the sole party, or with a multiparty democracy, I think it's just gonna be capitalism for most of the 20th century. Then as the country gets richer, there would eventually be calls for more socialist/social democratic policies. If it's a democracy, KMT would eventually lose power (like are struggling with losing power in RoC controlled Taiwan right now) and hypothetically a Social Democratic or Socialist party would get into power democratically. I don't think Socialism would've been acheived by 2025, but I think there would've more social policies helping the poor.
I think the best way to acheive Socialism is to democratically capture an existing prospering "capitalist democracy" and turn it into socialism from the inside. I mean violent revolution has been tried and they have failed. The current China doesn't really have much social programs helping poor people. It's state capitalism. My family was one of those poor families, I remember parents just be away from home all the time, its the reason why I fight with my older brother a lot.
Norway, although not entirely "socialist", has more success with socialist policies because it was slowly reformed, it was done bottom-up. I mean you can't really just force "democracy" or "socialism" to the people, it has to be grassroot. I don't think "Vanguard Parties" work, they get eventually get corrupted by small amount of bad actors seeking power, and it ends up becoming a tragedy, the opposite of what egalitarianism is supposed to be.
lemmy homies, can you do a little rebuttal to this?
so "socialism from below"?