China vs. India

[Beet]

India needs more development, China needs more democracy. The difference is that India's government is working to improve India's development, and all Indians agree that economic development is an important goal, they only disagree on the means of getting there. Whereas China's government doesn't make any concession to political reform, and thinks it can continue to go on with the so-called "China Model" indefinitely.

There are many problems with the "China Model". For instance, it was always weak as a "model", for even in places like India, you don't see a massive call for authoritarian oligarchy in the name of developing manufacturing infrastructure. They are trying to do it within the bounds of democracy. The real weakness of the model though, is that it makes the same mistake in the political and social realms as Mao Zedong made in the economic realm. That is, if the party allowed the political and social inclinations of the people to flourish, a marketplace of political ideas would eventually pick out those that were in the best interest of the country, which those within the party simply don't have the capacity to foresee. Social innovations in the arts, philosophy, civics, and other areas of life would make for a much richer mosaic of society. These areas are being repressed by the party, which is in turn repressing the quality of life of the people. The fundamental principle is the same as in market economics-- innovation in business is just another form of innovation in life. The party, with its repressive overconfidence in its model of governance, is repressing this potential in the 1.35 billion people it rules over.

[Beet]

It's sad but not surprising that Snowstalker supports the totalitarian, nationalist capitalist state over the democratic, multiethnic*, and quasi-socialist (though moving away from such things) one.

*though obviously also nationalistic to a certain extent.

That's a rather inaccurate description. China is authoritarian but by no means totalitarian, not nearly. Both China and India are quite nationalistic (as are numerous other states including Russia, Israel, and the United States). Both China and India are multiethnic. Both China and India have socialistic elements to their economy. Both China and India have capitalist elements. Basically, none of your distinguishing adjectives really distinguish anything.

[Beet]

It's sad but not surprising that Snowstalker supports the totalitarian, nationalist capitalist state over the democratic, multiethnic*, and quasi-socialist (though moving away from such things) one.

*though obviously also nationalistic to a certain extent.

That's a rather inaccurate description. China is authoritarian but by no means totalitarian, not nearly. Both China and India are quite nationalistic (as are numerous other states including Russia, Israel, and the United States). Both China and India are multiethnic. Both China and India have socialistic elements to their economy. Both China and India have capitalist elements. Basically, none of your distinguishing adjectives really distinguish anything.

India is definitely more multiethnic than China.  China has ethnic minorities, but the country is >90% Han Chinese, and the Han are very dominant politically.  In India, there is no linguistic majority (native Hindi-speakers are only a plurality).  Even though the majority of the people are Hindu, there is no state religion and religious minorities have been well-represented in government.  Frankly, India is so diverse that it deserves credit for staying together and functioning as much as it has been.

That is true, but the fact India's ethnic diversity is well acknowledged whereas China's rarely is, is all the more reason not to forget China's ethnic minorities. The general authoritarian nature of the PRC government makes it virtually impossible for any but non Han males to advance at the national level, and also had prevented a frank discussion of ethnic (along with religious, political, etc.) diversity. But that does not mean these people do not exist, of course.