为什么中国能实现西方无法做到的事 ？

@l.s.8012
I love when people who bring up China and the USSR as examples of why socialism doesn't work always conveniently neglect the fact that both of them also rapidly industrialized from agrarian economies and can in no way be compared to what the implementation of socialism in an already industrialized country would look like.

我很喜欢那些提到中国和苏联作为社会主义不成功例子的人，他们总是方便地忽略了这两者也是从农业经济迅速工业化的，根本无法与在已工业化国家实施社会主义的情况相提并论。

@davidd6660
Or point to countries that were blockaded/embargoed/sanctioned and shut off from the west while being in the west.

或者指出那些被封锁/禁运/制裁并与西方隔绝的国家。

@the1onlynoob
Results is the ultimate test.
If you build a gaming PC and it can't run stardew valley, then it has failed. Regardless of how great the GPU or the ram is.
If your democracy consistently results in policies that is not popular. Then the democracy has failed, regardless of how great voting system is. Because democracy is defined as doing what the majority wants.
No results means no utility, no utility means fix it

结果是最终的测试。如果你组装了一台游戏PC，却无法运行《星露谷物语》，那么它就是失败的。无论GPU或内存多么强大。如果你的民主制度持续产出不受欢迎的政策，那么这个民主就是失败的，无论投票系统多么优秀。因为民主的定义是做大多数人想要的事情。没有结果就意味着没有效用，没有效用就需要修正。

@hvnbrght
Results is an expression of democracy

结果是民主的体现。

@voodustyle
exactly. people-centered results are an expression of the people's political power.

没错。以人为本的结果是人民政治权力的体现。

@Owlbearwolf2
Comrades, always put your foot down about this. Socialism IS democracy. The people democratically control the economy. Capitalist political democracy is a puppet show, in comparison.

同志们，永远要坚持这一点。社会主义就是民主。人民民主地控制经济。相比之下，资本主义的政治民主只是一场木偶戏。

@Ryukast
That's why the dems are always about protecting "our" democracy, not democracy in general. Because they aren't protecting democracy; just their sick perversion of it.

这就是为什么民主党总是强调保护“我们的”民主，而不是一般的民主。因为他们并不是在保护民主；只是他们扭曲的病态版本。

@Anti-Imperialism-Is-Antiwar
It is a mistake to think China is not a democracy, democracy exist in China. Democracy is not defined by a ballot box system, it is a whole people process and broad representation of society in government. This is what China is and this is why is it can be more democratic than most western countries.

认为中国不是民主国家是一种错误，民主在中国存在。民主并不是通过投票箱系统来定义的，而是一个全体人民的过程，是社会在政府中的广泛代表。这就是中国的现实，这也是为什么它可以比大多数西方国家更具民主性。

@TomPerera-e2n
Social democracy will not work in 3rd world countries while imperial powers like USA still exists. European "social democracy" happened in a time of ugly imperialism and utter disregard for the 90% of the world.
The stupidity of some people is just mind blowing. China (with it's 5000 year civilization), just like USSR, come from a state full Communism (understandably so because of poverty and principled non imperial policies) and is now going towards a closely monitored & well planned hybrid governance system. Governance model is still very socialist but the economy is totally Capitalistic.

在第三世界国家，社会民主不会奏效，尤其是在像美国这样的帝国力量仍然存在的情况下。欧洲的“社会民主”发生在一个丑陋的帝国主义时代，对世界90%的人毫不关心。某些人的愚蠢真是令人震惊。中国（拥有5000年文明），就像苏联一样，来自一个完全共产主义的状态（可以理解，因为贫穷和原则上的非帝国主义政策），现在正朝着一个高度监控和精心规划的混合治理系统发展。治理模式仍然非常社会主义，但经济则完全是资本主义的。

If Socialism doesn't work then full blown Capitalism won't work either (look at the decaying state of the USA which failed to last even a mere 300 years), that's just common sense. People multiply and need their basic needs met in a sustainable manner to live, then people need the ability to create excess wealth by their own to feed themselves, save and think beyond the horizon (Innovate). So both systems must work in a hybrid mode to create the most successful long lasting system. Also Capitalism can be considered an essential tool inside an overarching socialist system, which China is imo.

如果社会主义行不通，那么全面资本主义也不会行得通（看看美国的衰退状态，连300年都没能维持），这简直是常识。人们繁衍生息，需要以可持续的方式满足基本需求，然后人们需要有能力创造多余财富，以供自己生活、储蓄和思考未来（创新）。因此，这两种制度必须以混合模式运作，以创造出最成功、持久的系统。而且，资本主义可以被视为在一个总体社会主义系统内的一个重要工具，我认为中国就是这样。

@here-and-there1071
One difference between the west and China is that China is not evangelical about its political system. China feels its system works for them but doesn't necessarily feel it'll work for other cultures

西方和中国之间的一个区别是，中国并不宣扬自己的政治制度。中国认为他们的制度对他们有效，但并不一定认为它适用于其他文化。

@harryni2162
Human rights, democracy and freedom have never been, and should not be abstract terms spoken of. Based on the reality of the US society and its international behavior, such as excessive law enforcement by the police, severe racial discrimination, rampant gun violence, serious issues of human trafficking and child pornography, per capita crime rates and overcrowded prisons, a surge in homeless people sleeping on the streets, lack of personal safety and medical insurance, launching military coups and color revolutions to overthrow foreign governments, inciting and provoking wars, exporting weapons and explosives, supporting ethnic cleansing in certain countries, participating in border disputes between nations, and so on. When you realised the true human rights, democracy and freedom of the US, when you compare the social reality, real facts and data between China and the US, and when you listen to American politicians and media talking about human rights, democracy and freedom again, you will understand what shameless hypocrisy and propaganda are.

人权、民主和自由从来都不是，也不应该是抽象的概念。根据美国社会的现实和其国际行为，比如警方执法过度、严重的种族歧视、猖獗的枪支暴力、严重的人口贩卖和儿童色情问题、人均犯罪率高和监狱过于拥挤、无家可归者在街头激增、缺乏个人安全和医疗保险、发动军事政变和颜色革命以推翻外国政府、挑起和煽动战争、出口武器和爆炸物、支持某些国家的种族灭绝、参与国家之间的边境争端等等。当你意识到美国真正的人权、民主和自由，并比较中国和美国的社会现实、真实事实和数据时，当你再次听到美国政治家和媒体谈论人权、民主和自由时，你就会明白什么是无耻的虚伪和宣传。

@drplasma1990
I know that it is very easy to dismiss that type of argument, but it is actually I learnt about China from an actual Chinese colleague I had while doing my phd. He says that after seeing Europe he understands that there are pros and cons to the Chinese system, but he was still in favour of it because the pros of the system out-weighted the cons.
And when he laid out the pros.. yeah it was hard to dismiss his opinion as "brain wash", because the issue is that while dictatorial, unlike most dictatorships, it actually delivers to the people.

我知道很容易就会忽视这种论点，但我实际上是从我博士期间的一位中国同事那里了解到中国的。他说，在见过欧洲之后，他明白中国制度有利有弊，但他仍然支持它，因为这个制度的优点大于缺点。
当他列出优点时……是的，很难将他的观点视为“洗脑”，因为问题在于，尽管是DC，但与大多数DC政权不同，它实际上确实给人民带来了好处。

@krlost4405
Why China need to deliver? Because the CCP know that China in its entire history the governments failed when they did not deliver. No Dinasty has survived this.
In that sense, the irony is that the "not democratic" China only party is more afraid of their own population than many western "democracies". So they must deliver results if want to keep the power.

为什么中国需要交付成果？因为中G知道，在整个历史上，当政府未能交付时便会失败。没有一个朝代能够幸存于此。在这个意义上，讽刺的是，那个“不民主”的中国唯一政党比许多西方“民主国家”更害怕自己的人民。因此，他们必须交付结果，如果想保持权力的话。

In most of western democracies, it is only a circle jerk of a sexted group that belong to those "multiple" parties that usually are formed by people with wealth and connections and only are seeking to perpetuate their current economic and social status. They don't have any incentive to deliver. They are seeking profit in 1 term and they know they will repeat later or they will train their son to be the same sht.

在大多数西方民主国家，通常只是一群特定的圈子在互相取乐，这些圈子属于那些“多个”政党的成员，这些政党的成员通常是富有且有关系的人，他们只是在寻求维持自己当前的经济和社会地位。他们没有任何交付的动力。他们只追求短期利润，并且知道他们将来会重复这一过程，或者会培养他们的儿子继续这种做法。

I live in Latam. I graduated from a Catholic school where the sons and daughters of the elite studied. What are the most prominent surnames doing now? Politics. The daughters marry to other surnames with political power and handle the "NGOs" to evade taxes and the sons are the ones that take the batton on the district party positions, etc. The funny thing is, they are blood related to the other members from other parties.

我住在拉美。我毕业于一所天主教学校，那里是精英的子女就读的地方。那么这些显赫的姓氏现在在干什么呢？从事政治。女儿嫁给其他拥有政治权力的姓氏，并管理“非政府组织”以逃避税收，而儿子们则接过区域党职务的权杖等等。有趣的是，他们和其他政党成员之间是血缘关系。

The facade of "election" and all of them belong to the same f ing circle of corruption, where they use political power to get economic outcomes. That is why a street hole takes like 10 years to be paved while in China they built entire roads in a matter of days.

所谓的“选举”只是一种表象，他们都属于同一个该死的腐败圈子，在这个圈子里，他们利用政治权力获得经济利益。这就是为什么一个街道的坑洼要花十年才能铺平，而在中国，他们在几天内就能建成整条道路。

@Jmgnlxt
I guess I understand why there are people who look at the abduction of Maduro and said "China would do the same thing" or look at Greenland and still worry about China being the greatest threat to the Western world; they are just these people who can't think out of their reality, i.e. because American government can kidnap a leader of another country or invade Greenland, China therefore will inevitably do the same. In the circumstances of this video, it goes: because American government cannot have such high support rate, China therefore definitely cannot have, hence the poll from Harvard is worth suspecting. They are just some Western-focused, isocentric, idiotic racists.

我想我明白为什么会有人看到马杜罗被绑架的事件，然后说“中国也会这样做”，或者看到格陵兰而仍担心中国是对西方世界最大的威胁；他们只是不懂得跳出自己的现实思维，即因为美国政府可以绑架其他国家的领导人或入侵格陵兰，因此中国必然也会这样做。在这个视频的情况下，他们认为：因为美国政府不能有如此高的支持率，所以中国肯定也不能有，因此哈佛的民调值得怀疑。他们只是一些以西方为中心、愚蠢的种族主义者。

@Daivd1111
The approval ratings are high is because there is no negative report in the media, it's like the whole country is an echo chamber

支持率之所以高，是因为媒体没有负面报道，这就像整个国家都是一个回音室。

@harryni2162
The socialism with Chinese characteristics is not a western market economy, it still has step-by-step implementation of a series of five-year plans for long-term planning, though it has an influence of Soviet unx era. But unlike the US and some countries when the new government came in term they detoured or abolished the previous government's plan due to different group interest or agenda, which is an enormous waste of money, resource and time. Without flipping and tossing, China will persist on accomplishing its mega-projects once reached consensus by people's congress such as nation-wide high-speed rail network, the cross-nation west-east power diversion and the cross-nation south-north water diversion, etc.

具有中国特色的社会主义不是西方的市场经济，它仍然逐步实施一系列五年计划进行长期规划，尽管它受到苏联时期的影响。但是与美国和一些国家不同，当新政府上任时，由于不同的利益集团或议程，他们会偏离或废除前政府的计划，这是一种巨大的金钱、资源和时间浪费。中国不会翻来覆去，一旦达成全国人民代表大会的共识，将坚持完成其重大项目，例如全国高速铁路网络、跨国东西电力调配和跨国南北水调等。

In China's case I think it was a smart move to combine planned economy and market economy together, it serves the interest of overall people. And it was a lesson learned from the rigidity of the former Soviet unx's planned economy, also another lesson learned from American's industrial hollowing out. For examples China's solar power, wind power, lithium battery and EV etc. did not become number one in all sudden, they were planned for 30 years even 40 years ago. Anyway the government and ruling party must do whatever to benefit the ordinary people, no matter how hard and painful the changes or reforms may be.

在中国的案例中，我认为将计划经济与市场经济结合起来是一个明智的举措，这符合整体人民的利益。这也是从前苏联计划经济的僵化中吸取的教训，以及从美国工业空心化中获得的另一个教训。例如，中国的太阳能、风能、锂电池和电动车等并不是突然变成第一的，它们早在30年甚至40年前就已经被规划好了。无论变化或改革多么艰难痛苦，政府和执政党都必须做任何事情来惠及普通人民。

@UndisputedShoelaces1A
China will eventually need to move past its private enterprise phase. That will either be 1) a party-led transition to more advanced stages of socialist development, or 2) some sort of popular mass participation in socialist re-orientation.

中国最终需要超越其私人企业阶段。这将是 1）一个由党领导的向更高级社会主义发展阶段的过渡，或者 2）某种形式的民众参与社会主义重新定向。

@TealRubyy
Chinese government structures had meritocracy for centuries, dating back to the 600s with the Sui dynasty. People who were well studied and fit for governance were the ones who got into government/civil servant positions. Granted, early forms of the civil servant exam heavily favored the rich, wealthy, and well-connected, but it was a meritocracy nonetheless. At the end of the day, governments are there to maintain social stability and order, to allocate taxes to the appropriate services, and to protect their citizens from foreign powers. Modern China has been largely successful in achieving these three goals. It doesn't matter all that much to the majority of Chinese citizens that their government isn't a democracy, the results speak for itself. Of course, this does not mean the ends justifies the means, but rather that perhaps the emphasis shouldn't be put on what government structure is used to get there. If Monet painted the "Woman with a Parasol" with X brush instead of Y brush, you won't say it was because of the brushes would you? Rather, the end result is a masterpiece and the credit is largely on Monet. Only then, to a lesser extend, should credit be given to the brushes or paints used.

中国的政府结构有几百年的任人唯才传统，可以追溯到公元600年代的隋朝。那些学识渊博、适合治理的人才会进入政府或公务员职位。当然，早期的公务员考试确实更有利于富人、有钱人和有关系的人，但这依然是一种任人唯才的体制。归根结底，政府的存在是为了维护社会稳定和秩序，将税收分配给适当的服务，并保护公民免受外部势力的侵害。现代中国在实现这三个目标方面取得了相当大的成功。对于大多数中国公民来说，政府不是民主政体并不重要，结果本身就说明了一切。当然，这并不意味着目的能够证明手段的正当性，而是说也许不应过于强调采用何种政府结构来达到目标。如果莫奈用X号画笔而不是Y号画笔画了《阳伞下的女人》，你不会说这是因为画笔的原因吧？而是，最终的结果是一幅杰作，主要的功劳在于莫奈。而对于使用的画笔和颜料，只有在较小程度上给予赞誉。

In contrast, western democracy have a failing whereby the people who get into politics (and thus the seats of power) are politicians first and foremost, whose livelihoods are tied to if they get into office or not. They are incentivized to overpromise to get votes. Many are not particularly fit for their government position (looking at the Trump admin). The current party in power is incentivized to do the bare minimum and to not rock the boat in order to have a better chance at reelection. Nobody wants to be the guy who increased taxes to fund xyz, as that would be political suicide. This means many long-term projects get bogged down by the politics. Lastly, there are issues with how democracy fails to implement the will of the people. I would bet most Americans would approve of stricter nationwide gun control, of releasing the Epstein files in full (uncensored), of taxing the rich appropriately, etc. And yet there is little to no action towards these things.

相比之下，西方民主存在一个缺陷，即进入政治（从而获得权力席位）的人首先是政治家，他们的生计与是否当选息息相关。他们被激励去过度承诺以获取选票。许多人并不特别适合他们的政府职位（看看特朗普政府）。当前执政党被激励去做最低限度的事情，不要触及敏感话题，以便在连任时有更好的机会。没有人想成为那个为了资助XYZ而提高税收的人，因为那将是政治自杀。这意味着许多长期项目会因政治原因而停滞不前。最后，民主在实施人民意愿方面存在问题。我敢打赌，大多数美国人会支持更严格的全国枪支管控、完全公开爱泼斯坦档案（不加审查）、对富人征收适当的税等。然而，对这些事情几乎没有任何行动。

@billytrinh8918
China is an example of what happens when politicians are engineers instead of Yale and Harvard lawyers (after 1960). They have a solution and they got done, almost too good. The One Child Rule is a good example. Zero Covid is another. Great results, miserable people
The US in the other hand, full of lawyers. Yes, we have rights. Our environment are more free from factory waste. But everything takes forever. The high speed rail in cali for example…now projected to be done in 2032

中国是一个例子，说明当政治家是工程师而不是耶鲁和哈佛的律师（1960年以后）时会发生什么。他们有解决方案，并且完成得几乎太好。计划生育政策就是一个很好的例子。动态清零也是另一个。取得了很好的结果，但人们却很痛苦。另一方面，美国则充满了律师。是的，我们有权利。我们的环境相对更少受到工厂废物的污染。但一切都要花费很长时间。例如，加州的高铁……现在预计要到2032年才能完成。

@weigangfu8826
There are no absolutely good government nor absolutely bad government, when you judge a government you need to find an reference,the reason why I support my government is I compared it with the western country governments and the result is pretty obvious.if I were a billionaire of course I would prefer the US government but unfortunately I am just a regular Chinese guy, if you ask me do you want to live in America or China as a regular person I would definitely choose China.

没有绝对好的政府，也没有绝对坏的政府。当你评价一个政府时，需要找到一个参考。我支持我的政府的原因是，我把它与西方国家的政府进行了比较，结果显而易见。如果我是一名亿万富翁，当然我会更喜欢美国政府，但不幸的是，我只是一个普通的中国人。如果你问我作为一个普通人想住在美国还是中国，我肯定会选择中国。

@readifulikepp
China is barely socialist, because until recently it was a new democracy. A new democracy was a type of mixed economy China used to accelerate the development of the productive forces in order to make socialism viable. now socialism is viable, so China has recently transitioned to socialism, with most of the means of production being owned democratically, and will complete this transition by 2049. Keep in mind this doesn't necessarily mean abolition of the market, although if it was they would not reveal this as it would cause investment to stop by the date.

中国几乎不是社会主义，因为直到最近它才是一个新民主国家。新民主是一种混合经济体制，中国用它来加速生产力的发展，以使社会主义成为可能。现在社会主义已经成为可能，所以中国最近过渡到了社会主义，大多数生产资料是由民主方式拥有的，并将在2049年前完成这一过渡。请记住，这并不一定意味着要废除市场，尽管如果真要这样做，他们不会透露，因为这会导致投资在到期时停止。

@Obscuredinsight
I don't even like China i think they are another authoritarian country that oppresses people. With that being said the concept of China as a nation is literally older than all of what is considered "western culture". China has existed longer than Christianity. China has stability and it will be around longer than the United States.

我甚至不喜欢中国，我认为他们是另一个 ya迫人民的威权国家。话虽如此，中国作为一个国家的概念比所有被视为“西方文化”的东西都要古老。中国的历史比基督教还要悠久。中国有稳定性，它将比美国存在得更久。

@ausername8699
Freedom of association is one of the most important aspects of maintaining a healthy democratic community. The CPC believes that social, religious, and cultural organizations that don't align with their dogma must be destroyed before they grow big enough to become independent from government domination. Centralized power is destined to fray fall apart at some point.

结社滋油是维护健康皿煮社区最重要的方面之一。***认为，社会、宗教和文化组织如果与他们的意识形态不一致，就必须被摧毁，以免它们发展到足够独立于政府控制的程度。集中权力注定在某一点上会瓦解。
(***政党或名字 上下同)