您当前的位置:首页 > 网贴翻译 Tips:使用 ← → 键即可快速浏览其他文章
我的中国女友:印度更像西方国家,而且印度一团糟
2020-01-23 Cathy Zhao 7 收藏 纠错&举报
原文标题:My Chinese Girlfriend when we chat about Western politics vs China - Look at India, its more like the west and its shit
原文地址:https://www.reddit.com/r/China/comments/ecbh0j/my_chinese_girlfriend_when_we_chat_about_western/
译文简介:你如何看待这场辩论? 我的中国女友已经在西方生活了10年,她对聊天和辩论都很开放。然而,她提出了一个很好的观点,如果民主、西方价值观等等是那么好,那么为什么印度没有中国那样的转变呢?
Hi All,
How would you take on this debate? My Chinese girlfriend has been living in the west for 10 years and is quite open to chat and debate. However, she did bring up a good point, if democracy is so good and western values etc then why did India not have the transformation that China did?

大家好,
你如何看待这场辩论? 我的中国女友已经在西方生活了10年,她对聊天和辩论都很开放。然而,她提出了一个很好的观点,如果民主、西方价值观等等是那么好,那么为什么印度没有中国那样的转变呢?

cnio14
Well, which successful rich modern democracy started being democratic when it was a third world country?
As awful as it sounds, one party authoritarian governments seem to be more efficient in the earlier stages of development. Your girlfriend is not completely wrong, although thinking it'd work forever is naive.
Of course ideally they would democratise once a certain wealth is reached, as Korea, Taiwan and (to some extent) Singapore did. China is at a tipping point, its GDP per capita is similar to when the above mentioned countries started the transition, but things don't seem to go in that direction for now. 

那么,哪个成功、富裕的现代民主国家在它还是第三世界国家的时候就开始民主了呢?
尽管听起来很糟糕,但一党专制政府在发展的早期阶段似乎更有效率。你的女朋友并没有完全错,尽管认为它会永远起作用是天真的。
当然,理想的情况是,一旦达到一定的财富,它们就会民主化,就像韩国、(在某种程度上)新加坡那样。中国正处于一个转折点,其人均GDP与上述国家开始转型时的水平相当,但目前情况似乎并没有朝这个方向发展。

trespoli
As awful as it sounds, one party authoritarian governments seem to be more efficient in the earlier stages of development.
I think you're looking at a very narrow range of countries (you mentioned, Taiwan, Korea). There are many countries that were ruled by authoritarian governments that were driven into the ground or went basically nowhere.

尽管听起来很糟糕,但一党专制政府在发展的早期阶段似乎更有效率。
我想你看到的国家范围很窄(你提到的韩国)。有很多国家是由专制政府统治的,这些政府要么被赶下台,要么基本上一事无成。

cnio14
Absolutely, not every authoritarian government works efficiently. 

当然,不是每一个专制政府都能有效运作。

ding0ding0
Depends on your timeframe, and definition of 'made it' and 'democracy'...
Around the turn of the 1900's Sweden was shit poor, now it is stinking rich. Back then women couldn't vote yet, now they can too. What's more, labor unions were met with military violence back then, but that would probably be unthinkable in Sweden today.
Would that count as democracy? Or as making it?

这取决于时间框架,以及“成功”和“民主”的定义……
在20世纪初,瑞典非常贫穷,现在却非常富有。那时妇女还不能投票,现在她们也可以投票了。更重要的是,工会在当时遭遇了军事暴力,但这在今天的瑞典可能是不可想象的。
这算不算民主? 算不算成功?

cnio14
Around the turn of the 1900's Sweden was shit poor, now it is stinking rich.
I don't have economic data for Sweden at that time. GDP figures started being calculated after World War 2. I mostly restrict my discussion on post-ww2 events, because of the drastic changes it brought to the world order. Democracy as we see it now is also relatively new, despite its older origins.
Anyways 100 years is more than enough to go from poor to rich. 
Back then women couldn't vote yet, now they can too.
What's more, labor unions were met with military violence back then
Both things seem quite standard for any country at that time. We're talking about more than 100 years ago.
Would that count as democracy? Or as making it?
Definitely not a democracy in the modern sense.

“在20世纪初,瑞典非常贫穷,现在却非常富有。”
我没有瑞典当时的经济数据。GDP数据在二战后开始计算。我主要讨论二战后的事件,因为它给世界秩序带来了巨大的变化。我们现在看到的民主也相对较新,尽管它的起源较早。
不管怎么说,100年已经足够从穷变为富了。
“那时妇女还不能投票,现在她们也可以投票了。
更重要的是,工会在当时遭遇了军事暴力。”
这两件事在当时的任何国家似乎都是相当正常的。我们说的是100多年前。
“这算不算民主? 算不算成功?”
绝对不是现代意义上的民主。

Pmychang
Unlike a lot of countries Sweden’s infrastructure wasnt destroyed by WWII, Also it had a fairly stable monarchy, a homogeneous population and no body really wanted to invade it. Not exactly sure why they did so well. They have a corporatist government in which labor, management, and the government work together to make economic policies. Here its just capitalists.

与许多国家不同的是,瑞典的基础设施没有被二战摧毁,而且它有一个相当稳定的君主制,一个同质的人口,没有人真的想要入侵它。不知道他们为什么做得这么好。他们有一个社团主义的政府,在这个政府中,劳工、管理层和政府共同制定经济政策。这里只有资本家。

trespoli
Absolutely, not every authoritarian government works efficiently.
You make it sound as if there are only a few that fail. Actually, I would say that most countries with authoritarian governments do not do well. You may be selectively focused on East Asian economies like Korea and Taiwan, which are themselves also rare in the global context.

“当然,不是每一个专制政府都能有效运作。”
你说得好像只有一些失败了而已。事实上,我想说的是,大多数专制政府的国家做得并不好。你可能会选择性地关注韩国和中国台湾等东亚经济体,这些经济体本身在全球范围内也很少见。

cnio14
most countries with authoritarian governments do not do well.
Most countries don't do well, period.
And of those who do, none established a democracy before having basic infrastructure and needs covered.

大多数威权政府的国家做得并不好。
大多数国家做得不好,就是这样。
在这些国家中,没有一个是在基本的基础设施和需求得到满足之前建立民主制度的。

LiveForPanda
Could the United States be an exception? Although slavery wasn't abolished much later, but it was already a democratic nation.

美国可能是个例外吗? 虽然奴隶制在很久以后才废除,但它那时已经是一个民主国家了。

cnio14
I don't think so. The US was always a fairly developed nation for its time. Unlike many countries in Asia and Africa, it never had to start from the absolute bottom. Vietnam in 1975 was in such a disastrous state that even basic functions of a country, like providing food and healthcare, were impossible. There was no Marshall Plan for them and, unlike European countries, it was prevented from being a proper country and develop its own identity and economy by almost 100 years of colonial rule.
Which brings me to the next point. The US never had to suffer the disastrous consequences of colonialism, which are still affecting many countries worldwide. Yet many still have the audacity to deny or downplay this.

我不这么想。美国在当时一直是一个相当发达的国家。与亚洲和非洲的许多国家不同,它从不需要从绝对底部开始。1975年的越南是一个灾难性的国家,甚至连一个国家的基本功能,比如提供食物和医疗,都是不可能的。他们没有马歇尔计划,而且与欧洲国家不同的是,它被近100年的殖民统治阻止成为一个真正的国家,发展自己的身份和经济。
这就引出了下一点。美国从未遭受殖民主义带来的灾难性后果,这种后果仍在影响着世界上许多国家。然而,许多人仍然厚颜无耻地否认或淡化这一点。

thebeastisback2007
At the time of it's inception, the US was already an advanced country, on a par with Western European countries, so no, the US did not start off as a third world country.

在它成立的时候,美国已经是一个先进的国家,与西欧国家处于同一水平,所以,不,美国一开始并不是一个第三世界国家。

trespoli
A lot of these discussions can just go on endlessly with quibbling over whether a country is "democracy" or whether a country has "basic infrastructure" and "needs covered".
But generally, I think you have an agenda to promote a distinctly illiberal perspective. There are and have been a number of countries that are not developed countries, and also have democracy, so your promotion of authoritarianism is not really appropriate, I don't think. 

许多这样的讨论可以无休止地进行下去,争论一个国家是否“民主”,或者一个国家是否有“基本的基础设施”和“需求得到满足”。
但总体而言,我认为你们有一个议程,要宣扬一种明显狭隘的观点。现在和过去都有一些国家不是发达国家,但是也有民主,所以你提倡专制主义是不合适的,我认为是不合适的。

Pmychang
I think its not an issue of authoritarianism. I think the big difference between China and India is that China basically had a unified culture and India was arbitrarily partitioned by the British into Muslim and Hindu states which basically screwed over the Muslims, Sikhs and Buddhists still living in India.

我认为这不是专制主义的问题。我认为中国和印度最大的区别是中国基本上有一个统一的文化,而印度被英国人擅自划分为穆斯林和印度教国家,这基本上是在欺负仍然生活在印度的穆斯林、锡克教徒和佛教徒。

FreeChinapls
India practically was under one party rule for majority of it's independent years.

在印度独立后的大部分时间里,它实际上处于一党统治之下。

starkofhousestark
One party winning continous elections is not equivalent to the one party system in China. INC still needed to placate the electorate and win elections at both national and provincial level by competing against multiple opposition parties. They had a good run because of the tons of goodwill from being the party that fought for Independence.

一个政党赢得连续的选举并不等于中国的一党制。“国大党”仍需安抚选民,并通过与多个反对党竞争赢得全国和邦级选举。他们的竞选很成功,因为他们是为独立而战的政党。

FreeChinapls
But that specific party is accused of messing with votes, ballot hijacking in the past. Plus they are said to have caused anti-religious riots somehow in their peak.
Well, it was changed like 5 years ago though with entry of the other big party and since then most Indians are just accusing the INC of corruption and retarded politics. It was clearly visible during last year's political campaigns.

但是国大党被指控在过去干扰投票,劫持选票。另外,据说他们在鼎盛时期以某种方式引发了反宗教骚乱。
5年前,随着另一个大党上台,情况发生了变化,从那以后,大多数印度人就开始指责“国大党”腐败和政治迟钝。在去年的政治竞选中,这一点很明显。

supersap88
Yeah communism works great during build up and industrialization but it won't work pretty when the manufacturing jobs are gone.

是的,共产主义在建设和工业化过程中很有效,但是当制造业的工作岗位消失时,共产主义就不那么有效了。

cnio14
If you replace communism with one party authoritarianism I agree with everything you said.
Communism is a political, economical and philosophical ideology that doesn't mean communist dictatorship.
Korea, Taiwan and Singapore were authoritarian but not communist even a bit.

如果你用一党专制主义代替共产主义,我完全同意你说的一切。
共产主义是一种政治、经济和哲学意识形态,并不意味着共产主义专政。
韩国、新加坡是专制国家,但一点共产主义都没有。

supersap88
Yup so communist by convenience but fascist at heart. My point is the same as yours

是的,虽然表面上是共产主义,但本质上是法西斯主义。我的观点和你的一样。

IchbineinSmazak
country with caste system ain't democracy, despite what their propaganda says

有种姓制度的国家不是民主,不管他们的宣传怎么说。

supersap88
India is steaming mess but to compare to the fourth Reich ccp is little apples to oranges.
The inequality and challenges there are unparalleled.
You can certainly grow per capita wealth by having slave camps as they do with ugiyurs.
For example, it is criminal and punished harshly if a doctor were to reveal the gender of a baby in India. 

印度一团糟,但与第四帝国相比,中国简直是小巫见大巫。
那里的不平等和挑战是无与伦比的。
你当然可以通过建立奴隶营来增加人均财富,就像他们对待维吾尔族一样。

BleuPrince
She makes it sound like China invented Communism ? Isn't Communism a product of the West? I can assure you that Karl Marx, who wrote The Communist Manifesto was not from China or from the "East". He was a German philosopher. Can you please justify if India adopts democracy (a Western product) and China adopts Communism (another Western product) ? Why is one considered the West while the other the East ?
First there are more than one form of democracy in this world. There is not just a single form of democracy.
Most Mainland Chinese will only focus on the economy. I have to say China is 130 years late, Japan has started rapid industrialization during the Meiji period. The Golden Age of the Chinese Civilization was during the Tang Dynasty about 1,400 years ago. There was actually a long period of gradual decline.
If your economic development causes severe air pollution (your citizens have to wear face masks when outdoors) and on most days you cannot even see the blue sky - is that "good" ? If your rivers are polluted is that "good" ? I better put some disclaimer here, India and many countries do have similar problems in terms of pollution, even many G7 countries were big polluters (especially in the past). The current debate is sustainable economic development, how to develop the economy without destroying the environment and minimizing the impact of climate change - that would be ideal and better, than just basing "good" on measuring purely on economic development.

她说得好像是中国发明了共产主义? 共产主义不是西方的产物吗? 我可以向你保证,《共产党宣言》的作者卡尔·马克思不是来自中国,也不是来自“东方”。他是一位德国哲学家。你能证明印度采用民主(一种西方产品)而中国采用共产主义(另一种西方产品)的合理性吗?为什么一个被认为是西方,而另一个被认为是东方?
首先,世界上有多种民主形式。民主并不只有一种形式。
大多数中国大陆人只关注经济。我不得不说中国晚了130年,日本在明治时期开始了快速工业化。中华文明的鼎盛时期是大约1400年前的唐朝。实际上有很长一段时间的逐渐衰退。
如果你的经济发展导致了严重的空气污染(你的公民在户外必须戴口罩),而且在大多数日子里你甚至看不到蓝天——这是“好的”吗? 如果你的河流被污染了,这是“好”的吗? 我最好在这里声明一下,印度和许多国家在污染方面确实有类似的问题,甚至很多七国集团国家都是污染大户(尤其是过去)。当前的辩论是可持续经济发展,如何在不破坏环境和最大限度地减少气候变化影响的情况下发展经济——这将是理想的和更好的,而不是仅仅根据经济发展来衡量“好”。
环球旅行
请文明理性发言,请不要发布违规评论,包括但不限于(诋毁、极端、敏感、歧视、色情、引战、人身攻击)等,如发现此类评论,请不要回复,直接举报。网站意见建议请点击 意见反馈
我要纠错&举报
文章地址
纠错类型
备注说明
 
我要举报
文章地址
举报理由
 
打赏评论
1、如果您喜欢此评论,可以对其打赏
2、不鼓励对违规评论(包括但不限于违法、辱骂、歧视等)进行打赏,系统将可能回收对其的打赏
充值