The same thing that they did when a regiment of Manchurians walked right into the capital and completely conquered them for almost three hundred years.

China has a history of underestimating smaller forces, and getting completely blitzed. I mean for ****s sake, a ragtag group of starving commies managed to **** all over the well armed and foreign backed federalists, and sent them running off to Taiwan like little bitches.

A UK/Hong Kong tag team would John Woo those mother****ers right into the next century.

Haven't they abducted some already?


One's a country, one's a city; and the latter's more likely concerned about real crime.


What of other US cities?


Yup.


Hard to say as the reds might be cooking the stats, and aren't they into stabbing?

Moreover, the murder rate in the US is likely < 6/100 000: a multiple of China's, but likely pretty low.




What it looks like to me:

1. UK's out of the picture. They made a decent deal given the circumstances. They leased it in, what?, 1899?, for 99 years, from a long gone mostly unmissed emperor. The jig was coming up in 1998, and in, what?, 1984?, worked out a deal for 50 years. Economics helped. It might help again with Trump and perhaps more so the corruption inherit under likely increased corruption under Xi. The time for the commies to mess up HK is not now. But Hong Kong will slowly become Communist before 2047. Time to emigrate.

2. Taiwan is standing firm. I wonder if it has nukes: such would be good aces.

3. If China gets aggressive, it's neighbours might react, including Japan by increasing military size.

*cough*

They stopped trying to be communist after millions of people starved to death.

Actually the great leap forward is typically considered not only an atrocity but a massive failure. The economy shrank. Only very modest progress was made in terms of industrializing compared to the massive hit it caused on agriculture which obviously brought the famines.

Marx's communist Utopia was always supposed to take place in an industrialized society. In fact, it was supposed to come about as the result of industrialization. So I think there was certainly an idealogical component at play.

In the case of the Soviets I know for a fact Russian Marxists had long since tried and failed to radicalize the rural peasants, and saw an industrial society with a strong proletariat class as essential to carrying out their vision of creating a successful communist society.

the best thing it did for them was to convince them to ditch collectivisation and go with the global capitalist market.

They could've competed without collective farming killing 30 million people. They didn't even gain much in the way of industrializing through that effort. When they opened themselves up to the international market they industrialized way more rapidly.

The whole reason they ditched it is cause it failed.

They still use Central planning to one extent or another.

But this conversation was about the great leap forward specifically.

I believe a big part of what made them competitive is actually just having tons of cheap/free labor to exploit.

I don't think what they have qualifies as a command economy.

That's closer to fascism economically, isn't it?