• crawancon@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    6 months ago

    no, the industrialization didn’t depend on the type of governing body; only resources, opportunities, and localized wealth.

    • cenarius871OP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      6 months ago

      and russia and china didnt have this(only resources, opportunities, and localized wealth.) until the communist parties came to power?

      • crawancon@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        they had this before and during communist parties. They had all 3, but opportunity and resources are time variables which was more governed (pun intended) by the rapid spread of industrialism itself.

        • cenarius871OP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          6 months ago

          why did it spread to south korea only in 1960? and not earlier? Why has it still not spread to africa and india today?

          • crawancon@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            I think there is a lot more going on in those regions than I can account for their lack of industrialism. short answer is I don’t know.

            longer response is the whole opportunities, resource triad thing can be broken by cultural and other barriers. let’s use Amish folks as that example.

            the Koreas had a slightly isolationist time during the broader revolutions and since have different outside influences so they have different periods of growth.