The Future of China

[Risottia]

If you pay more attention to paleontology, you will find that today's academic journals call birds dinosaurs.They are not independent.Body structure and Cretaceous dinosaurs are similar to dinosaurs because they also came from the Cretaceous.Birds are not an independent class now.As I just said, they are Theropoda dinosaurs .They were distant relatives of Tyrannosaurus, not Dinosaurs.You can't rob my cute dinosaur.

Me, personally, the only I would accept them as dinosaurs would be if they were direct decendants of dinosaurs

Birds are the direct descendants of dinosaurs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_birds
the earliest birds derived from a clade of theropod dinosaurs named Paraves

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avialae
Avialae ("bird wings") is a clade of flying dinosaurs containing the only living dinosaurs, the birds. It is usually defined as all theropod dinosaurs more closely related to modern birds (Aves) than to deinonychosaurs,

And that's it.

How about /derail and back to topic?

[Shanghai industrial complex]

The labor force is out of date.What we need now is STEAM engineers.It is expected to basically realize unmanned factory, unmanned logistics and unmanned service industry in five to ten years.Your idea is too old.It's not ten years ago now.

That has nothing to do with my post.

Without skilled labour, such as those very engineers you speak of - by the way, the term is "STEM", not "STEAM" - there will be no automation. And then, there's also the fact that fully automated, zero-manpower workforces are still quite a distance away. China has managed to catch up, but innovation and creating anew is something else entirely, and they aren't showing much promise in that front, aside from the CPC-guaranteed corporations engaging in corporate espionage and IP theft.

But hey, I'm pretty much talking to a wall here.

So I say you're behind the times.The technologies I'm talking about are already being used on a large scale. Your impression of China has been delayed for too long.It's not a fantasy

[Kassaran]

My take on China as a Chinese in Singapore

I see my people in the West do not understand China (I am not using this to deny some important facts on how the CCP has run the country or to justify but simply to state it is not a shock to see the events in China occur based on historical reference)

What are China's goals?

1) Stability

A bit of a backdrop. The CCP is like another dynasty and wants to ensure stability. Some might ask, why is it when China was liberalising under Deng Xiaopeng did 1989 happen? Well, the answer is simple, China knew a simple Glasnost policy like the Soviet Union would not work as it will only reveal the corruption within the party and the people instead of supporting the CCCP in the USSR went full nationalist and against it. Deng Xiaopeng knew at that time along with many leaders in China (moderates included) that China was not ready for liberalisation to that extent or they will end up like the Soviet Union. (This is why Deng also invaded Vietnam, he wanted the military to perform badly to have less leverage and legitimacy against him)

Is stability one of China's Goals, or the leadership of the CCP's goals? Stability comes both with democracy and with autocracy, but requires completely different approaches such as Tiananmen Square. I'm pretty sure the CCP saw historical overthrows of dictatorial regimes as a warning to others that they would be unable to retain their desired positions of power and prestige in a democratically reformed China.

Now, another period of liberalisation was in post-SARS and 2008. If you recall, after SARS, China's media started opening up and this was seen in the free reporting of the unfolding events in the Sichuan Earthquake which killed 200,000 people due to poor building standards in 2008. For the first time, China opened reporting to foreign media too under Hu Jintao. China at this time was confident it could liberalise and free the media without losing stability due to confidence in the government from economic prosperity. That all changed in 2011. In 2011, China saw what happened in Libya and the Arab Spring. The close tied Gadaffi, a anti-colonial revolutionary (who did commit atrocities but the West seems to forget that for stability some atrocities are needed, the USA would be a lot more stable had the natives been completely wiped out if you think about it) was toppled despite being a popular leader and starting to gain closer ties with the West.

The freeing up of the media in the post-SARS world most likely happened due to a push from the world towards China. The suspected casualties were much higher and pressure was on to become more transparent with showing what was going on. People nowadays tend to be curious as they are in the current world pandemic, how authoritarian nations are actually acting. 2011 and the Arab Spring is something that was ultimately going to happen, like the French Revolution. There was no slow transition to democracy there, crisis bred anger and panic and the French were busy struggling with crippling foreign debt and wars. The overthrow of the French nobility only bred further instability and distrust as a near systematic purge of all seen as 'bourgeoise' were publicly executed- a common tie-in with Marxist policies of Communist revolutionaries as we've seen in the past. Simply purging lives for the sake stability will never be accepted as reasonable or acceptable and as a tie-in with a goal, it is disgusting and makes the Chinese government even less redeemable in the West due to the higher focus on freedom and liberty. America would not have thrived if there had not been internal struggle and conflict to strengthen national resolve and the West's senses of ethics and morality.

China saw the 2011 Arab Spring as a warning for authoritarian nations on the path to open media and "Glasnost". That was, even if the government is popular and you are close to the west, you can be backstabbed and everything can fall apart. It was with this setting that the CCP [Yes they elect within the party leaders whom they think are most suited - even Hu Jintao (who liberalised the nation voted Xi)] elected Xi Jinping as the next Chairman and President in 2013. He was to set a path of abandoning the 冷静观察、稳住阵脚、沉着应付、韬光养晦、善于藏拙、决不当头、有所作为 policy of Deng which means to observe the changes in the international situation calmly and stabilize the domestic economic construction and political situation. Dealing calmly with international diplomatic affairs. Hiding strength and never taking the place of the Soviet Union. Xi Jinping and the next-gen CCP leaders believed (with reasons) that the west cannot be trusted and only through strength will China be respected (This is flawed reasoning and I will explain later). Hence, you see under Xi a massive reversal in freedoms, yet with the power of technology, perhaps it is feasible.

Again, stability is not an excuse for increased totalitarian/authoritarian measures. Increased democratization and rule of law helps to protect all, but in an authoritarian regime, the Rule of Law cannot take hold as the ruling class still sees themselves above it (which completely undermines the entire concept anyways).

2) Influence

In line with the abandonment of the policy of laying low, China aspires something else. Their historical position as the globally respected power. Maybe not through tributaries but close allies much like the USA has today. However, China has taken a path I believe is wrong which is the CCP believes that strength and might is right as the USA shows. However, they forget that along with strength, the USA also builds trust (especially post WW2 although Trump is throwing that away now, but I believe the next election will stop that trend - benefits of democracy, the smooth transition of power). That is why China has adopted such aggressive policies in their neighbourhood as they believe through intimidation they can secure allies (they also invest but usually that is with regards to 3rd world or 2nd world nations.) I feel bad for China in this aspect because if you know history, China's relations with Joseon (Korea) and Ayutthaya (Thailand) was also reciprocal in nature - they always helped one another, not based on complete fear.

The Chinese government may have this goal, but their work towards it only jeopardizes the stability of the region due to such high levels of distrust (especially with this pandemic). This crisis has perhaps undone years, if not decades of work on the part of China to show themselves as less of a villain in the eyes of the moralizing West.

3) Homogenity

In line with the first point on Stability, China wants to be a homogenous nation. A curious fact, Mongolia offered to join China (PRC) in the 70s but the PRC said no. Why? They want to secure their nations first. China has always been envious of Korea and Japan for being such homogenous nations (not always but since the 1900s with the rise of nationalism). That is why we have these Uyghur camps etc. In all honesty, the treatment of the people in Xinjiang is not like Hitler's treatment of the Jews but neither am I saying it is good in any way. China is not against you being Muslim as long as you assimilate and become a Chinese (as seen in the Hui Muslims). The problem is that in Xinjiang the mosque very much looks like those in Afghanistan and the middle east which is a symbol of separatism. China has always practised this idea of incorporating races into the Han race. That is why the people in the historical region of Nanyue (close to Vietnamese) are considered Han.

On the point of Mongolia, China also wanted to keep a buffer zone between themselves and the USSR, with whom they had remarkably chilly relations for being two Socialist regimes. With the Uyghur camps in Xinjiang, we don't know for sure if there's systematic executions underway, but we do know of the organ harvesting and forced reeducation which is causing massive societal and civil unrest in the province. Because China has Rule of Fist in mind, and not Rule of Law, they resort to using their total domination of the political and military spheres to force the smaller nations beneath them into line. Additionally, the issue of massed assimilation of one race or people group into another (effectively the wiping of a race from a region via increased mandatory 'relations' as has been reported) is genocide straight and simple. Not that it matters that the Chinese are doing it now because unlike the Germans in WW2 and the Soviets in the Holodomor, China has nukes to maintain its national borders if all else goes to shit. Is it weird that Separatism is seen as the worst possible thing to 'China'? Maybe it's because they saw how quickly all of the Soviet satellite nations broke apart because they inherently didn't want to be in the Soviet Union. Of course, flood an area with -insert national ethnicity here- and you can Anschluss all day because the world inherently refuses to care if you don't make it their problem (see Crimea and now Ukraine).

4) Socialism/Communism that works

This point may seem confusing at first. However, the backdrop of this is that China's rapid development through government-owned/ helped corporations has created a lot of income inequality which is one thing that really reduces internal stability and increases the population's discontent. China developed like South Korea and Japan through Chaebols and Zaibatsu's respectively with large firms (usually heavily government-sponsored) grew the economy. The wealth in the cities is high compared to that in the interior and rural areas and the GINI coefficient of China is one of the highest in the world (embarrassing for a "Communist" state) China sees the weaknesses in the USA and one of them is the inequality (especially since Reaganomics/ Thatchernomics) and does not want to repeat the mistakes of the USA. It is entirely logical to say that any advanced society of the future with no shortages would see communism as an ideal since it gives everyone a level start point for which they have the same opportunity (Hence the idea of meritocracy/Confucian values and "Chinese characteristics"). That is why Xi Jinping has been so controlling and also has been reigning in corruption severely. One historical issue of China has always been Corruption and the CCP does not want to repeat the mistakes of old collapsed dynasties.

It's confusing because it inherently does not. Social welfare and corporate welfare increases are part of democratization and are popular aspects of a democracy, not an autocracy. The rapid development of China utilizing highly controlled market schemes has excelled at importing massive amounts of manufacturing and production jobs, to create a pre-muckraker America environment. The largest companies and corporations have leaders which sit in the ruling class and will maintain their position. In reality, the reason it took the Chinese so long was because they have only managed to breed fools and idiots for leaders unlike the Soviets which had the benefit of a Fascist neighbor to boost 'productivity' during their modernization in the early 20th century. An advanced society of the future would not see Communism as ideal, but rather some form of Social Democracies such as in Scandinavia (where the nations present have the benefit of not having to create sustainable military cultures as the US provides NATO military support). Corruption has not, in the least, disappeared, but as in the case of the Russian Federation, simply become more obfuscated and decentralized. If anything, that has increased the reported disparity between the wealthy and the poor which has led to the perplexing issue of Chinese lower classes celebrating tragic deaths of young upper class socialites in Social Media.

Problem

Now here is the issue about China's future. I do not disagree that the CCP will eventually collapse but by that time the world will end tragically. You see too many Chinese people, when the West says, "We are against the CCP not the Chinese people" they laugh. Why? The same people who say that will in wanting to destroy the CCP, want Manchuria, East Turkestan and Tibet to be independent and shrink China like the Soviet Union. Let's be honest, even if the ROC was in charge, the USA would want to do the same to any rival superpower.

That's not wrong, not entirely right, but not wrong in the slightest. The US intends to maintain its position as the global hegemon to guide all other nations in matters of culture and diplomacy and it maintains this through domination of the services market and military power and it will likely remain so until someone determines a way to effectively eliminate their nuclear stockpile.

That does not deny China's human rights abuses. (although you can argue the USA has quite a few on their belt because the western media dominates the world nobody sees that - eg. people think Douyin is the Chinese version of Tik Tok when it is the opposite.) Chinese people have no choice to support the CCP because it is the only legitimate authority controlling one of the two only civilisation states in the world - meaning most Chinese (almost all) stay in this country unless they want their lives to get a lot worse.

How does Tik Tok factor into China's human rights abuses? Cut with the deflection and get to your point, you're arguing the Chinese people keep the CCP in power because they have no choice, great. That's the problem the West has, because in Democracies, you don't have single-party systems... you have bicameral systems or more. There's competing factions vying for the support of the public, not the complete and utter domination of it. TBH, a democratized China would be incredibly interesting to me, just because I'd love seeing what their parliament would look like given the scale of the building would probably register it as a modern wonder of the world.

China represents one of several civilizations, which is why it receives so much flak, but the main reason probably keeping Chinese people in China? The inability to move out. The upper middle-class tend to emigrate from China when given the opportunity and yet they are a proportionally small area of the Chinese population. All else in China stay because they don't have the money or social cookie points to move out (another ghastly point against the Chinese in arguing they're not trying to morph into every dystopian authors greatest novel). I don't think a Chinese street-oil merchant is going to be moving out of China any time soon, given the ridiculously low amount of wealth they actually retain and the higher co-dependency of families naturally inhibits some of this movement. Let's also get in on the fact that English is the dominant language in the trade industry, in spite of it being only in the lead over Mandarin by a few hundred million speakers.

Sadly, no matter how logical China's side of the argument is, I believe the West will triumph unless there is an internal shock that knows no bounds. This COVID-19 and China's aggressive behaviour overseas only gives the radicals in the USA the casus belli they always wanted to start a new cold war with China in which they have a current advantage. There are many in the USA who believe China is a threat and want reasons to say so but up till Xi Jinping they had none. That is where I see China has gone wrong. if China followed Deng in staying low, the West would have no dirt against China and more countries would turn to China in a gradual fashion of trust-building. China cannot reverse the clock now and I see a new Cold War coming. Unfortunately, it is one neither side can win. If you ask US allies to decide who to turn to, eg South Korea, Japan and Thailand, it will be difficult.

American allies in the region will generally turn to America, it's the neutrals and dictatorial regimes (like a certain island chain in the Pacific which recently gave up its American military partner status in return for increased benefits from China) that are less easily retained. They want to protect themselves, hence there is less incentive to them getting involved and we saw this strategy work remarkably for the Spanish in the Post-WW2 world stage.

Lastly on the idea of violent revolution. The reason why I think things are not good is that the CCP is a dynasty of multiple rulers. Only democracy has the ability to ensure a smooth transition of power (even then in Africa it is not always guaranteed). Think about Weimer Germany post WW1. Before that, the Germans only knew of a strongman in charge (the Kaiser) and they never had the concept of democracy and hence when it was very inefficient, many Germans turned to radical authoritarian leaderships as they did not see value in Democracy. Remember, this was only when Germany was 50 years old. Now imagine China, thousands of years of rooted imperial rule and institutions carried forth ironically by the CCP, seeing the inefficacies of the cross-strait counterpart which btw developed fast under authoritarian Chiang kai Shek but slowed down as a democracy in the 90s. Do you think the Chinese will accept democracy that quickly if the Germans did not? Yup.

Weimar Republic Germany also had the immense disadvantage of being unwisely shackled with the crippling war reparations and debt that villainized them for their part in the conflict. In WW1, the struggle was inherently between imperialist monarchs and imperialist democracies and it was democracies that won out in the end. For the Germans, whom had enjoyed economic growth under a strongman, this was the worst possible introduction into democracy possible. They gladly welcomed back authoritarianism for the economic prosperity they had once known and it worked for a time until Germany started acting highly unwise. It's ironic because had the Germans picked a fight with the Russians first, America might have supported them and we'd see a vastly different world.

The Republic of China developed so quickly because it had the room to develop that quickly. It's easy to go from horse-drawn buggies to petroleum-powered automobiles when the infrastructure is in place to support them. Likewise we see similar growth of the Japanese and Koreans in their respective situations and the growth of West German and post-war Europe due to massive infrastructure investments. American military forces helped to foot part of the national security bill in all of its allied nations during that period and with the power of the atom securely in American hands, American military dominance may have endured unchallenged had the British not screwed the pooch in giving the Soviets jet-turbine technology.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

Me, personally, the only I would accept them as dinosaurs would be if they were direct decendants of dinosaurs

Birds are the direct descendants of dinosaurs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_birds
the earliest birds derived from a clade of theropod dinosaurs named Paraves

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avialae
Avialae ("bird wings") is a clade of flying dinosaurs containing the only living dinosaurs, the birds. It is usually defined as all theropod dinosaurs more closely related to modern birds (Aves) than to deinonychosaurs,

And that's it.

How about /derail and back to topic?

They really are distant relatives. All in Tyrannoraptora .
Tyrannoraptora -------Tyrannosaurs
--------Paraves-----bird


http://taxonomicon.taxonomy.nl/TaxonTree.aspx?src=5682&id=104737

[Novus America]

That has nothing to do with my post.

Without skilled labour, such as those very engineers you speak of - by the way, the term is "STEM", not "STEAM" - there will be no automation. And then, there's also the fact that fully automated, zero-manpower workforces are still quite a distance away. China has managed to catch up, but innovation and creating anew is something else entirely, and they aren't showing much promise in that front, aside from the CPC-guaranteed corporations engaging in corporate espionage and IP theft.

But hey, I'm pretty much talking to a wall here.

So I say you're behind the times.The technologies I'm talking about are already being used on a large scale. Your impression of China has been delayed for too long.It's not a fantasy

The problem is those technologies, especially things like additives manufacturing will make the PRC no longer a desirable place to to businesses. People make things there because it has a large workforce paid low wages and poor labor protections (along with poor environmental standards and unfair trade practices). With automation labor costs will be less a concern.
To cut shipping costs and times the factories will move near to the consumer.

Thus products sold in North America will be made in North America, not the PRC.

[Novus America]

I mean I just see it hard how they can make that remotely credible. The Party is all middle class professional and capitalists.

It's simple. Turn everyone into the middle class

Which is not go to happen, nor is it the goal. If everyone was Middle Class and rich in the PRC (something it does not have the resources to support) it would no longer be a place anyone would outsource too, and would be increasing dependent on imports.
The whole economic model it has would come crashing down.

The point remains the CCP is a bourgeoisie party. Its members are from the bourgeoisie not the workers, and the whole “make everyone bourgeoisie” would have Marx spinning day n his grave.
It is a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie!
Of course Marxism is a flawed idea anyway, but you cannot really claim to be Marxist while doing the complete opposite of what Marx advocated.

[Novus America]

https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3925556
More proof, if it was needed that imports from the PRC is a threat to sovereignty.
Not liking a (very trivial) decision the Dutch government made the PRC is threatening to cut off medical supplies too them.

The PRC is threatening sovereignty and lives by using its imports, over even the most trivial things.
If we keep importing stuff from them it will be be increasingly that they will try to influence all our foreign and even some domestic policy decisions.

Trade for them is political leverage to be used to control us.

If we do not stop this, our sovereignty is gone.

[Auslus]

Whatever comes after won't be very different from the CCP. The CCP will never disappear. It'll simply just change it's name. China is haunted by an authoritarian specter that won't stop haunting them for a long time. Until Chinese culture changes, whatever comes after the CCP will be similar, and possibly even worse.

[Pilipinas and Malaya]

I hope that this state of mind is pervasive throughout the CPC and its grassroots. Keeping the skilled workforce away from the People's Republic will hasten the downfall of its tyrannical regime, after all.

Tyrannical? I think history will see that this China was the least tyrannical in its history. China's level of human rights abuses I would say is equal to that of the USA in the 1950s. That being said, I hope China can become democratic and form an Asian Bloc to rival the west. Problem is, it is hard to reform when the West is actively out to keep China weak, communist or not. You can see this in Japan's example in the 1980s. China must reform internally and peacefully if it is not to lose land to foreign powers or another century of humiliation will occur. That is why understanding history, I have small hopes China can do so but some can say those hopes are largely false.

Sometimes, I wish I could turn back the clock. What if Russia joined the European Union and was not alienated by the Clinton Administration by funding Chechnyan separatists in the 1990s. What if the Arab Spring never occurred and Gadaffi's successors slowly got friendly to the west. What if seeing this, under Hi Jintao, media was relaxed and Xi never came to power. The West could have seen a liberal world earlier if not for its want to keep rivals down and keep an enemy for politicians to rally their people against. Not saying some of these countries do not exploit open liberal democratic governance's weaknesses but the motto of the West should have been, "Stay Sharp, Let World Events unfold, Interfere when sure of the outcome".

Not going to lie here, but I would very much prefer a world with such a China in it. Though it is likely that the Chinese and the Americans would still be rivals, maybe it would be more of a friendly rivalry.

[Novus America]

Tyrannical? I think history will see that this China was the least tyrannical in its history. China's level of human rights abuses I would say is equal to that of the USA in the 1950s. That being said, I hope China can become democratic and form an Asian Bloc to rival the west. Problem is, it is hard to reform when the West is actively out to keep China weak, communist or not. You can see this in Japan's example in the 1980s. China must reform internally and peacefully if it is not to lose land to foreign powers or another century of humiliation will occur. That is why understanding history, I have small hopes China can do so but some can say those hopes are largely false.

Sometimes, I wish I could turn back the clock. What if Russia joined the European Union and was not alienated by the Clinton Administration by funding Chechnyan separatists in the 1990s. What if the Arab Spring never occurred and Gadaffi's successors slowly got friendly to the west. What if seeing this, under Hi Jintao, media was relaxed and Xi never came to power. The West could have seen a liberal world earlier if not for its want to keep rivals down and keep an enemy for politicians to rally their people against. Not saying some of these countries do not exploit open liberal democratic governance's weaknesses but the motto of the West should have been, "Stay Sharp, Let World Events unfold, Interfere when sure of the outcome".

Not going to lie here, but I would very much prefer a world with such a China in it. Though it is likely that the Chinese and the Americans would still be rivals, maybe it would be more of a friendly rivalry.

The thing is at one point it seemed likely the EU could rival the US. And while US EU relations can be contentious it is not remotely to the same degree.
The problem the US has is not that the simply PRC is an economic or power rival, after all the US coexisted pretty well with the British as a rival power in the early 1900s, and were able to with the EU when it seemed it might be rival power.

Because neither was a threat to us, not trying to weaken or destroy our domestic institutions.
And neither played strictly zero sum. And our political philosophies not so diametrically opposed.

The US and a strong China could absolutely coexist okay, even though some rivalry would still exist, if the China was less authoritarian, less zero sum, and willing to accept certain norms in trade, human rights, the law of the sea, etc.

[Novus America]

I hope that this state of mind is pervasive throughout the CPC and its grassroots. Keeping the skilled workforce away from the People's Republic will hasten the downfall of its tyrannical regime, after all.

Tyrannical? I think history will see that this China was the least tyrannical in its history. China's level of human rights abuses I would say is equal to that of the USA in the 1950s. That being said, I hope China can become democratic and form an Asian Bloc to rival the west. Problem is, it is hard to reform when the West is actively out to keep China weak, communist or not. You can see this in Japan's example in the 1980s. China must reform internally and peacefully if it is not to lose land to foreign powers or another century of humiliation will occur. That is why understanding history, I have small hopes China can do so but some can say those hopes are largely false.

Sometimes, I wish I could turn back the clock. What if Russia joined the European Union and was not alienated by the Clinton Administration by funding Chechnyan separatists in the 1990s. What if the Arab Spring never occurred and Gadaffi's successors slowly got friendly to the west. What if seeing this, under Hi Jintao, media was relaxed and Xi never came to power. The West could have seen a liberal world earlier if not for its want to keep rivals down and keep an enemy for politicians to rally their people against. Not saying some of these countries do not exploit open liberal democratic governance's weaknesses but the motto of the West should have been, "Stay Sharp, Let World Events unfold, Interfere when sure of the outcome".

Well we cannot turn back the clock. And the biggest mistake in the 90s was opening trade to the PRC without demanding anything in return.

Although China has been less tyrannical in its history. It was less tyrannical in both the late 80s before Tiananmen but also merely a few years ago, before Xi.
Hu Jintao was that obviously no liberal democrat, but he was less tyrannical than Xi.

Your argument falls apart because the PRC is becoming more, not less tyrannical, not only at home, but abroad.

1950s or 1850s?

Also the US in the 1950s was not at the same level of abuses, especially outside the Deep South.
If you want to find a better comparison you would have to go back to the 1850s. Or even earlier. To when only 6% of the population could vote.

There was still an independent press in the 1950s (hell even in the 1850s) and even if it was more restrictive than now, a higher level of political, personal and especially religious freedom, and more importantly a way to challenge abusive laws existed. Remember Brown v Board or education was in 1954.

A mistreated African American could and did go to the Supreme Court for relief. Whereas an oppressed minority in Tibet or Xinjiang has not such option.

Also we had no concentration camps in the 50s (yes we did in the early 40s, you could make an argument the US during WWII was tyrannical in many ways but it was temporary).

Which is again the fundamental flaw of your argument. The US in 1960 had more freedom than the US in 1950, which had more than the US in 1940.
The 1950s were a time of great progress on civil rights, whereas under Xi the opposite has happened.

[Vistulange]

Not going to lie here, but I would very much prefer a world with such a China in it. Though it is likely that the Chinese and the Americans would still be rivals, maybe it would be more of a friendly rivalry.

The thing is at one point it seemed likely the EU could rival the US. And while US EU relations can be contentious it is not remotely to the same degree.
The problem the US has is not that the simply PRC is an economic or power rival, after all the US coexisted pretty well with the British as a rival power in the early 1900s, and were able to with the EU when it seemed it might be rival power.

Because neither was a threat to us, not trying to weaken or destroy our domestic institutions.
And neither played strictly zero sum. And our political philosophies not so diametrically opposed.

The US and a strong China could absolutely coexist okay, even though some rivalry would still exist, if the China was less authoritarian, less zero sum, and willing to accept certain norms in trade, human rights, the law of the sea, etc.

In fairness, the US and the United Kingdom did not try to be superpowers on equal footing at the same time. When the British Empire was in its heyday, the US had no global aspirations, but instead favoured a more isolationist line. When the US was thrust into global prominence, the British Empire was, practically speaking, no more, regardless of how much Winston Churchill may have tried to deny the state of affairs. Had the US aspired to be a global hegemon at the same time the UK was the global hegemon, I think it would be fair to say that the relationship would have been far more contentious than we make it out to be.

Otherwise, though, I agree.

[Bombadil]

Is stability one of China's Goals, or the leadership of the CCP's goals?

I think it's fair to say both, the concept of chaos or 'luan' is pretty important in China, a country that has seen some of the worst instability of near any country. The Taiping Rebellion alone.. but even the geography, the Yellow River runs through highly erodible loess plains and can shift up to 300km in any one go.

However there are plenty of errors in Kamchatka's assessment, for example..

1. The reason Tiananmen kicked off is because there was a state visit by, I think, Russia, and the global media was descending on Beijing. Actually moderates such as Zhao Ziyang and others were against forcible intervention, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest for it. It was Li Peng who convinced Deng to use military force and he was pretty much hated for it after.
2. The reason China opened up after 2003 is that they had committed to doing so for the Olympics, commitments they broke not immediately after but before and during. For example one agreement was to allow protests in designated areas, that never happened.

The simple fact is that Xi Jinping is a game changer, he genuinely believes in the idea that the road to proper socialism is the need to essentially re-educate the population, to force them into behaviour. For that he can tolerate no dissent. The second point to note is that he changed the two term limits set by Deng to avoid the tragedy of Mao. He is a dictator for life in order that he might complete his vision, a vision that absolutely demands Taiwan reunification as well.

That is why he's different, and that is why he's dangerous. The people of HK will absolutely fight against attempts to limit their ability to criticise and, ironically, efforts to quell that criticism will lead to greater forceful actions that will only raise the temperature. I think even the world will not tolerate Taiwan reunifying beyond the Taiwanese people seeing this as a no-go option, especially in light of China reneging on the principles of 1C2S.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

The US and a strong China could absolutely coexist okay, even though some rivalry would still exist, if the China was less authoritarian, less zero sum, and willing to accept certain norms in trade, human rights, the law of the sea, etc.

The United States has not ratified the law of the sea, has withdrawn from international human rights organizations, and has rendered the WTO ineffective.Others Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty,Arms Trade Treaty，etc.Signed but approved.And The US has been an exclusive obstacle to the resumption of negotiations to verify the BWC.
It seems that maybe the United States needs to correct its mistakes first, not so double standard.When you give an example, you'd better choose some places that America really does well.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

So I say you're behind the times.The technologies I'm talking about are already being used on a large scale. Your impression of China has been delayed for too long.It's not a fantasy

The problem is those technologies, especially things like additives manufacturing will make the PRC no longer a desirable place to to businesses. People make things there because it has a large workforce paid low wages and poor labor protections (along with poor environmental standards and unfair trade practices). With automation labor costs will be less a concern.
To cut shipping costs and times the factories will move near to the consumer.

Thus products sold in North America will be made in North America, not the PRC.

If the reality is as you say, there is nothing to worry about in America.Unfortunately, the cost of human resources in industry is usually not the main cost.And the west is no longer the absolute leader of new technology.
Most of those automation factories are not owned by Western capitalists. You'd better look for other reasons.

[Australian rePublic]

The world's pissed with the CCP and they're probably gonna wanna scape goat. I don't know how that's gonna work out for Xi. On the hand, they elected him president for life, so probably shot themselves in the foot in using him as a scapegoat

[Ithius]

Whatever you might say about the CCP, I think that Xi Jinping's rise to power is fascinating. He rose up to power from almost nothing.

[Australian rePublic]

Whatever you might say about the CCP, I think that Xi Jinping's rise to power is fascinating. He rose up to power from almost nothing.

Not only was it from nothing. His father was actively banished from the CCP. After his father was banished from the party, Xi became a nothing, and then was allowed back into the party. That is indeed quite an accomplishment. Maybe electing himself president for life is his unorthodox method of getting avenging his father

[Shanghai industrial complex]

Whatever you might say about the CCP, I think that Xi Jinping's rise to power is fascinating. He rose up to power from almost nothing.

Not only was it from nothing. His father was actively banished from the CCP. After his father was banished from the party, Xi became a nothing, and then was allowed back into the party. That is indeed quite an accomplishment. Maybe electing himself president for life is his unorthodox method of getting avenging his father

I don't know where your news came from.Xi Zhongxun was a senior official of the Communist Party of China from 1978 to 1993.After that he retired. He is an important subordinate of Deng Xiaoping.You said that in 1962, when he was removed from the post of deputy prime minister, he was sent to a resort

You can use chrome translation
https://baike.baidu.com/item/%E4%B9%A0%E4%BB%B2%E5%8B%8B/1553475

[Australian rePublic]

Not only was it from nothing. His father was actively banished from the CCP. After his father was banished from the party, Xi became a nothing, and then was allowed back into the party. That is indeed quite an accomplishment. Maybe electing himself president for life is his unorthodox method of getting avenging his father

I don't know where your news came from.Xi Zhongxun was a senior official of the Communist Party of China from 1978 to 1993.After that he retired. He is an important subordinate of Deng Xiaoping.You said that in 1962, when he was removed from the post of deputy prime minister, he was sent to a resort

You can use chrome translation
https://baike.baidu.com/item/%E4%B9%A0%E4%BB%B2%E5%8B%8B/1553475

So if he's dad was a high ranking party member, how did Xi become a nothing?

[Bombadil]

I don't know where your news came from.Xi Zhongxun was a senior official of the Communist Party of China from 1978 to 1993.After that he retired. He is an important subordinate of Deng Xiaoping.You said that in 1962, when he was removed from the post of deputy prime minister, he was sent to a resort

You can use chrome translation
https://baike.baidu.com/item/%E4%B9%A0%E4%BB%B2%E5%8B%8B/1553475

So if he's dad was a high ranking party member, how did Xi become a nothing?

All the princeling kids were sent to farms, didn't make him nothing.

[Shanghai industrial complex]

I don't know where your news came from.Xi Zhongxun was a senior official of the Communist Party of China from 1978 to 1993.After that he retired. He is an important subordinate of Deng Xiaoping.You said that in 1962, when he was removed from the post of deputy prime minister, he was sent to a resort

You can use chrome translation
https://baike.baidu.com/item/%E4%B9%A0%E4%BB%B2%E5%8B%8B/1553475

So if he's dad was a high ranking party member, how did Xi become a nothing?

Because he doesn't have nothing.After graduating from Tsinghua University, he joined the Central Committee of China as a secretary.Since then, he has been a senior local official.The only different experience is going to poverty-stricken areas to participate in agricultural labor before university. It was Mao Zedong's policy to send all young intellectuals to the countryside for three years. Let them feel the difficulties of the proletariat and prevent them from becoming petty bourgeoisie.Because at that time, they were the elites with superior life.
The last leader, Hu Jintao, is the real one with nothing. Hu is the son of ordinary peasants

[The JELLEAIN Republic]

My analysis of your analysis is that you are painting a picture from things you have collected from media sources, not facts.
You seem to be apologetic for some of China’s “situations”
And believe that political views are entrenched in race.

Please correct me if I am wrong.
But this appears to be very biased.

Apologies if I sounded biased but I felt I needed to give much-needed context first which is often lacking in the West. Eg. Like how Ho Chi Minh was not a communist and wrote Vietnam's constitution after the US's. The West often gets involved without clearing things up.

My actual stance is that as an overseas Chinese, I want to see China transition to a democracy that can rival democracy of the West. Pan-Asianism I suppose. However, I don't see that happening soon and it angers me most overseas Chinese are apathetic towards politics.

So you believe that anyone of the Chinese race belongs to China the country ?

I obviously cannot speak for all Chinese but at least some would equate China with their true government

It’s not an uncommon view; some support the PRC even from abroad

This I can tell although, in my analysis, I did state it is because they probably feel a strong China means a strong identity as a Chinese they can use and the PRC is giving them that backing. However, I am referring more to the PRC Chinese that go overseas to study but do not return, instead starting lives in the USA/Western nations when they should be bringing these new ideas (liberal ones) back to China if PRC ever is to reform peacefully, they must be the next generation. Deng Xiaopeng spent time overseas as a student.

Oh, but still ?

[Australian rePublic]

So if he's dad was a high ranking party member, how did Xi become a nothing?

Because he doesn't have nothing.After graduating from Tsinghua University, he joined the Central Committee of China as a secretary.Since then, he has been a senior local official.The only different experience is going to poverty-stricken areas to participate in agricultural labor before university. It was Mao Zedong's policy to send all young intellectuals to the countryside for three years. Let them feel the difficulties of the proletariat and prevent them from becoming petty bourgeoisie.Because at that time, they were the elites with superior life.
The last leader, Hu Jintao, is the real one with nothing. Hu is the son of ordinary peasants

So if all children of high ranking party officials are required to become nothings, then why is it even noteworthy, much less impressive, that Xi was a nothing?

[Bombadil]

It's very impressive Xi came from nothing
He wasn't a nothing
Then why's it impressive
???