I'm pretty neutral toward China, but I'll say that I definitely don't approve of many of their domestic policies. It's important to keep a few things in mind though:
I'm not a Chinese citizen or CPC member, so it really doesn't matter how I feel about it since they aren't accountable to me in any way.
their policies often grind against what we are used to growing up with the values impressed on us by western liberal society, but that doesn't make them wrong (this definitely doesn't apply to everything they do, some stuff is just shitty)
they are extremely non-interventionist, which is a reason that they are a big step up over the U.S. they don't give a shit about how their trade partners operate internally, though that makes them crappy socialists in my view tbh.
the rise of liberalism in China over the past few decades has allowed some nationalism to flourish, but it's still extremely incorrect to associate them with fascism imo. You can argue that they are no longer socialist, but it doesn't make them fash.
China being numba 1 instead of the US is probably not an end-game state, but there will be infinitely more opportunities for actually good socialism to flourish, particularly in developing nations, as they gain power. Something that's impossible under American hegemony.
China being numba 1 instead of the US is probably not an end-game state, but there will be infinitely more opportunities for actually good socialism to flourish, particularly in developing nations, as they gain power. Something that’s impossible under American hegemony.
Seems like a big assumption right here: is there any good reason to believe that a Chinese prevention and repression "actually good socialism" would not exist? or would be less efficient than the US ones?
EDIT: I guess it relates to your third point about non-interventionism, but wouldn't China change this policy if it became the main global power? Anyway, I still agree on the "probably not an end-game state" point. Even if the CPC was acting like the US government is currently, we all make the assumption that we are not in a end-game state right now. That's the premise of the whole thing: the US collapse and are being "replaced". Could apply to China as well later.
Right, my 3rd point leads into the fourth like you said. Their track record has been heavily non-interventionist so far, and they don't seem to be gearing up to build 800 overseas military bases. If those things start to happen, then obviously the conversation changes.
While Deng's reforms have allowed capital to get a significant foothold in their economy, the CCP still has full control, instead of vice-versa like in the US. Of course there's a chance that they slip into full capitalism, but I don't think is a whole lot higher than the chance of the CCP making good on their pinky promise to socialize their economy in the next couple of decades. Remember that they are moving at absolute lightspeed in development compared to the west, so it's difficult to predict what will happen.
I'm pretty neutral toward China, but I'll say that I definitely don't approve of many of their domestic policies. It's important to keep a few things in mind though:
I'm not a Chinese citizen or CPC member, so it really doesn't matter how I feel about it since they aren't accountable to me in any way.
their policies often grind against what we are used to growing up with the values impressed on us by western liberal society, but that doesn't make them wrong (this definitely doesn't apply to everything they do, some stuff is just shitty)
they are extremely non-interventionist, which is a reason that they are a big step up over the U.S. they don't give a shit about how their trade partners operate internally, though that makes them crappy socialists in my view tbh.
the rise of liberalism in China over the past few decades has allowed some nationalism to flourish, but it's still extremely incorrect to associate them with fascism imo. You can argue that they are no longer socialist, but it doesn't make them fash.
China being numba 1 instead of the US is probably not an end-game state, but there will be infinitely more opportunities for actually good socialism to flourish, particularly in developing nations, as they gain power. Something that's impossible under American hegemony.
Seems like a big assumption right here: is there any good reason to believe that a Chinese prevention and repression "actually good socialism" would not exist? or would be less efficient than the US ones?
EDIT: I guess it relates to your third point about non-interventionism, but wouldn't China change this policy if it became the main global power? Anyway, I still agree on the "probably not an end-game state" point. Even if the CPC was acting like the US government is currently, we all make the assumption that we are not in a end-game state right now. That's the premise of the whole thing: the US collapse and are being "replaced". Could apply to China as well later.
deleted by creator
Right, my 3rd point leads into the fourth like you said. Their track record has been heavily non-interventionist so far, and they don't seem to be gearing up to build 800 overseas military bases. If those things start to happen, then obviously the conversation changes.
While Deng's reforms have allowed capital to get a significant foothold in their economy, the CCP still has full control, instead of vice-versa like in the US. Of course there's a chance that they slip into full capitalism, but I don't think is a whole lot higher than the chance of the CCP making good on their pinky promise to socialize their economy in the next couple of decades. Remember that they are moving at absolute lightspeed in development compared to the west, so it's difficult to predict what will happen.