Reading many Westerners lament the passing of the one child policy today I was thinking, the real threat China poses isn’t the chance they will decide to go to war with us, or steal our allies.
The real threat is ideological. The poverty reduction that took place in China in the past 35 years is a huge threat to democracy. The general mentality in China is that the brute measures the state wields are forgivable because of the economic growth that’s been enabled, and it seems like more and more Westerners are beginning to agree.
Personally I don’t think the ends justify the means, and having democracy and human rights is more important than having a good economy. My feelings however don’t change the fact that China has become wealthier (even if many are overworked, persecuted and still suffer) without becoming more liberal in other ways.
We always talk about how Americanized Chinese youth are, but Millennials also feel more positive about China. Could we say that Chinese values are already influencing people in the West, and that democracy might be one of the native values threatened by Chinese cultural influence?
Could China be a harbinger for a totalitarian and right-wing 21st century? Are we seeing a convergence of American “bootstrap” libertarian pro-business thought and totalitarian “ends justify the means” Chinese collectivist thinking?
The idea that totalitarian states can be remarkably efficient is an old one-- we’ve had the idea of the benevolent dictator" for a long time. And we have certainly oversold the idea that human progress is impossible without democracy-- even while saying things like “Country X isn’t ready for democracy.”
But I think the lesson there is to inspire us to be better. We love to bitch and moan about China’s presence in Africa, but the reality is that China is giving African countries something that they want and something that seems to work (mostly, investment in business.) If we want to stay relevant, we need to step up our game rather than trying to push the same ideas that haven’t worked for fifty years.
It’s not a bad thing for us to have to be a little nimble, to have the occasional challenge. We can’t let ourselves stagnate.
In the end, China doesn’t have all the answers and we don’t have all the answers. We’ve only had the modern geopolitical situation for maybe fifty years; and the post Cold War world for even less. That isn’t a lot of time to learn in.
The USSR went thru somewhat the same experience, and reduced poverty quite markedly for the first seventy years or so of its existence. Of course, they killed tens of millions of people in the course of so doing, but overall the standard of living improved.
The challenge came in the 70s and 80s, when Soviet society was faced with the challenge of the post-industrial society. The more managed the economy, the less it can handle new challenges like that. Then Gorbachev came along and tried to open up the economy somewhat and retain the Party control structure, and we all see how that worked out. Now Russia enjoys simultaneously a crappy economy and an authoritarian form of government, and I don’t think there is huge sympathy for the Russian example as something to strive for in the 21st century.
The more the Chinese middle class grows, the greater the threat to strict management of the economy and that tends to threaten other kinds of societal controls as well. It might work out for them to continue as they are going - Singapore has that kind of free markets and repressive government, but Singapore is much smaller and more managable than China.
One example is the Chinese currency, which is artifically held low to stimulate exports, and thus makes Western goods harder and more expensive to obtain. A Chinese middle class is not going to be satisfied with a bicycle, a radio, a sewing machine, and a wrist watchforever.
China’s population growth is well in hand - currently about half a percent/annum, below the United States and less than half the world average. Total fertility rates are below replacement and one of China’s emerging issues is going to be the same as we now see in the industrialized West - declining birth rates and an aging population increasing medical and retirement strains. China is not likely to get that much bigger before it starts shrinking again.
By contrast India, with a population growth a little above average for the world, will probably topple China from the #1 slot in the next decade. In a country about 1/3 the size of China. They’re working on it, but rampant population growth is much more of an issue in south Asia than east.
No, democracy is a much greater threat to Chinese authoritarianism than vice versa. Democracy is not an absolute value, it is a means to an end, good government. Most of China’s growth has been catch up growth and it is slowing down. As China becomes a middle income country its growth will slow down even more and its people will demand more from the government. This will lead to increasing pressure for democratization.
The most similar situations historically are Taiwan and South Korea. Both countries had authoritarian regimes after WW2 and the Korean war. The governments opened up the economies for export led growth and they grew like gangbusters for over 20 years. In the mid 1980s both countries started holding free elections and now they are both economically prosperous and politically free countries.
I would hope that when the time comes, China will have CHINESE style democracy. Not everyone has to do it the way the United States does.
In time I suspect China will end up like South Korea or any number of countries that slowly evolved democracy. I’m no fortune teller so I guess you never know, but this strange fixation some people have with casting China as The Next Threat To America is really weird. China does not appear to have designs on the USA. Why not be friends with them?
How is China a “threat” to the USA? they are a very practical people, who want to become affluent. True, the Chinese are hidebound to an obsolete Marxist philosophy, but they will modify it as need arises. They know what Mao did (in the name of communism), he killed over 33 million people. They will not repeat that.
The first is extremely unlikely but the second is rather more plausible (see China’s attempt to cozy up to the Republic of Korea due to the Abe government’s idiotic policy of denying/minimizing Japanese war crimes in WW2).
This is partially true. It is true that the coming geostrategic rivalry will be partially ideological facing off liberal democratic and authoritarian capitalistic models but at the same time this should not be taken to extremes-it’ll be more like the rivalry between the Triple Alliance and the Triple Entente in that the primary questions will be economic and geostrategic not ideological. Additionally ideology will only matter for the lesser states of Eastern Europe, Africa, Middle East, and Asia not the core of the West.
China could far more easily reduce poverty considering it was starting from a much lower base 35 years ago-the US and Europe were largely middle-class societies in 1980 while China was not.
Depends on who you ask. Undoubtedly there are many who think that but there is a large dissident movement as well.
Where? And even if true, most of it doesn’t seem that different from Western rightists and leftists in the '30s occasionally saying positive things about Hitler/Mussolini or Stalin respectively about them “making the trains run on time” or “avoiding the Depression”. Actually less so since there’s no mass political movement openly advocating the implementation of Putinism or Dengism in the West.
Citation? If anything, Millennials are very much civil libertarian be they left- or right-wing. Right now people are calling for ending the Drug Wars, legalizing pot, and combating police brutality not instituting the death penalty for drug traffickers.
No, considering there is virtually no Chinese ideological influence upon the West (excepting a handful of Western intellectuals enamoured with Confucianism or Maoism I guess) as opposed to cultural influence.
No because even if the Chinese authoritarian capitalist model did somehow triumph its not totalitarian (as opposed to authoritarian) and I wouldn’t even call it “right-wing” to be honest.
No because American libertarianism has very little in common with Chinese state capitalism and libertarianism is a joke political movement anyways.
As my history professor said, when the students at Tianamen Square decided to represent liberty they didn’t make a likeness of Confucius but rather a model of the Statue of Liberty.
While we should exaggerate the Chinese threat into some sort of a new “Yellow Peril” they are definitely rivals in a critical area of the world with an ideology diametrically opposed to us and in disputes with our allies in the region.
Democracy has lost some its luster for me. The main appeal is how abuse and neglect of the citizenry cannot surpass a certain threshold without the public voting for a new government. But at least in the US where we are taught democracy is great, it doesn’t seem leaps and bounds better than alternatives. Moneyed interests have captured the government and the main goal of politicians is infighting to gain/maintain power (granted these problems of corruption and selfish politicians are much much worse in an authoritarian nation and much harder to change than in a democracy). A working democracy is great but creating a working one is not easy. But again, it is the best system we seem to have available.
I think Russia is a bigger threat to democracy because they had a democracy and decided they prefer authoritarianism. China has never had it.
The fact that China grew its economy and society so much while democratic India failed to keep up is another sign that democracy may lose some appeal.
However part of me thinks that China will follow the path of most other east Asian nations and transition to a democracy as their economy grows. I believe other than Singapore, all the other rapidly grown east asian nations converted to democracy. South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong. But who knows.
You ever thought about how the USA version of democracy is in practice a sham, only marginally better than the mock votes they had in the USSR? Wealthy people select all of the candidates. There are only 2 viable ones in most elections. Any knowledgeable or intelligent voters have their votes drowned out by a vast sea of ignorant people.
This is the truth. From an information perspective, the democracy of the USA only weakly puts competent candidates in powerful who represent the interests of their constituents. Worse, constituents have short term interests that conflict with their same long term interests. As an example, many members of a major political party want lower taxes, and thus deficit spending…which is the same thing as higher taxes in the future. Literally, the system outcome is a result that over the long term is worse for the interests of the very constituents who demanded it.
Of course, the other political party just wants to improve the lives of people by taking money away from productive people and giving it away to people who are a drain on society. Smart move.
It’s not hard to see how an autocratic government could do better. It’s not that China is pulling ahead, it’s that America is falling behind.
No because elections here can actually elect different parties who in turn will implement different policies when in power.
In that case Bernie Sanders would not be in the Senate.
That’s a consequence of having a First Past the Post election system.
Most people know what their interests are most of the time. Also how do you define knowledgeable or intelligent? Its usually the most partisan voters who are most knowledgeable voters and intelligence has little to do with voting for the best candidates as judged by the many intellectuals who were enamoured with Stalinism in the 30s or the strong support for libertarians among high IQ people.
This makes no sense at all.
Politics should be oriented towards the short-term considering the long-term is by and large unpredictable.
Yes, supply-sideism is a joke and a pseudoscience.
Ayylmao, rofl, topkek etc. :rolleyes::dubious::rolleyes::dubious: Even more than the Tea Party, this sort of Moderate Hero “Both sides are equally bad” nonsense is the biggest cancer in American politics.
Yes I’m sure that’s why American income levels are the same as China’s in 1980 with China’s economy and middle-class not having grown at all in the past generation. Again ayylmao, rofl, topkek etc.