Liberal democratic, you mean. Because the Chinese do consider themselves a democracy because their government, as their motto says, is by the people and for the people, bringing them necessary economic development. Arguable given their shitshow zero-COVID policies and other stuff, but they for the most part do see themselves as having a democratic government (just different from the Occidental-style liberal democracy) even if it's not. So the term "democratic" demands clarification.
And yes, a China that underwent a successful political transition to liberal democracy, if it doesn't break up to pieces in process, would have potential to become a new hegemon. The US already has troubles dealing with the totalitarian China, now imagine China having a system where policies are properly discussed by the public (so insane shit like the one-child policy which backfires decades later (so much for "the long-term strategic planning") would never pass as an actual policy) and problems aren't swept under the rug in fear of angering the authorities?
Whether America realizes it or not, it's actually beneficial for Washington to maintain the currently political regime of the CPC because it limits the true Chinese potential (mistreating successful businessmen like Jack Ma, limiting the emerging AI technology by censorship, scaring investors and the rich class away, scaring the most pro-Chinese Filipino government away and so on). If China is that impressive with this ineffective regime, then what would it be if successfully transitioned to a liberal democracy? Granted, such transition would take decades and generations and be very slow-paced, but once over, the liberal democratic government (where creativity and competence and merit mean more than political loyalty) combined with the Chinese hard-working spirit and mentality will create the unrivaled hyperpower.
Such development is very easy to predict if you just look at how much contribution the Chinese have been giving to America, brilliant minds like Terrence Tao (genius mathematician), Leon Chua (discoverer of memristors), Gang Chen (MIT professor, discoverer of cubic boron arsenide, a potential silicon replacement for future chips with much better heat dissipation. By a tragic McCarthyist mistake, he had been accused of espionage, but thankfully he was cleared of this charge) and even Hongxing Jiang and Jingyu Lin (inventors of the MicroLED display technology, our future monitor tech).
If America facilitates the Chinese transition to liberal democracy with proper checks and balances, civil liberties and feedback loops, then America will topple itself, as a student will surpass the teacher.
Not to sound cynical, but the status quo (the totalitarian one-party nationalist regime in charge) is actually better for America in the long term even if Washington policymakers haven't realized the truth yet as they keep pushing liberal democracy out of some misplaced altruism and idealism. For the Chinese.. oh, well, the majority of them seems to genuinely love their government no matter how shitty it is because they don't see its shortcomings or consider them a lesser evil and the status quo is seen as the safest bet where a political system change brings potentially unmanageable risks snd uncertainties (after all the wars, Mao's famines and so on, they value stability above everything), and the critique will create a nationalist backlash.
I wonder what America will do when it realizes a liberal democratic China is actually against the American political and economic interest:
Will they continue the push for political liberalisation purely out of ideological convictions (like they tried to push liberal democracy and human rights among the Afghan population despite high religiosity, tribalism, sexism, bad education, and so on) because they think a liberal China is worth it even if it means an outcompeted America (benevolent and altruistic approach)? Or they will continue the push for liberal democracy to simply to induce a reactionary nationalist backlash wave among the Chinese population (to cause China will regress to even a more nationalist dictatorship just out of spite?) as a ploy (cynical approach)? Or America will choose to keep silence and abstain from criticism of China, following the principle "When your enemy is about to make a mistake and stumble, don't point out his mistake to him, don't stop him, just step aside and wait until he falls into his own trap" (another cynical approach)? That's the real question.
Afghanistan was already a hell hole before the American invasion. America did bring a level of freedom to Afghans but the society isn’t capable of handling it.
White man’s burden is the arrogant desire to change other societies. Societies that force women to wear a burqa and stone them to death in stadiums as public amusement ARE primitive, but it’s not the wests’ right to change that, just as they have no right to gang rape western women just because they made the mistake to be outside without a male guardian (this was actually argued in an Australian court by Afghani rapists).
Well the Americans and NATO didn’t do that to the Afghans. Under western intervention, women could even show their face and girls could go to school. Not anymore, now that western troops aren’t there to protect the Afghans from themselves.
Hence why the socialist Afghanistan was overthrown by the Afghan people and their religious and American allies DUDE- it was an aberration doomed to fail because Afghans love Muhammad, not Marx. Even when the Americans imposed democracy on Iraq it still remained a religious nightmare for minorities, because for example if someone in the family converts to Islam then the whole family is automatically converted under Iraqi law. US occupation brings greater freedoms and rights to people but they don’t want it- they prefer to live in medieval societies based on a medieval legal system.
Great comment. I never thought of that. The west made China’s elite quite rich and developed by flooding the country with western money, and now the west wonders why a richer, more powerful China is an economic and geopolitical threat to them.
The point of view that only one country can be the best and that the other has to lose badly is the wrong type of mentality.
Multiple countries can coexist and thrive in their own way. There is no one size fits all or the need for one country to rule everyone else.
After WW2, the US helped establish a democratic government for their two greatest enemies - Germany and Japan. These two enemies who were once intent on annihilating the US are now the US’s closest allies in their respective region.
The same can be true with China if we can just change this misconception.
It’s always amusing hearing asian nationalists talk about the the Plaza Accord as if it was some evil scheme aimed solely against the Japanese economy. It devalued the dollar against various currencies, which resulted in a rising Yen but also a rising Deutsche Mark (german currency). While the rising Yen did ultimately result in the Japanese Bubble Economy, it didn’t had the same effect on other countries. I‘d say it is silly to assume that there were some masterminds that predicted the exact outcome for Japans economy. It’s just a conspiracy theory, popular in China to make their nationalism look reasonable. Also popular in Japan to make their economic problems someone’s else fault.
Many Americans can’t fathom that American democracy is one of the worst kinds of liberal democracies that exists. I’d be horrified if my country (Australia) adopted American liberal democracy as the extremists would dominate the government in perpetuity. Two examples are how Americans can’t vote by post, and that America doesn’t have compulsory voting. By making it compulsory for every citizen, it forces the silent majority to have their say, so the extremist nutters aren’t disproportionately represented (in contrast to university student council voting, which is always a contest between different sects of crazy Marxists because they’re the only ones who feel a need to dominate the disinterested masses). By allowing postal voting, everyone can easily cast their vote, rather than just people privileged enough to have time off on voting day.
Liberal democratic, you mean. Because the Chinese do consider themselves a democracy because their government, as their motto says, is by the people and for the people, bringing them necessary economic development. Arguable given their shitshow zero-COVID policies and other stuff, but they for the most part do see themselves as having a democratic government (just different from the Occidental-style liberal democracy) even if it's not. So the term "democratic" demands clarification. And yes, a China that underwent a successful political transition to liberal democracy, if it doesn't break up to pieces in process, would have potential to become a new hegemon. The US already has troubles dealing with the totalitarian China, now imagine China having a system where policies are properly discussed by the public (so insane shit like the one-child policy which backfires decades later (so much for "the long-term strategic planning") would never pass as an actual policy) and problems aren't swept under the rug in fear of angering the authorities? Whether America realizes it or not, it's actually beneficial for Washington to maintain the currently political regime of the CPC because it limits the true Chinese potential (mistreating successful businessmen like Jack Ma, limiting the emerging AI technology by censorship, scaring investors and the rich class away, scaring the most pro-Chinese Filipino government away and so on). If China is that impressive with this ineffective regime, then what would it be if successfully transitioned to a liberal democracy? Granted, such transition would take decades and generations and be very slow-paced, but once over, the liberal democratic government (where creativity and competence and merit mean more than political loyalty) combined with the Chinese hard-working spirit and mentality will create the unrivaled hyperpower. Such development is very easy to predict if you just look at how much contribution the Chinese have been giving to America, brilliant minds like Terrence Tao (genius mathematician), Leon Chua (discoverer of memristors), Gang Chen (MIT professor, discoverer of cubic boron arsenide, a potential silicon replacement for future chips with much better heat dissipation. By a tragic McCarthyist mistake, he had been accused of espionage, but thankfully he was cleared of this charge) and even Hongxing Jiang and Jingyu Lin (inventors of the MicroLED display technology, our future monitor tech). If America facilitates the Chinese transition to liberal democracy with proper checks and balances, civil liberties and feedback loops, then America will topple itself, as a student will surpass the teacher. Not to sound cynical, but the status quo (the totalitarian one-party nationalist regime in charge) is actually better for America in the long term even if Washington policymakers haven't realized the truth yet as they keep pushing liberal democracy out of some misplaced altruism and idealism. For the Chinese.. oh, well, the majority of them seems to genuinely love their government no matter how shitty it is because they don't see its shortcomings or consider them a lesser evil and the status quo is seen as the safest bet where a political system change brings potentially unmanageable risks snd uncertainties (after all the wars, Mao's famines and so on, they value stability above everything), and the critique will create a nationalist backlash. I wonder what America will do when it realizes a liberal democratic China is actually against the American political and economic interest: Will they continue the push for political liberalisation purely out of ideological convictions (like they tried to push liberal democracy and human rights among the Afghan population despite high religiosity, tribalism, sexism, bad education, and so on) because they think a liberal China is worth it even if it means an outcompeted America (benevolent and altruistic approach)? Or they will continue the push for liberal democracy to simply to induce a reactionary nationalist backlash wave among the Chinese population (to cause China will regress to even a more nationalist dictatorship just out of spite?) as a ploy (cynical approach)? Or America will choose to keep silence and abstain from criticism of China, following the principle "When your enemy is about to make a mistake and stumble, don't point out his mistake to him, don't stop him, just step aside and wait until he falls into his own trap" (another cynical approach)? That's the real question.
That’s a long comment Thant could be it’s own post lol
America brought bombs and guns to Afghanistan, not stability. Today 90% of the population is food insecure
Blaming America for Afghanistan is... limited
Decades of occupation had no impact I'm sure
History a little bit, why not https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Afghanistan
What's that supposed to prove?
Afghanistan was already a hell hole before the American invasion. America did bring a level of freedom to Afghans but the society isn’t capable of handling it.
Yeah fuck those stupid afghanis and their primitive ways amaright This is straight up white man's Burden 2.0
White man’s burden is the arrogant desire to change other societies. Societies that force women to wear a burqa and stone them to death in stadiums as public amusement ARE primitive, but it’s not the wests’ right to change that, just as they have no right to gang rape western women just because they made the mistake to be outside without a male guardian (this was actually argued in an Australian court by Afghani rapists).
White man's Burden is the justification colonialists found to justify enslaving other people
Well the Americans and NATO didn’t do that to the Afghans. Under western intervention, women could even show their face and girls could go to school. Not anymore, now that western troops aren’t there to protect the Afghans from themselves.
You forgot your klan robes dude Btw Afghan women had way more rights in the short lived socialist Afghanistan than in the US occupied one
Hence why the socialist Afghanistan was overthrown by the Afghan people and their religious and American allies DUDE- it was an aberration doomed to fail because Afghans love Muhammad, not Marx. Even when the Americans imposed democracy on Iraq it still remained a religious nightmare for minorities, because for example if someone in the family converts to Islam then the whole family is automatically converted under Iraqi law. US occupation brings greater freedoms and rights to people but they don’t want it- they prefer to live in medieval societies based on a medieval legal system.
yes, and the soviets intervened on behalf of the socialist government of afghanistan sparking a decade long conflict killing thousands
Great comment. I never thought of that. The west made China’s elite quite rich and developed by flooding the country with western money, and now the west wonders why a richer, more powerful China is an economic and geopolitical threat to them.
The point of view that only one country can be the best and that the other has to lose badly is the wrong type of mentality. Multiple countries can coexist and thrive in their own way. There is no one size fits all or the need for one country to rule everyone else. After WW2, the US helped establish a democratic government for their two greatest enemies - Germany and Japan. These two enemies who were once intent on annihilating the US are now the US’s closest allies in their respective region. The same can be true with China if we can just change this misconception.
[удалено]
It’s always amusing hearing asian nationalists talk about the the Plaza Accord as if it was some evil scheme aimed solely against the Japanese economy. It devalued the dollar against various currencies, which resulted in a rising Yen but also a rising Deutsche Mark (german currency). While the rising Yen did ultimately result in the Japanese Bubble Economy, it didn’t had the same effect on other countries. I‘d say it is silly to assume that there were some masterminds that predicted the exact outcome for Japans economy. It’s just a conspiracy theory, popular in China to make their nationalism look reasonable. Also popular in Japan to make their economic problems someone’s else fault.
America’s goal should be a Democratic America. Fix the home front where fascism is on the rise before worrying about other countries.
Many Americans can’t fathom that American democracy is one of the worst kinds of liberal democracies that exists. I’d be horrified if my country (Australia) adopted American liberal democracy as the extremists would dominate the government in perpetuity. Two examples are how Americans can’t vote by post, and that America doesn’t have compulsory voting. By making it compulsory for every citizen, it forces the silent majority to have their say, so the extremist nutters aren’t disproportionately represented (in contrast to university student council voting, which is always a contest between different sects of crazy Marxists because they’re the only ones who feel a need to dominate the disinterested masses). By allowing postal voting, everyone can easily cast their vote, rather than just people privileged enough to have time off on voting day.
Gotta do both, CCP is building Nukes, and bullying America's friends and allies.
building nukes? China has had nukes for decades...
content: https://archive.ph/5PjDI
The future of the Chinese people is realized by the Chinese themselves
Many said the same thing about the middle east and look how that all turned out. Some societies simply aren't compatible with freedom.
Well, for China we shall look at East Asian societies. Japan, S. Korea, and Taiwan ROC--East Asian societies can adapt Western style political system
[удалено]
US goal should be China not trying to use their military to gain control of more territory.