Why is China saying this at this very moment?

[p5mmr9]

This is true. And it proves an authoritarian dictator on the left ain’t good for people and country… and is just as bad as an authoritarian dictator on the right. I’m sure the world will agree authoritarian dictators ain’t good for anybody. Trump’s desire to be just that ain’t good for anybody, especially we here in the US.

The future for the US is not looking that good either, despite Trumps blow hard message of MAGA.

The only true way is my way. Vote for me everybody!

The current Chinese system isn't "leftist" - the Chinese "Communist Party" isn't communist. It is authoritarian and doesn't really fit well on the Left/Right axis. In fact, there was debate in the party about changing their name but they kept it for "historical" reasons. Regardless, the Chinese people have benefited from the Chinese government's leadership in many areas. More people have been lifted out of poverty in China over the last 30 years than any other place in the history of civilization. China's poverty rate fell from nearly 90% in 1980 (!!!) to .7% now. It's a remarkable change. Infrastructure - roads, transportation, healthcare - have all improved equally dramatically.

Where the PRC fails is obviously human rights, freedom of speech, freedom of movement. Its treatment of the Uyghur and ethnic Tibetans is abhorrent. And since Covid - these issues have become more pronounced. Post Covid - China has faced a number of significant challenges and prior to Trump's inauguration - China appeared to be on the brink of economic collapse. They have a significant debt crisis that is only getitng worse and their youth unemployment is at staggering levels (22% ++) - they have a legion of unemployed university educated youths and only factory jobs available. It's a major crisis - and one that has historically led to open rebellion and strife.

All of that said - China is generally and historically anti-imperialist. What China demands is economic power more than imperialist power. China seeks the means to control its own corner of the world while insuring maximum economic benefit to its country. This isn't the Soviet Union, but I'm also not sure it is as much a threat to the USA hegemony as a lot of people think. They are however a significant threat to western IP. IP theft is their greatest crime and it is ongoing.

 

[Centerpiece]

The excuse for our stagnation is gridlock in Washington D.C.

What we need is a strong, right wing, authoritarian dictator who stays in power for at least 20 years over one-party rule. Exterminate the “other” within our midst and instead of deporting “illegal” immigrants we should enslave them to work the farms, fields, meat-packing plants and to clean our bathrooms and buildings and to cook and serve our food.

Then we will be “great again” and rule over the world the way Jesus, our Lord and Saviour has intended!

Only I can make that happen! Vote for moi!

 

[Paine]

The current Chinese system isn't "leftist" - the Chinese "Communist Party" isn't communist. It is authoritarian and doesn't really fit well on the Left/Right axis. In fact, there was debate in the party about changing their name but they kept it for "historical" reasons. Regardless, the Chinese people have benefited from the Chinese government's leadership in many areas. More people have been lifted out of poverty in China over the last 30 years than any other place in the history of civilization. China's poverty rate fell from nearly 90% in 1980 (!!!) to .7% now. It's a remarkable change. Infrastructure - roads, transportation, healthcare - have all improved equally dramatically.

Where the PRC fails is obviously human rights, freedom of speech, freedom of movement. Its treatment of the Uyghur and ethnic Tibetans is abhorrent. And since Covid - these issues have become more pronounced. Post Covid - China has faced a number of significant challenges and prior to Trump's inauguration - China appeared to be on the brink of economic collapse. They have a significant debt crisis that is only getitng worse and their youth unemployment is at staggering levels (22% ++) - they have a legion of unemployed university educated youths and only factory jobs available. It's a major crisis - and one that has historically led to open rebellion and strife.

All of that said - China is generally and historically anti-imperialist. What China demands is economic power more than imperialist power. China seeks the means to control its own corner of the world while insuring maximum economic benefit to its country. This isn't the Soviet Union, but I'm also not sure it is as much a threat to the USA hegemony as a lot of people think. They are however a significant threat to western IP. IP theft is their greatest crime and it is ongoing.

Mostly agree with this. China isn’t “leftist” in a Western ideological sense, but it is organized around a national development project that fuses state planning, industrial policy, and cultural continuity. That’s what gives it cohesion, even through massive internal contradictions.

We don’t need to copy China. But we do need our own version of national purpose, something that isn’t just market forces in a pinstripe suit.

 

[HintonJamesHeel]

Sure, maybe they won’t dominate the world, but that’s a strawman. The issue isn’t whether China becomes the lone superpower, it’s that they’ve shown how strategic planning and national cohesion can produce serious global leverage.

Meanwhile, we’re stuck in drift and denial, with leaders who can’t even name a common goal beyond “preserve the status quo.” If we keep brushing off China’s model as irrelevant, we’re just excusing our own stagnation.

Speaking of unserious…I don’t know any expert that thinks China is in a better position than the US and that with a felon as president followed by an old man followed by the felon.

 

[p5mmr9]

1. China's "struggling economy" grew at 4.5% last year. "Struggling" is relative, one supposes. It's easier to grow when the baseline is lower per capita, so I'm not saying China's economy is currently superior to Western economies. But let's get the facts on the table.

2. Huge reliance on imports? Come again?

3. I've already addressed aging population and declining birthrate.

These factors matter when the individual is the key unit of production. When that ceases to be true, they become far less important than what the economists call industrial organization. The industrial organization of the future will not exactly follow its past.

It's likely that 4.5% GDP growth is exaggerated by half...and even if it is not - 4.5% represents a significant reduction from their Pre-Covid levels. China's biggest issue vis a vis its economy is that historically and culturally they've focused on production and anti-consumption - and transitioning to a consumption based economy is difficult. And regardless - having a few billion unemployed workers - as AI and automation handle production - is a recipe for social disaster. So, while I agree that China may be better suited to handle the social welfare of a community completely reliant on automation - it also doesn't paint a rosy picture.

 

[Paine]

Speaking of unserious…I don’t know any expert that thinks China is in a better position than the US and that with a felon as president followed by an old man followed by the felon.

Right. I’m not saying China is some unstoppable juggernaut or that the U.S. is doomed. We still have enormous advantages: economic scale, innovation, global influence. But we’re squandering them. The issue isn’t whether China will “beat” us, it’s that they’ve shown how national strategy and long-term vision can produce serious global leverage. We, on the other hand, are drifting. If we want to stay strong, we need more than vibes and slogans; we need a plan and a purpose. Now.

 

[superrific]

I’m talking about the perception that was long held that China would become the predominant superpower in the world. That is not going to happen.

It is more likely than not, if you're looking at the right time frame.

 

[superrific]

It's likely that 4.5% GDP growth is exaggerated by half...and even if it is not - 4.5% represents a significant reduction from their Pre-Covid levels. China's biggest issue vis a vis its economy is that historically and culturally they've focused on production and anti-consumption - and transitioning to a consumption based economy is difficult. And regardless - having a few billion unemployed workers - as AI and automation handle production - is a recipe for social disaster. So, while I agree that China may be better suited to handle the social welfare of a community completely reliant on automation - it also doesn't paint a rosy picture.

Your point about going to a consumption based model is a good one.

As for the growth rate, that's more of a short term thing in my view. Yes, it's decreased from where it was. That's because economic growth always slows as economies mature.

There are two main drivers of economic growth: productivity improvements and growth of factor inputs. The second one is considerably easier. There are remote, off-the-grid villages somewhere? Great, build a road and lay some cable and presto -- you've increased your factors as you've now brought labor online and an additional consumer market. Population growth is an increase in factor inputs (which is why immigration = growth). Women in the workforce is an increase in factor inputs.

Nascent economies have many opportunities to increase their factors, and thus they do. That's why their growth rates can look so eye-poppingly high. The Soviet Union did just that: in the 1920s, the Soviet economy grew quickly because it repurposed an almost feudal environment in the countryside to factor workers. After that, the Soviet economy stagnated because, unable to increase factors any further (especially with 10M dead in WWII or however many, plus millions less Ukranians from starvation and however many political prisoners etc), it would have to rely on productivity improvements and the Soviets were not so good at that (and they got worse over time).

China had a lot of factors to bring online, given its enormous population and the economic mess that the Cultural Revolution left. As the low-picking fruit gets harvested, the growth rate will necessarily decline. Eventually, the Chinese growth rate will, like the US growth rate, depend mostly on productivity improvements, such as those achieved through automation. Thus will China's and America's growth rates converge, unless one or the other countries pulls decisively ahead in technology.

 

[uncmba]

What happens in a world where China starts producing better IP than the rest of the World? We keep firing scientist and researchers at the NIH and other organizations while graduating thousands of engineers and researchers every year.

 

[ChileG]

Dumbass overplayed a hand he didn’t have.

He truly believed these countries would bend the knee.

The acolytes here think they already did.

 

[05C40]

The current Chinese system isn't "leftist" - the Chinese "Communist Party" isn't communist. It is authoritarian and doesn't really fit well on the Left/Right axis. In fact, there was debate in the party about changing their name but they kept it for "historical" reasons. Regardless, the Chinese people have benefited from the Chinese government's leadership in many areas. More people have been lifted out of poverty in China over the last 30 years than any other place in the history of civilization. China's poverty rate fell from nearly 90% in 1980 (!!!) to .7% now. It's a remarkable change. Infrastructure - roads, transportation, healthcare - have all improved equally dramatically.

Where the PRC fails is obviously human rights, freedom of speech, freedom of movement. Its treatment of the Uyghur and ethnic Tibetans is abhorrent. And since Covid - these issues have become more pronounced. Post Covid - China has faced a number of significant challenges and prior to Trump's inauguration - China appeared to be on the brink of economic collapse. They have a significant debt crisis that is only getitng worse and their youth unemployment is at staggering levels (22% ++) - they have a legion of unemployed university educated youths and only factory jobs available. It's a major crisis - and one that has historically led to open rebellion and strife.

All of that said - China is generally and historically anti-imperialist. What China demands is economic power more than imperialist power. China seeks the means to control its own corner of the world while insuring maximum economic benefit to its country. This isn't the Soviet Union, but I'm also not sure it is as much a threat to the USA hegemony as a lot of people think. They are however a significant threat to western IP. IP theft is their greatest crime and it is ongoing.

So are you suggesting that about 1980, China decided to move fast and break things? If so, interesting that this same sentiment seems to be the animating feature of American's oligarchic tech overlords.

 

[Bigs23]

The acolytes here think they already did.

Yeah they are also dumbasses.

 

[Paine]

So are you suggesting that about 1980, China decided to move fast and break things? If so, interesting that this same sentiment seems to be the animating feature of American's oligarchic tech overlords.

In the U.S., the mantra “move fast and break things” enriched a handful of tech oligarchs while eroding worker power, gutting public institutions and driving us deeper into social fragmentation. In China, state direction harnessed that energy to build national infrastructure, raise living standards, and expand industrial capacity, however authoritarian the delivery system may be.

The lesson here isn’t that China’s system is just or democratic because it isn’t. But it’s proof that strategic planning, long-term investment, and a clear (if top-down) sense of national purpose can still produce enormous material gains for a population.

Meanwhile, we’ve let our own system atrophy under the weight of gridlock, austerity, and hollow gestures. If we want to rebuild American strength, we’ll need our own democratic version of that urgency and vision, one rooted in solidarity and shared prosperity.

 

[Bobfripp]

Dumbass overplayed a hand he didn’t have.

He truly believed these countries would bend the knee.

Didn't Trump have all the cards? He always has all the cards!

 

[BillOfRights]

If we know anything in this country, a leader tweeting shit out is meaningless.

China has:
Currently a struggling economy
Huge reliance on imports
Terrible consumer confidence
Basically no diversity
Aging population
Declining birthrate

None of that takes into account the cost and overhead of being communist and suppressing thought and individualism.

China is not a threat. It used to be but no longer.

This seems to be a rather unusual assessment.

I would like to see your assessment of the United States and differences of your assessment of the US under Obama/Biden vs trump.

 

[superrific]

I don’t doubt that your scholar friends are thoughtful, but I’d caution against universalizing the views of a narrow, elite stratum educated in the West. There’s a difference between ideology as top-down doctrine and national purpose as lived emotional resonance. One doesn’t cancel the other out.

Well, my last paragraph made that same point. On the other hand, they weren't just telling me their own views; they were describing other Chinese as well. Yes, I know -- not a reliable sample because of size and bias but I wouldn't throw it away either.

I'm not sure which of those two items -- ideology and lived emotional resonance -- you think China has in spades. I'd say that the lived emotional resonance is not there among the population, based on what I know which isn't nothing but isn't a hell of a lot either.

 

[Paine]

Well, my last paragraph made that same point. On the other hand, they weren't just telling me their own views; they were describing other Chinese as well. Yes, I know -- not a reliable sample because of size and bias but I wouldn't throw it away either.

I'm not sure which of those two items -- ideology and lived emotional resonance -- you think China has in spades. I'd say that the lived emotional resonance is not there among the population, based on what I know which isn't nothing but isn't a hell of a lot either.

I get that your sample isn’t “nothing,” but this is where the limits of anecdotal exposure, especially filtered through elite academic circles, can really flatten things.

The idea that there’s no lived emotional resonance in China’s national narrative runs counter to a lot of observable phenomena: public ceremonies, popular films, viral online nationalism, and the broad public response to both internal crises and foreign pressure.

It’s not that every Chinese citizen is brimming with ideological fervor, but the CCP has clearly cultivated a shared sense of historical mission: overcoming the Century of Humiliation, resisting foreign interference, achieving rejuvenation. That emotional frame resonates far more deeply than Western observers often assume, especially those who only interact with the Western-educated subset of the Chinese population.

Frankly, we’d do well to ask why a narrative like that resonates so powerfully in the first place. What hunger does it fill? Because we’ve lost that sense of collective trajectory here, and pretending it’s all just empty propaganda will not help us recover it.

 

[superrific]

I get that your sample isn’t “nothing,” but this is where the limits of anecdotal exposure, especially filtered through elite academic circles, can really flatten things.

The idea that there’s no lived emotional resonance in China’s national narrative runs counter to a lot of observable phenomena: public ceremonies, popular films, viral online nationalism, and the broad public response to both internal crises and foreign pressure.

It’s not that every Chinese citizen is brimming with ideological fervor, but the CCP has clearly cultivated a shared sense of historical mission: overcoming the Century of Humiliation, resisting foreign interference, achieving rejuvenation. That emotional frame resonates far more deeply than Western observers often assume, especially those who only interact with the Western-educated subset of the Chinese population.

Frankly, we’d do well to ask why a narrative like that resonates so powerfully in the first place. What hunger does it fill? Because we’ve lost that sense of collective trajectory here, and pretending it’s all just empty propaganda will not help us recover it.

What is your expertise in China? Sure, there are limits to anecdotal exposure. What's the basis for your views?

The popular films from the mainland are all censored so that's no indicator. So too with public ceremonies, which took place throughout the Cultural Revolution and ever since. I have no idea how to assess viral online nationalism, but given the lack of freedom of the Chinese internet, I wouldn't put much stock in that. Back when Hong Kong was still in British hands, the films coming out of that environment were not at all like the mainland. In fact, IIRC, the Chinese government repudiated those popular movies.

And you are suggesting here that the Chinese people look fondly upon the Mao years? They very much do not. That's why the Chinese government banned To Live by Zhang Yimou.

 

[Paine]

What is your expertise in China? Sure, there are limits to anecdotal exposure. What's the basis for your views?

The popular films from the mainland are all censored so that's no indicator. So too with public ceremonies, which took place throughout the Cultural Revolution and ever since. I have no idea how to assess viral online nationalism, but given the lack of freedom of the Chinese internet, I wouldn't put much stock in that. Back when Hong Kong was still in British hands, the films coming out of that environment were not at all like the mainland. In fact, IIRC, the Chinese government repudiated those popular movies.

And you are suggesting here that the Chinese people look fondly upon the Mao years? They very much do not. That's why the Chinese government banned To Live by Zhang Yimou.

This is a message board, not a peer-reviewed journal. You’ve shared your views on China based on conversations with expat scholars and general reading, so have I. That’s fair game here. You don’t get to appeal to “expertise” when someone pushes back with a different interpretation, especially when your own basis is anecdotal and secondhand.

I’m not claiming academic expertise, and I’ve been careful not to present my view as definitive. But I also think we can’t reduce understanding of a country like China to “what elite academics or expats say” versus “everything else is propaganda.” My point isn’t that the CCP’s narrative is uniformly embraced or that there’s no censorship. Of course there is. The point is that national stories can resonate emotionally even in constrained environments, and often because they tap into deep historical memory and identity.

The appeal of the “rejuvenation” narrative isn’t about fondness for the Mao years. It’s about positioning modern China as overcoming foreign domination, poverty, and chaos to reclaim its place in the world. That framing draws on a selective memory of history, yes, but so do all national stories. And when you see large segments of the population respond with pride to milestones like the Belt and Road Initiative or technological achievements, that’s not just state coercion. It reflects a kind of emotional identification that is often missed by folks like yourself.

I’m not romanticizing the system or ignoring dissent. I’m saying that there’s a civic emotional reality in China that’s more complex than saying people are simply going through the motions.

 

[Paine]

What happens in a world where China starts producing better IP than the rest of the World? We keep firing scientist and researchers at the NIH and other organizations while graduating thousands of engineers and researchers every year.

That’s the real scenario we should be preparing for. Not a Cold War-style ideological battle but a competition over innovation, production, and the national capacity to deliver results. If China starts outpacing the U.S. in key areas of research and development, it won’t matter whether their system is called communist, authoritarian, or anything else. What will matter is outcomes.

We’ve spent decades hollowing out our public research infrastructure, devaluing science and industrial policy, and treating innovation like something that should be left to private venture capital. Meanwhile, China has been investing in state-backed industrial planning, STEM education, and national goals with real teeth.

If we respond to that by doubling down on austerity, gridlock, and culture war distraction, while purging talent from NIH, DOE, and NSF, we’re going to fall behind. Not because China “cheated,” but because we let our own national purpose wither.