Here’s the question, when we talk about China the country, are we talking about the Chinese people, or their government? Because I have very different answers for the two.
I’ve grown up with and worked with Chinese Americans, both from mainland China and Taiwan. I want to see them have freedom of speech and expression and ability to criticize the government, so I have to be adversarial to the CCP. I can’t imagine liking Chinese people and the CCP simultaneously, knowing what the party does – I want the latter reformed so the former can thrive.
I also think there’s a lot of innovation for the human race as a whole if China and the US are rivals, not adversaries. Friendly competition leads to scientific advancements without compromising on joint research and efforts.
The thing is, you can’t really separate the Chinese people from the CCP. Something like 7% of the population are members and the party has very high approval ratings. That’s not just because the CCP are good propagandists either. Rather the living conditions for the average Chinese person have improved dramatically over the course of only a few decades thanks to policy decisions made by the CCP. As such, opposing the CCP and wanting the Chinese people to thrive may be seen as a highly contradictory perspective to people living in mainland China.
While I would agree that many in the US have strong feelings about their party affiliation, I don’t think it’s quite the same.
For one thing, by joining the CCP you are actually required to participate. I don’t know the numbers off hand, but I imagine far fewer people in the US actually participate in their local Democratic or Republican party clubs. Additionally, the approval ratings of democrats or republicans is lower than the CCP’s even if you only poll their respective party members.
Rather the living conditions for the average Chinese person have improved dramatically over the course of only a few decades thanks to policy decisions made by the CCP.
Not sure if that explains it all. CCP had high approval ratings also 1950s and 1960s when their policies caused millions of people to starve to death. But sure, they have made some pretty good pro-free market revisions in the last few decades, which has made them float to top of the world. It doesn’t look like it’s going to last for very long, though – their population is changing and they’re still clinging to the obviously wrong communist principles, which makes adapting to changing circumstances slow.
What I don’t understand is what was the point of the civil war, then? If they’re becoming the Republic of China, why call themself communist anymore? Perhaps they should really join Taiwan, and just stop their silly socialist experiment. That’s the peaceful reunification I would like to see.
I don’t think we have any reliable polling data to say what the approval rating of the government was during the Great Leap Forward. However, Mao did lose a lot of influence within the CCP as a consequence. As such I think it’s safe to say there was lots of dissatisfaction at least within the party itself.
As for why the CCP doesn’t drop their communists principles it’s simple. They’re still communists who believe in Marxism-Leninism. They just don’t have a principled aversion to markets as long as they’re useful for raising living standards and economic development.
They do however have an aversion to political liberalization. This was in part informed by what they saw as a failure of the joint market and political reforms happening in Eastern European socialist countries. The CCP’s fear was that political liberalization would empower a nascent capitalist class which could lead to economic disaster. I don’t think they were necessarily wrong in this regard as that’s exactly what happened to Russia only a few years later.
If you want the CCP to stop what you see as a silly socialist experiment you’ll have to give them better reasons to. The CCP isn’t irrational. They’re just working from a different set of assumptions than you are.
The CCP’s fear was that political liberalization would empower a nascent capitalist class which could lead to economic disaster. I don’t think they were necessarily wrong in this regard as that’s exactly what happened to Russia only a few years later.
I would call that class in Russia a nascent criminal class, not capitalist class. But if you’re inclined to think from the left, perhaps you equate these classes.
You’re right that that group indeed caused a catastrophe in Russia’s liberalization attempt. Some sources claim that Putin has absolutely no interest (and therefore, probably, knowledge) in economic matters, which might be one of the reasons why he failed. Argentina and Milei will perhaps show us soon if liberalization will work better if the person leading it is interested in economics. Argentina’s and Russias GDP per capita has been roughly similar after Argentina’s crash in early 2000s, so the countries are at least in some ways comparable.
That’s racist and orientalist af. A people and their government are never equated. They’re always separate things. That’s literally sinophobia. Will you tell us that PRC citizens overseas are equal to their government as well, justifying their repression overseas?
How is that racist at all? The comment wasn’t making it out to be a negative thing, or saying that Chinese citizens were somehow wrong by supporting the CCP. I just fail to see how it is racist to point out the fact that the CCP has supporters in China. Seems obvious.
The thing is those examples you gave really are not comparable to the massive and sustained economic growth China has experienced since their economic reforms in the late 80s. Putin has only overseen a modest economic recovery following the disaster that was economic shock therapy in the 90s. As for Hitler, he provided the German economy with whatever you would call the exact opposite of stability.
I believe Putin’s appeal is having led the country out of that economic disaster, so even though there isn’t massive growth under him, he was elected and maintained power for taking them out of the very bad times.
I should’ve clarified my comment on Hitler a bit, because you’re right there haha. Similar to Putin, Hitler got Germany out of their economic disaster. That recovery is what actually got him Time person of the year. Everyone’s well aware what followed however.
There’s a phenomenon where the leader at the end of an economic crisis, or a leader jumpstarting their economy, gets very high support. That leader though isn’t infallible. Hitler drove Germany to ruin, and Putin has caused devastating damage to Russia.
My point in all this – getting a good economy does not necessarily mean a politician or political entity will always do the best for their country. In this case, I think invading Taiwan would be the beginning of their end.
Here’s the question, when we talk about China the country, are we talking about the Chinese people, or their government? Because I have very different answers for the two.
I’ve grown up with and worked with Chinese Americans, both from mainland China and Taiwan. I want to see them have freedom of speech and expression and ability to criticize the government, so I have to be adversarial to the CCP. I can’t imagine liking Chinese people and the CCP simultaneously, knowing what the party does – I want the latter reformed so the former can thrive.
I also think there’s a lot of innovation for the human race as a whole if China and the US are rivals, not adversaries. Friendly competition leads to scientific advancements without compromising on joint research and efforts.
The thing is, you can’t really separate the Chinese people from the CCP. Something like 7% of the population are members and the party has very high approval ratings. That’s not just because the CCP are good propagandists either. Rather the living conditions for the average Chinese person have improved dramatically over the course of only a few decades thanks to policy decisions made by the CCP. As such, opposing the CCP and wanting the Chinese people to thrive may be seen as a highly contradictory perspective to people living in mainland China.
By that logic, it’s the same for usa.
While I would agree that many in the US have strong feelings about their party affiliation, I don’t think it’s quite the same.
For one thing, by joining the CCP you are actually required to participate. I don’t know the numbers off hand, but I imagine far fewer people in the US actually participate in their local Democratic or Republican party clubs. Additionally, the approval ratings of democrats or republicans is lower than the CCP’s even if you only poll their respective party members.
Not sure if that explains it all. CCP had high approval ratings also 1950s and 1960s when their policies caused millions of people to starve to death. But sure, they have made some pretty good pro-free market revisions in the last few decades, which has made them float to top of the world. It doesn’t look like it’s going to last for very long, though – their population is changing and they’re still clinging to the obviously wrong communist principles, which makes adapting to changing circumstances slow.
What I don’t understand is what was the point of the civil war, then? If they’re becoming the Republic of China, why call themself communist anymore? Perhaps they should really join Taiwan, and just stop their silly socialist experiment. That’s the peaceful reunification I would like to see.
I don’t think we have any reliable polling data to say what the approval rating of the government was during the Great Leap Forward. However, Mao did lose a lot of influence within the CCP as a consequence. As such I think it’s safe to say there was lots of dissatisfaction at least within the party itself.
As for why the CCP doesn’t drop their communists principles it’s simple. They’re still communists who believe in Marxism-Leninism. They just don’t have a principled aversion to markets as long as they’re useful for raising living standards and economic development.
They do however have an aversion to political liberalization. This was in part informed by what they saw as a failure of the joint market and political reforms happening in Eastern European socialist countries. The CCP’s fear was that political liberalization would empower a nascent capitalist class which could lead to economic disaster. I don’t think they were necessarily wrong in this regard as that’s exactly what happened to Russia only a few years later.
If you want the CCP to stop what you see as a silly socialist experiment you’ll have to give them better reasons to. The CCP isn’t irrational. They’re just working from a different set of assumptions than you are.
I would call that class in Russia a nascent criminal class, not capitalist class. But if you’re inclined to think from the left, perhaps you equate these classes.
You’re right that that group indeed caused a catastrophe in Russia’s liberalization attempt. Some sources claim that Putin has absolutely no interest (and therefore, probably, knowledge) in economic matters, which might be one of the reasons why he failed. Argentina and Milei will perhaps show us soon if liberalization will work better if the person leading it is interested in economics. Argentina’s and Russias GDP per capita has been roughly similar after Argentina’s crash in early 2000s, so the countries are at least in some ways comparable.
That’s racist and orientalist af. A people and their government are never equated. They’re always separate things. That’s literally sinophobia. Will you tell us that PRC citizens overseas are equal to their government as well, justifying their repression overseas?
How is that racist at all? The comment wasn’t making it out to be a negative thing, or saying that Chinese citizens were somehow wrong by supporting the CCP. I just fail to see how it is racist to point out the fact that the CCP has supporters in China. Seems obvious.
Thankfully I never equated them.
You said they can’t be separated. If they can’t be separated, then functionally they’re the same thing, hence you very much did equate them.
But I think maybe English is not your first language, so maybe you can be forgiven for using the language sloppily. If you know what I mean.
If you like people not being poor, you like the CPC
Hitler and Putin also lifted a lot of people out of poverty and addressed terrible economies. They provided stability.
That in no way however means that they are supported by people who want to eliminate poverty.
The thing is those examples you gave really are not comparable to the massive and sustained economic growth China has experienced since their economic reforms in the late 80s. Putin has only overseen a modest economic recovery following the disaster that was economic shock therapy in the 90s. As for Hitler, he provided the German economy with whatever you would call the exact opposite of stability.
I believe Putin’s appeal is having led the country out of that economic disaster, so even though there isn’t massive growth under him, he was elected and maintained power for taking them out of the very bad times.
I should’ve clarified my comment on Hitler a bit, because you’re right there haha. Similar to Putin, Hitler got Germany out of their economic disaster. That recovery is what actually got him Time person of the year. Everyone’s well aware what followed however.
There’s a phenomenon where the leader at the end of an economic crisis, or a leader jumpstarting their economy, gets very high support. That leader though isn’t infallible. Hitler drove Germany to ruin, and Putin has caused devastating damage to Russia.
My point in all this – getting a good economy does not necessarily mean a politician or political entity will always do the best for their country. In this case, I think invading Taiwan would be the beginning of their end.