Post 2/2 2) Nothing suggests to me that the Chinese model will not work. Similarly, I disagree with you that Nazi ideology does not work. Yes, Nazi leadershi

Post 2/2 2) Nothing suggests to me that the Chinese model will not work. Similarly, I disagree with you that Nazi ideology does not work. Yes, Nazi leadership in the 20th century ultimately lost, and they did so in no small part due to their own hubris, but I think you are sorely mistaken if you believe that this means that Nazi ideology is not a workable political model. There have been many, many nations and empires built upon the concepts that a certain class or race of people were superior, and that the rich deserved to rule the nation, among the other aspects of fascist ideology. Given a different time, country, or leadership, there could still be a Nazi government alive and well in Europe today. In fact, I would point to the fact that there is such a large international Nazi movement alive and well today, despite such gigantic attempts to constrain it, as a good indication that it is a workable and viable political movement. It is also, however, simply NOT a world I would want to live in. The fall of the Nazis did not prove that one race was or was not stronger or "better" than another. It partially proved that the world wanted to live in a world that did not have to contend with such a competition between governments, peoples and races. It was a fundamentally moral question about what type of world we want to live in. I do not want to live in a world where Nazi ideology is the dominant ideology, and would give my life to prevent it. But this is not because I do not think Nazi ideology is a workable form of government, or that Nazi ideology would not keep its chosen people safe. It is because I fundamentally do not want to live in that world, and do not believe that that is a world humanity, or at least myself, needs to accept. I feel similarly about post-Leninist, or post-Maoist one party rule as I do living under a monarch, or living under a dictator, a theocracy, or a fascist government. It is not that these systems do not work. It is that I do not believe these governments to be ideal or good types of governance, for either moral or quality-of-life reasons for the people thus ruled. 3) I agree with your point #3. However, you then use this as a reason to argue against change and reform. But as I stated earlier, all governments are always in a state of change and reform, so this is an invalid step of logic. But there's a more insidious aspect to this argument, that I'm not sure you considered. Your argument here takes as an assumption that no matter what the effects are of political/organizational change and reform are, that the people involved are powerless to either correct the mistakes, or decide for themselves. In short, it implies that the people within a country have no capability of determining their own lives. That people are purely a product of their environment, and thus must be shaped by a greater force or person with power in order to improve. Ironically, historically, systems organized in this way almost always result in the people making the decisions being the people who are the most isolated, pampered, richest, and farthest removed from the effects of their decisions in the society. That in turn does usually mean that the country is unable to course-correct when negative reforms are made, due to the simple fact that those making the decisions are too far removed from the results of their decisions to intelligently know when to course correct. But if we throw out that underlying assumption to begin with, and assume that people do have the ability to comprehend what is good and bad in their own lives, to at least some degree, then the fear of second order effects you are mentioning is severely mitigated, and possibly ceases to exist outright. Allow me to put this another way: reform and change always occurs within a country. If that reform and change is not recognized by a country's organization, then it will happen informally and quietly in the hands of individuals with power, likely for their own benefit at the expense of the rest, and likely without recourse or the ability to correct mistakes. If, however, the country has a political process by which to reform itself, then that means that there is also, by definition, a way for some people in the country to undo reforms that do not work out. In other words, you do not need to worry about reform leading to the death and misery of the people. Those that have the power to reform, by definition, will have the power to undo reform that is seen as negative. What you need to worry about, are allowing the wrong people to have this power in an unaccountable way, or organizing your society in a manner where such reform is impossible and the only possibility is eventual revolution and bloodshed. Ironically, both of these things become substantially more likely the more and more authoritarian a country is. 4) I believe I also addressed this in the previous point. So to summarize: 5) Yes, the Chinese model likely works. With so many people in China, stability is greatly needed, and that is important, because the stakes are so unfathomably high. But a belief that the current Chinese model is the only model that could work for China is wrong. Indeed, a counter argument could be easily made (as it could be for almost all governments) that the majority of major problems China currently faces is the result of its current political structure, not solved or benefited by it. The only way to address those problems, is through academic study and comparison to other political systems so that one might identify how Chinese governance must be reformed in order to solve those problems. But the belief that change is not warranted and is unsafe both ignores the fact that change is always occurring, and dooms the country to its current path. And since its current path is one of increasing authoritarianism, the natural result of your argument, is, ironically, that the Chinese people, and the world, are less safe from the fears you mentioned at the beginning of your post as a result, not better. Or to put it another way: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety, and will soon have Neither."