5 ms·

> If the nationalists had defeated the communists and the mainland and Taiwan had remained united, I doubt that the tensions between China and the US would be l

> If the nationalists had defeated the communists and the mainland and Taiwan had remained united, I doubt that the tensions between China and the US would be less than they currently are. I disagree, and this is a fun thought experiment. 1. The relationship would be a hybrid of the relationships that the US has with both Japan / South Korea and India. - China would be a friendly enough, export focused economy that's too large to be bullied by the US - It would historically have been a Cold War ally, giving it a larger edge over India 2. The West would have access to China's economy. 3. There would be less uncertainty about laws, helping the business climate. 4. Silicon Valley's crown would have been usurped 10 years ago or even far earlier. Why? Because China would have more personal freedoms and protections like with speech. Freedom of speech is instrumental to places like Silicon Valley where creativity is vital. Things like the adoption of the Internet would have been far earlier. 5. HK would have long been a shadow of itself. Shanghai would have taken its place far sooner. 6. While corruption would still be bad, it would be much better than present circumstances due to a free press and more transparency. 7. Tensions with Japan would be worse, due to freedom of speech and much earlier economic and technological rivalry 8. Chinese global economic influence and dominance would be much greater and would have happened much faster and earlier. 9. Chinese media such as TV shows and movies would be way more interesting instead of the boring period pieces or variety shows they keep cranking out today. 10. The male to female ratio would be almost equal due to more civil rights for women which leads to more economic opportunities for females We could go on what China could have been... the Asian equivalent of the US. This would be a cool TV series. Reminds of The Man in High Tower TV show.

mytailorisrich 6y ago
This ignores geopolitical realities and the Chinese struggle to do away with foreign aggression and a decadent trend over the last 3 centuries. I am not trying to dream up what China could have been. I am saying that the tensions between China and the West stem from a trend that is more profound that the current Chinese regime. For example I think that virtually everything China is criticised about in its geopolitical policies and actions would be unchanged with a different regime because these are not things dreamed up by the communists but are deeper both in historical terms and in geopolitical interests terms. The communist party itself is a product of these trends and this struggle, not the cause.
- chaostheory 6y ago
  I’m not sure what “geopolitical realities” I’m missing because the KMT was born from the same grandfather that sired the CCP, Sun Yatzen. Also, almost all of Asia has been either under the colonial yoke or sphere of influence yet they are still friendly to the West due to both political alignment and deeper economic integration. I feel that history better supports my argument than it does yours
  - mytailorisrich 6y ago
    Exactly, the KMT was born from the same struggle as the CCP, and their overall policies regarding China's territorial claims and place in the world are quite aligned because these really are aims of the Chinese people, not specific political parties. The tensions between China and the West result from China's rise, not from the CCP being in power. China is not more or less 'friendly' because of the CCP. They are simply asserting themselves, advancing their interests, and trying to right perceived historical wrongs. How 'friendly' countries are between each others (and China isn't really unfriendly) depends on their interests, not really on political regimes. Case in point: The US are extremely friendly with Saudi Arabia. 'friendly' in this context is pretty meaningless, but if you insist: Korea is 'friendly' (well half of it) with the West because it sees it in its interests in order to balance China (and Japan) and because as a small country there is no reason not to be friendly, plus there are American troops there to remind them. They were as 'friendly' under the military dictatorship. Japan is 'friendly' because it sees it in its interests (against Russia and China, especially during the cold war) and because it was not left a choice anyway. When Vietnam opens up to the US it is to balance China's rise. The US are quite happy with that although Vietnam's regime is very similar to China's. Why? shared interests again. China does not need to balance between the big guys and to stay on their good side in that way. It is one of the biggest guys, so it acts like the US do, and that is the root of the problem for the US. Hopefully this clarifies the "geopolitical realities". To think that if 2 countries are both democracies they will be 'friendly', or that if they aren't they won't be, is very naive, frankly.
    - chaostheory 6y ago
jbay808 6y ago
I think tensions with Japan would be much lower. In Taiwan right now, popular opinion of Japan is super high. Although the historical grievances against Japan are of course deep, I think the PRC government has played a strong role in ensuring that its population never forgives Japan and keeps the feeling of victimization fresh. See also the huge number of populist anti-Japan war dramas being produced in Mainland China.
- chaostheory 6y ago
  By the same token, the PRC also tends to end any anti-Japan protests or related violence, but you have a point.
  - jbay808 6y ago
    Setting aside the fact that those protests end up smashing windows of helpless Chinese sushi chefs, rather than actual Japanese people, the PRC also doesn't legitimately want to provoke an international conflict with Japan. They just want to keep the flames of national passions burning, so that they can command the loyalty and unity of their citizenry. If a Japanese expat got killed in some protest, it would be a major diplomatic problem and China might have to apologize, which would look bad.

mytailorisrich 6y ago

This ignores geopolitical realities and the Chinese struggle to do away with foreign aggression and a decadent trend over the last 3 centuries. I am not trying to dream up what China could have been. I am saying that the tensions between China and the West stem from a trend that is more profound that the current Chinese regime. For example I think that virtually everything China is criticised about in its geopolitical policies and actions would be unchanged with a different regime because these are not things dreamed up by the communists but are deeper both in historical terms and in geopolitical interests terms. The communist party itself is a product of these trends and this struggle, not the cause.

chaostheory 6y ago
I’m not sure what “geopolitical realities” I’m missing because the KMT was born from the same grandfather that sired the CCP, Sun Yatzen. Also, almost all of Asia has been either under the colonial yoke or sphere of influence yet they are still friendly to the West due to both political alignment and deeper economic integration. I feel that history better supports my argument than it does yours
- mytailorisrich 6y ago
  Exactly, the KMT was born from the same struggle as the CCP, and their overall policies regarding China's territorial claims and place in the world are quite aligned because these really are aims of the Chinese people, not specific political parties. The tensions between China and the West result from China's rise, not from the CCP being in power. China is not more or less 'friendly' because of the CCP. They are simply asserting themselves, advancing their interests, and trying to right perceived historical wrongs. How 'friendly' countries are between each others (and China isn't really unfriendly) depends on their interests, not really on political regimes. Case in point: The US are extremely friendly with Saudi Arabia. 'friendly' in this context is pretty meaningless, but if you insist: Korea is 'friendly' (well half of it) with the West because it sees it in its interests in order to balance China (and Japan) and because as a small country there is no reason not to be friendly, plus there are American troops there to remind them. They were as 'friendly' under the military dictatorship. Japan is 'friendly' because it sees it in its interests (against Russia and China, especially during the cold war) and because it was not left a choice anyway. When Vietnam opens up to the US it is to balance China's rise. The US are quite happy with that although Vietnam's regime is very similar to China's. Why? shared interests again. China does not need to balance between the big guys and to stay on their good side in that way. It is one of the biggest guys, so it acts like the US do, and that is the root of the problem for the US. Hopefully this clarifies the "geopolitical realities". To think that if 2 countries are both democracies they will be 'friendly', or that if they aren't they won't be, is very naive, frankly.
  - chaostheory 6y ago

jbay808 6y ago

I think tensions with Japan would be much lower. In Taiwan right now, popular opinion of Japan is super high. Although the historical grievances against Japan are of course deep, I think the PRC government has played a strong role in ensuring that its population never forgives Japan and keeps the feeling of victimization fresh. See also the huge number of populist anti-Japan war dramas being produced in Mainland China.

chaostheory 6y ago
By the same token, the PRC also tends to end any anti-Japan protests or related violence, but you have a point.
- jbay808 6y ago
  Setting aside the fact that those protests end up smashing windows of helpless Chinese sushi chefs, rather than actual Japanese people, the PRC also doesn't legitimately want to provoke an international conflict with Japan. They just want to keep the flames of national passions burning, so that they can command the loyalty and unity of their citizenry. If a Japanese expat got killed in some protest, it would be a major diplomatic problem and China might have to apologize, which would look bad.