6 ms·

> the idea that peaceful protesting or rule-abiding political opposition is generally effective. I understand you are making a stylized appeal for liberal pol

> the idea that peaceful protesting or rule-abiding political opposition is generally effective. I understand you are making a stylized appeal for liberal political change via violence. China's leadership has peaks and troughs of liberalism, and violence there, in the Soviet Union, Venezuela, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Iran and in many other places around the world was followed more often by a hardening, not a softening, of daily life. Violence in Hong Kong would delay liberalization and usher a vicious and oppressive crackdown. > legitimization strategy for political changes that were already in development before the protest started. Here you appear to know that the real strategy is waiting. Eventually, Xi will die, and it's more likely than not that his successors will liberalize.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> Eventually, Xi will die, and it's more likely than not that his successors will liberalize It is more likely there will be a contest for power. It could become violent, though that is unlikely. In that event, I see no reason to ensure like-minded Chinese are sufficiently armed, or at the very least informed. China's path changed when Xi installed himself as dictator for life. It's foolish to ignore that seismic shift.
- NhanH 5y ago
  Not holding the office for life was relatively new changes in the 90s when Deng Xiaoping stepped down (just a bit, he was the paramount leader despite never hold the two highest positions in China. So the step down from Central Military Commission was mostly ceremonial for the next few years or so.) If you believe that Xi Jinping has Chinese’s best interest at heart, and he believes that in 2018 China was still under turmoil that only he can manage to get them through, and that he was still (relatively) young even now. Then it is conceivable he would step down in a few years or so in his 70s. Yes, it’s best if your President can’t change the constitution at will, but that has never been China and the situation might not be that big of a shift
- baybal2 5y ago
  > China's path changed when Xi installed himself as dictator for life. It's foolish to ignore that seismic shift. It didn't change. It's foolish to not to acknowledge that communists been in power in China all along. Hu, and Wen were just very convenient fronts the party let the West, and its populace see, while it was pulling strings from behind, and bidding time for the comeback in force. The West, its politicians, its generals, its intelligence analysts, and its civil society, have been completely bought into that laughably trivial deception.
  - powerapple 5y ago
    When was Obama's contain China strategy declared? The only thing the West didn't predict to happen is that with the development of living standard, Chinese people become more supportive of their government. It has shown again only sanction works: make people suffer, then they will overthrown your enemy.
    - Dah00n 5y ago
      In 50 years it's as likely to be China that can sanction the US into submission as the US can sanction China. IMO much more likely. The US (and everyone that follows their contain evil strategy) is shooting themselves in the foot.
      - powerapple 5y ago
        I think many people are seeing the world at where they stand, not taking into consideration of others' position. China and US are at different development stage. The idea of political system is very misleading. I don't think sanction is right, and I don't think sanction does anything good to countries being sanctioned. And I believe when people's living standard rise, every country will be more democratic and fair. Is China's political system the reason US is not happy about? I don't think so. It was the same political system 10 years ago, 20 years ago. The reason is that China is stronger now. Unless US has a direct influence on China, it will not tolerate a competitor regardless the political system.
      - 5y ago
- skissane 5y ago
  I think eventually something is going to break with the CCP system. But that could easily take another 50 years or more. Something many of us will not live to see. The Chinese government sustains itself in power through economic growth and nationalism. That then leads to the two most likely factors (in my opinion) to lead to its eventual downfall – (i) if economic growth gets replaced by stagnation or even decline; (ii) a national military humiliation, such as if an attempt to conquer Taiwan turns into a costly failure. And I think either or both factors is likely to happen eventually, but still that could be many decades away. 10 or 20 years from now, the CCP will most likely still be going strong.
  - mytailorisrich 5y ago
    Nationalism is a reaction of Chinese society that predates the CCP. The CCP is a product of it, not the cause. Indeed they know that they have to show achievements in that area because that's what the people want. As a matter of fact that have actually being successful in that regards when the Nationalists had failed. On the world stage the focus is on the CCP and China's political regime because it makes selling anti-China campaigns and measures to the public much easier but it is a red herring. If tomorrow the whole of China became a democracy very little to nothing of their key policies and aims would change, the difference would be that the US would have a harder time explaining to us why China is "evil" (the reason being simply that they are getting too powerful for the West).
    - skissane 5y ago
      The West and India seem to get along much better than the West and China. Is that simply because India is weaker? Or is it because India and the West are closer in values? India has a pluralist political system; China doesn't. (There are of course some doubts about what direction India is going in given the Modi government, but even given those concerns, India still has far more of a pluralist political system than China does – BJP is in opposition in 7 state legislatures. In China, opposition is illegal.)
      - mytailorisrich 5y ago
bhawks 5y ago
> Here you appear to know that the real strategy is waiting. Eventually, Xi will die, and it's more likely than not that his successors will liberalize. What leads you to think this will be the case? The west has been trying to spread liberal democracy for over the past 100 years. It is successful in some places, but not in others. There doesn't seem to be magic formula, and as technology disrupts human interactions it feels like existing liberal democracies are at risk. I want to share your optimism. Orwell's vision of the future being a boot stomping on a person's head forever feels a little too close to being a reality. I don't think passively waiting for more benevolent masters is a winning strategy.
- GordonS 5y ago
  > The west has been trying to spread liberal democracy for over the past 100 years. It is successful in some places, but not in others. I think success largely depends on how democracy arrives - we've seen time and time again that forcing it upon a country (whether by military force or the more skullduggerous, CIA kind of force) is doomed to failure. I believe it needs to come naturally, slowly, over time.
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    It's hard to deliver democracy and freedom by oppressive means; the means undermine the ends. However, it's also a common error of the privileged to consign the suffering to wait for a slow, gradual process that results in their entire lives passing by, and those of their children and grandchildren, etc.
AussieWog93 5y ago
>Eventually, Xi will die, and it's more likely than not that his successors will liberalize. Based on what evidence?

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

> Eventually, Xi will die, and it's more likely than not that his successors will liberalize It is more likely there will be a contest for power. It could become violent, though that is unlikely. In that event, I see no reason to ensure like-minded Chinese are sufficiently armed, or at the very least informed. China's path changed when Xi installed himself as dictator for life. It's foolish to ignore that seismic shift.

NhanH 5y ago
Not holding the office for life was relatively new changes in the 90s when Deng Xiaoping stepped down (just a bit, he was the paramount leader despite never hold the two highest positions in China. So the step down from Central Military Commission was mostly ceremonial for the next few years or so.) If you believe that Xi Jinping has Chinese’s best interest at heart, and he believes that in 2018 China was still under turmoil that only he can manage to get them through, and that he was still (relatively) young even now. Then it is conceivable he would step down in a few years or so in his 70s. Yes, it’s best if your President can’t change the constitution at will, but that has never been China and the situation might not be that big of a shift
baybal2 5y ago
> China's path changed when Xi installed himself as dictator for life. It's foolish to ignore that seismic shift. It didn't change. It's foolish to not to acknowledge that communists been in power in China all along. Hu, and Wen were just very convenient fronts the party let the West, and its populace see, while it was pulling strings from behind, and bidding time for the comeback in force. The West, its politicians, its generals, its intelligence analysts, and its civil society, have been completely bought into that laughably trivial deception.
- powerapple 5y ago
  When was Obama's contain China strategy declared? The only thing the West didn't predict to happen is that with the development of living standard, Chinese people become more supportive of their government. It has shown again only sanction works: make people suffer, then they will overthrown your enemy.
  - Dah00n 5y ago
    In 50 years it's as likely to be China that can sanction the US into submission as the US can sanction China. IMO much more likely. The US (and everyone that follows their contain evil strategy) is shooting themselves in the foot.
    - powerapple 5y ago
      I think many people are seeing the world at where they stand, not taking into consideration of others' position. China and US are at different development stage. The idea of political system is very misleading. I don't think sanction is right, and I don't think sanction does anything good to countries being sanctioned. And I believe when people's living standard rise, every country will be more democratic and fair. Is China's political system the reason US is not happy about? I don't think so. It was the same political system 10 years ago, 20 years ago. The reason is that China is stronger now. Unless US has a direct influence on China, it will not tolerate a competitor regardless the political system.
    - 5y ago
skissane 5y ago
I think eventually something is going to break with the CCP system. But that could easily take another 50 years or more. Something many of us will not live to see. The Chinese government sustains itself in power through economic growth and nationalism. That then leads to the two most likely factors (in my opinion) to lead to its eventual downfall – (i) if economic growth gets replaced by stagnation or even decline; (ii) a national military humiliation, such as if an attempt to conquer Taiwan turns into a costly failure. And I think either or both factors is likely to happen eventually, but still that could be many decades away. 10 or 20 years from now, the CCP will most likely still be going strong.
- mytailorisrich 5y ago
  Nationalism is a reaction of Chinese society that predates the CCP. The CCP is a product of it, not the cause. Indeed they know that they have to show achievements in that area because that's what the people want. As a matter of fact that have actually being successful in that regards when the Nationalists had failed. On the world stage the focus is on the CCP and China's political regime because it makes selling anti-China campaigns and measures to the public much easier but it is a red herring. If tomorrow the whole of China became a democracy very little to nothing of their key policies and aims would change, the difference would be that the US would have a harder time explaining to us why China is "evil" (the reason being simply that they are getting too powerful for the West).
  - skissane 5y ago
    The West and India seem to get along much better than the West and China. Is that simply because India is weaker? Or is it because India and the West are closer in values? India has a pluralist political system; China doesn't. (There are of course some doubts about what direction India is going in given the Modi government, but even given those concerns, India still has far more of a pluralist political system than China does – BJP is in opposition in 7 state legislatures. In China, opposition is illegal.)
    - mytailorisrich 5y ago

bhawks 5y ago

> Here you appear to know that the real strategy is waiting. Eventually, Xi will die, and it's more likely than not that his successors will liberalize. What leads you to think this will be the case? The west has been trying to spread liberal democracy for over the past 100 years. It is successful in some places, but not in others. There doesn't seem to be magic formula, and as technology disrupts human interactions it feels like existing liberal democracies are at risk. I want to share your optimism. Orwell's vision of the future being a boot stomping on a person's head forever feels a little too close to being a reality. I don't think passively waiting for more benevolent masters is a winning strategy.

GordonS 5y ago
> The west has been trying to spread liberal democracy for over the past 100 years. It is successful in some places, but not in others. I think success largely depends on how democracy arrives - we've seen time and time again that forcing it upon a country (whether by military force or the more skullduggerous, CIA kind of force) is doomed to failure. I believe it needs to come naturally, slowly, over time.
- wolverine876 5y ago
  It's hard to deliver democracy and freedom by oppressive means; the means undermine the ends. However, it's also a common error of the privileged to consign the suffering to wait for a slow, gradual process that results in their entire lives passing by, and those of their children and grandchildren, etc.

AussieWog93 5y ago

>Eventually, Xi will die, and it's more likely than not that his successors will liberalize. Based on what evidence?