5 ms·

>If tomorrow the whole of China became a democracy very little to nothing of their key policies and aims would change No idea why you would say that. China's p

>If tomorrow the whole of China became a democracy very little to nothing of their key policies and aims would change No idea why you would say that. China's policy focus would immediately change. Domestically it can no longer afford to focus solely on middle/upper-class growth due to the need to appease the majority of the population still living on low wages. The transparency of the decision making would also cause a lot of domestic policies to be revisited. Currently these decisions are made with the public in the dark. That would no longer be acceptable in a democracy. On foreign policy and the geopolitical front, China will almost certainly pursue a reset with their neighbours. Whether this results in closer cooperation with the west, or continued antagonism remains to be seen. The Chinese military isn't in the same position as the USSR back in the 90s, and China will not inherit the position as the superpower heading the communist regimes. In any case, it will translate to real changes in how China deals with border issues and military expansion in the South China Sea.

mytailorisrich 5y ago
> No idea why you would say that. I was focussing on foreign policy and geopolitics, which really hasn't changed much since before the PRC. For instance their policy in the South China Sea is not something dreamt up by the CCP. The "9-dash line" predates the CCP and the PRC. It dates back to the ROC and as such is still the official policy in Taiwan as well (they keep quiet because they are too weak and don't want to piss off neighbours). What's happened is that China is no longer weak and is now able to reassert itself. In a democratic China it's almost certain that nothing would change in the South China Sea, and that has the full support of the Chinese public. > Whether this results in closer cooperation with the west This would not because, as I mentioned, the political regime is a red herring here. The antagonisms are caused by China's growing strength and power. China asserts its interests, which are not aligned with the West's. This is not caused by the CCP, this is the profound geopolitical reality. What's happening is that a superpower that is not Western (in a general sense of European, Christian culture) is appearing, this is more profound than political regimes, which are actually quite superficial. This has not happened for centuries. People have been conditioned to believe that everyone will align with the West and that being a democracy means aligning with the US, but why would that be? That's just propaganda dating from the Cold War, really. > it can no longer afford to focus solely on middle/upper-class growth due to the need to appease the majority of the population still living on low wages They are already doing a lot to "appease" the poorest. Economic growth has benefited them a lot and the government is also doing more to alleviate growing inequalities because they know very well that they have to. They are certainly not focussing on "middle/upper-class growth".
- starfallg 5y ago
  You asserted that key policies will not change. Policy entails a course of action, specifying how aims are achieved. So it isn't a matter of the existence of the 9 dash or 11 dash line, but the route that they would go in pursuing it. I also don't buy the assertion that China's rise as a superpower is somehow more profound than other countries (such as Japan). That just smacks of neo-orientalist sinicism. China's development is modelled on the same export model as Japan's and South Korea's. The difference being whether other advanced economies are willing to absorb and support that model for the remainder of the time that China needs to pivot before succumbing to the middle income trap. And to your last point, China's GINI coefficient bottomed out in 2015. It has since been rising.
  - mytailorisrich 5y ago
    > but the route that they would go in pursuing it. They are occupying the area to assert their claim. I don't see how that would change. They would not abandon their newly built bases or stop Navy patrols. That would be contrary to their sovereignty claim. There's a lot of propaganda on this topic and people are falling for it. But the reality is that China is only following a standard, tried and tested, way to assert sovereignty claims: They occupy the place. The neighbouring countries, including democracies, are doing exactly the same. > I also don't buy the assertion that China's rise as a superpower is somehow more profound than other countries (such as Japan). It's obviously different because China is a superpower. Japan and South Korea are not, they are too small, they both fell under the US's dominance, in part by military means. China is directly challenging US's dominance because it's actually larger than the US are and the Us cannot bully them into submission. That's what's new. The US are used to be in charge, like the Europeans used to be before them. A period of absolute Western dominance that started almost 500 years ago is coming to an end.
    - starfallg 5y ago
      > They are occupying the area to assert their claim. I don't see how that would change. They can stop expanding military bases in contested areas for a start. That's already a big change in policy. > A period of absolute Western dominance that started almost 500 years ago is coming to an end. What makes China a superpower and Japan not? What economic indicators are you using? Or the UK, France, and India for that matter? Nuclear powers that are able to flatten the population centres of countries on command. Treating 'The West' as a monolithic entity is just the mirror image of neo-orientalism. In terms of alignment, the ideological chasm between the 1st World / 2nd World during the cold war was larger than the gap between China and the other advanced economies currently. China, having reformed its economy, is more similar to Spain, which resolved a lot of its geopolitical problems after the transition to democracy in the late 70s and early 80s. The only baggage that China has in terms of geopolitics is the constant navel gazing at the 1800s and Qing's humiliation by the colonial powers. This is a Chinese nationalist narrative that is stoked by the party, but one that doesn't resonate at all with the younger generations.

mytailorisrich 5y ago

> No idea why you would say that. I was focussing on foreign policy and geopolitics, which really hasn't changed much since before the PRC. For instance their policy in the South China Sea is not something dreamt up by the CCP. The "9-dash line" predates the CCP and the PRC. It dates back to the ROC and as such is still the official policy in Taiwan as well (they keep quiet because they are too weak and don't want to piss off neighbours). What's happened is that China is no longer weak and is now able to reassert itself. In a democratic China it's almost certain that nothing would change in the South China Sea, and that has the full support of the Chinese public. > Whether this results in closer cooperation with the west This would not because, as I mentioned, the political regime is a red herring here. The antagonisms are caused by China's growing strength and power. China asserts its interests, which are not aligned with the West's. This is not caused by the CCP, this is the profound geopolitical reality. What's happening is that a superpower that is not Western (in a general sense of European, Christian culture) is appearing, this is more profound than political regimes, which are actually quite superficial. This has not happened for centuries. People have been conditioned to believe that everyone will align with the West and that being a democracy means aligning with the US, but why would that be? That's just propaganda dating from the Cold War, really. > it can no longer afford to focus solely on middle/upper-class growth due to the need to appease the majority of the population still living on low wages They are already doing a lot to "appease" the poorest. Economic growth has benefited them a lot and the government is also doing more to alleviate growing inequalities because they know very well that they have to. They are certainly not focussing on "middle/upper-class growth".

starfallg 5y ago
You asserted that key policies will not change. Policy entails a course of action, specifying how aims are achieved. So it isn't a matter of the existence of the 9 dash or 11 dash line, but the route that they would go in pursuing it. I also don't buy the assertion that China's rise as a superpower is somehow more profound than other countries (such as Japan). That just smacks of neo-orientalist sinicism. China's development is modelled on the same export model as Japan's and South Korea's. The difference being whether other advanced economies are willing to absorb and support that model for the remainder of the time that China needs to pivot before succumbing to the middle income trap. And to your last point, China's GINI coefficient bottomed out in 2015. It has since been rising.
- mytailorisrich 5y ago
  > but the route that they would go in pursuing it. They are occupying the area to assert their claim. I don't see how that would change. They would not abandon their newly built bases or stop Navy patrols. That would be contrary to their sovereignty claim. There's a lot of propaganda on this topic and people are falling for it. But the reality is that China is only following a standard, tried and tested, way to assert sovereignty claims: They occupy the place. The neighbouring countries, including democracies, are doing exactly the same. > I also don't buy the assertion that China's rise as a superpower is somehow more profound than other countries (such as Japan). It's obviously different because China is a superpower. Japan and South Korea are not, they are too small, they both fell under the US's dominance, in part by military means. China is directly challenging US's dominance because it's actually larger than the US are and the Us cannot bully them into submission. That's what's new. The US are used to be in charge, like the Europeans used to be before them. A period of absolute Western dominance that started almost 500 years ago is coming to an end.
  - starfallg 5y ago
    > They are occupying the area to assert their claim. I don't see how that would change. They can stop expanding military bases in contested areas for a start. That's already a big change in policy. > A period of absolute Western dominance that started almost 500 years ago is coming to an end. What makes China a superpower and Japan not? What economic indicators are you using? Or the UK, France, and India for that matter? Nuclear powers that are able to flatten the population centres of countries on command. Treating 'The West' as a monolithic entity is just the mirror image of neo-orientalism. In terms of alignment, the ideological chasm between the 1st World / 2nd World during the cold war was larger than the gap between China and the other advanced economies currently. China, having reformed its economy, is more similar to Spain, which resolved a lot of its geopolitical problems after the transition to democracy in the late 70s and early 80s. The only baggage that China has in terms of geopolitics is the constant navel gazing at the 1800s and Qing's humiliation by the colonial powers. This is a Chinese nationalist narrative that is stoked by the party, but one that doesn't resonate at all with the younger generations.