5 ms·

In an alternative history, a non ccp China would be close to the US just like India and their dispora would be competitive with India's. But due to the ccp bagg

In an alternative history, a non ccp China would be close to the US just like India and their dispora would be competitive with India's. But due to the ccp baggage, the Chinese influence is much weaker.

tjpnz 3y ago
The (cry) wolf warrior shtick certainly isn't doing them any favours on the world stage.
- pydry 3y ago
  Their industrial might certainly is though. Africa doesn't really care about interhegemonic competition and its associated grandstanding, they care about who builds their airports, roads, dams and railways.
- brmgb 3y ago
  I think the parent comment was strictly limited to the USA which China views as an adversary and not a partner. Anyone who has travelled a bit in Africa, South East Asia or the Balkans in the past decade could tell that the influence of China is far larger than that of India and does rival the US in more and more places. The Chinese diplomacy is very very good and hard working. Their diplomats are constantly travelling and that includes both major and small countries.
anticodon 3y ago
> But due to the ccp baggage, the Chinese influence is much weaker. Due to the "cpp baggage" China is big, influential and has much higher domestic level of life than India. Why do you think so many Indians are leaving the country? Have you ever been to India?
- QuesnayJr 3y ago
  This is despite the CCP baggage. Look at Singapore and Taiwan. If it wasn't for the CCP, China would be as rich as Japan and South Korea.
  - coffeebeqn 3y ago
    Very large countries are always much more difficult to govern. The best thing for your median Chinese would be to split to 5 to 50 different countries or at least more independent states
    - xNeil 3y ago
      Why would they want to split up?
  - the_lego 3y ago
    This highlights the need to distinguish "CCP baggage" into protectionist trade policy that is (today, not in the past with disasters like the Great Leap Forward) similar to what Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan used to grow their economies, and political repression, which is much worse in China.
  - brmgb 3y ago
    China growth rivals Japan before stagflation and this despite not benefiting from major help from foreign countries. I am not too fond of their regime but I don’t understand the comment I read here. If you compare China to its direct neighbour with a similar population, India, you clearly see that they were far more adept at developing their economy. There is a reason the article focus on the diaspora. That’s because the situation inside the country is not that rosy. I think American have a very biased view of China due to the strong anti-Chinese propaganda going on in your media.
  - meitham 3y ago
    But China is much richer than both of these countries!
  - anticodon 3y ago
    How can you compare anything with Singapore. Singapore is a tiny city state which is thriving in large portion due to geographic rent. Remove geographic rent from the equation, and it would quickly wither.
- gloryjulio 3y ago
  I'm not sure if u get the point. I am referring to the individuals from China, where the ccp baggage makes them less likely to thrive in the US society. They are either less willing to integrate into the US due to the their ccp upgringing, or more prone to be targeted to be purged(see the recent trump purge of the Chinese scientists), or more prone to actual go back and work with the ccp again. In contrast, the Indians are much closer to the US society, many Indians actually thinks that the US is just a better and richer version of India(source my Indian friends).
  - saagarjha 3y ago
    If you think most individuals coming from China bring a “commie mindset” with them here, you are sorely mistaken.
    - gloryjulio 3y ago
      I never said most. I only said they are less likely than the Indians to thrive as a comment to the article. Not sure why you intentionally misread my words
      - saagarjha 3y ago
        Consider if your comment could stand alone without that last sentence.
    - OfSanguineFire 3y ago
      It’s very possible for an immigrant to believe themselves dissidents in their country of origin, but still carry over attitudes from there, and even later revert to outright loyalty to the regime there. Just look at many late Soviet emigres, who at the time were pleased to escape the USSR and live in the freedom of the West, but later often looked back nostalgically on the USSR or supported Putin’s attempts to restore it. I wouldn’t be surprised if that happens with many PRC emigres.
      - saagarjha 3y ago
- saagarjha 3y ago
  People leave China too…
- smt88 3y ago
  Chinese influence has nothing to do with the quality of domestic life. Whatever the CCP's effect on Chinese domestic life, their authoritarianism and Uyghur genocode have made China incredibly unpopular among the voters in the world's strongest economies, especially the US. In fact, they're driving Western companies from China to India, which will hugely decrease their global influence.
  - anticodon 3y ago
    > Uyghur genocode have made China incredibly unpopular "Uyghur genocide" is a kind of scarecrow that US invents every time when it prepares to destroy an opponent. If a country possesses large deposits of oil (Iraq, Libya) there would be one kind of scarecrow to justify bombing. If the country becomes too influential and threatens US hegemony, there would be another kind of scarecrow. The only thing that is these libels tell: USA is preparing to attack the country and they need a justification for further bombing. E.g. I'm 90% sure USA is preparing to start a proxy war with China using Taiwan as pretext and cannon fodder. Just like the war in Ukraine which is actually war between USA and Russia.
- audunw 3y ago
  PRC did some things right. I won’t fault them for having an authoritarian phase. Taiwan and South Korea did too. So far they’ve done better than India. Although, perhaps, in ways that doomed them in the long run (one child policy) But if you compare PRC with for instance Taiwan/ROC, it’s clear that China could have been much more powerful and influential than they are today if they hadn’t been so distracted by disastrous communist ideology/fantasy. They had a chance at becoming the number one superpower, but they blew it.
xNeil 3y ago
While that's a very good point, I also wonder about other countries. Indian origin residents have had major impacts in countries throughout Europe, Africa and the Middle East as well, to an extent I believe greater than that of the Chinese. I don't think it's just the CCP baggage, there's got to be something more (maybe cultural).
- aydyn 3y ago
  Language
  - xNeil 3y ago
    Again a valid point, but there's an incredible variety of languages Indians speak. But you may be right - Hindi, Tamil and Telugu seem to be extraordinarily popular languages. Actually, now that I think about it, with the raw number of people speaking every language, you may be exactly right! I've been thinking in terms of percentages (x% of the population speaks y language, so it's probably not language that's the binding factor), but with India's sheer size, just the raw population (that x% might be 300 million people), it doesn't matter!
    - aydyn 3y ago
      I meant that people emigrating from India are on average better English speakers than people from China. Hence it's easier for them to interface with the West and make an impact in English speaking countries.
safety1st 3y ago
To be frank the Economist is pushing the alternative history here. The Chinese diaspora has been shaping real world history, particularly in East and Southeast Asia, for a thousand years or more. To this day the power elite of business and government in most of SE Asia are heavily dominated by ethnic Chinese and you better believe it shapes the politics. If you limit your view to the Western world of the last 20-30 years everything the author says about the Indian diaspora and the comparison is correct. But then the "in history" needs to be removed from the headline. Similarly the Economist's comparison of 18M Indian migrants vs 10M Chinese in the world today doesn't really tell the whole story - by most accounts there are 40M+ overseas Chinese scattered across the globe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_Chinese https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_Chinese
dirtyid 3y ago
How does this alternative history benefit PRC? All the elite Indian diasphora couldn't stop US from siding with Pakistan for most of recent history, or prevent global supply chains from shifting to PRC for decades, or secure critical tech transfers to help India develop. Reality is diasphora tend to have very little control over foreign policy unless it already aligns with state interests (Jewish/Cuban lobby). Ultimately PRC would take increased Chinese (as in the country) global influence, by simply being 5x the size of India because "CCP baggage" allowed her to transfer, retain and coordinate more domestic talent, over increased Chinese diasphora influence in the US anyday. Functionally, CCP baggage didn't prevent plurality of foreign students being from PRC (again because 5x richer), which translates to knowledge flow back to PRC. Recent NBER study on Indian brain drain to US had some crazy figures like 90% of top 10, 60% of top 1000, 36% of top 100 Indian IIT rankers gets brain drained to US. That may be good for Indian influence in the US, but not for India. Meanwhile ethnically Chinese talent is flowing back to PRC because >4% of US being Chinese = not enough political power to prevent another red scare regardless. What's more benefitial for PRC, diasphora that also makes PRC stronger or diasphora that exclusively makes US stronger. It's the former. PRC extracts more benefits from diasphora with a few decades of successfully lobbying the much more influential US business interests.

tjpnz 3y ago

The (cry) wolf warrior shtick certainly isn't doing them any favours on the world stage.

pydry 3y ago
Their industrial might certainly is though. Africa doesn't really care about interhegemonic competition and its associated grandstanding, they care about who builds their airports, roads, dams and railways.
brmgb 3y ago
I think the parent comment was strictly limited to the USA which China views as an adversary and not a partner. Anyone who has travelled a bit in Africa, South East Asia or the Balkans in the past decade could tell that the influence of China is far larger than that of India and does rival the US in more and more places. The Chinese diplomacy is very very good and hard working. Their diplomats are constantly travelling and that includes both major and small countries.

anticodon 3y ago

> But due to the ccp baggage, the Chinese influence is much weaker. Due to the "cpp baggage" China is big, influential and has much higher domestic level of life than India. Why do you think so many Indians are leaving the country? Have you ever been to India?

QuesnayJr 3y ago
This is despite the CCP baggage. Look at Singapore and Taiwan. If it wasn't for the CCP, China would be as rich as Japan and South Korea.
- coffeebeqn 3y ago
  Very large countries are always much more difficult to govern. The best thing for your median Chinese would be to split to 5 to 50 different countries or at least more independent states
  - xNeil 3y ago
    Why would they want to split up?
- the_lego 3y ago
  This highlights the need to distinguish "CCP baggage" into protectionist trade policy that is (today, not in the past with disasters like the Great Leap Forward) similar to what Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan used to grow their economies, and political repression, which is much worse in China.
- brmgb 3y ago
  China growth rivals Japan before stagflation and this despite not benefiting from major help from foreign countries. I am not too fond of their regime but I don’t understand the comment I read here. If you compare China to its direct neighbour with a similar population, India, you clearly see that they were far more adept at developing their economy. There is a reason the article focus on the diaspora. That’s because the situation inside the country is not that rosy. I think American have a very biased view of China due to the strong anti-Chinese propaganda going on in your media.
- meitham 3y ago
  But China is much richer than both of these countries!
- anticodon 3y ago
  How can you compare anything with Singapore. Singapore is a tiny city state which is thriving in large portion due to geographic rent. Remove geographic rent from the equation, and it would quickly wither.
gloryjulio 3y ago
I'm not sure if u get the point. I am referring to the individuals from China, where the ccp baggage makes them less likely to thrive in the US society. They are either less willing to integrate into the US due to the their ccp upgringing, or more prone to be targeted to be purged(see the recent trump purge of the Chinese scientists), or more prone to actual go back and work with the ccp again. In contrast, the Indians are much closer to the US society, many Indians actually thinks that the US is just a better and richer version of India(source my Indian friends).
- saagarjha 3y ago
  If you think most individuals coming from China bring a “commie mindset” with them here, you are sorely mistaken.
  - gloryjulio 3y ago
    I never said most. I only said they are less likely than the Indians to thrive as a comment to the article. Not sure why you intentionally misread my words
    - saagarjha 3y ago
      Consider if your comment could stand alone without that last sentence.
  - OfSanguineFire 3y ago
    It’s very possible for an immigrant to believe themselves dissidents in their country of origin, but still carry over attitudes from there, and even later revert to outright loyalty to the regime there. Just look at many late Soviet emigres, who at the time were pleased to escape the USSR and live in the freedom of the West, but later often looked back nostalgically on the USSR or supported Putin’s attempts to restore it. I wouldn’t be surprised if that happens with many PRC emigres.
    - saagarjha 3y ago
saagarjha 3y ago
People leave China too…
smt88 3y ago
Chinese influence has nothing to do with the quality of domestic life. Whatever the CCP's effect on Chinese domestic life, their authoritarianism and Uyghur genocode have made China incredibly unpopular among the voters in the world's strongest economies, especially the US. In fact, they're driving Western companies from China to India, which will hugely decrease their global influence.
- anticodon 3y ago
  > Uyghur genocode have made China incredibly unpopular "Uyghur genocide" is a kind of scarecrow that US invents every time when it prepares to destroy an opponent. If a country possesses large deposits of oil (Iraq, Libya) there would be one kind of scarecrow to justify bombing. If the country becomes too influential and threatens US hegemony, there would be another kind of scarecrow. The only thing that is these libels tell: USA is preparing to attack the country and they need a justification for further bombing. E.g. I'm 90% sure USA is preparing to start a proxy war with China using Taiwan as pretext and cannon fodder. Just like the war in Ukraine which is actually war between USA and Russia.
audunw 3y ago
PRC did some things right. I won’t fault them for having an authoritarian phase. Taiwan and South Korea did too. So far they’ve done better than India. Although, perhaps, in ways that doomed them in the long run (one child policy) But if you compare PRC with for instance Taiwan/ROC, it’s clear that China could have been much more powerful and influential than they are today if they hadn’t been so distracted by disastrous communist ideology/fantasy. They had a chance at becoming the number one superpower, but they blew it.

xNeil 3y ago

While that's a very good point, I also wonder about other countries. Indian origin residents have had major impacts in countries throughout Europe, Africa and the Middle East as well, to an extent I believe greater than that of the Chinese. I don't think it's just the CCP baggage, there's got to be something more (maybe cultural).

aydyn 3y ago
Language
- xNeil 3y ago
  Again a valid point, but there's an incredible variety of languages Indians speak. But you may be right - Hindi, Tamil and Telugu seem to be extraordinarily popular languages. Actually, now that I think about it, with the raw number of people speaking every language, you may be exactly right! I've been thinking in terms of percentages (x% of the population speaks y language, so it's probably not language that's the binding factor), but with India's sheer size, just the raw population (that x% might be 300 million people), it doesn't matter!
  - aydyn 3y ago
    I meant that people emigrating from India are on average better English speakers than people from China. Hence it's easier for them to interface with the West and make an impact in English speaking countries.

safety1st 3y ago

To be frank the Economist is pushing the alternative history here. The Chinese diaspora has been shaping real world history, particularly in East and Southeast Asia, for a thousand years or more. To this day the power elite of business and government in most of SE Asia are heavily dominated by ethnic Chinese and you better believe it shapes the politics. If you limit your view to the Western world of the last 20-30 years everything the author says about the Indian diaspora and the comparison is correct. But then the "in history" needs to be removed from the headline. Similarly the Economist's comparison of 18M Indian migrants vs 10M Chinese in the world today doesn't really tell the whole story - by most accounts there are 40M+ overseas Chinese scattered across the globe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_Chinese https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_Chinese

dirtyid 3y ago

How does this alternative history benefit PRC? All the elite Indian diasphora couldn't stop US from siding with Pakistan for most of recent history, or prevent global supply chains from shifting to PRC for decades, or secure critical tech transfers to help India develop. Reality is diasphora tend to have very little control over foreign policy unless it already aligns with state interests (Jewish/Cuban lobby). Ultimately PRC would take increased Chinese (as in the country) global influence, by simply being 5x the size of India because "CCP baggage" allowed her to transfer, retain and coordinate more domestic talent, over increased Chinese diasphora influence in the US anyday. Functionally, CCP baggage didn't prevent plurality of foreign students being from PRC (again because 5x richer), which translates to knowledge flow back to PRC. Recent NBER study on Indian brain drain to US had some crazy figures like 90% of top 10, 60% of top 1000, 36% of top 100 Indian IIT rankers gets brain drained to US. That may be good for Indian influence in the US, but not for India. Meanwhile ethnically Chinese talent is flowing back to PRC because >4% of US being Chinese = not enough political power to prevent another red scare regardless. What's more benefitial for PRC, diasphora that also makes PRC stronger or diasphora that exclusively makes US stronger. It's the former. PRC extracts more benefits from diasphora with a few decades of successfully lobbying the much more influential US business interests.