8 ms·

I think the wrong lesson is being taken here. China, like Russia, started from an incredibly low baseline - largely caused by authoritarian power. A new authori

I think the wrong lesson is being taken here. China, like Russia, started from an incredibly low baseline - largely caused by authoritarian power. A new authoritarian power revitalized the economy and genuinely improved people's lives. People are generally grateful, and they have reason to be. The fast pace of economic growth didn't necessarily come from authoritarianism (though I'll accept it helped in some ways) but from the fast catch-up. That isn't going to last forever. Growth will slow - it's slowing already. And when it does, a generation of people (who grew up wealthy) will start to think about corruption, human rights, and having a say in what goes on. My thesis is something like "any authoritarian can sail a ship in calm seas". The government of China's hard times are ahead of it. It's too early to write an epitaph for democracy.

yubblegum 1y ago
> A new authoritarian power revitalized the economy Fantasy history there. No, the actual timeline: USA determined that USSR-CPC split and animosity were real and should be exploited. China, a social and economic basketcase, also saw the benefit of pivoting to the West. Then (fortuitously for the Chinese ..) Mao died and Deng Xiaping came to power and then to the US and wore a cowboy hat! Western Capitalists* , whether due to their cupidity (or stupidity), convinced themselves that massive investment, funds, and technology transfer to Communist China would somehow engender a "liberal China" in a generation. Even after CPC crushed the "liberal" front in its cadre in 1989, which should have been a wakeup call to the idiot class that rules the West, we had 8 years of Slick Willy letting China get their hands on all sorts of tech and secret in US and the West. And now, the Orange Clown is finishing "the job" by laying waste to US aliances and institutions, making sure 21st is irrevocably the Chinese Century. So that, hn, is how China actually got to "eat the world". https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryPorn/comments/1kp4mxw/deng_xiaoping_wearing_a_cowboy_hat_during_a_visit/ https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryPorn/comments/1kp4mxw/deng_x... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Tiananmen_Square_protests_and_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Tiananmen_Square_protests... *: No that ain't you and that certainty ain't me and it's not even the fabled "10%". Try the 0.1%.
- kiba 1y ago
  I do not think the 21st century is necessarily already determined. China had suffered so much in the 20th century, including famine and revolution and yet they still rose. What Trump did so far is a farce but it's recoverable. History is too unpredictable to determine which nation is the winner of the 21st century. Anybody who claims to know the future have too much certainty about the course of history.
- ffsm8 1y ago
  A gigantic part of China's Rise is actually down to Apple. Channel 4 news made an interview with a financial times journalist if you wanna hear a neat summary https://youtu.be/43PtL0XQeA8?si=bovF8wXeK9Ege4Mz https://youtu.be/43PtL0XQeA8?si=bovF8wXeK9Ege4Mz But it's not exclusive to this video, lots of coverage around, from way bigger channels too. e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAj9zB4vaZc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAj9zB4vaZc
- qzw 1y ago
  Western Capitalists didn’t and don’t give two shits about a liberal China. The investments were made and technologies transferred because the Chinese government required them in order for Western companies to access China’s enormous pool of stable and cheap labor. As for this being the Chinese century, I think it’s not an inevitability. Japan at one point also looked like it had a shot of becoming a dominant economic superpower.
  - 1718627440 1y ago
    They are still implicitly betting on it though, because if this doesn't materializes they have nurtured their own enemy.
    - ismokedoinks 1y ago
      I'm not sure much matters to them aside from quarter-over-quarter growth. Take climate change, for example. Bad for business in the long run but here we are.
tim333 1y ago
My take is if you look at Chinese people anywhere outside China, say in the US, Singapore or wherever they are hard working, educated and prosperous, it's a cultural thing to a large extent. In China they were reduced to poverty by communism and are now catching up with their brethren elsewhere and still a fair way behind the US, Singa etc on a per capita basis.
- xphilter 1y ago
  Cultural thing or…selection bias. The people who left were the ones with the personality and work ethic that leads to being successful.
  - fakedang 1y ago
    That does not explain why other similar communities haven't done as well, even though more of their people have migrated. Take the example of Britain, where they currently have a larger ethnic British Pakistani population than the British Indian population. Yet there are only 25% Indian households and 33% Chinese households in the bottom income quintile, while there are 44% Pakistani households and 49% Bangladeshi households in the same (White British is at 17%). On the other hand, Indians and Chinese are massively represented in the top income quintile at 20% and 28% of households (compared to White British at 21%). Only 7% of either Bangladeshi or Pakistani British come in the top income quintile, even underperforming the Other Asian category (who are 2x at 14%). Data source: https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/work-pay-and-benefits/pay-and-income/income-distribution/latest/ https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/work-pay-...
    - dboon 1y ago
      Isn’t it more likely that Pakistani folks in Britain are more likely to be first generation immigrants? You’d need to compare generationally to get apples to apples
      - fakedang 1y ago
        The number of Indian immigrants in 2023 was 3x the number of Pakistani immigrants to the UK. 250k vs 83k. https://m.economictimes.com/nri/migrate/indians-top-list-of-immigrants-to-uk-in-2023-heres-how-many-went-to-work-study-and-play/articleshow/110490709.cms https://m.economictimes.com/nri/migrate/indians-top-list-of-... Perhaps one could argue that Indian migrants tend to be educational and work migrants, while Pakistani migrants tend to be family reunification migrants. But that again points back to the cultural reasons behind certain communities doing well, based on what they prioritize.
eatsyourtacos 1y ago
China works as a society to truly try to help their people. They invest in their country and people. That is why they are prospering. It's not just "catching up". The US for example doesn't take care of it's people. They do the absolute bare minimum in the name of illusionary "freedom". The only people who are free are the rich. Call it whatever you want.. but there is great benefit in having a government who recognizes that society comes first- not the individual.
- georgeburdell 1y ago
  You’re going back and forth between two concepts: society and its people. Look at the Covid lockdowns for evidence of how much China (or other Chinese for that matter) care about individuals.
  - bitwize 1y ago
    Lockdowns backed by force of arms were absolutely the right thing for people at the time. The New Zealand lockdowns were extremely strict and enormously successful until the government buckled and the plague ships came back in.
    - mvdtnz 1y ago
      For some metric of successful. We only delayed the inevitable, and at the end of th day only rank in the middle of the pack in deaths per capita. Far behind many countries with much less strict lockdowns.
    - AuthAuth 1y ago
      NZ lockdowns were not extremely strict. The government told us to stay inside and gave us guidelines and 99% of us followed them willingly. Punishment for not following was fines or a slap on the wrist. We were never forced to stay in our homes we could walk around outside. The guidelines were to avoid places where you would get in contact with people like a workplace or store. This is so different to China welding people into their homes.
    - 1y ago
incr_me 1y ago
> China, like Russia, started from an incredibly low baseline - largely caused by authoritarian power. A new authoritarian power revitalized the economy and genuinely improved people's lives. People are generally grateful, and they have reason to be. Besides the ideological component here being embarrassingly incoherent (the bad was caused by "authoritarian power" in general; the good was caused by "a new authoritarian power" in particular) your facts are plain wrong. The low baseline was pre-Mao (and pre-Lenin) when famine, illiteracy, technological impoverishment, and labor immobility was the rule. Deng's opening up certainly was something, but it undoubtedly stood upon the shoulders of the Mao era. Even the WEF agrees: https://www.weforum.org/stories/2025/06/how-china-got-rich-40-year-history-of-economic-transformation https://www.weforum.org/stories/2025/06/how-china-got-rich-4... > But the “conventional wisdom” ignores the fact that — even inclusive of the serious mistakes, lost lives and lost years that some insist define the early decades after 1949 — the foundations laid during Mao’s rule, including land reform and redistribution, substantial investments in heavy industry, public health, literacy, electrification, and transportation gave China a substantial leg up. These developments positioned China for takeoff well ahead of the official inauguration of Reform and Opening in 1978. While Deng’s reforms catalyzed China’s economic takeoff, they built upon critical foundations established during Mao’s era, which are often overlooked. Even the WEF is wrong, of course, because they do the usual thing of inflating the importance of GDP; GDP has virtually no applicability to a socialist economy and the "revitalization" you speak of was, as far as its quantitative measure, a magic trick. A literal capitalization upon decades of labor mobilization.
- hkpack 1y ago
  > The low baseline was pre-Mao (and pre-Lenin) when famine Wow, so we are on rewriting history now? “Lenin” and his cronies caused a massive famines with their own hands. Substantial percentage of population died of hunger on a very fertile soil without any natural disaster [0]. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1930%E2%80%931933 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1930%E2%80%93...
  - incr_me 1y ago
    At some point relatively early in the Soviet revolution, recurring famine was abolished. Famine occurred about once a decade for the entirety of documented history. Then it stopped. The interesting thing isn't how famine occurred in the early 30s (or the 40s to a much lesser extent), it's how it was absolutely prevented from occurring since. Industrialization of agriculture, collectivization, and centralized grain distribution was the solution. You have to admit that it happened. It was the same with the Chinese revolution. My point is that this all happened before "opening up", and that it was part of the logic of socialism.
ACCount37 1y ago
Yes, it's quite easy to keep people content with an invasive autocracy and human right violations when you have staggering economic growth and a sharp rise in quality of life to show for it. It's not just China. A big part of why Putin in Russia has managed to hold onto power for so long was that Russia's recovery from the collapse of USSR was happening during his first two presidential terms. Even though very little of that recovery could be attributed to Putin's policies. The same holds for democracy too. Good economy makes for content population. But if your country's economy is going to shit, that doesn't bode well for whatever party that happens to be in charge - and might even open the doors for an authoritarian takeover.
tokioyoyo 1y ago
The sea was not calm in 2010s, and certainly not in 2020s. Predictions to China’s collapse has been circulating for the past 15 years, and it just never panned out. Unsurprisingly, when you have authoritarianism that’s at least mildly supported by the citizens, you can do wonders with 1.4B people. At some point, we have to give them credit where it’s due.
- ViewTrick1002 1y ago
  From your perspective or the perspective of the Chinese people feeling their increased well being by the year? No matter how rocky the world is the seas are calm when everyone has in close memory how it used to be.
  - tokioyoyo 1y ago
    Both. Most Chinese (older ones) I've talked to mention how "thing aren't that amazing, but compared to 90s, this is heaven". Retired ones especially. The younger ones (early 20s), haven't experienced the dramatic change, so they don't have point of comparison, but to be fair, I haven't talked to many of them. Of course it's a big country, and they have a lot of problems. But there's still a general trust towards government institutions and how they'll eventually fix themselves up. Obviously not everyone, and some have valid reasons. And again, this goes without saying, China has 1.4B people, extremely different regions and very different cultures between each region.
- Sammi 1y ago
  > The sea was not calm in 2010s, and certainly not in 2020s. China had double digit gdp growth in 2000s, high single digit in 2010s, and still decent single digit in 2020s - that is until a year or so ago. These are the calm seas that used to be but are no longer. Geo politically China has and will always be squeezed, just by their geographic location. But economically they were flying ahead in the last few decades, and everything is so much easier while you have strong economic growth. Growth that they are struggling to realize suddenly... this will be a huge change and challenge for internal politics in China going forward. Because when people are getting wealthier each year then they are happy. But as soon as that stops, then it's like when the music stops and people have to find the first available chair to sit on. Those that don't find one will be unhappy.
bgnn 1y ago
Apart from nothing lasts forever.. This is a speculative take too, as the OP. We don't know what will happen in China in the future. One thing is true: at the moment their change is towards more democracy and personal rights, and it's the exact opposite in the West. My theorty, a counter-theory to yours if you will, is that the wealth growth for the lower and middle classes declined or reversed in the West (US, Europe, Canada etc) since 70s, which coincides with the West divesting from industrial production and embracing the financialization of the economy. Today EU is officially applying censorship on media and trying hard on controlling the personal communications of persons, similar trends in US. We think we are better than China, but from the non-Western countries the difference isn't that big anymore.
- PikachuEXE 1y ago
  I agree with your opinion on US/EU etc. as they have more leftism/collectivism/socialism growing. But I don't understand "One thing is true: at the moment their change is towards more democracy and personal rights" part and maybe you can provide more explanations/examples/sources/whatever?
  - thrance 1y ago
    That censorship is not coming fromt "leftism/collectivism/socialism", whatever that is. Unionization in the west is at its lowest point in many decades.
    - trimethylpurine 1y ago
      Are you saying unionization is left or right leaning? There's certainly not enough consensus on that issue to make a strong point.
      - thrance 1y ago
        Obviously and overwhelmingly left leaning. You can't be pro-business and pro-unions, and these values are core to the right and the left respectively. I feel like I'm stating the most obvious facts here. I can only recommend a quick read through the Wikipedia page for Syndicalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syndicalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syndicalism
sho_hn 1y ago
Calling the history of the CCP a "ship on calm seas" really sounds like you need to pick up a book on Chinese history.
- stickfigure 1y ago
  I'm calling the modern history of the CCP "a ship on calm seas". It's easy to be popular when everyone is going from poor to rich. That will not continue forever.
  - Nevermark 1y ago
    There is something circular about this viewpoint. Of course sharp/steady increases in wealth create a lot of stability, but taking that nearly unprecedented former success as the "given", makes the achievement of the latter misleadingly tautological.
  - Bimos 1y ago
    Look at "Four Asian Tigers", people don't just constantly become rich for granted
- Sammi 1y ago
  The last decades have seen dependable gdp growth in China. These are the calm seas that matter in this context. This growth has stopped recently...
arp242 1y ago
> My thesis is something like "any authoritarian can sail a ship in calm seas". The government of China's hard times are ahead of it. It's too early to write an epitaph for democracy. This applies to neither Russia nor China. Especially not China – authoritarian China if the 50s-70s was a complete clusterfuck every which way, in no small part due to Mao's staggering incompetence. A key part of Xiaoping's reforms of the 80s – which lifted hundreds of millions out of extreme poverty – was renouncing some of Mao's more mad notions. There are plenty of other examples where authoritarians screwed over their countries quite badly, from Mugabe to Suharto to Maduro. To say nothing of people like Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, and similar jolly fellows who outright murdered their own people by the millions. In authoritarian regimes you have no meaningful pushback. When Putin says "we're going to invade Ukraine real quick, stoke me a kipper, back before supper" then no one is going to say "you idiot, that's fucking mental" because you risk brutally accidentally falling out of the window while taking a shower. And now Russia is "stuck" in this pointless war because Putin has painted himself in a corner, and there is not going to be a peaceful change of governance in Russia, after which a new administration can change course. In addition authoritarians are free to be as corrupt as they like of course. Who is going to hold them to account? In the short term an authoritarian can do the right thing (Xiaoping is an example), but in the long term it never works out because sooner or later an idiot and/or asshole will plant their arsecheeks on the throne, after which you're fucked.
- saulpw 1y ago
  > in the long term it never works out because sooner or later an idiot and/or asshole will plant their arsecheeks on the throne, after which you're fucked. Seems like this can happen in a democracy just the same.
  - arp242 1y ago
    No system is completely immune of course, but it's exceedingly rare for a dictatorship to remain stable and benign for for even just a few decades, never mind hundreds of years.
    - 1y ago
letn1 1y ago
Great when you have a democratic world that provides you with the technologies. Not that great when you dont have democratic world that provides you with the technologies.
gp90 1y ago
> The fast pace of economic growth didn't necessarily come from authoritarianism You're right. The fast pace of growth came from the policies that encourage ruthless capitalism. You can see that Chinese government controls business like oil and tobacco, but it gives tons of freedom for business owners to run wild.
- nirv 1y ago
  > Chinese government [...] gives tons of freedom for business owners to run wild This claim is provably incorrect. > Analysis of all 37.5 million registered firms in China reveals that 65% of the largest 1,000 private owners have direct equity ties with state owners […] The number of private owners with direct equity ties with the state almost tripled between 2000 and 2019, and those with indirect equity ties rose 50-fold. > Provincial and local government officials in China enforce laws and control resources, such as land and loans, but these officials change positions every few years. […] Publicly listed firms increase perk spending (travel, dining, and entertainment) by an average of 3.6 million yuan (20%) when new local officials take charge. […] The results are consistent with the view that local officials are important gatekeepers and firms seek to influence them with perks and positions of power within SOEs.[1][2] > China’s domestic politics have changed significantly over the past decade, with the top leadership enacting much more muscular policies to limit the power of large corporations while also deploying extensive measures to support firms, especially in key industries. According to Hsieh, this trend means that companies need to navigate the state’s “two strong hands,” one supportive and the other restrictive which aim to increase the party’s control over the economy even as the private sector continues, in one form or another, to grow. Moreover, political control is likely proving oppressive for companies as the party-state increasingly weights national security over economic growth. […] These findings […] suggest that not all government intervention in the economy is welcome by Chinese companies, especially if it comes with national security strings attached. The findings from the experiment suggest that state and party influence on private firms may have evolved to prioritize politics above economic growth, creating new challenges for companies that would naturally seek to maximize political support alongside autonomy.[3] [1] https://sccei.fsi.stanford.edu/china-briefs/rise-state-connected-private-sector-china https://sccei.fsi.stanford.edu/china-briefs/rise-state-conne... [2] https://sccei.fsi.stanford.edu/china-briefs/how-do-chinas-firms-invest-their-relationship-local-governments https://sccei.fsi.stanford.edu/china-briefs/how-do-chinas-fi... [3] https://bigdatachina.csis.org/unpacking-linkages-between-the-chinese-state-and-private-firms/ https://bigdatachina.csis.org/unpacking-linkages-between-the...
SilverElfin 1y ago
> And when it does, a generation of people (who grew up wealthy) will start to think about corruption, human rights, and having a say in what goes on. Maybe. But what happens when that group of people are suppressed and it takes a lot longer for them to become brave and speak up? Meanwhile, the government of China will become more powerful and be more of a hegemonic power than America ever was. That may extend their ability to govern and remain authoritarian. Not just for their citizens, but against other regions they unfortunately control like Hong Kong or Taiwan or Tibet or Xinjiang.
- aurareturn 1y ago
  Why do you say it’s unfortunate that China controls those places?
  - SilverElfin 1y ago
    Those places have their own culture, identity, political views, and way of life. All of that gets erased and replaced with the CCP’s ideology and Han Chinese culture through a process called Sinicization (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinicization_of_Tibet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinicization_of_Tibet). It’s a very effective way of erasing and controlling people. Plus given that the government of China is very authoritarian and controlling and not democratic, I don’t think it’s good for the world when they get more land, resources, and economic power (which turns into military power).
    - throw443257u 1y ago
      Xinjiang is basically becoming like Hawaii. Most of the younger people are adopting Han culture, and while their native culture is still kept, a large part of it is to support tourism.
      - SilverElfin 1y ago
        How is their native culture kept when older people are arrested and jailed and have no chance to actually pass on their culture?
aaron695 1y ago
[dead]
refurb 1y ago
The blog post reads like propaganda - hitting on the same old metrics like GDP by PPP (ignoring all the other metrics that are getting worse). Who cares if it's the largest economy? What matters is productivity per person, which is around what Thailand produces - $13,000 USD per capita. One question I love asking is the pro-China faction is - assuming China grows at 5% per year (it's no longer growing at 7-8%), how long would it take to catch up to the US on a GDP per capita basis with the US growing an anemic 2%? What people forget is the US growing at 2% is equivalent to to China growing at 12% (since per capita GDP is 6x). China needs to stop their slowing economy all in an environment of reduced global trade and a terrible demographic shift.
- aurareturn 1y ago
  Retirement age in China has been around 55. If you go to China, you’ll see a ton of older retired people traveling around the country on high speed trains. You won’t find that many young people during day time. So that factor into GDP per capita. But besides GDP per capita, I think your criticism of GDP PPP per capita is wrong. You can live a very decent life in China. In some ways, it’s superior to Americans for many Chinese people. You just have to go to China to see it for yourself.
  - refurb 1y ago
    It's not about "decent life", GDP per capita is what pays taxes, which pays healthcare and defense and other essentials. Sure, China has a fine quality of life - similar to Thailand. But they aren't going to be able to afford cutting edge healthcare, deep social program or a bottomless defense budget on 1/6th the GDP per capita.
    - aurareturn 1y ago
      I think you need to go to China and Thailand if you think China is similar to Thailand. Go see for yourself instead of reading about China through the lens of western media.
      - 1y ago
idiomat9000 1y ago
The problem is more acute and current . China has not enough white collar work. It has no pension system , usually the 4 grandparents move in with their kids. Who must provide income for 6+ person households. Which only whit collar work can do. Or investments,like flats etc. China is spiralling right now, not tomorrow , today.
- thombee 1y ago
  China does have a pension system, not sure where you got your information from. Are you instead arguing that their pension system is not adequate?
lossolo 1y ago
China was the world’s largest economy for 18 of the past 20 centuries (with exceptions being parts of the 19th and 20th centuries, when Western Europe and then the U.S. surged ahead after the industrial revolution). And China is no longer just catching up in many industries, it is leading innovation[1]. Many in China believe they are simply returning to their natural state being the world’s number one economy. Your analysis is through the lens of Western culture. The definition and understanding of freedom and harmony are entirely different in China. I was in China and experienced this myself, so this is firsthand experience, not something I picked up from blogs or news. And China is not like Russia at all, Russia fills its government with oligarchs, while China fills it with science and technology experts[2] > And when it does, a generation of people (who grew up wealthy) will start to think about corruption, human rights, and having a say in what goes on. In the Chinese context, freedom is defined collectively (freedom from chaos, poverty, or foreign domination etc), whereas here in the West it's individual liberty. Harmony and social stability are seen as more valuable than political pluralism, so authoritarian governance is culturally framed as legitimate. Chinese leaders and citizens remember periods of fragmentation and civil war (warlord era, Japanese invasion, cultural revolution). There is a widespread belief that adopting a Western adversarial political model could reintroduce instability and weaken national unity so something China cannot risk given its size and diversity. That is the main reason this will not happen, you will not see a liberal style democracy in China. This claim is repeated all the time, but it is a total misunderstanding of their culture, ethnicity, and history. China has a long history of centralized, bureaucratic governance (over 2k years since the Qin Dynasty), where stability and order are prioritized. 1. https://itif.org/publications/2024/09/16/china-is-rapidly-becoming-a-leading-innovator-in-advanced-industries/ https://itif.org/publications/2024/09/16/china-is-rapidly-be... 2. https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/chinas-xi-stacks-government-with-science-and-tech-experts-amid-rivalry-with-u-s-11668772682 https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/chinas-xi-stacks-government...
- tkel 1y ago
  Well said. The western definition of freedom as only individual freedom is not a good one. It is the same definition that allowed people to argue for keeping slaves, keeping other humans as their property, because "I have the freedom to do what I want with my property". And during the civil rights era, the same was true with "You can't tell me not to discriminate, I have the freedom to do what I want with my property, and my business is my property".
jimmydoe 1y ago
I am not particularly worried about authoritarian in China in long term. Western especially the US has long been the release valve for CCP to manage dissidents and alike, and it’s been quite effective, countless young souls looking for freedom was assimilated and became faceless in the capitalism machinery abroad, instead of fighting for their future in China. The self enshitification of USA will slowly but surely close that loophole CCP has been enjoying, and force more young Chinese to make China a better place for themselves as they will have no other choices.
anonzzzies 1y ago
> any authoritarian can sail a ship in calm sea "any democratic gov can sail a ship in calm sea" As we see in europe and the usa, when democracy lasts too long, people get too relaxed and free and turn unhappy with random things that annoy them. They used to be at work too much to worry about them, but now they can stare at their neighbour and wonder why this 'migrant' has more than them etc. Or whatever happens to annoy them. And consequently start voting for ultimately authoritarian 'leaders', which will make everything worse for them and most others.
- omnimus 1y ago
  In europe it is exactly because people are less relaxed that they start to looking for someone to blame. Not the other way around. They are less relaxed because power over time concentrated so much that the top is managing to kill the middle class and generally squeeze everyone. The same top is running huge marketing campaigns of blaming everything but them and as solution they offer authoritarianism and even more power concentration. The public is too busy working to be able to analyze the issue correctly. Plus political education has disappeared from schools and has been methodologically deleted by the top.
  - anonzzzies 1y ago
    > They are less relaxed because power over time concentrated so much that the top is managing to kill the middle class and generally squeeze everyone. which happened because we all were very relaxed for decades; most gave away all power because it was all going well so why fight instead of going to the beach? It is still too relaxed; people are still not actually doing anything to change it. > The public is too busy working to be able to analyze the issue correctly. Plus political education has disappeared from schools and has been methodologically deleted by the top. what country? in the countries in the EU I hang out in, people seem to all be on some perpetual vacation. They have busy social agenda's, but work not so much.
    - omnimus 1y ago
      Perpetual vacation? Wow that would be great that is surely aim of every society. Unfortunately afaik majority people in europe are employed (75.8% of population) and thus have maybe 5 weeks (4 weeks minimum) of vacation. In USA the employment ratio is 59.6% so you could say that there are less people working in USA. But we all know its probably just misleading statistics because every company in US is trying not employ people but have them on some zero hour contract. This fantasy of people not working just doesn't work. Who do you think stocks your supermarket, delivers your packages, bakes your bread, fixes your car? Are you saying it's bad that these people still manage have some social life and some fun? Should they be closed in their tiny increasingly overpriced flats so they don't polute the streets? You have to be living in different tier of society but around me everybody taking second/odd jobs because their salaries froze 5 years ago didn't even keep up with inflation. Only people i know that are doing well are over 45 who became landlords by buying flats when it was possible.
matrix2596 1y ago
I wonder why India has not had the same success when its in a similar situation, is the domecratic power worse than the authoritarianism ( at least in the case of China). Or would you say India will eventually catch up and be better for the democracy.
- sumedh 1y ago
  Indian voters care more about religion, language, caste compared to development.
  - DedlySnek 1y ago
    You missed another important point - corruption.

yubblegum 1y ago

> A new authoritarian power revitalized the economy Fantasy history there. No, the actual timeline: USA determined that USSR-CPC split and animosity were real and should be exploited. China, a social and economic basketcase, also saw the benefit of pivoting to the West. Then (fortuitously for the Chinese ..) Mao died and Deng Xiaping came to power and then to the US and wore a cowboy hat! Western Capitalists* , whether due to their cupidity (or stupidity), convinced themselves that massive investment, funds, and technology transfer to Communist China would somehow engender a "liberal China" in a generation. Even after CPC crushed the "liberal" front in its cadre in 1989, which should have been a wakeup call to the idiot class that rules the West, we had 8 years of Slick Willy letting China get their hands on all sorts of tech and secret in US and the West. And now, the Orange Clown is finishing "the job" by laying waste to US aliances and institutions, making sure 21st is irrevocably the Chinese Century. So that, hn, is how China actually got to "eat the world". https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryPorn/comments/1kp4mxw/deng_xiaoping_wearing_a_cowboy_hat_during_a_visit/ https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryPorn/comments/1kp4mxw/deng_x... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Tiananmen_Square_protests_and_massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Tiananmen_Square_protests... *: No that ain't you and that certainty ain't me and it's not even the fabled "10%". Try the 0.1%.

kiba 1y ago
I do not think the 21st century is necessarily already determined. China had suffered so much in the 20th century, including famine and revolution and yet they still rose. What Trump did so far is a farce but it's recoverable. History is too unpredictable to determine which nation is the winner of the 21st century. Anybody who claims to know the future have too much certainty about the course of history.
ffsm8 1y ago
A gigantic part of China's Rise is actually down to Apple. Channel 4 news made an interview with a financial times journalist if you wanna hear a neat summary https://youtu.be/43PtL0XQeA8?si=bovF8wXeK9Ege4Mz https://youtu.be/43PtL0XQeA8?si=bovF8wXeK9Ege4Mz But it's not exclusive to this video, lots of coverage around, from way bigger channels too. e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAj9zB4vaZc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NAj9zB4vaZc
qzw 1y ago
Western Capitalists didn’t and don’t give two shits about a liberal China. The investments were made and technologies transferred because the Chinese government required them in order for Western companies to access China’s enormous pool of stable and cheap labor. As for this being the Chinese century, I think it’s not an inevitability. Japan at one point also looked like it had a shot of becoming a dominant economic superpower.
- 1718627440 1y ago
  They are still implicitly betting on it though, because if this doesn't materializes they have nurtured their own enemy.
  - ismokedoinks 1y ago
    I'm not sure much matters to them aside from quarter-over-quarter growth. Take climate change, for example. Bad for business in the long run but here we are.

tim333 1y ago

My take is if you look at Chinese people anywhere outside China, say in the US, Singapore or wherever they are hard working, educated and prosperous, it's a cultural thing to a large extent. In China they were reduced to poverty by communism and are now catching up with their brethren elsewhere and still a fair way behind the US, Singa etc on a per capita basis.

xphilter 1y ago
Cultural thing or…selection bias. The people who left were the ones with the personality and work ethic that leads to being successful.
- fakedang 1y ago
  That does not explain why other similar communities haven't done as well, even though more of their people have migrated. Take the example of Britain, where they currently have a larger ethnic British Pakistani population than the British Indian population. Yet there are only 25% Indian households and 33% Chinese households in the bottom income quintile, while there are 44% Pakistani households and 49% Bangladeshi households in the same (White British is at 17%). On the other hand, Indians and Chinese are massively represented in the top income quintile at 20% and 28% of households (compared to White British at 21%). Only 7% of either Bangladeshi or Pakistani British come in the top income quintile, even underperforming the Other Asian category (who are 2x at 14%). Data source: https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/work-pay-and-benefits/pay-and-income/income-distribution/latest/ https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/work-pay-...
  - dboon 1y ago
    Isn’t it more likely that Pakistani folks in Britain are more likely to be first generation immigrants? You’d need to compare generationally to get apples to apples
    - fakedang 1y ago
      The number of Indian immigrants in 2023 was 3x the number of Pakistani immigrants to the UK. 250k vs 83k. https://m.economictimes.com/nri/migrate/indians-top-list-of-immigrants-to-uk-in-2023-heres-how-many-went-to-work-study-and-play/articleshow/110490709.cms https://m.economictimes.com/nri/migrate/indians-top-list-of-... Perhaps one could argue that Indian migrants tend to be educational and work migrants, while Pakistani migrants tend to be family reunification migrants. But that again points back to the cultural reasons behind certain communities doing well, based on what they prioritize.

eatsyourtacos 1y ago

China works as a society to truly try to help their people. They invest in their country and people. That is why they are prospering. It's not just "catching up". The US for example doesn't take care of it's people. They do the absolute bare minimum in the name of illusionary "freedom". The only people who are free are the rich. Call it whatever you want.. but there is great benefit in having a government who recognizes that society comes first- not the individual.

georgeburdell 1y ago
You’re going back and forth between two concepts: society and its people. Look at the Covid lockdowns for evidence of how much China (or other Chinese for that matter) care about individuals.
- bitwize 1y ago
  Lockdowns backed by force of arms were absolutely the right thing for people at the time. The New Zealand lockdowns were extremely strict and enormously successful until the government buckled and the plague ships came back in.
  - mvdtnz 1y ago
    For some metric of successful. We only delayed the inevitable, and at the end of th day only rank in the middle of the pack in deaths per capita. Far behind many countries with much less strict lockdowns.
  - AuthAuth 1y ago
    NZ lockdowns were not extremely strict. The government told us to stay inside and gave us guidelines and 99% of us followed them willingly. Punishment for not following was fines or a slap on the wrist. We were never forced to stay in our homes we could walk around outside. The guidelines were to avoid places where you would get in contact with people like a workplace or store. This is so different to China welding people into their homes.
  - 1y ago

incr_me 1y ago

> China, like Russia, started from an incredibly low baseline - largely caused by authoritarian power. A new authoritarian power revitalized the economy and genuinely improved people's lives. People are generally grateful, and they have reason to be. Besides the ideological component here being embarrassingly incoherent (the bad was caused by "authoritarian power" in general; the good was caused by "a new authoritarian power" in particular) your facts are plain wrong. The low baseline was pre-Mao (and pre-Lenin) when famine, illiteracy, technological impoverishment, and labor immobility was the rule. Deng's opening up certainly was something, but it undoubtedly stood upon the shoulders of the Mao era. Even the WEF agrees: https://www.weforum.org/stories/2025/06/how-china-got-rich-40-year-history-of-economic-transformation https://www.weforum.org/stories/2025/06/how-china-got-rich-4... > But the “conventional wisdom” ignores the fact that — even inclusive of the serious mistakes, lost lives and lost years that some insist define the early decades after 1949 — the foundations laid during Mao’s rule, including land reform and redistribution, substantial investments in heavy industry, public health, literacy, electrification, and transportation gave China a substantial leg up. These developments positioned China for takeoff well ahead of the official inauguration of Reform and Opening in 1978. While Deng’s reforms catalyzed China’s economic takeoff, they built upon critical foundations established during Mao’s era, which are often overlooked. Even the WEF is wrong, of course, because they do the usual thing of inflating the importance of GDP; GDP has virtually no applicability to a socialist economy and the "revitalization" you speak of was, as far as its quantitative measure, a magic trick. A literal capitalization upon decades of labor mobilization.

hkpack 1y ago
> The low baseline was pre-Mao (and pre-Lenin) when famine Wow, so we are on rewriting history now? “Lenin” and his cronies caused a massive famines with their own hands. Substantial percentage of population died of hunger on a very fertile soil without any natural disaster [0]. 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1930%E2%80%931933 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1930%E2%80%93...
- incr_me 1y ago
  At some point relatively early in the Soviet revolution, recurring famine was abolished. Famine occurred about once a decade for the entirety of documented history. Then it stopped. The interesting thing isn't how famine occurred in the early 30s (or the 40s to a much lesser extent), it's how it was absolutely prevented from occurring since. Industrialization of agriculture, collectivization, and centralized grain distribution was the solution. You have to admit that it happened. It was the same with the Chinese revolution. My point is that this all happened before "opening up", and that it was part of the logic of socialism.

ACCount37 1y ago

Yes, it's quite easy to keep people content with an invasive autocracy and human right violations when you have staggering economic growth and a sharp rise in quality of life to show for it. It's not just China. A big part of why Putin in Russia has managed to hold onto power for so long was that Russia's recovery from the collapse of USSR was happening during his first two presidential terms. Even though very little of that recovery could be attributed to Putin's policies. The same holds for democracy too. Good economy makes for content population. But if your country's economy is going to shit, that doesn't bode well for whatever party that happens to be in charge - and might even open the doors for an authoritarian takeover.

tokioyoyo 1y ago

The sea was not calm in 2010s, and certainly not in 2020s. Predictions to China’s collapse has been circulating for the past 15 years, and it just never panned out. Unsurprisingly, when you have authoritarianism that’s at least mildly supported by the citizens, you can do wonders with 1.4B people. At some point, we have to give them credit where it’s due.

ViewTrick1002 1y ago
From your perspective or the perspective of the Chinese people feeling their increased well being by the year? No matter how rocky the world is the seas are calm when everyone has in close memory how it used to be.
- tokioyoyo 1y ago
  Both. Most Chinese (older ones) I've talked to mention how "thing aren't that amazing, but compared to 90s, this is heaven". Retired ones especially. The younger ones (early 20s), haven't experienced the dramatic change, so they don't have point of comparison, but to be fair, I haven't talked to many of them. Of course it's a big country, and they have a lot of problems. But there's still a general trust towards government institutions and how they'll eventually fix themselves up. Obviously not everyone, and some have valid reasons. And again, this goes without saying, China has 1.4B people, extremely different regions and very different cultures between each region.
Sammi 1y ago
> The sea was not calm in 2010s, and certainly not in 2020s. China had double digit gdp growth in 2000s, high single digit in 2010s, and still decent single digit in 2020s - that is until a year or so ago. These are the calm seas that used to be but are no longer. Geo politically China has and will always be squeezed, just by their geographic location. But economically they were flying ahead in the last few decades, and everything is so much easier while you have strong economic growth. Growth that they are struggling to realize suddenly... this will be a huge change and challenge for internal politics in China going forward. Because when people are getting wealthier each year then they are happy. But as soon as that stops, then it's like when the music stops and people have to find the first available chair to sit on. Those that don't find one will be unhappy.

bgnn 1y ago

Apart from nothing lasts forever.. This is a speculative take too, as the OP. We don't know what will happen in China in the future. One thing is true: at the moment their change is towards more democracy and personal rights, and it's the exact opposite in the West. My theorty, a counter-theory to yours if you will, is that the wealth growth for the lower and middle classes declined or reversed in the West (US, Europe, Canada etc) since 70s, which coincides with the West divesting from industrial production and embracing the financialization of the economy. Today EU is officially applying censorship on media and trying hard on controlling the personal communications of persons, similar trends in US. We think we are better than China, but from the non-Western countries the difference isn't that big anymore.

PikachuEXE 1y ago
I agree with your opinion on US/EU etc. as they have more leftism/collectivism/socialism growing. But I don't understand "One thing is true: at the moment their change is towards more democracy and personal rights" part and maybe you can provide more explanations/examples/sources/whatever?
- thrance 1y ago
  That censorship is not coming fromt "leftism/collectivism/socialism", whatever that is. Unionization in the west is at its lowest point in many decades.
  - trimethylpurine 1y ago
    Are you saying unionization is left or right leaning? There's certainly not enough consensus on that issue to make a strong point.
    - thrance 1y ago
      Obviously and overwhelmingly left leaning. You can't be pro-business and pro-unions, and these values are core to the right and the left respectively. I feel like I'm stating the most obvious facts here. I can only recommend a quick read through the Wikipedia page for Syndicalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syndicalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syndicalism

sho_hn 1y ago

Calling the history of the CCP a "ship on calm seas" really sounds like you need to pick up a book on Chinese history.

stickfigure 1y ago
I'm calling the modern history of the CCP "a ship on calm seas". It's easy to be popular when everyone is going from poor to rich. That will not continue forever.
- Nevermark 1y ago
  There is something circular about this viewpoint. Of course sharp/steady increases in wealth create a lot of stability, but taking that nearly unprecedented former success as the "given", makes the achievement of the latter misleadingly tautological.
- Bimos 1y ago
  Look at "Four Asian Tigers", people don't just constantly become rich for granted
Sammi 1y ago
The last decades have seen dependable gdp growth in China. These are the calm seas that matter in this context. This growth has stopped recently...

arp242 1y ago

> My thesis is something like "any authoritarian can sail a ship in calm seas". The government of China's hard times are ahead of it. It's too early to write an epitaph for democracy. This applies to neither Russia nor China. Especially not China – authoritarian China if the 50s-70s was a complete clusterfuck every which way, in no small part due to Mao's staggering incompetence. A key part of Xiaoping's reforms of the 80s – which lifted hundreds of millions out of extreme poverty – was renouncing some of Mao's more mad notions. There are plenty of other examples where authoritarians screwed over their countries quite badly, from Mugabe to Suharto to Maduro. To say nothing of people like Stalin, Pol Pot, Hitler, and similar jolly fellows who outright murdered their own people by the millions. In authoritarian regimes you have no meaningful pushback. When Putin says "we're going to invade Ukraine real quick, stoke me a kipper, back before supper" then no one is going to say "you idiot, that's fucking mental" because you risk brutally accidentally falling out of the window while taking a shower. And now Russia is "stuck" in this pointless war because Putin has painted himself in a corner, and there is not going to be a peaceful change of governance in Russia, after which a new administration can change course. In addition authoritarians are free to be as corrupt as they like of course. Who is going to hold them to account? In the short term an authoritarian can do the right thing (Xiaoping is an example), but in the long term it never works out because sooner or later an idiot and/or asshole will plant their arsecheeks on the throne, after which you're fucked.

saulpw 1y ago
> in the long term it never works out because sooner or later an idiot and/or asshole will plant their arsecheeks on the throne, after which you're fucked. Seems like this can happen in a democracy just the same.
- arp242 1y ago
  No system is completely immune of course, but it's exceedingly rare for a dictatorship to remain stable and benign for for even just a few decades, never mind hundreds of years.
  - 1y ago

letn1 1y ago

Great when you have a democratic world that provides you with the technologies. Not that great when you dont have democratic world that provides you with the technologies.

gp90 1y ago

> The fast pace of economic growth didn't necessarily come from authoritarianism You're right. The fast pace of growth came from the policies that encourage ruthless capitalism. You can see that Chinese government controls business like oil and tobacco, but it gives tons of freedom for business owners to run wild.

nirv 1y ago
> Chinese government [...] gives tons of freedom for business owners to run wild This claim is provably incorrect. > Analysis of all 37.5 million registered firms in China reveals that 65% of the largest 1,000 private owners have direct equity ties with state owners […] The number of private owners with direct equity ties with the state almost tripled between 2000 and 2019, and those with indirect equity ties rose 50-fold. > Provincial and local government officials in China enforce laws and control resources, such as land and loans, but these officials change positions every few years. […] Publicly listed firms increase perk spending (travel, dining, and entertainment) by an average of 3.6 million yuan (20%) when new local officials take charge. […] The results are consistent with the view that local officials are important gatekeepers and firms seek to influence them with perks and positions of power within SOEs.[1][2] > China’s domestic politics have changed significantly over the past decade, with the top leadership enacting much more muscular policies to limit the power of large corporations while also deploying extensive measures to support firms, especially in key industries. According to Hsieh, this trend means that companies need to navigate the state’s “two strong hands,” one supportive and the other restrictive which aim to increase the party’s control over the economy even as the private sector continues, in one form or another, to grow. Moreover, political control is likely proving oppressive for companies as the party-state increasingly weights national security over economic growth. […] These findings […] suggest that not all government intervention in the economy is welcome by Chinese companies, especially if it comes with national security strings attached. The findings from the experiment suggest that state and party influence on private firms may have evolved to prioritize politics above economic growth, creating new challenges for companies that would naturally seek to maximize political support alongside autonomy.[3] [1] https://sccei.fsi.stanford.edu/china-briefs/rise-state-connected-private-sector-china https://sccei.fsi.stanford.edu/china-briefs/rise-state-conne... [2] https://sccei.fsi.stanford.edu/china-briefs/how-do-chinas-firms-invest-their-relationship-local-governments https://sccei.fsi.stanford.edu/china-briefs/how-do-chinas-fi... [3] https://bigdatachina.csis.org/unpacking-linkages-between-the-chinese-state-and-private-firms/ https://bigdatachina.csis.org/unpacking-linkages-between-the...

SilverElfin 1y ago

> And when it does, a generation of people (who grew up wealthy) will start to think about corruption, human rights, and having a say in what goes on. Maybe. But what happens when that group of people are suppressed and it takes a lot longer for them to become brave and speak up? Meanwhile, the government of China will become more powerful and be more of a hegemonic power than America ever was. That may extend their ability to govern and remain authoritarian. Not just for their citizens, but against other regions they unfortunately control like Hong Kong or Taiwan or Tibet or Xinjiang.

aurareturn 1y ago
Why do you say it’s unfortunate that China controls those places?
- SilverElfin 1y ago
  Those places have their own culture, identity, political views, and way of life. All of that gets erased and replaced with the CCP’s ideology and Han Chinese culture through a process called Sinicization (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinicization_of_Tibet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinicization_of_Tibet). It’s a very effective way of erasing and controlling people. Plus given that the government of China is very authoritarian and controlling and not democratic, I don’t think it’s good for the world when they get more land, resources, and economic power (which turns into military power).
  - throw443257u 1y ago
    Xinjiang is basically becoming like Hawaii. Most of the younger people are adopting Han culture, and while their native culture is still kept, a large part of it is to support tourism.
    - SilverElfin 1y ago
      How is their native culture kept when older people are arrested and jailed and have no chance to actually pass on their culture?

aaron695 1y ago

[dead]

refurb 1y ago

The blog post reads like propaganda - hitting on the same old metrics like GDP by PPP (ignoring all the other metrics that are getting worse). Who cares if it's the largest economy? What matters is productivity per person, which is around what Thailand produces - $13,000 USD per capita. One question I love asking is the pro-China faction is - assuming China grows at 5% per year (it's no longer growing at 7-8%), how long would it take to catch up to the US on a GDP per capita basis with the US growing an anemic 2%? What people forget is the US growing at 2% is equivalent to to China growing at 12% (since per capita GDP is 6x). China needs to stop their slowing economy all in an environment of reduced global trade and a terrible demographic shift.

aurareturn 1y ago
Retirement age in China has been around 55. If you go to China, you’ll see a ton of older retired people traveling around the country on high speed trains. You won’t find that many young people during day time. So that factor into GDP per capita. But besides GDP per capita, I think your criticism of GDP PPP per capita is wrong. You can live a very decent life in China. In some ways, it’s superior to Americans for many Chinese people. You just have to go to China to see it for yourself.
- refurb 1y ago
  It's not about "decent life", GDP per capita is what pays taxes, which pays healthcare and defense and other essentials. Sure, China has a fine quality of life - similar to Thailand. But they aren't going to be able to afford cutting edge healthcare, deep social program or a bottomless defense budget on 1/6th the GDP per capita.
  - aurareturn 1y ago
    I think you need to go to China and Thailand if you think China is similar to Thailand. Go see for yourself instead of reading about China through the lens of western media.
    - 1y ago

idiomat9000 1y ago

The problem is more acute and current . China has not enough white collar work. It has no pension system , usually the 4 grandparents move in with their kids. Who must provide income for 6+ person households. Which only whit collar work can do. Or investments,like flats etc. China is spiralling right now, not tomorrow , today.

thombee 1y ago
China does have a pension system, not sure where you got your information from. Are you instead arguing that their pension system is not adequate?

lossolo 1y ago

China was the world’s largest economy for 18 of the past 20 centuries (with exceptions being parts of the 19th and 20th centuries, when Western Europe and then the U.S. surged ahead after the industrial revolution). And China is no longer just catching up in many industries, it is leading innovation[1]. Many in China believe they are simply returning to their natural state being the world’s number one economy. Your analysis is through the lens of Western culture. The definition and understanding of freedom and harmony are entirely different in China. I was in China and experienced this myself, so this is firsthand experience, not something I picked up from blogs or news. And China is not like Russia at all, Russia fills its government with oligarchs, while China fills it with science and technology experts[2] > And when it does, a generation of people (who grew up wealthy) will start to think about corruption, human rights, and having a say in what goes on. In the Chinese context, freedom is defined collectively (freedom from chaos, poverty, or foreign domination etc), whereas here in the West it's individual liberty. Harmony and social stability are seen as more valuable than political pluralism, so authoritarian governance is culturally framed as legitimate. Chinese leaders and citizens remember periods of fragmentation and civil war (warlord era, Japanese invasion, cultural revolution). There is a widespread belief that adopting a Western adversarial political model could reintroduce instability and weaken national unity so something China cannot risk given its size and diversity. That is the main reason this will not happen, you will not see a liberal style democracy in China. This claim is repeated all the time, but it is a total misunderstanding of their culture, ethnicity, and history. China has a long history of centralized, bureaucratic governance (over 2k years since the Qin Dynasty), where stability and order are prioritized. 1. https://itif.org/publications/2024/09/16/china-is-rapidly-becoming-a-leading-innovator-in-advanced-industries/ https://itif.org/publications/2024/09/16/china-is-rapidly-be... 2. https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/chinas-xi-stacks-government-with-science-and-tech-experts-amid-rivalry-with-u-s-11668772682 https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/chinas-xi-stacks-government...

tkel 1y ago
Well said. The western definition of freedom as only individual freedom is not a good one. It is the same definition that allowed people to argue for keeping slaves, keeping other humans as their property, because "I have the freedom to do what I want with my property". And during the civil rights era, the same was true with "You can't tell me not to discriminate, I have the freedom to do what I want with my property, and my business is my property".

jimmydoe 1y ago

I am not particularly worried about authoritarian in China in long term. Western especially the US has long been the release valve for CCP to manage dissidents and alike, and it’s been quite effective, countless young souls looking for freedom was assimilated and became faceless in the capitalism machinery abroad, instead of fighting for their future in China. The self enshitification of USA will slowly but surely close that loophole CCP has been enjoying, and force more young Chinese to make China a better place for themselves as they will have no other choices.

anonzzzies 1y ago

> any authoritarian can sail a ship in calm sea "any democratic gov can sail a ship in calm sea" As we see in europe and the usa, when democracy lasts too long, people get too relaxed and free and turn unhappy with random things that annoy them. They used to be at work too much to worry about them, but now they can stare at their neighbour and wonder why this 'migrant' has more than them etc. Or whatever happens to annoy them. And consequently start voting for ultimately authoritarian 'leaders', which will make everything worse for them and most others.

omnimus 1y ago
In europe it is exactly because people are less relaxed that they start to looking for someone to blame. Not the other way around. They are less relaxed because power over time concentrated so much that the top is managing to kill the middle class and generally squeeze everyone. The same top is running huge marketing campaigns of blaming everything but them and as solution they offer authoritarianism and even more power concentration. The public is too busy working to be able to analyze the issue correctly. Plus political education has disappeared from schools and has been methodologically deleted by the top.
- anonzzzies 1y ago
  > They are less relaxed because power over time concentrated so much that the top is managing to kill the middle class and generally squeeze everyone. which happened because we all were very relaxed for decades; most gave away all power because it was all going well so why fight instead of going to the beach? It is still too relaxed; people are still not actually doing anything to change it. > The public is too busy working to be able to analyze the issue correctly. Plus political education has disappeared from schools and has been methodologically deleted by the top. what country? in the countries in the EU I hang out in, people seem to all be on some perpetual vacation. They have busy social agenda's, but work not so much.
  - omnimus 1y ago
    Perpetual vacation? Wow that would be great that is surely aim of every society. Unfortunately afaik majority people in europe are employed (75.8% of population) and thus have maybe 5 weeks (4 weeks minimum) of vacation. In USA the employment ratio is 59.6% so you could say that there are less people working in USA. But we all know its probably just misleading statistics because every company in US is trying not employ people but have them on some zero hour contract. This fantasy of people not working just doesn't work. Who do you think stocks your supermarket, delivers your packages, bakes your bread, fixes your car? Are you saying it's bad that these people still manage have some social life and some fun? Should they be closed in their tiny increasingly overpriced flats so they don't polute the streets? You have to be living in different tier of society but around me everybody taking second/odd jobs because their salaries froze 5 years ago didn't even keep up with inflation. Only people i know that are doing well are over 45 who became landlords by buying flats when it was possible.

matrix2596 1y ago

I wonder why India has not had the same success when its in a similar situation, is the domecratic power worse than the authoritarianism ( at least in the case of China). Or would you say India will eventually catch up and be better for the democracy.

sumedh 1y ago
Indian voters care more about religion, language, caste compared to development.
- DedlySnek 1y ago
  You missed another important point - corruption.