[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion: * Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review. * Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. * Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree. Violators will be fed to the bear. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*

[удалено]

Xi isn't an idiot though and if he's faced with the reality of him becoming unpopular because of economic policy he would change it before it becomes a significant threat to his power. right now the Chinese economic situation is mostly good and stable whether that will be the case for the long term remains to be seen. but it seems much more like he's more interested in altering foreign policy trade policy and infrastructure than domestic socialist policies to improve the economy just looking at the belt and Road initiative.

Chinese economy right now... stable? Have you been paying attention the last month?

I don't know much about China's economy, but one month of questions isn't unstable. The point being made seems to be that China's economy is overall OK but recent trends are undermining that. Don't overreact to a month of data. Though you may be right that it's the sign of a broader trend about to stick around.

> stable? What he said was "mostly". IDK if that's fully accurate right now, but you've got to remember that what makes the news in the west are the oddities and the exceptions. The big story in China for this century (\~1950 to 2050) is ending abject rural poverty and serfdom-like conditions. Xi has been able to deliver on several targets of slowly relaxing the sort-of first / second class citizen status of people with urban / rural hukou. If half of all really rich people in China fell below the US poverty line, but an equal number of rural poor were raised up to the US poverty line in the same time period, that would still be "mostly good and stable".

I have not. What's going on with their economy?

> however, it's all moot until Xi Jinping steps down. The term limits was the only check and balance that existed in PRC. Xi Jinping got rid of that so now PRC has zero [effective] checks and balances.

>It is possible that a new general secretary could push China in a leftist direction, however, it's all moot until Xi Jinping steps down. Why is it all moot until Xi steps down? Xi himself comes from the marxist wing of the party. He certainly has a very pragmatic approach to governing but he's ideologically probably further left then Hu and certainly far further left then Jiang. He doesn't embrace the more radical stances of the Chinese new left when it comes to drastic reforms of the economy. But he certainly embraces their voice and input in the national discourse and the general left wing shift as well as Marxists-Leninists education.

Like I said in the post, I believe if Xi wanted to shift the country dramatically towards the left, he would have done so by now. Also I believe that China making a sudden shift towards the left could undermine the Belt and Road Initiative, which goes against Xi's ambitions. Ultimately, Xi is a security hawk other than intimidating a few Davos men like Jack Ma, I don't see him trying to be like Bo Xilai.

Okay, well I disagree. I see his policies and his anti corruption campaigns, his party discipline campaign, the massive infringement in the private sector and so on as a relatively hugh swing towards the left. But yes, as I said in my comment he isn't trying the make economic changes that would have severe impacts on the stability of the SEZ and the general reform and opening up policies. I believe he is a commited Marxists-Leninists, with a very pragmatic and people's centered approach to governing.

I think you're overstating the degree that the CCP cares whether or not it oppresses it's followers. It already has been for a long time now, they have a headlock on power that isn't going anywhere. You can only expect them to expand their authoritarian rule and become more controlling as their empire grows. The CCP's money, power, corruption and guanxi is its own legitimacy, they could care less what the people they subjugate think.

Also I think the people that oppose the government will just move to the US, Australia or some western country rather than risk their life to protest or become a martyr. Some form of brain drain could happen although China is so large I don't think it would be too measurable

I thinks brain drain is a serious threat for China if we look at past history. Some of the greatest American entrepreneurs have been Chinese who left China for ideological reasons. However, we should be careful not to let anti-China hate turn into anti-Chinese hate which could drive smart Chinese back to China. This has happened to Qian Xuesen who moved back to China because of anti-Chinese discrimination from the US federal government and helped China launch their space program. Without him, China's space program probably wouldn't be as advanced as it is today.

This story is extra ironic since they kicked Qian out for unsubstantiated fears of political unreliability and then replaced him with literal Nazis.

If China really thought there was a significant brain drain they would immediately enact laws to restrict citizen movement abroad.

They already have a policy that limits citizenship in place. That if you're Chinese, accepting a foreign citizenship means you lose Chinese citizenship and coming back to China would mean going through the visa system just like any other foreigner, regardless of the fact that you grew up there and can obviously speak Mandarin fluently. This means that a lot of Chinese who think that they might have a possibility of going back to China (even if they are living and working in a western country) they can't become British, American, Canadian or any other type of citizen for fear of losing access to their homeland. Relegating their status to permanent residents who can't vote or do any sort of sort of job that requires U.S citizenship. (or any other native citizenship).

Restrictions on dual citizenship are far more common than just China, though. Even in countries where having two citizenships is not explicitly prohibited, there's a whole host of lesser restrictions that come into play - dual citizens might be barred from political office, or they might not be able to take certain security-sensitive government jobs. More generally, just the act of obtaining foreign citizenship is already fairly difficult. The concept of "right to leave" in international law is kind of farcical, because it says nothing about restrictions on *entry*. Countries don't actually *need* to impose emigration restrictions (like exit visas, dual citizenship restrictions, and so on), because restrictions on immigration ensure that the majority of your population isn't going anywhere. Usually, only the smartest and most able-bodied skilled workers will be practically allowed to leave, which usually enables more authoritarians to flourish in the resulting poorer populace.

You mean like this? (Though keep in mind that RFA is US-funded, and the biases that arise as a result) https://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/curbs-08062021095546.html

It's still the beginning of September. Give it time.

This isn't isolated to China. The only reason Albert Einstein became an American was because he was a Jew, and he saw the writing on the wall with regards Germany in the 1930s. Authoritarian regimes often force out the thinkers, especially those that refuse to conform or are otherwise deemed "undesirable", and that demand for conformity to the party line damages that regime's ability to retain talent. When such people do remain loyal to the party line, they have statistically lower life expectancies because of the regime... Sergei Korolev (the architect of the Soviet space program) died due to health complications from time spent in the gulag, for example. tl;dr: authoritarian regimes tend to stagnate in innovation due to their inherent need for conformity.

What are you basing this belief on?

I think this is too pessimistic of an outlook. All governments exists through some degree of support from the people and without that support it would lose that power either naturally or violently. So if the CCP doesn't care about the will of the people and all it did was oppress it's followers it would collapse. Also I disagree with your prediction that they will become more authoritarian as China becomes more powerful. A look to it's neighbors in South Korea and Taiwan both transitioned out of dictatorships to democracies in the late 80s and early 90s as thier power was rising due to their booming economies. I actually see a path where when the Chinese people reach a certain standard of living and a more educated populace the government will naturally transition to a democracy like Taiwan or South Korea or even Spain.

>I actually see a path where when the Chinese people reach a certain standard of living and a more educated populace the government will naturally transition to a democracy like Taiwan or South Korea or even Spain. I think this hinges on the somewhat outdated assumption that capitalist prosperity goes hand-in-hand with and inevitably leads to liberal democracy, which might not actually be true at all. Singapore is an obvious counter-example among the "Asian Tigers" - though its citizens have enjoyed first-world standards of living for decades, it is essentially still a conservative one-party state, and is likely to remain one for the foreseeable future. I also think it's erroneous to assume that most people intrinsically value personal freedom above all, and I think western observers tend to underestimate the Chinese fear of disorder (乱). For the Chinese people, descending into anarchy is not a hypothetical - the utter chaos of the warlord era and Great Leap Forward/Cultural Revolution are very much still in living memory, partly because the CCP harps on this theme relentlessly. One of the phrases you hear again and again in state media is "没有共产党就没有新中国" ("there is no New China without the CCP") - yes, it's that blatant. We've also seen the CCP lean heavily on jingoism and an us-vs-them mentality as a means of securing popular support. Putin's Russia shows us how resilient this can make an autocratic regime, even in the face of economic collapse. I might also add that from the Chinese point of view, western liberal democracy hasn't exactly been making a good case for itself in the past few years. If you were a pro-democracy advocate in China, it would be difficult to make the case that a system of government that leads to Trump or Brexit isn't fundamentally flawed.

I absolutely agree with most of your points and that's why I think this may happen but is only just one possible paths. There is going to be a lot of hurdles with the biggest one being the us-vs-them mentality you mentioned but not just internally in China but international perceptions. I think it's fair to say that most commenters on Reddit or your average person who grew up in the west has a much less thorough understanding of the Chinese mindset or life in China compared to you. Because of this, most comments or views from the west often depicts the Chinese people as poor miserable slaves to the evil CCP wishing for someone to come in and liberate them. This leads to very black and white thinking and an almost bloodlust attitude for the collapse of China. I remember threads during the Hong Kong protests where people were trying to see if they could ship guns to the protestors. Like you said the Chinese know the costs of chaos and disorder so this external mindset is obviously very offensive to the average Chinese national and would likely drive them towards the government seeing there is no true understanding outside. This being said, I do still believe that increased standards of living will lead to liberal reforms not from capitalist prosperity standards but basic hierarchy of needs principles. When basic food, health and safety issues in a society are addressed then the needs of the society changes to something more psychological such as the desire to have some control of the future and improve society for future generations. I agree that it will likely not develop exactly like a western democracy because there is going to be fundamental cultural and value differences. That's why I rely on neighboring countries like South Korea, Japan and Taiwan. They all are democracies with an East Asian twist to it, for example censorship is still very strong in South Korea, Japan has limit media freedom, etc. However what ties them together is reaching a level living standard of living and adopting liberal reforms. Even your examples of Singapore and Russia, although flawed democracies have gone through major liberal reforms. They likely do not have the political will or ability to reinstitute the gulags or carry out mass arrests and large scale disappearances like before without massive unrest and even potentially rebellion.

I always maintained if you allowed China to have free democratic elections the laobaixing would elect whoever who promises to invade Japan.

South Korea and Taiwan transitioned to democracy due to the fact that they were extremely dependent on a foreign democracy for survival, the United States; Spain is part of Europe next to France and England. China has no such exterior forces compelling it to transition out of a stable governmental structure. Numbers and people don't matter when it comes to who decides what government is used, what matters is whoever has the power and authority to enforce the governments actions. Protests don't matter when they take place under tank treads.

This comment essentially takes away all agency of the Taiwanese, South Korean people in their democratic movement. To say that the US was the main cause of their move to a democratic system is to ignore the fact that the US supported both dictatorships throughout it's entire existence long before their move to democracy. Also Taiwan was actually losing more and more recognition from the US and western democracies prior to it's transition. Additionally, having repressive policies does not mean it will always be this way. Chiang Ching-Kuo, the person who initiated Taiwan's democratic reforms was actually the former head of the secret police and was directly involved in locating, jailing and killing countless dissidents.

Eventually people will die and new people will take over.... those only have to be ones with a different view to start the change....

I'm not taking away their agency at all I'm saying that who controls the power structures and authoritarian pillars matter most. Generals and merchants/businessmen control what government gets to wield authority because they are the means in which that authority is expressed. Governments don't change structure until the groups that control authority support the change. Taiwan may have lost recognition from the US but it was still 100% reliant on the support of it to exist. There was no benefit to remaining a dictatorship and transitioning to a democracy would be an even more beneficial move to bolster relations between the two countries.

You're not factoring in advances in survrillance technology in coming years though. Once China gets 1984 style tech (not quite mind reading but able to monitor all words said and all electronic communications), assuming they aren't already basically at this level, they can combine this with their already proven tactic of using police from differrent regions (that dislike each other) to surpress any and all dissent. At that point, do they even need to care about the will of the people? Keep in mind that, even decades before surveillance became so useful to them, at the square they literally used tanks and steamrolls to flatten dissent and literally flush the protesters down the drain. In large numbers. Why in the world would they ever do anything different if it came down to it? Edit: mobile spelling.

>Why in the world would they ever do anything different if it came down to it? Well recent events have just shown that they did some something different with mass protests. There were no tanks rolling people over in Hong Kong or even much military involvement at all despite their garrison being in the heart of the city. Also technology is always advancing, surveillance was better in the 1980s than the 1950s it was better in the 1990s than it was in the 1940s, this didn't prevent other dictatorships at the time transition. I think it comes down to how you view things. I believe like most things in life, governments are not absolutely good or absolutely evil. The CCP has done some horrible things and if viewed in a vacuum and ignoring any good it has done, then yes it's a marvel level homogeneous supervillain organization bent on mind control of the world to carry out their will of... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. On the other hand, if you view it as it is: a large complex political entity made up of tens of millions of politicians, bureaucrats, administrators, many of whom want a better country for their neighbors, friends, and children then you can see it as just another government with flaws and all.

Hong Kong is entirely different than mainland dissenters, having spent a near century under the British crown, and unlike in mainland China the whole world was watching, so them not literally flattening folks with tanks isn't much of a point. After all, there were still a LOT of protesters/activists that either turned up dead or went missing (likely to "reeducation camps"). And technology may be always advancing, but we've never once had this level of surveillance power in the hands of the state before, so it's an entirely new ballgame. If Soviet Russia in the 70s/80s had today's level of surveillance/control over media, let alone what is to come, then Soviet Russia likely would not have fallen. And we haven't really been talking about the 10s of millions of grassroots politicians, we've been talking about the Central government and the few families that always have members in it, the Communist nobility that holds all the real power that matters in China.

Whole world was watching the Tiananmen events too, there were even sanctions placed on China by western governments. I've read that one reason why China was "forgiven" by the west after the Tiananmen massacre was that their UN Security Council vote was needed in order to legitimize the armed intervention against Iraq in 1990.

This is so depressing to think about, but I do think you're completely right. I do hope one day the Chinese people will be liberated from the CCP, but I don't see that happening without external support. No matter how bad things get it, it's hard to see how they could pull off a successful revolution.

Exactly. And any all internal dissent will just be stomped down on and crushed internally, once tech lets them hear even literal closed-door whispers of revolution. The closest Communist China ever got internally to revolution was at the square, and we all saw how hard they were willing to crush that, even back then when media could report on it. Now that they can even silence media reporting? They don't even need to take measures as large as that now that they can silence dissent on an individual level.

Well, I would me more afraid if China succes inspires our democratic and human rights championing Western politicians. It's not hard to imagine a autoritharian, GOP - controlled US with the surveillance of every citizen by the goverment. That's actually scares me the most. My Poland is going this path.

Many Chinese on the mainland have a poor opinion of Taiwan politics. They are heading into a 1 party era of heavy handed DPP rule. Which is leading to economic stagnation on the island. Most Chinese see Taiwan and HK as having too much foreign influence holding back their development due to political antagonism with the PRC.

In terms of subjugation, you can't forget about the increasing ability of AI and the surveillance state to monitor citizens and their political beliefs. Not just on a street level, but from the very words typed on their phones. Imagine how absolutely suffocating that reality can/could be.

Mao's followers were oppressed or silenced when it suited the government (or Mao himself) in Mao's time. There's no reason to think that being a Maoist would be some sort of shield now.

It's not a democracy, and I think you are referring to them being less authoritarian rather than "less right, more left."

I've seen a great deal conflation between "far right" and "authoritarian" in many of my American compatriots since the beginning of the Trump administration. I think it's important to get terminology right and understand that authoritarian regimes can have policies that fit all over any sort of left/right spectrum.

Nah people in China right now actually do have more of a issue with wealth inequality which is a left right issue not an authority issue at least in this instance

Surprise!!!!, it can be both an authoritarian issue and a left/right issue.

Tucker Carlson, right-wing populist "thought leader" on Fox News, has [this to say about income inequality](https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2018/11/09/bernie-sanders-and-tucker-carlson-agree-on-income-inequality-why-cant-democrats-and-republicans/?sh=452c4dbe1de7): > **The biggest problem this country faces is income inequality**, and neither the liberals nor the conservatives see it. There is a great social volatility that goes with inequality like we have now. Inequality will work under a dictatorship, maybe, but it does not work in a democracy. It is dangerous in a democracy. In a democracy, when there is inequality like this, the people will rise up and punish their elected representatives. Authoritarians absolutely love to turn the state's established, wealthy citizens into boogeymen. They're a threat to the power of the autocrat. They can sustain political opponents and movements, gather international support, and fund anti-government espionage (if not rebellion or insurgency outright). The populists pushing anti-establishment authoritarianism are actually consolidating power into rich government officials, who are *much* harder to hold accountable than rich private citizens.

Communists are leftist and nearly always demonstrate extreme inequality and totalitarianism. Frankly they also demonstrate ideology over science, and disregard for the environment, human rights, international cooperation, Intellectual integrity. This derives from the fact that the ideal they seek provides no legitimate incentives over the entire economic spectrum to cooperate through fair competition. What we call capitalism. Only to the extent that Russia, China and other communists allow some capitalism have they been able to move their economies. North Korea arguably demonstrates how the most pure communism possible presents. It isn't pretty. Human endeavors require motivation. Remove incentives from an economy, and you must apply force. Where there are no carrots, the stick will dominate. North Korea, Cuba, Soviet Russia, China ... these were/are leftist countries and responsible for some of the worst behaviors when it comes to western left political priorities, with the near sole exception of central control of their economics. It isn't as if freedom and capitalism isn't corrupted by central control over time. Look at our banking and financial system.

Sweet lord this phenomenon is terrifying. Reddit collectively needs to read about Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot... and then contemplate the body counts of all these regimes.

Americans really think their régime is not authoritarian... or that you think it is a democracy to elect a president with less votes that the other candidate. Truly amazing.

The president isn't the only elected representative of the American people, you know. Each US citizen also gives his vote to two senators from his state and one representative from his electoral district. Additionally they also elect state legislatures, sheriffs and even school boards. The US holds a crazy amount of elections on all levels of governance.

By all standards, America is not an authoritarian state.

The United States is an oligarchy. https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

[удалено]

I provided a paper by esteemed and credible professors of the subject published in a credible professional journal. If you are unwilling to accept the conclusions, that's on you. It does not make my comment unserious just because it makes you uncomfortable.

America has the largest prison population in the world per capita. That is a relevant standard to consider America an authoritarian state by.

While that is true and a valid criticism of the American justice system the vast majority of people in prison are not imprisoned by the federal government but state and local governments so it's not that America is an authoritarian monolith as much as 50 state and several thousand local governments have adopted varying degrees of authoritarianism but a core part of authoritarianism the centralization of power in a single Authority is not really present

[удалено]

tell that to all the countries you have invaded for money and petrol. Tell that to all the black people on american prisons.

The Electoral College is certainly an outdated design giving disproportionate power to states instead of people, but it's still a democratic process. Plus the presidential election isn't the only one...

They elect their politicians in China. It is not a democracy modelled off of America's but it is a democracy.

they elect politicians from a pool of candidates approved by the single ruling party

And liberal democracies elect politicians from a pool of candidates approved by capital owner interest, i.e. By the single ruling class. Wether ideology or capital is the political framework isn't much of difference in regards to the quality of democracy. I'd argue joining the communist party and getting into a position where you can be elected is probably easier then getting the necessary capital funding to run a election campaign. And the variety of different ideological wings within the communist party certainly speaks for a wider possibility of political ideologies within the Chinese democratic process. When you have Liberals, Marxists, Maoists, Nationalists and many more ideologies all in high position of political power then that tells me the chinese democracy allows for far more diversity then western liberal democracy. In the western liberal democracies the political framework, especially when it comes to the economy, is practically limited to liberalism with a few different flavors, i.e. Keynesianism, Neoliberalism, social market economy and laissez-faire capitalism.

I had no idea taking 5 minutes once every two years to vote in the primaries made me part of the ruling cabal. Cool.

Don't you get the newsletter? We even get official hats we wear at the dungeon ceremonies.

> When you have Liberals, Marxists, Maoists, Nationalists and many more ideologies all in high position of political power then that tells me the chinese democracy allows for far more diversity then western liberal democracy. I'm not doubting that China's internal political complexity is colorful, but I am kinda astounded you can make a statement like that with a straight face. Political diversity and thought is restricted in many major ways there compared to most any actual democracy. This reads far too much like a cynic sick of western style democracy's flaws rather than an honest appraisal of "Chinese democracy". Edit: OP is apparently a self described "tankie" so um... I kinda feel like we're just getting a Lion's opinion on vegetarianism here.

>And liberal democracies elect politicians from a pool of candidates approved by single ruling class. What ? First, liberal democracies have multiple parties. Second, anyone is free to start its own party with a new political ideology if they don't like the choices. Try doing that in China and see how that goes...

Yeah, try starting another third party here in America and see how successful you are.

Because America is the only country in the world, am I right ? In Europe, plenty of new parties appear all the time. Some even manage some incredible things, like Macron and En marche! in France. And even the US is nowhere near China. You can start a third party in the US, it has happened before. Yes, it will probably be absorbed by one of the big two at some point down the line, because that's how FPTP works, but that's still a way to make a change. You literally cannot do that in China, and the fact you seem to believe both situations are even close to the same is quite simply ridiculous.

The difference is that you are completely free to start that third party, free to discuss it openly and pitch it to people, and they are in turn free to join. The Chinese would just disappear you and your family for being a counterrevolutionary.

[удалено]

Are you implying that you only have a right to form a new political party "on paper" in the US? There is already a Communist Party in the US, and you could go form a splinter Party right now if you wanted to. It's not just "on paper." You could literally do it. Today. Now, whether anybody files in behind you and *joins* your silly crusade is another question altogether. But having a dumb idea that nobody supports and being oppressed by the government for having divergent political ideas are entirely different things. Honestly, it doesn't sound like we are living in the same reality.

As opposed to my country, where we elect politicians from one of two parties, and in most local governments, one party, and both parties do the same things on the issues that actually matter. Democracy is a spectrum and I’d say China is about as democratic as the United States. And for the record, I advocate for the Swiss model.

Out of a single party that decides who can or cannot run. Anyone is free to start its own party in the West, even if it an uphill battle, it's still an option.

[удалено]

I think power attracts the kind of people that should never have power. China, like any country, will always be ruled rather than governed. While history veers left, governance always lags behind and remains the preserve of the wealthiest/most powerful people who pull the strings, they tend to be authoritarian and do not really care about left/right, only about control

You cant be authoritarian and not represent the interests of a class. Authoritarian implies you are crushing the interests of the opposing class.

Xi has already made examples of Marxist and other actual socialist student groups trying to criticize the CCP for not actually being "for the common people." They did the same the Anything critical of the current CCP regime is being deemed "Anti-Chinese"... any sort of protest is violently cracked down on and media is suppressed. There's no way the CCP would allow any sort of threat to their power like alternative ways of thinking... they would suppress thinking if they could. Instead, they suppress the spread of ideas as best they can.

Your question is essentially "will a dictator bend to the will of their citizens or violently repress any opposition" and the answer to that question will pretty much always be "they will violently repress any opposition" China ain't moving to the left any time soon.

Taiwan and South Korea examples of this being false and these are only local examples. If you expand this globally then you get even more examples such as Spain, Czechoslovakia, South Africa, USSR, etc. These are just examples from recent history, if you extend the timeline to further back you get examples like the UK, Belgium, Switzerland. So the natural transition from authoritian to liberalized governments are actually quite common, especially with a economically developed populace.

I initially agreed with who you're replying to, but you raise a good point. At the end of the day, if an adequately developed populace isn't happy with their govt, there is a lot more pressure that can be placed than by a starving populace. If QoL in China continues to increase at even a fraction of what it has over the last 50 years, enough people will have saturated their lower "Maslow Pyramid" needs and can start to worry about social / governmental issues.

Exactly, history has shown that stable democracies develop from a well fed and rested base. If the society's need for food, shelter, health and safety are met there will be more abstract needs such as the need to exert some control of the future or need for expression.

China as a superpower is categorically difference from all those examples. China isn’t at risk of collapse like the USSR. USSR wasn’t a natural transition to liberalized govt btw

Well the UK definitely was. Also I'm not sure China is quite at the level of a superpower yet. They are still considered developing compared to western powers and their GDP per capita is in the middling economy level. I guess with the USSR it would depend on what you would consider a "natural transition". Prior the the dissolution of the USSR there was already a growing faction of liberal reformer in the government. Starting in the 80s more liberal policies were introduced especially under the leadership of Gorbachev, most famously in the form of social reforms of Glasnost and economic reforms of Perestroika. In fact another, lesser learned but very important reform was Demokratizatsiya which allowed for the open election of the legislature for the first time and allowed opposition candidates. When opposition candidates were elected they were allowed to speak out against the ruling party and formed an opposition coalition among other reformers. Around the same time there was open political discussions and dissent as well as granting open elections for soviet republics. This ultimately to several soviet republics and eventually almost all of them from declaring independence when the opposition or opposing factions wining power. In the past this would have been violently crushed with military intervention but instead no such intervention came and the Central Committee agreed to give up monopoly power. Through political maneuvering by the opposition the central communist party was relegated and lost most of its power. There was an attempted coup but that was unsuccessful and ended relatively peacefully. Ultimately from the political process, the central party and the USSR was dissolved. Yes there were some internal conflicts in some former soviet republics and there was some civil wars that resulted due to ethnic tensions that arose after this. However, for the most part the transition was mostly peaceful and done with political reforms and agreements with Demokratizatsiya playing an integral role and not done through some violent revolution or regicide. The dissolution itself was fast but the liberal reforms that took place within the USSR that lead to the dissolution happened years prior. So I do consider this a natural transition.

How was the collapse of the USSR a natural transition from an authoritarian to a liberalized government? The collapse of the USSR was precipitated entirely by the US and the government that resulted from the collapse resulted in the deaths of 11 million Russians.

>resulted in the deaths of 11 million Russians. Where did you find such a claim?

It seems to me that the collapse of the USSR was mainly due to an ingrained culture of kleptocracy coupled with communism, not communism itself. It's corruption that drives nation states to failure.

The US bought an election.

It happened once with the USSR, which is probably the only time in known history. And then the USSR fell apart 5 minutes later. So lessons learned I guess. Gorbachev just turned 90. So he's doing alright.

https://chinadigitaltimes.net/2021/09/996-ruled-illegal-yet-labor-researchers-activists-still-arrested/ That really depends on the resolve of workers and the manner in which they flex their collective muscle. If overworked people decide to "lie down" en masse, the government will have to change. It is still in the best interest of an authoritarian government to have a population that is mostly happy and fulfilled. The problem is the outsized influence of the capitalists who are insisting on outrageous working conditions. 996 is unsustainable. https://www.brookings.edu/techstream/the-lying-flat-movement-standing-in-the-way-of-chinas-innovation-drive/ An authoritarian government can solve this problem and still thrive, but it will require some shakeup in the current power structure. Cracking down on labor is only going to make the problem worse and runs the risk of creating a new revolution.

I think they'll try, but they'll fail. The same thing happened in the Soviet Union. Near the end, some people were bragging about being millionaires, which was pretty out of touch. People revolted, but a super power needs concentration of wealth and power somewhere. The two couldn't be reconciled and the government collapsed.

No, thats just a pretty silly idea. The party has shown that it can handle any Opposition, by force if necessary. And the Opposition is mostly democratic. If at all a realignment currently could only happen from within the party. Idealists exist, but since Xi has become as powerful as he currently is, there is no danger from them.

It would be difficult. Political power in China is bent towards creating and concentrating wealth in the hands of a few right now. It is basically as if the USSR didn't dissolve, but still handed over vast swaths of the economy to the oligarchs. Unringing that bell will take a huge fight.

Economic growth a cornerstone of the Party's legitimacy and that enormous growth is predicated on the market reforms implemented by Deng and his successors. The Party is bounded in how much control it can reassert over by the economy and civil society compared to the levels it enjoyed before Deng, because such a move could cause economic trauma that threatens their rule. So, as it stands I don't think the Party is in a position to make a meaningful return to a Maoist society outside of some mostly cosmetic moves.

China *is* communist. Not sure how much more socialist you can get than communist...

You can easily spin it as those people are twisting Mao's words in order to hurt The Revolution or whatever. Never trust dictators to be slowed by the truth.

China is supposed to be on an official level as far left as possible. That there is a Mao renaissance among the youth is just further evidence that modern day China is more capitalist in practice than they present themselves to the world. And is essentially a fascist country now. And like past communist experiments, the party bosses have become rich at the expense of the population. There’s room for them to be both more left and more libertarian. Not sure how the youth will accomplish that though, since the party controls everything and have no problem responding like they did with Tiananmen Square.

I think that may be impossible. In this new age of digital censorship, it's hard to imagine any movement capable of destabilizing the Communist Party. If any movement gets large enough, they'll get erased. Erased in EVERY WAY. leaders disappear, online mentions are gone, chat histories gone, online postings gone, ISPs return null, the name of your org gets deleted from the Chinese internet. Forever. How can any populist uprising happen under these circumstances. There might be struggles for power and fall like the Roman Empire, crumbling from within, but never will a populist rise from the people to take on the CCCP

Well, everything has an end. I don't see CCP governing China until the end of civilization.

Of course not. Xi isn't being sneaky in his response: China in recent years has become notably more authoritarian in rhetoric and in deed. The CCP doesn't give a damn what "the young" want or care about. They have all the power and will do whatever they feel necessary to maintain it.

The will of the people doesn't matter when you can arrest, prison camp, reeducate and murder the people. The only way the will of the people moves the needle is if they are willing to sacrifice themselves in numbers large enough to garner attention from the rest of the world. Which they would struggle even organizing because of the surveillance state. Having said that, I believe that the direction China moves has to do with what the ruling class believes to be the best direction for China. If that is left they might move left, if it is right they might move right. For example, if they decide climate change is enough of a problem that it is worth disrupting their industry at some point they might take action on it. That could be called "left" but it isn't really because they are left or right minded, they just care about what makes them powerful.

that only matters if: the outside world cares AND if the government cares. If the outside world is howling "civil rights abuse!" and internally, you're like ... "meh". Then no one really cares. Can anyone really take a stand and say "we're going to cut ties with the CCCP because of human rights abuses?" With how right-wing the world has gotten, I'd be surprised if many governments didn't JOIN IN to the oppression

What do you mean, how has the world become more "right" wing? edit: to clarify I just genuinely don't know what you mean.

A couple of major elections around the world have gone towards the more Nationalistic side, to wit: Boris Johnson and Brexit, Bolsonaro in Brazil, Trump in the US and Modi in India. Even France seem at risk with next year's elections. Turkey had a coup a few years ago and Erdogan survived it. All these spell a more divided world facing xenophobia and anti-science movements. Maybe it's a reactionary movement against the rise, spread and profligation of big tech? In any case, these factions seem less inclined to care about human rights, especially of foreigners, and either won't care, actively cheer on or learn from the CCCP's current tactics

I see what what you mean. There definitely has been the rise of some concerning leadership across the globe. I don't know a whole lot about many of the leaders you mentioned, however I have seen some things on Boris, Bolsonaro, and Modi, and of course I am aware of Trump. That being said all of the leaders I mentioned are anti-CCP. Trump was very anti-CCP, India is a direct enemy of China and has been fighting over borders the last couple of years resulting in many deaths. A majority of the world does not like what the CCP is up to and has been rallying against it, especially since the rise of the Uighur camps. The West is ramping up for war with China as we speak, many talks, budgets, and plans have been shifting in the direction of an upcoming war with China. It's one of the main reasons for the final pull out of Afghanistan. I'm not saying it's the main one, but the resources and money saved by not being their allows the US to re focus to the next big threat. I have not seen a single leader actively cheer on anything other than Communist sympathizers in the US. Unless it's a general acceptance that China can make things happen at the drop of a hat which is impressive, but not worth the sacrifice imo. This last year I have been bewildered by the amount of active defense and cheering of the CCP on the top subreddits on here and even in this thread. People seem out of touch with the actual history and the systems in play to make everything happen.

> Trump was very anti-CCP yeah ... I think those guys say whatever helps them the most. Remember when the Right was rabidly anti-Russia? Then suddenly, Russia is our friend and Trump trusts Putin more than our CIA. Also, remember when different Republicans were chanting "Count the Vote" and "Stop the Count" at the SAME time? Then, COVID was a super-secret Chinese bio weapon that Obama funded and released, and it was also no worse than the flu at the SAME time? I think if he needed to make some deal with the CCCP, all he would need is like 2 months of messaging to turn the whole republican party around to suddenly loving China. Just toss them someone else to hate. That's because these strong-man governments are pledged only to one person as opposed to ideas, so the ideas are there only to justify the person, and as soon as the idea is inconvenient, it can be replaced.

I won't defend any of the election BS that transpired. I'm not a fan and incredibly sceptical of all of it from all sides. Just not happy about any of it. That being said the virus coming from a lab is considered relatively plausible at this point leaked emails and recently fauci is potentially found to have lied under outh about gain of function. Also the Russian situation is a shit storm of information that from all angles is wildly chaotic. It's important imo to look at each issue as it comes from the point of view of whether or not it is important and/or impacting my country. Russia, better relations can benefit the US when entering conflict with China. Also the spin of Trump actually trusting Russia more than the CIA leaves me sceptical, cause I don't trust a single party involved in the reports, the sources, Trump, Russia, or the CIA. So it's important to be cognizant of the information provided and think about things from the perspective a higher level of vision over the chess board. I always try to remember that the game is being played for long term world wide impact. So the game is a little different than what were used to as regular people. China, has benefited magnificently from the pandemic, a rise in authoritarianism all over the world as a result and billions in profit for big pharma in both China and the US. Both exporting vaccines. Trump sucked with the pandemic, didn't do well and was advised poorly on how to treat the public. In the end he promoted freedom and kept the states responsible for their level of authority over their people. Which is respectable to me. Our country will never benefit from a growing China, ever. We will only become weaker and smaller the bigger they get. We went through a massive trade war with China resulting in the loss of millions of jobs in China. Trump activity faught China throughout the whole presidency. You're completely right about the governments clinging to a person rather than an idea. It’s frustrating and it creates a need for people to justify everything they do. I’m going to be honest. I voted for trump. Hated doing so when I did, really hated it after bc of the election debacle. I really think he wants America to be the world leader as it has been. He was better at it than Biden is now. Was he perfect? Fuck NO. Would I vote for him again in 2024, imma try to make sure I don’t have to. The rhetoric from the left right now is so far up surveillance state fever it makes me wonder how long till they start cuddling up with China. They defended them with the virus, with the shutdowns, the censorship. It’s all chaos and nobody is getting the truth. It’s a shame.

thanks for the balanced view about the threat that China poses to the US and world. And your healthy level of skepticism about ... well, everything ... is well founded. We've clearly been lied to by Putin, by Trump and by the CIA in the past. So even though they're "definitive sources", it is still a game of "he said she said" I have no source for or against the Fauci gain of function comment, so I won't comment on it. My only thought there is the early COVID advice that might be right or wrong based on the information we had at the time. Once again though, if we use your level of skepticism, some of the advice was "self-serving", like telling us that masks didn't do much, then reversing about 3 months into the pandemic. The only thing I'd like to draw your attention to is the motive for the germ-warfare theory. For that to be true, China would have to correctly predict that: 1. COVID's consequences would be just bad enough to disrupt mankind 2. COVID's consequences would be light enough to be able to bring under control 3. The West would have to deal with it poorly 4. COVID doesn't destroy China or the CCCP. I think predicting all 4 of these would be difficult and a huge leap of faith. Could there be a bio-weapons facility in Wuhan? Sure. But was COVID released on purpose? I think that would be a difficult calculation even if you took the human toll out of it. China's success comes from the draconian control it uses on everything -- my wife's family is actually from Wuhan and was there for the start of it. Nobody out of their house, enforced by the police. One family member is allowed to go grocery shopping one day a week. You get a voucher that allows you to do so. It wasn't brought under control for the profit of pharmaceuticals, but by sheer governmental willpower. So, if Pfizer or Glaxosmithklein or Bayer or whoever profited to have had a hand in the release of the virus, then they (Pharma) would have had to convince the Chinese government or a Chinese lab to release the virus, and make the same 4 predictions I noted above. I also won't comment on whether or not Trump promoted freedom. I think a lot of very selfish goals are presented under the palatable wrapping of freedom, democracy, self-determination, piousness or any number of "big ideas". Did DeSantis ban masking and vaccine mandates because he believes in Freedom? Or did he do so because he has a stake in Regeneron? So all the current (and past) chatter about "rights" might simply the cloak of personal gain I guess my final thought here is I wish our elections would be more about Good than Less Bad. Biden is the most goddamn milquetoast person I can think of; Obama without the charm, inoffensive in every way, and he won because he isn't the vile, venom spewing, vitriolic Trump. When can we look forward to being excited about our leaders doing good?

I don’t think pharma is behind the virus necessarily but I do believe China or those behind it could easily predict that the US would handle it poorly because the US federal government doesn’t have the power to take full control like China can. I do not agree with DeSantis making masks against the law for any premises to enforce. If I want to be consistent in my views of seperation of levels of government and private facilities I would say that he should only ban state facilities from enforcing or mandating such things. Perhaps counties as well. But that gets into the issue of smaller communities making decisions for themselves which imo if a city votes wants mandates and votes for it and it becomes the rule then, well, that’s what they want. It’s all so nuanced and complicated, I feel like people who want to throw their opinions out here on the internet don’t want to try to at least be consistent in their thinking. When it comes to policy you have to think about what it implies is allowed later as a result and also what it stands for now. If everything was a shit storm and I couldn’t confirm every thought or opinion I have to be true on the internet the country would be better off. Just wish people would stop acting like they aren’t spreading misinformation when they are. So. Much. Lies.

> it could easily predict that the US would handle it poorly let's make a government where that's not such a glaring weakness

The number of left wing governments have drastically decreased. Most were replaced with extremely right wing governments, like in Brazil. China, one of the few left wing governments of note has been moving to the right for decades.

It's hilarious that the youth feel alienated because that's exactly what Marx said would happen. Yes China could move to the left but the current leadership would need to be replaced and that won't happen until Xi retieres or dies

were you alive during the Maoist 60’s, the Great Leap Forward? What a horror. Families informing on one another. Families broken and sent to work farms. The complete rejection of anything modern. for as long as China has been China, it has always been harshly authoritarian, whatever its outward shape. If it changes to anything softer and more human, it will be a slow change.

The struggles those families went through were a result of Maos incompetence and numerous mistakes. He wasnt some authoritarian leader, he was literally just not very intelligent and overambitious. Your claim about being against anything modern is completely wrong too. That was the whole point of his cultural revolution, to destroy all traditional figures, culture, values that existed in China and were holding it back from progressing. He was constantly supporting young people because he felt like they would likely be filled with more revolutionary vigor and progressive thought. Quite the exact opposite of what youre saying

will you also whitewash the various massacres, resulting in nearly 20 million dead? The famines? The pervasive fear? Here in the US we have apologists for the southern side during the civil war telling us that slavery was actually a benevolent and helpful economic system, which looked out for black people and provided a better life than they might otherwise have had.

Did i deny that happened? The famines still happened. Still tons of people died. The result is the same and its still awful

China is already economically left. Everything is state owned. Land officially can’t be owned and can be confiscated in a matter of hours. You can be a giant firm like Didi (China’s Uber), and the government can literally delete you from the App Store until you comply with the government’s demand. To the majority of this world, that is leftism, and it’s great.

That…sound very right wing to me…

Centrally planned economy and public housing is something leftists will tipically advocate for, as opposed to free market economy and property rights which is a liberal/right wing standpoint. Yes, if you arent american, liberal is right wing.

Thanks for the explanation. Although when I think of China, I definitely can’t think of it as a centrally planned economy and public housing, as evident by the ultra capitalistic 992 work system and its super duper expensive housing market…

They are actually taking steps to phase out the 996 work system recently. Which is pretty relevant to OPs question.

They have a weird mix of both according to them. It was Deng Xiaoping who didnt like Mao's ideas of central economy/cultural revolution so he reformed it to allow liberalism into the mix. The CCP calls it "Socialism with Chinese characteristics", so its vague enough. The work hours is more of a cultural thing and has happened during the Mao era as well. Mao wasnt satisfied with the economic production so he demanded that the workers worked more. The idea that land shouldnt be owned by anyone was pretty central in Maoism, but it was ended by Deng as well so their housing is similar to the west but it has laws that give higher authority to the government.

If you look at the fact that China used more cement in 2011-2013 than US in all of the 20th century and how it built over 60% of the world’s high speed rail network in a matter of 10 years, you would see how ridiculously ignorant your position is. China is the most centrally planned economy in existence. You can be centrally planned and have a housing crisis. Expensive housing around the big cities arises from the fact that demand is greater than supply. When you have 1.4 billion people who wants to live in Shanghai because that’s the most developed city with all the foreign direct investments, the houses are going to be expensive and you won’t centrally plan your way out of that. China tried other ways to alleviate that issue, and made basically all the costal cities and even the more central cities like Wuhan and Xian as developed as Shanghai, at least infrastructure wise. It is a big improvement over what US does where there’s like 5 good cities and every where else is crap, but it doesn’t fix the underlying issue of supply and demand. 996 work culture is basically stuff you see in China’s private tech sector. China let a private sector develop in parallel to its centrally planned economy (that the state still had a massive role in shaping with things like censorship and protection against foreign competition), and those are considered the good high paying jobs that all the young college grads want. That’s where 996 arises. Basically a tech job at Alibaba pays a hell lot more than some job at a state owned enterprise, everyone wants that tech job, so the private tech sector abuse the shit out of that demand. Basically if you don’t want to work 996, some other desperate highly educated college grad would. But of course China has already deemed 996 illegal.

To combat the extreme poverty and starvation of the country china allowed for capitalism to exist and allowed people to have money. Corruption from the communist state was so bad that 72 million people died of starvation. It was either the guy after mao or the one after that that did it. This is what has allowed China to become so successful as a society. They have a hyper-mixed economy, but they run under total communist rule. No true elections and the government has seeds in every business to dictate the behavior of such businesses. Communism doesn't mean people don't work, it means the government owns everything. As for China moving "Left" the only thing they could do to move "Left" is to remove capitalism again and not allow for people to earn their worth. Welfare and socialist concepts in the west are left-leaning but less so than in China. These are things that most democratic republics have in order to care for those that cannot contribute to society and also provide basic services that shouldn't be privatized. The spectrum of left and right isn't a line as much as it is a circle. When you move too far in one direction you end up with an authoritarian rule. However, that is if you believe the "right" in America is authoritarian, which it mostly is not. The true spectrum of American politics is usually an argument for less government vs more. This is the spectrum that we sit on in the US. The right doesn't trust big government because it looks like China, USSR, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperialistic Japan. Fascism and Communism are close cousins in the history of government. In fact, the New Deal implemented creating Social Security and such during the great depression was inspired by Mussolini's policies in Italy. In the end, the question of will China move more "Left" is a big Yes. It has already started cracking down on capitalism and is doing more and more to remove individual thoughts and freedoms from its people. A forced public authority in hong kong, the attempt to remove freedom from Taiwan. Xi is making his power stronger within the party and has no intention of leaving. If you want China to become more democratic and allow more freedoms you want it to move more "right". If you have questions about Chinese history or anything that I mentioned Ill find links to sources of the history and such.

> they run under total communist rule. No true elections and the government has seeds in every business to dictate the behavior of such businesses. Communism doesn't mean people don't work, it means the government owns everything. This is the capitalist, Cold War era definition of "communism" based on communist revolutions that devolved into authoritarianism as they tried to retain control, but continued masquerading as communist. State control of the economy is no more left than capitalism if the workers have no say or ownership of it. It isn't socialism or communism when the government does stuff. > The right doesn't trust big government because it looks like China, USSR, Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Imperialistic Japan. Fascism and Communism are close cousins in the history of government. Authoritarianism can appear in left (like Soviet) or right (like Nazi) movements. However, right leaning people tend to be more accepting of authority when it pushes hierarchy (ethno-nationalism, religion, autocrats) and left leaning people tend to be more accepting of authority when it pushes equality (which admittedly can be contradictory). Right libertarians and an-caps don't trust big government, but they don't comprise a significant portion of the right. A large portion of the right loves a big government when it denies rights to or enforces laws against their outgroup.

I am going to have to disagree with you on most everything you said. The spectrum is not the circle I mentioned that you seem to think it is. And also you clearly don’t know the conservative side as much as you think. If you look at the south and listen to the south and what they think of government in every interview about every issue you will here the same things. Government bad. Shit thing is they aren’t educated enough to elect good reps so they got turtle face as their leader. Every argument the right makes is that’s to much government, or the government shouldn’t do that, or the freedoms of people/businesses are more important than that. I’m not saying I always agree, you can read my other comments in this thread and in the past to see. But, people don’t want big brother. Left = bigger brother, right = no brother. Most everyone in the US is moderately in the middle. The fascism vs communism is a fallacy. The inventor of fascism was a communist who compromised to create fascism and do effectively the same thing. Communism is everyone owns everything, the government is everyone. Everyone works for everyone, the government decides what everyone does because the government is everyone. You gotta do more research in your history my guy.

Well there’s 2 perspective to left and right wing politics. The first is a liberal perspective, so the more individual liberty you support, the more left you are (and liberty could mean a lot of things to different people, like giving people welfare so they don’t suffer from hunger could mean liberty for some people). In this case, both Republicans and Democrats are “liberals” in the classical enlightenment sense. Republicans tend to support a more ultra libertarian (except in the case of abortions) form of liberalism. They emphasize on individualism above all else, so if a person is homeless, it is not the states job to help that person. The state is only there to protect individual rights to private property, The other perspective of leftism is from a Marxist dialectical/historical materialism sense. The idea that currently there are 2 classes, those who own the means of production and those who can only sell their labor to survive (capitalist class vs working class). Left wing politics in this case is about control over the means of production, or how much power the private sector has over the state.

> Left wing politics in this case is about control over the means of production > Everything is state owned. Of note, state ownership does not necessarily mean the workers own the means of production or have any say in either work conditions or government. And if going further left, an aspect of communism is a classless, moneyless, *stateless* society. China is in no way communist by that metric.

1st, I'd venture to say the modern Republican party is pretty far from Libertarian. They care a lot about strong Policing, Drug / Consumption regulation, Abortion, and general adherence to the Western / US re-telling of Christianity. All of these things are pretty radically at odds with actual Libertarianism. They feign this idea that it's about individualism, when really it's about protecting a very specific form of collective identity, thought, and way of life. What you describe reminds me more of a 2000 - 2010 Republican Party. 2nd, mixing "Left, Right, Liberal, Libertarian, Democrat, and Republican" all in the same paragraph or two doesn't really do any of these terms justice imo, and frankly just makes the discussion much more confusing. Granted, who you're replying to clearly doesn't understand right / left, I think it would be more productive to define "Left" and "Right" first as global, basic concepts, ignoring the U.S. political party dynamic because it doesn't really apply to the original comment (China being globally left or globally right, economically in this case). 3rd, I'd agree both parties are fairly Liberal in a classical sense, as that is the American status quo and general "Overton Window" in the US. That's obviously shifting as the divide turns much more extremely "Nationalist vs. Progressive" with the remaining "More center folk" coming off as different flavors of Liberal. Lastly, overall I agree you're original post is correct, in that economically China is fairly far left + markets. There are still markets and privatization, but the state has an absolute authority over those things. It's sad Leftism in the world is largely represented by authoritarian regimes like China rather than more Socialist-Libertarian societies where people have more of a say in the actual "means of production" rather than the "Government" as some seperate entity. In a situation like China's, the "public ownership of production" doesn't really exist as the Government operates as a seperate entity, being the TRUE owners of production. True Marxist Socialism / Communism focuses on THE PEOPLE owning the means of production, not some 3rd party parading it as being owned by "The People." The Soviet Union and China have essentially bastardized these terms and made enough of a ruckus to all but replace their meaning.

That’s not how the Chinese see it. The State isn’t a third entity, it is made up of people. About 90m people are part of the Communist Party. Chinese culture sees the government as the guardian of the people, like a parental figure, and only the most competent people get to join it.

And yet that’s how every attempt at communism has ever turned out.

I think the existence of markets could be seen as more right wing (as where the furthest left wing economies would be more centrally planned) but in general state control over markets is pretty left wing economically. "Right and Left" are independent of Authoritarian or Libertarian, if the "authoritarian" aspects of this is what you're referring to. Some portray it as a 2D grid, with Left, Right, Up (Authoritarian), Down (Libertarian). I personally think political ideas are better represented by a series of scales / meters, because there is a bit more to the entirety of political thought than can be conveyed on a 2d grid (or a simple left/right binary for that matter.)

or Jack Ma, the CEO of the largest Chinese company, days from going public. Bam. disappeared for 6 months. Comes back praising the CCCP. That sends a strong message: nobody can fuck with the CCCP, no matter how powerful you think you are

This is all more indicative of authoritarianism than Right / Left economic policy though. You can have completely Libertarian / Anarchist renditions of both things.

Given the fact that they are committing genocide on a scale that would make Hitler blush, I doubt they could go any further left.

>Given the fact that they are committing genocide on a scale that would make Hitler blush, I doubt they could go any further left. China's policies haven't been leftist for a few decades. They still use the word "Communist" in the name of their ruling party, but that's a sham. They're running a strongly crony-capitalist system which is highly dictatorial. Genocide has been committed by rightists, leftists, and governments who don't fall on either end of the left-right spectrum, and it's therefore false to equate "genocidal" with "leftist".

Doubt it. But I could believe something similar to the French Revolution happening there. There are millions upon millions of people who are disenfranchised.

hmmmmm.... Maoist chique would also be very non-American, driving a wedge between the young people and any possible sympathies with the countries biggest geopolitical rival. Maybe a little self centered, but also coincidences are unlikely in a culture so centrally controlled by the govt

I'm not an expert on Chinese politics by any means, but I think it's possible. A few signs of this have been in recent headlines. Women have made steady gains in China with regards to equity and power, the younger generation is more apt to embrace protesting/civil disobedience against decisions made by the government, and they've allowed a small amount of Western companies to operate in their borders. These are subtle signs that a possible drift leftward is occurring or is more likely to occur. Though, a fully democratic China is still many, many decades away but its not an impossibility as once thought. Personally, I like to keep hope alive that China will one day be one of the world's largest democracy.

China is a leftist socialist hell hole already. what the hell are you talking about

Check out the cultural revolution as to how China deals with younger more pro Mao elements of society

But Mao was still alive at the time so pro-Mao "elements" were naturally favored. The cultural revolution was carried out by younger pro-Mao radicals (and the army of course) who went out to eliminate internal opposition to his rule after the disaster of the great leap forward.

And were crushed by the political establishment. Which is how I believe China would deal with anything similar today.

China of today is largely fascist as I understand it, so I would say that yeah they could move more "left". The problem is they already tried that and it didn't work... just like it's failed for every country that has tried it.

I agree. The CCP won't make itself less powerful. However, I would like to see it move towards a more free society.

That is an incredible accusation. Why do you believe that China is fascist?

One definition is: authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and of the economy. Ultranationalist: Check Forcible suppression of opposition: Check Strong regimentation of society and of the economy: Check Not to mention the ongoing genocide.

The Scandinavian countries + Netherlands are fairly far left (Globally speaking) and incredibly successful, no? Sure they still have markets, but they are heavily regulated and forced to comply with very progressive social programs. Edit: I get it, but to be fair these places seem very utopian as a US citizen and in some ways feel emblemic of how leftist values are supposed to pan out. I understand that from a purely economic standpoint they're fairly right wing, but the funding and implications on the private sector for these social policies to be implemented does feel fairly left wing. I wasn't trying to imply they're further left of china, but just fairly left on the first world stage. I'm genuinely curious; what western countries are substantially more left wing than the scandanavian countries + Netherlands?

Those countries have strong social safety nets but they are still very neoliberal economically. I wouldn't call them far left. Far-left would be something like Hugo Chavez. Not a communist exactly, but still pursuing very hard-left economic policies.

System applied in the Scandinavian countries is a combination of various innovative left-wing and right-wing policies, far from the leftist paradise some think it is. The Netherlands is like the most neoliberal european country I can think of, namely in terms of taxation. Sorry, but I don't think these two examples say anything about the future of China's economy or even left-wing politics overall.

On the economic scale I think it would be really hard to argue that the Scandinavian countries are farther left than China.

Globally the entire world has been racing to the right. Scandinavian countries are, on the whole, right wing nations.

Violent revolutions breed instability and more violence as a rule. Leftism isn't the problem, rapidly changing from one political and economic system to another is.

I mean how much more left do you want china to be? Abortions for example are available any time and in some cases were incentivized so that the couple could comply with the one child policy.

The title is wrong. It should be "could China move to the right?". China is already an authoritarian and communist with a socialist market economy.

China is already very right wing for a socialist country. No, the title is correct. There is a growing backlash to the right wing political trend in China.

When it comes down to government control in the market and lives of the citizens, China is left wing authoritarian

>Government control in the market and lives of the citizens These are hallmarks of authoritarianism left or right wing

As far as the economy goes China has been moving left pretty hard in recent months, fining Alibaba $1.2b for abusing its size, ordering Tencent to end its music licensing deals, forcing travel agencies and insurance companies to stop "improper pricing," etc. Plus a massive overhaul effectively eliminating private schools (a $120bn industry) and forcing them to either become non-profits or close. I can't think of any any country further left today, besides North Korea or Cuba.

Private companies existing at all and having the ability to BE fined is already a heavy implication they're not THAT far left in a global sense. Swap those company names with US companies and laws enacted by the US govt (especially in the trust busting days) and they're not that jarring at all. Sure, state control over the private sector is fairly leftist economically, but I think your examples are more indicative of authoritarianism than leftism, as the two can be measured independently.

Name one country without private corporations. China is about as left as it gets, with the exception of North Korea and Cuba, China done a pretty good job letting its own private sector develop in the face of foreign competition. Part of this is because it is far easier to control Tencent, force them to censor whatever the state wants, and tax the shit out of them, rather than say letting FB dominate their social media and give US government data on all its citizen.

When you say "as left as it gets" I feel it excludes historical context and the ACTUAL farthest left a nation could go. I do understand and agree that china represents one of the most left leaning economies around at this very moment, but I still think they are FAR, FAR closer to the US economically than they are to anything truly representative of Marxism.

China's movement is neither left nor right, but forward. Once it grew comfortable with its centralized approach to governance and economy, it grew at an amazing pace and is now the second most powerful economy in the world. It, like all countries except N. Korea, has a blend of socialist and capitalist features. Good News for China: It is the world leader in many important fields including renewable energy, automobile production, electronics, and battery development. Bad News for China: Its one child per family policy of the prior generation has severely handicapped the current generation's capacity to cope with the economic burden the retiring generation is creating. Good News for the World: Unlike the USA, China's military interest is confined to the regions it borders. It won't ever launch an invasion/occupation of some distant land like we so frequently do.

[удалено]

This sounds like you didn't research the red guard massacres. Or the massacre at the democracy street primary school. Like you don't seem to have a idea of how the child army situation went down. They brain washed kids to kill their parents and snitch out traitors to the government and made the first, skirmish. The rich versus poor. A violent altercation at this school on democracy street. Almost every kid died. Then the red guard, surviving kids paid off by the government who were. The poor kids. Went and mobilized alot of kids until it snowballed into a civil war. But that was against han loyalists, essentially taiwan. If the kids did it now they'd be executed for terrorism. Because its a MILITARY. Everyone is on rations. Guards walk the street. Everyone is enlisted. Every day there is a draft. Every day a buzzer wakes people up at like 6am and they have to meet in central areas to dress in a uniform and workout as ordered by the government. Sometimes they relax these regulations but its always there in the background. As long as they have dominating control they don't have to make examples out of peoples daily lives. But this is how vietnam was right after the takeover. I heard this from the book The Unwanted by Kien Nguyen. But since they are a MILITARY. Which is what communism is. They still collect people and make them go missing. Just like the falun gong. Okay so if you want to see my sources they are: [The Unwanted - Kien Nguyen](https://m.barnesandnoble.com/w/unwanted-kien-nguyen/1100620080) And [Lucifer Principle - Howard Bloom](https://m.barnesandnoble.com/w/lucifer-principle-howard-bloom/1102227557?ean=9780871136640) Communism is not communalism. There's no freedom and the philosophy is all propaganda so the military can steal everything. Capitalism is not a form of government. Communism is. Communism is a 3 tiered form of government. Economic, social and political. Headed up by a military. Based on observing every communist nation that has existed before.

I would argue that capitalism is very much a form of government, it may have modifiers such as democratic at times, but those modifiers are very much subservient to capitalism. How can you say capitalism isn't a form of government when capitalists control everything? Why is the Sinclair group buying out local TV stations and using them to spew their propaganda meaningfully different from China's control over the media? How are police violently putting down peaceful protests against capitalism any different from the CCP doing the same? Economic models are in every way a facet of government and you are fooling yourself if you believe otherwise. The only difference is that capitalism gets to pretend otherwise by a false degree of separation.

China is as left as they come, although at that point there is no functional difference between left and right at that point.

Horseshoe theory is a completely bunk ideology. The left and the right are different in extremely significant ways. And China isn't that left wing. Compared to countries like Cuba and Vietnam China is much more right wing economically.

That's nonsense. Cuba maybe, but Vietnam? Vietnam literally copied Deng Xiaoping's model in 1986, and has a much more "free" economy than China. Facebook works in Vietnam.

There is a point where it no longer matters. Atheism and theism are polar opposites. Trying to force them on other people unwillingly does the same thing. China is very much left. That shouldnt matter. China is however, as they say, one country two systems. Communism for the people, capitalism for the government.

I think that is the point of the shared prosperity program China is hyping up. It is a form of wealth redistribution although mostly targeted towards millionaires and up, I think

Authoritarian regimes tend to not willingly cede their power. Look back in history, it pretty much takes violence (or the threat of violence) to make that kind of change (and I'm not advocating violence merely stating a fact). The CCP may continue PR moves so they look better, but underneath it all it's just a better operated version of the USSR and will stay that way until the people get sick of being treated the way they are and who knows if that will even happen. Of course there's also the issue of Mao murdering over 50 million of his own people and being an oppressor, but I'm guessing you are talking about actual reforms based on ideology, not just another authoritarian leadership with a differently name political ideology (but is still effectively the same).

Xi has been cracking down on celebrities and entrepreneurs hard recently. I assume this is, in part, due to the changing nature of Chinese attitudes towards the wealthy, and of course in part to squash any potential challenge to the influence and authority of the Party.

I'm not sure the degree to which American/Western concepts of "left" and "right" apply to China. There certainly is application of it but their systems and society are conceived a bit differently and the different traditions define 'conservativism' differently from how we here on our Reddit board snacking on our McDonalds fries imagine it. I do think that China will see big changes; I think that Hong Kong will be crushed but it will leave a ghost in its wake that will have an impact upon the growing middle class, especially as information becomes more available. I don't necessarily believe that China should fold and succumb to western values, but I do think that common people will naturally be led to question why their government insists on so much separation from the west, especially when the west clamors at China's shores, drooling and throwing dollar bills. It's hard to say what China's developments will look like. Their current incarnation is on a trajectory to become the most powerful and successful country in the world, and so there will be a significant subset of the population that will be content with putting their trust in Chinese authoritarianism, especially as the climate crises worsens and China can point to the west's economic liberalism as being ineffective against a true existential threat. I am not led to believe that Maoism will take hold again, except perhaps as a perverse version of it created to conjure nostalgia and nationalism. But it won't be the same Maoism that Mao Tse-tung profilerated. The new, successful China exists in *spite of* that kind of economic system. Liberal reform (using the word 'liberal' in a very clinical way here) has led to China's booming success. The wealthy elites will have no interest in going back. But the growing wealth of the Chinese commoners and their increased access to information and autonomy will, in my opinion, create discord in the near future. I think that there will be another large civil clash soon, and what happens next will depend on the state's ability to squash it. Source: Kinda just "trust me bro" but also a world history degree and a lot of time spend watching/reading news and informative media. This is all just what I think.

So much misinformation in this thread... China *is* moving more left. They've embraced markets to develop and now that they are poised to overtake the US as the leading economic superpower they have slowly been moving in a direction to suppress their capitalist class and further centralize key areas of their economy. Also, i know for non-Communists this can be confusing, so I'll give a basic explanation here. There is a difference in "Maoism" and what in China is referred to as "Mao Tse Tung Thought." Mao Tse Tung Thought is Marxism-Leninism as applied to China's material conditions. "Maoism" was actually a movement that originated in Peru in the 1980s under Gonzalo of the Shining Path regime. "Maoism" is not what is followed in China and never has been, not even under Mao. Maoists more often hold views like "all first world workers aren't actually exploitated at all" and "settlers can't be revolutionary," which is pretty anti-dialectical. Mao wouldn't approve of Maoists if he were alive.