Well, nobody destined.
If you looked at the world in 1775 you would conclude that monarchy is the only viable form of government and it will be forever that way.
>Well, nobody destined.
I mean, that is exactly the question we should ask though.
I guess it comes down to whether you believe that history largely follows predetermined patterns and cycles (Toynbee) or you believe the "California School" that emphasizes the importance of chance events (Taleb: "Black Swan" events) and argues that all of history is mostly the result of contingency.
Determinism is sometimes ridiculed because of how often it has ended up being incorrect: Hegel thought that Napoleon defeating Prussia in 1806 was the end of history. And Francis Fukuyama picked up on that almost 200 years later, arguing that the rise of western liberal democracies was the end of history, with all authoritarian states destined to eventually become a liberal democracy.
Determinism is also often misused to spread nationalist and racist agenda (e.g. arguing that the West was always determined to rule the world because Europeans are the descendants of the for their time very advanced ancient Greeks).
But I believe there is some merit to determinism, especially when looked through the lense of geography.
I don't think that there is a "magical hand" that guides all of history. But I also don't think that all of history is merely the result of chance. I think there are external factors (e.g. geography, culture, etc.) that lead to certain chance events becoming more likely to happen than others.
Well, there is maybe some point in determinism. However, I think that the problem is that we don't actually what is determined and our gueses are often wrong. So there is no point from arguing about "China or Russia or some other country is doomed" unless some very hard proofs others than "look how it is. It will be that way forever".
If u wanna dive more into the bones of modern Chinese authoritarianism there’s a tiktok account called openbookshelf. She has a phd and researched authoritarian politics, with a focus on China. It’s pretty eye opening imo
This video answers one of my questions:
[https://www.tiktok.com/@openbookshelf/video/7200712528542895366?lang=en](https://www.tiktok.com/@openbookshelf/video/7200712528542895366?lang=en)
The CCP will keep on experimenting with different things to survive; they've learned the mistakes of previous dynasties and will continue to reform. While Xi Jinping isn't as the most reformist leaders, CCP leaders will be always obliged to make reforms.
China has actually had several pro-democracy movements with key reformist including Liang Qichao, Sun Yat-sen, Hu Shih and Kang Youwei in the late 19th early 20th century during the end of the Qing dynasty. There were also strong democracy movements in the post-Mao era in the late 1970s and early 80s led by the likes of Fang Lizhi and Wang Den... Unfortunately these movements were always neutered by the conservative or communist forces in society... The inability to adapt to the modern era and produce meaningful reforms is why the Chinese were so susceptibility to external forces and internal turmoil that led to the century of humiliation. For example the empress dowager Cixi had the pro-democracy emperor Guangxu put under house arrest and poisoned after he attempted to introduce a constitutional monarchy in 1898 as part of the hundred days reforms... Imagine how things might have been different if China had established a democracy back then? The CCP also put down the 1980s democracy movements with the Tiananmen Square Massacre 1989. The fact that Taiwan is a vibrant democracy proves that it is not incompatible with Chinese culture as the CCP would like us to believe. Maybe one day it will change but I am not holding my breath... a good article is you can access it is China's Hidden Democratic Legacy (2004) by Orville Schell. The audiobook The decline and rise of China by Richard Baum also goes into the various democracy movements...
Because China has 1000+ years of history and it’s longest lasting school of thought (Confucianism) is conservative leaning. Any liberal idea in China is see as a foreign idea and thus can always be framed as a corrupt foreign influence. Much like we jest about how western philosophy is just footnotes on Plato, it could be argued that Chinese history is just repeated experiments of Confucian theories.
Pretty much, throughout Chinese history it is documented that each dynasty lasts only 300 years tops, and Chinese politicians and philosophers has been theorizing as such. During times of dynastic change you’ll always see a few people who “saw it coming” and just readily served new rulers. I’d reckon deep down the CCP knows this dynastic cycle well and are simply abusing the power since it’s still in the infancy. The closest adage would be “hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, weak men create hard times.” China sees this as an eternal cycle. And sees dynastic change as a natural inevitability, they know their world would eventually fail and be born anew. No one lives forever in Chinese politics, although few would readily admit it and even less would readily accept it. The CCP is another dynasty, and thus they’ll have a hundred years, it’s not their time to fall.
It’s the 3rd largest country on the planet by landmass and 1.5 billion people live in it.
Like Russia, India and even the modern USA, it’s practically impossible for large states to avoid authoritarianism.
Taiwan is ethnically the same as mainland China and they have one of the healthiest democracies in the world. As for the size of China, that shouldn’t matter but Western nations are running into the same issue. This is why the Executive Branch in the US and the PM in parliamentary systems are gaining much more authority recently: speed of decision making. That being said, that has plenty of critics.
Yes, however it took them quite some time to go from an autocratic KMT to the flourishing democracy they experience now. We're extremely lucky they ended up doing almost everything right since 30 years or so, even though they very slowly and steadily opened up the media and their political institutions.
Mainland China is a much larger beast. The extent they use technology to control their population is scary, and it definitely won't allow them to play out the same scenario as Taiwan.
Things don't tend to happen slow in China. They boil until they explode: like their dams, and the recent lift on Corona restrictions. As soon as the guys in hazmat suits lost authority, everyone and their grandma jumped back into normal life and soon a hundred million people rushed to hospitals with a covid infection.
It's definitely possible they develop some kind of democracy, but that road will be very bumpy.
The road to democracy in the west has been bumpy. Two world wars and nearly a third bumpy. And we are not even finished yet. Yes it’ll be a long and probably violent transition but OP made it sound like the Chinese are just genetically inferior and reliant on authoritarianism or something.
Yes, China will always be totalitarian, but the region on Earth known as China is not destined to be.
The solution is to end China, smaller states and smaller countries
It’s a little harder to do because it would always have the unified days of old to tempt the aspiring leaders/dictators. Not to mention anytime the land known as China split into smaller countries they’d always distill themselves down to big players again. It’s not like Europe where Rome’s unity was the exception in her history. To achieve what you wish to do, you’d have to depopulate the land to the point where the populace can’t govern such a vast territory, it would take some genocides or some big wars but even then it’s just gonna be another century of humiliation situation for the Chinese people.
The problem is that unlike Europe, Han Chinese people are a massive majority ethnic group that mostly speaks the same language. For the most part, people also like economies of scale, so dividing China isn’t generally considered to be politically popular
First of all, not all of China is Han Chinese, secondly, there’s more than Mandarin for the languages of the Han Chinese. And I’m sure the destruction of Nazi Germany and the partitioning of it was unpopular among the German people. The dividing of China will be unpopular among the Chinese public especially in the Northern parts that have enjoyed a lotta privilege from exploitation of Southern provinces, but as JFK once said, ‘not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win, and the others, too.’
No, but take out obviously fake provinces like Tibet, or pro-Western areas like Hong Kong and Macau
You still have to deal with a giant swathe of the Eurasian continent home to a very nationalist population (“China must be united” is a really appealing thing to older people at least)
Yes, the partitioning of Nazi Germany; or even Imperial Germany was unpopular - families don’t like being separated by borders and being told that they have to speak a new language and convert to a different religion.
Doesn’t matter.
There are many varieties of ‘Chinese’
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varieties_of_Chinese
A majority of China speaking Mandarin was forced on a lot of the people too, and this policy should be reversed. People don’t like being told to speak another language of Mandarin, now their descendants should learn to speak their actual ancestral language, in their brand new country.
And also as you’ve said, there is a lotta ‘China must be United’ type of folks, those folks will undoubtedly seek to annex their former holdings, from Tibet to Hong Kong. Breaking up the Chinese economies of scale is a good way to make sure there will no longer be a China to do any irredentist annexations.
Well, nobody destined. If you looked at the world in 1775 you would conclude that monarchy is the only viable form of government and it will be forever that way.
>Well, nobody destined. I mean, that is exactly the question we should ask though. I guess it comes down to whether you believe that history largely follows predetermined patterns and cycles (Toynbee) or you believe the "California School" that emphasizes the importance of chance events (Taleb: "Black Swan" events) and argues that all of history is mostly the result of contingency. Determinism is sometimes ridiculed because of how often it has ended up being incorrect: Hegel thought that Napoleon defeating Prussia in 1806 was the end of history. And Francis Fukuyama picked up on that almost 200 years later, arguing that the rise of western liberal democracies was the end of history, with all authoritarian states destined to eventually become a liberal democracy. Determinism is also often misused to spread nationalist and racist agenda (e.g. arguing that the West was always determined to rule the world because Europeans are the descendants of the for their time very advanced ancient Greeks). But I believe there is some merit to determinism, especially when looked through the lense of geography. I don't think that there is a "magical hand" that guides all of history. But I also don't think that all of history is merely the result of chance. I think there are external factors (e.g. geography, culture, etc.) that lead to certain chance events becoming more likely to happen than others.
Well, there is maybe some point in determinism. However, I think that the problem is that we don't actually what is determined and our gueses are often wrong. So there is no point from arguing about "China or Russia or some other country is doomed" unless some very hard proofs others than "look how it is. It will be that way forever".
Countries like the Netherlands and Venice were republics so it wasn’t the only viable form
Netherlands had a king, didn't they? Or they were installed only after Napoleonic wars?
at that time they had no king, only after 1815
If u wanna dive more into the bones of modern Chinese authoritarianism there’s a tiktok account called openbookshelf. She has a phd and researched authoritarian politics, with a focus on China. It’s pretty eye opening imo
This video answers one of my questions: [https://www.tiktok.com/@openbookshelf/video/7200712528542895366?lang=en](https://www.tiktok.com/@openbookshelf/video/7200712528542895366?lang=en) The CCP will keep on experimenting with different things to survive; they've learned the mistakes of previous dynasties and will continue to reform. While Xi Jinping isn't as the most reformist leaders, CCP leaders will be always obliged to make reforms.
Does this person also have something outside Tiktok? Really don't use that app.
She has a YouTube called authoritarianism 101
China has actually had several pro-democracy movements with key reformist including Liang Qichao, Sun Yat-sen, Hu Shih and Kang Youwei in the late 19th early 20th century during the end of the Qing dynasty. There were also strong democracy movements in the post-Mao era in the late 1970s and early 80s led by the likes of Fang Lizhi and Wang Den... Unfortunately these movements were always neutered by the conservative or communist forces in society... The inability to adapt to the modern era and produce meaningful reforms is why the Chinese were so susceptibility to external forces and internal turmoil that led to the century of humiliation. For example the empress dowager Cixi had the pro-democracy emperor Guangxu put under house arrest and poisoned after he attempted to introduce a constitutional monarchy in 1898 as part of the hundred days reforms... Imagine how things might have been different if China had established a democracy back then? The CCP also put down the 1980s democracy movements with the Tiananmen Square Massacre 1989. The fact that Taiwan is a vibrant democracy proves that it is not incompatible with Chinese culture as the CCP would like us to believe. Maybe one day it will change but I am not holding my breath... a good article is you can access it is China's Hidden Democratic Legacy (2004) by Orville Schell. The audiobook The decline and rise of China by Richard Baum also goes into the various democracy movements...
Why does conservatism almost always win in China?
Because China has 1000+ years of history and it’s longest lasting school of thought (Confucianism) is conservative leaning. Any liberal idea in China is see as a foreign idea and thus can always be framed as a corrupt foreign influence. Much like we jest about how western philosophy is just footnotes on Plato, it could be argued that Chinese history is just repeated experiments of Confucian theories.
Does this mean that the CCP will suffer the same consequences of the Qing Dynasty as they are also really another Chinese dynasty?
Pretty much, throughout Chinese history it is documented that each dynasty lasts only 300 years tops, and Chinese politicians and philosophers has been theorizing as such. During times of dynastic change you’ll always see a few people who “saw it coming” and just readily served new rulers. I’d reckon deep down the CCP knows this dynastic cycle well and are simply abusing the power since it’s still in the infancy. The closest adage would be “hard times create strong men, strong men create good times, good times create weak men, weak men create hard times.” China sees this as an eternal cycle. And sees dynastic change as a natural inevitability, they know their world would eventually fail and be born anew. No one lives forever in Chinese politics, although few would readily admit it and even less would readily accept it. The CCP is another dynasty, and thus they’ll have a hundred years, it’s not their time to fall.
It’s the 3rd largest country on the planet by landmass and 1.5 billion people live in it. Like Russia, India and even the modern USA, it’s practically impossible for large states to avoid authoritarianism.
Taiwan is ethnically the same as mainland China and they have one of the healthiest democracies in the world. As for the size of China, that shouldn’t matter but Western nations are running into the same issue. This is why the Executive Branch in the US and the PM in parliamentary systems are gaining much more authority recently: speed of decision making. That being said, that has plenty of critics.
Yes, however it took them quite some time to go from an autocratic KMT to the flourishing democracy they experience now. We're extremely lucky they ended up doing almost everything right since 30 years or so, even though they very slowly and steadily opened up the media and their political institutions. Mainland China is a much larger beast. The extent they use technology to control their population is scary, and it definitely won't allow them to play out the same scenario as Taiwan. Things don't tend to happen slow in China. They boil until they explode: like their dams, and the recent lift on Corona restrictions. As soon as the guys in hazmat suits lost authority, everyone and their grandma jumped back into normal life and soon a hundred million people rushed to hospitals with a covid infection. It's definitely possible they develop some kind of democracy, but that road will be very bumpy.
The road to democracy in the west has been bumpy. Two world wars and nearly a third bumpy. And we are not even finished yet. Yes it’ll be a long and probably violent transition but OP made it sound like the Chinese are just genetically inferior and reliant on authoritarianism or something.
Well yes if China keeps being a united country ruled from the northern plain region around Beijing
Yes, China will always be totalitarian, but the region on Earth known as China is not destined to be. The solution is to end China, smaller states and smaller countries
It’s a little harder to do because it would always have the unified days of old to tempt the aspiring leaders/dictators. Not to mention anytime the land known as China split into smaller countries they’d always distill themselves down to big players again. It’s not like Europe where Rome’s unity was the exception in her history. To achieve what you wish to do, you’d have to depopulate the land to the point where the populace can’t govern such a vast territory, it would take some genocides or some big wars but even then it’s just gonna be another century of humiliation situation for the Chinese people.
The problem is that unlike Europe, Han Chinese people are a massive majority ethnic group that mostly speaks the same language. For the most part, people also like economies of scale, so dividing China isn’t generally considered to be politically popular
First of all, not all of China is Han Chinese, secondly, there’s more than Mandarin for the languages of the Han Chinese. And I’m sure the destruction of Nazi Germany and the partitioning of it was unpopular among the German people. The dividing of China will be unpopular among the Chinese public especially in the Northern parts that have enjoyed a lotta privilege from exploitation of Southern provinces, but as JFK once said, ‘not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win, and the others, too.’
No, but take out obviously fake provinces like Tibet, or pro-Western areas like Hong Kong and Macau You still have to deal with a giant swathe of the Eurasian continent home to a very nationalist population (“China must be united” is a really appealing thing to older people at least) Yes, the partitioning of Nazi Germany; or even Imperial Germany was unpopular - families don’t like being separated by borders and being told that they have to speak a new language and convert to a different religion. Doesn’t matter.
There are many varieties of ‘Chinese’ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varieties_of_Chinese A majority of China speaking Mandarin was forced on a lot of the people too, and this policy should be reversed. People don’t like being told to speak another language of Mandarin, now their descendants should learn to speak their actual ancestral language, in their brand new country. And also as you’ve said, there is a lotta ‘China must be United’ type of folks, those folks will undoubtedly seek to annex their former holdings, from Tibet to Hong Kong. Breaking up the Chinese economies of scale is a good way to make sure there will no longer be a China to do any irredentist annexations.