I think people tend to gloss over the fact that China has a population of more than 1.4 billion people in a land area that's slightly smaller than the US, multiple territories in outright revolt, ongoing territorial conflict, some cities that are approaching inhospitability due to environmental damage, and our increasingly aggressive nation is something less than friendly with them.

I think one thing causing the apparent increase in political discontent in the US is the increasing metaphorical distance between congress and the people. Now imagine if you increased our population by more than 400%, had Hawaii declaring independence, and various states trying to separate either to go completely independent or join Mexico or Canada. And now of imagine that a coalition of China, Russia, Iran and other unfriendly nations were constantly posturing towards an invasion of Mexico which would put them right at our doorstep while their motherland remains far out of reach.

I'm in no way defending China, but I think it's safe to say that the level of authoritarianism we would respond with if we hit even a fraction of the issues they're facing would be unlike anything the world has ever seen. Our current political systems and technologies, regardless of specific political ideology, do not scale well.

That said there is one macabre issue that benefits China. About 50 years ago Chinese were starving to death by the tens of millions. While perhaps controversial, I think contentedness paradoxically breeds discontent. Consider in the US that much of the political discontent is heavily centered at some of the most privileged areas in the nation. We can wax poetic about justice and the nuance of social interaction. People struggling to just get by have more immediate issues to deal with. China's successful industrialization of their nation is already producing an increasingly large contented class to whom the struggles China has had are as personally familiar to them as the lynchings or Cold War of US history are to us. That newfounded contented class is likely to spark discontent towards the very actions that provided their luxury - and China will have to manage that somehow.

>had Hawaii declaring independence, and various states trying to separate either to go completely independent or join Mexico or Canada. And now of imagine that a coalition of China, Russia, Iran and other unfriendly nations were constantly posturing towards an invasion of Mexico

Can you map these metaphors to their counterparts in China?

I believe it’s the western states which are in rebellion, which have significant Muslim populations. North Korea is being threatened with invasion and China is encircled by US allies and military bases.

I wouldn't call the situation in Xinjiang or Tibet a rebellion. There are independence movements of some importance, but AFAIK the majority population in both regions are Han Chinese by now, who have much less reason for separatism.

A comparable situation for the US might be native Hawaiians campaigning for independence, while the majority population just doesn't care. There are probably such groups already, they just haven't resorted to violence enough/encountered a strong enough reaction by the state to become notorious.

You are really overestimating the substance of the native Hawaiian independence movement. The vast vast majority of people living in Hawaii are not even native Hawaiian to begin with. And even most local Hawaiians don't want independence from the United States. It is really a tiny minority offshoot with some specific political grievances. Independence isn't even seriously floated by the majority of these independence folks. The whole idea is just a political and marketing tool except to a very small group of people.

Thanks.

If you or anyone knows, which territories are trying to join a neighboring country?

I'm telling you right now... Let there be no illusion that Hawaii would or could ever declare independence from the mainland. Hawaiians wanting independence are a tiny minority, and even they realize that the residents of Hawaii have basically a three-way choice: The United States, Russia, or China. Hawaii is far too liberal and American and really everyone underestimates how much American military force is there on those islands. It ain't going anywhere without a fight that almost no one else can win.

Has China ever not been a totalitarian state?

There was some democracy in the late 1800s to early 1900s. But it didn't gel with the Confucian ethos. Stephenson's Diamond Age is actually pretty informative.

This is incorrect. There was no period of Chinese democracy during that time.

This is correct. Chinese Democracy was released in 2008.

https://www.amazon.com/Chinese-Democracy-Guns-N-Roses/dp/B00...

1909 - Provincial Assembly elections

1912 - National Assembly elections

The first was a last ditch effort by the Qing dynasty to retain power with the election of powerless feel-good provincial assemblies. Even if they had real authority, which they did not, only half a percent of the populace had franchise. Not a democracy by any means.

The 1912 election was for the Nationalists upon overthrowing the imperial system. However China transitioned into a period of warlord rule immediately and the National Assembly never had any control over anything except in theory on paper until Taiwan transitioned to democracy in the 80’s and 90’s.

OK, thanks. So not really any broad democracy, ever.

I think by outsourcing to China or entering the Chinese market, those companies are making a conscious decision to accept the risk, which is that what is perfectly legal and fine today can suddenly be illegal and hated tomorrow. Also, you can't expect any fair fight in China. Quanxi and lobbying the established politicians and tycoons is just part of any business.

honest question, hasn't it been totalitarian for like the past 70 years?

More like 2000 years of totalitarian.

If you mix up monarchy, empire, dictatorship, etc. all in the same bucket and call everything 'totalitarian', our ability to think about politics gets rather reduced.

It's even anachronistic, the concept itself is recent: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totalitarianism

Yes, yes it has. I'll never understand why people are perpetually surprised when China bans X, or rounds up people for doing Y.

This is more totalitarian than crushing a citizen in a public square with a tank?

Tank man wasn't crushed, FYI.

At least 202 people were killed on that day.

Dong Xiaojun, Lin Renfu, Wang Peiwen, Tian Daomin, are among those identified who have been crushed by tanks.

Older list: http://www.hrichina.org/en/list-155-victims-beijing-massacre

We don’t know what happened to Tank Man, FYI.

I mean, I guess they could have crushed him later. But you can watch the video - he wasn't crushed after standing in front of the tank in the iconic photo.

No one knows what happened to tank man.

More troubling is you don't seem to know what happened in Tiananmen square, are you in China?

https://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/jun/02/china.johngitt...

That assumption doesn't seem to be very well supported by the comment you are responding to - what makes you think they don't know what happened in Tiananmen?

It's more charitable than "OP made an unsupported assertion in order to win promotion of their viewpoint."

It's a lot less charitable than "OP was probably referring to the fact that video evidence shows tank guy being pulled away out of sight before the tanks continued past the point where he had been standing, rather than showing the tanks just rolling over him as that comment kind of implied". If you're going to be very careful to correct people who assert that the guy wasn't crushed, you need to jump on people who say he was crushed too, or you look like you're using the argument as an excuse to attack someone rather than being deeply invested in correctness.

No one is talking about tank man.

We are talking about the people who were crushed by tanks in the square.

Really, most were shot, which is how I'd deal with a trouble maker being filmed like tank man.

But there is evidence of tanks crushing people as per my link, which is WHY tank man is famous (plus he was photographed, other people did do it too).

Are you doubting tanks rolled over and killed people?

I was talking about tank man...

Your assumption was the correct one.

My assertion is supported though. Google tank man video.

No, I just thought it was interesting that the man in that iconic photo wasn't actually crushed. I hadn't realized until I saw the video.