> When China becomes uber powerful, will the state then stop controlling everyone's thoughts?

> Will they have basic rights then?

> Or will corruption go away?

> Will people still be looking to flee China when it's #1?

If you assume that the future will be basically like the past (untrue, but better than most assumptions), then the answers are:

1. It doesn't now, it can't now, and it won't be able to then. But it definitely won't stop trying.

2. Yes, in much the same way they have basic rights now. Which is to say, they will enjoy what their culture thinks of as basic rights, but probably not what you think of as basic rights.

3. No.

4. Yes, just as people have sought to flee every country in the past or present.

It's just a story.

Some people like the story and rally around it.

As our world gets more and more hyperconnected whatever delusions groups of people have of their favorite story being accepted as global narrative get tested very fast.

And break down faster if there is no universal appeal. There are enough examples playing out around the world.

All these nationalistic stories will keep breaking down.

There are 5 billion more people in the world than the Americans and Chinese put together. They aren't going to blindly bend over to either an American or Chinese narrative.

We like to live in this dream state that the most powerful countries matter. They dont. Ask the Taliban.

The Indians and Russians and Europeans and South Americans and Africans don't give one shit about Make America great again or Make China great again.

What will play out is a collapse of these narratives in spectacular fashion.

"We like to live in this dream state that the most powerful countries matter. They dont. Ask the Taliban."

You mean ask a bunch of people living in the stone age, who are getting killed en masse what they think of their power relative to others?

I think you picked maybe the worst possible example: just because a group can live on rice in inhostile territory doesn't mean that the power ratio is negated.

If the Americans wanted to actually destroy the Taliban it wouldn't be that hard, it would just come at a cost nobody wants to pay.

Well, whether the give a shit or not, there are winners and losers. People didn't give a shit about the Roman Empire either.

A rising tide raises all boats. All things being equal its better for a Chinese to be in a strong China than a second tier one. Plus, the average Chinese doesn't necessarily share the concerns of western observers, they have had a different culture and values of their own for millennia, and a state that wasn't entirely different than their current.

Besides, anybody can ask the same. If the US keeps its power or gains even more, will the cops stop killing black citizens? Will the big corps stop have politicians in their pockets? Will Wall Street lackeys get out of power? Will mass surveillance stop? Will wars for oil and "national interests" stop? Will the middle and working class stop declining? Will healthcare be affordable?

"Plus, the average Chinese doesn't necessarily share the concerns of western observers, they have had a different culture and values of their own for millennia, and a state that wasn't entirely different than their current."

I call rubbish.

Corruption is corruption and nobody ever accepts it as 'part of our historical culture'.

Having a corrupt government official take your home because they want to build a mall is pretty much Universally bad.

Being thrown in a concentration camp because of your religion not something anyone wants.

Having to bribe officials to get where you want is not something anyone wants.

Being told how many children you can and cannot have is not something anyone would rather live with.

I accept that people will accept differing levels of surveillance etc. - but in the end there are universal issues here.

>Corruption is corruption and nobody ever accepts it as 'part of our historical culture'

You'd be surprised. Some cultures don't like rigid "law and order" on everyday life, and prefer bendable laws in some cases (even if are OK with stricter laws in others). It has a lot to do with historical development and custom law, rather than some sterile "law trumps everything" being everybody's utopia.

>Having a corrupt government official take your home because they want to build a mall is pretty much Universally bad.

Sure, but having a strong government and not blow up a 1.6 billion country into competing factions and civil war chaos is pretty much universally badder.

Most of the "bleeding hearts" (for the countries of others), assume once you break down the "corrupt government" a functional democracy will follow.

The never bother wondering whether a functional democracy is even possible at that scale, nor to ponder the other places they've turned into hell-holes with their interventions.

Nor do they care much about sovereignty, the idea that people should fix those things for themselves, and not have some third parties (with their own ideas, culture, and interests) impose a solution.

>Being told how many children you can and cannot have is not something anyone would rather live with.

At the individual level maybe. But having too much population grown in your country is not something "anyone would rather live with" either.