> but that they are more collectively minded and put less value in "individual freedom"

Chinese people aren't drones. They don't have a hivemind to tell them what is good for them. Sacrifice for the country might be a thing during Mao's period, but I am not seeing it in nowadays' young generation.

On the contrary, I think Chinese people believe less in the collective good. If the problem isn't your own problem, then it is everyone's problem, then it is no one's problem. That is why in so many situations, government becomes that last resort to figure stuff out.

'The mountains are tall, and the emperor is afar', as the old Chinese sayings goes. The ruthless authoritarianism and primitive freedom co-exist in China's case.

There is pressure to conform, but only because not doing so, there will be pain. 'The bird who extends out its head most gets shot first', as they always say.

Confucianism might be what the world, even China itself thinks about itself, how it is ruled upon. But Fajia (Legalism) is what actually gets executed in real life.

It's hard to believe in the collective good when you haven't achieved basic economic security for yoursef. You see this everywhere - charity begins at home. And even "putting value in individual freedom", in a broadly political sense, is something that requires a sympathetic and collectively-minded outlook.

Well, maybe they're "more collectively minded" because they've been living under totalitarian regimes for millennia. And even if we accept (which I do) that some Western-style society is better, getting there would be hugely nontrivial.

In particular, getting there would arguably involve considerable chaos. And so it's not that hard for those in control to play on people's fears about that. After all, Westerners have tried to impose democracy on China before, and it didn't work out very well.

Back in the 60s, China was on track to be North Korea times 10^4 to 10^6. But Kissinger managed to convince Nixon to intervene in a constructive and noninvasive way. That clearly has worked, so what we need is arguably to stay on that track.

On the other hand, isolating South Africa arguably did hasten the end of Apartheid. And if China undertakes full-on genocide against the Uyghurs, that may be the only moral path. But orders of magnitude more dangerous. And when we add global climate change to the mix, it'll be insane.

It's more collectively minded as many countries ended up with an figurehead emperor who acts as a symbol of the state, giving everyone something to bind themselves to even if they hate their local king.

South Africa really the best example of a 'successful' intervention?

Have there been any truly successful forceful interventions?

It depends on the definition of success for the involved parties. It doesn't always mean full captulation.

I meant more about long-term improved situation.

I suppose that you could claim Germany or Japan as long-term successes. But the costs were immense.

What do you expect to happen when their economy has its version of the great depression or the Japanese lost decades?

That's unlikely to happen unless the PRC loses a major war or becomes much more corrupt. They're ideologically and politically quite capable of re-engineering their financial system so it continues to allocate resources as they see fit, and they're not beholden to a great power with misaligned interests, the way Japan is.