While I agree that "social authoritarianism" is pretty shitty, I'll take it over "government authoritarianism" any day of the week (mind you, we're commenting on a story about someone being jailed for speech, not just fired).
As an old Chinese man said, "love, ideals, loyalty, none of that matters anymore once your food is taken away." You _will_ report your family as traitors if that's what is standing between you and starvation.
We must never excuse the horrors going on in China, and we must always recognize that civil unrest is always the symptom, never the disease.
That the us led world order eventually will collapse due to global inequality is pretty standard thought in communist thinking.
And of course China sees itself as a more just society with basis in the worker rather than the capital holder.
In the past few decades, the global wealth inequality has decreased significantly (under the leadership of the "US empire" nevertheless).
China isn't communist, it's just a dictatorship. Very capitalist. Huge inequality as well, growing faster than the West and approaching US wealth inequality. I can't see how there would be less inequality under the rule of the "Chinese empire".
I'm guessing that you are thinking about the number of people that have risen from poverty (lead by China, not US) because I could not find one source that is talking about decreased global wealth inequality. In fact, every single source that I could find on a short notice is talking about the rise of global wealth inequality in the last few decades.
Can you share your sources.
> Global income inequality increased for 2 centuries and is now falling
I'm trying to self reflect a lot here. Forgive my provoking thoughts.
Looking at even the US itself crumbles in today's misinformation world. I now have doubts in Democracy like Socrates did. If not for HK, Taiwan, and Uyghur Muslims, I'd consider Xi's dictatorship a good modern day role dictatorship.
What are the alternatives? Democracy has failed us in today's increasingly complex society, with free flow of misinformation everywhere. Education doesn't fix the problem. Critical thinking is hard, thinking is hard. Free education and free information doesn't fix the problem because people believe what they want to believe.
As long as a country has stability and peace and the prosperity of its citizens, then shouldn't it be in that country's best interest to crush any opposition by any means necessary, including committing actions that are provoking UN or violating Geneva Convention left and right. Won't good (from the perspective of its citizens) dictatorship is better than crumbling Democracy?
But power corrupts. Eventually it will. And the dictators will be overthrown, pulling the pendulum in the other direction.
In what way is it good?
It also does things like this: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/25/magazine/the-lonely-crusa...
and this: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/25/magazine/the-lonely-crusa... (on a related note, here's a video of what the Chinese police could do to you if you talk smack about them on WeChat: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiMLVYK4hEc)
> What are the alternatives? Democracy has failed us in today's increasingly complex society, with free flow of misinformation everywhere. Education doesn't fix the problem. Critical thinking is hard, thinking is hard. Free education and free information doesn't fix the problem because people believe what they want to believe.
> As long as a country has stability and peace and the prosperity of its citizens, then shouldn't it be in that country's best interest to crush any opposition by any means necessary, including committing actions that are provoking UN or violating Geneva Convention left and right. Won't good (from the perspective of its citizens) dictatorship is better than crumbling Democracy?
If you're curious why you're downvoted, it was probably because of this "argument." You're saying democracy has failed and list some problems. Then, because of those problems, you appear to advocate for a rather nasty dictatorship, where those very same problems you just complained about would be worse.
The thing with China is, it is insanely big. How to govern this big country effectively if not dictatorship?
I previously tried to compare Japan and SK to China. But I realized that their culture is drastically different, and SK and Japan is also a much smaller country.
No, CCP is the entity people often attribute China's economic rise to. And even that is not completely correct; Deng opened up the market a bit, and the Chinese people themselves took the opportunity to rebuild the economy from the ruins of central planning.
> How to govern this big country effectively if not dictatorship?
You can say that about groups of any size. It is often said a benevolent dictator is the most efficient and effective way to run a group: see Linux for an example.
But this only works if everyone has shared goals and shared values. What if people have different opinions? Hint: look at how much China spends on "stability maintenance" (维稳) each year: it's bigger than their military budget.
What? Xi took power in 2012, long after the lifting happened.
> The thing with China is, it is insanely big. How to govern this big country effectively if not dictatorship?
If it's too big to govern except through ruthless means, then maybe that means it's just too big, period. There's no moral imperative that says empires have to remain whole through any means necessary.
This recent piece from an influential Beijing professor Jiang Shigong[1] of "Xi Jinping Thought" fame, openly frames and justifies China seizing control as leader of the global empire, "Empire and World Order"[2]
[The current state of world empire] faces three great unsolvable problems: the ever-increasing inequality created by the liberal economy; state failure, political decline, and ineffective governance caused by political liberalism; and decadence and nihilism created by cultural liberalism. In the face of these difficulties, even the United States has pulled back in terms of worldwide military strategy, which means that world empire 1.0 is currently facing a great crisis, and that revolts, resistance, and revolution from within the empire are unravelling the system. ...
We might conclude that we are living in an age of chaos, conflict, and massive change in which world empire 1.0 is in decline and trending toward collapse, while we are as yet unable to imagine world empire 2.0. Yet we must recognize that change in the form of empire is a long historical process. The several thousand years of the history of mankind have witnessed only three great changes in imperial form, and each of these changes has been accompanied by great conflicts and chaos. At the same time, we cannot deny that these ages of historical transition have also created the opportunity for each civilization to construct world empire 2.0. The civilization that is able to provide genuine solutions to the three great problems facing world empire 1.0 will also provide the blueprint for world empire 2.0. As a great world power that must look beyond its own borders, China must reflect on her own future, for her important mission is not only to revive her traditional culture. China must also patiently absorb the skills and achievements of humanity as a whole, and especially those employed by Western civilization to construct world empire. Only on this basis can we see the reconstruction of Chinese civilization and the reconstruction of the world order as a mutually re-enforcing whole.
There really is a coherent internal logic to why China can solve the 3 problems identified with the liberal order. A very dystopian logic, in my opinion. But worth some serious thought; where this all is heading.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiang_Shigong
[2] https://www.readingthechinadream.com/jiang-shigong-empire-an...