Maybe the markets enthusiasts were sold that idea, but even if I was too young to be into politics, I do remember that some circles (leftist) were pretty skeptical of the globalization push, which was seen as imperialism and a way for the elites to enrich themselves. After all these years, not only the pro-market camp's promises didn't came true, but maybe the chinese were also keen to participate trying not to come too affected by the imperialism.
This is the key idea that has failed: the idea that prosperity equals or leads to social liberalism and human rights, or that the two are interdependent.
This idea appears to be wrong, having been disproven by China.
Totalitarianism and prosperity can co-exist just fine. Totalitarianism and capitalism can even co-exist to a degree, with the totalitarian tendency to kneecap the extremely wealthy being outweighed by the totalitarian ability to forcibly suppress workers' rights movements and pushes for higher wages. Totalitarians can also backstop the economy, stepping in in the event of a crash and forcing number to go up by edict. That benefits the investor class at the expense of the working class by effectively writing down wages and inflating assets.
This means utilitarian arguments for freedom and human rights fail. That's a big deal and undermines at least a half century of libertarian and neoliberal talking points. It means human rights must be argued for on purely spiritual, moral/ethical, or hedonic grounds, not utilitarian grounds.
I think the collapse of this key idea is as much a driver of the global push-back against globalism as working class economic concerns and cultural xenophobia, if not more. Human beings are philosophical beings and coherent narratives and ideas matter to us. When China showed that you could have totalitarianism and prosperity, the bottom fell out of the argument for the whole project.
I didn't believe this until the lockdown. Being told what to do is something that makes you instantly appreciate freedom.
There will always be revolt, given enough time. CCP have outdone themselves in that department though. They've learnt from USSR and Cuba.
In USSR/Cuba people know. They talk to outsiders and realize the don't live like they're better. China has learnt and told their citizens that they're bullied everywhere so the CCP was made to protect them. Genius really.
That is fucking scary. We have invented a set of technologies that could be used to create an un-overthrowable dictatorship and permanently enslave the human race... to get people to click ads.
Of course, with time, any approach expires. The new approach is lacking. Not surprising considering the finger-picked positions.
Certain extreme expressions of subjective human freedom can harm people more broadly. Someone building an atomic bomb in their basement is a threat to my human rights, as is a company blowing unfiltered coal smoke all over my town. Enough people emitting enough fossil CO2 globally might threaten the rights (and damage the property) of a vast number of people. Enough people refusing to vaccinate might even be a threat (though this has to be evaluated carefully), since they're increasing my odds of contracting a disease.
Balancing absolute freedom with human rights and the broader experience of liberty and prosperity is as we would say an "AI hard problem." There exists no simple set of rules that when followed will always yield a positive result. It requires a continuous input of fully engaged intelligence and a continuous deliberative political process.
What we can say is that certain things do not do this. One-party totalitarian surveillance states, grievance-based populism, fascism, or Russia-style mafia-theocracy do not do this.
If the economy is good, then yes.
If the circumstances are daring enough, then yes.
Otherwise no
The only thing that could challenge that is:
1) World war (please no)
2) China is chopped up (but that's why they crack down on Hong Kong, Taiwan, etc)
So I think we might see another rebranding about what it means to be the n1 economy. Or they might come up with a new metric hehe.
The fact of the matter is that China's rule won't last long because:
1) It's governed by a bunch of hand picked corrupt and ignorant bunch called the CCP (although they've done propaganda and brainwashing far better than the USSR, I'll give them that)
2) There's a demographic bomb incoming for China (not enough children).
Second, we should not hope that an opponent does worse than us to make us look better but we should simply better ourselves in the first place. Currently I'm seeing only decline and disunity in the western civilization, very short term thinking and lack of vision, but I'm aware that's just a phase that is possible to flip anytime.
The question is whether they will fall soon enough
This lack of immigration probably wouldn't be easily reversed, because Chinese governance and perhaps culture aren't well suited to absorbing heterogeneous groups.
IMO China doesn't need immigration to survive the demographic crisis, it needs excess labour to manage the transition, declining / smaller total population is the goal - simply too many people right now. Tons of labour can be arbitraged between poor and rich provinces or imported from poorer neighbors on remittance basis without the massive welfare commitments of immigration. Western countries with comprehensive social welfare systems sustained by massive immigration have greater risk of collapse - note all the protests happening in first world countries due to system already fraying. Versus China where the bottom 50% will incrementally improve because they're barely above poverty in the first place. The income gap is so massive that it takes relative less resource redistribution to maintain stability. When 600M / 40% of the population accounts for 7% national GDP, a few years of "slow" national growth @5% generates enough wealth to increase their welfare by 40%. Compared to west where all signs indicate each generation will struggle more than the previous, combined with massive immigration and you have recipe for political instability. Unsustainable social safety net and demographic change due to immigration is as much of a ticking time bomb as declining demographics.
Everyone thought that as new countries got richer, they would follow in the steps of western values (democracy, free markets, etc.). Yet, all we really achieved is to fund the CCP. And now they're not letting investors get their money out and they're putting military bases where they swore they would never. Great.
Of course, the world is more "equal" in general, but not in the concrete edge cases. For already developed countries, it's a nightmare that destroyed the industry and the middle class. For developing countries, it's a nightmare where a powerful few (CCP) have more resources than ever to suppress their people and relinquish power.
The only way forward is back. Let's keep the diversity and the share of information and progress. Let's reverse the economic dependency hell we've cornered ourselves into.
P.D: I have nothing but sympathy for the Chinese people. I admire their resolve and creativity. I hate the CCP and how people all over the world have come to relativize even our core values as a society (democracy, freedom of speech, etc). We're really close to a middle-ages screw up if we don't remember what we stand for.