I think (hope) most folks care less about the “attack on patriotic identity” and are more concerned that what is essentially a dictatorship is rising in power significantly. History has shown dictatorships rarely end well for the general populace and the rest of the world.
Democracy has its flaws, but one of the features that most people prefer is that it can significantly change how it looks and operates to reflect the will of its people without violence.
I don't think this is really true. History mostly just shows that hegemonic powers rarely end well for other countries, and ultimately even for the people under said hegemony. The same will obviously be written of the US in the history books. We've invaded, overthrown, or tried to overthrow so many countries that you'd have a far easier time counting the countries we haven't tried to dominate in one way or the other.
And historically many of the greatest eras under Ancient Greece and Rome were under autocratic systems that advanced humanity by essentially every single metric. For that matter China has been among the most powerful countries in the world countless times - yet I think relatively few would ever know this because it's always been a quite insular nation, and never pursued hegemony in the same way as Western empires. Of course that could change but it seems extremely unlikely. Pursuing the perpetuation of global hegemony has been anything but fruitful for the US, and it should be a great lesson for the rest of the world. Those times, not just of the US - but of any global hegemon, are probably behind us.
We can agree to disagree on hegemonic power being a bigger deal than dictators. But regardless, saying China is insular is ridiculous. They have a very public plan to expand their hegemony by taking over the infrastructure of other nations by way of “developmental loans”.
That article says the exact opposite of what you are claiming. This is the lede paragraph:
"In December 2018, a leaked letter from the Kenyan auditor-general’s office sparked a rumour that Kenya had staked its bustling Mombasa Port as collateral for the Chinese-financed Standard Gauge Railway. Our new research shows why the collateral rumour is wrong."
IMF forces countries to adopt austerity politics[1], causing lower economic activity and often leading to economy shrinkage[2], and forces countries to open their markets to foreign capital, which leads to surplus extraction abroad. Both of those measures lead to impoverishing the country that is taking the loan.
>Democracy has its flaws, but one of the features that most people prefer is that it can significantly change how it looks and operates to reflect the will of its people without violence.
Internally, maybe. But China becoming a de facto supowerpower doesn't mean everyone else becomes Chinese any more than America being a superpower means everyone else becomes American. The salient point for most people is how that superpower balances the carrot of trade and the stick of violence to maintain its hegemony. To that end the US has far worse of a track record than does China.
Unless the implication is that China intends to directly colonize Western countries, which is something only the US is currently threatening to do.
That has been falsely taught to you but the real fight has never been about the type of rule. But rather on the type of economy US and the west hate China not because of how its dictatorship but rather because its economy is not private capital economy that is showing it can succeed without private citizens completely taking over the country.
As in the last 40-50 years is has been the US and western countries that have been involved in bringing down democracies that had slightest socialist tendencies and propped up dictatorships that allowed the companies to exploit the countries resources. So it is not about the type of government rather the type of economy.
>its economy is not private capital economy that is showing it can succeed without private citizens completely taking over the country.
Its economy absolutely is private capital. What it has shown is the dictator is still stronger than the private capital and will react to any threats to the dictator with violence (see: Jack Ma)
> As in the last 40-50 years is has been the US and western countries that have been involved in bringing down democracies that had slightest socialist tendencies and propped up dictatorships that allowed the companies to exploit the countries resources. So it is not about the type of government rather the type of economy.
Ahhh, yes, the Great War of 2021 when the US invaded Sweden, Finland, and Norway for having governments in power that have far more than “even the slightest socialist tendencies”.
> Ahhh, yes, the Great War of 2021 when the US invaded Sweden, Finland, and Norway for having governments in power that have far more than “even the slightest socialist tendencies”.
No, the Great Stupidity of 2025, when the US started officially endorsing the extreme right-wing in the EU and calling for its dismantlement.
How is Sweden, Finland or Norway in any way socialist? I haven't heard anything about seizing the means of production or overthrowing of the capitalist class from them. Unless you treat governments doings stuff as socialism, then I guess they may be.
China started rising when it allowed capitalism in its special economic zones. Private capital had a big part in it. Shenzhen was given that status in the early 80s.
That's like 10% of the story. There are dozens of countries that moved to a more capital oriented economy yet there is only one China. The philipines, Indonesia, Malasia, the whole continent of Africa or South America. All capitalist economies, even neoliberal. Yet none of those countries that "allowed capitalism" come close to 1% of China's GDP. What's the difference? The difference is that in China the Communist Party governs. Society rules over Capital, not the other way around. That made the whole difference.
I do think they made some sound monetary decisions in their financial markets given how much nonsense the US deals with. I do think you are discounting the capitalism side and give too much weight to the governance side though. Really there's more nuance to both our sides, I don't feel internet comments is rly the best way to try and convey it.
Honestly I'm more worried about the US backsliding to full authoritarianism with the usually "spicier" foreign policy. The more politically insular China from the current regime seems stable enough. Xi could have even 15 years left in the tank before succession shenanigans start. Obviously this from a LATAM perspective, I'm not in Taiwan or South Korea, I would be considerably more spooked then.
Democracy has its flaws, but one of the features that most people prefer is that it can significantly change how it looks and operates to reflect the will of its people without violence.