Basically if China wants to be a world leader equal to or above the US, we need some guarantees that they aren't going to plunder the world for their own nationalism. If not, then they need to feel pain until they do.
While I'm personally incompatible with many (most?) of the Chinese values as seen from the west, I'm sure most Chinese appreciate them as they came attached to personal prosperity like their parents never dreamed. You believe US values are or should be generally accepted by the world as "the gold standard" for everyone. Did you have to handwave anything and say "yeah, except that, and that, and..."? Or "but what about what they do?" This is a very self-centric view of the world.
Chinese nationalism doesn't agree with me, but neither does yours. The difference between the 2 is that I'm on your nationalism's good (less bad?) side, so it suits me today. Most of the world is on their bad side and do not share your enthusiasm about your values. Many other Western countries are already distancing themselves from the US with regards to many actions (take as an example the Iran sanctions) because it turns out in the end it shares the same "plunder the world" principles. Perhaps a bit more carrot, less stick than the Chinese one. Even citizens are showing less and less appreciation for it in the streets. I applaud the fact that they are free to do it, not that they're fearing just less retaliation than the average Chinese would in the same position. I can't unsee that so many condemnation-worthy violations piggy-back on these real values, in the end making the whole thing a "chocolate-poop-cake". It has chocolate, everyone likes chocolate.
Just pointing out the hypocrisy of assuming your personal world views and nationalism happen to be universally above the rest and the fix is for everyone else to "feel the pain" of our nationalism until they accept it. If that didn't sound a bit off then you would have used you regular account.
China's system is, we have a cabal of secretive elites that run the show and they can't be elected or unelected by the people.
Which one should be the world standard?
you are leaving aside the fact that your system also involves an armed invasion by the USA if a certain country does something the USA doesn't like.
Naive view of the world to think what happens outside your neighborhood is of no concern for you.
The irony is blinding here. The kind of entitled opinion that can only be supported by strong ignorance and is only remedied by education. Every one of your arguments can be refuted in half a line just like in all of your other comments. And you'd reject every one of your arguments if they were used against you.
Are Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, etc. better off now than they were before being bombed to shit to "fix their dictator or terrorist problem"? Is Iran better off after making a deal with the US and sticking to it? Central America after all the "fight the communists" regime changes? When a country gets taken over by a leader undemocratically elected with a minority of votes should there be a military intervention to fix it? How about when you spy (with every advantage that entails, economic, political, or military) on every other country and citizen on the planet? When you blackmail entire countries to get your economic interests? When your citizens are illegally shot on the streets and abused by corporations but their voice means next to nothing?
In the meantime China has seen the biggest economic boom any developed country has ever managed to maintain ever so the US feels threatened and ups the "dictator-like" measures against the world.
There's a reason you use a throwaway account. Your opinions aren't controversial, they're embarrassingly immature, uneducated, ignorant of the realities of the world we live in and you don't want that to rub of on you actual account. I guess you're not at risk of being shot in the back by police (or ever reading a book instead of an Alex Jones podcast) so you are still free to maintain this happy view of your "we're definitely not acting like the dictator of the world" system.
I’m voicing the reality of the situation, in that the world is not a nice place when you let things fester all over the world.
China has done great at mobilizing their population, definitely. But don’t you worry that having unlimited power in a secretive cabal (CCP) is a bit dangerous?
I disagreed vehemently with Iraq. If the US just lets any place fester into an autocracy, then that autocracy has the base to expand their sphere.
So instead of the US capitalist sphere with its obvious but controllable problems... we’ll have your world where strongmen can expand their spheres. In those spheres, our businesses can be pushed out or taken control of without rule of law. So our country diminishes and eventually collapses.
So you sit on your high horse and play armchair quarterback, when in reality you benefit from the imperfect hegemony the US established for much of the world. Countries in our sphere have benefitted greatly: SK, Japan, Europe, Taiwan, India, Mexico, etc.
Yeah... "some sort" says it all doesn't it?
It's a much deeper discussion that this topic or medium affords. But that very same system took away through various means millions of citizens' right to vote, and routinely generates situations where the will of the majority is overridden by a minority. And there's a lot more where that came from. You are given just enough power to feel in control but not enough to be in control. You have a voice but nobody really has to listen.
I grant you that, there are clearly far more freedoms in the western world in general than in China. But there's nothing better about US's system of values than say the Icelandic one (quite visibly the opposite actually). But...
It all boils down to one simple fact: the US imposes it's own views on the rest of the world via military and economic measures against anyone who doesn't comply, doesn't have anything truly of value to trade, or threatens that military and economic superiority. See Saudi Arabia, one of US's closest ally vs. China, one of US's biggest enemy. Both have the same values yet get very different ends of the stick. There's nothing making this system better other than the military and economic force behind it.
And I'll leave you with a bit of foods for thought: large scale organized crime groups also elected their leaders through "some sort of democracy", and have economic and "military" power to impose their will even over entire countries. What does this say about their system of values? Must be tip top.
When did it take away citizens right to vote? You're talking about felons not being able to vote? Yeah I agree with getting rid of that, getting rid of gerrymandering etc. You can be a critic of implementations the system and yet still support the underlying mechanism.
You're supposed to feel like you have a say and not BE in control. Yes minority groups will have less power, that is fine.
"There's nothing making this system better..." "I grant you there are clearly far more freedoms in the western..."
The US will basically spread democracy and capitalism. True capitalism is bad for the entrenched CCP, Russia oligarchs, etc because the US multinationals will inject their capital in the system and take control of everything. Of course they want to keep power. I think there should be some guarantees of the country keeping some ownership over their production.
CCP and Russia are trying to lock down their systems and increase their competitive output, so that when they clash with the West they can compete on value/innovation.
I'm not saying the system is perfect, it's obviously coopted by different groups. But it is as close to perfect as exists in the world today.
So the theory is great if only we ignore the practice? A protection racket works on solid mechanisms and even principles in theory. The implementation just needs the small detail of breaking the law. It also looks great from inside if you benefit even the least bit from it, but criminal from the outside.
> The US will basically spread democracy and capitalism.
Lots of countries became democratic and capitalistic because the US explosively "spread" them? What was the cost for those countries to still not achieve that? Protection rackets might have more satisfied customers.
> True capitalism is bad for the entrenched CCP
I'm not sure you understand what "true capitalism" means. Short version, it's not great for the regular person. There's no room for protections and you're only as valuable as your contribution to someone else's bottom line. Sounds familiar? Now I honestly wonder what happens if you apply "pure capitalism" to a country of 1.5 billion knowing that either the theory or the practice encourage lobbying (buying) for laws to favor the few, and selectively adjust the democratic process to eliminate the most inconvenient votes.
> But it is as close to perfect
In theory. But you'd have to be naive to believe that the US goes anywhere just to spread the good word, especially considering the current track record doing that and that since as you agreed they themselves are far from nailing the practice. Other countries have nailed both, take Scandinavian countries where people are treated equal, the GDP per capita is similar to the US's (+/- $10k), and the democratic process works in practice. Why isn't the US importing that rather than being concerned with exporting theirs?
Look, I don't know where you get your facts, your opinions, your education from but it's not the right place. The system failed you and hasn't prepared you for this conversation.