When such misunderstandings are common here at HN, where people are a bit brighter that elsewhere (or so I think) -- then, such misunderstandings must be dangerously common outside HN. I wonder what consequences follow from that
China has no replacement generation, and they are facing internal turmoil within the next decade on a scale that has no historical precedent.
It's not possible to "magically" create several hundred million young people, communism or no, to "fix it". So what do you do?
An individual's rights should have nothing to do with the people who happen to surround them and what they happen to think.
If different countries allow different things, that would mean that what a person is allowed to do would depend on where they happen to live, which is usually close to where they happened to be born. That doesn't make any sense to me- the lottery of birth should have no impact on one's rights.
Two American credit card companies have an insane amount of say on the shape of the content on the internet. Beyond that, small special interest groups have time and time again successfully lobbyied for censorship that is far beyond what the majority thinks is reasonable.
"Will you be able to arrange for the population to be able to be fed, clothed, housed, and given medical care?"
The government of China does not do any of these things. China, despite their lip-service to historical Communist revolution, has some the worst social programs in the world.
Though to be fair, the political ideas that say that is a problem are pretty Western and (relatively) recent.
Of course they did. PRC is country that skews old and conservative. Half the reason behind media crack down are cantankerous parents and grand parents telling governments they don't want loose western morals spoiling impressionable minds. Outside of western reporting, PRC libtards are relatively extinct compared to vast amount numbers of papa / grandpa wang who don't want to accidentally watch tits n ass or have uncomfortable imported culture war talks with their live-in kids. The only aggregious censorship that lowkey half of the population wants to get rid of is pornography but that's an Asian thing (also guess which half). There are many of policies easily explained by CCP having to appease the people where feasible because their legitimacy depends on it, unlike "democratic" systems where competing parties bunts the responsiblity to the next guy. Or that fractous multi-cultural societies make cultural wars different political party has idpol positions staked very difficult to win. In China, CCP gets pulse on mass culture and enforces it. Yes they can also manufacture identity for political ends but for something like imported mass media, much simpler/easier/pragmatic to embrace opinion of a billion conservative prudes.
That's the difference with democracy. In a democracy, the leaders have to explain themselves to the entire public. Also in a democracy, you can criticize governmental decisions, which might lead to better solutions, or even prevent them.
The solution? Make your country attractive for young Indian (and other) immigrants. Or just make the older generation "disappear". Communist seem to be especially well trained in letting people disappear.
Implying formal enfranchisement is required to choose when being loud in numbers petitioning/screaming at officials is enough and frequently more effective when said officials gets drown in shit if they fail to maintain political serenity. There's a reason Chinese trust in government is near record levels compared to declining trust in western systems which sure are good at choosing but miserable at delivering. Being performative is orthogonal to being performant. "They can't choose" is such a tired and useless gotcha when plurality of "choosers" / voters in prominenant democracies don't actually think voting is useful mechanism for choosing, until compared to highly performant authoritarian systems. Then it is, because reasons.
"As the top-producing country, China puts out 90 million MT annually for 30 percent of global supply." -- https://investingnews.com/phosphate-outlook-2022/
So, I'll give you that Peter Zeihan might be trying to sell his books, but it's not like there's zero corroborating sources.
Laughs in Hong Kong.
But sure, look at China's long history of protest and tell me they respect the will of the people. You're right about one thing, "serenity" (or "harmony") is the name of the game. Lots of ways to pacify the people, giving them what they want is only one.
Lots of long term systematic survey/polling methods from western institutions in last two decades (i.e. pre-Xi) all comport with basic trend that PRC citizens don't trust local gov but trust central gov. One could be cheeky as insinuate Chinese polling more reliable than western polling that has many predictive failures vs CCP polling because CCP still in power and PRC hasn't collapsed but have only gotten institutionally stronger.
>Laughs in Hong Kong.
Laughs in mainland PRC who overwhelmingly wanted to tame HK. 99% of population versus <1%, so obviously respecting the will of the people. Well minor exaggeration, if CCP respected will of the people they would have subdued HK 5 years earlier during Unmbrella. There's always implement lag, no system's perfect.
I'm familiar with protests in PRC, local protests get loud enough, concerns get forwarded to central gov... and where feasbile gets addressed, because central gov actually scared shitless to mass mobilization. Except CCP tends to deliver tangible results not like western short term virtual signalling.
>giving them what they want is only one ... >pacify the people
Isn't that governance 101, preserve peace and give people what they want?