> Common sense says countries rise and fall in cycles
Oh common sense. If you believe all countries are autocracies, maybe. But to examine the trajectory of the US on a "Chinese timescale", the US rejected autocratic rule, built a system that decentralizes power, uses ambition to check ambition, and provides for frequent, peaceful transfer of power. To an autocratic Chinese bureaucrat, this is all wasteful shortsightedness, but allows the US to pivot, change, adapt, etc at very fast pace, at least for government.
I do not believe the autocratic bargain that China has made with its people is stable, lasting form of government, even as they seek to export it elsewhere. The fundamental trade is individual voice in politics for breakneck growth and dramatically increased standard of living. However, if you are one of the few young people born in China recently, what breakneck growth? A vicious gauntlet of schooling, the great filter in the gaokao, only to work for 996 company until you cannot anymore.
We can see what happened in places like Venezuela or Argentina when the government breaks their end of the bargain, as will likely happen to other autocratic states.
Plus, China's growth to this day is built on the back of foreign, primarily American, consumption. If they ever beat us too badly, they go down with us.
They'd need to find alternate consumer markets to alleviate this, and what are their options? Domestic is out, China hasn't managed to create a domestic consumer market with their current demographics, which are only getting worse as their baby bust deepens.
Europe? Similar demographic issues, simply not enough consumption to replace the US and greater economic protectionism.
The 3rd world? Maybe, but first you have to develop it, and even if you could manage that they have nationalist impulses of their own. You think India is going to willingly offshore their industry to China on the scale of the US?
The American system for all its many flaws is extremely dynamic. Trump and his policies are mostly bad adaptations, but they are attempts at adaptation, and the attempts aren't going to stop. The US has changed radically in the last 10 years; there's no reason it can't change just as radically in the next 10.
Why must the consumption be exported?
Why can't they build for themselves?
Because that would lead to mass unemployment and deindustrialization, as China lacks the wealth among the lower classes and the demographics to consume everything that it produces.
Wealth is made.
Yes, in China's case through mass exports. What you're suggesting is North Korean Juche. Turning China into a larger North Korea will not increase its prosperity.
Yes, currently.
But you have made no argument for why that must continue, only presented that is the status quo.
China is huge and I am simply wondering, why does it need to export? Except for oil, it has pretty much any resource needed to sustain a high technology economy.
Please, there are no similarities between North Korea and China.
The argument is self-evident. Businesses need sales to make money. By refusing to allow them to export, you artificially limit the sales they are able to make. Businesses with fewer sales make less money, businesses that make less money employ fewer people. People without jobs tend to have problems securing food, water, and shelter, and start to get angry enough to topple governments.
Sometimes they win, sometimes the government just kills all the angry people, and you end up like North Korea or Russia under Stalin (or China under Mao).
There's also the fact that China is an aging population and is structurally incapable of having enough children to create a self-sufficient consumer economy, unless they suddenly develope a love of immigrants.
The Chinese model is 100% not exportable. It is in essence a benevolent dictatorship that actually seems to be functioning. It’s exactly like having a good monarch and if you look at history, good monarchs, were not all that frequent.
Agree with this however I wonder how functional it would be in a war - benevolent Xi, like all those good monarchs of the past, still has to quash rivals and every so often purges his top brass to put loyalists in, which we can see how effective that is in Russia right now (no comment on current US administrative choices in this regard, but at least historically, our generals were career military)
The article explictly mentions trying to export it via belt and road, which is why I bring it up.
Can you qualify the benevolence maybe as a factor of the distance to Beijing?
The nobles and the courtiers were always favored more.
A benevolent dictatorship that actually seems to be functioning... at the moment. If you look at the last 30 years, it looks like it works. But if you look at the last 70...
This comment might hold water in 2006 or 2016 but it rings hollow in 2026. Who elected/congressionally-approved Jared Kushner to run US foreign policy?
I'm sorry to hear you feel it rings hollow. As you know, the secretary of state is Marco Rubio, who is appointed and confirmed by the senate (bipartisian-ish, I might add).
I am no fan of Kushner, but saying he runs US foreign policy is generously misleading at best.
It is a fact that Kushner (plus Witkoff) has been playing the role of primary diplomat of the USA in critical matters of peace and war. In many cases, Rubio is not even present at these key foreign meetings.
The belief that autocracies will inevitably fall (or perhaps that "the arc of history bends towards justice") is hopelessly naive. Technology is a force multiplier with the power to entrench autocracy, forever.
Still you will not be able to give any existing example that lasted longer than 100 years. There are examples like Sayfawa dynasty which is counter-example to your claim about technology being multiplier
many autocracies in terms of social management systems lasted for many hundreds years.
Leaders of specific autocracies change, right (e.g. king got killed, but now we have new king), but governing structure persisted.
there is competition in technology field, and autocracies are not most competitive entities compared to say public corporations. Its still not clear who will win (common folks unlikely though)
They will all fail. The difference is how brutal the end will be.
Fall how? Please be specific. The people will rise up to take down their evil leaders? With what weapons will the people be armed? With what weapons will their evil leaders oppose them?
What if communism/socialism works with the assistance of technology?
Can you be more precise maybe?
The problem always was that the central planners never knew enough to plan the economy right. Well, with enough technology, enough reporting into the central database, they theoretically could know enough.
And that might actually work, if that were the only problem. But it's not. The deeper problem is that people work better when they get to share in the proceeds. People didn't work very well in the "worker's paradise". They worked half-heartedly, doing the least they could to get by, and production (and quality) reflected it. (This isn't exclusive to communism, though. Large corporations can have similar issues.)
I find your framing somewhat historically inaccurate. China did not make an "autocratic bargain" with its people. Democracy and Liberalism are offshoots of Christian culture that originated in Europe and spread to the former European colonies (including to Venezuela and Argentina) and post-WWII to the allies. Although China flirted briefly with liberalism and democracy those remained foreign concepts and did not permeate Chinese culture.
So therefore to me a more correct historical reading is that China, a fairly insular culture, was pretty much always ruled as an authoritarian inward focused realm and it still is today. I think it is also an unjustified assumption that China would fare better under a liberal democratic regime. For example, currently the CCP keeps all the Chinese oligarchs in check. A liberal democratic China would find it much harder to control those oligarchs.
Argentina and Venezuela are completely different situations where the population is a mix of different cultures and ethnicities and unlike China they had been injected with a heavy dose of western liberal democratic tradition before they regressed back to authoritarianism.
Bottom line is, I think people tend to have this really weird blind spot to culture and history when they discuss politics.
> China did not make an "autocratic bargain" with its people
For a good review: https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2025/10/05/chinas-authoritarian-m...
Shangahi went from a dusty fishing village to one of the largest, most populous metropolises in <50years.
> Democracy and Liberalism are offshoots of Christian culture
cmon, democracy as a word should tell you that is not be true. Earliest is probably Greek, about 500 BC. Notably, this is before Christian culture existed, unless you want to talk about the "borrowing" from older religions.
> China flirted briefly with liberalism and democracy
Otherwise known as the Chinese Civil War :)
> China, a fairly insular culture
Modern China, 90% Han Chinese. Han were not always on top, notably China was ruled by outsiders (most famously the Qing imo), but also Liao, Jin, Yuan dynasties. Phrase is "conquest dynasty".
"A republic, if you can keep it".
The "the trajectory of the US on a 'Chinese timescale'" barely even registers. While the CCP might not be that old, China considers itself an ancient society with a level of historical coherence that makes the United States rather insignificant as a lesson in political history.
You've offered a hugely reductive and rosy view of American history. Democracy is easy until it gets hard. America has fought a civil war before. The Congress basically does not function anymore ergo the "imperial presidency". The balance of powers the framers created when the country was a sparsely populated periphery of 3 million people has changed dramatically. George Washington rejected a partisan affiliation and regarded it as a societal disease. He was elected unanimously. Without his personal touch, the country probably would not have survived into the 19th century.
America has come into superpower status as the rest of the world destroyed itself. Post WWII, the quality of our politics have steeply and sharply declined, go back and watch debates from the 1960s. The same civil war cleavages are being debated today, with far less eloquence than a Buckley Jr or a James Baldwin.
People outside of the United States seem to imagine the rest of the world is naive about democracy. No. Rather when you are an old enough society, you experience more things and understand democracy has its own risks - just as any form of government. Democracy is not as easy or "self evident" as Americans think. The nature of American democracy has already changed radically since the founding. If you factor in "universal suffrage" to mean "democracy" then the United States hasn't even existed as a true democracy for 100 years.
Are you really that bullish on the United States a century from now? Based on what? It seems obvious to me the next century will necessarily trend towards multipolarity. The chances of any American being born today having a better life than their parents have to approach the chances of techno-utopian fantasy. Which will only be attained if Americans learn to live with China as a partner not an adversary. Chinese scientists may cure cancer. They will innovate and solve other problems for the good of all mankind. Meanwhile in the United States your politicians can't even achieve universal healthcare. That is just one example where the United States has continually failed to make change at pace for decades. WWII recedes farther and farther into the background. So does the Pax Americana. China is not the enemy of the average American. It's just an obvious smoke screen for the homegrown problem - greedy elites robbing the country blind, buying elections and achieving corruption at a scale that makes "democracy" seem rather unattractive entirely.
Please consult your history. I don't even necessarily disagree with your view on China. But it's not made better by essentially setting up a straw man, by suggesting the United States "as a democracy" is somehow especially immune to the same sorts of vicissitudes of history that may inflict themselves on China.
The more I read about American history, the less I think "democracy" really had anything to do with America's success. It does make for nice mythology though. Perhaps it is an accompanying comfort that history is highly contingent, and that it really could have worked out in a myriad set of ways.
I am not Chinese, but the CCP loves to insinuate that the middle kingdom is 5000 years of uninterrupted rule. As we both know, that is hilariously untrue.
> Are you really that bullish on the United States a century from now?
Yes, of course, and I am happy to put my money where my mouth is based on asset allocations. I can also freely invest in the outside world, without CCP capital controls. I can freely insult the US president, congress, and judiciary by name, and not worry about disappearing for 6 months. I don't need a cadre of police to throw an old man who advocated for democracy in jail in HK either.
> greedy elites robbing the country blind, buying elections and achieving corruption at a scale that makes "democracy" seem rather unattractive entirely.
ah, come on now. We both know who comes out worse in that scenario, the princelings make Kushner look like a saint.
"Please consult your history?" You could replace "China" with "The USSR" in this post and be almost indistinguishable from arguments straight out of the 1950s.
You point to universal healthcare, the modern European welfare states that other nations including China have modeled were not high-minded cultural endeavors. They only exist because the devastation of the great depression and WWII made them necessary, and a greater need to make peace with actual communists/leftists that were never a strong political force in the US precisely because we were spared the devastation of WWII.
As for corruption, China recently discovered that many of its nuclear missiles had their fuel stolen and replaced with water and the lids of many of their silos failed to open. Yes the US is having unprecedented problems with corruption at the moment, but the Chinese model is hardly superior in this regard.
Fair enough. We can point at each other or come up with examples all day long. Like I could say the United States didn't want to grant civil rights to African Americans as an example of some "high-minded cultural endeavors", but rather they wanted to avoid something like another civil war? Plus it made it sort of "awkward" shall we say for Americans to tell the Soviets and the world about human rights while bludgeoning black people in the streets for having the audacity to ask for basic civil rights.
I mean do you think any society does anything "high-minded" spontaneously? Or are we going to be adults here? You come up with some example that makes China bad. I come up with a counter. I'm not really interested in such a tit for tat. Because it obscures the central point:
The United States hasn't been around for very long. Again, as a "true democracy" not even 100 years. The overriding point I'm trying to make is to suggest that a common hubris found in American discourse should be measured. I'm not under any illusions about China or Europe. All societies have problems. The question is why is the United States any better? And why should I have confidence in that based on a track record of only a few centuries? Especially if the recent trend of the past few decades (closer to a century) has gone sharply down? No, it did not just start with Trump. And it will likely not just magically end with him either. Why does American political discourse constantly fall over itself to talk about Trump as a singular figure while ignoring the tens of millions of the electorate who keep voting for him and have kept him afloat as the dominant political force for a decade?
They will not just disappear. In my mind, the United States is just as likely to elect an even more odious figure in the near future as it is to "move on".
You can say "The Chinese model is hardly superior".
Someone else can say "The United States model is hardly superior".
It's not very interesting. The only point I'm making is maybe treat the other country with some basic respect, as a partner not an adversary. And don't allow your politicians at home to construct foreign scapegoats to distract from their internal responsibilities. The invocation of the Soviet Union along these lines is rather apt. If the Soviet Union's fall was so self evident based on its fundamental nature, one should probably be led to question how much blood and treasure America threw away because its elites convinced its people that it was an existential threat. This trend from Vietnam passed through to Iraq and now to Iran is not looking great. I mean really, what is the trend I'm supposed to see? Can you really blame some governments, especially those outside the "West" from looking for alternative global governance in China?
China does not treat us as a partner any more than we do them. They have spent decades exploiting good will and abusing any attempts at genuine partnership. I don't blame anyone for looking for alternatives to the US in the current climate, but I doubt they'll find a better partner in China. Perhaps more reliable in the short term, in the long run China will try to run the same extraction game on its new "partners" just as it has done in the US.
Don't get caught up in their "thousands of years of history". They had thousands of years of history before Kublai Khan, they had thousands of years of history before the first opium war. They still have issues with older citizens stealing toilet paper from public restrooms because they were so heavily traumatized by Mao's famine, and Mao himself would probably have had you re-educated for suggesting he had any historical ties to Imperial China. The current leadership are the successors of that government.
The Soviet Union's fall was hardly self-evident before the 1970s, for some decades their GDP growth was surpassing the US. Khrushchev's aggressive speeches are now seen as naive bluster, but there was some hard data to back them up when he made them. The US adapted, as we always have.
I'd say the US has a number of structural advantages over China that it is currently squandering, but that won't always be the case. Demographically we're going to be the last major consumer economy standing as the century winds on, we maintain the strongest military in the world when fully committed (Iran isn't even half-hearted, it started out as an unpopular war and nobody wants a land invasion), our natural resources are plentiful, and neither the Euro nor the Yuan nor gold are capable of replacing the dollar.
Sure the Trumpers aren't going away, but they are fundamentally incapable of governing and have no real successor to Trump, who is fundamentally incapable of grooming a successor. They were politically irrelevant for the longest time, and only matter now because the establishment failed to maintain living standards. They lack discipline, organization, intelligence, and numbers. All they have is a blatant disregard for any rules, including their own; the longer they're in charge the more enemies they make. Like the communists who attempted to take Berlin by force in 1919, they will wake up one day to find themselves having crossed a line with far less support than they imagine. I doubt they'll take it well, but they won't last.
> China does not treat us as a partner any more than we do them.
I don't think this is accurate. What do you mean by this? What about the extent of trade between the two countries? It has dipped from peaks, but the story of Chinese growth and American wealth are intertwined. In what sense is this not a partnership? Because they stole some IP along the way? Or the access to their market comes with other costs? On balance it still works out for the average American, who enjoys cheap products. It's akin to the battle over Chinese AI. VC investors in the US would probably benefit from some kind of embargo against Chinese AI models. Would American consumers? It's the same sort of issue with Japan in the 80s, which is when Trump first really started talking about tariffs. Japanese vehicles are some of the most popular in the United States. The American consumer has benefitted from Japanese competition. Why can it not be the same with China? Because the Chinese government supports Chinese businesses? All countries do so. Who bailed out the American automakers? The American taxpayer. America worked in recent days to prop up the yen. Do you think this is a coincidence given the amount of US debt the Japanese hold? The Chinese also hold a large amount of American debt. Why are we not partners?
> we maintain the strongest military in the world when fully committed (Iran isn't even half-hearted, it started out as an unpopular war and nobody wants a land invasion)
This gets said a lot. The problem is why is America not fully committed? You can't really have it both ways. "We're so powerful when we commit" without acknowledging why you don't commit. Why does no one want a land invasion? If the American military is "the strongest military in the world when fully committed" what's the big deal? Commit and invade then if it's so easy.
We know the answer. A reasonable followup question then is what is the advantage of "the strongest military in the world when fully committed" if your society does not want to take on the cost of ever fully committing? Are you suggesting the United States is more likely to want to incur costs against powers like Russia or China than it is against Afghanistan or Iran? If Americans don't want to invade Iran, why would they want to break a Chinese blockade of Taiwan? So what good is it? One of the virtues of democracy is actually it is harder to declare war. This is why the imperial presidency was created. If you're familiar with US history you would know an overriding popular view was avoiding foreign wars. Including WWII. FDR couldn't really help in Europe as much as he wanted, because Americans weren't interested in sending their blood and treasure to die an ocean away, especially after WWI. He had to wait for the Pearl Harbor attack, which galvanized support overnight. Why does America no longer employ conscription? Because wars aren't popular. It's actually in my view a pretty disgusting "adaptation" that a democracy has created an all volunteer army. This is not in keeping with basic democratic ideals, going back to ancient greece. If a land of "all men created equal" goes to war, all should have to sacrifice. Instead we send mostly poor kids to have their legs blown off in Iraq while at the same time people in the oil or defense or finance industry get to print money for their children. Why are the elites so hated in America? It's not about wealth alone. I keep hearing about how powerful the US military is, but all I actually see is a string of military failures from Afghanistan, to Iraq, to now Iran. These are impoverished, backwards pariah states. Why would I conclude the United States would do better against a power remotely approaching a peer?
> our natural resources are plentiful
So are China's. It's why the "trade war" failed.
> Sure the Trumpers aren't going away, but they are fundamentally incapable of governing and have no real successor to Trump, who is fundamentally incapable of grooming a successor. They were politically irrelevant for the longest time, and only matter now because the establishment failed to maintain living standards.
This is an overly optimistic read. They were actually never "politically irrelevant". The faction of America they represent has always been relevant. It was merely the case that American elites could control them. Trump was never taken seriously by said elites, who repeated your sentiments pretty much verbatim. He proved them wrong. The information world we live in now is changing the nature of public discourse. Nothing could be of greater consequence in a democracy. Parties, and the public are not as easily controlled. What is going to reverse this trend? Just think about the information the average American had access to in the mid 20th century compared to now. Why would you look at the history of American politics and demagogues and conclude it will get better? How will living standards improve? Why is it inevitable that America will solve this? Seems like wishful thinking.
The invocation of 1919 Berlin as if this is some comfort is quite ironic. The saving grace of Trump is he really doesn't care about anything but himself, and so doesn't really believe in anything. You may not be so lucky the next time the Democrats choke away an election. The failures of 1919 Berlin would metastasize into another form of extremism in a nearby city that led to another failure in 1923. But then it was 1933. The history of this period tells us that many figures and people oscillated between "left" and "right" extremism as they worked to find an answer that resonated in a rapidly changing and destabilizing world. Hmm, much like the one we find ourselves in today. They've taken the White House twice now. The communists in Berlin in 1919 never tasted that sort of power. I'm not sure you're making the correct analogy. I'm also not sure I would celebrate the murder of German communists by proto-Nazis. Personally, a rather odd data point for you to single out as a reassuring one.
In any event, I am not sure why you are so confident that America is so immune to something approaching a similar fate. Germany was not some backwards society. This was the land of Kant and Hegel and Frege.
Just as the land of Washington, Jefferson and Madison found itself mired in fratricide within a few generations.
One doesn't have to get even halfway to such a 1933 outcome for things to get very bad. America has not been around for very long. Why so confident of such a short track record?
I simply suggest you not engage in hubris. Widen your imagination of the possible. And recognize we are all human. Citing some point about Mao or toilet paper is about as useful as bringing up Abu Ghraib or American slavery. The Chinese can also adapt if you haven't noticed. It's not Mao's party anymore.
What is the path for America's future? The world is getting smaller and more competitive. Your comfort in demographics might be warranted, but as it stands today there are over a billion people in China. Is the future for America better if the Chinese are our foes? I guess I just don't understand this constant drumbeat of conflict. We should not envy the progress of a billion people on the other side of the world. China doesn't setup bases in Mexico or Canada. It doesn't try to assert itself in the "Gulf of America". It doesn't support a separatist movement in Hawaii. Whose kids are going to die fighting China in the Pacific? Are you going to volunteer your kids? On what basis? A 21st century update to Wilsonian idealism? That which Americans already saw fail?
Maybe we should then pull back on the illusion of conflict and work together. I think the only people who will benefit from conflict (if any) are the elites, who will never send their kids to fight. Americans and Chinese may have more in common than you are led to believe. The fact you don't even think we are partners paired with the casual confidence in which you articulate your hubris is concerning, and suggestive that the forces of conflict are already succeeding to quite a dangerous degree.
[dead]