[Bakary]

>I think it is difficult to imagine real life within Chinese borders.

This is classic orientalism, especially the idea that people can't figure their way out of a plastic bag without Western input. In reality, the Chinese population holds a range of opinions just as diverse as in any other country. And why wouldn't it? It just takes time and effort to cross the language barrier and come into contact with it from the West.

[hker]

It is more than “language barrier” or “diverse opinions” in China: the government actively censors information and sways public opinion [1].

Regardless of your political stance (whether you think Dalai Lama is good or evil, Tiananmen Square is good or bad), the public at large in China receives different information and opinions from outside.

This is not orientalism. Concepts that could be discussed freely in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, or India, could not be discussed with ease in China. This is hinted at above, that many in China are unaware of the Tiananmen Square incident.

[1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/01/07/wechat-...

[Bakary]

Public opinion is swayed elsewhere as well and in plain sight. Most people have barely any knowledge of their own history and usually don't care to find out. Americans have all the information at their fingertips and yet we can all see how that is working out in terms of discourse.

My point isn't to defend the CCP apparatus or to engage in whataboutism, but simply to point out that China isn't a blob of unthinking people as they are often portrayed to be. Nor are they basically primed to instantly adopt Western values should some Westerner bravely bust through the censorship wall and "educate" them. That's where the orientalism springs from: an inability to conceive of other cultures as anything other than relative actors to one's own.[0]

In my view, it is a widespread and serious flaw in thinking that only helps to weaken the West when dealing with China.

[0] For an amusing illustrative example see https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/05/29/how-weste...

[hker]

I agree that:

- the Chinese culture will never be the same as the US, and

- Chinese opinion is not a single blob,

but I think “oriental” countries like Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan show that they could be persuaded (let’s not use “educated” here) to be:

- less aggressive to neighbors, and

- not trying to dominate, to overthrow world order by exporting authoritarianism and censorship.

And regarding swaying opinions, I agree that it happens elsewhere as well (just as Trump was swaying opinions with Twitter and Facebook before he was banned), but I would take a public discourse anytime.

[Bakary]

I concur with the general sentiment.

I don't want to speculate too much and go into armchair territory. That said, I wonder if it isn't more productive to look at China and each country in the region based on its own characteristics instead of a regional idea. Looking at all those you cited, they all have pretty specific ways of doing things and very different histories. I think they have less in common than say France and Germany have together, but that's my personal impression.

Ultimately China has much to gain from changing the world order, just like it was natural for the US to export its values and overthrow governments back in its own heyday. It's frustrating to see Western countries reason along the lines of "1. Be democratic 2. ??? 3. profit" instead of remembering why it has historically been a successful model and working from those first principles. This veering into cargo cult and magical thinking territory is of paramount danger if China is currently developing a competing model.

[hker]

I agree that:

* each country has their own history and trajectory, including China, its neighbors (Japan, Taiwan, etc.), or others.

* China has much to gain from changing the world order.

But, I speculate that:

* a transition of power from a US dominated world order to a bipolar (or China dominated) world order would be chaotic and likely non-peacful, given the history of the bipolar world order of the Cold War with lots of proxy wars.

* hence the world has much to lose from such a transition of power: this is essentially the one-party stability argument of CCP applied to the world, because the world institution inherently lacks the peaceful transition of power that democratic countries have—the result will be more chaotic, and likely violent, than what US is having now.

I agree with your objections to cargo cult and magical thinking, and thus I support public discourse sans government censorship or unreasonable moderation, to find out why things are the way they are.

I love the discussion we are having now.

[Bakary]

I must admit I have no idea at all what will happen when it comes down to it (nor does anyone, let's be real). I can't say I reject your vision outright, but I tend to believe that multipolar worlds (excluding bipolar) are more stable and in this case I do not believe it will only be China and the US in the game. Your comparison between the domestic situation in China and the world order is something I had never considered before.

But like you said it's fun to speculate about these things. Online discussion may lead to a lot of... issues but it also allows us to discuss intense topics where we might not otherwise be able to.