[necovek]

It will probably turn into a non-event in China. As long as other entertainment is available, this is likely to be nothing but a blip.

People do not rise for entertainment, but only when they are seriously affected in their lives. Or when unfairness accumulates enough that they had enough — this will happen at some point in China, if they don't tone it down. But protesting today (and in the past) is a form of luxury: those most in need to protest their treatment usually have the smallest possibility of effectively running one (they are in a constant race to survive).

It's no accident that even throughout history, many protests and revolutions were led/supported by someone from the "elite" (rich, well-educated, plenty of spare time).

[jeswin]

> Or when unfairness accumulates enough that they had enough — this will happen at some point in China, if they don't tone it down.

CCP has built a dissent management stack all the way from early indoctrination to continuous surveillance to Tiananmen style intervention/massacre if the need ever arises. Dissent will be crushed before it becomes a movement.

We're looking at one of the greatest threats to our freedom ever; this time they have nukes, reliable delivery mechanisms and a flourishing economy (which the Soviets lacked).

[necovek]

I have trust in the human race that they will reach a boiling point, and no mechanism can stop that from spiralling out — it's been like that throughout the history. I don't see nukes as of any use (nuking their own dissenting population would surely trigger a civil war: nobody will take that) — nukes are mostly there to deter external invaders (as soon as you use them, that deterring value is gone)!

Their economy is mostly based on inequality between the West and the rest (and internally, between poor regions and cities): as they are quickly catching up in salaries and standard of living, it will level off (sure, their domestic market is huge as well and gives them another few years or a decade).

I'd instead say that media-manipulation based on scientific exploration of the human mind and behaviour is a bigger threat to our freedom: we won't even know that we've lost it. Still, even in that case, I am sure enough people will see what's going on, and will be able to convince others of the bad sides of it.

[hoseja]

Nah, it's clear eusocial species are more fit. Soon comrades in China will engineer a better human, incapable of dissent, working tirelessly for the glory of the Party. This man will rapidly outcompete the silly mono-animal organisms and nation-state slime molds and usher in a great era of eternal harmony.

[necovek]

LOL — thanks for a lighter spin on the discussion!

[baybal2]

> as they are quickly catching up in salaries and standard of living, it will level off (sure, their domestic market is huge as well and gives them another few years or a decade).

Extremely naive. There are plenty of dirt rich countries, countries way more well off than USA which are still completely totalitarian.

[necovek]

Which countries would that be? I can only see Qatar when compared by median at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_wealth_pe..., but when we switch to ranking by "mean" wealth, even that changes.

Basically, none of that convinces me that Chinese economy will continue to see exponential growth as their salaries get closer to Western salaries, and that it will not run into stagnation at that point. This was just a retort to a claim that China will continue to have prospering economy in foreseeable future which allows them to be more formidable and threatening to our freedom.

I am totally not an expert though, but country wealth (esp not those countries driven by natural resource exports) is not a good indicator of future economic performance: sure, it allows a country to pivot and prepare for the change better.

[baybal2]

The prosperity of Chinese economy is much at mercy of Japanese, Koreans, and Taiwanese, not Americans, not even remotely, even if USA will go for a financial nuclear option of denying access to its bank system.

If you look at median incomes, UAE, and Saudis are of course ones with higher per capital income, but you see plenty of other quite prosperous nations in the club. When oil was above $100, and Russians were swimming in USDs, they were even less proclived to go to the streets.

Suharto, Marcos, and a few Latin American dictators equally had their best years when relative prosperity kept populace pliant, even if there was an apparent stagnation.

Popular revolts really only happen at the furthest extremes of the spectrum of prosperity, or rapid movement in it. Even just "not dying from hunger" level of prosperity is enough for dictatorships to survive with ease.

[necovek]

I agree with you for the most part, so I am not exactly sure what are we arguing? :)

FWIW, I did not make an argument that economic prosperity or equalisation will bring them to streets at all, but that:

1. Their current "flourishing economy" is not a reason to consider China as "one of the greatest threats of our freedom ever", and

2. How "flourishing" Chinese economy is will change relatively quickly (say in the next 10-30 years) as their median salaries approach those of who they export most to (if that's Japan, Korea or Taiwan, then their salaries instead of US ones).

I would even say that this situation with WTA shows that 1 is exactly not the case: people in charge of large organisations (like Simon) have learned from how eg. NBA handled the case and the flak in the media they received, so now they are being more protective of democratic values (or maybe their image, but regardless) instead of their business interests.

FTR, this was part of the comment I was replying to where economy is highlighted as a big contributor to them being a great threat to "our freedom":

> We're looking at one of the greatest threats to our freedom ever; this time they have nukes, reliable delivery mechanisms and a flourishing economy (which the Soviets lacked).