[Matl]

The US assisted a genocide, literally kidnapped the president of a sovereign country so it could take its oil, threatened its own allies with invasion and started a war of aggression against another so that it can take their oil, all in a span of a few months.

But tell me more.

[lostdog]

Yes, if you just list 3 more problems about the US then it means that China has no problems at all.

[Matl]

No it means that perhaps the US should finally start looking at itself instead of just asserting that it doesn't need to because China.

That doesn't mean China should not be criticized. But to me it's clear that the China blame game is not about a genuine concern for Chinese people or its neighbors, it's about trying to keep it down because China should never dared to rise in the first place.

Anglo Saxons and maybe the French should be in charge and the rest should be resource colonies. It very much feels like that Western mentality is still there.

[beedeebeedee]

> No it means that perhaps the US should finally start looking at itself instead of just asserting that it doesn't need to because China.

Agreed, the US definitely needs to do some introspection to sort out its own shit (and stop spraying it on everyone else).

However, that does not mean that China gets a pass. Fundamentally, the Chinese model of governance does not protect the individual. For all its faults, the US model is based upon the idea of individual liberty, which acts as a touchstone and allows it to self-correct whenever it goes to far in the wrong direction. That's something the Chinese model does not do, and means that, short of a revolution, it will continue to be an authoritarian state with all of the malignant features that entails.

[Matl]

> Fundamentally, the Chinese model of governance does not protect the individual. For all its faults, the US model is based upon the idea of individual liberty

Look, am not here to defend the Chinese model but I find it interesting how convinced you seem that individualism is the right model for everyone.

While I would generally agree with you, I have spoken to many from poorer countries who say that they prefer to trade some individualism for a steady hand of economic development and lifting the population from poverty. That is the Chinese model.

These people would argue that they can reclaim more and more individual freedom as the country gets richer and more self confident.

I am not saying they are right, but looking at a nominal democracy like India and a nominal autocracy like China, I know which government works better as far as raising the living standards of its population and it's not the Indian one.

My hope is that China will continue to liberalize on its own. Forcing it will likely only reverse the gains.

Individualism also leads to the sort of healthcare system the US had or Skid Row. So it's not all roses.