>Lack of action due to the expectation of long timelines is one of the sins of the lawyerly society.

>But American problems seem more fixable to me than Chinese problems.

China has stayed on trajectory of improving life of its society for a long time. USA has been in decline all that time and decent accelerated after Cold War with Russia ended.

All of China's growth comes from its internal resource. Growth in the USA had been driven by exploiting other countries.

>I made clear in my book that I am drawn to pluralism as well as a broader conception of human flourishing than one that could be delivered by the Communist Party.

Pluralism had been eradicated in the western society. I can't speak freely in Canada. People get cancelled or jailed for speaking their mind in UK. US is not too far behind in that.

There is no meaningful pluralism in the West. They never make a long term plan they can follow for many years.

China has monolithic ( more so ) society with shared culture, language(s) and national identity that runs deep to the gene level. They don't don't allow foreign influence to erode it. It's much easier to make progress when people share the same long term vision and goals.

CPC is doing just fine leading the country into the future. Sure, it has a monopoly on power, but it also owns its mistakes and fixes them. Multiparty systems of the USA and the rest of the West are just two curtains on the stage, and when you draw the curtains you see the same people attending the same party.

Elected officials aim to earn as much as they can in their short stay in power. After all, they only have a few years before they get replaced, better make use of the short time you got.

China IMO has a much brighter outlook for the future

▲

nradov 7 hours ago | parent | next [-]

China has very limited internal natural resources. Much of their growth has been enabled by massive imports of raw materials including soybeans, fertilizer, fossil fuels, iron ore, copper ore, etc. Their prosperity and even their survival is heavily dependent on the post-WWII global free trade system. Ironically, China's expansionist foreign policy is one of several factors now causing that system to fray. In another decade they might find it's not so easy to import soybeans from Brazil and crude oil from Saudi Arabia and ores from Australia.

I share your concerns over effective loss of freedom of expression in western countries. In the USA at least cancel culture seems to be dying out and people no longer feel as obligated to be politically correct or self-censor. But the UK may be permanently lost.

	▲	MangoToupe 18 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> In the USA at least cancel culture seems to be dying out and people no longer feel as obligated to be politically correct or self-censor Americans have always been assholes and proud pedophiles. What are you referring to?
	▲	nullorempty 7 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		They have that which matters the most - people with certain set of beliefs. That's the wealth of China, which they share generously with the West - just look at the Chinese developers and scientists that work in the West.

▲

dpark 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> USA has been in decline all that time and decent accelerated after Cold War with Russia ended.

Exactly when do you believe this decline started? I have some major concerns about the current trajectory of the USA, but it seems like nonsense to say that the US has been in decline since well before the Cold War ended.

> I can't speak freely in Canada

I wonder what it is that you want to say but can’t.

Comparing China positively against western nations and then griping about limits on freedom of speech in western nations seems suspect regardless.

> Elected officials aim to earn as much as they can in their short stay in power.

That’s true. Unelected officials can stay in power and accrue wealth for much longer than elected officials.

▲

nullorempty 7 hours ago | parent [-]

> Exactly when do you believe this decline started? with 'perestroyka' in the USSR which predates end of the cold war - ever since they thought they won over communist/socialist ideas and accelerated with the breakup of the USSR

>I wonder what it is that you want to say but can’t.

Nice try, this won't provoke me.

>That’s true. Unelected officials can stay in power and accrue wealth for much longer than elected officials.

Sure, sure. The systems are setup differently but you are using the same logic for both coming from the assumption that power is used to acquire personal wealth.

For some (many) power isn't about acquisition of wealth but about responsibility, taking care of a hard chore. It's a mistake to think that Xi is in power for wealth.

I often draw a parallel with being a father. You have some power, but mostly you have responsibilities.

	▲	dpark 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> ever since they thought they won over communist/socialist ideas, i.e. with the breakup of the USSR You seem to have redefined the timeframe significantly. Previously you indicated that the decline was happening even before the end of the Cold War. I don’t believe that this is a true statement even since the fall of the USSR, though. I’d be interested in what data or metrics this claim of decline is based on. > Nice try, this won't provoke me. You’re so unprovoked that you didn’t even address the concern. You could have pointed at what you believed was problematic suppression of free speech (of which there are certainly some examples in western nations) without actually divulging your apparently controversial beliefs. Bluntly, I believe your criticism here is dishonest. Pearl clutching about apparent suppression of free speech in the west while pointing to a nation that sends ethnic Muslim minorities to reeducation camps as a better system is deeply disingenuous. > It's a mistake to think that Xi is in power for wealth. > I often draw a parallel with being a father. You have some power, but mostly you have responsibilities. This is a man who refused the traditional transfer of power within the CCP and had the Chinese constitution revised so that he could remain in power. This is absolutely a man who wants power and wealth. You’re plainly biased.