China probably. No I don't think it is better but at least their leadership is actually sane. Evil, but sane and predictable.

▲

scotty79 a day ago | parent | next [-]

Even the evil adjective starts to look debatable in contrast to what current hegemony is doing on its way down.

Apparently their worst offence so far was calmly outgrowing and out competing their peers while benefiting global consumers with he fruits of organized labor of their own society.

▲

throwawayqqq11 a day ago | parent | next [-]

Iam sceptical whether china is more evil than the current and historic US. Both countries have commited atrocities but the US was way more involved "for their interests overseas". Maybe the western distrust towards china will make it a different power equilibrium.

▲

Buxato a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If you think that's the worst offence then you should check the recent and past news more often.

	▲	scotty79 a day ago \| parent [-]
		What was the most grusome Chinese offence you learned about form the news recently?

▲

card_zero a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Stop getting Chinese territory under your fishing boats! Leave immediately for correct and healthy harmony! Fires water cannon

	▲	RobotToaster a day ago \| parent [-]
		As opposed to America who uses cruise missiles on fishing boats in a different continent?

▲

RobotToaster a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Maoist protracted people's war has traditionally relied on being less of an asshole to the peasants than the enemy.

▲

wolvoleo a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I was referring more to the millions of Uyghurs in political prisons and their overreaching surveillance of the population.

And I was just speaking of what I think about China, not saying the current US administration is any better. I don't think it will be there forever though.

	▲	scotty79 a day ago \| parent [-]
		Right the Uyghurs, a word we never knew before. When faced with credible threat of islamic terror in their country China implemented some harsh, systemic ideas about what to do with it. I'm sure if they just started two wars in the middle east instead the western community would be way more lenient towards them. China did what it though was the correct thing and the west happily classified it as racism and religious persecution. However when the pandemic came China had zero restraint towards applying harsh measures on the bulk of their population regardless of race and relligion. And while their solutions are harsh and possibly incorrect is it really unique on the global stage? US, the shining city on the hill, when faced with a problem of having inadequate social support systems to help the more recent immigrants decided that it will try to build concentration camps on the teritorry of one of their closest vassals. This can't be correct or humane solution either. And when it comes to surveillance, China is on the forefront, but US and UK closely follow. What's different is that China does their surveillance overtly and tries to make it socially useful. I don't for one second believe that technologically Palantir and such are more than one step behind.

▲

philipallstar a day ago | parent | prev [-]

I'm particularly annoyed that the US is for the people of Iran and not, like China, for the government of Iran. And the US putting secondary sanctions on Russian oil to starve Putin from Chinese and Indian oil revenues? Disgusting.

▲

mschuster91 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

China wants but China won't. They lack the military capability of force projection that is the basis of the US dollar dominance, their currency cannot be used as a reserve/trading currency due to capital transfer controls (that have no sign of ever going away because otherwise everyone who has money in China will move it immediately out of the reach of the CCP), foreign investors have gotten very skeptical over the years regarding IP theft on one side and supply chain law issues (e.g. underage labor, 996 and modern slavery, environmental concerns) on the other, and on top of that China is getting rocked hard by the inevitable consequences of the one-child policy that is driving up labor costs, further reducing the attractivity for foreign investors.

▲

bborud a day ago | parent [-]

China doesn’t need to project force. Economics might is sufficient.

Yes, they want Taiwan, but that’s a silly national pride thing. It would not really benefit them to take it by force.

▲

ulfw 14 hours ago | parent | next [-]

And the US wants Greenland, Canada, random other countries here or there...

▲

mschuster91 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

> Yes, they want Taiwan, but that’s a silly national pride thing. It would not really benefit them to take it by force.

We thought the same about Putin, and yet he went and invaded Ukraine.

We thought the same about Trump, and yet he went and abducted the president of a sovereign country.

Never underestimate nationalist BS or outright mental deficiency.

▲

bborud 18 hours ago | parent [-]

The difference is desperation. Putin was facing instability and was afraid of ending up like Khadafi. He needed a war.

Xi is not facing those challenges. He wants Taiwan, but the Chinese play long games so he can wait.

▲

i2km 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> but the Chinese play long games

And yet they got themselves into a demographic death spiral

▲

mschuster91 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Xi is not facing those challenges.

He is facing other challenges, a lot of chickens are coming home to roost - chiefly the demographic collapse, the inevitable result of the one-child policy, but also the rise of wages leading other countries to be the outsourcing target, decades of selling out nature / the environment, a crashing real estate sector, brain drain...

	▲	bborud 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		You have to look at the likelihood of these problems leading to a violent regime change. The reasons why Xi is much more safe than Putin are structural. Xi controls the politburo standing committee which is packed with loyalists. Loyalty is centralized and based in ideology. The state, functions as the embodiment of Xi’s ideology. There exists no independent power base. Military or otherwise. And this is the most important reason Xi is pretty safe. China’s elite is deeply invested in the system (wealth, family, careers). They lose everything if the party fractures. So the choice for those who don’t like Xi is between Xi and chaos. In Russia power is split. Between oligarchs, security services, military and regional elites. All of which represent a threat to Putin’s power. Just look at Prigozhin’s mutiny: armed forces hesitated, elites stood back to see who would win, system didn’t close ranks. Institutions are hollowed out with no clear loyalty. And loyalty itself is highly transactional. Never ideological. There is zero cohesion in the elite. Zero. It is also important to look at the histories of China and Russia respectively. In Russia power has _always_ been fragmented. Even under Stalin, considerable power was in the hands of criminal organizations and the communist regime had to co-exist with the criminal classes. In fact, during Stalin, they actually got a worse as the harsh political climate forced them to become more resilient.