Anonymous wrote:Maoism was a complete disaster. Anything good that modern China has at this point, they copied from the West. End of story.

Anonymous wrote:
Some fact checks to rebut 5 claims made in the exchange above:

1. "American democracy is poorly suited to the 21st century."
Political scientists note that while modern democracies face polarization, research from institutions such as Freedom House and the Varieties of Democracy Project shows that democratic systems still outperform authoritarian ones on innovation, economic resilience, disaster response, and long‑term stability.
Authoritarian efficiency is often overstated; China’s own scholars have documented delays, corruption, and policy failures hidden by censorship. And, some of the polarization is driven by disinformation injected into democratic societies by authoritarian ones such as Russia and China.

2. "China has a vision for national greatness and solves problems better."
Analyses from the World Bank and OECD show that aspects of China’s rapid infrastructure build‑out was poorly planned, and produced massive debt, unused projects, and local‑government insolvency.

Independent reporting has documented issues such as:
- ghost cities
- high‑speed rail lines operating at a loss
- demographic decline
- rampant youth unemployment
- local corruption that central authorities struggle to control

These are not signs of a system that "solves problems" more effectively; they are signs of a system where problems are harder to acknowledge publicly.

3. "Democracy only worked when the franchise was limited to certain people."
This claim contradicts the historical record. Studies from the Brookings Institution, Stanford, and Harvard show that expanding the franchise correlates with higher economic growth, better public health, and more stable institutions. Limiting voting rights based on subjective notions of who is "qualified" has been widely documented as a tool for entrenching power, not improving governance.

4. "Diversity makes democracy fail."
Comparative political research does not support this. Countries such as Canada, Switzerland, Belgium, and India demonstrate that diverse democracies can function effectively when institutions are strong and inclusive. The key variable is not diversity, it is institutional design, rule of law, and civic trust.

5. "The West is run by leaders who hate their own people."
This is a rhetorical assertion, not a factual one. Political scientists classify such statements as delegitimizing narratives, common in polarized environments but unsupported by empirical evidence. Democratic governments operate under transparency requirements, elections, judicial review, and independent media: mechanisms that ultimately make "hating their own people" an unsustainable claim.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:American democracy was originally designed to allow individuals and local communities to chart their own course. This made perfect sense in an 18th century agrarian society where most of your needs could be met through local enterprise.

But American democracy is poorly suited to the 21st century. Everyone pulling in a different direction under the guise of "freedom" is simply chaos. Now we are constantly at war with each other - urban vs. rural, black vs. white, immigrant vs. native, north vs. south.

I don't know that China has the perfect system. But the fact that there is a vision for national greatness, and a political system that allows infrastructure to be built and problems to be solved, seems like an improvement on America.

Not quite. American "democracy" worked because the franchise was limited to those who exercise it for the betterment of western civilization. Expanding it to unqualified people has been an abject disaster. What's worse, "democracy" only works when the people share common values. Increased diversity leads to diverse, not common, values, so democracy fails. Even Aristotle understood this basic concept thousands of years ago.

Chinese governance suffers from many problems, especially the inevitable transfer of power from Xi. However, their problems are better than the West's because the West is run by incompetent leaders who hate their own people.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:American democracy was originally designed to allow individuals and local communities to chart their own course. This made perfect sense in an 18th century agrarian society where most of your needs could be met through local enterprise.

But American democracy is poorly suited to the 21st century. Everyone pulling in a different direction under the guise of "freedom" is simply chaos. Now we are constantly at war with each other - urban vs. rural, black vs. white, immigrant vs. native, north vs. south.

I don't know that China has the perfect system. But the fact that there is a vision for national greatness, and a political system that allows infrastructure to be built and problems to be solved, seems like an improvement on America.

Not quite. American "democracy" worked because the franchise was limited to those who exercise it for the betterment of western civilization. Expanding it to unqualified people has been an abject disaster. What's worse, "democracy" only works when the people share common values. Increased diversity leads to diverse, not common, values, so democracy fails. Even Aristotle understood this basic concept thousands of years ago.

Chinese governance suffers from many problems, especially the inevitable transfer of power from Xi. However, their problems are better than the West's because the West is run by incompetent leaders who hate their own people.

Some fact checks to rebut 5 claims made in the exchange above:

1. "American democracy is poorly suited to the 21st century."
Political scientists note that while modern democracies face polarization, research from institutions such as Freedom House and the Varieties of Democracy Project shows that democratic systems still outperform authoritarian ones on innovation, economic resilience, disaster response, and long‑term stability.
Authoritarian efficiency is often overstated; China’s own scholars have documented delays, corruption, and policy failures hidden by censorship. And, some of the polarization is driven by disinformation injected into democratic societies by authoritarian ones such as Russia and China.

2. "China has a vision for national greatness and solves problems better."
Analyses from the World Bank and OECD show that aspects of China’s rapid infrastructure build‑out was poorly planned, and produced massive debt, unused projects, and local‑government insolvency.

Independent reporting has documented issues such as:
- ghost cities
- high‑speed rail lines operating at a loss
- demographic decline
- rampant youth unemployment
- local corruption that central authorities struggle to control

These are not signs of a system that "solves problems" more effectively; they are signs of a system where problems are harder to acknowledge publicly.

3. "Democracy only worked when the franchise was limited to certain people."
This claim contradicts the historical record. Studies from the Brookings Institution, Stanford, and Harvard show that expanding the franchise correlates with higher economic growth, better public health, and more stable institutions. Limiting voting rights based on subjective notions of who is "qualified" has been widely documented as a tool for entrenching power, not improving governance.

4. "Diversity makes democracy fail."
Comparative political research does not support this. Countries such as Canada, Switzerland, Belgium, and India demonstrate that diverse democracies can function effectively when institutions are strong and inclusive. The key variable is not diversity, it is institutional design, rule of law, and civic trust.

5. "The West is run by leaders who hate their own people."
This is a rhetorical assertion, not a factual one. Political scientists classify such statements as delegitimizing narratives, common in polarized environments but unsupported by empirical evidence. Democratic governments operate under transparency requirements, elections, judicial review, and independent media: mechanisms that ultimately make "hating their own people" an unsustainable claim.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Maoism was a complete disaster. Anything good that modern China has at this point, they copied from the West. End of story.

Copied and improved upon. The US is cooked.

Anonymous wrote:Maoism was a complete disaster. Anything good that modern China has at this point, they copied from the West. End of story.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1. "American democracy is poorly suited to the 21st century."
Political scientists note that while modern democracies face polarization, research from institutions such as Freedom House and the Varieties of Democracy Project shows that democratic systems still outperform authoritarian ones on innovation, economic resilience, disaster response, and long‑term stability.
Authoritarian efficiency is often overstated; China’s own scholars have documented delays, corruption, and policy failures hidden by censorship. And, some of the polarization is driven by disinformation injected into democratic societies by authoritarian ones such as Russia and China.

The same political scientists operate in an academic environment suffering from a replication crisis. Further, those scientists can't identify the causal variable because it'll get you fired.

Anonymous wrote:
2. "China has a vision for national greatness and solves problems better."
Analyses from the World Bank and OECD show that aspects of China’s rapid infrastructure build‑out was poorly planned, and produced massive debt, unused projects, and local‑government insolvency.

Independent reporting has documented issues such as:
- ghost cities
- high‑speed rail lines operating at a loss
- demographic decline
- rampant youth unemployment
- local corruption that central authorities struggle to control

These are not signs of a system that "solves problems" more effectively; they are signs of a system where problems are harder to acknowledge publicly.

China has big issues. I'm not defending its model, but pointing these out doesn't make the West stronger. You don't understand the causal variable in #1, so you won't understand. Of course, if you understand #1, you know the biggest and best retort to me.

Anonymous wrote:
3. "Democracy only worked when the franchise was limited to certain people."
This claim contradicts the historical record. Studies from the Brookings Institution, Stanford, and Harvard show that expanding the franchise correlates with higher economic growth, better public health, and more stable institutions. Limiting voting rights based on subjective notions of who is "qualified" has been widely documented as a tool for entrenching power, not improving governance.

Again, you, like Brookings, are overlooking the causal variable. Bet you like to cite Scando studies as evidence, too.

Anonymous wrote:
4. "Diversity makes democracy fail."
Comparative political research does not support this. Countries such as Canada, Switzerland, Belgium, and India demonstrate that diverse democracies can function effectively when institutions are strong and inclusive. The key variable is not diversity, it is institutional design, rule of law, and civic trust.

You're citing India? Good grief, you added that because you don't understand their economic model. Look to innovation. Further, take Belgian and Canadian figures in whatever studies you're citing and update them for current numbers. They ain't so pretty. Diversity undermines the rule of law and civic trust. Even the NYT printed that years ago.

Anonymous wrote:
5. "The West is run by leaders who hate their own people."
This is a rhetorical assertion, not a factual one. Political scientists classify such statements as delegitimizing narratives, common in polarized environments but unsupported by empirical evidence. Democratic governments operate under transparency requirements, elections, judicial review, and independent media: mechanisms that ultimately make "hating their own people" an unsustainable claim.

Sure, it's rhetorical, but the academic word salad you produced after that point means little. You think Democratic governments operate under real transparency? We don't know how many illegal aliens came into the US. For example, politicians cited the 11m number for years when that was obviously wrong. You trust Trump economic numbers? I don't--he's lying just like Biden's administration did. I can give examples such as the changes to CPI that understate the actual amount.

Epstein files sound like transparency? How about the absurd options trading going on in Trump's White House where someone is making big money by trading on insider information regarding Iran before it is publicly released. Anyone getting punished for these almost certain crimes? Nope. For the other side, a government attorney fabricated evidence in a political investigation and was not even disbarred. How can you believe there is transparency when everyone lies and no one pays a price for it?

You are welcome to see this as a right-left issue, but it's a democratic failing. There are alternative explanations (e.g., the West conquered the modern world, a certain group infiltrated and corrupted the government along historical patterns, other causes, or some combination thereof).