To play a bit of devil’s advocate, “beating China at Not-Being-A-Repressive-Dystopia” requires ensuring China’s influence in the world is minimized or contained. It’s hard to beat them if they take over, in other words.
(Note that this also requires defeating the same kinds of forces domestically.)
Couldn't we just as easily say "beating China at not starting the zombie apocalypse" requires ensuring China doesn't invest in weird chemical experimentation with death and voodoo?
We're taking as a given that China's end state is a repressive dystopia, just as we would have to take as a given that China would start a zombie apocalypse. The only difference in one is seen as patently absurd by all people, and the other is only seen that way by some.
Considering that China's current state is a repressive dystopia, it's quite hard to compare the fairly mundane prediction that this will continue to a claim about zombies that contradicts available scientific evidence. I feel like I'm going crazy seeing people make absurd comparisons like this. Do you honestly not see the difference between an inference based on China's current behavior and ... zombies? Are you playing at some broader rhetorical point or do you literally think both claims are equally absurd?
> Considering that China's current state is a repressive dystopia
Is it? I know that's how it's presented, and it's easy to assume that presentation is accurate, but do most the people living there see it that way? I don't doubt it's a repressive dystopia for those that are repressed, and that's horrible, but does that make it a repressive dystopia overall? Because I'm pretty sure there's quite a number of different subgroups I could pick out in the U.S. that would say we live in a repressive dystopia already.
> I feel like I'm going crazy seeing people make absurd comparisons like this.
It was made absurd on purpose, to not muddy the waters with a comparison to something that people could have actual questions about.
> Are you playing at some broader rhetorical point
I thought that was obvious with the "begging the question" part, which literally means that something is being used as fact that hasn't been proven.
I'm not saying China is great, or better than the U.S. or west or anything. What I am saying is that when people throw around statements that assume China's natural end state, and what they are moving towards right now, is a repressive dystopia, I'm going to want to see some evidence or reasoning to back it up. Otherwise how do I know it's not just "everything I've read in USA Today the last few years leads me to believe that, therefore it must be true"?
Of course we can get into a post-modernist post-truth debate, but the facts bring one back to reality: Uighurs, suppression of speech, Hong Kong, military expansion, political influence, the Great Firewall, are all real points making it difficult to keep the discussion on the philosophical level.
It doesn't even need to be philosophical. Has China gotten more repressive over time, or less repressive? The first step in a discussion about "beating China at Not-Being-A-Repressive-Dystopia" would be determining which way China is trending, and if there was evidence that will continue or reverse (whether that means more or less repressive).
The other half is which we "we" (whoever we are, there's an international audience, but it's probably safe to say either the U.S. or the west) are trending? We're unlikely to beat China at that no matter what we do if we only focus on them and not ourselves as well.
And to tie it all together, part of not becoming a repressive dystopia ourselves is not trusting the narrative put out about other countries by our government without evidence and looking for reasons why that narrative may be beneficial to put forth other than the truth. Put another way, the first step in protecting your right to question things is to actually question things.
Little about this line of conversation strikes me as a coherent point about China's emergence as a repressive dystopian global power. Starting from a dismissive point that China's dystopianism is somehow absurd, two goalpost-moving comments later we've arrived at the uninsightful point that the future is uncertain and we should ask questions.
Assuming charitably that you perhaps just didn't read some comments fully, "Has China gotten more repressive over time, or less repressive?" has fairly obvious answers involving "Uighurs, suppression of speech, Hong Kong, military expansion, political influence, the Great Firewall" that didn't exist before and that you've not addressed at all.
Thanks for reminding me that I can actually question things. One critical component of questioning things is that you look at available information and address questions to what we think we know, not dismiss available information and say we shouldn't trust everything we read. With that in mind, what questions do you have about available information about China's repressive dystopia?
> Starting from a dismissive point that China's dystopianism is somehow absurd
Not meant to be dismissive, not what I said, and not what I was trying to convey. I'll say it again and very clearly: first prove that China is or is moving towards a repressive dystopia.
> has fairly obvious answers involving "Uighurs, suppression of speech, Hong Kong, military expansion, political influence, the Great Firewall" that didn't exist before and that you've not addressed at all.
Stating things that exist is not an examination of whether they they were better or worse than previously, or how periods of time compare.
- Uighurs. They're being oppressed. Are the the first group China has oppressed? If not, then does their oppression seem more or less heavy handed and extreme than those examples that came previously? I don't know enough to compare them, but there has been opression of Tibetans in China for decades, possibly since the inception of the communist party there.
- Hong Kong - This is China exerting control in a way similar to what it does for the rest of its country over an island they believe is part of their country. Is this China becoming more repressive, or just applying the same standards its known for to a populace that was not previously subject to it. It sucks, but is it necessarily an example of China becoming more oppressive? I'm not so sure. Any capitulation at all on China's part, even if a far cry from what people in Hong Kong want, might be a net lessening of repression in China if allowed in other locales of their country.
- Military expansion - Hardly an example of one thing over another. Military expansion is orthogonal to whether they are repressive or a dystopia. If the populace supports it (and all indications I've seen are that the Chinese people are experiencing a massive surge of nationalism as their country comes to prominence), then it hardly needs to be repressive.
- Great Firewall - Taken in context, this is much more ambiguous than presented I think. In 2008, only 22% of Chinese citizens had even used the internet.[1] It's only at about 71% as of 2021. When the Great Firewall was implemented in 1997, I see some indications that well under a million people even had access to it in China.[2] It's speculation on my part, but I have to think given China's goals that there would be a lot less people with access to any sort of internet if they didn't have some control mechanism in place. So is the Great Firewall an example of increasing repression, or slowly opening up to outside information and influences, but just not all at once? I imagine the average Chinese citizen has far more access to information from outside their country than they did in the past, even with the Great Firewall.
> that didn't exist before and that you've not addressed at all.
I didn't address them because throwing out names of things is not an argument. No argument was put forth, because if a coherent one was you would think they might examine these things as I have and acknowledge that they think they are evidence of increased oppression in spite of that. I would accept that as someone putting in the effort to understand what they were talking about, rather than just putting forth something without any real indication that it makes sense.
> One critical component of questioning things is that you look at available information and address questions to what we think we know, not dismiss available information and say we shouldn't trust everything we read. With that in mind, what questions do you have about available information about China's repressive dystopia?
I outlined them above. I'm not expecting you or anyone else to accept them as fact. I honestly don't know enough about China to know how the majority of those items stand up to scrutiny, but I've been hearing about China for enough decades now to realize the bad things I hear are all pretty much the same things rehashed or done over again, but there are other things I hear which I didn't use to which are promising, so I think it's something that actually deserves some attention and a fair shake at being discussed, whether it turns out they seem to be getting worse or better.
And, to be clear, yet again, because this entire set of exchanges seems to be people thinking I'm defending China for no reason and think they're great or something, I have no real love for China. I think they do lots of horrible shit. I have never been there, I have no investments there, I have no relations or family involved with it in any way I'm aware of. But purely on a humanitarian level, I think there might just be cause to be optimistic on China's future outlook, because even though it's hard to get good useful information on it, to me it seems like it might just be trending in a good direction, even if it might take a long time to get to something we would consider acceptable. I would want to know if I'm wrong through, and I'm willing to accept arguments that I'm wrong, but if you look you'll see a dearth of argument provided here. I want to know if I'm wrong, but I'm not going to let people just yell "you're wrong!" at without evidence be what convinces me. And if people don't know enough to argue about those things (at least as little as I do which allows me to put them in some minimal context), what are they doing throwing them out as evidence?
Stating examples where China did not previously oppress and now do oppress demonstrate China's continued streak of repressive dystopia. You seem pretty aware on the facts of China's oppression but willfully deny their depiction of a repressive dystopia.
Apparently you know that oppression of Uighurs is ongoing and horrific but somehow the possibility that they're not the first group they've oppressed could be...promising? I don't know what to make of this logic. China hasn't stopped oppressing Tibetans, so this (relatively) new repression of Uighurs is literally more oppression than they've done before.
And you're well aware of the benighted takeover of Hong Kong, but once again willing to overlook it as an example of repressive dystopia because it's now the same as the rest of China...which is also currently oppressed and lacks basic freedom. I don't even know what "a net lessening of repression in China" is supposed to mean; Hong Kong used to have plenty of freedom that it now lacks, while the rest of China hasn't gained freedom from entrance of Hong Kong. The most charitable interpretation of this logic is that you meant to say an "average lessening of repression", except that doesn't mean there's less repression at all, the borders of China have just been redefined to change the average.
Then you ask "So is the Great Firewall an example of increasing repression, or slowly opening up to outside information and influences, but just not all at once?", a twisted question that pretends as if "slowly opening up to outside information and influences" is somehow not a repressive dystopia, as if it's not a horrifically totalitarian action that assumes the state can justify controlling what outside information & influence is allowed to be seen by citizens, the very foundation and core of a repressive dystopia. If the US did the same thing, would you not say that it's a repressive dystopia? Without government intervention, the public would have widespread access to independent information. And then of course China has only tightened its grip on media & press in the last 3 years [1].
I'll grant that "military expansion" is not repressive in itself but simply denotes the fact that China's repressive dystopia is becoming more powerful.
I'm at least relieved that you know the horrific facts of what's going on, but it seems to me that you're just turning a blind eye to the depiction of repression that they represent.
I am curious though what you're referring to when you say "other things I hear which I didn't use to which are promising".
> Stating examples where China did not previously oppress and now do oppress demonstrate China's continued streak of repressive dystopia.
No, it shows it in a small subset. You would have to look at it in context and overall. Adding one method of oppression but stopping or loosening two others might be a net reduction. That's my point. Throwing out specific instances because they get a lot of coverage is not evidence I'm willing to let decide this by itself.
> You seem pretty aware on the facts of China's oppression but willfully deny their depiction of a repressive dystopia.
I don't think that's an accurate depiction of my position.
> Apparently you know that oppression of Uighurs is ongoing and horrific but somehow the possibility that they're not the first group they've oppressed could be...promising?
If their oppression is less harsh than other peoples China has oppressed in the past? Maybe.
> And you're well aware of the benighted takeover of Hong Kong, but once again willing to overlook it as an example of repressive dystopia because it's now the same as the rest of China
Not what I said, not an accurate depiction of my position.
> I don't even know what "a net lessening of repression in China" is supposed to mean
I thought it was fairly self explanatory. If the situation in Hong Kong proceeds with China the victor but also results in some lessening of restrictions in China generally because of the conflict or negotiation or whatever happens in the end, that might be a net benefit. Hong Kong has less than 10 million people. Their lives would get worse. China has 1.4 billion people. What if their lives get a little better?
> The most charitable interpretation of this logic is that you meant to say an "average lessening of repression", except that doesn't mean there's less repression at all, the borders of China have just been redefined to change the average.
Right on the first part, wrong on the second, with regard to my point, which I explained again above.
> a twisted question that pretends as if "slowly opening up to outside information and influences" is somehow not a repressive dystopia
No, I made no claim that it's not not repressive. I do make a claim that it may points toward a lessening of repression, which is my point, as that may indicate the eventual place China ends up in is not a repressive dystopia (relatively. Some people would classify the U.S. as a repressive dystopia, but I'm not interested in arguing that).
> If the US did the same thing, would you not say that it's a repressive dystopia?
If the U.S. went from zero or few restrictions to some or more restrictions, I would say it's tending towards repression or having more repression. I would classify a reduction or elimination of those as tending towards less repression.
I think the fact the internet is allowed at all in China is likely a step towards less repression than what existed before for the majority of their citizens.
> And then of course China has only tightened its grip on media & press in the last 3 years
Thank you. Actual evidence. I'm fully willing to see and consider actual evidence as to one thing or another, and if you pay careful attention this entire thread has been me asking people to justify their position with evidence. I'm fully willing to admit China if someone provides evidence, or at this point provides actual reasoning for the things I've had to outline myself because nobody else would, as they were stated without explanation or context as if they were self evident (which I think I've at least shown they shouldn't necessarily be taken as such).
> I'm at least relieved that you know the horrific facts of what's going on, but it seems to me that you're just turning a blind eye to the depiction of repression that they represent.
I'm not. But we're not talking about the existence of those, we're talking about whether they are at a stable, increasing or lessening level of occurrence and intensity.
> I am curious though what you're referring to when you say "other things I hear which I didn't use to which are promising".
The Chinese population is becoming more educated, affluent and connected. These are people that have more resources and capability to impart change, and more desire to impart change when they feel empowered and encounter something they feel is wrong.
China has opened up their economy quite a bit. They have encouraged a lot out outside influence and involvement compared to the past, not just economically. Overall, they are bigger actors on the national stage and with a lot more bidirectional influence with countries and companies.
I think all of that leads to China actually caring more and responding more positively to outside calls for change with regard to negative policies.
I see these as positives when taking a long view of China.
> If their [Uighur] oppression is less harsh than other peoples China has oppressed in the past? Maybe.
Are you aware of what's happening to Uighurs? Systematic rape & torture in concentration camps [1], ethnic cleansing on a scale that can be seen in population growth stats [2]. An educated person like you who knows about Uighur oppression surely knows about what's happening. What oppression is this relatively improving upon?
Do you want to argue that China's treatment of Uighur could be relatively better? Why don't you start by saying something in support of that assertion. It's hard to take "maybe it is" as a serious response.
> Hong Kong has less than 10 million people. Their lives would get worse. China has 1.4 billion people. What if their lives get a little better?
Ok, how has HK's brutal annexation improved the oppression on the rest of China? This is just another "maybe it's better?" response.
> I think the fact the internet is allowed at all in China is likely a step towards less repression than what existed before for the majority of their citizens.
Again, this is twisted totalitarian logic. The CCP's dystopian restrictions were never necessary or even helpful in allowing Chinese access to the internet/media. You cannot take away something rightfully & naturally theirs then restore it in a lesser state and claim this is a net benefit.
> The Chinese population is becoming more educated, affluent and connected. (...) China has opened up their economy quite a bit. (...) I think all of that leads to China actually caring more and responding more positively to outside calls for change with regard to negative policies.
So, are you going to point out examples of this? Let's recount some things that happened during China's affluent rise in no particular order:
- The CCP began an unprecedented ethnic cleansing and targeted detainment campaign on Uighurs
- They brutally annexed a formerly liberal Hong Kong and removed their freedoms while not borrowing any liberal policies from HK to the rest of the mainland
- Xi became president for life and enshrined his name and ideology into the constitution [3]
- Destroyed Jack Ma as a govt critic [4] - one of the most elite members of the affluent, educated, connected class you suggest is being empowered. He's been indefinitely detained and removed from his life's work while his character has been assassinated on government controlled social media with an online mob incited in hatred against him.
- Exporting its censorship by leveraging its newfound economic connections with Hollywood [5]
- Expelled foreign journalists [6]
So do you have examples of lessening oppression from all this economic growth you speak glowingly of? It's lovely to hear that "all of that leads to China actually caring more", but I hope you haven't forgotten to demonstrate why that is possibly true.
> Do you want to argue that China's treatment of Uighur could be relatively better?
No, I wanted someone to actually to actually make arguments and think about the issue, and present some facts. You've done this. People keep asking why I'm not making assertions defending China on these issues. That was never my intention. I stated my intention from the beginning. Perhaps people thought I was being facetious and trying to troll them? I wasn't.
> Ok, how has HK's brutal annexation improved the oppression on the rest of China? This is just another "maybe it's better?" response.
It probably hasn't. Maybe it will have some benefit in the future? The situation hasn't shaken out completely yet. If there's no softening of any policies on China's side for the general populace that comes from this, I would definitely call it an absolute negative outcome. If the normalization of rights of those in Hong Kong to those of an average Chinese citizen (a loss for those of Hong Kong to be sure) results in China allowing some more freedoms though, it's less cut and dry.
FWIW, rule of Hong Kong reverted back to China in 1997, and was not an annexation even then to my knowledge, so that terminology might be incorrect. What we have here is China going back on an agreement it made with the people of Hong Kong at that time regarding their rights.
> The CCP's dystopian restrictions were never necessary or even helpful in allowing Chinese access to the internet/media. You cannot take away something rightfully & naturally theirs then restore it in a lesser state and claim this is a net benefit.
That only makes sense in a system where you already had access. China always censored outside media, such as news, magazines, literature, movies and television. That a large pipe of random data is allowed through only partially vetted is unequivocally more access than the carefully vetted list of items allowed through previously.
To argue otherwise is like arguing that women going from not being allowed to own a business to being allowed to own a business is no gain at if they still didn't have the right to vote. Freedom are not always binary, and even when they are binary, they contribute to a total state that is an amalgamation of different things. Nobody (sane) would argue that we have all the freedoms there are to have in the United States, but I definitely think we're more free than China.
> So, are you going to point out examples of this?
Middle class rise in China[1] has risen to a phenomenal degree, and their middle class spends more than any other nation.[2]
They use Special Economic Zones[3] to experiment with more free economies.
The fact we had a trade war with them recently points towards the fact that there is leverage here, and there, which allows for dialogue in a way that allows for pressure from the rest of world on China, as they are dependent on on the west and the rest of the world to provide the level of comfort their people have become accustomed to through increased economic activity. I don't believe the prior Peesident was effective, or could be effective in this role, for many reasons, so I have hopeful for the near future, even if the relationship is still in a shambles.
> - The CCP began an unprecedented ethnic cleansing and targeted detainment campaign on Uighurs
Yes, bad.
> - They brutally annexed a formerly liberal Hong Kong and removed their freedoms while not borrowing any liberal policies from HK to the rest of the mainland
I don't think this is an accurate assessment of the situation (about half accurate? Seriously, if you're reading sources calling it an annexation, that's odd and you should look into why they are presenting it that way when it's plenty bad enough without that), nor do I think it's over, so I'm not sure it's a point in either direction.
> Xi became president for life and enshrined his name and ideology into the constitution
Sort of tangential. It's not like they went from electing leaders to not. They went from a ruling party that promoted from within based on their own criteria to one person doing the same. I'm not sure there's a measurable difference here WRT what we're talking about.
> Destroyed Jack Ma as a govt critic [4] - one of the most elite members of the affluent, educated, connected class you suggest is being empowered.
I don't think one person is the same as a class of people. But perhaps this will be something pointed to in the future as a point where the middle class took more note.
> - Exporting its censorship by leveraging its newfound economic connections with Hollywood [5]
Let's not look to Hollywood as a bastion of freedom. Regardless of the story they pitch, they've always been about money. This is no different than they've always been with inside interests. No large movie meant to be sold to the masses risks offend large interests or groups that might affect the bottom line too much, and this is the same as it ever was.
> - Expelled foreign journalists
I'm not sure this can be taken as an indicator given current events. A lot (most?) of them were American journalists, which points towards it being more related to ongoing diplomatic relations with the United States which is the cause there (and let's be clear, it's not like the United States wasn't trying to nationalize a Chinese company less than a year ago, so this spat has definitely spilled over into other areas besides foreign policy). It could also be because of increased scrutiny into the origins of COVID-19, which while really not great, I wouldn't classify as meaning quite the same thing.
Those are all really good points, and evidence, so thank you for bringing them to the conversation. That's really all I was trying to do, get people go from believing that something as large and tied to enough variables as what China is going to be like in the future could be stated to be a certain way without evidence to thinking more deeply about it and providing evidence. It might be that China is getting worse right now. I'm not sure I know enough to make that determination (so many of the things we've discussed are deep and require more attention, but at a minimum the Uighur situation does not bode well for the future of China), but I just don't like people being so flippant with something so immense that's about so many people, so decided to stir the pot a bit in an effort to get people to actually define what they thought and look closer at the issues, since I suspect most of us are working off headlines and ledes, and not a very deep understanding of what's actually going on as a whole.
In any case, thanks for participating. I hope some of the stuff you found and presented was new to you (which means you learned something). Some of it was to me, which is always a good thing.
FWIW I appreciate your civil tone and continued conversation on the topic.
It's not my intention to continue this thread forever but I want to clear up one notable thing:
> That only makes sense in a system where you already had access. China always censored outside media, such as news, magazines, literature, movies and television.
This isn't true. China's internet access began in 1994 and it did not start with a great firewall, but it wasn't long until 1998 when the CCP began the Great Firewall project fearing a new network they could not control [1]. Here's an excerpt from a Chinese news outlet about the internet at the time [2]:
> On September 14, 1987, Chinese and German scholars jointly drafted an email "Cross the Great Wall and Go to the World" in Beijing
Apparently written before the CCP built another wall.
> FWIW I appreciate your civil tone and continued conversation on the topic.
That's what I'm here for, interesting conversations with different viewpoints. :)
> but it wasn't long until 1998 when the CCP began the Great Firewall project fearing a new network they could not control
Yes, but I covered this before (a few replies up-thread). I think (think, because the numbers aren't exact, but I don't think my extrapolation from the source I listed there is out of bounds) under a million people had access to it at that time. That's less than 0.1% of the populace. I don't think we can treat that as something they considered allowing all the populace to have. I think the only reason it wasn't firewalled immediately is because they didn't have the technology, they didn't know yet the threat they were facing, they didn't care too much while it was so limited and only available to what were likely elites, or some combination thereof. I don't think we can assume the lack of control before that point was because they didn't care about the flow of information and decided to become more hard-line later, just that they didn't have a solution in place yet but were thinking and planning on something well before it was allowed for more than the tiniest fraction of the populace.
Fair enough. I don't know how you think that makes this an ambiguous point though. Like you suggested, this is a continuation of the CCP's repressive dystopia which signals its continuing appetite for oppression. But allowing the internet as envisioned by the CCP doesn't lessen oppression because it's not the internet, it's a small, curated subset of the internet augmented with surveillance & propaganda that becomes yet another tool of control. Does the Jack Ma online hate mob that spontaneously appeared when he was arrested seem like free expression to you?
Chinese citizens are allowed to communicate on the "internet" in the same way the citizens in Orwell's 1984 were allowed to watch TV on telescreens that surveilled them. Probably more useful than not having a telescreen, yet still more repressive and dystopian.
> I don't know how you think that makes this an ambiguous point though.
It's not ambiguous as evidence of current behavior, I just don't think it points towards increased control of media as much as it actually points towards less control (even if because it's harder to control without blocking entirely) than in the past. Put another way, I think the total outside information the average Chines citizen is able to get now, even with the great firewall, is vastly greater than it was 25 years ago for vastly more people. Even those citizens that weren't firewalled back in 1996 have vastly more information now, just because there's so much more on the internet now. I think if China was doing more of a continuation of past hardline policies, it wouldn't be a blacklist and some sources that were blocked, it would be a whitelist of a few things they explicitly allowed.
> it's a small, curated subset of the internet augmented with surveillance & propaganda that becomes yet another tool of control.
That's not my understanding of how it works. They actively block some sites, IP addresses and ranges, and they block based on content that triggers keywords.
> Does the Jack Ma online hate mob that spontaneously appeared when he was arrested seem like free expression to you?
While I don't doubt astroturfing goes on, I don't think it's needed nearly as much as you might think. China is extremely nationalistic now, and you get people defending the government's actions for the exact same reasons you have Democrats and Republicans here defending some of the things put forth, regardless of discussion, understanding, or merit (it seemed especially egregious with Trump, but it always happens to a degree).
> Chinese citizens are allowed to communicate on the "internet" in the same way the citizens in Orwell's 1984 were allowed to watch TV on telescreens that surveilled them. Probably more useful than not having a telescreen, yet still more repressive and dystopian.
I don't think that's an accurate representation of the status quo at all. I might be wrong, but that's not how I understand the situation from what I've read and intuited from explanations I've seen. As I understand it the vast majority of sites are available, and many sites (but many major ones) are blocked and sophisticated filtering and AI is also in place to block specific content, but it's not a small curated internet by any means. I'm happy to be shown otherwise though.
Access to a greater quantity of information is totally meaningless if it's curated to exclude dissent and support the CCP's agenda. And mass censorship is curation; Someone who has been selectively denied knowledge against the CCP is more repressed/controlled regardless of what other neutral information they have. Greater quantities of "information access" is simply not a sign of less control. An educated physicist brainwashed into supporting the CCP is not any less repressed than an ignorant idiot brainwashed into supporting the CCP. This is like saying the added pillows and larger airholes in your prison cell points towards less detainment. Frankly, a hypothetical hardline policy like you speculated would be less dystopian as it would at least be clearer what's going on and harder to dismiss with totalitarian apologia.
And however much we might quibble over whether "small" is the appropriate word, it doesn't change the fact that the size of the internet allowed in China is far, far smaller than could be honestly called a real internet. I call it small because it's an unacceptably small fraction of important available information/communication that is just as effective, if not more, at repressing citizens. You can call it large and be no closer to arguing that this represents less of a repressive dystopia.
Beyond filtering and site blocks, China also does:
Given that China has pretty much been a repressive dystopia forever, it's not weird to assume that that's their end state (though I'm confused about what "end" you're referring to).
> Given that China has pretty much been a repressive dystopia forever
You mean communist China, or the China that existed prior to that? The time when the British had influence (control?), or prior to that? How long does this "forever" go back, and what makes you think they prior periods where repressive dystopias?
> it's not weird to assume that that's their end state
We're talking about a country that went through a violent rebellion just over seventy years ago, changing the method of government and economic system entirely in the process. And in the last few decades, they've made sweeping changes to the economic model again to the point where in some places it's extremely capitalistic where it was entirely communism based.
> (though I'm confused about what "end" you're referring to).
I guess it's decided the same way you decide who "beat" the other in not being a repressive dystopia. You can't have a winner without an end, so however people thought that meant. I don't see why my response should have any other rules than the premise it's responding to.
There’s definitely a thin line there. Bluntly, if other countries don’t oppose China they’re part of the problem and I have absolutely no qualms with working around them or forcing compliance if required. We should certainly tread carefully, though.
(Note that this also requires defeating the same kinds of forces domestically.)