[flagged]
https://www.npr.org/2018/11/13/666287509/ex-detainee-describ...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/04/xi-jinping-fro...
https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2018/country-chapters/china...
I will point out though that the current Chinese leadership does care a fair bit about the environment. It’s not evenly applied, but in many cases they’ve been working very hard to reduce pollution and environmental damage and pursue sustainable developments (hydroelectricity, electric vehicles, widespread electric scooters and bicycles, public transit initiatives, etc.)
Unless of course they're one of the hundreds of thousands (perhaps more than a million) of Uighurs in Xinjiang province who are being held in "internment camps".
Meanwhile those who aren't secure or competent and know it hire worse people to secure their position and well work their way down the alphabet.
Democracy is ironically a very stable system because it works on blocks and ideals instead of people - not to mention peaceful transition of power.
And US and most western countries don't have all of this at the same time. Some countries have competitive democracies(US not one of them) some have kind of minimal/efficient governments. Some not that regulated markets. But no one has all at the same time.
Moving away from a 'centrally planned' economy doesn't imply 'capitalism', you can have a 'market economy'.
The original definition of a 'free market' was different to how 'the capitalists' use the words today. Originally a 'free market' was free from rent seekers, usury and monopolies. You put your work in and you got your pay and your profits. This was the definition of a free and fair economy.
Nowadays the interpretation of 'free market' in the West implies freedom for the rent-seeking class to exploit people with freedom for them to move their capital to tax havens.
Centrally planned economies had a problem with corrupt officials. The corrupt officials would take the role of the rent-seeking parasites we know in Western capitalist societies.
Modern China has a leadership that does not tolerate corrupt officials. If you are a corrupt official then you can expect the gallows in China, it is as harsh as that.
There is also Confucius and a deeper cultural work ethic that makes the Communist experiment with Mao a mere blip in the bigger canvas of Chinese history.
The rise of China is not because they have gone 'quasi-capitalist' it is because they have moved to a 'market economy' instead of a fully centrally planned economy. They have not allowed or desired their empire to be run by the whims of finance capital. Chinese people have collectively worked a lot harder than people in America.
It is easy for those left behind in America to trot out tired nonsense, e.g. about how the Chinese steal all of 'our' IP or Chinese political dissidents, without acknowledging that the Chinese people and leadership have worked really hard to transform the country out of poverty to be extremely educated and leading the world. This complacency only serves to leave America behind. Given your lack of punctuation and grammar I wonder if you might be stuck behind too.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphjennings/2018/03/15/corrup...
Demonstrably false. In china you are corrupt when Xi says you are corrupt and are not corrupt when Xi deems it so. No different than Stalinist Russia.
>Chinese people have collectively worked a lot harder than people in America.
This reads like a propaganda piece written by someone with a pop culture understanding of the US.
>Moving away from a 'centrally planned' economy doesn't imply 'capitalism', you can have a 'market economy'.
>The original definition of a 'free market' was different to how 'the capitalists' use the words today. Originally a 'free market' was free from rent seekers, usury and monopolies. You put your work in and you got your pay and your profits. This was the definition of a free and fair economy.
This sounds like something I would hear late at night sophomore year of college from someone who thinks he's the next Adam Smith but for socialism. You've put together a lot of words but in the end you're really just rebranding capitalism.
Producers want monopolies but somehow we need to keep a flow of promising new producers launching so that doesn't happen, because it screws up the market (the monopolist produces less and takes more for it).
The actual word 'competition' did not mean winner takes it all in the Ancient Greek flavour of the word, it has also been newspeaked by Capitalism. Originally there was some honour to competition. See also where the word 'agony' comes from:
China can be characterized as a state capitalist society with quite a high degree of control and abuses, but some degree responsibility to its citizens too.