"I am against CCP, not against Chinese people" - How meaningful is this idea?

In Marco Rubio’s opening remarks during his Secretary of State confirmation hearing at the US Senate Committee on Foreign Affairs on Jan 15, 2025, he did not mention “China”, supposedly America’s No.1 adversary, at all. Instead, here is what he said:

We welcomed the Chinese Communist Party into this global order. And they took advantage of all its benefits. But they ignored all its obligations and responsibilities. Instead, they have lied, cheated, hacked, and stolen their way to global superpower status, at our expense.

When Senator Pete Ricketts of Nebraska later asked him, “Do you believe the PRC is the biggest threat we face as the United States?” Rubio also took the extra pains to make the distinction:

Uhh, the Communist Party of China, [which] leads the PRC, is the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.

A clear distinction between the Communist Party of China, or CPC, and the country it leads has been a key feature of US policy imagination towards China. It is a common belief that the CPC and China are two distinct entities, just like the Republican Party and the USA are two distinct entities, and America’s real threat is the Party, not China as a country, nor the Chinese people. So it’s no surprise that the main congressional platform on China is not called the China Committee, but instead the “Select Committee on the CCP”. And when Secretary Rubio said he would “aggressively” revoke Chinese student visas recently, the emphasis was also supposedly on those with connections to the CPC.

And it’s not just the US government, but a belief commonly held by the absolute majority of America’s elites. For instance, after podcaster

Dwarkesh Patel

’s seemingly first-ever trip to China, he had already started to opine about his advice on how the US should manage China’s rise:

In China, liberal pro-Western voices are often censored or shouted down. If I was the US President, and I wanted to win hearts and minds in China, here's what I'd do. In every single speech where I'm talking about China, I'd make a conspicuous effort to complement Chinese people, Chinese values, and Chinese culture. I'd talk about how my Chinese staffers are the smartest and most hardworking people I've ever worked with (which honestly is probably true). I'd talk about how much my daughter is obsessed with ancient Chinese dresses. I'd talk about how I'm learning Mandarin in my free time, and have a live "Aw shucks" conversation in Mandarin.

The obvious problem, with Mr. Patel’s strategy, as well as that of Secretary Rubio, that of Senator Ricketts, of Mike Gallagher, of Matt Pottinger, of the House Committee on the CCP, and of almost the entirety of US establishment is that, they seem have never entertained the idea that, maybe, just maybe, it’s exactly the same “Chinese people, Chinese values, and Chinese culture” that serves as the birthplace, the breeding ground, the source of power and the unending nourishment for the might and vigor of the Communist Party of China, and that separating the CPC in its current form from the nationhood of Chinese people is a logically and logistically impossible task.

This obsession of an idea stems from a long-standing Western framework of understanding the world, pitting people against the government, as if the two are an inherent adversary against each other. The “Chinese people, Chinese values, and Chinese culture”, however, do not necessarily share this worldview.

In this essay, I will look at the extent to which the usual refrain that “I am only against the CPC, not China” argument is meaningful or not.

Please note that I focus on meaningfulness, not right or wrong. I do not want to pass value judgment here and pay less attention to what it should be. Each one of us is entitled to our own value system, and we may all have merits in our values. Instead, my sole focus will be on what it is, and whether the theory and strategy of “CPC vs. China” can actually achieve its intended outcome. If you genuinely care about the usefulness of an idea, please read on. But if you only think your own belief to be the sole truth, I suggest you stop reading immediately.

I am also mindful that this is a highly controversial topic. For many times, I have been variously labeled a “paid shill”, a “CCP apologist”, a “propagandist”, and “co-opted by the CCP”. I completely disagree with these ill-intentioned and ill-informed characterizations, but I suppose writing this piece will only exacerbate the situation for me.

But just as I have stated before, if I have to adhere to an ideology, my only ideology will be the “ideology of facts”, above everything else. If being wrongly accused is the cost of getting facts straight for more people, then so be it.

Part I. The merits of “CPC vs. China”

Any convincing, serious critique of an idea won’t work without seeing its merits. An idea that’s as widespread and as potent as this one would not exist without some elements of truth.

The “CPC vs. China” theory is true in two important aspects, where the goals of the CPC and of China may diverge in meaningful ways.

Merit #1: CPC wants to stay in power, but the Chinese people have no power plans

Now, this is not only true, but by definition, it will be true forever, simply because a political party and a nation are two distinct concepts with distinct properties.

CPC is a political party. Every political party wants to grab power and to stay in power. If given the chance, every political party, be it the Democrats, the Conservatives, the PAP, or the LDP, would want to stay in power forever. A political party should not exist if it doesn’t want to win power and hold on to power, just as a corporation should not exist if it doesn’t want to make profits.

The Chinese people, on the other hand, are fundamentally indifferent to this. The people only want to mind their own business, live their lives, and prosper.

It’s not impossible that CPC’s desire to hold on to power will one day conflict with Chinese people’s desire to live a happy life. Although there were no political parties in China’s ancient history, there were dynasties, and dynasties usually failed when they failed to provide for their people, either because people were too starving or protection against external invaders failed.

But these moments of “divergence” happened very occasionally, during only the most extreme times, and happened on average once every three hundred years. It’s possible that this divergence will happen one day during CPC’s rule. But, to be honest, any seasoned reader of Chinese history knows that today is not that day.

Moreover, when Westerners are talking about a political party’s obsession to remain in power, they always seem to harbour a kind of cynicism that “power” is an end in itself, not a means to achieve something else. This is understandable in the Western context, where every politician can only hold on to his/her office for just a few years. (Or, in the case of Liz Truss, just a few weeks.) After the inauguration, there will soon be a midterm, and soon after that, the campaign to re-elect will begin all over again. Most of the energy is devoted to getting power, with little left to actually govern.

It is true that CPC would want to stay in power, and it’s safe to say that staying in power is the pre-requisite goal of the CPC before everything else. After all, any living organism has to survive first before thinking of anything else. But to think that staying in power is the only goal of the CPC completely misses the mark. In the system that the CPC created, they did not care about the urgency of electoral results as much as their Western counterparts do. Although they do care about the results of an invisible century-long election, they are just not in a rush.

So, how do all these tens of millions of officials and bureaucrats fill up their spare time? Their stated mission is to help China get richer and stronger, and I will talk more about this in Part II.

Merit #2: The CPC has its own idea of what politics look like, which some members of China’s elite may not agree with

The CPC runs a one-party system, with itself as that one party. It writes into the constitution of the People’s Republic of China that the leadership of the CPC is a “defining feature” of China’s system.

Obviously, not everyone in the non-party population agrees. From what I observe, a considerable minority of China’s educated elites disagree with this type of governing system. They would prefer a Western-style parliamentary system. They are considerable in the sense that they are, according to my best estimates, numbered in millions and perhaps tens of millions.

But even if there are 10 million of them, they are still decidedly a minority.

Consider the “Liberalist/Traditionalist” mental model I introduced last year, in which I divide China into roughly 10% (70m - 200m people) vs the rest of the 90% of the population. The so-called dissidents usually appear in that 10%, and perhaps only a tiny portion of that 10% because 1) Most of the 98 million CPC members are also in that 10%, 2) Of the non-party members in the “10%”, many genuinely support the CPC, and 3) for those who really hate the CPC and also have the means, very likely they have already emigrated. After all, the Chinese law does not ban people from leaving the country. It’s called “vote by feet”.

What about the remaining 90% of people, you may ask? Well, these will be the kind of people that, if you find them on a street and ask what kind of political system they would prefer, they would answer you with a blank face: “What is a political system?” These people do not have political agency until the most dire moment, and for the most part, they do not really care if it’s the CPC, or the KMT, or the Manchus, or whoever are in power, so long as they can bring food to the table and put shelter above their families. They are, for lack of a better phrase, “China’s MAGA”, except they don’t have votes and usually do not have a say in anything.

Ultimately, what’s the percentage of the total population living in China who genuinely and consciously do not support the CPC rule?

My totally unscientific estimate for that is less than 1%. That’s right, <1%. That’s around or fewer than 10 million people, and also tend to be some of the most vocal and most educated people. For this group of intellectual elites, no, the CPC is not China. For them, the “CPC vs. China” narrative makes sense.

This group is effectively China’s shadow opposition party. A lot of political control programs of the CPC are designed to contain, splinter, and co-opt this shadow opposition, while a main task of US policy on China is often to empower them to challenge CPC's rule. The controversial political movement 36 years ago was essentially a struggle between the CPC and this shadow opposition party over the future of China.

10 million people is a lot, but still less than 1% of the total population, and I am not sure if the Rubios and the Clintons know that the constituency they are banking on is actually so, so small.

Part II. Where “CPC vs. China” falls flat

These are as much as I can say about the merits. Now comes my challenge, which I think is more important to take note of.

#1: Both the CPC and Chinese people want a prosperous and unified China

On issues that truly matter to the Chinese people, from prosperity to territorial integrity, there is really not a strong difference between what the CPC wants and what the Chinese people want. The biggest danger of indulging yourself in the “CPC vs. China” narrative is that at the most crucial moment, you make huge mistakes thinking these two actually want different things.

Take this ongoing trade war as an example. There is no shortage of Western commentators who somehow believe that by applying maximum pressure on China, and when the Chinese economy suffers, the Chinese people will rise up against the CPC. Jesse Waters of Fox:

What these tariffs are doing to China is collapsing their economy, increasing unemployment, and possibly toppling their regime. So, if they don’t want their regime to fall, they better make a deal with us.

But Jesse completely ignored the simple fact that most of the Chinese people can see with their own eyes that it’s the US side who are actively sabotaging their prospects.

And then there is the ban on China’s chip industry, citing its link to the PLA and CPC. But do Chinese people think that way? No. Most of the Chinese people only know it’s their rights to grow that have been denied, and their jobs and profits that are at stake.

As for the impending student visas ban for students “related to the CPC”. First of all, because party membership is so pervasive, and in effect ALL pupils in China were once members of the Young Pioneers, CPC’s version of the Boy Scouts, it’s not an exaggeration to say that every Chinese student is related to the CPC. And for the students whose visas are going to be revoked, they will not place the blame on the CPC, but solely on Uncle Sam.

And Taiwan? I often say to my friends that had it not been for CPC and the relatively stable political system it runs, there could have been war in the Taiwan Strait much sooner, initiated by a demagogue who would have come into power on a platform of strong nationalistic support.

Denying prosperity and territorial integrity not only does not make the CPC more alienated from the Chinese people, but can actually boost CPC’s power. After all, to make China richer and stronger has always been the CPC’s stated mandate, and what better justification for such a mandate than standing up to a bully who wants to make Chinese people poorer and weaker?

#2: Both the CPC and Chinese people are cut from the same cloth

When I hear Westerners talk about the CPC, I often have the impression that it’s some cartoonish alien overlords who suddenly come down from heaven and subjugate Chinese people to their rule.

If you think about it, who are those CPC members? Is CPC some kind of a caste or apartheid system where all CPC members just live amongst themselves and enjoy their lives at the expense of the non-CPC low-lives?

Not at all. Most of the 98 million CPC members are drawn from the people and also live amongst the people. Sure, that cohort includes government bureaucrats, generals, police officers, but it also includes teachers, doctors, bankers, farmers, factory workers, scientists, dancers, writers, influencers, and every imaginable profession. Since the very beginning of the CPC as a workers’ party and later a peasant guerrilla army, it has tried to draw its members from every corner of society. And when society evolves, it also makes sure to incorporate new elements. One significant example was Jiang Zemin’s theory of the “Three Represents”, codified in 2002 and essentially a rewriting of the party doctrine to incorporate new elements of society, such as private entrepreneurs, into the fold, and requires the CPC, at all times, to strive to:

• Represent the development trend of China's advanced productive forces;

• Represent the orientation of China's advanced culture;

• Represent the fundamental interests of the overwhelming majority of the Chinese people.

This “super-incorporatist” nature of the CPC ensures that there is a “你中有我，我中有你 You in me, me in you” type of relationship between the Party and the People.

No, this is not apartheid, nor is it some kind of inherited nobility. In fact, all of the CPC members were non-CPC members once in their lives, and were born and raised much the same way as the non-CPC people, and eat and drink the same cultural nutrition just like everyone else.

The implication is clear: whatever you like or don’t like about the CPC, you will not like or don’t like about Chinese people as well. Whatever you like or don’t like about the Chinese people, you will also find the same thing with the CPC.

Do you like that Chinese people are hard-working? Well, CPC members are hardworking too; they also tend to be the hardest-working people among all of the Chinese. How else do they claim leadership roles?

You think the CPC is bad at propaganda? Well, Chinese people aren’t good at self-promotion either.

You think CPC is too cunning? Well, Chinese people are very smart and cunning, too.

You like that Chinese people are generally peace-loving people who usually don’t like to resort to violence? Well, the CPC doesn’t like violence, either, at least comparatively speaking. You must have heard numerous stories of Soviets and Russians assassinating dissidents abroad. Even the Indian government was accused by Canada of killing dissidents. But despite stories of CPC keeping a watchful eye on the dissident community overseas, I struggle to remember any single case where human lives were at stake. For the Chinese sentimentality, violence is not just too cruel, but also too crude.

You don’t like CPC’s authoritarian and paternalistic system? Well, maybe that’s what Chinese people, at least most of them, want for themselves. It’s at least how many people treat their own family relationships. Have you heard of a “Tiger Mom”?

Again, I am not saying I like everything that the Chinese people do or the CPC does. I am just trying to state my observation of the facts, that these two are fundamentally intertwined to the degree that you can’t really tell one from another for all practical reasons.

It’s my belief that even if CPC is suddenly toppled today, if it’s still the same Chinese people we have for today, eventually another political organisation by a different name but exactly the same nature will prevail, and you will end up having something very similar to the CPC.

This is just like what happened in Egypt in the last decade. You don’t like the military dictatorship of Hosni Mubarak? Sure, let’s get rid of him. But then you are spooked even more by the Muslim Brotherhood, so in the end, you invite General Sisi into power. But what exactly is the difference between General Sisi and General Mubarak, whom you got rid of in the first place? None that I can tell.

(The topic of whether today’s Chinese people are fit with Western-style democracy is a controversial and emotionally charged one that I will review more deeply in the future.)

So, what is the CPC anyway? It’s not an alien overlord ruling over innocent masses. Instead, it’s a manifestation of the level of social and political consciousness of the contemporary Chinese people, Chinese values and Chinese culture, and a common denominator for the most workable form of government accepted by the majority of the Chinese at this current moment.

In this sense, Dwarkesh Patel’s idea that he can “make a conspicuous effort to complement Chinese people, Chinese values, and Chinese culture” while countering the CPC was entirely nonsensical. It’s like criticizing a kid’s behaviors in front of his parents: “This kid is so nasty, so rude, so hateful! But no, I am definitely not criticizing you, the kid’s mother. I love you very much. You are such a nice person. And it’s definitely not your fault for not educating the kid well!”

Failure #3: The CCP does enjoy popular support

For a “super-incorporatist” political party that is also striving to bring to the Chinese people the things they want the most, it is not hard to draw the conclusion that the CPC, at least today, enjoys broad popular support domestically.

Indeed, the economy had not been performing well in the past few years. But that “not so well” is only felt so poignantly after one of the most spectacular, most consequential, and most peaceful urbanization stories in the history of humankind under the reign of the same CPC. For many people, especially the older generations, this remarkable track record is not just a passing thought. And despite many blunders throughout history, the CPC usually ended up making the overall right decisions.

This is not to suggest that this popular support will last forever. As new generations with no memory of wars, starvation, and chaos eventually emerge and take over the center stage, the perception of the CPC is also due to face new challenges. And the CPC is ever conscious and ever paranoid of this challenge.

Still, if we just look at today and the near future, it is reasonable to say that the CPC enjoys a very strong mandate.

Final Verdict

I understand this essay may be controversial, and I will not be able to persuade many people already wedded to their own ideas. I am sure the basic US policy toward China and the CPC will stay the same, and is likely to intensify along the current trajectory.

So this is my final advice for Secretary Rubio and the people he represents.

On the tactical side, even if the self-delusion of “CPC vs China” is to be continued, you should be mindful of two basic facts. First, this policy is essentially getting yourself into the domestic politics of China by explicitly supporting China’s “shadow opposition party”. There are numerous ways this kind of policy could backfire. Just imagine what will happen if China is actively supporting the Democrats right now.

Another basic fact, as I have described, is that you have to have a clear-headed assessment of how much power this opposition party actually has. At less than <1% of the total population (and perhaps far less than 1%), you will need to think about whether the rewards of this policy can justify the costs.

My final piece of advice is about grand strategy. Even if you keep holding onto this illusion of “CPC vs China”, and you can’t help but to detest the CPC, there is only one serious way you can counter it, and that is by being a better version of yourself.

America is the most attractive, and its beacon is the brightest when you are self-confident and lead by example. Absent that, you do not have the moral high ground to make even a dent on CPC’s rule, which, as I have just explained, is not only strong but is getting ever more strength as a result of where America is going right now.