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.
I’d say there’s a larger portion of the non-educated classes that dislike and distrust the CCP than you imagine, for very concrete reasons — arbitrary and stupid rules, corruption and bullying by local bigwigs, land seizures and the one-child policy. Plus a stubborn memory of historical injustice. These are real concerns. But they don’t necessarily imagine an alternative form of government, or know how to build it, and they certainly don’t care about US gov’t verbal distinctions. Altho they might tune into Voice of America!! (Sigh).
as powerful as the CCP's propaganda apparatus, there still exist a failure to communicate, or to propagandize.
even today, it remains difficult for a foreigner to picture a common, grassroot party member. they know Mao, Deng, Jiang, Xi and the quotes and deeds associated with them, but they dont know the remaining 90+ million members.
im gonna guess it maybe nearly impossible for many outsiders to recognize there are sport stars that are party members, there are movie stars and singers that are party members. there are millions and millions of doctors, and firefighters and scientists and teachers and janitors and everyday common folks that are party members.
in my conversation with foreigners, i often feel the moment they found out who and who is a party member, that label shrouds all other virtues and individualities of the person.
a chinese scientist maybe advancing science for the benefit of the human race, a chinese scientist who is a member of the party is probably advancing science for some evil plan of the party.
i think that's what fundamentally different for someone who grew up in china, like Robert, and who sees china, and the party, from the outside, like Mr. Rubio.
I tend to look at the phrase from a different perspective, but I appreciate the discussions, and agree with Robert on his points.
From my perspective, I usually advocate for drawing a distinction between the Party and the people. Because I've observed that Chinese individuals (online/offline, domestic/abroad) often bear the blame for the actions of the Party, whose ruling committee are all mid-aged men of Han ethnicity. I believe the Chinese people are culturally and ideologically diverse, but the perception of them are conflated with the Party and perceived to be a monolith. That is the narrative I'm against.
However, I agree that CPC (I tend not to use CCP because of the 'red scare' linkage and connotation) is representative, or at least, was, during PRC's founding. They are formed by people, and like any government officials in the world — they can be a bit out of touch, they have KPIs to meet, they want their kids to go to the best schools like Harvard. Failing to humanize CPC officials/the Party is no different from failing to humanize the Chinese people.
After reading Robert's thoughts, I see more similarities than differences in our thinking, and I hope that's what people will do to this piece -- actually read it!
That's reasonably accurate. I'm best friends with lots of Party members; "none" of them believe the Marxist-Leninist stuff. The average Chinese citizen is just fine with whatever is working, and in most parts of China, things are working reasonably well, way better than 15-20 years ago. Of course, outliers exist, which is what American media intensely focuses on, so of course Americans imagine entirely different scenarios for life in China. If asked, everyone supports the Party, but in private no one believes the ideological stuff. I've been in the storerooms with thousands of unopened and boxed "Xi Jinping Thought" books. Yes, they get distributed, and nobody reads them.
It's like religion in America. Everyone claims belief. Few make it part of their lives or direct their activities on those claimed beliefs.
True — "The average Chinese citizen is just fine with whatever is working, and in most parts of China, things are working reasonably well, way better than 15-20 years ago. "
Don't worry too much about the CPC, or the KMT turning against the USA over reunification, somehow exciting riots. Worry, but don't worry about that.
The USA long had a successfully growing Communist Party Movement all the way through the 1940s. What did it in was when black membership, women membership became very noticeable. That was something the capitalist could turn into pure poison. Taking it further, the USA was almost as effective at slaughtering South Korean civilians as it was North Koreans, and the same in the Vietnam War, probably more died in the South than in the North. When things turn ugly, they won't worry about CPC. I remember when Chinese Americans were beaten to death in the 1980s because they were mistaken for Japanese, who people blamed for taking their jobs. If and When they come for you, it won't be over ideology, they'll want to kill you because they feel powerless. They will mark you out based for your race, or your sex, maybe if your religion won't allow it, then your way of dressing. Economic stress drives the instinct to go tribal, and tribes require totems that are not easily copied. One reason the Nazis were so easily forgiven and quickly given positions in America's government, including advising the Pentagon and also critical industries was not only a similar ideology of race based colonialism, but they looked like the right kind of white.
If you have a chance, watch the beginning of Clint Eastwood’s film Unforgiven, Richard Harris plays English Bob. He’s a dangerous gunslinger, and it’s said that he, “…works for the railroad shooting Chinamen.” Why would the railroads in the 1870’s want to kill the Chinese? Because sometimes they had the temerity to ask for their contract bonus pay. at the end of their contract and it was cheaper to kill them. The other labour pool was the Irish, who at that point in time were half way along their journey to becoming white (See Noel Ignatiev's book "How the Irish Became White"). White enough that the rail roads did not hire men to shoot them if they asked for their full pay. The ruling British are not that much more different, and they are too small a minority to be a serious threat, but they are smart enough to turn Black against Yellow, Muslim against Hindu/Buddhist, etc. etc.
Predictions of Chinese political collapse have a long and futile history. The persistent failures of these prognostications stems from a fundamental conceptual fault. Instead of facing the Chinese system on its own terms and understanding why it works—which would create insights into why it might stop working—critics judge the system against what they would like it to be, and find it wanting. This embeds a mistaken assumption of fragility that makes every societal problem look like an existential crisis.
It’s better to sit down, shut up, and read books. Not just any books. Books written by Chinese intellectuals, academics, business people, and after that, dig into contemporary Chinese literature…Lu Xun, Yu Hua, Mo Yan, Yan Lianke…
Then, travel to China. Don’t go to the Dream Coast. Go inland. Pick out a city you’ve never heard of…Changsha would be good. Hang around. Go to the museums. See how things work. Talk to locals, especially young people who all seem to know English.
After that, reflect on what you’ve been propagandized with in Western media. The Western narratives don’t fit the realities of folks lives in China. Yes, you will find outliers if that's what you're looking for, but the outlier stories are not the story.
To my mind one of the main justifications for the CPC vs. China framing is for foreigners to defend themselves against accusations of racism when they criticize China. I'm curious therefore whether you think it is "meaningful" when critics of Israel also make a similar distinction between the state of Israel and its Jewish people when fending off accusations of anti-semitism
I'd love to hear Robert's thought on this question as well.
I recently heard someone in one of my communities (in London) say 'bomb Israel' when there are Israelis around. I fear that's going to happen to overseas Chinese if China ever declares war on Taiwan...
Really glad to see you share your alternative perspective below, which I wholeheartedly agree with. The value of a distinction between a government and its people is how it acts as a crucial norm of civility and decency during heated debates in politics and international relations - it keeps the door open for good-faith people-to-people exchanges (and isn't that exactly what Beijing wants?) by establishing that no one is speaking on behalf of or as an agent of their government - everyone is entitled to their opinions being respected as free-thinking human beings.
I fear that Robert in his eagerness to take down what he sees as a rhetorical device exploited by American politicians to attack China fails to acknowledge what the alternative would mean. If Rubio came out tomorrow and said "The CCP and Chinese people are one and the same", the real-life consequences for actual Chinese people would be severe.
Ironically, increasingly blurring the lines between peoples and their governments seems precisely to be what Trump wants to do with his immigration policies.
That’s my main fear too for writing this essay. Thanks for pointing it out. But hey, a fact is a fact. It’s one thing that they know the fact and choose a more nuanced device, but another if they just don’t get the fact straight and resort to all these counter-productive policies with the hopium that this can actually work
I hate predictions so I'll make one. China is not ever going to declare "war on Taiwan". No one wants a war, except (maybe) America. The ROC certainly doesn't want a war; most of them speak Mandarin or local dialects, not Taiwanese, which the makes most Taiwanese consider them not of Taiwan. The DPP desperately wants/needs America to fight their war for them.
George Yeo has spoken and written eloquently on the issue. Listen to George.
I completely concur. Beyond that how many countries system worldwide revolves around defending against the United States predatory worldview? As countries, like people wake up it's only beginning to become more prevalent. I would say at this point: to be the predator is to have a Target on your face and back. These motherfuckers aren't going to last long. Bet that.
The problem is criticism of Israel very often doesn't make a distinction between the Israeli government and its population. Instead it makes a distinction between Jews and "Zionism".
This is politically useful for the people making the distinction, since they want to fend of accusations of antisemitism, as you say; but it implies that Jewish Israelis are guilty by definition simply for living in the country most of them were born in, at least if they don't support its violent destruction. It also means that Jews who refuse to disassociate completely from Israel are seen by some as legitimate targets. In the end the distinction creates more fanaticism and hatred than is solves.
It would be better not to demonise people based on a word (Zionism) whose very definition is highly contested and can encompass a spectrum of views, but rather to try and understand where people are coming from and why many Jews have a different view of the Middle Eastern conflict than Israel's critics do. Same with China; demonising all Chinese who support the CPC would be wrong, since that means most Chinese. Understanding why they feel the way they do, while disagreeing and even trying to change their minds, is a much better approach.
Yes I think the debate about what the default instinct should be - whether or not outsiders should seek to understand first or to impart judgment - is a very valid one.
I don’t understand however why the distinction between Jews and Zionism implies Jewish Israelis are guilty by definition. Seems to me this sort of “guilt by association” thinking is strongest whenever we weaken such distinctions between peoples and ideologies/governments?
Well, the problem is that Zionism is not the same as communism or liberalism. It's not an ideology, it's a national movement which aimed to create a Jewish state in the Middle East. That state now exists. It's called Israel. If you're Jewish and live there, you could be considered a Zionist almost by default, especially if you support the continued existence of your country (which the vast majority of Israelis do). It's a bit like saying "we're not against the Chinese, we're against the PRC and any Chinese who thinks the PRC should continue existing as a state". I realise that's by no means a good analogy, but it's the best one I can come up with.
Rubio et al are using this distinction (CPC vs CN) to appeal politically and culturally to their US constituencies, and legitimize their CN policies in a non-racial context. Nothing much more than that.
It is true, and it’s certainly an important factor. But this won’t be possible without the underlying belief that this theory actually works. Also, it’s not just Rubio who has this belief
Rubio is from the Cuban dissident community, which is organized, strong, vocal and influential. Anti-communism and pro-Cuba nationalism are very much real, so he may indeed believe that there is a similar opposition in CN. But the anti-CCP/pro-Chinese position by US politicians arose due to strong public accusations by the CCP that anti-CCP comments were racist against Chinese. So it's an important political and cultural distinction for US politicians to make for US policy towards China, mostly for credibility with US constituencies, and for potential credibility with any Chinese who see such a distinction.
I think your analysis of Chinese in China vis-a-vis the CCP is spot on (I've lived and worked in CN for almost 40 years), but I think US politicians thinking they're appealing to a significant Chinese audience in China is not a first and upfront driver real driver for the CCP/Chinese distinction. It's a convenient fiction that nips CCP racist criticism in the bud while rallying US domestic support for tougher CN policies
Really interesting. We in the West lurch between the view that other cultures are so different from ours that only one of us can be left standing and the opposite view that they are essentially the same as us beneath political systems that they will one day cast off to reveal their true universal, liberal-democratic character. If we accept there are differences, we think we're being unprincipled and not being true to our values; if we reject any fundamental difference, then we feel we have to intervene in some way to restore lost freedom and control to the population.
250 years of Western dominance has meant that everyone else has had to accommodate themselves to our natural game or suffer the consequences. But the economic power of China and the refusal of countries like N. Korea, Afghanistan and Iran to play by anything even remotely resembling our rules, has given us pause.
As a wise man once said, "It doesn't matter whether a cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice."
Focusing on the "Communist" in CCP is a red herring and a distraction from the underlying substance, which is that China has a different conception of government, one focused on results and stability rather than on pure external forms ("votes"). Whatever name it is called, anyone who ignores those important and fundamental realities will fail to understand or be able to evaluate China's system of government.
In many ways, the current regime can better be thought of as the continuation of the dynastic system, but with more of a oligarchical or technocrat synod at the top rather than one "emperor".
Indeed, one could even think of it as an actual instantiation of the Neocameralism first articulated by Mencius Moldbug (Curtin Yarvin) fifteen years ago: The leadership act as if they are the board of directors of a corporation, trying to increase the value for all stakeholders. By that metric, China has been wildly successful, regardless of what label is given to the form of government.
In many ways it is more democratic than the West, if by democratic, we mean responsive to the hopes and desires and policy preferences of the people.
The ancient Chinese concept of Tianming (天命), the Mandate of Heaven, is also still very much in effect: The govt is popular because it is aware of its responsibility to the people. If they failed in that task, they would lose the mandate from the people. Thus far, it has deservedly held on to that mandate.
Imagine saying during WWII that you are at war with the fascist regime and not the German/Japanese/Italian people.
This is true and at least somewhat relevant (we didn’t genocide them after they surrendered), but its not especially relevant to some civilian getting firebombed in his home or a soldier that has to choose between getting shot by the enemy or shot for desertion.
And of course the regimes in these cases were particularly bad. The CCPs main sin seems to be that they want to sell me a cheap electric vehicle and buy my debt.
I think you are on to something with western fears about the Chinese as a people. Nobody would say it that way because RACISM, but the discrimination against Asians at elite levels kind of speaks for itself doesn’t it. People are afraid of Asians taking over and have real cultural difference with them.
Thanks very interesting discussion and hope to read more from you on this. I tend to agree that the CPC has widespread support but I wonder why the Chinese government does not take the effort to: (1) measure popular support, and (2) check if popular support is indeed broad-based. That is, minorities and Han majority both support the CPC, that men and women both support the CPC, that rural and urban people both support the CPC, etc.
And second, why not track popular support over time and check whether the trend is positive or negative?
I feel that if the CPC made itself accountable to the people of China in this transparent manner, it would help prevent decay over time. Every new dynasty in China begins strong and takes China to new heights, but every dynasty eventually wanes and corruption sets in. How can the CPC ensure it continues to remain committed to “serving the people” (in a broad-based manner) for the next 500 years? Or is the CPC just another Chinese dynasty and will one day be overthrown in a violent manner?
> 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.
With all due respect, Robert, you may have been living abroad, or in HK, for a bit too long.
Political awareness among average Chinese is very high, and even more so the more inland you go, in the 2nd and 3rd tier cities -- these places are the "reddest". Their ideological conditioning is the strongest, and in turn, so is their support for the leadership of the Party. This is because anyone who has seen China's middle class transition over the past 20-30 years knows that this is a direct result of the party's efforts. These people are apolitical only so far as they *support* the status quo -- something very contrary to Western politics where any amount of political engagement usually puts you at odds with one or another party. In China, political engagement CAN be passive, because simply by not going against the status quo, one is asserting their support for it. It requires political consciousness, therefore, to be "passive", given that it's so easy to be duped by western "freedom and democracy" propaganda. Therefore, the very nature of political engagement of China is the opposite of that in the US -- there is no analog to MAGA in China. In China, to support the status quo means to be politically conscious, and if the status quo were to be shifted, that consciousness would be put into overdrive to pull it back to the way it is, because they know very well the Party -- not as an abstract concept but a collection of efforts by people in their community, if not themselves -- is the key to their own personal prosperity.
I agree that the "distinguishing between the Party and the people" line means little in practical terms. The dozens of millions of CPC members are not some separate caste with very different values or lives from the rest of the population. Proposals to deny US visas only to Party members are wrong-headed, and unjust.
After almost 80 years of CPC rule, China has very much been shaped by the Party (and viceversa), and most of its people do, indeed, hold political views in line with those of the Party and consider its rule quite legitimate. If US policymakers really think they can drive a wedge between the two sides, they are probably mistaken.
Having said that, I think distinguishing between a government and its people is a good thing in principle, regardless of whether it's practical or how popular that government is. It's more about recognising that having an issue with a government shouldn't mean taking issue with every person from that country. It's a way to manage conflict with other countries while avoiding racism, and from this point of view it's a "useful" thing to say for the sake of social cohesion, especially in countries with large Chinese immigrant communities.
By the way, in China I have had very ordinary people tell me, an obvious Westerner, that disagreements between our respective countries shouldn't get in the way of relations between us 老百姓, since we have nothing to do with what the bigwigs decide. So the concept of distinguishing between people and government is not absent or impossible to understand for common people in China.
More in general, I think my issue with your narrative is that it seems to assume the attitudes of the Mainland Chinese public towards their ruling party have got absolutely nothing to do with the education they receive in school, the constant propaganda in the media, and the strict censorship of views that fundamentally dissent with the Communist Party's values, version of history, and justifications for its own rule (and I'm not saying that in China all criticism of the party's policies is forbidden; this is obviously untrue).
It's as if the Chinese people were just making their own judgment of CPC rule, completely independently, based on a rational assessment of how good that rule has been for them and their lives (and even this makes it sound like the people are, after all, a separate entity from the Party). But people's assessments of such things are shaped by their values, which are to a great extent a result of their schooling; and by what they understand of their own country and the rest of the world based on the media they consume as well as their own experience. All the more so in a huge country like China, where most people's personal experience of other systems and cultures is limited.
"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”?"
It is indeed what many Chinese want for their country. Most of the population has never experienced anything else, and they are told every day that democracies are messy and unsafe, that in any case democracy could never work in China, and that the CPC is the only thing protecting China from foreign imperialists who want to divide and destroy it. The CPC puts an awful lot of effort into ensuring that these messages gets through to the masses, and that alternative messages are silenced. They wouldn't do this is if it made no difference.
It could be that, even in the absence of information and speech controls, many Chinese would still be happy enough with the way they are ruled. Actually, I don't doubt it. But I think in the long run a China without those controls would still become a very different country, because attitudes would change (for the better, from my perspective).
Rubio fails to mention that that same CPC has taken 800 million Chinese people out of poverty.
Contrast this with the economic failure of America's War on Poverty" program which has been a complete failure.
Rubio and all U.S. politicians should learn that there verbal, economic and militaristic attacks against China aren't doing any favors for the American citizen. No one's income, health, nutrition or level of public services is served by bad mouthing the CPC. The whole meme is a non-sequitur.
The U.S. tariff war against China has made the U.S. poorer. Fighting someone who isn't threatening you because you don't like their political structure is a waste of your own country's resources.
The U.S. and all of the West should be concentrating on cleaning up their own house which is falling apart physically and politically. Instead of playing as if they are doing something worthwhile by bad mouthing the CPC.
China has high speed rail, the U.S. doesn't. That isn't because the CPC has prevented the U.S. from preventing China from developing its own high speed rail system.
The fundamental issue is, which political system actually delivers the real goods of peace, security and prosperity. It certainly isn't the U.S. or Western system.
99% of Chinese Communist Party members are low level government workers, university staff, or former high school student council members. None of these people have the smallest iota of a voice in the direction of the country. People like Rubio are using "CCP" as shorthand for "high ranking Chinese politicians" but the difference is non-trivial and potentially harmful.
The audience is also outside China, and they believe with economic hardship they can build on that 10 million. Brian Berletic/New Atlas had a good video blog post on this thinking.
I’d say there’s a larger portion of the non-educated classes that dislike and distrust the CCP than you imagine, for very concrete reasons — arbitrary and stupid rules, corruption and bullying by local bigwigs, land seizures and the one-child policy. Plus a stubborn memory of historical injustice. These are real concerns. But they don’t necessarily imagine an alternative form of government, or know how to build it, and they certainly don’t care about US gov’t verbal distinctions. Altho they might tune into Voice of America!! (Sigh).
gonna try tag onto lucy's comment here.
as powerful as the CCP's propaganda apparatus, there still exist a failure to communicate, or to propagandize.
even today, it remains difficult for a foreigner to picture a common, grassroot party member. they know Mao, Deng, Jiang, Xi and the quotes and deeds associated with them, but they dont know the remaining 90+ million members.
im gonna guess it maybe nearly impossible for many outsiders to recognize there are sport stars that are party members, there are movie stars and singers that are party members. there are millions and millions of doctors, and firefighters and scientists and teachers and janitors and everyday common folks that are party members.
in my conversation with foreigners, i often feel the moment they found out who and who is a party member, that label shrouds all other virtues and individualities of the person.
a chinese scientist maybe advancing science for the benefit of the human race, a chinese scientist who is a member of the party is probably advancing science for some evil plan of the party.
i think that's what fundamentally different for someone who grew up in china, like Robert, and who sees china, and the party, from the outside, like Mr. Rubio.
100%
I tend to look at the phrase from a different perspective, but I appreciate the discussions, and agree with Robert on his points.
From my perspective, I usually advocate for drawing a distinction between the Party and the people. Because I've observed that Chinese individuals (online/offline, domestic/abroad) often bear the blame for the actions of the Party, whose ruling committee are all mid-aged men of Han ethnicity. I believe the Chinese people are culturally and ideologically diverse, but the perception of them are conflated with the Party and perceived to be a monolith. That is the narrative I'm against.
However, I agree that CPC (I tend not to use CCP because of the 'red scare' linkage and connotation) is representative, or at least, was, during PRC's founding. They are formed by people, and like any government officials in the world — they can be a bit out of touch, they have KPIs to meet, they want their kids to go to the best schools like Harvard. Failing to humanize CPC officials/the Party is no different from failing to humanize the Chinese people.
After reading Robert's thoughts, I see more similarities than differences in our thinking, and I hope that's what people will do to this piece -- actually read it!
That's reasonably accurate. I'm best friends with lots of Party members; "none" of them believe the Marxist-Leninist stuff. The average Chinese citizen is just fine with whatever is working, and in most parts of China, things are working reasonably well, way better than 15-20 years ago. Of course, outliers exist, which is what American media intensely focuses on, so of course Americans imagine entirely different scenarios for life in China. If asked, everyone supports the Party, but in private no one believes the ideological stuff. I've been in the storerooms with thousands of unopened and boxed "Xi Jinping Thought" books. Yes, they get distributed, and nobody reads them.
It's like religion in America. Everyone claims belief. Few make it part of their lives or direct their activities on those claimed beliefs.
True — "The average Chinese citizen is just fine with whatever is working, and in most parts of China, things are working reasonably well, way better than 15-20 years ago. "
Don't worry too much about the CPC, or the KMT turning against the USA over reunification, somehow exciting riots. Worry, but don't worry about that.
The USA long had a successfully growing Communist Party Movement all the way through the 1940s. What did it in was when black membership, women membership became very noticeable. That was something the capitalist could turn into pure poison. Taking it further, the USA was almost as effective at slaughtering South Korean civilians as it was North Koreans, and the same in the Vietnam War, probably more died in the South than in the North. When things turn ugly, they won't worry about CPC. I remember when Chinese Americans were beaten to death in the 1980s because they were mistaken for Japanese, who people blamed for taking their jobs. If and When they come for you, it won't be over ideology, they'll want to kill you because they feel powerless. They will mark you out based for your race, or your sex, maybe if your religion won't allow it, then your way of dressing. Economic stress drives the instinct to go tribal, and tribes require totems that are not easily copied. One reason the Nazis were so easily forgiven and quickly given positions in America's government, including advising the Pentagon and also critical industries was not only a similar ideology of race based colonialism, but they looked like the right kind of white.
If you have a chance, watch the beginning of Clint Eastwood’s film Unforgiven, Richard Harris plays English Bob. He’s a dangerous gunslinger, and it’s said that he, “…works for the railroad shooting Chinamen.” Why would the railroads in the 1870’s want to kill the Chinese? Because sometimes they had the temerity to ask for their contract bonus pay. at the end of their contract and it was cheaper to kill them. The other labour pool was the Irish, who at that point in time were half way along their journey to becoming white (See Noel Ignatiev's book "How the Irish Became White"). White enough that the rail roads did not hire men to shoot them if they asked for their full pay. The ruling British are not that much more different, and they are too small a minority to be a serious threat, but they are smart enough to turn Black against Yellow, Muslim against Hindu/Buddhist, etc. etc.
One more thought...
Predictions of Chinese political collapse have a long and futile history. The persistent failures of these prognostications stems from a fundamental conceptual fault. Instead of facing the Chinese system on its own terms and understanding why it works—which would create insights into why it might stop working—critics judge the system against what they would like it to be, and find it wanting. This embeds a mistaken assumption of fragility that makes every societal problem look like an existential crisis.
It’s better to sit down, shut up, and read books. Not just any books. Books written by Chinese intellectuals, academics, business people, and after that, dig into contemporary Chinese literature…Lu Xun, Yu Hua, Mo Yan, Yan Lianke…
Then, travel to China. Don’t go to the Dream Coast. Go inland. Pick out a city you’ve never heard of…Changsha would be good. Hang around. Go to the museums. See how things work. Talk to locals, especially young people who all seem to know English.
After that, reflect on what you’ve been propagandized with in Western media. The Western narratives don’t fit the realities of folks lives in China. Yes, you will find outliers if that's what you're looking for, but the outlier stories are not the story.
To my mind one of the main justifications for the CPC vs. China framing is for foreigners to defend themselves against accusations of racism when they criticize China. I'm curious therefore whether you think it is "meaningful" when critics of Israel also make a similar distinction between the state of Israel and its Jewish people when fending off accusations of anti-semitism
HI Vincent I wonder what you think of my comment.
I'd love to hear Robert's thought on this question as well.
I recently heard someone in one of my communities (in London) say 'bomb Israel' when there are Israelis around. I fear that's going to happen to overseas Chinese if China ever declares war on Taiwan...
Really glad to see you share your alternative perspective below, which I wholeheartedly agree with. The value of a distinction between a government and its people is how it acts as a crucial norm of civility and decency during heated debates in politics and international relations - it keeps the door open for good-faith people-to-people exchanges (and isn't that exactly what Beijing wants?) by establishing that no one is speaking on behalf of or as an agent of their government - everyone is entitled to their opinions being respected as free-thinking human beings.
I fear that Robert in his eagerness to take down what he sees as a rhetorical device exploited by American politicians to attack China fails to acknowledge what the alternative would mean. If Rubio came out tomorrow and said "The CCP and Chinese people are one and the same", the real-life consequences for actual Chinese people would be severe.
Ironically, increasingly blurring the lines between peoples and their governments seems precisely to be what Trump wants to do with his immigration policies.
That’s my main fear too for writing this essay. Thanks for pointing it out. But hey, a fact is a fact. It’s one thing that they know the fact and choose a more nuanced device, but another if they just don’t get the fact straight and resort to all these counter-productive policies with the hopium that this can actually work
I hate predictions so I'll make one. China is not ever going to declare "war on Taiwan". No one wants a war, except (maybe) America. The ROC certainly doesn't want a war; most of them speak Mandarin or local dialects, not Taiwanese, which the makes most Taiwanese consider them not of Taiwan. The DPP desperately wants/needs America to fight their war for them.
George Yeo has spoken and written eloquently on the issue. Listen to George.
Peaceful reunification
If America would get out of the way and stop financing separatists in the DPP, it would happen just fine.
I completely concur. Beyond that how many countries system worldwide revolves around defending against the United States predatory worldview? As countries, like people wake up it's only beginning to become more prevalent. I would say at this point: to be the predator is to have a Target on your face and back. These motherfuckers aren't going to last long. Bet that.
The problem is criticism of Israel very often doesn't make a distinction between the Israeli government and its population. Instead it makes a distinction between Jews and "Zionism".
This is politically useful for the people making the distinction, since they want to fend of accusations of antisemitism, as you say; but it implies that Jewish Israelis are guilty by definition simply for living in the country most of them were born in, at least if they don't support its violent destruction. It also means that Jews who refuse to disassociate completely from Israel are seen by some as legitimate targets. In the end the distinction creates more fanaticism and hatred than is solves.
It would be better not to demonise people based on a word (Zionism) whose very definition is highly contested and can encompass a spectrum of views, but rather to try and understand where people are coming from and why many Jews have a different view of the Middle Eastern conflict than Israel's critics do. Same with China; demonising all Chinese who support the CPC would be wrong, since that means most Chinese. Understanding why they feel the way they do, while disagreeing and even trying to change their minds, is a much better approach.
Yes I think the debate about what the default instinct should be - whether or not outsiders should seek to understand first or to impart judgment - is a very valid one.
I don’t understand however why the distinction between Jews and Zionism implies Jewish Israelis are guilty by definition. Seems to me this sort of “guilt by association” thinking is strongest whenever we weaken such distinctions between peoples and ideologies/governments?
Well, the problem is that Zionism is not the same as communism or liberalism. It's not an ideology, it's a national movement which aimed to create a Jewish state in the Middle East. That state now exists. It's called Israel. If you're Jewish and live there, you could be considered a Zionist almost by default, especially if you support the continued existence of your country (which the vast majority of Israelis do). It's a bit like saying "we're not against the Chinese, we're against the PRC and any Chinese who thinks the PRC should continue existing as a state". I realise that's by no means a good analogy, but it's the best one I can come up with.
Rubio et al are using this distinction (CPC vs CN) to appeal politically and culturally to their US constituencies, and legitimize their CN policies in a non-racial context. Nothing much more than that.
It is true, and it’s certainly an important factor. But this won’t be possible without the underlying belief that this theory actually works. Also, it’s not just Rubio who has this belief
Rubio is from the Cuban dissident community, which is organized, strong, vocal and influential. Anti-communism and pro-Cuba nationalism are very much real, so he may indeed believe that there is a similar opposition in CN. But the anti-CCP/pro-Chinese position by US politicians arose due to strong public accusations by the CCP that anti-CCP comments were racist against Chinese. So it's an important political and cultural distinction for US politicians to make for US policy towards China, mostly for credibility with US constituencies, and for potential credibility with any Chinese who see such a distinction.
I think your analysis of Chinese in China vis-a-vis the CCP is spot on (I've lived and worked in CN for almost 40 years), but I think US politicians thinking they're appealing to a significant Chinese audience in China is not a first and upfront driver real driver for the CCP/Chinese distinction. It's a convenient fiction that nips CCP racist criticism in the bud while rallying US domestic support for tougher CN policies
Really interesting. We in the West lurch between the view that other cultures are so different from ours that only one of us can be left standing and the opposite view that they are essentially the same as us beneath political systems that they will one day cast off to reveal their true universal, liberal-democratic character. If we accept there are differences, we think we're being unprincipled and not being true to our values; if we reject any fundamental difference, then we feel we have to intervene in some way to restore lost freedom and control to the population.
250 years of Western dominance has meant that everyone else has had to accommodate themselves to our natural game or suffer the consequences. But the economic power of China and the refusal of countries like N. Korea, Afghanistan and Iran to play by anything even remotely resembling our rules, has given us pause.
Brilliant essay, spot on. Thank you.
(American living in Wuhan. I take a lot of shit for describing China in much the same manner as this essay.)
I can understand the frustration! Allow me speak for you all.
You're doing a good job already.
As a wise man once said, "It doesn't matter whether a cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice."
Focusing on the "Communist" in CCP is a red herring and a distraction from the underlying substance, which is that China has a different conception of government, one focused on results and stability rather than on pure external forms ("votes"). Whatever name it is called, anyone who ignores those important and fundamental realities will fail to understand or be able to evaluate China's system of government.
In many ways, the current regime can better be thought of as the continuation of the dynastic system, but with more of a oligarchical or technocrat synod at the top rather than one "emperor".
Indeed, one could even think of it as an actual instantiation of the Neocameralism first articulated by Mencius Moldbug (Curtin Yarvin) fifteen years ago: The leadership act as if they are the board of directors of a corporation, trying to increase the value for all stakeholders. By that metric, China has been wildly successful, regardless of what label is given to the form of government.
In many ways it is more democratic than the West, if by democratic, we mean responsive to the hopes and desires and policy preferences of the people.
The ancient Chinese concept of Tianming (天命), the Mandate of Heaven, is also still very much in effect: The govt is popular because it is aware of its responsibility to the people. If they failed in that task, they would lose the mandate from the people. Thus far, it has deservedly held on to that mandate.
Good comment.
Imagine saying during WWII that you are at war with the fascist regime and not the German/Japanese/Italian people.
This is true and at least somewhat relevant (we didn’t genocide them after they surrendered), but its not especially relevant to some civilian getting firebombed in his home or a soldier that has to choose between getting shot by the enemy or shot for desertion.
And of course the regimes in these cases were particularly bad. The CCPs main sin seems to be that they want to sell me a cheap electric vehicle and buy my debt.
I think you are on to something with western fears about the Chinese as a people. Nobody would say it that way because RACISM, but the discrimination against Asians at elite levels kind of speaks for itself doesn’t it. People are afraid of Asians taking over and have real cultural difference with them.
“The CCPs main sin seems to be that they want to sell me a cheap electric vehicle and buy my debt.” 💸
Hahahaha….so eloquently put! I LOVE it 😁👍🏻👍🏻
Thanks very interesting discussion and hope to read more from you on this. I tend to agree that the CPC has widespread support but I wonder why the Chinese government does not take the effort to: (1) measure popular support, and (2) check if popular support is indeed broad-based. That is, minorities and Han majority both support the CPC, that men and women both support the CPC, that rural and urban people both support the CPC, etc.
And second, why not track popular support over time and check whether the trend is positive or negative?
I feel that if the CPC made itself accountable to the people of China in this transparent manner, it would help prevent decay over time. Every new dynasty in China begins strong and takes China to new heights, but every dynasty eventually wanes and corruption sets in. How can the CPC ensure it continues to remain committed to “serving the people” (in a broad-based manner) for the next 500 years? Or is the CPC just another Chinese dynasty and will one day be overthrown in a violent manner?
> 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.
With all due respect, Robert, you may have been living abroad, or in HK, for a bit too long.
Political awareness among average Chinese is very high, and even more so the more inland you go, in the 2nd and 3rd tier cities -- these places are the "reddest". Their ideological conditioning is the strongest, and in turn, so is their support for the leadership of the Party. This is because anyone who has seen China's middle class transition over the past 20-30 years knows that this is a direct result of the party's efforts. These people are apolitical only so far as they *support* the status quo -- something very contrary to Western politics where any amount of political engagement usually puts you at odds with one or another party. In China, political engagement CAN be passive, because simply by not going against the status quo, one is asserting their support for it. It requires political consciousness, therefore, to be "passive", given that it's so easy to be duped by western "freedom and democracy" propaganda. Therefore, the very nature of political engagement of China is the opposite of that in the US -- there is no analog to MAGA in China. In China, to support the status quo means to be politically conscious, and if the status quo were to be shifted, that consciousness would be put into overdrive to pull it back to the way it is, because they know very well the Party -- not as an abstract concept but a collection of efforts by people in their community, if not themselves -- is the key to their own personal prosperity.
I agree that the "distinguishing between the Party and the people" line means little in practical terms. The dozens of millions of CPC members are not some separate caste with very different values or lives from the rest of the population. Proposals to deny US visas only to Party members are wrong-headed, and unjust.
After almost 80 years of CPC rule, China has very much been shaped by the Party (and viceversa), and most of its people do, indeed, hold political views in line with those of the Party and consider its rule quite legitimate. If US policymakers really think they can drive a wedge between the two sides, they are probably mistaken.
Having said that, I think distinguishing between a government and its people is a good thing in principle, regardless of whether it's practical or how popular that government is. It's more about recognising that having an issue with a government shouldn't mean taking issue with every person from that country. It's a way to manage conflict with other countries while avoiding racism, and from this point of view it's a "useful" thing to say for the sake of social cohesion, especially in countries with large Chinese immigrant communities.
By the way, in China I have had very ordinary people tell me, an obvious Westerner, that disagreements between our respective countries shouldn't get in the way of relations between us 老百姓, since we have nothing to do with what the bigwigs decide. So the concept of distinguishing between people and government is not absent or impossible to understand for common people in China.
More in general, I think my issue with your narrative is that it seems to assume the attitudes of the Mainland Chinese public towards their ruling party have got absolutely nothing to do with the education they receive in school, the constant propaganda in the media, and the strict censorship of views that fundamentally dissent with the Communist Party's values, version of history, and justifications for its own rule (and I'm not saying that in China all criticism of the party's policies is forbidden; this is obviously untrue).
It's as if the Chinese people were just making their own judgment of CPC rule, completely independently, based on a rational assessment of how good that rule has been for them and their lives (and even this makes it sound like the people are, after all, a separate entity from the Party). But people's assessments of such things are shaped by their values, which are to a great extent a result of their schooling; and by what they understand of their own country and the rest of the world based on the media they consume as well as their own experience. All the more so in a huge country like China, where most people's personal experience of other systems and cultures is limited.
"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”?"
It is indeed what many Chinese want for their country. Most of the population has never experienced anything else, and they are told every day that democracies are messy and unsafe, that in any case democracy could never work in China, and that the CPC is the only thing protecting China from foreign imperialists who want to divide and destroy it. The CPC puts an awful lot of effort into ensuring that these messages gets through to the masses, and that alternative messages are silenced. They wouldn't do this is if it made no difference.
It could be that, even in the absence of information and speech controls, many Chinese would still be happy enough with the way they are ruled. Actually, I don't doubt it. But I think in the long run a China without those controls would still become a very different country, because attitudes would change (for the better, from my perspective).
‘…they have lied, cheated, hacked, and stolen their way to global superpower status, at our expense.’
‘You mean they used our playbook on us, Sir?’ 😮😂
Rubio fails to mention that that same CPC has taken 800 million Chinese people out of poverty.
Contrast this with the economic failure of America's War on Poverty" program which has been a complete failure.
Rubio and all U.S. politicians should learn that there verbal, economic and militaristic attacks against China aren't doing any favors for the American citizen. No one's income, health, nutrition or level of public services is served by bad mouthing the CPC. The whole meme is a non-sequitur.
The U.S. tariff war against China has made the U.S. poorer. Fighting someone who isn't threatening you because you don't like their political structure is a waste of your own country's resources.
The U.S. and all of the West should be concentrating on cleaning up their own house which is falling apart physically and politically. Instead of playing as if they are doing something worthwhile by bad mouthing the CPC.
China has high speed rail, the U.S. doesn't. That isn't because the CPC has prevented the U.S. from preventing China from developing its own high speed rail system.
The fundamental issue is, which political system actually delivers the real goods of peace, security and prosperity. It certainly isn't the U.S. or Western system.
99% of Chinese Communist Party members are low level government workers, university staff, or former high school student council members. None of these people have the smallest iota of a voice in the direction of the country. People like Rubio are using "CCP" as shorthand for "high ranking Chinese politicians" but the difference is non-trivial and potentially harmful.
The audience is also outside China, and they believe with economic hardship they can build on that 10 million. Brian Berletic/New Atlas had a good video blog post on this thinking.
https://youtu.be/xCYwDtaRu6E