It's depressing to read that the ruling of CCP will continue for at least the next 10 or 20 years.

CCP has completely abandoned the very idealogy upon which it was founded 90 years ago, it has betrayed the people that sacrificed so much to put CCP in power. CCP has now become the biggest interest group in the world that relentlessly accumulates wealth for its members by shamelessly exploiting the hardworking, ordinary Chinese people. Look at how many people had to burn themselves to death to stop bulldozers from tearing down their houses! Look at how wide-spreaded corruptions are among all levels of CCP officials.

Dazzling economy growth has blinded the eyes of people. Excessive consumerism has posioned people's mind. Now most Chinese people just don't care, or have become numb about what terrible things are happening with other poor, unpreviledged fellows. I guess CCP is happy to see this happening---materialism individuals don't pose threats to its ruling.

Still, the communist ideology is about economic planning and end of capitalism. I.e. collective ownership. The thing with propaganda and imprisonment of opposition is not connected to communism. Although this might be the picture in the US.

The first argument about the nature of China's government ignores that many authoritarian states follow the same lines. I won't deny that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) derives a good deal from the old Soviet model but they have imported (or independently created) some ideas from outside as well.

Also let's not forget the fate of the Soviet Communist Party. Ironically, since the CCP has all the tools it needs to prevent another political group from challenging it the CCP has also made it far more likely that some fatal blow will come from their own hands. My personal bet is that rising nationalism among the citizenry will eventually push the CCP into making some move that is political suicide abroad.

What you describe is a totalitarian state. No one argues that China is not a totalitarian state. There is a difference between a totalitarian state and a communist state. If a state no longer lives the ideology of communism but instead state capitalism, it is truly no longer communist. So, yes, China is communist in name only.

Has it not occurred to anyone that an ancient and venerable civilization as China's is quite capable of evolving its own political institutions and institutions of state to be able not only to thrive in the 21st century but also to show the way to the future? In China's long turbulent history there had been at least half a dozen catastrophic epochs that would have wiped out other world civilizations never to recover. Yet each time China came back stronger and better than before. Do note that there is no Doomsday Scenario in China whether in folklore, in mythology or in religion. And so it was with the 19th century depredations of foreign invaders from across the oceans. The Chinese response was not despair or to seek solace in religion but how to fight back and restore China's greatness. It took Mao and 200 years. Mao's godlike status in the history of China is assured. All your attempts to demonize Mao won't succeed.

The next question is how did China manage to steer the Ship of State with such uncanny precision that it encountered no major setbacks and can produce an unbroken run of double digit growth for three decades? The answer is that China's leaders can draw on 2500 years of experience in governing a large empire. That imperial system fell in 1911. But the lessons in the management of men and societies learned through the centuries are still valid now as then. The 21st century evolution of China's institutions and polity will be built on the parts of this imperial legacy that work and to come up with pragmatic and tested solutions to eliminate the innate weaknesses of the imperial system. Marxism, socialism, western democracy, etc. are all western imports that served their purpose and China has accepted the best practices while rejecting ones that are obviously nonsense such as Western banking phantom wealth creation.

Do not try to force fit China into your western institutional prejudices. China is quite capable of charting her own path. Already your classical theories as expressed in the Washington Consensus is already falling apart. For all the Nobel prize-winning economists, the ridiculous number of think tanks in any field, your political institutions you have not been able to come up with a grand recovery plan. The United States and Europe appear to be headed for deeper crisis in the short term and stagnation in the long term.

I am skeptical on your conclusions regarding the long-term viability of party rule in China. China is a unique case, but not all incidents of democratization and political liberalization have occurred within US "protectorates." In addition, I have a hard time considering your view when a plethora of Asian, African, Latin American and Eastern European societies (with limited democratic histories in most cases) have rapidly liberalized in recent decades. The notion of Chinese exceptionalism - especially considering their increasingly modern consumer, business, and social behavior is very problematic.

Perhaps the party will be able to extend its rule for a few more decades, but this doesn't change the the reality that fundamental contradictions exist within the country's political structures. Simply put - should economic growth slow significantly, or a crisis of some type (environmental, political, social, ethnic, foreign etc) emerge - the system cannot fully account for possible political failure. It is interesting you bring up the Leninist mode of party organization, as it was information and protracted crisis that led to its demise within the USSR, simply once public discontent has been unleashed, the system cannot effectively control it short of a reversion to totalitarian modes of control.

The Chinese case is defined by economic growth, consider it a sort of bribe to the Chinese middle/upper class - sort of along the lines of we will keep delivering the goods as long as you keep your mouths shut. This is fine and dandy, but citizens that have an economic stake will eventually demand input, protection of their interests and full accountability. They will also demand personal recognition of themselves as full and equal citizens. Future crises or shifts will spur this process, as they have in other societies.

The PRC is not China, it is the party's state. So for example, if the democrats are unpopular, their congressmen and members of the executive are punished in an election. The United States with its governing institutions, legal apparatus and state functions persists, as it is not a party state. The same thing cannot be said about China's communist party, it is the state and when it falls so too will the state it has erected. Should the party be discredited, the only viable political outlet is systemic reform - likely through the inclusion of alternative political groups, or some form of democratic pluralism.

I think your argument is on the wrong side of history, and in the long run will be proven invalid.

I am employed at a North America University and there are a lot of Chinese students and academics (including professors) in Science and Engineering. Most of them tell me openly that they would prefer to stay in the West, even if they feel loyal to Han Chinese culture and civilization. That proves to me that, in spite of all this talk about "China's rise", the government of China can't even convince their own citizens, especially intellectuals, to study and work in their own country. It's not a secret that many a bright young Chinese student or professor would rather go to Harvard, Stanford or Cambridge than stay in China, if they have the chance. That's why I am very skeptical when people talk about 2500 years of Chinese wisdom and imperial legacy that the West cannot match. Why is the Chinese government then so interested in sending their brightest minds to the US (or Europe)? And why are they so intent on technology transfers from Western companies (Siemens for example). It would be a lot more honest to say that humans learn from each other (and also from each other's mistakes), but apparently the politburo of the CPC (and the ancient Chinese emperors) are infallible!
I believe that many Western intellectuals (and perhaps also politicians and businessmen) have a rather simplistic and naive view of the long-term strategy of the Chinese State (which happens to be Communist for now). It seems like wishful-thinking to me for the West hope that sooner or later "universal values" such as human rights and freedom of speech will prevail in China and I hope we are not in for a rude wake-up call soon.
My personal memories of the time of Mao Tse Tung: I was living in Burma during the 60's when Mao forcefully (PLA is a communist army!) tried to impose Communism and this rubbish called "The Cultural Revolution" (with those little red books!) onto Burma and he almost succeeded! It was a scary moment for me.

Maybe I missed something but since when exactly has the WC been about "democracy"? Good joke.

Very interesting and spot-on in most respects. However, the author could brush up on 'Myth' number 2. It may be true that intrusive neighborhood-level totalitarian controls have eased in many areas, but they are alive and well in the most intimate and personal area: permission to have children. Those who defy the rules are subjected to a range of penalties that today include dismissal from employment (including for family members), house arrest, beatings, property destruction (sometimes the family home) and forced abortion. Chen Guangcheng has done much to expose this state of affairs, and has suffered for it.

For all of the argument about China's one party rule, people seem to forget that it's not the type of government which matters, it's the quality of the life in the countries. The author mentions that the key reason why the middle class is not revolting is because their lives are getting better: they are getting paid more, they are getting fancy cars and houses, etc. That makes perfect sense. If the middle class is getting better in China, just why would the people want change? Why would the West want to change this?

Granted, the life of an average person in China is still not all that great. Their living standards are currently ranked slightly below the average for all countries in the world. However, their living standards have also been improving faster than most other nations in history. Major changes are not going to happen when things are going well.

If any of the Western democracies have China's population I seriously doubt that they would perform any better than China today. This is exactly why Western nations are very tight on immigration control. Most of their domestic policies, especially those involving government benefits, would seriously deteriorate if the population becomes much much larger.

On the other hand, India has been often referred as a beacon of good opposite to China because India is a democracy with open media. However, the average life of Indians are much worse than those in China, positive changes are happening at a much slower pace, corruption is worse in India than China, and violence in relation to human rights abuses (particularly in Kashmir region) is often worse than what is going on in China. Why is this?

What's troubling the Western NeoCon types is the rising China is challenging their long held belief that democracy and freedom makes a better nation. This is one of the major reasons why you see so many China bashers going out of their way to discredit any positive changes in China today even when its clear that China is getting much better as a country. If the idea is that Democracy and freedom will make better a nation of over a billion people, then India will be better than China in the future. When the average Indian lives better than that of the Chinese, then you will definitely see more Chinese wanting democracy and freedom.

I strongly recommend the "Nine Commentaries on the Communist Party" (I think it's free online if you don't want to buy it). The authors, native to China, have shown a great deal of detailed accounts from inside the party, and some of its atrocities that aren't well documented before.

Last forever? Not a chance. Have a deeper look.

Whether it will or not is a *long term* question, and one that's probably unanswerable at present. Especially since we're still only in the early days of the Internet. Yet the article's answer is a flat 'Nope' that's based purely on the fact that up till now, the Internet's effect haven't seemed to work against the party.

When ever a one-party state hosts an Olympics ten years later that state circles the drain if not already down it. To wit:

1936: Berlin Olympics / Garmisch-Partkenkirchen Winter Olympics.
1946: Allied Occupation

1980: Moscow Olympics
1990: Collapse of Communism

1984: Sarajevo Winter Olympics
1994: Yugoslav Civil War

2008: Beijing Olympics
2018: ?

Look for some serious changes in China around 2018-2022.

China is developing a credible Blue Water navy and technologically advanced aircraft, as well as a large and well trained army. Anyone considering challenging China's influence and control of Asian waters should be extremely cautious. China has complained about the American/South Korean naval exercise in the Yellow Sea. I assume that in the near future America may see a Chines naval presence in Mexican and South American waters, a tit for tat.

Wars between nations are always won by the one with the greatest economic and industrial power. America was well insulated in World War 2 by two oceans that our enemies could not control. Our industrial strength defeated Nazi Germany and Japan.

During the Korean War the PLA sacrificed manpower to halt the American military actions in North Korea. American firepower brought the war to an armistice that is still in effect. But today China's firepower and economic power is expoentially greater than in 1950.

I think actions that lead to war with China would be insane. The question I can't answer is to what extent China is willing to gamble on pushing America to a confrontation that could end up in a war. I cannot see either side in such a war winning a profitable victory. If China's internal political system is weakened they might well decide to strengthen their internal political control by a war, limited I would think to removing American power and control in Asian waters.

The future is up for grabs. I hope sane men rule in both nations.

I'm a Chinese. It's really depressing to here the CCP's autocracy will continue. If the western people think so, how can you hope the Chinese people to set up a democratic country?
Maybe The CCP has sell the interest of Chinese people to the Western countries, if not , Why don't the Western countries put their words into actions?

China is communist in name only. It is actually fascist. State ownership of the economy defines communism, and once it has gone, a country can't be communist, no matter how many other characteristics it has in common with other communist regimes.

Read this list again: "eradicated or emasculated political rivals, eliminated the autonomy of the courts and media, restricted religion and civil society, denigrated rival versions of nationhood, centralized political power, established extensive networks of security police, and dispatched dissidents to labor camps." If this is your definition of communism, Nazi Germany was communist, and so is Saudi Arabia. It is actually a list of the characteristics of authoritarian government, which could exist even if no one had ever had the idea of communism.

I see that I am not the only one to make the observation.

The author tries to expound on why China is not communism in name only, but his writing shows just that China is precisely communism in name only.

Communism is an economic concept; so when the concept of collectivism is gone, communism is gone.

I don't think he intends to make this error, but there seems to be the erroneous suggestion that China is less democratic because it is still communist.

No, China is less democratic, a one-party state, mostly because it is still a rather poor country, but also due to its history of both of central authority and also the bitter experience of foreign domination. But it is in transition.

"No one argues that China is not a totalitarian state."

I do. Totalitarianism is too strong a word to describe China.

Freedom comes from many facets, not all is tied to political structure of a government or political participation of the citizenry.

I believe the fervor at which some Americans approach the promotion of democracy stems from a certain mindset; may I say that of a repentant and now progressive former aggressor who nonetheless is unwilling to be cognizant of the wrong doings of his forefathers.

I think some Americans really have to make a deep reflection. There may be the temptation to view most American success as due to the American political structure, although a large bulk of it is. Natural resources remain a large part of the American economy; and our half-acre single family single story dwellings. Where did we get all these? Earthquake kills only a few because of our low population density. How?

There is already a lot of freedom in China. The Chinese government metes out freedom that people do enjoy; Americans concentrates on the fact that such freedom is meted out seemingly capriciously not as the result of the correct political system.

In this economy, if your skills are not in high demand and you have an unreasonable boss, you can well be less free than one living in China with a reasonable boss. You cannot exercise your imaginary freedom, highfalutin ideals notwithstanding.

"China is communist in name only. It is actually fascist."

I strongly disagree that China is fascist.

I think you should understand what fascism means so you won't use the term indiscriminately.

On religious freedom, I don't view the US as fascist even though it continues to slight the free-thinking non-believers.

The Christian majority often say that atheists should acquiesce to the American tradition of Christianity. I am very tired of being always in rage when I feel being slighted and abused.

Credit cards are a major relief as the insulting “In God We Trust” is not on it; my kids cannot have a lemonade stand as then I have to take cash and be insulted over and over again, one dollar at a time.

I never want to go the court to bear witness. I will feel an even more profound sense of alienation when I hear “so help me God”. It seems a suggestion desirability of intellectual castration, rather revolting.

Obama’s inauguration would have been a spiritual experience for me as he represents social progress in my country, but I really dreaded the G word. The sense of insult will be so profound. I did not, as I could not, allow myself to be so exposed to such insult.

China has had a long history of secularism, why can it expect believers to live with some restrictions?

I think when the US stops all the insulting practices on the free-thinking non-believers it will be on a higher moral ground to object to China requiring churches to register with the state, for example.

"The party allows citizens great leeway to improve their lives, as long as they keep out of politics. "

And how is this bad exactly?

I would argue that the VAST majority of electorates (possible exception being the US and pro-American Europeans) only care about democracy instrumentally, that is they believe that democracy provides the best material standard of living, rather than just being a good in and of itself.

As such, China's model (when evaluated on it's own merits rather than a priori political values) is distasteful primarily to Western political elites for whom open interest group politics are the natural milieu. I would venture to guess that Western publics on the other hand would willingly trade their right to cast a ballot every few years in exchange for decades of sustained 8-10% GDP growth. The great majority of people are like vegetables in a garden. If they get plenty of water and sunshine in the form of economic entitlements and the right to chill out and screw around, then they could care less about the arcane minutiae that self-governance gives them a voice in. Only elites see the ability to have a say in government as worthwhile for purposes higher than economic considerations: namely the chance to push said government into adopting their own designs for society. Most (all?) elites are ambitious individuals who would like to mold society in their own image. For historical reasons* Western elites, much more so than Eastern (Chinese) ones came to the conclusion that structured rather than all-out competition for political power was mutually beneficial, hence they acceeded and continue to acceed to institutions that limit the power of all involved. In China, and much of the rest of the non-Western world, the competition continued/continues until only one dominant elite person/group remained, and the rest either accepted subservience (dropped/were stripped of elite status) or were exiled or killed. Hence in a country like China the elite seems to speak with almost a unanimous voice when it's meant for the ears of either foreigners or the domestic public. Within the elite any disagreements that might arise are hushed up. (Arise they do, in spite of the existence of an informal pecking order that manages to be more rigid than anything in Western politics).

*I would say the history of Europe versus the history of large eastern empires accounts for this. In Europe centers of power were relatively close-by, and after centuries of killing each other off and trying to gobble up each other's land, the power brokers came to the conclusion that it was necessary to have some form of mutual constraints. Not so in China (or other large empires). There was one power pole for thousands of miles in every direction, and openingly challenging it was suicide. Up-and coming elites were thus much more likely to acquiesce to second place than to try venturing a bid for ultimate greatness. There was thus that much less pressure to create power-balancing institutions right up until and into the modern world.

In conclusion:
As technology races ahead, driving societal complexity ahead of most voters' ability to be meaningful participants in the formulation of public policy, the need for a meritocratic, yet elitist, and thoroughly bureaucratic government will become paramount. In this world, global governance and yes, global government, will NOT work if it's done on the principle of one person one vote in the context of multiple political parties. A state like Singapore-writ large is the likely model for the early-mid 21st century. (With the current rate of technological progress, I won't venture to guess what sort of political system, if any, would make sense beyond ~2050).

"But all were effectively U.S. protectorates, and Washington was crucial in forcing through democratic change or institutionalizing it. South Korea's decision to announce elections ahead of the 1988 Seoul Olympics, for example, was made under direct U.S. pressure."

And what about the United States supporting Chun Doo-hwan during the Gwangju uprising? Does that count as being pro-democracy? Or is it more accurate to say that the democracy movement in South Korea eventually succeeded despite the United States, and not because of it.

Over the centuries the Chines have developed and kept a social system well suited to their demographics and geography.
Its current Communist hypostasis is not substantially different from the Mandarin/Imperial model

"Over the centuries the Chines have developed and kept a social system well suited to their demographics and geography.
Its current Communist hypostasis is not substantially different from the Mandarin/Imperial model"

I am sure that China today is far more progressive politically and socially than its imperial past.

There is much more freedom today. Socially, sexism is much ameliorated. Politically China is far more open than its imperial past and its recent radical past as a republic.

China today is not progressive compared to the West today, domestically.

China today may be more progressive than the West in foreign policy, debatable at least.