Anatomy of the China problem

The problems we see today around China, and the advance of dictatorial demands in western countries, are not due to chance. To the extent that dictatorships are trying to become the dominant system, social networks are irrelevant problems, since once they take power in the US, any regime will only liquidate Mark Zuckerberg and take Facebook military manu . It is certainly not a new story.

But the problem we must ask ourselves is: how come there are not the same contrasting reactions towards Communist China as there were with the USSR?

If we ask the question in this light, we will never understand the problem. To understand this well, we must turn the question upside down : why was there a cold war on every level (military, political, economic ) against the USSR, while against China it wasn't?

I mean, if the USSR during the NEP (New Economic Policy) had received the same investments that China received when it "opened the market", today the Berlin Wall would still be standing, and we would be talking about the USSR as an economic power.

Why didn't it happen?

The point is that in those days it was believed that only democracy could support a thriving economy, capable of creating capital and concentrating it in everyone's hands, leaving the very rich in a situation of relative privilege.

As a result, ALL economic powers participated in the crusade against Soviet communism and very few (including the Italians) invested in the USSR. The rich were afraid that if a dictatorship were established, their privileged position would have cracked and their freedom (which even under democracy was limited) would have disappeared, or would have required a servile position .

Moreover, in that period there was not a single dictatorship capable of being an economic success and at the same time capable of not killing the rich: the communists killed the rich, and the fascist dictatorships of the period did not show themselves particularly skilled in leaving freedom to the very rich they wanted, orienting themselves on the large estates.

Furthermore, no dictatorial system seemed capable of producing a layer of consumers capable of supporting the economies of scale of large corporations.

So, at the price of enduring government regulation, environmental laws, and unions, businesses and finance cheered on democracy. All. And therefore there were no rivers of money that arrived in China to the USSR.

China has changed everything.

The secret of the Chinese has been to demonstrate to large corporations, to finance that a dictatorship can support economic and financial growth as it is better than democracy .

GDP growing by two points, a huge population of consumers, no problems with ecologists, no problems with the union, the regulator who follows the law of money and turns a blind eye to everything.

Putin for example failed to do this, otherwise he would have had the same amount of money.

It was at the very moment when the giants of finance and economics stopped believing that only democracy could have supported the capitalism they had in mind, that everything changed.

Let's face it: the very rich in democracy have their balls full . Unions, environmental protection laws, taxes to fuel social services, all this stuff sucks. Before they had no alternative because they feared ending up in a field in Siberia, but now they know that it is possible to have BOTH things they dream of:

• a dictatorship that holds off workers the slaves.
• economic growth and the free enjoyment of accumulated wealth.

And that was the turning point. The point where it is no longer possible to make a cold war: even if it were possible to build a military alliance against China, and even if it were possible to build a political alliance against China, all finance, banks and industrialists would continue to invest in it.

We are in a paradoxical situation, in which Wall Street, the big industry, the big multinationals, have become the fifth communist column in the West

You could read it in the newspapers, and you could also read it during the Coronavirus, when all the newspapers owned by Elkann praised the Chinese system, where they had closed only Wuhan leaving factories to produce and sending people to work in the rest of the country. And the praise for the fact that “in China, when there is a lockdown they really do it !! Not like us !! ".

(In reality, the Chinese have locked down 5% of the country, no journalist has ever been able to check how hard it was (otherwise he would have died in some Chinese camp), and to make matters worse they persecuted the doctor who discovered the virus, reacting at least two months late.)

But it doesn't matter, because if you read all the newspapers that are owned by large industrial or financial groups, China's criminal behavior is continually diminished or muted.

Of course, it is paradoxical that western capitalism dreams of living in a communist country, just as it is paradoxical that China has managed to convince Westerners that if the whole world were Beijing, the very rich would remain the freedom they dream of (especially being not Chinese) but the point is this: there is no difference in economic behavior between the "comrades, get rich" USSR and communist China.

What has changed has been the mood of western capitalists.

And this is the reason why the appreciation of dictatorships (or the muting of their wrongdoings) in Western newspapers has grown dramatically: the rich have decided that they like dictatorship . And all the mass media they control have accordingly adapted.

The only crack that is opening in this belief is Hong Kong.

In Hong Kong there were the headquarters of the Anglo-Saxon finance gotha, and in the same city the Chinese government stopped showing the reassuring face of the bourgeoisie. And someone in London is beginning to understand.

Awareness is starting in London, the first financial center that will see their very wealthy return home for fear of ending up in a Chinese concentration camp: the British have promised asylum to … practically the entire middle class of Hong Kong

And let's not delude ourselves: China will become increasingly aggressive. You don't have a lifetime leader if you don't have a long-term plan, and you don't want him stable in power if you don't have to conflict with someone.

The cold war will come, or will return, to the extent that the very wealthy westerners understand that in China, as happens in the communist countries, there are the Gulags.

And they will understand that they have seats already reserved, in their name.

How long it will take them to understand, is a matter of word of mouth.