But consider that economic development helped turn south korea and Taiwan from brutal dictatorships to relatively stable and sustainable democracies. It wasn't crazy to think it would work in China, and it looked like there was buy-in and progress for an (if slow) gradual bringing into the fold process that suddenly t
reversed course in 2016-ish
The crucial difference everyone overlooks is that an ideological dictatorship like communism is more sticky than a run-of-the-mill non-ideological dictatorship like those of SK and Taiwan.
The core belief of the communist party is will to power - getting and keeping power by any means necessary. There is no balance of power, separation of powers, checks and balances, independent court system, separation of military from political party, constitutional review or law, individual human rights, etc. Hence the term totalitarian - total control of people’s behavior, speech, and even thought.
All of communist ideology is an elaborate justification and sophisticated plan for getting and keeping absolute and unrestricted power. It is too deeply ingrained, too sticky so to speak, in communist party psyche and identity. Unlike SK and Taiwan it was never going to liberalize and discard itself in favor of democracy, an ideology directly counter to its core beliefs.
> The crucial difference everyone overlooks is that an ideological dictatorship like communism is more sticky than a run-of-the-mill non-ideological dictatorship like those of SK and Taiwan.
There’s very little evidence that Leninism and its derivatives are any stickier than any other authoritarian system, and essentially all authoritarianism (and most non-authoritarian systems of government, too) appeals to some ideology for its justification (often local nationalism), so your attempt to divide the world of dictatorships into ideological and non-ideological dictatorships is flawed from the start.
> All of communist ideology is an elaborate justification and sophisticated plan for getting and keeping absolute and unrestricted power.
It’s…not. In fact, the part of Leninism that serves that purpose (vanguardism) is its key departure from Marxism, and notionally an adaptation of Marxist Communism to bypass the need for capitalist development as a prerequisite to the socialist stage.
After the USSR collapsed, the CCP intensely studied why, looking for ways to avoid the same fate, and succeeded. That's one non-trivial bit of evidence.
And I don't consider nationalism an ideology, since it's never as philosophically developed as say communism or US liberal democracy. It's just a useful, easy, naturally occurring fallback for dictators looking for way to rally their population against the "other".
And you can argue till the cows come home about what Leninsim, Marxism, and Maoism are supposed to be, but what they actually become in reality is clear. Totalitarian.
> an ideological dictatorship like communism is more sticky
So east Germany, Germany and Italy (fascism), the Baltics, Czech, Slovakia, Moldova, Georgia (where Stalin came from), Romania (ciaucescu) etc. Have no hope of ever being democratic?
Almost all of those converted to liberal democracy after communism economically collapsed in the Soviet Union, and West Germany and Italy after a literal war forced them to.
If we could go back in time and not economically prop up communism in China, and let it collapse the same as the Soviet Union, then I would anticipate a similar outcome there too. But you have to let communism collapse and become totally discredited in order to achieve that outcome.
