Do you think China would be a better superpower than the US?

[hangfan91]

Do you think China will be more responsible and compassionate as a world superpower compared to America?

Considering they are helping African and other poorer nations build roads, train stations, and airports and helping other countries affected by COVID by donating PPE and ventilators, I think they are. 

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Do you think China will be more responsible and compassionate as a world superpower compared to America?

Considering they are helping African and other poorer nations build roads, train stations, and airports and helping other countries affected by COVID by donating PPE and ventilators, I think they are.  

China is not really a benevolent helper when it comes to Africa. That is unless you want to describe a loan shark as "benevolent".

China may seem as "better" because unlike the U.S. they're not relying on hard power (a war here, a regime change here), and are not interested in spreading their form of government. Instead they're very patient and systematic in employing a "soft power", as evident with Africa, where they may be building some roads (it's not like the U.S. or Europe never engaged in such projects too), but beneath the surface they're taking over the local economy in what can only be described as economic postcolonialism, exploiting it not for the benefit of the local population, but their own.

[PSOL]

None of them would be a net positive the way things are going. Global power should be based on horizontal cooperation and democratic decision-making, not hierarchal power blocs and imperialism.

[Beet]

Do you think China will be more responsible and compassionate as a world superpower compared to America?

Considering they are helping African and other poorer nations build roads, train stations, and airports and helping other countries affected by COVID by donating PPE and ventilators, I think they are.  

China is not really a benevolent helper when it comes to Africa. That is unless you want to describe a loan shark as "benevolent".

China may seem as "better" because unlike the U.S. they're not relying on hard power (a war here, a regime change here), and are not interested in spreading their form of government. Instead they're very patient and systematic in employing a "soft power", as evident with Africa, where they may be building some roads (it's not like the U.S. or Europe never engaged in such projects too), but beneath the surface they're taking over the local economy in what can only be described as economic postcolonialism, exploiting it not for the benefit of the local population, but their own.

China doesn't endear itself to anyone with "soft power." Look no further than the reaction to Africa from the news about Guangzhou Africans. If some people in Africa approve of China (and sure they do) it's because they like the infrastructure and money China brings. Who wouldn't, of any country? But the idea that there's some kind of beneath the surface soft power takeover is laughable, IMO.

How China benefits Africa is clear, without China the West would not give a sh_t about Africa, it would just be a place to pity and give dead aid. But if they threaten to go over to China it will force the West to court them with real support. The same reason the entire developing world benefitted from the Cold War when both the US and USSR competed for influence in Asia, Africa and Latin America.

[CumbrianLefty]

None of them would be a net positive the way things are going. Global power should be based on horizontal cooperation and democratic decision-making, not hierarchal power blocs and imperialism.

Yep, this.

[Blair]

It's often forgotten that after the Tinamamen Square protest they had to hose down the streets because of the remains that had been left.

You can't unwrap the domestic from the international.

[dead0man]

Do you think China will be more responsible and compassionate as a world superpower compared to America?

Considering they are helping African and other poorer nations build roads, train stations, and airports

link-Forbes

It soon became clear that the laissez-faire, undefined, wide open strategy that led to the appearance of big gains in the early days of the Belt and Road is now one of its biggest barriers holding it back from becoming the paradigm-shifting international endeavor it was meant to be. Tales of corruption along the BRI have become common, the debt-trap diplomacy theory has put populations across Eurasia on guard, and the fact that dozens of major China-driven development projects across Asia have become white elephants have rendered the BRI an unattractive proposition in many markets. In many ways, Beijing had become a victim of its own Belt and Road.

Worse yet, the numbers do indeed support some of the criticism. China’s overseas investment growth has been on a sharp decline over the past three years, with Moody’s claiming that this is due to an increased awareness of the risks inherent to major BRI projects. Malaysia, Myanmar, Pakistan, Sierra Leone, Kyrgyzstan, among other countries have canceled, downsized, or postponed key BRI projects, and the initiative seems to be going through a period of retreat to an extent that some researchers are suggesting that we may have already seen “peak” Belt and Road.

and helping other countries affected by COVID by donating PPE and ventilators, I think they are. 

Canada: 1 million respirators acquired from China unfit for coronavirus fight
90,000 PPE Kits Imported From China Fail Quality and Safety Checks in India
CORONAVIRUS
Coronavirus: China forces Italy to buy back PPE it had donated - top US official

Countries have been forced to return testing kits sold by China due to being defective. Other equipment such as face masks reportedly did not meet safety standards.

"It’s so disingenuous for Chinese officials now to say we are the ones who are helping the Italians or we are the ones who are helping the developing world when, in fact, they are the ones who infected all of us," the top administration official told The Spectator.

"Of course they should be helping. They have a special responsibility to help because they are the ones who began the spread of the coronavirus and did not give the information required to the rest of the world to plan accordingly."

[Antonio the Sixth]

No (sane)

[It’s so Joever]

It won’t matter.
Every World superpower does both wonderful and terrible things when needed to maintain their standing on the global stage. Certain ideologies are promoted (not out of virtue but so that the existing power structure remains intact) and awful puppet leaders will be propped up, no matter who is the World superpower.
To be a superpower, your country has to be able to do some pretty horrible things in order to maintain their standing. On a universal scale, both the US and China will be about the same.
The basic fundamentals of being a superpower have not and will not change.

On the smaller scale (National/local) the perspective might change (eg, Someone from Iran would have a much different view of who is better than someone from Japan) but that is more of a reflection of cultural values/geopolitical beliefs than definite good/bad.

An American led World has some benefits, as does a CCP led World.
There isn’t an answer to this question, both Worlds equally suck in different ways.

[jaymichaud]

Lol, if this happens then good luck with that liberal democracy you speak of.

[brucejoel99]

China would be a better superpower for anybody who enters into contractual relationships with the PRC vis-à-vis the Belt & Road initiative, so expect a lot of East African nations & some former Soviet Republics (e.g., Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, etc.) to jump on that, as they'd certainly benefit in the sense of economic development, trade, military assistance, foreign aid, technology transfers, loans, etc. However, it'd all come at a price: China will help those dictators loyal to Beijing stay in power, & will also demand their unwavering loyalty & obedience at the UN & in other international organizations, so these states would become subservient to China: basically Chinese proxy states.

The losers will be any countries near to & neighboring China. China has territorial disputes & claims with many of its neighbors, ranging from India to Japan. If China is the next superpower, it won't hesitate to officially take all of these disputed territories.

Any free democratic nation will be a loser, as the CCP is very antithetical to liberal democracy.

China becoming a superpower would inherently upset the current world order, so all current leading nations (e.g., the G7) will be the losers, unless they were to switch sides & pledge loyalty to Beijing.

Domestically, anybody who doesn't subscribe to Party doctrine or resists Han cultural re-education is gonna get shafted (e.g., the Uighurs, Kazakhs, even Hui, etc.). Abroad, countries like Vietnam & North Korea will feel only more pressure to adopt a more Chinese-friendly economic model (much like how the U.S. partially used the Marshall Plan as leverage to establish a neoliberal order in Western Europe following WWII: not a perfect parallel, but history doesn't repeat itself; it rhymes). Countries like Japan & Taiwan would also presumably be hit hard, in light of their history: China has unfinished business with them, so expect to see a settling of old scores (without any restraints).

[Former President tack50]

The US, while certainly flawed, are infinitely better than anything China would do (sane, likes democracy)

[Annatar]

Yes by far since China does not have a deep urge to behave like a messianic state that tries to spread its ideology everywhere, China also has on interest in trying to run the world like America does so they are less likely to invade foreign countries, the only people who would be worse off with a Chinese superpower are liberals who want to see more countries become liberal, I'm not a liberal and seeing the end of American hegemony would be a great thing with regard to discrediting liberal democracy.

[kaoras]

The US, while certainly flawed, are infinitely better than anything China would do (sane, likes democracy)

How many regime change has sponsored China? Sure far less than the US. China is awful, but for countries outside of east Asia I think it would be better. (Likes democracy, specially in my country)

[Bismarck]

So many posts have said China wouldn’t take over other countries the way America does. What the F are you guys talking about? America hasn’t conquered territory in over a century. China is actively taking over the s China sea and literally invaded northern India like a week ago. They will invade Taiwan within 20 years.

[CumbrianLefty]

So many posts have said China wouldn’t take over other countries the way America does. What the F are you guys talking about? America hasn’t conquered territory in over a century. China is actively taking over the s China sea and literally invaded northern India like a week ago. They will invade Taiwan within 20 years.

Doubtful, unless UDI really is declared there.

[Zinneke]

The US, while certainly flawed, are infinitely better than anything China would do (sane, likes democracy)

How many regime change has sponsored China? Sure far less than the US. China is awful, but for countries outside of east Asia I think it would be better. (Likes democracy, specially in my country)

Bit of whataboutery there...we don't know how the PRC with its current military and economic capacity would have acted in a Cold War situation. It did invade Tibet, Xianjang, try to invade Vietnam, and actively sponsors and militarily protects its neo-colonial projects in Africa. Trying to paint China as a dove is forgetting that for years it didn't have any wings to fly with in the first place.