I wrote you a very long response, I will have to split it into 2 separate posts.

Post 1/2 :

I appreciate the response to my comment that you've made here, and the links provided to sources, though they weren't necessary in this case : )

To respond to your post, I think we need to break it down into its constituent parts. I think you made 5 smaller points, each of which I would like to refute, and one larger, overall point, which I would like to address.

With no intention of reducing or summarizing the substance of your post above, I will refer to your points as 1-5, with each rephrased as the following:

1) If a society has a history of mass death and suffering, but the society organizes itself in a such a way as to reduce the chance of mass death and suffering in the future, does that not justify whichever way the society chooses to so organize itself? Or more simply: Is the evil of mass death and warfare not sufficiently morally awful to justify all attempts to prevent such strife?

2) What makes us think the Chinese model will not work?

3) Societal organization is not the same as an engineering blueprint. Societal organization induces certain behaviors among its people, who then influence their government, which then influences its people. This cycle is a resonance point, a catch-22, that means even similar societies with small differences can have larger social and cultural differences which may themselves be very good or bad. These second order effects are just as important as the initial on-paper social organization of the society itself, but they also tend to be unpredictable.

4) Moral philosophy is nice, but ultimately what really matters in this world is not whether things work on paper, but whether things work in reality. A thing that works in reality, is many times more important and more meaningful than something that seems better, but hasn't been proven. Particularly in topics as complex as politics, where point #3 comes into play very strongly, and the stakes are so high (as mentioned in point #1)

5) You then impugned my character. But I believe this was mostly unintended and a result of your wording as you attempted to explain point #4. You also lightly imply that change is not possible, but the result of the narrative of history, which may be true on the macro sense, but is not what we are discussing here today, and does not impact your ability to decide your thoughts after having this conversation.

So ignoring that last point, I understand your argument to be:

China's model works. With so many people in the country, small changes can result in mass death and suffering, but the Chinese model keeps the Chinese people safe. We may not like the Chinese model, but we have no reason to believe it will not work. In fact, it appears to be working. And any change we introduce is likely to have 2nd and 3rd order effects which we cannot predict, but which, because they are unpredictable, potentially reintroduce the possibility of political fracture, and suffering back into the Chinese system. So don't fix what isn't broken. Moral justifications and ideological musings are important, but more important, is keeping 1 billion people alive and happy and not risking their lives on unproven reform.

------------------------

My responses below will be to each of your points one at a time. Starting with your #1 above, and continuing in order:

1) This argument only validates that some form of governance is _needed_ and that that form of governance is only acceptable if it can keep the people within it safe and provide decent lives. It is not a sufficient argument to promote one form of government over another. All governments keep their people safe from uprisings and civil war! That is one of the primary purposes of governments!

If your objective is to keep people safe, then, we must ask whether the current structure of government is the best method of doing so. While I agree that, particularly so soon after China's bloody most recent civil war there is, and should, be significant resistance to major political overhaul in China itself... fundamentally the question still stands: of the types of government available, is the current form of government the best at, or even good at, keeping its people safe? If the answer is no, then some form of movement from the current type of government to a better version, even if in the form of small, incremental reform, I would argue is warranted. The exact degree of reform the populace should or would be willing to risk and experience will vary, but whether or not the populace should attempt such a thing is not.

If this seems like a counter-intuitive, or overly naive viewpoint, I would argue two separate things. 1) all governments are constantly changing. The current Chinese model is currently under reformation. The question is not whether a government and society should change, but whether it is doing so in a positive direction, and the speed at which the change is occurring. If you are unwilling to consider the ways in which other governments may do a better job than your own, then you will also be unable to see the ways in which your own system will need to be improved in order to solve the problems your country faces.

I would also point out, that you specifically point out two major problems that are facing the Chinese government currently, namely religious extremism, and the potential for civil war. But my counter, is that both of those things are only the main threats to stability in china... BECAUSE of the type of government that it has. Similarly to what you mentioned in your point #3, different forms of government have different forms of weakness. Historically, systems close to the Chinese system have a GREATER chance of exacerbating religious fundamentalism and violent revolt than most other governmental types, or said another way, if China was not an authoritarian government these particular threats would not be threats that need worrying about. As such, if your desire is to keep people safe, and prevent a future Taiping rebellion, then your goal should be to move China _away_ from an authoritarian model, not further towards it. In short: increasing the possibility of non-violent reform decreases the possibility of mass violence, radicalism, and extremism.