> I ascribe the failure of China to innovate at a rate matching its size, industrial significance and affluence to the politicization of its education and media systems primarily and secondly to its insistence on isolating young people from foreign internet influence.

That follows an old pattern: In a leading history of modern China (1644 to the late 20th century) [0] they talked about the Chinese emporer's response to the Enlightenment in the West and the resulting power imbalance, which resulted in Western countries stealing Chinese cities and forcing trade on China (including opium). The following probably has a few details off, but my point is the general pattern:

Before the opium wars in the mid-19th century, the Emporer Qianlong wrote a famous letter in 1793 to the King George III of England in response to an offer of trade and diplomatic relations: "As your Ambassador can see for himself, we possess all things. I set no value on objects strange or ingenious, and have no use for your country's manufactures." [1]

The imperial policy was to severely limit all interactions with the outside: No diplomats, no trade, no tourists, nothing. Some foreigners lived in Peking, but were restricted in their movements and not allowed to leave China (read the cited letter for details). IIRC, foreign traders were restricted to special ports where they were isolated from the country itself.

Subsequently, the Western countries, with their advanced technology, siezed control of Chinese port cities and forced trade on China. The Chinese state could no longer deny the value of these manufactures, and China's need for them.

(Perhaps think of this from the perspective of an isolated country that lacked all IT and was trying to acquire it for their military, but without any exposure of their people to the people who make it and without any changes in their own society:) They tried to simply acquire the technology, but of course had trouble operating and maintaining it. Then they allowed certain military officers to receive training in operating it, but still couldn't supply their own parts, maintenance, etc. Then they learned some of the manufacturing, but didn't have the military doctrine or education to apply it. They tried learning the doctrine, but lacking Western educations, couldn't really utilize it or understand it broadly throughout their miltary. ... They tried expanding step by step, but in the end, lacking widespread Western education, they lacked people who could understand the technology and find ways to apply it. You would be surprised how much of Western values is embedded in that technology. (Again, some details may be off, but that was the pattern over decades.)

Today, thankfully, many people in China can access a better education and foreign governments no longer control parts of China. But it seems like the Chinese Communist government is trying to have capitalism and free markets without freedom and free-thinking - arguably another step in the same process. (And to be clear, I'd love for the people of China to have freedom and self-determination to control their own fates - I am sure they would thrive, as the people of Taiwan and Hong Kong have shown.)

In many ways, IMHO, the current Chinese Communists are similar to the imperial dynasties that preceded them.

[0] Either Emmanual Hsu or Jonathan Spence, I don't recall which one.

[1] https://china.usc.edu/emperor-qianlong-letter-george-iii-179...