I'm not familiar with the details of the Communist party, but today's China is autocratic. It's a mistake to take the democratic principle of "people can enact change" and take it to an autocratic government (and outright contradiction when using the adjective "totalitarian").
Okay, the government is also "people" in some way. But the "people" who can currently enact change are the ones who benefit from the current government, and it's silly to expect that they have a sudden synchronized change of mind.
For the billions of masses, they don't stand a chance against an organized military response. We've had a taste of that in China itself in 1984, as well as in events leading up to South Korea's Gwangju Massacre.
Parent's "only they can help themselves" quip is just a way of absolving any responsibility: "it's not my problem". I'm not saying whether we can do anything or not, but this kind of statements kill any rational thought towards solving the problem before it's even concieved.
What is important to understand is that both democratic and autocratic governments depend on legitimacy. No the Chinese military or police would not stand any chance against the true popular will of the Chinese, not for a second. That is why the Chinese government has economic growth targets and social programs and so forth. If they could rule like medieval kings they would. All modern, large states are accountable to their people, regardless of whatever form of government rules.
People in power can be responsive to the people or irresponsive in both autocracies and democracies. The Chinese government is extremely responsive to popular opinion, even if its unelected. In that sense it's no different than a big company, which isn't governed by its customers but accountable to them.
The important question isn't, "is it my problem", it's "is it a problem". The Chinese are not children and we're not their parents. Believe it or not they have rational thought in China as well. Using our rational thought means taking seriously the notion that the Chinese do not want our political system, that they by and large if not support at least tolerate their state, and that it's not our problem to solve, because it is not a problem.
TL;DR: an entire province's will was to oust the government, it ended in a massacre.
Without examples of popular will causing an overthrow of an established, well-organized authoritarian state, I'm going to remain unconvinced that it's possible, or that there's any meaningful accountability to the people from the government - after all, who'll judge or stop them unless they implode?
> they by and large if not support at least tolerate their state,
Of course they are rational, like it's rational to submit yourself to an overwhelming power you can't fight, rather than die trying. That doesn't mean that it's not a problem that would benefit from external help. Quite the contrary, just ask the people who lost their organs.
I take issue with the idea that a victimized society is responsible for its own state or that it can pull itself by the boot straps only if it wanted. If it was true, we would not have had totalitarian states at all.
1984 was "billions of masses"? None of your examples show the majority will being crushed. Obviously a small movement on the scale of thousands cannot (and should not) overthrow a regime.
The point is there is no problem. You'll continue to be popular in your own circles assuming the Chinese people are victimized, but nobody actually from there will care a whit for your paternalism. Frankly if people are going to keep opining on China there is zero excuse to be unaware of the numerous polls and studies (from respected Western organizations) on Chinese approval of their government.
How do you reconcile "Ukraine deserves self-determinism" with "we must enforce Western ideals on the rest of the world"? Moreover, how can you speak so brazenly on the heels of the utter failure of doing exactly what you preach in Afghanistan?
1984 could have turned into billions if allowed. A billion-strong movement does not appear fully formed out of the blue.
Also, you ignored the Gwangju one which had an entire city of hundreds of thousands. Or should I mention Hong Kong? At least that failed more peacefully.
I think you're not understanding what it means to live in a regime that tries to police your thoughts. Supporting it means nothing because it's the only way to survive.
As for reconcillation, I say: give them a real voice without fear of prosecution. It's not the case in China today.
The failure in Afghanistan is an example of jumping to conclusions and shortcuts in thinking, just like the grandparent did. I don't know how you managed to equate being thoughtful with invading though.
Okay, the government is also "people" in some way. But the "people" who can currently enact change are the ones who benefit from the current government, and it's silly to expect that they have a sudden synchronized change of mind.
For the billions of masses, they don't stand a chance against an organized military response. We've had a taste of that in China itself in 1984, as well as in events leading up to South Korea's Gwangju Massacre.
Parent's "only they can help themselves" quip is just a way of absolving any responsibility: "it's not my problem". I'm not saying whether we can do anything or not, but this kind of statements kill any rational thought towards solving the problem before it's even concieved.
reply