China's "engineering state" mindset extends beyond physical projects to social engineering. The Communist Party treats its own people as a resource to be moved or molded—whether displacing a million for a dam or enforcing the one-child policy—viewing society as just another material to achieve its objectives.

Related Insights

The rise of a precarious gig workforce of over 200 million people directly contradicts the Communist Party's founding promise of a "dictatorship of the proletariat." This growing underclass, living with minimal security and rights, represents a societal shift towards a capitalist-style structure that the party was originally formed to overthrow, creating a deep ideological crisis.

The argument that the U.S. must race to build superintelligence before China is flawed. The Chinese Communist Party's primary goal is control. An uncontrollable AI poses a direct existential threat to their power, making them more likely to heavily regulate or halt its development rather than recklessly pursue it.

Chinese policymakers champion AI as a key driver of economic productivity but appear to be underestimating its potential for social upheaval. There is little indication they are planning for the mass displacement of the gig economy workforce, who will be the first casualties of automation. This focus on technological gains over social safety nets creates a significant future political risk.

China's immense state capacity allows for rapid infrastructure development but also enables disastrous national policies like the one-child policy or Zero-COVID. Unlike the deliberative U.S. system, China's efficiency means that when it goes off track, it can go catastrophically off track before any course correction is possible.

China operates as a high-agency "engineering state" that executes relentlessly on large-scale projects. In contrast, America's deliberative, litigious society often leads to endless delays and failures on major infrastructure goals like the California high-speed rail, highlighting a fundamental difference in state capacity and approach.

A nation's leadership class shapes its priorities. China's government, heavily populated by engineers, excels at long-term, systematic infrastructure and technology projects. The US, dominated by lawyers, often gets mired in litigation and short-term cycles, hindering large-scale execution.

Command economies inevitably rely on force. In a free society, disagreement is resolved through persuasion. In an authoritarian system where directives are absolute, dissent is ultimately met with force. Adopting a top-down economic model means accepting state-sanctioned violence as a necessary tool.

China's government sets top-down priorities like dominating EVs. This directive then cascades to provinces and prefectures, which act as hundreds of competing, state-backed venture capital funds, allocating capital and talent to achieve the national strategic goal in a decentralized but aligned way.

In a clear signal of its pro-natalist policy, the Chinese government is ending a 33-year tax exemption on contraceptives while simultaneously making matchmaking services tax-free. This carrot-and-stick approach aims to socially engineer a higher birth rate to combat its demographic crisis.

Censorship in China operates less through direct orders and more through an atmosphere of unpredictable threat. Like an anaconda sleeping in a chandelier above a dinner party, the state's potential to strike at any moment for any reason causes individuals to self-censor constantly, stifling creativity and open discourse.