Some of your views, in my opinion, are somewhat controversial, but I don't intend to argue about them.
Let's focus on the topic of culture that you're concerned about. I can say with great responsibility that China's indigenous culture has been very well preserved. All Chinese people who have received a basic education can to some extent read Classical Chinese. Personally, I am a lover of classical texts, and my girlfriend was once a talent in architectural archaeology. Our country has many ethnic minorities, and their languages have been well protected beyond the use of the Han Chinese language. From the early days of the country's founding, our government has been committed to this, even sending experts to create unique writing systems for them, and this work continues to this day.
Regarding the transition to capitalism, our official stance is 'Socialism with Chinese Characteristics.' China has never claimed to be a communist country but has consistently identified itself as a socialist nation. Deng Xiaoping's reforms and opening up merely introduced certain elements of capitalism to our country, which were then transformed and integrated into our own system. As I mentioned earlier, a drop of water enters the ocean and becomes part of the ocean; some aspects of capitalism entered China and became part of Chinese-style socialism.
Of course, sometimes I believe it's difficult to distinguish between these two forms. The United States also uses government measures to adjust the economy, and China allows market influences in daily life. Purely market-driven or planned economies are both challenging to allow a country to develop well and healthily.
You mentioned the Russian Federation, and I would like to say that unlike socialist countries, the Russian Federation was established from the beginning as a capitalist nation. Despite inheriting much of the political, economic, and military legacy of the Soviet Union, it has absolutely no trace of the Soviet Union. The other former Soviet bloc countries are the same. The reasons for this are very complex, and I am not a professional, but my guess is that the Soviet Union's social system was too massive and, after investing all its energy in competition with the United States, lost its ability for self-correction, ultimately leading to its own downfall. The realization of communism requires a high level of technological advancement, and in terms of technology at the time, they were too ahead of their time. Additionally, in the later stages, their policies resembled those of an imperialist nation, and they had deviated from socialism. When the Soviet Union's actions deviated from the theoretical foundation on which their rule was based and were not effectively adjusted, their legitimacy naturally disappeared.
They decline not because of the communism or socialism, but because what they do betray the theory they based on.
Although we see North Korea's system as very strange today, they continually adjust their theoretical basis to provide a legal foundation for their rule, which is why they surpassed the Soviet Union, excelled over it, and managed to continue to exist in this world.
In contrast, countries like Liberia and Haiti have constitutions and administrative institutions very similar to the United States, but their national situations are very poor. The reason the United States can differ is simply because its foundational conditions are superior. If Liberia and Haiti had a strong, lasting, people-oriented central government leadership, they might fare better. Once their economic and cultural levels reach a certain point, they could choose to adopt the U.S. system and perhaps sustain it. But if they were already capable of developing well, what's the need for such a transformation?
Regarding the United States, I have some thoughts. I believe that the predicament the United States finds itself in now is no better than what the Soviet Union faced in the past. The American Dream has, in practice, become an empty phrase. Racial, economic, and cultural contradictions have burdened the United States to the point where it is difficult to bear.
Things the US is doing also betray the concept it based on, so it is declining now too.
I believe that a strong, enduring central government, if given 30 years, might be able to transform the current decline of the United States. It's unrelated to social systems or ideologies. Of course, some people think that in the process, much will be lost, but I'd like to say that gains and losses exist in a balanced relationship.
However, perhaps this path is very challenging for the United States. Before the formation of a central government, the United States might end up in disarray due to disagreements between states.
Central government may not be liked by some people, but if it makes people have a better life, make people can do what they want to do safely, then who cares?
——————————
I used some translate software so may be read strange.
I just want to say things are better than you think, or I can't be able to play my PS5 or NS or watch the animations like you all and stay here and talk to you about this.
