The United States established diplomatic relations with China and US companies invested in China because it was financially profitable to do so, because of the largest domestic market and also a largely stable and competent government. There was additionally the element of strategic opportunity vis a vis the Soviet Union, which at the time was a mutual adversary of China and the United States. With regards to the economy, given the example of US allies Taiwan and South Korea, US observers and analysts within and outside of the state, knew that a competent authoritarian state was capable of effectively and greatly modernizing when it pursued market oriented policies under state guidance. But the US was also betting that increased prosperity would eventually bring about demands for liberal democratization which the Communist Party would concede to.
The 1980s saw the collapse of Communist Socialism as an economic system and various revolutions in Europe in Europe toppled various Communist Parties in the European Communist Block. This eventually culminated with the disintegration of the Soviet Union. The West and the United States in particular were highly triumphalist that their political ideology, Liberal Democracy, and their economic ideology, Market Capitalism had worked. In the late 80s China was also greatly infected with the bug of Liberal Democracy as was demonstrated with the rallies at Tiananmen Square, which grew ever more extremist in their demands and eventually began to demand the overthrow of the CPC right there and then. To so many educated youth of the time, the West and the United States in particular were so heavenly that they believed that rapidly implementing liberal democracy would even further accelerate the already very rapid pace of socio economic progress that had already begun following Deng's market oriented reforms of 1978. Additionally, Gorbachev was implementing Glasnost and Perestroika within the Soviet Union and was being feted in the West for doing so, so the idealistic pro Western youth believed that it was right. In combination with Taiwan's democratization and the agitation for democracy in South Korea, which itself eventually held elections in 1987, there was a greatly potent effect among many, especially impressionable educated youths, that Liberal Democracy was absolutely the right thing and the only legitimate way of government. Needless to say, back then, and even now many or most in the West, especially the United States believe that.
But the Communist Party of China had NEVER and has NEVER promised liberal democracy. What it promised and has promised was and is there will steady and even fast socio economic development, technological and industrial modernization, and improvement of living standards for the vast majority of the population, while through merit, any Chinese citizen has the chance of rising through the ranks of the CPC, influencing governing policy, and not only becoming a member of the CPC Politburo Standing Committee, but the Chairman of it and the President of China himself or herself. But one has got to compete with others and show competence to have merit in various administrative posts. Obviously this is not perfect, but by and large, the CPC, which is effectively not a separate entity from the government of China, is meritocratic, and has definitely succeeded so far in raising many hundreds of millions out of absolute poverty, great improving socio economic levels of the citizens in general, despite significant regional and urban vs rural disparities, as well ad brought technological and industrial modernization to China at least to a moderately high level. With regards to its application of public infrastructure in terms of telecommunications and transportation, China is absolutely top notch, ranking better than most Western countries. Electricity infrastructure has also recently reached excellent levels.
The West believed that following the Tianamen Square Massacre, that CPC would never regain the legitimacy that they believed that it had lost in that incident. But still there were many in the West who were circumspect about it, and they understood it in several ways. Firstly, China was not the Soviet Union, it was not a collection of various nation states that had been brought together mostly through conquest and a little bit of ideology within less than half a century. The Chinese elites regarded themselves as different from the West, while the Soviet elites did not entirely do so. China was not ready for democracy at the time and needed to develop further to embrace it. Lastly, even back then, while the prevailing view was that China would eventually democratize as living standards improved, there were commentators in the West who cautioned against whether that would happen at all or if it did happen it would take decades even if China reached living standards comparable to those in the West, because the CPC, would likely still be in power and the CPC had and has consistently said that China would not liberally democratize. THIS LAST SENTENCE IS PARTICULARLY TELLING AND VERY IMPORTANT, BECAUSE TOO MANY AND EVEN MOST CHINA ANALYSTS IN THE WEST REFUSED TO LISTEN TO IT: THE CPC NEVER PROMISED LIBERAL DEMOCRACY.
Finally under Xi Jinping, most Western analysts and commentators have finally given up their fantasy that China, the Chinese elites, the Chinese people, and the much talked about Chinese Middle Class want to be like the West and want to adopt the political systems and also the social mores of the West. China does want to be like the West in terms of socio economic development and technological and industrial modernization, and has to a great extent achieved that, and in certain respect arguably surpassed the West, but China and the Chinese people do not want to copy prevailing Western political systems and societal mores remain generally more collectivist and with an emphasis on the duties and responsibilities of the citizen towards the collective, wider society, and the state, rather than an emphasis on the rights of the individual as is especially the case in the United States more so than it is in most Western countries.
Americans who still gripe about China not having democratized and China not being grateful to US contributions to China's development as through investments by US companies and US permitting China's accession to the WTO were thoroughly naive. China has intrinsic attractiveness to foreign investment because of its population size, but it is the Chinese state's management and guidance of its political economy far more than anything that the US and the West have done that is responsible for its developmental state and stature today. Believe me that the Americans would not at all be complaining if China just allowed Western multinational companies to take over the majority of China's state and privately owned enterprises and also dictate the financial flows into and out of China. That is in particular what the most capitalistic Republicans would like to see happen, but they themselves know that it won't happen.
Americans and Westerners who are unhappy at China's developmental and political state today and are surprised that it is at is today have themselves to blame for their naivety and their refusal to look at the facts of development and governance in China through the years and listen to the CPC's repeated proclamations during the entire time from 1978.
