Much data on what?
I like anything pointing out the ChiCom problem.
But the hyperbole of the introduction reflects poorly on their judgement and analytical skills.
If you took the time to read this long article re China, then I would encourage you to copy/paste the following in your browser “search” and read this article for another viewpoint on Chinese intentions.
“The Secret Speech of General Chi Haotian”
made about twenty years ago, first published in 2005.
China isn’t in thrall to any modern “isms”. It is basically the heir to a several thousand-year tradition of absolutist rule. That wouldn’t be a problem if it weren’t also a state whose rulers have traditionally claimed the right to govern “all under heaven” - expanding the nation’s territory and the peoples brought into the empire on an opportunistic basis:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tianxia
Thus, trashing Marxism, and the people’s communes, and much of the previous Soviet-style central-planning system as well — as the CCP has done in recent decades — does not in fact set Chinese autocracy adrift. Hardly. The CCP has deep historical muscle memory to draw on as it develops its own updated rendition of “autocracy with Chinese characteristics,” one that harnesses market mechanisms and highly sophisticated networks to strengthen the foundations of the regime — and extend its thrall.]
Culture is stronger than religion or political philosophy.
In both China and Russia new rulers did not undo their country’s respective ancient political philosophy has much as they merely put it into service for themselves.
The Soviet Czars mostly perpetuated and confiscated the old imperial system for themselves, more so than junking it. After the interregnum of Yeltsin, the Soviet Czars have merely been succeeded by Putin’s mobocracy. Nearly same at the top no matter how different thinks appear down the line.
Mao did not get rid of the centrality of the emperor, he took the emperor’s seat at “the center”. Now a committee functions as the collective emperor.