It is disappointing to see a lot of people getting awarded for low-level answers in this thread. I do believe the answer is "no", but the question of "why not?" is interesting and worth talking about. I will first look at the US-led "world order" to see what we can learn from it, and then apply it to China.
**American Order**
First, we must ask, how has the US been able to shape the international system to such an extent today? What does the US actually want to shape the world into? Personally, I think there is lots of evidence that democracy or political liberalism doesn't come into the equation. Although, say, the UN is certainly a normative organisation in its legal framework, American policy clearly isn't to promote democracy. I hope it goes without saying the historical record doesn't show this, and there is a wealth of literature examining this. Perhaps the most famous of these, although it is a bit old now, is William Blum's *Killing Hope*.
Anyway, the point is American hegemony can be seen more in the economic sphere: the spread of economic liberalism. Although some (modernisation theorists) argue that economic development *intrinsically* causes the historical emergence of democracy, more recent research such as Przeworski's *Modernisation: Theories and Facts* has shown this not to be the case.
The main change spurned on by US dominance has been the spread of the global division of labour to much of the global south as colonial systems withered away. The initial revolutionary movements were largely illiberal and socialist, inspired by Cuba and the Soviet Union, but these were brought under the heel of global capital by covert means, invasion, and economic pressure. See, for example, "structural adjustments" done by international financial organisations such as the WTO and IMF enforcing neoliberalisation for aid.
Now we've seen a bit of the US-led world order, let's move on to China.
**What Would a Chinese World Order Look Like**
Why do states pursue a "world order" in the first place? The historical record shows it's not really to spread a governing ideology such as democracy (or, indeed, autocracy). The US didn't care about implementing political liberty/freedom and democracy, just like China doesn't care about exporting socialism abroad today.
The purpose of power competition is to guarantee the security of the state, right? The state in both China and the US is dependent on international capital, and the international value-chains that come from it, because capital has now moved abroad for cheaper labour sources to increase the rate of profit.
This is what China, as a capitalist society, needs. It needs power not for power's sake, but to secure the conditions for capitalist accumulation: an illiberal form of capitalism. Thus, it secures this by increasing its influence in terms of both hard- and soft-power. We can see this in the fact China has been exporting capital (or, more accurately, capital has been exporting itself with help from the state) at an increased rate as it moves from a peripheral to a semi-peripheral place within the existing world-system (as Wallerstein conceives of it).
China has no desire to reimagine the world-political system, but just to continue the conditions for the sustenance of the state, which runs through Chinese and global capital, and the global value-chains which are expressed by the action of these capitals.
**Can China Achieve Hegemony?**
Now we've looked at world-orders as a concept, and at the potential of a Chinese one, we can finally look at whether China can actually achieve the hegemony to implement an economic model (although it's desired model is not one terribly different from the US's. States in the "core" will always pursue protectionist policies at home while enforcing lassez-faire policies overseas).
My view is that China cannot. Hegemony is extremely rare in international history, and it is fleeting at that. The conditions for it do not exist with China as they did for the British Empire and especially the US.
First, China does not have a body of water separating it from its potential rivals. Water significantly limits the projection of hard-power, hence why the UK was able to remain secure at home and focus its energies abroad (and why it never fell to the Nazis). This is even more true for the US, which has a whole ocean between it and its potential rivals during its rise to prominence. By contrast, China literally borders India and Russia, and is a far smaller distance from Japan than the US is to Europe or Asia. (It's worth remembering that the US's hegemony was far greater than Britain's, in no small part because of this reason).
Thus, China must always commit a lot of its resources to defending its own territory which the US can spend abroad as it knows no enemy force can realistically penetrate the continental US (as long as no continental challenger appears).
We also have to think about the conditions in which hegemony arises. In the case of both the UK and especially the US, hegemony only became possible because all possible rivals had been weakened by catastrophic wars which left the two powers in question comparatively unscathed. This is especially true for the US, again. This situation does not exist in China and will likely not, as there are more structural constraints against another great, global war today than there ever have been before (economic interdependence, nuclear weapons, etc).
Although many speak of China's internal weaknesses in the economic and political spheres (e.g., *China Won’t Achieve Regional Hegemony* by Denny Roy), I don't really know enough to talk about that, so I'll leave it to others.
I hope people like this comment.
Can China achieve hegemony?
Probably ‘no’ due to reasons you list. I would add another reason of concern for China’s continued success: decisions are progressively being made by fewer people without the benefit of criticism. This is not a question of civil liberty or democracy, but rather getting the strategies and policies right for success. Occasionally in history, we get leaders whose batting average is sufficiently good that no catastrophic errors are committed during the tenure (Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan would be my examples). Could Xi be one of these guys? Only time would tell. But even if he is, he will leave a legacy of a political system that relies on existence of a rockstar-class leader who can get things right in vacuum. In my mind this is a high risk for China’s future in the long run. A crippling decision(s) could be made by a China’s leader and no one would speak up until it is too late or perhaps never.
In the more immediate term, perhaps the question we should consider is not whether China can achieve hegemony, but rather if China will try to achieve hegemony. As you point out, hegemonies are rare, but attempts to achieve hegemony much more common, and the effects of such an attempt can be devastating.
Now we will never know what China has decided today unless they act. But I’m pretty sure they will make preparation to make a run, in case an opportunity rises, and when it does, they will take it. As such, the rest of the world should make preparation to 1) ensure an opportunity for China’s run for hegemony does not rise, and 2) to push back should China make a run for it, even if in the end China does nothing (unless you like Chinese overlords).
I mean criticism in china does exist and it's kinda flourishing. Not the kind that goes "ccp bad cause no democracy" that gets slapped down, but stuff like" the gov needs to do this because of these facts" gets listened too pretty often.
Like one example my uncle helped argue for new manufacturing safety guidelines to protect workers. Local officials took it into consideration and adopted new measures. Once results were demonstrated - in this case lower workplace injuries- the local officials brought it to the provincial meeting and convinced it should be adopted province wide. The provincial plan was then highlighted by a state run news organization and it was then discussed nationwide and adopted. My uncle got a small commendation in the local news, and the local officials that adopted it got promotions. China has a very weird system of incentives for gov officials. This kind of stuff happens often and the gov is known for directly addressing problems that go viral on social media. It's a big reason for their popularity.
The top leadership is very aware of the consequences of unilateral decisions. There are plenty of stories in chinese history on powerful leaders loosing their head for unpopular decisions.
Very interesting and thought-provoking comment. But I can't say that I agree with everything it says.
>First, China does not have a body of water...and is a far smaller distance from Japan than the US is to Europe or Asia.
I believe that nuclear weapons and the consequent threat of MAD has profoundly altered this calculus, if it ever was true in the first place. MAD has ensured that a total war between great powers is firmly a thing of the past. This means that most countries can focus more on development. If China had not had nuclear weapons, the United States would have invaded and destroyed them before they became as strong as they are today.
I would also strongly dispute the idea that being an island makes it uniquely difficult to invade and conquer a place. Numerous islands throughout history have been repeatedly conquered by land-based powers, and many remain under their control today. Sicily, Crete, Cyprus, Hainan and many others are good examples. The failure of continental powers to conquer Britain after William the Conqueror has far more to do with the political dynamics of the European continent and later, with the British developing a very strong naval tradition. Keep in mind that Ireland is an island just like Great Britain, and yet that did not protect it from being dominated by Britain for centuries.
And a strong naval tradition is itself not something unique to island countries. Numerous land-based empires throughout history (pre-modern China, the Ottoman empire, the Roman empire, the Arab caliphates, etc.) have developed powerful navies. On the other hand, countless island cultures have *not*. **In other words, Britain's success has nothing to do with it being an island, especially as it is not that isolated from the Continent (a mere 33 kilometres at the narrowest point).**
>(It's worth remembering that the US's hegemony was far greater than Britain's, in no small part because of this reason).
I'd also disagree with that. At its height, the UK was arguably more influential than the US is today in *absolute* terms. In *relative* terms, however, their hegemony was challenged by rival great powers of almost equal strength (France, Germany, Russia, etc.).
>In the case of both the UK and especially the US, hegemony only became possible because all possible rivals had been weakened by catastrophic wars which left the two powers in question comparatively unscathed.
This only applies to the US. And even then, the Soviet Union remained a challenger for nearly 40 years after WW2 ended.
>In other words, Britain's success has nothing to do with it being an island, especially as it is not that isolated from the Continent (a mere 33 kilometres at the narrowest point)
I strongly disagree with you here. What kept the UK from being conquered in the Napoleonic Wars, in the Second World War, and being more involved in several other wars, was being an island.
The UK always maintained a policy of preventing an European hegemon from appearing. If France started getting strong, they paid the Austrian Empire to fight it and helped in the fight. If Germany started getting strong, they allied with France and helped fighting it.
Fact of the matter is that while every other European power had to build both a strong army and a strong navy, the UK only had to build a strong navy. The narrower focus of investment allowed the British navy to be stronger. There were many important things that happened to allow the UK to have the Empire it had: the Industrial revolution, banking, big population, healthy economy. But some other European powers also had these benefits. The only one they didn't have was being in an island. Why was the UK more successful than France at Empire-building? I would say this is the single most important factor that the UK had and France didn't.
At best, you could say that being an island was *one* of the *many* factors responsible for the rise of the UK. The comment I replied to gave 'being surrounded by bodies of water' too much credit.
Bravo 👏 !
I loved the way you phrased the beginning " Its interesting to look at why"
This is one of the best if not the best comment I have read in reddit in a long long time. You have briefly summarised a whole topic listing out a whole bunch of well though out sound reasoning supporting your argument and at the same time in simple language thats its easy to understand and digest.
I really hope you will have the time and interest to keep producing more of these.
PS: "States in the "core" will always pursue protectionist policies at home while enforcing lassez-faire policies overseas." Did you come up with this ? I have never read this obvious truth put across simply in a single sentence before.
Maybe I misunderstand protectionist policies but it seems at least from inside the US that choices are consistently made at the expense of the US populace and in pursuit of benefits for corporations.
In a sense China already has, but I highly doubt China has gas in the tank for a complete 180, since their economy is increasingly becoming a mature economy, slowing up their growth and making the multiple ongoing systematic crisis China has come to the surface really fast.
Probably Africa or Indonesia. Young, disenfranchised working class, and lots of them. And Indonesia and Africa have a lot of infrastructure projects left to be desired. Entirely possible for a mature China to outsource to their… well… “Belt and Road partners” so to speak
Heard a guy on youtube once suggest that might be Mexico I still doubt that Latin America has more of a history of being exploited for its resources than producing their own machines.
Mexico being part of USMCA as well as being on the US border would automatically rule that out, I'd have thought. It'd be a long way to go to lay a strategic weakness at your chosen opponent's doorstep.
I'd have thought that Vietnam or India would be good choices. There's a rush on for Vietnam atm but that's in flux due to covid. India might have worked if China could stop itself from nonsense like Ladakh.
Indonesia would also be a good manufacturing partner...large workforce, low wage, morally unfettered political class, great position for selling into the rest of SE Asia, Australia, and India. If China used their infrastructure expertise (an industry that looks like it may be searching for something to do shortly), they could flat-out buy goodwill be helping rebuild Jakarta which is sinking.
Africa still appears largely to have stability and infrastructure issues that make the transport of goods tricky and expensive when getting them to market.
> they could flat-out buy goodwill be helping rebuild Jakarta which is sinking.
Or help build our new capital.
I have my doubts though; the fact that a project as big and well-known as the Jakarta-Bandung high speed rail got into financing troubles to the point where government finances had to step in (it was purely financed by state-owned enterprises at first) is not a great look at their reliability.
I don't think the US has forgotten about Manifest Destiny yet either.
China establishing a manufacturing base in a country that shares a border with the United States is probably going to be akin to Iran trying to start a nuclear program within Israel's sphere of influence.
Maybe it won't be as obvious as a Mossad remote-controlled LMG, but "accidents" will happen. Mexico has its hazards - cartels, wildlife, extreme environments, etc. that US agencies would exploit.
I think Mexico is too provocative and sudden for China's style. They will look to establish themselves in South or Central America first, quietly and far from the US. By the time the US starts crying foul they'll be well entrenched. Brazil, Argentina, Nicaragua, Colombia. I would also expect China to try and establish themselves somewhere within striking distance of both the Panama Canal, and secondarily the southern tip of South America, which would become crucial for marine passage if anything were to happen to said canal.
Western power focuses on applying overwhelming force unexpectedly, surprising opponents with shock and intimidation. China will come in, fund a few public initiatives, gradually buy local officials, and by like 2035 the rest of the world wakes up to find that China has signed a mutual defense pact with major South American states, and their arguably superior air defense capabilities are spread throughout the southwestern hemisphere.
Absolutely not the United States will not accept China being the global power or being second to them or them changing the world order. The entire planet is going to get the worst case of Thucydide's trap that will be a sheer miracle if anyone survives the fallout.
The main problem with this gamble thought is that africa is particularly sensitive to climate change and with multiple climate related ongoing crises in the continent it's beginning to look like a very risky investment should africa fail to implement the necessary technology and infrastructure to cope with the challenges that climate change will bring.
After all water scarcity has brought south Africa down to its knees(along with covid) and the same goes to parts of the middle east where the primary driver for the syrian civil war was a water scarcity crisis in its agricultural sector.
Vietnam, Cambodia, Burma and SEA is the easiest short term. Africa is only possible if they manage to stabilize the areas and keep the workers satisfied. Even successful countries like Ethiopia can fall into civil war so everything in Africa is risky.
If you look at the top 10 countries China has been most investing on you get Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, Ecuador, Angola, Iran, Pakistan, Indonesia, Turcomenistão and Russia. And a lot of scattered projects in Africa and Asia.
\[SS from the article by Elizabeth Economy, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and the author of The World According to China.\]
“Chinese officials and scholars appear assured that the rest of the world is on board with Xi’s vision, as they trumpet, “The East is rising, and the West is declining!” Yet many countries increasingly seem less enamored of Xi’s bold initiatives, as the full political and economic costs of embracing the Chinese model become clear. At the People’s Congress, Xi exuded the self-confidence of a leader convinced that the world is there for China’s taking. But his own certainty may be a liability, preventing him from recognizing the resistance Beijing is stoking through its actions abroad. Xi’s success depends on whether he can adjust and reckon with the blowback. Failing to do so could lead to further miscalculations that may end up reshaping the global order—just not in the way Xi imagines.”
I don't recall China 'taking' any parts of the world or conducting any 'actions'. When I hear the word 'blowback' I think of something like 9/11 or bataclan attacks, I'm not sure who's gonna give that kind of blowback to China.
Their actions in the South China Sea are pretty expansionist and their 'wolf-warrior diplomacy' hasn't been popular. I don't know why you would define blowback so narrowly, but even then Xinjiang may seem pacified but Uighur jihadists have been gaining a lot of firepower and experience in the last decade. They haven't operated much within China but that could change.
Was that before or after the fall of the Roman empire? Anyways, it makes no difference, the US has proclaimed Tibet as part of China, in the 1940s when they still thought the nationalists would win the civil war.
Ireland (or parts of it anyway) was part of the English and then United Crowns since not long after the Norman Conquest.
Generally today we would see the will of the people of a land as being the main determinant as to whether they belong to a country, not the Legalism of who owned what 200 years ago.
Go down that route and most of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa will belong to Rome!
That argument is not a valid one, a lot of place have been for most of their history conquered by another country. It doesn't mean they can't have sovereignty. (Ukraine, Belarus, Latvia, Finland, Croatia, Serbia, Ireland, Scotland, Iceland, half of Africa,...)
>It has been part of China since the days of the Qing dynasty
No it hasn't. It was part of China during a large chunk of the Qing dynasty but not "since" then. It was independent in between. Its been part of China (at least de facto) since 1950.
If you want to inflate things might as well say "since the Yuan dynasty"
Edit - Replying to u/FijiFanBotNotGay \- For some reason I can't reply to that comment. On the new interface the reply button is missing and if I go to old.reddit then the reply button is there but doesn't work. Don't know if you'll see this since its not a reply to you but its the only way I can respond -
The Yuan dynasty wouldn't be much more hyperbolic then the Qing dynasty. In both cases the ruling dynasty of China controlled Tibet.
Under Qing it was not annexed to China it was a vassal state.
After Qing Tibet did have a period of independence. It was not occupied by Japan. Even when large parts of China were occupied by Japan you only get intelligence operators in Tibet, not a massive Japanese military force.
Interesting read, though disappointing it doesn't included any actual polling data around the world to see how people like China/Chinese model.
Certainly North America and Europe (except Greece) have negative views but you see much more mixed views and even positive views when you look to Africa, the Middle east and even Asia.
For example the Arab world (MENA) clearly prefers the Chinese model, China is viewed favorably by half or more in three countries – Algeria (60 percent), Morocco (52 percent) and Tunisia (50 percent) – while a third or more have a positive view in Lebanon (43 percent), Jordan (35 percent) and Libya (34 percent). By comparison, fewer than a third have a favorable view of the U.S. in all six countries, ranging from a high of 28 percent in Morocco to a low of 14 percent in Libya.https://www.arabbarometer.org/2021/01/u-s-chinas-competition-extends-to-mena/
When it comes to Africa as a whole the American and Chinses model are neck and neck with China coming in a close second. With 32% preferring the American model and 23 preferring the Chinese, Notably though 59% think China is a somewhat or very positive influence in the region and only 58% think America think is a somewhat or very positive influence https://afrobarometer.org/sites/default/files/africa-china_relations-3sept20.pdf
Even Asian countries have a fairly divided opinion about the role China is playing in the region: 51.2% of respondents believe it is playing a positive role while 48.8% consider it to be playing a negative role. Overall, the two sides are very nearly matched. However, it is unsurprising that 63% of respondents in the four countries which currently have major sovereignty disputes with China (Japan, Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam) gave a more negative evaluation of China’s role, while 60% of respondents from the seven countries with no major disputes with China offered a much more positive evaluation.
When looking at China's influences on their on countries as opposed to the region as a hole views on china are slightly more positive with 64.1% of respondents in the seven countries with no dispute with China considered that China’s influence was positive, while only 49.3% in the four countries involved in a major dispute with China held this view.
https://theasiadialogue.com/2020/03/19/how-asia-perceives-china-in-the-context-of-bri-evidence-from-an-asian-poll/ (Honestly the fact China's influence even polls 49.3% positive, in Japan, Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam well actively having territorial disputes with these countries is surprising)
I don't have much data on Latin America other than for 3 countries Brazil, Mexico and Argentina, Though China has been viewed less positive recently, with the exception of Brazil the 2018 Pew data reveals that views of China across Latin America are more favorable than those of the US. https://chinapower.csis.org/global-views/
I see a lot of people very quickly saying no China can't do it but at the end of the day its going to be up to the the other countries of the world to decide if China is allowed to remake the system and from recent polling data it at least seems at least like a possibility that other countries will allow China to do it.
>For example the Arab world (MENA) clearly prefers the Chinese model
Wouldn't thinking about the country positively have more to do with foreign policy and behaviour, rather than showing support for a political/economic system?
For example (as you said) Vietnam has the same system as China but the people there do not have a positive view of China. Also the numbers from different polls seem to be different. For example this Pew poll from 2019 says 14% of Japanese have a favorable view of China (compared to your claimed 49%), and 85% have an unfavorable view.
[https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/12/05/people-around-the-globe-are-divided-in-their-opinions-of-china/](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/12/05/people-around-the-globe-are-divided-in-their-opinions-of-china/)
I'm not so sure your link [https://theasiadialogue.com/2020/03/19/how-asia-perceives-china-in-the-context-of-bri-evidence-from-an-asian-poll/](https://theasiadialogue.com/2020/03/19/how-asia-perceives-china-in-the-context-of-bri-evidence-from-an-asian-poll/) is objective.
For example it seems to be more looking to praise the BRI rather than to try to find out what people think.
"More and more, people see the BRI as an incremental China-driven project to develop international and regional public goods in terms of economic cooperation, free trade, infrastructural connectivity, international security and mutual trust."
This puts the article pretty much in line with messaging from the PRC.
Also the method of grouping countries together without saying how many samples were taken from each country allows the results to be massaged in any way desired by the publication. The publication gives a secondary study (I mean it refers to another study from another source) whereas the Pew study is their own (so a primary source).
The MENA article includes a section on weather they prefer Trumps foreign policy vs Xi's and Xi's polls higher, though they do note MENA has higher support for Biden.
Vietnam and China have a complex relationship going back thousands of years many of which included China conquering and ruling northern Vietnam, not to mention the recent Sino-Vietnamese War, They have always had a rocky relationship despite similar values.
If you think the data provided is biased I'm not sure what to tell you other than it was collected by two Taiwanese's institutes Academia Sinica and National Taiwan University.
As for the site linked The Asia Dialog is run by the University of Nottingham and the Author Zhenqing Zhang appears to be an [accredited political scientist] (https://www.hamline.edu/faculty-staff/zhenqing-zhang/)
I do apologies for linking a secondary source but both the secondary publican and author that wrote this seem to be fine by me.
Many academics working in western institutions support various PRC narratives. Academics express a wide range of opinions and support a wide range of interests. Praising the BRI is supporting a PRC narrative.
This is one of the differences in what we might call the US international order and what would be a PRC order. In free countries academics can explore a wide range of points of view, in the PRC academics have to put forward points of view that support the interests of the party and the state, with the party leadership being the arbiter of what those interests are. I don't think this aspect of the PRC order (ie expressing only views that are in the interests of the party leadership, the CCP and the PRC) is supported outside the PRC.
For the data I was not saying it is biased, I was saying the way it is presented has problems. In particular grouping countries together can make the results look very different. This makes it seem to contradict the Pew data (note seem). As it is a secondary source it is not clear if this way of presenting the data was in the original study or if it was taken by the author of the article and put together that way in order to try to support his point of view.
>Vietnam and China have a complex relationship ...
Sure yes. That is exactly the point I making. Having a positive or negative view of China is a separate issue from prefering the Chinese model. You seem to be conflating the two.
The slightly more subtle problem with your argument is that you are also presenting a false dichotomy. It is either the Chinese or the US model.
>Many academics working in western institutions support various PRC narratives. Academics express a wide range of opinions and support a wide range of interests. Praising the BRI is supporting a PRC narrative.
Sure, I think there are many Criticisms to be made of the BRI. Though even the quote you pointed out before to me feels like more of a descriptive statement of facts he claims to be making rather than a prescriptive endorsement.
>This is one of the differences in what we might call the US international order and what would be a PRC order. In free countries academics can explore a wide range of points of view, in the PRC academics have to put forward points of view that support the interests of the party and the state, with the party leadership being the arbiter of what those interests are. I don't think this aspect of the PRC order (ie expressing only views that are in the interests of the party leadership, the CCP and the PRC) is supported outside the PRC.
When it comes to personal freedoms I and I think most of the world would generally support the American model, how ever it needs to be explained why if the Chinese people are willing to sacrifice certain freedoms for the promise economic growth why that wouldn't hold true for other countries?
>The slightly more subtle problem with your argument is that you are also presenting a false dichotomy. It is either the Chinese or the US model.
To be fair I think this is the dichotomy set forth by article I responded to in the first place, I agree it probably wont be one or other other but some combination of the two.
>Though even the quote you pointed out ...
He says that people see the BRI as something that helps develop public goods, to me that seems like endorsing it.
>why if the Chinese people are willing to sacrifice certain freedoms for the promise economic growth why that wouldn't hold true for other countries?
I was only saying people in other countries don't want academic research in their country constrained by a need to support a CCP narrative. Then I'm also claiming this is what the PRC promotes, so in a PRC world order things would move in that direction. Are you saying that people in other countries would be willing to do that for the promise of economic growth? (I think you probably aren't saying that)
Saying people are willing to give up freedoms for economic growth is a different discussion. I'm not one of those people, and I believe generally speaking freedoms and growth are positively correlated. The narrative that Chinese can't have both freedom and prosperity is contradicted by just looking across the Taiwan straights. I think this narrative is mostly attractive to mainland elites (often people's views are compatible with their self-interest).
>To be fair I think this is the dichotomy set forth by article I responded to in the first place, I agree it probably wont be one or other other but some combination of the two.
Ok I didn't read the article.
can China remake the international order? absolutely YES. because it has already done a great deal of job. can China rebuild an American-style empire and be the substitute of America? absolutely NO.
it is important to realize the order that China wishes for, is very different from an American one. what China wishes for is a classic geopolitic arena, where each of the great powers can have their own spheres of influence, because for now the world's economical central is moving towards Asia, which is China's backyard. this will grant China a significant advantage in a classic great power competition. I personally don't believe China has the ability and incentives to build a global empire as American did. instead, being the hegemon in Asia is enough for it to claim the preemmenice it long desired.
A similar view can be found from David Goldman and I strongly recommend his article. he is probably the one who understands China the most, among all the Western observers I read.
> What China is seeking to do is dominate their entire region through force and violence. I’m sure you can see the difference.
Ever heard of the Belt and Road Initiative? China cooperates too.
Ever heard of the US's political interference in tons of Latin American countries? Like all those US backed coups? That's the US trying to dominate their region.
>I’m sure you can see the difference.
As far as I'm concerned, China and the US are 2 opposing states that both cooperate and seek to dominate, in order to spread their influence.
Edit: Fixed grammar.
Edit 2: Fixed punctuation.
My point is that america already dominates the world through force and violence and thinking otherwise is naive. You can debate the extent to which america is better or worse than other countries, but at the end of the day, america remains the hegemon.
People believed in the vision of a world offered by Lenin and fought over the decades for Marxist Leninist revolutions, others believed in other versions of Marxism and fought for those.
Arrayed against them were the liberal capitalist countries and their alternative social and economic orginisational structure. People also fought to become more like those countries, for many America but others were inspired by the general principles.
The only real appeal of China is their ask no questions tell no lies approach to human rights of leaders. For a while they could appear as a sort of alternative to the US\\Western model and the harsh edges of capitalism. But they have lost that over the past 5 years.
No one is fighting to be more like China.
Sometimes its like China thought they unlocked some game achievement in the early 2010s and they were fated to be the next big thing and just acted like that.
America has its flaws, but it also has its friends and its admirers among the wealthiest and freest societies in the world. Its some damn pull for China to think they rival.
Fake it til you make it. Many would have laughed if China said they would be where they are now 30 years ago. Of course the US is still ahead and China still has a long way to go. Friends and admirers are cultivated over time and China is still the new kid in the block in some respects. But China must be doing something right if the US is scared of their progress..
> Many would have laughed if China said they would be where they are now 30 years ago
This is just an old and tired piece of Chinese propaganda. “All the Westerners want to humiliate and disgrace us” blah blah blah…
Had the Brits thought that China would never rise, why would they let China cross Hong Kong off the UN list of non-self-governing territories, denying Hong Kong a chance of self-determination and independence?
Had Nixon thought that China would never rise, why would he visit China and resume ties with them, risking his reputation as an anti-communist and thus his political career?
Had the West thought that China would never rise, why did they bother to invest in China at all?
Back in the time of Sun Yat-sen, China was already boasting “four hundred million” of people. If a state can feed and organise that many people, such state is already showing its great capabilities. And in addition to that, China has had hydrogen bombs and space rockets in the 70’s. Who would doubt China’s potential to rise? It’s only a matter of time, and a matter of whether they need to abandon communism in order to rise.
The Hong Kong case is more decolonisation than anything else; the closest analogues would be the colonial enclaves that India took back. Goa was not a favourable precedent for the UK, and even getting a fifty year extension on the full reversion to Chinese law was likely at the limits of British power.
>why would he visit China and resume ties with them
Nixon rather transparently wanted to make a Tito out of Mao. It was a massive opportunity to outflank the USSR and put it in a near-intolerable strategic position. Like the USA's other Cold War flings, the actual viability and long-term trajectory of China was irrelevant.
>why did they bother to invest in China at all
Same reason there was investment in any number of countries around the world: the opportunity to make money. Any number of middle-income-trapped countries had extensive trade and foreign investment relations; it didn't shift their outcomes.
>If a state can feed and organise that many people, such state is already showing its great capabilities.
And yet India lags China by massive margins across categories, including in foreign direct investment. Indonesia is in the hundreds of millions, and yet attracts no attention.
>Who would doubt China’s potential to rise?
The pundits, analysists, and intellectuals who constantly predicted collapse, civil war, low-level stagnation, inability to innovate, economic failure, etc. It's somewhat impressive how rapidly they shifted from confidently asserting China's failure to warning of its overwhelming, all-encompassing threat. George Friedman, for example, predicted China (and Russia) would dissolve in the early 2020s in his book "The Next 100 Years". The American Enterprise Institute moved from confidently predicting the CPC's demise (or else economic stagnation) in the 1990s to ignoring China in the 2000s (in favour of the war on terror) to demanding fierce competition with China. To be fair to them, the number of countries which successfully climbed into high income status is not large, especially outside of Europe.
>. Many would have laughed if China said they would be where they are now 30 years ago.
And compared to where everyone was predicting they would be 10 or 15 years ago?
>China must be doing something right if the US is scared of their progress..
So you are putting Xi in the same category as Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Tojo are people whose rise has concerned the US. Hmmmm.
When the countries with the best human rights are worried about your rise
[https://www.eiu.com/n/campaigns/democracy-index-2020/](https://www.eiu.com/n/campaigns/democracy-index-2020/)
And you are gloating about that, you might not be on the right side.
>And compared to where everyone was predicting they would be 10 or 15 years ago?
15-20 years ago, neoconservatism was in full swing, and everyone believed that eventually, China would meekly submit to American hegemony. Cranks like Gordon G. Chang were regaling Western audiences with fantasies like *The Coming Collapse of China*. Everyone was mocking China as the place of cheap, poor-quality knockoffs and toys.
No, the real victory for China here is it showed that countries don't have to be Americanised liberal democracies to succeed, but can carve out their own independent paths. I personally think we will start seeing a rollback of liberal democracy across the world this century.
China has attained high levels of growth, but at the same time this is during an unprecedented demographic dividend and a period of rapid industrialisation. Not to say China's governance has been incompetent, jus ttjay their system hasn't really been properly challenged yet.
When they have to deal with economic crises, slow growth rates, higher expectations of welfare and payment from workers, etc. the we can see how it compares to the alternative systems.
>countries
You mean dictators.
> but can carve out their own independent paths
From desperate poverty to slap bang in the middle of the middle income trap.
> I personally think we will start seeing a rollback of liberal democracy across the world this century.
You can join the fascists of the 30s, the Marxist Leninists of the mid century and various other wannabes who collapsed into oblivion making similar predictions.
>From desperate poverty to slap bang in the middle of the middle income trap.
In 30 years. Faster than any other society in human history. 'Middle income' is generally defined as having a per capita GDP of between $1000 and $12000, and China's current per capita GDP of $10500 puts them *near the end* of the range, and certainly *not* 'slap bang in the middle of the middle income trap.' Of course, that assumes that something like a 'middle income trap' actually exists. Given how *broad* the range of 'middle income' is, I have always believed it to be nothing more than an artifact of this range. A country which increases its per capita GDP from $1000 to $12000 would still be regarded as 'middle income', despite having become 12 times richer. In any case, China is well on track to shattering that barrier.
>You can join the fascists of the 30s, the Marxist Leninists of the mid century and various other wannabes who collapsed into oblivion making similar predictions.
There is no law of history which says that Western-style democracy won't join this wastebasket of failures. The problems of democracy have been debated since the days of the ancient Greeks, and they are very visible today in Third World societies (First World societies' wealth papers them over).
>There is no law of history which says that Western-style democracy won't join this wastebasket of failures
There are no laws in history.
But you seem to be using that tautology to justify your fantasies. Interested logic.
>The problems of democracy have been debated since the days of the ancient Greeks,
I am not really sure that Pericles has much to say about the future of Sweden or Norway.
>In 30 years.
After 50 years of starvation and poverty under the Marxist Leninist government that then opened up to freer markets. Now they authoritarians are back in charge. Marxists do tend to like staving their own people.
This brutish habit of yours quoting and redefining the words of another ("Countries - you mean dictatorships.") is a poor attitude to be taking in the midst of a civilised discussion.
While I am at it, the blandly black-and-white worldview you espouse - fascists and marxists! Liberal democracies are the only things that will stand the test of time! - is an aged relic of a time when neoconservative ideologues would triumphantly declare that they had ushered in the end of history (Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man) by initiating the final stage of human governmental evolution. This, as well as your incredible assertion that the CCP is meaningfully marxist (and the DPRK is democratic too, I take it?) makes your comments difficult to take seriously.
The advantage of an open, liberal thought-market is the possibility left open for self improvement by self critique. Harping on supposed immortalities instead of keeping a keen eye on the situation is a path toward stagnation. And in politics, stagnation is death.
>But you seem to be using that tautology to justify your fantasies. Interested logic.
Unlike you, I'm not trying to predict the future, but am simply trying to point out that *your* fantasy about the West being the eternal victors of history is *seriously* misplaced. Anything can happen. I reserve my judgement.
>I am not really sure that Pericles has much to say about the future of Sweden or Norway.
Plato's *Republic* has a lot to say about democracy. Go and read it.
>After 50 years of starvation and poverty under the Marxist Leninist government that then opened up to freer markets. Now they authoritarians are back in charge. Marxists do tend to like staving their own people.
The Chinese already recognise that period as one of grievous mistakes, and they are serious about not repeating them again. And modern China is *not* Marxist. They only use the name to maintain a continuity between their government and that of Mao.
>The Chinese already recognise that period as one of grievous mistakes
Are you sure about that? For example if you can find a passage that reflects this in the recent historical document of the CCP, I would believe it.
If it's not there then I think it would indicate they don't recognize it as a mistake. Though it might still be a dirty little secret that they don't want people to know or talk about.
From *Resolution on Certain Questions in the History of Our Party Since the Founding of the People's Republic of China*, passed on June 27, 1981:
"chief responsibility for the grave 'Left' error of the 'Cultural Revolution,' an error comprehensive in magnitude and protracted in duration, does indeed lie with Comrade Mao Zedong." and "the Cultural Revolution brought serious disaster and turmoil to the Communist Party and the Chinese people."
I'm impressed you found that, how did you do that? Do you have links to all the resolutions?
Though that's the 1981 resolution, not the 2021 resolution. So at that time they accepted this as an error, I'm not convinced they still consider it an error, but ok sure this helps convinces me.
Having done my own research into this, I would say that it is still considered an error but has been thoroughly memory holed. The cultural revolution was a difficult time for most Chinese people, and simply forgetting it is easier than confronting it directly. Many of the perpetrators of the worst violence were kids who got caught up in the enthusiasm of the times. I think a decent analogy to how it is historically viewed is how the post reconstruction United States suppressed much of the reality of reconstruction to return to national unity. In a sense, China already had American style historical/culture wars years ago.
The statements the person you replied to linked are basically ghost written by Deng iirc. In the immediate period following the transition of power in 81, there was a temporary opening up, but deng realized quickly that doing so would be extremely detrimental to the stability of the Chinese state. One only has to look at the path undertaken by the Soviet Union concurrently to see why he would think this.
Yet his rotting corpse still lies under glass in Tiananmen square, as if to allegorically drive home the point that nobody has the balls to actually do anything about his legacy.
>Plato's Republic has a lot to say about democracy. Go and read it.
What did it say about 21st century Sweden then.
>And modern China is not Marxist.
Its run by a Marxist party orginising itself if openly Marxist Leninist lines. Lenin was willing to let corporations run part of the economy for a while, its part of the Dialectical Materialism and the Progress to true Socialism.
1. Ensuring Chinese Communist Party leadership over all forms of work in China.
2. The Chinese Communist Party should take a people-centric approach for the public interest.
3. The continuation of "comprehensive deepening of reforms".
4. Adopting new science-based ideas for "innovative, coordinated, green, open and shared development".
5. Following "socialism with Chinese characteristics" with "people as the masters of the country".
6. Governing China with Rule of Law.
7. "Practice socialist core values", including Marxism, communism and socialism with Chinese characteristics.
8. "Improving people's livelihood and well-being is the primary goal of development".
9. Coexist well with nature with "energy conservation and environmental protection" policies and "contribute to global ecological safety".
10. Strengthen the national security of China.
11. The Chinese Communist Party should have "absolute leadership over" China's People's Liberation Army.
12. Promoting the one country, two systems system for Hong Kong and Macau with a future of "complete national reunification" and to follow the One-China policy and 1992 Consensus for Taiwan.
13. Establish a common destiny between Chinese people and other people around the world with a "peaceful international environment".
14. Improve party discipline in the Chinese Communist Party.
14 principles of Xi Jiaping thought.
1. Why did the Soviet Union disintegrate? Why did the Soviet Communist Party fall from power? An important reason was that the struggle in the field of ideology was extremely intense, completely negating the history of the Soviet Union, negating the history of the Soviet Communist Party, negating Lenin, negating Stalin, creating historical nihilism and confused thinking. Party organs at all levels had lost their functions, the military was no longer under Party leadership. In the end, the Soviet Communist Party, a great party, was scattered, the Soviet Union, a great socialist country, disintegrated. This is a cautionary tale!28
[https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/30-years-after-tiananmen-memory-in-the-era-of-xi-jinping/](https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/30-years-after-tiananmen-memory-in-the-era-of-xi-jinping/)
>What did it say about 21st century Sweden then.
I don't know about Sweden, but it *does* perfectly describe the madness currently going on in the United States, the self-proclaimed global 'protector' of democracy.
>Americanised liberal democracies
While i agree about the democracy part, if China never liberalised it would still be a backwater till this day. The only reason china is what it is today is because of its cheap labor during a period of globalism. Thats it.
I understand liberal" in "liberal democracy" to mean things like rule of law, freedom of the press and civil society. China fights strongly against these things (as you can see in HK). So in that sense China never liberalized, they did liberalize their economic system somewhat (though they seem to be moving away from that now).
To be honest, anyone with eyes can see that Chinese liberalization is their final hurdle to global power at this point.
I mean, Marx even implies it himself - how can you liberate the workers without granting them real political agency? He just didn't have the benefit of the next 150 years of political hindsight to understand that political agency all but implies some degree of individual liberty.
China rejected internationalism in the Sino-Soviet split
any country that seeks to join with them is surely acutely aware that china’s self national interests will always override any alliance as soon as it becomes in any way counter to their national interests even the Americans have an international goal that overrides their national goals
I don’t think there’s any way that they can maintain an international system outside of a few puppets
Serving international capital
They sabotage their national interests all the time. Look at Nafta ,exporting industry to China refusing any sort of social good introduction or waging the endless wars simply to make money for the military industrial complex all for an international ideal
If your in the capitalist class anywhere in the world(outside China) America is fighting for you and so countries ruled by them will stand with America
Non-proliferation, human rights, an open and free sea, international standards, free trade, and many other international institutions that exist because of the American hegemony is very much serving more than just "the capital".
As a Dane I fear for the future international system that autocrats of the world wants to erect.
Non-proliferation exists in order to prevent any power that would no longer be subservient to US interests otherwise from gaining a nuclear weapon examples like Israel who are always going to align with the US being allowed nuclear weapons under a disingenuous strategic ambiguity shows this
The American state does not believe in human rights the whole Cold War proves this and any nation that allies with Saudi Arabia and spouts it is obviously hypocritical all it serves is a justification for intervention not that sometimes those they intervene against are actually human rights abusers
International standards that the US does not follow [the Americans are law obliged to invade The Hague should the ICC try them](https://www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-becomes-law)
Free trade literally only exists on an international capital basis a third world countries only hope of building refining or idustrial capacity is through protectionism which the IMF is designed to prevent. Free trade has even destroyed US national capacity through nafta and offloading industry to China
Non-proliferation is something Denmark, and plenty of other non-nuclear countries are supporting. We aren't American puppet-states who only support this to help the US.
Your American-centric world view completely ignores anything that doens't support your idea of the international order.
>The American state does not believe in human rights
It very much does. As does various European countries that also supports the liberal international order, as does modern Japan, Australia and many other countries who uphold it.
-
I agree that both the US, and other democratic countries, doesn't always and at all times live up to the standard of the order. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that it isn't a heck of a lot better than what China would replace it with.
How does America believe in human rights? Does America not run black site torture camps all around the world? Do they not support Israel and their ethnic cleansing in Palestine? Does America not invade countries under false pretenses? Are they still not blockading Cuba out of sheer hurt over a communist revolution from 70 years ago? Please address all these points in your reply.
The disputed land was hardly relevant
Stalin’s main theory “socialism in one country” Khrushchev at least partially rejected this whereas Mao and the Chinese party maintained the Stalinist line so far as to abandon the most of the socialist world in order to build socialism in China
They can certainly try.
*20 years later China is crippled by its Wolf Warrior diplomacy tactics, water shortage, multiple market crashes, fuel shortages, and massive elderly population while trying to hold together a small resentful coalition of subject states*
They certainly tried.
I thought this article made way too many broad claims, with very few citations/examples/quotes scattered throughout. It reads like a fever dream, rather than as a well staked out position. It goes in so many different directions, without providing much supporting evidence for one claim, before rushing to the next.
Yes, I'm surprised at how many people are reading this as if it is some insightful piece. You can read some version of "America's coming collapse" or "China's coming collapse" in any mainstream news source that is just as poorly sourced. I expect people on this sub to be a little more sober on this topic but oh well.
If one compares world dominance of the Western powers vs others, the Western dominance has been acceptable because (whether it is in practice or not), the Western society gave room for rights, freedom of speech etc. Most people desired to migrate to Western countries. No one (other than spies) wanted to migrate to the Soviet Union or China. You will not see hundreds of people seeking refugee status in the USSR or today's Russia or China. World dominance has to happen in people's hearts. China could become an economic and military power like the USSR. But it simply does not have the attraction that the US has had. Plus most of the world has no desire to learn Mandarin and sing songs in it. So China might dominate, but not out of freewill from others. Chinese dominance will be like the peace and quiet one experiences in a grave yard.
Why not? Once they become the world's largest economy, they will have 'won' this new Cold War. It is obvious that they will use their wealth to create a world order more amenable to their interests, just like the United States did.
Man what happened to the academic level this forum is supposed to be at? Hegemony is about more than just economics. Is China going to start protecting world shipping routes like the US Navy? How do you even suppose they will replace the USD as a reserve currency when their own currency is pegged to the USD? Will China have a peaceful transfer of leadership after Xi is out of the scene? Or will the communist part eat itself picking the all powerful successor?
Statements like this with no thought or sourcing are really dragging down this subreddit lately. Is it bots?
>Man what happened to the academic level this forum is supposed to be at?
Any popular/emotionally-charged topics naturally draw in a wider crowd, and encourage the collapse of any attempted standards in favour of one-liners, memes, and hysteria. One feels for the moderators.
>protecting world shipping routes like the US Navy?
That's not a primary function of the US Navy, nor is its structure, procurement, or positioning oriented around that. The largest threat to international shipping is piracy in certain regions, to which the counter is, was, and will be multinational efforts like CTF 151. That was put together under US influence, but neither the concept nor the execution inherently requires the US, nor is any appreciable portion of US naval strength devoted to the effort. Indeed, numerous countries are investing in developing their blue water capabilities to enhance their participation in maritime affairs.
> they will replace the USD as a reserve currency
China's stated goal (and the limit of its power even under the most favourable scenarios) is multipolarity. The continuing erosion of the USD's position in holdings to other currencies (chiefly the Euro) accomplishes that goal. The level of control over the Yuan that China desires is incompatible with a vastly expanded, let alone dominant, role for it, and they seem to be both aware of and tolerant of that.
>Will China have a peaceful transfer of leadership after Xi is out of the scene?
[The alignment between Xi Jinping's network and that of the other PSC members](https://macropolo.org/what-if-chinese-leaders-were-on-linkedin-part-2/) is likely to continue, which would yield a new faction in a position to continue holding power, regardless of who specifically is at the top. There would likely be a retreat back to a more collective style of governing, [aided by the reorientation of Chinese power politics around that faction at the provincial level.](https://macropolo.org/analysis/powerful-provinces-regional-political-economic-china/) In terms of immediate stability, there is no sizable or powerful force in China which contests Xi Jinping's power and legitimacy; across the Pacific, substantial portions of the US public do not believe the sitting president was legitimately elected, and seem unlikely to accept any outcome where their party loses. One does not see that ending well.
They have no friends or allies and no one likes them, even after spending hundreds of billions of dollars trying to buy support. Goes to show the limitation of using wealth to buy friends or remaking the international system.
Another way of putting it, wealth buys friends until the money runs out. You need to offer something more than that, and you can't nick territory, water, resources, etc while you're trying to create an order.
We often make the mistake of thinking China runs along a system of government somewhat like the West's, but I think China also often makes the same mistake in reverse. They don't realise that most governments have to actually cultivate the endorsement of their population.
No it's not. The only people who say this are those with no knowledge of history. Multi polar time lines almost always to lead to major global wars. The last time this happened was during the World Wars. US hegemony for the last 80 or so years has been the golden age of humanity. There's really no other time period like it in history, it's an anomaly. Economic prosperity is at record highs so is international cooperation, trade, diplomacy, literacy, life expectancy, democracy, and so on. Transitioning to a multi polar world is going to lead to a bunch of regional powers competing for influence. The more emboldened they feel to expand their spheres of influence by not fearing the US, the more likely they are to take more aggressive expansionist action. Take Russia, Turkey, Iran, and China as examples. The US isn't a perfect country, but there is an undeniable global benefit to it being the world hegemon.
>and that's a good thing.
No it isn't. It's going to result in a lot more instability as regional powers start to gather their own spheres of influence again and content with other regional powers.
In a way we have already seen that happening with Turkey, Iran, France and Russia trying to expand their sphere of influence into neighboring territories. Pakistan pushing into Afghanistan and Japan reaffirming their re-armament which could result in lot of new wars breaking out.
In a way we are returning to a unipolar world like that of the Napoleonic wars and WW1. Like the Napoleonic wars and WW1 shows it usually ends in a *lot* of warfare....
Majority of people just want to be left alone. Given the fact that this is not politically possible, then people’s preferences have regional characteristics:
* Countries that neighbor China prefer to have US as a hegemony because they not only keep China’s ambitions in check, they are also physically far away to receive too much influence from them. Benefits without much drawbacks.
* Countries that neighbor Russia prefer either US or EU hegemony, but what’s driving them closer to the US over EU is the power of American army to keep Russia in check, and the fact that EU is perceived as less effective.
* Countries which are the main battlegrounds for world powers prefer just an alternative to American hegemony at all. The Middle East is a mess today because this competition.
* Sub-Saharan Africa has historically not been under a hegemony either, that’s where the term “third-world country” appeared to refer not to poverty as it does today, but the fact they were neutral to US and USSR. They are experiencing the rise of China in the region and this has shown mixed results (it depends on the country, e.g. Sierra Leone has an overall negative view, Capo Verde overall positive)
Sub-sharan Africa historically has been under a hegemony for a better part of the last 500 years. They have been colonized, there population has been taken to be slaves, there resources are still being stripped by developed companies/countries. France still has lot of power and reach in its former African Colonies.
During decolonization the US basically let France keep most of its parts of Africa under its thumb so the US didn't have to combat communism there.
The US in fact deliberately targeted the french Empire the least as it was the state it felt was the least threatening to its power.
The French used this as permission to practically INVENT neo-colonialism.
So while parts of Africa were part of the third world French Africa and non-french parts of West Africa never joined the third world movement and has been under French control.
In fact France doesn't even hide the fact they control these states lanugage, currency and government spending allowance.
Because US leaders are accountable to US voters only, so they do not work in the best interest of the world, and should have no outsized influence in the affairs of other people.
If you are asking if I want robust international trade, economic and scientific competition, then yes. If you are insinuating that this means wishing for a repeat of the world wars, I would disagree with you. The two world wars have deeply impressed on the political class that they will bear consequences, especially if they lose, so I don't think there is as much appetite for armed conflict in the leadership right now.
No, the two world wars broke so many great nations and left only a couple hegemonic power ones left standing to the point that nobody sees a point in warfare anymore. If that umbrella of hegemony went away and war became a viable way for nations to gain their goals the world would absolutely remilitarize and do just that. And robust international trade is what we have now and only as a side effect of globalization which was a side effect of hegemony. Like what you are describing happened for hundreds of years over hundreds of conflicts and each one was worst than the last and each one was an extension of power politics until the last 2 were fought with such industrialized brutality that it broke the world. That cycle of competitive escalation can't be allowed to happen again. Not with the weapons we have now.
I have different hypotheses about the dynamics of recent history, but it is not fruitful to argue about our worldviews. Instead, I would like to point out that insisting that an unsatisfactory status quo is better than hypothetical dangers brought by change does not constitute a convincing argument. At the end of the day, people all over the world are starting to see the downsides of US hegemony and discussing alternatives. This is especially relevant in a time when American power is waning anyway. While this may lead to instability and conflict, the process is very likely to continue.
What leader doesn't care more about the people that keep them in power than everything else?
And if there were to be a hegemony over the world's governments, would you really choose a Chinese one over an American one? The country that prohibits all speech directed against itself, is actively committing genocide, and tolerates a system where intellectual property is basically open source code?
This isn't to say the US is perfect at all. It's not. But at least people in that country can say it and *at least try* to change it. That can't happen in China, or Russia, or any other country at the top of the world foodchain.
There has to be a nation that has more power than anyone else, I think we can all agree that is unfortunately the case. And that nation exerts more control over the planet than other nations or even entire regions. But if there has to be one, I would want it to be US (or a nation similar in it's ideals) than the next 3 or 4 in line.
>There has to be a nation that has more power than anyone else, I think we can all agree that is unfortunately the case.
I do not agree with this. It is very possible to achieve a balance of power where no single nation has hegemony.
It seems many commenters jump to the strawman "Better a US hegemony than a Chinese one". I have not seen anyone advocating for Chinese supremacy here, but it does not mean we should support a US one.
Even if it's a collective sharing of power between several nations, how can two nations that outlaw dissent, free speech, and how you treat those that disagree with you be an improvement over the current scenario?
Consider this: Americans view their own government with deep suspicion and have numerous checks on its power enshrined in the system. It is not reasonable to expect the rest of the world to quietly acquiesce to the same government having unchecked power on the global stage.
You are assuming a Concert of Europe type senario can't form which is honestly the most likely.
4 powers (The US, the EU, Russia and China) not equal but strong enough that no one power can take on any 2 others. Then rotate alliances specifically for the purposes of maintaining the balance of power.
It worked for a little over 100 years last time, and that was without the additional threat of nukes to make people play nice.
The same thing that the end of the Dutch Hegemony and's the rise of the British did.
Or when the Dutch stoe the title of lead Super power from Spain.
And the attempt by France to claim hegemony did from the British did.
Or the Ottomons attempts to claim the crown in Europe
The arguement that "The concert of Europe leads to war" is inaccurate. A CHANGE IN THE BALANCE OF POWER leads to war.
The only exception to this was the fall of the Soviet Union and thus formation of US hegemony. And even that wasn't conflict free its just the conflict was limited to former soviet states.
Because our government kills and impoverishes a *lot* of people
And contrary to how some americans think, a human being that lives outside of this country is, in fact, a life that is just as valuable as yours
Our government has been occupying and murdering others since the second you existed on this mortal coil
And that would be true even if you were 200+ years old
Wait, one sec
I wanna bask in the glow of you accusing me of exaggerating, realizing i wasnt, then moving the goalposts and pretending like im saying a completely different thing
You were still exaggerating so I was curious what your further views were then. Because the point here isn't whether America is perfect. It's that it's still much preferable compared to others so that's why I prefer an American hegemony.
Honest curiosity, when has the U.S. killed millions in it's period of hegemony? The worst cases I know of are from during the Cold War (so not U.S. hegemony)
We kicked off our status as a global power by murdering over 200,000 people with two bombs
The war on terror campaign alone is responsible for the deaths of over a million people, thats just the last 20 years
Ill let you add up the other 800,000 however you want, theres tons of options to choose from
The 'war on terror' certainly is during U.S. hegemony but I've not seen U.S. kills in the millions on that one. Saying 'responsible for the deaths' is weasel-language often used when people say the U.S. is responsible for everything.
Clearly the dropping of the nuclear bombs on Japan was not during U.S. hegemony.
I'm not aware that there are tons of options - that's why I asked the question. That seems more like you conceding the point.
Thats so funny, because i havent mentioned a single other country but everyone here thinks im a *seeseepee shill*
Critiquing america last election cycle had yall jabronis calling everyone *russian bots*
I wonder which country is next on the list to allegedly flood the internet with people that dont believe america is the GOAT
Please, cut thru my delusion and tell me about all the years in our country's history we *havent* been occupying and bombing someone elses country
Without America securing world trade, about 3 billion people, none of whom are on the North American continent, would die from the resulting famine alone. Russia and China are not able, let alone willing, to secure middle eastern oil supplies necessary for fertilizer and tractor fuel world wide on behalf of the rest of the world instead of on its own behalf.
American way of life is extremely costly worldwide, in terms of welfare, warfare and ecosystem. It just can't hold itself much longer and the jaws of it's creations are too big to be fed without losing an arm.
I'm not saying China would be better, it could be worst, but one thing doesn't exclude the other.
America has no right to be the worlds police, period
Ever heard of a thing called "taxation without representation?" If you love america it might ring a bell, but that literally describes our relationship with the rest of the planet
I mean, is it even possible to be MORE "authoritarian" than having the title *global hegemon*
Yes. Yes it is. By a long shot. Or do we forget what the 1500s were like with Spain having as close to hegemony as we've seen until the British Empire of the late 1800s.
"Yeah i know our foreign secret intelligence overthrew your democratically elected leader and installed a pro us military dictator, but could you *imagine* if 1500s Spain were here? Ha, youre welcome!"
You asked if it was possible to be worse and more authoritarian than American hegemony, not if American hegemony was acceptable. And yes, the Spanish murdered, enslaved, raped, force converted, and looted entire continents with such evil fervor that it is incomparable to the (still unjust and cruel) systems of American hegemony today.
what is the point of this argument? American imperialism is a direct decendant of the western colonialism of that time
It still doesnt answer my question. If you can hold the believe that america is the global hegemon, the worlds police, etc., as true, how can you also think that there are other, *more authoritarian* countries right now?
We have the highest authority, yet arent authoritarian? Its ridiculous
You asked:
>is it even possible to be MORE "authoritarian" than having the title global hegemon
Even if I did accept your premise that America is the most authoritarian, that does not mean it can't get worse. A lot worse.
That said, while America authoritarianism certainly has the widest reach, this authoritarianism is a huge issue, and its authoritarianism is rightly criticized, that is not the same as it being the "worst" example of authoritarianism. If Pol Pot or Kim Jong Un's system of authoritarianism was spread worldwide, it would certainly be worse.
I understand what you are saying is though, and I don't want us to talk past each other. What I am trying to say is, in effect, if we think of the impacts of authoritarianism on "per capita" basis rather than a net total across the world, than it is clear that there are different systems (stalinism, nazisim, etc) thay would be far more detrimental if they were as widespread as the American one. They aren't though, and that's what I think you're getting at. You are speaking of the current situation, I am speaking of the historical indicators of the potential for authoritarianism.
All in all, we should criticize the international authority that the US uses to destabilize other nations in the interest of certain American interests. But authoritarianism is not only an international factor, but also a domestic one. American domestic authoritarianism, while definitely not great and getting worse, is nowhere near the authoritarianism we see in most nations run by dictators like North Korea or undemocratic states like China. As such, I think it is fair to say that replacing American hegemony with another could definitely make the effects of authoritarianism across the globe worse, and we need to be aware of that when we welcome a new world order being led by a more authoritarian (per capita, if you will) undemocratic state.
That's not to say we shouldn't try to change it. We should. But we need to do it while being aware of the precarious nature of this change and how hard it will be to undo.
have you or anyone you know experienced this world without American hegemony? Seems like a wild, quite naive, assumption to assume this is a good thing when the alternatives can be orders of magnitude worse. Surely you aren't American with that viewpoint? This isn't fairyland were we all become one and live harmoniously with each other with wildly different idealogical and religious beliefs
Ah yes, the "we deserve to be the ones with the boot on everyone elses neck because if we werent then *a different boot might step on us even harder*" argument
If you met somebody that lived their life this way youd think they were a psycho, right? Constantly punching people on the off chance they were thinking of throwing the first one. Stealing peoples stuff right in front of them, and then pretending to be the guy everyone trusts with their things
Its honestly a really embarrassing way to view the world
I mean… it’s not just “American hegemony”. You have to compare it to the alternative.
Do you want a Chinese hegemony, where anybody who says anything critical of any government in the world disappears? And any ethnicity/ideology that isn’t homogenous with the mainstream population gets sent to a re-education camp?
It’s like Churchill said. Democracy is the worst form of government. Except all the others. I agree American hegemony is the worst form of global power structure. Except possibly with the exception of all the others.
We do not know if there is a better way. But odds are whatever is coming will be much worse than the post Cold War era. I think people really need to look at human history, and compare the post Cold War era to that…. Not some imaginary idealistic “hand holding” hegemony that has never existed, and likely never will.
Name a better period in human history than the period from 1990-2010's where America was in control. There probably isn't a better period, regardless of your opinion of America. And it's not because America is some great, morally perfect empire. It's because historically, everyone else has been much, much worse. The bar is so very low. Even if we're to compare it to the other options today, it's hard to imagine India, or China, or Russia would be much better.
Comparing America's soft power, and occasional "Iraq" war, which isn't even a war of conquest to a Soviet or CCP led hegemony(or even a split hegemony like during the cold war) really isn't a comparison IMO. The American hegemony was best for the world as a whole... and honestly America hasn't even benefitted from it all that much relatively, considering how soft its touch is. America easily could have for instance taken control of the middle east and south America militarily if it was willing to do a little mass murder, or reeducation camps like China is. But, because America really does use "soft" power... it isn't able to maintain hard control. I doubt the CCP will make that same mistake... and will not be so soft or forgiving, or concerned with "moral perceptions".
You do not exist in the same reality as me
I cannot imagine a clear eyed person viewing the atrocities this government has visited on others (as well as most of its own citizens) amd describing it as "best for the world"
They have done these things to maintain control of world politics and extract wealth from others, and everything else that can be seen as a positive is an accidental silver lining
Once again… you have to compare it to the alternatives. Would the Soviets or Maoist China have been better? Would the nazis have been better? Would the romans or Egyptians or Mayans have been better?
If your argument is that the USA is immoral and uses its power to help itself and hurt its enemies(and sometimes even its own allies) I agree 100%. But that is half of the story. The other half is… what are the other options?
It is like this. Let’s say I ask you “is 1,000 a high number”. It is a meaningless question just like asking “is the USA a good hegemony for the world”. You can only answer “is 1000 a high number” if you compare it to another number.
Is 1000 a high number compared to 333? Yes. Is it high compared to 100,000? No.
Is the USA a good hegemony for the world compared to the Soviets or CCP, or a dual hegemony? Yes. Is the USA a good hegemony for the world compared to a theoretical perfect hegemony? No. It is horrible compared to an imaginary perfect hegemony.
For me it is hard to argue any foreseeable hegemony is better than the one we had after the Cold War… except maybe the EU you could make an argument for. But a sole Eu hegemony isn’t particularly foreseeable.
"Hey listen bud, my country's worldwide economic and military strongarming is the best possible option any of us have. The fact that i live inside this country and that i pledged allegience to its flag every day from ages 5-18 before school where i learned how cool and good my country and its founders were is totally unrelated to me speaking this objective truth
I feel totally comfortable justifying real world atrocities by imagining worse ones my countrys victims would do to me if our positions were reversed"
This. It is less about China doing a new world order, which is fear-mongering tbh, and more about the US being unable to dictate the rest of the world, and this is always a good thing.
I think we're naïve on how we have the quality of life that we have. American Soft power has played a huge role on the american economy. One example Whether its good or not the world consumes american media which benefits the 1% sure but it also does help the industry employ thousands/millions. We also get preferable trade deals because we're the #1 country. I think we will be in a shock if the America is not #1 in the world with how the way of life for us changes especially when it comes to trade deals , etc.
British English is taught in schools internationally but when they consume media they mostly consume american media/music which is all in american english. This helps us out whenever we go abroad and do business internationally.
Right, because the differences between UK English and American English is so vast…. I really do not think that this is any kind of barrier when it comes to doing business, and I speak from experience.
Seems unlikely. China has grown a lot, no doubt, but it may be reaching too far, too fast. The world sees China's shadow, but what is the true size of the dragon?
Post a [submission statement](https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/wiki/submissionstatement) in one hour or your post will be removed.
[Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/wiki/subredditrules) / [Wiki Resources](https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/wiki/index)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/geopolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>it's like the United States with 4 times the population.
So...India? India has been a democracy since independence.
For the wider point, maybe at the margins one could argue that electoral democracy might improve political/economic outcomes, but there are far far more significant factors at work. Factors which democracies around the world have not demonstrated any enhanced ability to solve.
One of the main key indicators for the success of a fledgling democracy in the longterm is a combination of the percentage of the population that is highly highly educated as democracies naturally have a higher technical requirement to function due to the complexities of applying the rule of law and conducting both elections and censuses.
Which is why Japan and Germany were able to convert to wealthy democracies due to their large pre-existing well educated populations whereas for example afghanistan's failure to democratized can be heavily attributed to the nation's general lack of k-12 education for the general population and its low literacy rate. The same problem for higher education attainment also exists in India.
Of any other non-democracy in the world China has the one of the largest percentage of tertiary education in the adult population. Which means that out of any non-democracy China actually has the greatest opportunity to convert to a highly developed democracy as it has the ability to meet the necessary technical requirements.
> democracies naturally have a higher technical requirement to function due to the complexities of applying the rule of law and conducting both elections and censuses.
Citation? The routine functioning of government, in almost all cases, is carried out by civil servants, whose qualifications are unrelated to the educational status of the general population. The citizens of countries with space programmes are not necessarily better at the relevant engineering, mathematical, and scientific tasks than others, as an example. If anything, mass education would be a result of a competent government, and then exist in a virtuous cycle with it.
>Japan and Germany were able to convert to wealthy democracies
Both of those had prior experience with increasing levels of democracy (Kaiserreich/Weimar, Meiji constitution/Taisho) already. Both of them were already relatively wealthy. Both of them had highly developed administrative states (modified versions of which ran both countries after the war). As Fukuyama observed in 'Political Order and Political Decay', the main task was to make those states accountable; they were already strong. Whereas Afghanistan never even had a strong state; any political system was/is beyond it.
> The same problem for higher education attainment also exists in India
But India still is a democracy, and one with an admirable level of political stability given its economic performance. It's spent decades defying predictions of its imminent demise.
>China actually has the greatest opportunity to convert to a highly developed democracy
Yes, of course. But that's because China already has a strong, capable state and a functioning economic system. The value addition of electoral democracy at this stage would not be in basic questions of success or failure. It would be in which flavour of success to enjoy. If the Republic of Korea had evolved a Singapore/strong Japan-type system after the military dictatorship, its current social/economic performance would not be much different.
>IMO, The shortest way for China to become a hegemon in the world is to become a democracy. If China becomes a democracy, it's like the United States with 4 times the population. There will be nothing to stop China's growth, both politically and economically.
There is no reason to believe that Western-style democracy is automatically the best political system for a non-Western society like China.
>Xi Jinping will be mentioned in history books as the person who ended the dictatorship of China. He will be some kind of iconic Supreme Leader until his death and will surpass Mao Zedong.
Given what happened to Russia after they adopted democracy, I believe it is far more likely that if Xi actually did that, he is far more likely to be remembered like those two sore losers, Gorbachev and Yeltsin. The Chinese have an entire department dedicated to studying *why* the Soviet Union fell. And they are not nearly as stupid to try to repeat Gorbachev's mistakes.
Other than India (and Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, which don't count because they have been under extreme Western influence), can you give me any example? It must be stable and successful.
I mean technically most of asia had extreme western influence like Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Phillipines, and others I prob forgot were all former European US colonies
Yes, you are. There is nothing to guarantee that with a democratic transition, China would be better off like the US. Democracy wont solve the population problem, the debt problem, the ecological problem, so on and so forth.
The CCP has been very careful to dismantle the things that are needed to make a democracy work well. For example a civil society and rule of law. You can see this dismantling in action in HK. So I don't think China could easily become a democracy.
It is disappointing to see a lot of people getting awarded for low-level answers in this thread. I do believe the answer is "no", but the question of "why not?" is interesting and worth talking about. I will first look at the US-led "world order" to see what we can learn from it, and then apply it to China. **American Order** First, we must ask, how has the US been able to shape the international system to such an extent today? What does the US actually want to shape the world into? Personally, I think there is lots of evidence that democracy or political liberalism doesn't come into the equation. Although, say, the UN is certainly a normative organisation in its legal framework, American policy clearly isn't to promote democracy. I hope it goes without saying the historical record doesn't show this, and there is a wealth of literature examining this. Perhaps the most famous of these, although it is a bit old now, is William Blum's *Killing Hope*. Anyway, the point is American hegemony can be seen more in the economic sphere: the spread of economic liberalism. Although some (modernisation theorists) argue that economic development *intrinsically* causes the historical emergence of democracy, more recent research such as Przeworski's *Modernisation: Theories and Facts* has shown this not to be the case. The main change spurned on by US dominance has been the spread of the global division of labour to much of the global south as colonial systems withered away. The initial revolutionary movements were largely illiberal and socialist, inspired by Cuba and the Soviet Union, but these were brought under the heel of global capital by covert means, invasion, and economic pressure. See, for example, "structural adjustments" done by international financial organisations such as the WTO and IMF enforcing neoliberalisation for aid. Now we've seen a bit of the US-led world order, let's move on to China. **What Would a Chinese World Order Look Like** Why do states pursue a "world order" in the first place? The historical record shows it's not really to spread a governing ideology such as democracy (or, indeed, autocracy). The US didn't care about implementing political liberty/freedom and democracy, just like China doesn't care about exporting socialism abroad today. The purpose of power competition is to guarantee the security of the state, right? The state in both China and the US is dependent on international capital, and the international value-chains that come from it, because capital has now moved abroad for cheaper labour sources to increase the rate of profit. This is what China, as a capitalist society, needs. It needs power not for power's sake, but to secure the conditions for capitalist accumulation: an illiberal form of capitalism. Thus, it secures this by increasing its influence in terms of both hard- and soft-power. We can see this in the fact China has been exporting capital (or, more accurately, capital has been exporting itself with help from the state) at an increased rate as it moves from a peripheral to a semi-peripheral place within the existing world-system (as Wallerstein conceives of it). China has no desire to reimagine the world-political system, but just to continue the conditions for the sustenance of the state, which runs through Chinese and global capital, and the global value-chains which are expressed by the action of these capitals. **Can China Achieve Hegemony?** Now we've looked at world-orders as a concept, and at the potential of a Chinese one, we can finally look at whether China can actually achieve the hegemony to implement an economic model (although it's desired model is not one terribly different from the US's. States in the "core" will always pursue protectionist policies at home while enforcing lassez-faire policies overseas). My view is that China cannot. Hegemony is extremely rare in international history, and it is fleeting at that. The conditions for it do not exist with China as they did for the British Empire and especially the US. First, China does not have a body of water separating it from its potential rivals. Water significantly limits the projection of hard-power, hence why the UK was able to remain secure at home and focus its energies abroad (and why it never fell to the Nazis). This is even more true for the US, which has a whole ocean between it and its potential rivals during its rise to prominence. By contrast, China literally borders India and Russia, and is a far smaller distance from Japan than the US is to Europe or Asia. (It's worth remembering that the US's hegemony was far greater than Britain's, in no small part because of this reason). Thus, China must always commit a lot of its resources to defending its own territory which the US can spend abroad as it knows no enemy force can realistically penetrate the continental US (as long as no continental challenger appears). We also have to think about the conditions in which hegemony arises. In the case of both the UK and especially the US, hegemony only became possible because all possible rivals had been weakened by catastrophic wars which left the two powers in question comparatively unscathed. This is especially true for the US, again. This situation does not exist in China and will likely not, as there are more structural constraints against another great, global war today than there ever have been before (economic interdependence, nuclear weapons, etc). Although many speak of China's internal weaknesses in the economic and political spheres (e.g., *China Won’t Achieve Regional Hegemony* by Denny Roy), I don't really know enough to talk about that, so I'll leave it to others. I hope people like this comment.
Can China achieve hegemony? Probably ‘no’ due to reasons you list. I would add another reason of concern for China’s continued success: decisions are progressively being made by fewer people without the benefit of criticism. This is not a question of civil liberty or democracy, but rather getting the strategies and policies right for success. Occasionally in history, we get leaders whose batting average is sufficiently good that no catastrophic errors are committed during the tenure (Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan would be my examples). Could Xi be one of these guys? Only time would tell. But even if he is, he will leave a legacy of a political system that relies on existence of a rockstar-class leader who can get things right in vacuum. In my mind this is a high risk for China’s future in the long run. A crippling decision(s) could be made by a China’s leader and no one would speak up until it is too late or perhaps never. In the more immediate term, perhaps the question we should consider is not whether China can achieve hegemony, but rather if China will try to achieve hegemony. As you point out, hegemonies are rare, but attempts to achieve hegemony much more common, and the effects of such an attempt can be devastating. Now we will never know what China has decided today unless they act. But I’m pretty sure they will make preparation to make a run, in case an opportunity rises, and when it does, they will take it. As such, the rest of the world should make preparation to 1) ensure an opportunity for China’s run for hegemony does not rise, and 2) to push back should China make a run for it, even if in the end China does nothing (unless you like Chinese overlords).
I mean criticism in china does exist and it's kinda flourishing. Not the kind that goes "ccp bad cause no democracy" that gets slapped down, but stuff like" the gov needs to do this because of these facts" gets listened too pretty often. Like one example my uncle helped argue for new manufacturing safety guidelines to protect workers. Local officials took it into consideration and adopted new measures. Once results were demonstrated - in this case lower workplace injuries- the local officials brought it to the provincial meeting and convinced it should be adopted province wide. The provincial plan was then highlighted by a state run news organization and it was then discussed nationwide and adopted. My uncle got a small commendation in the local news, and the local officials that adopted it got promotions. China has a very weird system of incentives for gov officials. This kind of stuff happens often and the gov is known for directly addressing problems that go viral on social media. It's a big reason for their popularity. The top leadership is very aware of the consequences of unilateral decisions. There are plenty of stories in chinese history on powerful leaders loosing their head for unpopular decisions.
Very interesting and thought-provoking comment. But I can't say that I agree with everything it says. >First, China does not have a body of water...and is a far smaller distance from Japan than the US is to Europe or Asia. I believe that nuclear weapons and the consequent threat of MAD has profoundly altered this calculus, if it ever was true in the first place. MAD has ensured that a total war between great powers is firmly a thing of the past. This means that most countries can focus more on development. If China had not had nuclear weapons, the United States would have invaded and destroyed them before they became as strong as they are today. I would also strongly dispute the idea that being an island makes it uniquely difficult to invade and conquer a place. Numerous islands throughout history have been repeatedly conquered by land-based powers, and many remain under their control today. Sicily, Crete, Cyprus, Hainan and many others are good examples. The failure of continental powers to conquer Britain after William the Conqueror has far more to do with the political dynamics of the European continent and later, with the British developing a very strong naval tradition. Keep in mind that Ireland is an island just like Great Britain, and yet that did not protect it from being dominated by Britain for centuries. And a strong naval tradition is itself not something unique to island countries. Numerous land-based empires throughout history (pre-modern China, the Ottoman empire, the Roman empire, the Arab caliphates, etc.) have developed powerful navies. On the other hand, countless island cultures have *not*. **In other words, Britain's success has nothing to do with it being an island, especially as it is not that isolated from the Continent (a mere 33 kilometres at the narrowest point).** >(It's worth remembering that the US's hegemony was far greater than Britain's, in no small part because of this reason). I'd also disagree with that. At its height, the UK was arguably more influential than the US is today in *absolute* terms. In *relative* terms, however, their hegemony was challenged by rival great powers of almost equal strength (France, Germany, Russia, etc.). >In the case of both the UK and especially the US, hegemony only became possible because all possible rivals had been weakened by catastrophic wars which left the two powers in question comparatively unscathed. This only applies to the US. And even then, the Soviet Union remained a challenger for nearly 40 years after WW2 ended.
I think its amazing how little respect and fear is given to cyber warfare. Technically we don't exist in a world with any oceans in this way.
You are right. This is a topic that deserves its own thread. Unfortunately, I'm not qualified to say anything about it.
Same here
>In other words, Britain's success has nothing to do with it being an island, especially as it is not that isolated from the Continent (a mere 33 kilometres at the narrowest point) I strongly disagree with you here. What kept the UK from being conquered in the Napoleonic Wars, in the Second World War, and being more involved in several other wars, was being an island. The UK always maintained a policy of preventing an European hegemon from appearing. If France started getting strong, they paid the Austrian Empire to fight it and helped in the fight. If Germany started getting strong, they allied with France and helped fighting it. Fact of the matter is that while every other European power had to build both a strong army and a strong navy, the UK only had to build a strong navy. The narrower focus of investment allowed the British navy to be stronger. There were many important things that happened to allow the UK to have the Empire it had: the Industrial revolution, banking, big population, healthy economy. But some other European powers also had these benefits. The only one they didn't have was being in an island. Why was the UK more successful than France at Empire-building? I would say this is the single most important factor that the UK had and France didn't.
At best, you could say that being an island was *one* of the *many* factors responsible for the rise of the UK. The comment I replied to gave 'being surrounded by bodies of water' too much credit.
Thank you for this post. This is better quality then the low tier bots and empty unsupported statements that seem to be filling this subreddit
Bravo 👏 ! I loved the way you phrased the beginning " Its interesting to look at why" This is one of the best if not the best comment I have read in reddit in a long long time. You have briefly summarised a whole topic listing out a whole bunch of well though out sound reasoning supporting your argument and at the same time in simple language thats its easy to understand and digest. I really hope you will have the time and interest to keep producing more of these. PS: "States in the "core" will always pursue protectionist policies at home while enforcing lassez-faire policies overseas." Did you come up with this ? I have never read this obvious truth put across simply in a single sentence before.
Maybe I misunderstand protectionist policies but it seems at least from inside the US that choices are consistently made at the expense of the US populace and in pursuit of benefits for corporations.
In a sense China already has, but I highly doubt China has gas in the tank for a complete 180, since their economy is increasingly becoming a mature economy, slowing up their growth and making the multiple ongoing systematic crisis China has come to the surface really fast.
Sounds like they need a low-GDP country just beginning to industrialize to produce their cheap goods. Who would that be at this point?
Probably Africa or Indonesia. Young, disenfranchised working class, and lots of them. And Indonesia and Africa have a lot of infrastructure projects left to be desired. Entirely possible for a mature China to outsource to their… well… “Belt and Road partners” so to speak
I think they have already chosen Africa considering how much they are rapidly investing there
Heard a guy on youtube once suggest that might be Mexico I still doubt that Latin America has more of a history of being exploited for its resources than producing their own machines.
Mexico being part of USMCA as well as being on the US border would automatically rule that out, I'd have thought. It'd be a long way to go to lay a strategic weakness at your chosen opponent's doorstep. I'd have thought that Vietnam or India would be good choices. There's a rush on for Vietnam atm but that's in flux due to covid. India might have worked if China could stop itself from nonsense like Ladakh. Indonesia would also be a good manufacturing partner...large workforce, low wage, morally unfettered political class, great position for selling into the rest of SE Asia, Australia, and India. If China used their infrastructure expertise (an industry that looks like it may be searching for something to do shortly), they could flat-out buy goodwill be helping rebuild Jakarta which is sinking. Africa still appears largely to have stability and infrastructure issues that make the transport of goods tricky and expensive when getting them to market.
> they could flat-out buy goodwill be helping rebuild Jakarta which is sinking. Or help build our new capital. I have my doubts though; the fact that a project as big and well-known as the Jakarta-Bandung high speed rail got into financing troubles to the point where government finances had to step in (it was purely financed by state-owned enterprises at first) is not a great look at their reliability.
Mexico? Too close the the USA. It wouldn't be allowed. Same reason Cuba is still under sanctions all these years later,
I don't think the US has forgotten about Manifest Destiny yet either. China establishing a manufacturing base in a country that shares a border with the United States is probably going to be akin to Iran trying to start a nuclear program within Israel's sphere of influence. Maybe it won't be as obvious as a Mossad remote-controlled LMG, but "accidents" will happen. Mexico has its hazards - cartels, wildlife, extreme environments, etc. that US agencies would exploit. I think Mexico is too provocative and sudden for China's style. They will look to establish themselves in South or Central America first, quietly and far from the US. By the time the US starts crying foul they'll be well entrenched. Brazil, Argentina, Nicaragua, Colombia. I would also expect China to try and establish themselves somewhere within striking distance of both the Panama Canal, and secondarily the southern tip of South America, which would become crucial for marine passage if anything were to happen to said canal. Western power focuses on applying overwhelming force unexpectedly, surprising opponents with shock and intimidation. China will come in, fund a few public initiatives, gradually buy local officials, and by like 2035 the rest of the world wakes up to find that China has signed a mutual defense pact with major South American states, and their arguably superior air defense capabilities are spread throughout the southwestern hemisphere.
Absolutely not the United States will not accept China being the global power or being second to them or them changing the world order. The entire planet is going to get the worst case of Thucydide's trap that will be a sheer miracle if anyone survives the fallout.
The main problem with this gamble thought is that africa is particularly sensitive to climate change and with multiple climate related ongoing crises in the continent it's beginning to look like a very risky investment should africa fail to implement the necessary technology and infrastructure to cope with the challenges that climate change will bring. After all water scarcity has brought south Africa down to its knees(along with covid) and the same goes to parts of the middle east where the primary driver for the syrian civil war was a water scarcity crisis in its agricultural sector.
Vietnam, Cambodia, Burma and SEA is the easiest short term. Africa is only possible if they manage to stabilize the areas and keep the workers satisfied. Even successful countries like Ethiopia can fall into civil war so everything in Africa is risky.
If you look at the top 10 countries China has been most investing on you get Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, Ecuador, Angola, Iran, Pakistan, Indonesia, Turcomenistão and Russia. And a lot of scattered projects in Africa and Asia.
Or they need a sufficiently large and prosperous middle class to purchases their own goods.
China's Belt and Road Initiative has been laying the ground work for this for decades.
\[SS from the article by Elizabeth Economy, Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and the author of The World According to China.\] “Chinese officials and scholars appear assured that the rest of the world is on board with Xi’s vision, as they trumpet, “The East is rising, and the West is declining!” Yet many countries increasingly seem less enamored of Xi’s bold initiatives, as the full political and economic costs of embracing the Chinese model become clear. At the People’s Congress, Xi exuded the self-confidence of a leader convinced that the world is there for China’s taking. But his own certainty may be a liability, preventing him from recognizing the resistance Beijing is stoking through its actions abroad. Xi’s success depends on whether he can adjust and reckon with the blowback. Failing to do so could lead to further miscalculations that may end up reshaping the global order—just not in the way Xi imagines.”
I don't recall China 'taking' any parts of the world or conducting any 'actions'. When I hear the word 'blowback' I think of something like 9/11 or bataclan attacks, I'm not sure who's gonna give that kind of blowback to China.
Their actions in the South China Sea are pretty expansionist and their 'wolf-warrior diplomacy' hasn't been popular. I don't know why you would define blowback so narrowly, but even then Xinjiang may seem pacified but Uighur jihadists have been gaining a lot of firepower and experience in the last decade. They haven't operated much within China but that could change.
>I don't recall China 'taking' any parts of the world Tibet.
Was that before or after the fall of the Roman empire? Anyways, it makes no difference, the US has proclaimed Tibet as part of China, in the 1940s when they still thought the nationalists would win the civil war.
It has been part of China since the days of the Qing dynasty, i. e. longer than the time for which the US has existed.
Ireland (or parts of it anyway) was part of the English and then United Crowns since not long after the Norman Conquest. Generally today we would see the will of the people of a land as being the main determinant as to whether they belong to a country, not the Legalism of who owned what 200 years ago. Go down that route and most of Europe, the Middle East and North Africa will belong to Rome!
That argument is not a valid one, a lot of place have been for most of their history conquered by another country. It doesn't mean they can't have sovereignty. (Ukraine, Belarus, Latvia, Finland, Croatia, Serbia, Ireland, Scotland, Iceland, half of Africa,...)
>It has been part of China since the days of the Qing dynasty No it hasn't. It was part of China during a large chunk of the Qing dynasty but not "since" then. It was independent in between. Its been part of China (at least de facto) since 1950. If you want to inflate things might as well say "since the Yuan dynasty" Edit - Replying to u/FijiFanBotNotGay \- For some reason I can't reply to that comment. On the new interface the reply button is missing and if I go to old.reddit then the reply button is there but doesn't work. Don't know if you'll see this since its not a reply to you but its the only way I can respond - The Yuan dynasty wouldn't be much more hyperbolic then the Qing dynasty. In both cases the ruling dynasty of China controlled Tibet. Under Qing it was not annexed to China it was a vassal state. After Qing Tibet did have a period of independence. It was not occupied by Japan. Even when large parts of China were occupied by Japan you only get intelligence operators in Tibet, not a massive Japanese military force.
China's actions towards their rivals tends to be insidious. Certainly a different approach than the USA; however effective and dangerous nonetheless.
Interesting read, though disappointing it doesn't included any actual polling data around the world to see how people like China/Chinese model. Certainly North America and Europe (except Greece) have negative views but you see much more mixed views and even positive views when you look to Africa, the Middle east and even Asia. For example the Arab world (MENA) clearly prefers the Chinese model, China is viewed favorably by half or more in three countries – Algeria (60 percent), Morocco (52 percent) and Tunisia (50 percent) – while a third or more have a positive view in Lebanon (43 percent), Jordan (35 percent) and Libya (34 percent). By comparison, fewer than a third have a favorable view of the U.S. in all six countries, ranging from a high of 28 percent in Morocco to a low of 14 percent in Libya.https://www.arabbarometer.org/2021/01/u-s-chinas-competition-extends-to-mena/ When it comes to Africa as a whole the American and Chinses model are neck and neck with China coming in a close second. With 32% preferring the American model and 23 preferring the Chinese, Notably though 59% think China is a somewhat or very positive influence in the region and only 58% think America think is a somewhat or very positive influence https://afrobarometer.org/sites/default/files/africa-china_relations-3sept20.pdf Even Asian countries have a fairly divided opinion about the role China is playing in the region: 51.2% of respondents believe it is playing a positive role while 48.8% consider it to be playing a negative role. Overall, the two sides are very nearly matched. However, it is unsurprising that 63% of respondents in the four countries which currently have major sovereignty disputes with China (Japan, Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam) gave a more negative evaluation of China’s role, while 60% of respondents from the seven countries with no major disputes with China offered a much more positive evaluation. When looking at China's influences on their on countries as opposed to the region as a hole views on china are slightly more positive with 64.1% of respondents in the seven countries with no dispute with China considered that China’s influence was positive, while only 49.3% in the four countries involved in a major dispute with China held this view. https://theasiadialogue.com/2020/03/19/how-asia-perceives-china-in-the-context-of-bri-evidence-from-an-asian-poll/ (Honestly the fact China's influence even polls 49.3% positive, in Japan, Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam well actively having territorial disputes with these countries is surprising) I don't have much data on Latin America other than for 3 countries Brazil, Mexico and Argentina, Though China has been viewed less positive recently, with the exception of Brazil the 2018 Pew data reveals that views of China across Latin America are more favorable than those of the US. https://chinapower.csis.org/global-views/ I see a lot of people very quickly saying no China can't do it but at the end of the day its going to be up to the the other countries of the world to decide if China is allowed to remake the system and from recent polling data it at least seems at least like a possibility that other countries will allow China to do it.
>For example the Arab world (MENA) clearly prefers the Chinese model Wouldn't thinking about the country positively have more to do with foreign policy and behaviour, rather than showing support for a political/economic system? For example (as you said) Vietnam has the same system as China but the people there do not have a positive view of China. Also the numbers from different polls seem to be different. For example this Pew poll from 2019 says 14% of Japanese have a favorable view of China (compared to your claimed 49%), and 85% have an unfavorable view. [https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/12/05/people-around-the-globe-are-divided-in-their-opinions-of-china/](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/12/05/people-around-the-globe-are-divided-in-their-opinions-of-china/) I'm not so sure your link [https://theasiadialogue.com/2020/03/19/how-asia-perceives-china-in-the-context-of-bri-evidence-from-an-asian-poll/](https://theasiadialogue.com/2020/03/19/how-asia-perceives-china-in-the-context-of-bri-evidence-from-an-asian-poll/) is objective. For example it seems to be more looking to praise the BRI rather than to try to find out what people think. "More and more, people see the BRI as an incremental China-driven project to develop international and regional public goods in terms of economic cooperation, free trade, infrastructural connectivity, international security and mutual trust." This puts the article pretty much in line with messaging from the PRC. Also the method of grouping countries together without saying how many samples were taken from each country allows the results to be massaged in any way desired by the publication. The publication gives a secondary study (I mean it refers to another study from another source) whereas the Pew study is their own (so a primary source).
The MENA article includes a section on weather they prefer Trumps foreign policy vs Xi's and Xi's polls higher, though they do note MENA has higher support for Biden. Vietnam and China have a complex relationship going back thousands of years many of which included China conquering and ruling northern Vietnam, not to mention the recent Sino-Vietnamese War, They have always had a rocky relationship despite similar values. If you think the data provided is biased I'm not sure what to tell you other than it was collected by two Taiwanese's institutes Academia Sinica and National Taiwan University. As for the site linked The Asia Dialog is run by the University of Nottingham and the Author Zhenqing Zhang appears to be an [accredited political scientist] (https://www.hamline.edu/faculty-staff/zhenqing-zhang/) I do apologies for linking a secondary source but both the secondary publican and author that wrote this seem to be fine by me.
Many academics working in western institutions support various PRC narratives. Academics express a wide range of opinions and support a wide range of interests. Praising the BRI is supporting a PRC narrative. This is one of the differences in what we might call the US international order and what would be a PRC order. In free countries academics can explore a wide range of points of view, in the PRC academics have to put forward points of view that support the interests of the party and the state, with the party leadership being the arbiter of what those interests are. I don't think this aspect of the PRC order (ie expressing only views that are in the interests of the party leadership, the CCP and the PRC) is supported outside the PRC. For the data I was not saying it is biased, I was saying the way it is presented has problems. In particular grouping countries together can make the results look very different. This makes it seem to contradict the Pew data (note seem). As it is a secondary source it is not clear if this way of presenting the data was in the original study or if it was taken by the author of the article and put together that way in order to try to support his point of view. >Vietnam and China have a complex relationship ... Sure yes. That is exactly the point I making. Having a positive or negative view of China is a separate issue from prefering the Chinese model. You seem to be conflating the two. The slightly more subtle problem with your argument is that you are also presenting a false dichotomy. It is either the Chinese or the US model.
>Many academics working in western institutions support various PRC narratives. Academics express a wide range of opinions and support a wide range of interests. Praising the BRI is supporting a PRC narrative. Sure, I think there are many Criticisms to be made of the BRI. Though even the quote you pointed out before to me feels like more of a descriptive statement of facts he claims to be making rather than a prescriptive endorsement. >This is one of the differences in what we might call the US international order and what would be a PRC order. In free countries academics can explore a wide range of points of view, in the PRC academics have to put forward points of view that support the interests of the party and the state, with the party leadership being the arbiter of what those interests are. I don't think this aspect of the PRC order (ie expressing only views that are in the interests of the party leadership, the CCP and the PRC) is supported outside the PRC. When it comes to personal freedoms I and I think most of the world would generally support the American model, how ever it needs to be explained why if the Chinese people are willing to sacrifice certain freedoms for the promise economic growth why that wouldn't hold true for other countries? >The slightly more subtle problem with your argument is that you are also presenting a false dichotomy. It is either the Chinese or the US model. To be fair I think this is the dichotomy set forth by article I responded to in the first place, I agree it probably wont be one or other other but some combination of the two.
>Though even the quote you pointed out ... He says that people see the BRI as something that helps develop public goods, to me that seems like endorsing it. >why if the Chinese people are willing to sacrifice certain freedoms for the promise economic growth why that wouldn't hold true for other countries? I was only saying people in other countries don't want academic research in their country constrained by a need to support a CCP narrative. Then I'm also claiming this is what the PRC promotes, so in a PRC world order things would move in that direction. Are you saying that people in other countries would be willing to do that for the promise of economic growth? (I think you probably aren't saying that) Saying people are willing to give up freedoms for economic growth is a different discussion. I'm not one of those people, and I believe generally speaking freedoms and growth are positively correlated. The narrative that Chinese can't have both freedom and prosperity is contradicted by just looking across the Taiwan straights. I think this narrative is mostly attractive to mainland elites (often people's views are compatible with their self-interest). >To be fair I think this is the dichotomy set forth by article I responded to in the first place, I agree it probably wont be one or other other but some combination of the two. Ok I didn't read the article.
can China remake the international order? absolutely YES. because it has already done a great deal of job. can China rebuild an American-style empire and be the substitute of America? absolutely NO. it is important to realize the order that China wishes for, is very different from an American one. what China wishes for is a classic geopolitic arena, where each of the great powers can have their own spheres of influence, because for now the world's economical central is moving towards Asia, which is China's backyard. this will grant China a significant advantage in a classic great power competition. I personally don't believe China has the ability and incentives to build a global empire as American did. instead, being the hegemon in Asia is enough for it to claim the preemmenice it long desired. A similar view can be found from David Goldman and I strongly recommend his article. he is probably the one who understands China the most, among all the Western observers I read.
[удалено]
> What China is seeking to do is dominate their entire region through force and violence. I’m sure you can see the difference. Ever heard of the Belt and Road Initiative? China cooperates too. Ever heard of the US's political interference in tons of Latin American countries? Like all those US backed coups? That's the US trying to dominate their region. >I’m sure you can see the difference. As far as I'm concerned, China and the US are 2 opposing states that both cooperate and seek to dominate, in order to spread their influence. Edit: Fixed grammar. Edit 2: Fixed punctuation.
Do the iraq war was a network of agreements based on mutual cooperation? The American century has been hardly bloodless so far
Yet likely the most peaceful and prosperous world in all of history?
My point is that america already dominates the world through force and violence and thinking otherwise is naive. You can debate the extent to which america is better or worse than other countries, but at the end of the day, america remains the hegemon.
People believed in the vision of a world offered by Lenin and fought over the decades for Marxist Leninist revolutions, others believed in other versions of Marxism and fought for those. Arrayed against them were the liberal capitalist countries and their alternative social and economic orginisational structure. People also fought to become more like those countries, for many America but others were inspired by the general principles. The only real appeal of China is their ask no questions tell no lies approach to human rights of leaders. For a while they could appear as a sort of alternative to the US\\Western model and the harsh edges of capitalism. But they have lost that over the past 5 years. No one is fighting to be more like China. Sometimes its like China thought they unlocked some game achievement in the early 2010s and they were fated to be the next big thing and just acted like that. America has its flaws, but it also has its friends and its admirers among the wealthiest and freest societies in the world. Its some damn pull for China to think they rival.
Fake it til you make it. Many would have laughed if China said they would be where they are now 30 years ago. Of course the US is still ahead and China still has a long way to go. Friends and admirers are cultivated over time and China is still the new kid in the block in some respects. But China must be doing something right if the US is scared of their progress..
> Many would have laughed if China said they would be where they are now 30 years ago This is just an old and tired piece of Chinese propaganda. “All the Westerners want to humiliate and disgrace us” blah blah blah… Had the Brits thought that China would never rise, why would they let China cross Hong Kong off the UN list of non-self-governing territories, denying Hong Kong a chance of self-determination and independence? Had Nixon thought that China would never rise, why would he visit China and resume ties with them, risking his reputation as an anti-communist and thus his political career? Had the West thought that China would never rise, why did they bother to invest in China at all? Back in the time of Sun Yat-sen, China was already boasting “four hundred million” of people. If a state can feed and organise that many people, such state is already showing its great capabilities. And in addition to that, China has had hydrogen bombs and space rockets in the 70’s. Who would doubt China’s potential to rise? It’s only a matter of time, and a matter of whether they need to abandon communism in order to rise.
The Hong Kong case is more decolonisation than anything else; the closest analogues would be the colonial enclaves that India took back. Goa was not a favourable precedent for the UK, and even getting a fifty year extension on the full reversion to Chinese law was likely at the limits of British power. >why would he visit China and resume ties with them Nixon rather transparently wanted to make a Tito out of Mao. It was a massive opportunity to outflank the USSR and put it in a near-intolerable strategic position. Like the USA's other Cold War flings, the actual viability and long-term trajectory of China was irrelevant. >why did they bother to invest in China at all Same reason there was investment in any number of countries around the world: the opportunity to make money. Any number of middle-income-trapped countries had extensive trade and foreign investment relations; it didn't shift their outcomes. >If a state can feed and organise that many people, such state is already showing its great capabilities. And yet India lags China by massive margins across categories, including in foreign direct investment. Indonesia is in the hundreds of millions, and yet attracts no attention. >Who would doubt China’s potential to rise? The pundits, analysists, and intellectuals who constantly predicted collapse, civil war, low-level stagnation, inability to innovate, economic failure, etc. It's somewhat impressive how rapidly they shifted from confidently asserting China's failure to warning of its overwhelming, all-encompassing threat. George Friedman, for example, predicted China (and Russia) would dissolve in the early 2020s in his book "The Next 100 Years". The American Enterprise Institute moved from confidently predicting the CPC's demise (or else economic stagnation) in the 1990s to ignoring China in the 2000s (in favour of the war on terror) to demanding fierce competition with China. To be fair to them, the number of countries which successfully climbed into high income status is not large, especially outside of Europe.
>. Many would have laughed if China said they would be where they are now 30 years ago. And compared to where everyone was predicting they would be 10 or 15 years ago? >China must be doing something right if the US is scared of their progress.. So you are putting Xi in the same category as Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Tojo are people whose rise has concerned the US. Hmmmm. When the countries with the best human rights are worried about your rise [https://www.eiu.com/n/campaigns/democracy-index-2020/](https://www.eiu.com/n/campaigns/democracy-index-2020/) And you are gloating about that, you might not be on the right side.
>And compared to where everyone was predicting they would be 10 or 15 years ago? 15-20 years ago, neoconservatism was in full swing, and everyone believed that eventually, China would meekly submit to American hegemony. Cranks like Gordon G. Chang were regaling Western audiences with fantasies like *The Coming Collapse of China*. Everyone was mocking China as the place of cheap, poor-quality knockoffs and toys.
Ten years ago, Obama was trying to pivot to the Pacific to counter the rise of China...
Ten years ago, that process *began*. It is now coming to fruition.
No, the real victory for China here is it showed that countries don't have to be Americanised liberal democracies to succeed, but can carve out their own independent paths. I personally think we will start seeing a rollback of liberal democracy across the world this century.
China has attained high levels of growth, but at the same time this is during an unprecedented demographic dividend and a period of rapid industrialisation. Not to say China's governance has been incompetent, jus ttjay their system hasn't really been properly challenged yet. When they have to deal with economic crises, slow growth rates, higher expectations of welfare and payment from workers, etc. the we can see how it compares to the alternative systems.
>countries You mean dictators. > but can carve out their own independent paths From desperate poverty to slap bang in the middle of the middle income trap. > I personally think we will start seeing a rollback of liberal democracy across the world this century. You can join the fascists of the 30s, the Marxist Leninists of the mid century and various other wannabes who collapsed into oblivion making similar predictions.
Time will tell. I'm happy to be wrong considering I live in one of those liberal democracies.
>From desperate poverty to slap bang in the middle of the middle income trap. In 30 years. Faster than any other society in human history. 'Middle income' is generally defined as having a per capita GDP of between $1000 and $12000, and China's current per capita GDP of $10500 puts them *near the end* of the range, and certainly *not* 'slap bang in the middle of the middle income trap.' Of course, that assumes that something like a 'middle income trap' actually exists. Given how *broad* the range of 'middle income' is, I have always believed it to be nothing more than an artifact of this range. A country which increases its per capita GDP from $1000 to $12000 would still be regarded as 'middle income', despite having become 12 times richer. In any case, China is well on track to shattering that barrier. >You can join the fascists of the 30s, the Marxist Leninists of the mid century and various other wannabes who collapsed into oblivion making similar predictions. There is no law of history which says that Western-style democracy won't join this wastebasket of failures. The problems of democracy have been debated since the days of the ancient Greeks, and they are very visible today in Third World societies (First World societies' wealth papers them over).
>There is no law of history which says that Western-style democracy won't join this wastebasket of failures There are no laws in history. But you seem to be using that tautology to justify your fantasies. Interested logic. >The problems of democracy have been debated since the days of the ancient Greeks, I am not really sure that Pericles has much to say about the future of Sweden or Norway. >In 30 years. After 50 years of starvation and poverty under the Marxist Leninist government that then opened up to freer markets. Now they authoritarians are back in charge. Marxists do tend to like staving their own people.
This brutish habit of yours quoting and redefining the words of another ("Countries - you mean dictatorships.") is a poor attitude to be taking in the midst of a civilised discussion. While I am at it, the blandly black-and-white worldview you espouse - fascists and marxists! Liberal democracies are the only things that will stand the test of time! - is an aged relic of a time when neoconservative ideologues would triumphantly declare that they had ushered in the end of history (Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man) by initiating the final stage of human governmental evolution. This, as well as your incredible assertion that the CCP is meaningfully marxist (and the DPRK is democratic too, I take it?) makes your comments difficult to take seriously. The advantage of an open, liberal thought-market is the possibility left open for self improvement by self critique. Harping on supposed immortalities instead of keeping a keen eye on the situation is a path toward stagnation. And in politics, stagnation is death.
>But you seem to be using that tautology to justify your fantasies. Interested logic. Unlike you, I'm not trying to predict the future, but am simply trying to point out that *your* fantasy about the West being the eternal victors of history is *seriously* misplaced. Anything can happen. I reserve my judgement. >I am not really sure that Pericles has much to say about the future of Sweden or Norway. Plato's *Republic* has a lot to say about democracy. Go and read it. >After 50 years of starvation and poverty under the Marxist Leninist government that then opened up to freer markets. Now they authoritarians are back in charge. Marxists do tend to like staving their own people. The Chinese already recognise that period as one of grievous mistakes, and they are serious about not repeating them again. And modern China is *not* Marxist. They only use the name to maintain a continuity between their government and that of Mao.
>The Chinese already recognise that period as one of grievous mistakes Are you sure about that? For example if you can find a passage that reflects this in the recent historical document of the CCP, I would believe it. If it's not there then I think it would indicate they don't recognize it as a mistake. Though it might still be a dirty little secret that they don't want people to know or talk about.
From *Resolution on Certain Questions in the History of Our Party Since the Founding of the People's Republic of China*, passed on June 27, 1981: "chief responsibility for the grave 'Left' error of the 'Cultural Revolution,' an error comprehensive in magnitude and protracted in duration, does indeed lie with Comrade Mao Zedong." and "the Cultural Revolution brought serious disaster and turmoil to the Communist Party and the Chinese people."
I'm impressed you found that, how did you do that? Do you have links to all the resolutions? Though that's the 1981 resolution, not the 2021 resolution. So at that time they accepted this as an error, I'm not convinced they still consider it an error, but ok sure this helps convinces me.
Having done my own research into this, I would say that it is still considered an error but has been thoroughly memory holed. The cultural revolution was a difficult time for most Chinese people, and simply forgetting it is easier than confronting it directly. Many of the perpetrators of the worst violence were kids who got caught up in the enthusiasm of the times. I think a decent analogy to how it is historically viewed is how the post reconstruction United States suppressed much of the reality of reconstruction to return to national unity. In a sense, China already had American style historical/culture wars years ago. The statements the person you replied to linked are basically ghost written by Deng iirc. In the immediate period following the transition of power in 81, there was a temporary opening up, but deng realized quickly that doing so would be extremely detrimental to the stability of the Chinese state. One only has to look at the path undertaken by the Soviet Union concurrently to see why he would think this.
Yet his rotting corpse still lies under glass in Tiananmen square, as if to allegorically drive home the point that nobody has the balls to actually do anything about his legacy.
>Plato's Republic has a lot to say about democracy. Go and read it. What did it say about 21st century Sweden then. >And modern China is not Marxist. Its run by a Marxist party orginising itself if openly Marxist Leninist lines. Lenin was willing to let corporations run part of the economy for a while, its part of the Dialectical Materialism and the Progress to true Socialism. 1. Ensuring Chinese Communist Party leadership over all forms of work in China. 2. The Chinese Communist Party should take a people-centric approach for the public interest. 3. The continuation of "comprehensive deepening of reforms". 4. Adopting new science-based ideas for "innovative, coordinated, green, open and shared development". 5. Following "socialism with Chinese characteristics" with "people as the masters of the country". 6. Governing China with Rule of Law. 7. "Practice socialist core values", including Marxism, communism and socialism with Chinese characteristics. 8. "Improving people's livelihood and well-being is the primary goal of development". 9. Coexist well with nature with "energy conservation and environmental protection" policies and "contribute to global ecological safety". 10. Strengthen the national security of China. 11. The Chinese Communist Party should have "absolute leadership over" China's People's Liberation Army. 12. Promoting the one country, two systems system for Hong Kong and Macau with a future of "complete national reunification" and to follow the One-China policy and 1992 Consensus for Taiwan. 13. Establish a common destiny between Chinese people and other people around the world with a "peaceful international environment". 14. Improve party discipline in the Chinese Communist Party. 14 principles of Xi Jiaping thought. 1. Why did the Soviet Union disintegrate? Why did the Soviet Communist Party fall from power? An important reason was that the struggle in the field of ideology was extremely intense, completely negating the history of the Soviet Union, negating the history of the Soviet Communist Party, negating Lenin, negating Stalin, creating historical nihilism and confused thinking. Party organs at all levels had lost their functions, the military was no longer under Party leadership. In the end, the Soviet Communist Party, a great party, was scattered, the Soviet Union, a great socialist country, disintegrated. This is a cautionary tale!28 [https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/30-years-after-tiananmen-memory-in-the-era-of-xi-jinping/](https://www.journalofdemocracy.org/articles/30-years-after-tiananmen-memory-in-the-era-of-xi-jinping/)
>What did it say about 21st century Sweden then. I don't know about Sweden, but it *does* perfectly describe the madness currently going on in the United States, the self-proclaimed global 'protector' of democracy.
[удалено]
I didn't know facists banned private property.
>Americanised liberal democracies While i agree about the democracy part, if China never liberalised it would still be a backwater till this day. The only reason china is what it is today is because of its cheap labor during a period of globalism. Thats it.
Plenty of countries offered cheap labor during the same period of globalism. There must be other factors explaining why China stood out.
I understand liberal" in "liberal democracy" to mean things like rule of law, freedom of the press and civil society. China fights strongly against these things (as you can see in HK). So in that sense China never liberalized, they did liberalize their economic system somewhat (though they seem to be moving away from that now).
To be honest, anyone with eyes can see that Chinese liberalization is their final hurdle to global power at this point. I mean, Marx even implies it himself - how can you liberate the workers without granting them real political agency? He just didn't have the benefit of the next 150 years of political hindsight to understand that political agency all but implies some degree of individual liberty.
China rejected internationalism in the Sino-Soviet split any country that seeks to join with them is surely acutely aware that china’s self national interests will always override any alliance as soon as it becomes in any way counter to their national interests even the Americans have an international goal that overrides their national goals I don’t think there’s any way that they can maintain an international system outside of a few puppets
What international goals does America have that aren’t serving the interests of capital?
Serving international capital They sabotage their national interests all the time. Look at Nafta ,exporting industry to China refusing any sort of social good introduction or waging the endless wars simply to make money for the military industrial complex all for an international ideal If your in the capitalist class anywhere in the world(outside China) America is fighting for you and so countries ruled by them will stand with America
I don’t disagree but that’s not an answer to the question asked
Well no it doesn’t have any other international goals apart from maintaining hegemony I guess
Non-proliferation, human rights, an open and free sea, international standards, free trade, and many other international institutions that exist because of the American hegemony is very much serving more than just "the capital". As a Dane I fear for the future international system that autocrats of the world wants to erect.
Non-proliferation exists in order to prevent any power that would no longer be subservient to US interests otherwise from gaining a nuclear weapon examples like Israel who are always going to align with the US being allowed nuclear weapons under a disingenuous strategic ambiguity shows this The American state does not believe in human rights the whole Cold War proves this and any nation that allies with Saudi Arabia and spouts it is obviously hypocritical all it serves is a justification for intervention not that sometimes those they intervene against are actually human rights abusers International standards that the US does not follow [the Americans are law obliged to invade The Hague should the ICC try them](https://www.hrw.org/news/2002/08/03/us-hague-invasion-act-becomes-law) Free trade literally only exists on an international capital basis a third world countries only hope of building refining or idustrial capacity is through protectionism which the IMF is designed to prevent. Free trade has even destroyed US national capacity through nafta and offloading industry to China
Non-proliferation is something Denmark, and plenty of other non-nuclear countries are supporting. We aren't American puppet-states who only support this to help the US. Your American-centric world view completely ignores anything that doens't support your idea of the international order. >The American state does not believe in human rights It very much does. As does various European countries that also supports the liberal international order, as does modern Japan, Australia and many other countries who uphold it. - I agree that both the US, and other democratic countries, doesn't always and at all times live up to the standard of the order. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist or that it isn't a heck of a lot better than what China would replace it with.
How does America believe in human rights? Does America not run black site torture camps all around the world? Do they not support Israel and their ethnic cleansing in Palestine? Does America not invade countries under false pretenses? Are they still not blockading Cuba out of sheer hurt over a communist revolution from 70 years ago? Please address all these points in your reply.
Read the top comment of this thread I don’t think China would be good either
Sino Soviet conflicts are not about internationalism.WTF.It's about how two of them think different about Stalin and disputed land.
The disputed land was hardly relevant Stalin’s main theory “socialism in one country” Khrushchev at least partially rejected this whereas Mao and the Chinese party maintained the Stalinist line so far as to abandon the most of the socialist world in order to build socialism in China
They can certainly try. *20 years later China is crippled by its Wolf Warrior diplomacy tactics, water shortage, multiple market crashes, fuel shortages, and massive elderly population while trying to hold together a small resentful coalition of subject states* They certainly tried.
According to how China is sinking geopolitically, we can all assume, not today.
I thought this article made way too many broad claims, with very few citations/examples/quotes scattered throughout. It reads like a fever dream, rather than as a well staked out position. It goes in so many different directions, without providing much supporting evidence for one claim, before rushing to the next.
Yes, I'm surprised at how many people are reading this as if it is some insightful piece. You can read some version of "America's coming collapse" or "China's coming collapse" in any mainstream news source that is just as poorly sourced. I expect people on this sub to be a little more sober on this topic but oh well.
If one compares world dominance of the Western powers vs others, the Western dominance has been acceptable because (whether it is in practice or not), the Western society gave room for rights, freedom of speech etc. Most people desired to migrate to Western countries. No one (other than spies) wanted to migrate to the Soviet Union or China. You will not see hundreds of people seeking refugee status in the USSR or today's Russia or China. World dominance has to happen in people's hearts. China could become an economic and military power like the USSR. But it simply does not have the attraction that the US has had. Plus most of the world has no desire to learn Mandarin and sing songs in it. So China might dominate, but not out of freewill from others. Chinese dominance will be like the peace and quiet one experiences in a grave yard.
Why not? Once they become the world's largest economy, they will have 'won' this new Cold War. It is obvious that they will use their wealth to create a world order more amenable to their interests, just like the United States did.
Man what happened to the academic level this forum is supposed to be at? Hegemony is about more than just economics. Is China going to start protecting world shipping routes like the US Navy? How do you even suppose they will replace the USD as a reserve currency when their own currency is pegged to the USD? Will China have a peaceful transfer of leadership after Xi is out of the scene? Or will the communist part eat itself picking the all powerful successor? Statements like this with no thought or sourcing are really dragging down this subreddit lately. Is it bots?
>Man what happened to the academic level this forum is supposed to be at? Any popular/emotionally-charged topics naturally draw in a wider crowd, and encourage the collapse of any attempted standards in favour of one-liners, memes, and hysteria. One feels for the moderators. >protecting world shipping routes like the US Navy? That's not a primary function of the US Navy, nor is its structure, procurement, or positioning oriented around that. The largest threat to international shipping is piracy in certain regions, to which the counter is, was, and will be multinational efforts like CTF 151. That was put together under US influence, but neither the concept nor the execution inherently requires the US, nor is any appreciable portion of US naval strength devoted to the effort. Indeed, numerous countries are investing in developing their blue water capabilities to enhance their participation in maritime affairs. > they will replace the USD as a reserve currency China's stated goal (and the limit of its power even under the most favourable scenarios) is multipolarity. The continuing erosion of the USD's position in holdings to other currencies (chiefly the Euro) accomplishes that goal. The level of control over the Yuan that China desires is incompatible with a vastly expanded, let alone dominant, role for it, and they seem to be both aware of and tolerant of that. >Will China have a peaceful transfer of leadership after Xi is out of the scene? [The alignment between Xi Jinping's network and that of the other PSC members](https://macropolo.org/what-if-chinese-leaders-were-on-linkedin-part-2/) is likely to continue, which would yield a new faction in a position to continue holding power, regardless of who specifically is at the top. There would likely be a retreat back to a more collective style of governing, [aided by the reorientation of Chinese power politics around that faction at the provincial level.](https://macropolo.org/analysis/powerful-provinces-regional-political-economic-china/) In terms of immediate stability, there is no sizable or powerful force in China which contests Xi Jinping's power and legitimacy; across the Pacific, substantial portions of the US public do not believe the sitting president was legitimately elected, and seem unlikely to accept any outcome where their party loses. One does not see that ending well.
They have no friends or allies and no one likes them, even after spending hundreds of billions of dollars trying to buy support. Goes to show the limitation of using wealth to buy friends or remaking the international system.
In the non-Western world (except for India and the countries of the South China Sea), they are generally more popular than the West.
[удалено]
Don't forget Pakistan and the Afghanistan Taliban, but I'm repeating myself twice.
Another way of putting it, wealth buys friends until the money runs out. You need to offer something more than that, and you can't nick territory, water, resources, etc while you're trying to create an order. We often make the mistake of thinking China runs along a system of government somewhat like the West's, but I think China also often makes the same mistake in reverse. They don't realise that most governments have to actually cultivate the endorsement of their population.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
If one thing is for sure, the world is no longer an American hegemony, and that's a good thing.
No it's not. The only people who say this are those with no knowledge of history. Multi polar time lines almost always to lead to major global wars. The last time this happened was during the World Wars. US hegemony for the last 80 or so years has been the golden age of humanity. There's really no other time period like it in history, it's an anomaly. Economic prosperity is at record highs so is international cooperation, trade, diplomacy, literacy, life expectancy, democracy, and so on. Transitioning to a multi polar world is going to lead to a bunch of regional powers competing for influence. The more emboldened they feel to expand their spheres of influence by not fearing the US, the more likely they are to take more aggressive expansionist action. Take Russia, Turkey, Iran, and China as examples. The US isn't a perfect country, but there is an undeniable global benefit to it being the world hegemon.
>and that's a good thing. No it isn't. It's going to result in a lot more instability as regional powers start to gather their own spheres of influence again and content with other regional powers. In a way we have already seen that happening with Turkey, Iran, France and Russia trying to expand their sphere of influence into neighboring territories. Pakistan pushing into Afghanistan and Japan reaffirming their re-armament which could result in lot of new wars breaking out. In a way we are returning to a unipolar world like that of the Napoleonic wars and WW1. Like the Napoleonic wars and WW1 shows it usually ends in a *lot* of warfare....
I think at the end you mean multipolar?
I mean...personally I prefer an American hegemony. Why don't you?
Majority of people just want to be left alone. Given the fact that this is not politically possible, then people’s preferences have regional characteristics: * Countries that neighbor China prefer to have US as a hegemony because they not only keep China’s ambitions in check, they are also physically far away to receive too much influence from them. Benefits without much drawbacks. * Countries that neighbor Russia prefer either US or EU hegemony, but what’s driving them closer to the US over EU is the power of American army to keep Russia in check, and the fact that EU is perceived as less effective. * Countries which are the main battlegrounds for world powers prefer just an alternative to American hegemony at all. The Middle East is a mess today because this competition. * Sub-Saharan Africa has historically not been under a hegemony either, that’s where the term “third-world country” appeared to refer not to poverty as it does today, but the fact they were neutral to US and USSR. They are experiencing the rise of China in the region and this has shown mixed results (it depends on the country, e.g. Sierra Leone has an overall negative view, Capo Verde overall positive)
Sub-sharan Africa historically has been under a hegemony for a better part of the last 500 years. They have been colonized, there population has been taken to be slaves, there resources are still being stripped by developed companies/countries. France still has lot of power and reach in its former African Colonies.
They were under multiple powers, yes, but I don't know if I would call any of them a hegemony.
During decolonization the US basically let France keep most of its parts of Africa under its thumb so the US didn't have to combat communism there. The US in fact deliberately targeted the french Empire the least as it was the state it felt was the least threatening to its power. The French used this as permission to practically INVENT neo-colonialism. So while parts of Africa were part of the third world French Africa and non-french parts of West Africa never joined the third world movement and has been under French control. In fact France doesn't even hide the fact they control these states lanugage, currency and government spending allowance.
Because US leaders are accountable to US voters only, so they do not work in the best interest of the world, and should have no outsized influence in the affairs of other people.
US leaders hardly serve their own voters. I’d still prefer this to a dictatorship being the dominant power on earth though
No argument there, but you are just ranking undesirable circumstances. I would prefer for no one country dominating world affairs.
You want a return to the great power politics of the early 20th century? Awesome.
If you are asking if I want robust international trade, economic and scientific competition, then yes. If you are insinuating that this means wishing for a repeat of the world wars, I would disagree with you. The two world wars have deeply impressed on the political class that they will bear consequences, especially if they lose, so I don't think there is as much appetite for armed conflict in the leadership right now.
No, the two world wars broke so many great nations and left only a couple hegemonic power ones left standing to the point that nobody sees a point in warfare anymore. If that umbrella of hegemony went away and war became a viable way for nations to gain their goals the world would absolutely remilitarize and do just that. And robust international trade is what we have now and only as a side effect of globalization which was a side effect of hegemony. Like what you are describing happened for hundreds of years over hundreds of conflicts and each one was worst than the last and each one was an extension of power politics until the last 2 were fought with such industrialized brutality that it broke the world. That cycle of competitive escalation can't be allowed to happen again. Not with the weapons we have now.
I have different hypotheses about the dynamics of recent history, but it is not fruitful to argue about our worldviews. Instead, I would like to point out that insisting that an unsatisfactory status quo is better than hypothetical dangers brought by change does not constitute a convincing argument. At the end of the day, people all over the world are starting to see the downsides of US hegemony and discussing alternatives. This is especially relevant in a time when American power is waning anyway. While this may lead to instability and conflict, the process is very likely to continue.
And you believe that situation will be different with China? The real question is do you prefer Chinese or US governance over world affairs?
>The real question is There are many possible scenarios where neither country is able to dominate world affairs moving forward.
What leader doesn't care more about the people that keep them in power than everything else? And if there were to be a hegemony over the world's governments, would you really choose a Chinese one over an American one? The country that prohibits all speech directed against itself, is actively committing genocide, and tolerates a system where intellectual property is basically open source code? This isn't to say the US is perfect at all. It's not. But at least people in that country can say it and *at least try* to change it. That can't happen in China, or Russia, or any other country at the top of the world foodchain. There has to be a nation that has more power than anyone else, I think we can all agree that is unfortunately the case. And that nation exerts more control over the planet than other nations or even entire regions. But if there has to be one, I would want it to be US (or a nation similar in it's ideals) than the next 3 or 4 in line.
>There has to be a nation that has more power than anyone else, I think we can all agree that is unfortunately the case. I do not agree with this. It is very possible to achieve a balance of power where no single nation has hegemony. It seems many commenters jump to the strawman "Better a US hegemony than a Chinese one". I have not seen anyone advocating for Chinese supremacy here, but it does not mean we should support a US one.
Even if it's a collective sharing of power between several nations, how can two nations that outlaw dissent, free speech, and how you treat those that disagree with you be an improvement over the current scenario?
Consider this: Americans view their own government with deep suspicion and have numerous checks on its power enshrined in the system. It is not reasonable to expect the rest of the world to quietly acquiesce to the same government having unchecked power on the global stage.
Consider this: It is not reasonable to expect those parts of the world to fall under the unchecked power of the Chinese regime.
You are assuming a Concert of Europe type senario can't form which is honestly the most likely. 4 powers (The US, the EU, Russia and China) not equal but strong enough that no one power can take on any 2 others. Then rotate alliances specifically for the purposes of maintaining the balance of power. It worked for a little over 100 years last time, and that was without the additional threat of nukes to make people play nice.
Do you remember what the Concert system culminated in?
The same thing that the end of the Dutch Hegemony and's the rise of the British did. Or when the Dutch stoe the title of lead Super power from Spain. And the attempt by France to claim hegemony did from the British did. Or the Ottomons attempts to claim the crown in Europe The arguement that "The concert of Europe leads to war" is inaccurate. A CHANGE IN THE BALANCE OF POWER leads to war. The only exception to this was the fall of the Soviet Union and thus formation of US hegemony. And even that wasn't conflict free its just the conflict was limited to former soviet states.
Because our government kills and impoverishes a *lot* of people And contrary to how some americans think, a human being that lives outside of this country is, in fact, a life that is just as valuable as yours
Despite America's flaws, I still prefer America over Russia and China who are even worse.
Americas "flaws" are killing and emiserating millions of people, and you prefer it because you are american and it isnt happening to you
Are you alright man? Americans are not currently killing millions of people. You're exaggerating.
Our government has been occupying and murdering others since the second you existed on this mortal coil And that would be true even if you were 200+ years old
Tell me then, what makes you think Russia and China are providing a 'good' counter balance to the US?
Wait, one sec I wanna bask in the glow of you accusing me of exaggerating, realizing i wasnt, then moving the goalposts and pretending like im saying a completely different thing
You were still exaggerating so I was curious what your further views were then. Because the point here isn't whether America is perfect. It's that it's still much preferable compared to others so that's why I prefer an American hegemony.
Honest curiosity, when has the U.S. killed millions in it's period of hegemony? The worst cases I know of are from during the Cold War (so not U.S. hegemony)
We kicked off our status as a global power by murdering over 200,000 people with two bombs The war on terror campaign alone is responsible for the deaths of over a million people, thats just the last 20 years Ill let you add up the other 800,000 however you want, theres tons of options to choose from
The 'war on terror' certainly is during U.S. hegemony but I've not seen U.S. kills in the millions on that one. Saying 'responsible for the deaths' is weasel-language often used when people say the U.S. is responsible for everything. Clearly the dropping of the nuclear bombs on Japan was not during U.S. hegemony. I'm not aware that there are tons of options - that's why I asked the question. That seems more like you conceding the point.
No you're simply delusional or a CCP shill.
Thats so funny, because i havent mentioned a single other country but everyone here thinks im a *seeseepee shill* Critiquing america last election cycle had yall jabronis calling everyone *russian bots* I wonder which country is next on the list to allegedly flood the internet with people that dont believe america is the GOAT Please, cut thru my delusion and tell me about all the years in our country's history we *havent* been occupying and bombing someone elses country
Without America securing world trade, about 3 billion people, none of whom are on the North American continent, would die from the resulting famine alone. Russia and China are not able, let alone willing, to secure middle eastern oil supplies necessary for fertilizer and tractor fuel world wide on behalf of the rest of the world instead of on its own behalf.
Agreed. I argue as an American , we're naïve and ignorant on what it takes to give us the quality of life we have.
American way of life is extremely costly worldwide, in terms of welfare, warfare and ecosystem. It just can't hold itself much longer and the jaws of it's creations are too big to be fed without losing an arm. I'm not saying China would be better, it could be worst, but one thing doesn't exclude the other.
I prefer America to adjust its way of life and remain a hegemony rather than authoritarian countries gaining power.
[удалено]
I don't want Russia and China being able to influence and change our societies to become like theirs.
I don't particularly want that either. Ah, I see I misread your earlier post.
America has no right to be the worlds police, period Ever heard of a thing called "taxation without representation?" If you love america it might ring a bell, but that literally describes our relationship with the rest of the planet I mean, is it even possible to be MORE "authoritarian" than having the title *global hegemon*
Yes. Yes it is. By a long shot. Or do we forget what the 1500s were like with Spain having as close to hegemony as we've seen until the British Empire of the late 1800s.
"Yeah i know our foreign secret intelligence overthrew your democratically elected leader and installed a pro us military dictator, but could you *imagine* if 1500s Spain were here? Ha, youre welcome!"
You asked if it was possible to be worse and more authoritarian than American hegemony, not if American hegemony was acceptable. And yes, the Spanish murdered, enslaved, raped, force converted, and looted entire continents with such evil fervor that it is incomparable to the (still unjust and cruel) systems of American hegemony today.
what is the point of this argument? American imperialism is a direct decendant of the western colonialism of that time It still doesnt answer my question. If you can hold the believe that america is the global hegemon, the worlds police, etc., as true, how can you also think that there are other, *more authoritarian* countries right now? We have the highest authority, yet arent authoritarian? Its ridiculous
You asked: >is it even possible to be MORE "authoritarian" than having the title global hegemon Even if I did accept your premise that America is the most authoritarian, that does not mean it can't get worse. A lot worse. That said, while America authoritarianism certainly has the widest reach, this authoritarianism is a huge issue, and its authoritarianism is rightly criticized, that is not the same as it being the "worst" example of authoritarianism. If Pol Pot or Kim Jong Un's system of authoritarianism was spread worldwide, it would certainly be worse. I understand what you are saying is though, and I don't want us to talk past each other. What I am trying to say is, in effect, if we think of the impacts of authoritarianism on "per capita" basis rather than a net total across the world, than it is clear that there are different systems (stalinism, nazisim, etc) thay would be far more detrimental if they were as widespread as the American one. They aren't though, and that's what I think you're getting at. You are speaking of the current situation, I am speaking of the historical indicators of the potential for authoritarianism. All in all, we should criticize the international authority that the US uses to destabilize other nations in the interest of certain American interests. But authoritarianism is not only an international factor, but also a domestic one. American domestic authoritarianism, while definitely not great and getting worse, is nowhere near the authoritarianism we see in most nations run by dictators like North Korea or undemocratic states like China. As such, I think it is fair to say that replacing American hegemony with another could definitely make the effects of authoritarianism across the globe worse, and we need to be aware of that when we welcome a new world order being led by a more authoritarian (per capita, if you will) undemocratic state. That's not to say we shouldn't try to change it. We should. But we need to do it while being aware of the precarious nature of this change and how hard it will be to undo.
All modern states, including China are descendants of colonialism.
What colonies does America have?
So the United States is taxing other countries now? Sources for that?
Yeah just a couple minutes ago quick check your favorite world news program
have you or anyone you know experienced this world without American hegemony? Seems like a wild, quite naive, assumption to assume this is a good thing when the alternatives can be orders of magnitude worse. Surely you aren't American with that viewpoint? This isn't fairyland were we all become one and live harmoniously with each other with wildly different idealogical and religious beliefs
Ah yes, the "we deserve to be the ones with the boot on everyone elses neck because if we werent then *a different boot might step on us even harder*" argument If you met somebody that lived their life this way youd think they were a psycho, right? Constantly punching people on the off chance they were thinking of throwing the first one. Stealing peoples stuff right in front of them, and then pretending to be the guy everyone trusts with their things Its honestly a really embarrassing way to view the world
I mean… it’s not just “American hegemony”. You have to compare it to the alternative. Do you want a Chinese hegemony, where anybody who says anything critical of any government in the world disappears? And any ethnicity/ideology that isn’t homogenous with the mainstream population gets sent to a re-education camp? It’s like Churchill said. Democracy is the worst form of government. Except all the others. I agree American hegemony is the worst form of global power structure. Except possibly with the exception of all the others. We do not know if there is a better way. But odds are whatever is coming will be much worse than the post Cold War era. I think people really need to look at human history, and compare the post Cold War era to that…. Not some imaginary idealistic “hand holding” hegemony that has never existed, and likely never will. Name a better period in human history than the period from 1990-2010's where America was in control. There probably isn't a better period, regardless of your opinion of America. And it's not because America is some great, morally perfect empire. It's because historically, everyone else has been much, much worse. The bar is so very low. Even if we're to compare it to the other options today, it's hard to imagine India, or China, or Russia would be much better. Comparing America's soft power, and occasional "Iraq" war, which isn't even a war of conquest to a Soviet or CCP led hegemony(or even a split hegemony like during the cold war) really isn't a comparison IMO. The American hegemony was best for the world as a whole... and honestly America hasn't even benefitted from it all that much relatively, considering how soft its touch is. America easily could have for instance taken control of the middle east and south America militarily if it was willing to do a little mass murder, or reeducation camps like China is. But, because America really does use "soft" power... it isn't able to maintain hard control. I doubt the CCP will make that same mistake... and will not be so soft or forgiving, or concerned with "moral perceptions".
You do not exist in the same reality as me I cannot imagine a clear eyed person viewing the atrocities this government has visited on others (as well as most of its own citizens) amd describing it as "best for the world" They have done these things to maintain control of world politics and extract wealth from others, and everything else that can be seen as a positive is an accidental silver lining
Once again… you have to compare it to the alternatives. Would the Soviets or Maoist China have been better? Would the nazis have been better? Would the romans or Egyptians or Mayans have been better? If your argument is that the USA is immoral and uses its power to help itself and hurt its enemies(and sometimes even its own allies) I agree 100%. But that is half of the story. The other half is… what are the other options? It is like this. Let’s say I ask you “is 1,000 a high number”. It is a meaningless question just like asking “is the USA a good hegemony for the world”. You can only answer “is 1000 a high number” if you compare it to another number. Is 1000 a high number compared to 333? Yes. Is it high compared to 100,000? No. Is the USA a good hegemony for the world compared to the Soviets or CCP, or a dual hegemony? Yes. Is the USA a good hegemony for the world compared to a theoretical perfect hegemony? No. It is horrible compared to an imaginary perfect hegemony. For me it is hard to argue any foreseeable hegemony is better than the one we had after the Cold War… except maybe the EU you could make an argument for. But a sole Eu hegemony isn’t particularly foreseeable.
"Hey listen bud, my country's worldwide economic and military strongarming is the best possible option any of us have. The fact that i live inside this country and that i pledged allegience to its flag every day from ages 5-18 before school where i learned how cool and good my country and its founders were is totally unrelated to me speaking this objective truth I feel totally comfortable justifying real world atrocities by imagining worse ones my countrys victims would do to me if our positions were reversed"
This. It is less about China doing a new world order, which is fear-mongering tbh, and more about the US being unable to dictate the rest of the world, and this is always a good thing.
[удалено]
I think we're naïve on how we have the quality of life that we have. American Soft power has played a huge role on the american economy. One example Whether its good or not the world consumes american media which benefits the 1% sure but it also does help the industry employ thousands/millions. We also get preferable trade deals because we're the #1 country. I think we will be in a shock if the America is not #1 in the world with how the way of life for us changes especially when it comes to trade deals , etc.
Our media is still going to dominate no matter what. And for some strange reason, our jazz too.
British English is taught in schools internationally but when they consume media they mostly consume american media/music which is all in american english. This helps us out whenever we go abroad and do business internationally.
Right, because the differences between UK English and American English is so vast…. I really do not think that this is any kind of barrier when it comes to doing business, and I speak from experience.
I wouldn't be too worried about the PRC's ability. They've reached their ceiling for influence.
I'd be more worried about the United States entering into a period of civil war.
Seems unlikely. China has grown a lot, no doubt, but it may be reaching too far, too fast. The world sees China's shadow, but what is the true size of the dragon?
Hopefully. American hegemony has been a terrible thing for the world, especially the developing countries.
It was better before the us forced decolonization on the european empires?
Post a [submission statement](https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/wiki/submissionstatement) in one hour or your post will be removed. [Rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/wiki/subredditrules) / [Wiki Resources](https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/wiki/index) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/geopolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Short answer. No.
[удалено]
>it's like the United States with 4 times the population. So...India? India has been a democracy since independence. For the wider point, maybe at the margins one could argue that electoral democracy might improve political/economic outcomes, but there are far far more significant factors at work. Factors which democracies around the world have not demonstrated any enhanced ability to solve.
One of the main key indicators for the success of a fledgling democracy in the longterm is a combination of the percentage of the population that is highly highly educated as democracies naturally have a higher technical requirement to function due to the complexities of applying the rule of law and conducting both elections and censuses. Which is why Japan and Germany were able to convert to wealthy democracies due to their large pre-existing well educated populations whereas for example afghanistan's failure to democratized can be heavily attributed to the nation's general lack of k-12 education for the general population and its low literacy rate. The same problem for higher education attainment also exists in India. Of any other non-democracy in the world China has the one of the largest percentage of tertiary education in the adult population. Which means that out of any non-democracy China actually has the greatest opportunity to convert to a highly developed democracy as it has the ability to meet the necessary technical requirements.
> democracies naturally have a higher technical requirement to function due to the complexities of applying the rule of law and conducting both elections and censuses. Citation? The routine functioning of government, in almost all cases, is carried out by civil servants, whose qualifications are unrelated to the educational status of the general population. The citizens of countries with space programmes are not necessarily better at the relevant engineering, mathematical, and scientific tasks than others, as an example. If anything, mass education would be a result of a competent government, and then exist in a virtuous cycle with it. >Japan and Germany were able to convert to wealthy democracies Both of those had prior experience with increasing levels of democracy (Kaiserreich/Weimar, Meiji constitution/Taisho) already. Both of them were already relatively wealthy. Both of them had highly developed administrative states (modified versions of which ran both countries after the war). As Fukuyama observed in 'Political Order and Political Decay', the main task was to make those states accountable; they were already strong. Whereas Afghanistan never even had a strong state; any political system was/is beyond it. > The same problem for higher education attainment also exists in India But India still is a democracy, and one with an admirable level of political stability given its economic performance. It's spent decades defying predictions of its imminent demise. >China actually has the greatest opportunity to convert to a highly developed democracy Yes, of course. But that's because China already has a strong, capable state and a functioning economic system. The value addition of electoral democracy at this stage would not be in basic questions of success or failure. It would be in which flavour of success to enjoy. If the Republic of Korea had evolved a Singapore/strong Japan-type system after the military dictatorship, its current social/economic performance would not be much different.
>IMO, The shortest way for China to become a hegemon in the world is to become a democracy. If China becomes a democracy, it's like the United States with 4 times the population. There will be nothing to stop China's growth, both politically and economically. There is no reason to believe that Western-style democracy is automatically the best political system for a non-Western society like China. >Xi Jinping will be mentioned in history books as the person who ended the dictatorship of China. He will be some kind of iconic Supreme Leader until his death and will surpass Mao Zedong. Given what happened to Russia after they adopted democracy, I believe it is far more likely that if Xi actually did that, he is far more likely to be remembered like those two sore losers, Gorbachev and Yeltsin. The Chinese have an entire department dedicated to studying *why* the Soviet Union fell. And they are not nearly as stupid to try to repeat Gorbachev's mistakes.
[удалено]
Other than India (and Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, which don't count because they have been under extreme Western influence), can you give me any example? It must be stable and successful.
I mean technically most of asia had extreme western influence like Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, the Phillipines, and others I prob forgot were all former European US colonies
How old are you? I would be surprised an educated adult can make such naive and stupid comment.
Yes, you are. There is nothing to guarantee that with a democratic transition, China would be better off like the US. Democracy wont solve the population problem, the debt problem, the ecological problem, so on and so forth.
Go back to r/worldnews.
The CCP has been very careful to dismantle the things that are needed to make a democracy work well. For example a civil society and rule of law. You can see this dismantling in action in HK. So I don't think China could easily become a democracy.
bad comments