I was a Chinese international student in Canada. Now I am watching this video from China, with a VPN. I don't know if anyone in Watson will read this, but in the Chinese sphere of academic, they generally name this shift in global political landscape "百年未有之大变局", which roughtly translates to "greatest global changes in a century" or "changes of a kind unseen in a century". This phrase is first brought by by Xi Jinping himself in one of his foreign affairs meetings and it is considered his core judgement of the current international relation. I must emphaize that this is NOT some authoritarian push of information. This is a serious analysis of current affairs. While scholars have various interpretation, there are 3 generally accpeted messages. 1) China is rising comprehensively, not only in economy, but also in science R&D, cultural output, education, military, and much more. 2) The western world are in decline relatively and absolutely. They have an aging population coupled with rapid deindustrialization and financialization. 3) This shift of global power balance occurs right at a peculiar time of human history, where human has the worst income inequality, climate change, and the incoming 4th industrial revolution.
The US became a super power 75 years ago and honestly, US capitalism has failed, we are destroying the planet and all life in the name of profit, the wealth gap is going opposite to where it should go and all this has to stop soon. Even if the Chinese model is not perfect, it is evolving and learning fast, it is not developing into a military world empire and it doesn't invade and destroy small defenseless countries to steal their ressources so from here in Canada, China looks to be the best option for humanity right now, if the Chinese people can conquer the world using peace rather than weapons, I'm all with you and anyway, in a few hundred years someone else will take the lead, that's how it works.
I get the idea from Trump and his supporters the idea of the last empire, America will never allow any nation to have a GDP greater than itself. Primacy will be maintained by any means necessary and that's regardless of China being communist democratic or even friendly.
The Chinese has lost their trust of the US' impartiality and its role as honest broker in Asia, that's why the Chinese stopped listening to the US. It happened when the other claimants of South China sea like Vietnam, Malaysia and Philippine started to build the islands they claimed years ago and the US kept the silence. The Chinese responded with building the island of their own, except in much more massive scale. The Chinese also lost their trust of the US when the Japanese nationalized the disputed island Senkaku/Diaoyu, and the US again kept the silence. The Chinese responded with reorganizing the coast guards and sent them to patrol near the island. The Chinese also upset when the Taiwanese DPP party slowly eroded the one China policy, and the US again said nothing. You can't claim to be the mediator that keep the peace when you keep siding with one side. The Chinese completely lost their respect of the US when in 2008, the US recklessness with its financial system caused the global financial meltdown, threatening the Chinese investment in the US and the global economy.
Many countries in West-Europe are aware of the aggresiveness of the US, but they would still rather have a 'democratic' country be #1, than a communist country. While they have overthrown a ton of democratically chosen presidents, I am still amazed so many people don't know this.
My greatest fear is this: USA have been the dominant power in the world since WWII and it have maintained its position of control through geopolitical strategies that put a strangle hold on resources such as oil. This was achieved through numerous means, but the most objectionable from countries facing US attention would the military power and its economic power through the dollar being the reserve currency and US's established financial systems. Thus, invasions, coups, training and support of insurgencies and counter insurgencies, sanctions, blockades etc. US have never ceased being involved in military conflicts, often numerous conflicts concurrently, since its rise to prominence. Currently the trade sanctions are so prevalent, it goes without saying that you can basically expect sanctions to be applied to all countries that is not US allied or de-facto allied (such as Neutral European Countries). US have been a factor, often the only factor, in destruction of legitimacy of any attempt at international structure of organisation and law. Subtlety it may be in the form of casting a veto or refusing to acknowledge and implement a UN resolution, either general assembly or security council (such as the issue of Israel). More blatantly, it expresses openly hostile and militant attitudes to international law adjudicators like the International Criminal Court (such as the 'Hague Invasion Act'). The human cost, in suffering and needless destruction of life has been immense, even only counting directly inflicted damage (such as civilians killed by US soldiers and drones) it would be in the millions, but if we counted all the atrocities aided, supported or otherwise turned a blind eye and allowed by the US (such as the genocide in East Timor), the number would be so enormous its sufficient to say that the US have out murdered all regimes in similar time frames. Yet it have maintained such a sound and effective domestic media propaganda system, the US citizens are often unaware of facts, or have been indoctrinated to the point of assuming a de-facto moral high ground by virtual of their citizenship and oblivious to any hypocrisy it may invoke. Needless to say, as the struggle to maintain control continues, the extent where the 'grand narrative' of US virtue must depart from the truth becomes more and more absurd, to support equally extreme and absurd policies, both domestic and foreign. It is undeniable that China is rising, and if it is not China, then it maybe India after it, or by some miraculous epiphany of unity and competence, the EU, or perhaps Russia, or some other world power that will one day remove the US from the position of dominance. Thus it is my fear that the the next regime, the next world dominant power or the next organisation in the position of the US, is capable of learning from the US. More over, i fear that it will understand, is capable and willing to continue a geopolitical structure just like this one. After all, it is only logical for a nation with sufficient military and economic might to assert itself where possible, to control through brute force where suffering of the masses is of no real concern, or is a small price to pay for world domination. How bleak it would be, if following the rise of China, we observe that American flags over thousands of military bases around the world is merely replaced with the red flag, GI Joes replaced with the red army, and nothing else in essence would have changed. How horrifying it would be, to have a world dominating power that have suffered, truly and seriously, in the last few centuries as to leave a lasting impression, or worse still, a hunger for revenge. How inhumane it would be, to have a world dominating power to reverse the tables and subject its old rivals to ruin merely for the fact it could conduct itself with impunity. And how antithetical to freedom it would be, for China to start preaching freedom of speech for it assumes control of the greatest means of influence (such as facebook, google, or whichever fulfills a similar role) and paddle propaganda to spread division in designated targets, and achieve some mentality of 'Chinese exceptionalism' on par with the current US doctrine. If such a beak picture of the future is to come to pass, then I fear that humanity would have lost its chance to grow and develop, in organizing human life towards a more peaceful and cooperative world for decades if not centuries to come. As idealistic as I am, i harbour no real hope that an world dominating empire would somehow miraculously self-adjust its pattern of behaviour into pacifism and cooperation where it have demonstrated every tendency against it. Thus I ping my hopes on this change of hands, this passing of the baton, willingly or not. I pray to all deities that could swing the next world power towards a diplomatic strategy that is centered around garnering influence through aid and trade, rather than military and sanctions. These 'change of hands' in world geopolitical arena is rare and far in between, involving much risk of global conflict each time (more so now with the presence of thermonuclear weapons). Empires may last hundreds of years, and I fear if we cannot make progress with this impending shift in geopolitical power, then we will not live to see the next opportunity. In addition to an unadulterated idealist, I am also an optimist. China have not yet invaded anyone for geopolitical reasons or resource exploitation YET. It has not actively participated in sanctions of such severity as to endanger civilian life, YET. Its authoritarianism, while noted, have not entirely been arbitrary in its implementation. I have not yet been persuaded of any fact or incident which could definitively foretell that China will adopt the US foreign policy methodology. I hope that such restraint is stemming from some inherent wisdom, human decency and conscience, and not from the simple fact that China is not in the position of power to fully bear its fangs, Yet.
This is a perfect summary of my feelings. The American Empire has done a lot of evil under the blanket of freedom and democracy and I am happy to see it end. However, that doesn't mean I want another greater empire to replace it and enact the same evils and violence that America has done to the world. I wish that the human desire to dominant would end and that there would be no violence but sadly, our species is very flawed. I hope the next empire or superpower breaks the cycle of violence, I don't want anymore wars, anymore drone strikes, anymore coups against democratically elected governments. No more violence, please.
America does not care for its allies because of its over amplified ego of exceptionalism. Take Nord stream 2 for example. Sanctioning companies to stop Germany from meeting its energy needs isn’t engagement. It’s bullying because it cannot sell its gas (at a higher price) to Germany. America is doomed, it’s countless wars cannot be won, its debt will balloon because it is committed without any exit options from all these wars. Meanwhile all diverted resources is making for a poorer average American. With the disappearing middle class and growing masses of those living in poverty, what are the chances of revolt and riots growing in frequency within America itself. Forcing “allies” to do its bidding will one day turn against America when it looses it ability to bully and gets it way. Will China be like America? Simple - the answer is a definite NO. Ask yourself, why did the CPC make poverty alleviation a priority policy? Building towns (in some cases) to rehouse those too isolated to be reached and effectively assisted, building schools with dorms to ensure schooling for those living in the fringes, teaching Tibetan and Uighur languages in schools together with mandarin and English to ensure that cultures are preserved and etc etc. China realized that unless poverty is alleviated, people will rebel and cause social unrest. I recall when I was younger I was introduced to the concept of “mandate by heaven”. Never truly understood this until recently. It’s basically says that unless the ruling elite do the right and moral thing to better society, “heaven” will revoke its blessing to the elite/rulers. Ancient China practiced a very difficult entrance exam to vet for able candidates to work in the courts. This system is still in practice and have permeates through the political sphere. I have worked in Russia during the times of Yeltsin coming into power and I have seen Russia communism as nothing more than tyrannical rule. In China, you work from grassroots to prove yourself as able and capable to manage your responsibilities. And as you prove yourself, you move up from say a village manager to that of a district official and through meritocracy you rise up the CPC. Look at Xi’s younger days and it’s a classic example of how members of the CPC reach the top echelons of power. Meanwhile democracy is nothing but a hostage to money politics. Corporations donate to political parties and cash in favours when the “horses” they backed coles into office. Capitalism is the worse enemy of america, Karl Marx foresaw it. I am glad to see America loose its hegemony, it has caused enough wars and ensuing suffering all In the name of getting their grubby hands on resources for itself.
This is EXACTLY my doubts as well. Even if China replaces the US as the global hegemon, what's not to say it would simply become a more efficient version of it? Then the world would have to wait until the institutions of the Chinese Empire rot (all polities eventually do), as the American Empire's has today. And Chinese Empires last 250-300 years on average, funnily enough not that different from the American Empire. Perhaps the greatest difference is that with 4x the population of the previous hegemon, a fully revitalised China would be an even more insurmountable global hegemon that the current one. The only nation that could stand up to the Chinese Empire would be India, and from what I see today, India is actually MORE likely to become like the American Empire if it gains world hegemony due to its strong religious foundations (which China lacks, but the US actually has with its Evangelicals and pseudo-religious Liberals). Right now, the main thing convincing me that China will not walk the "exploitative world hegemon" path is that it is a socialist country. True socialists have always been about bettering the lot of the masses, not the few. The best potential future for a hegemonic China is that it extends this "betterment of the masses" mentality to the whole world, rather than seeing as just the "Chinese masses" as the only one being deserving of socialism, while the rest of the world can be written off as exploitable trade mules who exist only so the Chinese can live in a socialist utopia. The latter is the mentality of the current American Empire (just more extreme), with socialism for the American elites but unchecked capitalism (i.e., rule of the jungle) for the masses of both the American Empire and those outside of it. For there to be peace in the world, there must be betterment of the masses everywhere. And even then, this "betterment of the masses everywhere" must be done in the right way, otherwise it becomes imperialism, if not in truth then definitely in interpretation by the global audience. Ancient China has always been highly inwards looking, because none others (within communicable distance of their era) could hold a candle to Chinese civilisational might. Even military conquests by the Mongols/Manchu resulted in them both being assimilated, their homelands annexed by subsequent iterations of China. But the Century of Humiliation, the first genuine civilisational threat to China in all its history, has taught China that it can never again afford to be inwards looking and isolationist, which means if it ever attains global hegemony, it WILL use it. We can only hope that they will use it for a good cause rather than a selfish one. TLDR: For the hypothetical scenario of China achieving global hegemony, its overarching goal will be determined either by its nationalism, or its socialism. Right now, both complement each other in China's development, but one day it will have to choose between them. To use its hegemony in favour of China only, or the betterment of the entire world. That will be the question of the hypothetical "Chinese century". (China is not National Socialism, a.k.a fascist. National Socialism was a false name adopted by actual fascists to take the word "socialism" away from leftists, and it worked, for a time. Nations can have both nationalism and socialism without being fascist).
@@daniellee8720 The fear isn't China TODAY becoming exploitative global hegemon like the US is. China TODAY is doing things right. But almost every single Chinese dynasty did things right in the early years. It was always the later years of the dynasties where things went to shit; the ruling elite became selfish and lost sight of reality, the ruling political culture become ossified and unable to dynamically respond to changing situations, the masses suffered as bureaucratic infrastructure failed and people-to-ruler communications were severed. The fear is that if China achieves global hegemony, that is where its apex will be. And then, it will walk the long road of exploitation as it deteriorates in all regards. What the world needs (if having a global hegemon is unavoidable) is the global hegemon being willing and capable of doing good for the entire world for its entire time as a hegemon, and know to willingly concede its hegemonic position if it is unable to do so. So, can China continue to "do the right thing", if it does become the global hegemon? Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely... the only question is of time. How long can China be the "good" global hegemon? That is the question we must ask if Chinese global hegemony is unavoidable (which it is not; the future is always uncertain).
To be blunt: is the idea that state policy is the net result of a collection of individual actor's career ambitions, idiosyncrasies and personal bias (rather than a rationalized deliberative consensus) actually that new a revelation? Is it even relevant to the US-China conflict? I feel like I've just watched about 1 hour of a guy going to great lengths to say that "China Experts Live In A Society", without really examining any of the real systemic changes in global geopolitics produced by an increasingly assertive and economically dominant China, combined with a less productive, independent and dynamic US.
I feel this was intended to be an overview more than a detailed explanation of all the factors involved. It's a great video to pause and go googling from.
Please get your facts straight: According to Reuters, island building in the South China Sea primarily by Vietnam and the Philippines has been going on for decades on a small scale before China got started. Why did you criticize China only?
I'd like to know what China's feelings would be towards the US if the trade deficit was the other way? Would they think it was unacceptable or be just fine with it? What if the US was using China technology to compete? Would they be stopping it? I think I know China and the answers.
not comparable. firstly, China sells hard working produced good in exchange of printed paper form the US. the US eating the free lunch of the world for decades, its the system designed that way. China didn't forced Americans to buy their products. secondly, yes, the US used Britain technology to compete with Britain not long time ago to displace the Britain, did Britain stopped it?? LOL , you know nothing about China and the world history no mention the answers!!
I was a Chinese international student in Canada. Now I am watching this video from China, with a VPN.
I don't know if anyone in Watson will read this, but in the Chinese sphere of academic, they generally name this shift in global political landscape "百年未有之大变局", which roughtly translates to "greatest global changes in a century" or "changes of a kind unseen in a century". This phrase is first brought by by Xi Jinping himself in one of his foreign affairs meetings and it is considered his core judgement of the current international relation.
I must emphaize that this is NOT some authoritarian push of information. This is a serious analysis of current affairs. While scholars have various interpretation, there are 3 generally accpeted messages.
1) China is rising comprehensively, not only in economy, but also in science R&D, cultural output, education, military, and much more.
2) The western world are in decline relatively and absolutely. They have an aging population coupled with rapid deindustrialization and financialization.
3) This shift of global power balance occurs right at a peculiar time of human history, where human has the worst income inequality, climate change, and the incoming 4th industrial revolution.
Thanks, very informative.
Electric Toxic Agreed with u. I want China to lead the World. Love China from India.
The US became a super power 75 years ago and honestly, US capitalism has failed, we are destroying the planet and all life in the name of profit, the wealth gap is going opposite to where it should go and all this has to stop soon. Even if the Chinese model is not perfect, it is evolving and learning fast, it is not developing into a military world empire and it doesn't invade and destroy small defenseless countries to steal their ressources so from here in Canada, China looks to be the best option for humanity right now, if the Chinese people can conquer the world using peace rather than weapons, I'm all with you and anyway, in a few hundred years someone else will take the lead, that's how it works.
well perceived
This is an amazing comment. Prophetic.
I get the idea from Trump and his supporters the idea of the last empire, America will never allow any nation to have a GDP greater than itself. Primacy will be maintained by any means necessary and that's regardless of China being communist democratic or even friendly.
The Chinese has lost their trust of the US' impartiality and its role as honest broker in Asia, that's why the Chinese stopped listening to the US. It happened when the other claimants of South China sea like Vietnam, Malaysia and Philippine started to build the islands they claimed years ago and the US kept the silence. The Chinese responded with building the island of their own, except in much more massive scale. The Chinese also lost their trust of the US when the Japanese nationalized the disputed island Senkaku/Diaoyu, and the US again kept the silence. The Chinese responded with reorganizing the coast guards and sent them to patrol near the island. The Chinese also upset when the Taiwanese DPP party slowly eroded the one China policy, and the US again said nothing. You can't claim to be the mediator that keep the peace when you keep siding with one side. The Chinese completely lost their respect of the US when in 2008, the US recklessness with its financial system caused the global financial meltdown, threatening the Chinese investment in the US and the global economy.
Many countries in West-Europe are aware of the aggresiveness of the US, but they would still rather have a 'democratic' country be #1, than a communist country. While they have overthrown a ton of democratically chosen presidents, I am still amazed so many people don't know this.
My greatest fear is this:
USA have been the dominant power in the world since WWII and it have maintained its position of control through geopolitical strategies that put a strangle hold on resources such as oil. This was achieved through numerous means, but the most objectionable from countries facing US attention would the military power and its economic power through the dollar being the reserve currency and US's established financial systems. Thus, invasions, coups, training and support of insurgencies and counter insurgencies, sanctions, blockades etc. US have never ceased being involved in military conflicts, often numerous conflicts concurrently, since its rise to prominence. Currently the trade sanctions are so prevalent, it goes without saying that you can basically expect sanctions to be applied to all countries that is not US allied or de-facto allied (such as Neutral European Countries). US have been a factor, often the only factor, in destruction of legitimacy of any attempt at international structure of organisation and law. Subtlety it may be in the form of casting a veto or refusing to acknowledge and implement a UN resolution, either general assembly or security council (such as the issue of Israel). More blatantly, it expresses openly hostile and militant attitudes to international law adjudicators like the International Criminal Court (such as the 'Hague Invasion Act').
The human cost, in suffering and needless destruction of life has been immense, even only counting directly inflicted damage (such as civilians killed by US soldiers and drones) it would be in the millions, but if we counted all the atrocities aided, supported or otherwise turned a blind eye and allowed by the US (such as the genocide in East Timor), the number would be so enormous its sufficient to say that the US have out murdered all regimes in similar time frames. Yet it have maintained such a sound and effective domestic media propaganda system, the US citizens are often unaware of facts, or have been indoctrinated to the point of assuming a de-facto moral high ground by virtual of their citizenship and oblivious to any hypocrisy it may invoke. Needless to say, as the struggle to maintain control continues, the extent where the 'grand narrative' of US virtue must depart from the truth becomes more and more absurd, to support equally extreme and absurd policies, both domestic and foreign.
It is undeniable that China is rising, and if it is not China, then it maybe India after it, or by some miraculous epiphany of unity and competence, the EU, or perhaps Russia, or some other world power that will one day remove the US from the position of dominance.
Thus it is my fear that the the next regime, the next world dominant power or the next organisation in the position of the US, is capable of learning from the US. More over, i fear that it will understand, is capable and willing to continue a geopolitical structure just like this one. After all, it is only logical for a nation with sufficient military and economic might to assert itself where possible, to control through brute force where suffering of the masses is of no real concern, or is a small price to pay for world domination. How bleak it would be, if following the rise of China, we observe that American flags over thousands of military bases around the world is merely replaced with the red flag, GI Joes replaced with the red army, and nothing else in essence would have changed. How horrifying it would be, to have a world dominating power that have suffered, truly and seriously, in the last few centuries as to leave a lasting impression, or worse still, a hunger for revenge. How inhumane it would be, to have a world dominating power to reverse the tables and subject its old rivals to ruin merely for the fact it could conduct itself with impunity. And how antithetical to freedom it would be, for China to start preaching freedom of speech for it assumes control of the greatest means of influence (such as facebook, google, or whichever fulfills a similar role) and paddle propaganda to spread division in designated targets, and achieve some mentality of 'Chinese exceptionalism' on par with the current US doctrine.
If such a beak picture of the future is to come to pass, then I fear that humanity would have lost its chance to grow and develop, in organizing human life towards a more peaceful and cooperative world for decades if not centuries to come. As idealistic as I am, i harbour no real hope that an world dominating empire would somehow miraculously self-adjust its pattern of behaviour into pacifism and cooperation where it have demonstrated every tendency against it. Thus I ping my hopes on this change of hands, this passing of the baton, willingly or not. I pray to all deities that could swing the next world power towards a diplomatic strategy that is centered around garnering influence through aid and trade, rather than military and sanctions. These 'change of hands' in world geopolitical arena is rare and far in between, involving much risk of global conflict each time (more so now with the presence of thermonuclear weapons). Empires may last hundreds of years, and I fear if we cannot make progress with this impending shift in geopolitical power, then we will not live to see the next opportunity.
In addition to an unadulterated idealist, I am also an optimist. China have not yet invaded anyone for geopolitical reasons or resource exploitation YET. It has not actively participated in sanctions of such severity as to endanger civilian life, YET. Its authoritarianism, while noted, have not entirely been arbitrary in its implementation. I have not yet been persuaded of any fact or incident which could definitively foretell that China will adopt the US foreign policy methodology. I hope that such restraint is stemming from some inherent wisdom, human decency and conscience, and not from the simple fact that China is not in the position of power to fully bear its fangs, Yet.
This is a perfect summary of my feelings. The American Empire has done a lot of evil under the blanket of freedom and democracy and I am happy to see it end.
However, that doesn't mean I want another greater empire to replace it and enact the same evils and violence that America has done to the world.
I wish that the human desire to dominant would end and that there would be no violence but sadly, our species is very flawed.
I hope the next empire or superpower breaks the cycle of violence, I don't want anymore wars, anymore drone strikes, anymore coups against democratically elected governments.
No more violence, please.
America does not care for its allies because of its over amplified ego of exceptionalism. Take Nord stream 2 for example. Sanctioning companies to stop Germany from meeting its energy needs isn’t engagement. It’s bullying because it cannot sell its gas (at a higher price) to Germany. America is doomed, it’s countless wars cannot be won, its debt will balloon because it is committed without any exit options from all these wars. Meanwhile all diverted resources is making for a poorer average American. With the disappearing middle class and growing masses of those living in poverty, what are the chances of revolt and riots growing in frequency within America itself. Forcing “allies” to do its bidding will one day turn against America when it looses it ability to bully and gets it way.
Will China be like America? Simple - the answer is a definite NO. Ask yourself, why did the CPC make poverty alleviation a priority policy? Building towns (in some cases) to rehouse those too isolated to be reached and effectively assisted, building schools with dorms to ensure schooling for those living in the fringes, teaching Tibetan and Uighur languages in schools together with mandarin and English to ensure that cultures are preserved and etc etc. China realized that unless poverty is alleviated, people will rebel and cause social unrest. I recall when I was younger I was introduced to the concept of “mandate by heaven”. Never truly understood this until recently. It’s basically says that unless the ruling elite do the right and moral thing to better society, “heaven” will revoke its blessing to the elite/rulers. Ancient China practiced a very difficult entrance exam to vet for able candidates to work in the courts. This system is still in practice and have permeates through the political sphere. I have worked in Russia during the times of Yeltsin coming into power and I have seen Russia communism as nothing more than tyrannical rule. In China, you work from grassroots to prove yourself as able and capable to manage your responsibilities. And as you prove yourself, you move up from say a village manager to that of a district official and through meritocracy you rise up the CPC. Look at Xi’s younger days and it’s a classic example of how members of the CPC reach the top echelons of power. Meanwhile democracy is nothing but a hostage to money politics. Corporations donate to political parties and cash in favours when the “horses” they backed coles into office. Capitalism is the worse enemy of america, Karl Marx foresaw it. I am glad to see America loose its hegemony, it has caused enough wars and ensuing suffering all
In the name of getting their grubby hands on resources for itself.
This is EXACTLY my doubts as well. Even if China replaces the US as the global hegemon, what's not to say it would simply become a more efficient version of it? Then the world would have to wait until the institutions of the Chinese Empire rot (all polities eventually do), as the American Empire's has today. And Chinese Empires last 250-300 years on average, funnily enough not that different from the American Empire. Perhaps the greatest difference is that with 4x the population of the previous hegemon, a fully revitalised China would be an even more insurmountable global hegemon that the current one. The only nation that could stand up to the Chinese Empire would be India, and from what I see today, India is actually MORE likely to become like the American Empire if it gains world hegemony due to its strong religious foundations (which China lacks, but the US actually has with its Evangelicals and pseudo-religious Liberals).
Right now, the main thing convincing me that China will not walk the "exploitative world hegemon" path is that it is a socialist country. True socialists have always been about bettering the lot of the masses, not the few. The best potential future for a hegemonic China is that it extends this "betterment of the masses" mentality to the whole world, rather than seeing as just the "Chinese masses" as the only one being deserving of socialism, while the rest of the world can be written off as exploitable trade mules who exist only so the Chinese can live in a socialist utopia. The latter is the mentality of the current American Empire (just more extreme), with socialism for the American elites but unchecked capitalism (i.e., rule of the jungle) for the masses of both the American Empire and those outside of it. For there to be peace in the world, there must be betterment of the masses everywhere. And even then, this "betterment of the masses everywhere" must be done in the right way, otherwise it becomes imperialism, if not in truth then definitely in interpretation by the global audience.
Ancient China has always been highly inwards looking, because none others (within communicable distance of their era) could hold a candle to Chinese civilisational might. Even military conquests by the Mongols/Manchu resulted in them both being assimilated, their homelands annexed by subsequent iterations of China. But the Century of Humiliation, the first genuine civilisational threat to China in all its history, has taught China that it can never again afford to be inwards looking and isolationist, which means if it ever attains global hegemony, it WILL use it. We can only hope that they will use it for a good cause rather than a selfish one.
TLDR: For the hypothetical scenario of China achieving global hegemony, its overarching goal will be determined either by its nationalism, or its socialism. Right now, both complement each other in China's development, but one day it will have to choose between them. To use its hegemony in favour of China only, or the betterment of the entire world. That will be the question of the hypothetical "Chinese century".
(China is not National Socialism, a.k.a fascist. National Socialism was a false name adopted by actual fascists to take the word "socialism" away from leftists, and it worked, for a time. Nations can have both nationalism and socialism without being fascist).
@@daniellee8720 The fear isn't China TODAY becoming exploitative global hegemon like the US is. China TODAY is doing things right. But almost every single Chinese dynasty did things right in the early years. It was always the later years of the dynasties where things went to shit; the ruling elite became selfish and lost sight of reality, the ruling political culture become ossified and unable to dynamically respond to changing situations, the masses suffered as bureaucratic infrastructure failed and people-to-ruler communications were severed.
The fear is that if China achieves global hegemony, that is where its apex will be. And then, it will walk the long road of exploitation as it deteriorates in all regards. What the world needs (if having a global hegemon is unavoidable) is the global hegemon being willing and capable of doing good for the entire world for its entire time as a hegemon, and know to willingly concede its hegemonic position if it is unable to do so.
So, can China continue to "do the right thing", if it does become the global hegemon? Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely... the only question is of time. How long can China be the "good" global hegemon? That is the question we must ask if Chinese global hegemony is unavoidable (which it is not; the future is always uncertain).
Why did the United States emerge as a global economic and military power after World War II?
How can we apply constructivism ih the trade war
I think you should've mentioned the military industrial complex, I felt like the last half of the video was spent on trying to figure them out
To be blunt: is the idea that state policy is the net result of a collection of individual actor's career ambitions, idiosyncrasies and personal bias (rather than a rationalized deliberative consensus) actually that new a revelation? Is it even relevant to the US-China conflict? I feel like I've just watched about 1 hour of a guy going to great lengths to say that "China Experts Live In A Society", without really examining any of the real systemic changes in global geopolitics produced by an increasingly assertive and economically dominant China, combined with a less productive, independent and dynamic US.
I feel this was intended to be an overview more than a detailed explanation of all the factors involved. It's a great video to pause and go googling from.
When David put up his leg, I thought he wasn't wearing pants
Please get your facts straight: According to Reuters, island building in the South China Sea primarily by Vietnam and the Philippines has been going on for decades on a small scale before China got started. Why did you criticize China only?
Russia also does not have minor economical threat... Big parts of the world are dependent on Russian oil and gas
That's typically appalling reasoning. Good grief
US can't be serious...that's so basic, it's weirdly vacuous
I'd like to know what China's feelings would be towards the US if the trade deficit was the other way? Would they think it was unacceptable or be just fine with it?
What if the US was using China technology to compete? Would they be stopping it?
I think I know China and the answers.
Good question, maybe you should read Dean Baker's work about this.
deanbaker.net/books/rigged.htm
not comparable. firstly, China sells hard working produced good in exchange of printed paper form the US. the US eating the free lunch of the world for decades, its the system designed that way. China didn't forced Americans to buy their products. secondly, yes, the US used Britain technology to compete with Britain not long time ago to displace the Britain, did Britain stopped it??
LOL , you know nothing about China and the world history no mention the answers!!
Stupid comparison, it's not China's fault that the trade deficit exists.
@@archangel7052 True.
agree with the others that this comparison doesn't really stand. You are also making many speculations about China.