A Chinese Empire Reborn

[Jlaw]

Soft power, hard power, at the end of the day it's still power. I don't think America can command its international influence today with purely the application of soft power. They didn't get to where they are today by the power of Hollywood or "freedom".

I used to be against the notion of "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun" but the more I study international relations, international finance, and political systems the more I realise the "gun" is at the core of all current major political systems. Of course its unwise to be "shooting" everyone but the ability to apply that kind of force is very important in statecraft and having the ability often leads to less violence and more stability. Hard power and wisdom are both important, soft power comes later, learn to walk before you run. Countries that doesn't have that kind of internal power monopoly can be easily destabilised like Syria and Ukraine, try something similar in USA and overwhelming state force will be applied to eliminate any destabilising forces.

From the perspective of state craft much of these trends seem positive.

• Suppression of separatist movements. Many countries are tackling their own internal stability issues but less successful to varying degrees, countries like Turkey, India, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Myanmar, Pakistan and Ukraine. I don't think soft-power will help them much, hard-power is key and China just has more hard power. Don't you think with greater state power relative to separatist movements their respective countries will be more stable and can develop faster?
• Common language, local language and customs will be maintained but there needs to be a common language or these minorities will always have difficulty in getting upward mobility. Common language can help alleviate extreme poverty and to create more opportunities. Some think the Chinese government is tackling Tibetian culture when in fact their monasteries and books published in Tibetan are all over China.

Those countries you mentioned have too many different religious and ethnic groups. That is destabilizing to a country. Just let CIA fund a little uprising and all hell breaks out.

 

[IblinI]

lol India will challenge China?

India is far behind China in military, and in industry.

India doesn't stand a chance against China.

The only thing India has equal with China is almost population.

You can not see that confident US anymore these days, that they put their bet on India and Japan.

 

[rcrmj]

yet, China's performance keeps defying their so-called "observation" and assumption```do they have climax everytime after pulling out articles like that, becaues I cant explain why they keep writing things that against truth and reality?

 

[Cybernetics]

Not because US ideas are better, but because US material ground is firmer.

Yup, for normal people and society as a whole mythology and idealism has an important function but if we are going to talk about this academically or rise above some of the smokescreen, physics based logic helps.

If we are to abide by objectivism then the metric of success for any idea are its fruits, why else would the idea have any value other than the fruits they bear or its potential fruits? Humans are evolutionarily selected to choose ideas conducive to survival (not just physical survival, there are layers to survival), idea works=good, idea doesn't work=bad. Simple binary A/B testing but often peoples that have been distanced from the consciousness of survival tend to produce convoluted ideas that they themselves might not be able to implement sucessfully beyond an abstract level. This tendency is not unique to particular groups, all are susceptible thus creating the rise and fall cycle of civilizations. The inertia of believing in an abstract idea without being flexible enough to test and readjust leads to the stagnation and downfall of nations. Human civilization doesn't have to repeat such disastrous episodes of history or experience such a large amplitude but that requires societal discipline along with both grounded and progressive attitudes.

Those countries you mentioned have too many different religious and ethnic groups. That is destabilizing to a country. Just let CIA fund a little uprising and all hell breaks out.

You are right. Quite a few countries plagued with destabilizing factors are the byproducts of arbitrary borders left by imperial powers and lack a distinct and powerful "national core" thus not being able to concentrate and direct state power. Many leaders that tried to go through the painful process of weaving a new national core from the fabric of the old were eliminated in the name of freedom and democracy, since they tended to be strongmen for good reason, only strongmen can keep these countries together. Perhaps these countries were never meant to be in the first place.

It is possible for a multitude of religious ethnic groups to live under one flag but there must be strong institutions (civil, social, cultural, religious, legal, armed forces etc.) to hold society together. For newly formed nations like post independence Iraq with relatively weak institutions relied on a strong man and the institution of the armed forces and secret police to hold society together. When all you have is a hammer all problems look like a nail. Over time often taking generations, strong civil institutions can form and bonding different groups on a deeper level within a cohesive society. Without the strongman to buy time for civil institutions to develop, that nation has little hope of attaining meaningful development. The state institution should be designed to be all encompassing of other societal institutions to maintain unity. For a religiously diverse nation a religious state is inherently divisive thus tend to be secular but for a mono-religious country a religious government could work. Each country must find a system that suits their conditions, there is no universal pill.

 

[武成王]

People usually don't grasp why aging population is a big issue for nations, it IS a big issue for less populated nations like Japan and European republics, for China, India and to a less extent USA, aging a not a disastrous problem. For China and India, they're super scale countries, they can build and sustain a huge size talent pool to provide human resource fuel to drive their industries and competence, for USA, the current best country for world wide immigrants, it can suck talents from all over the world. India has great potential however the Indian culture and political reality significantly suppress their potential. Aging is a social insurance issue for huge country, however it's a disastrous competence issue for small nations.

Among China, India and USA, USA is an immigrants majority country, there's no the concept of ethnic American that's why the United States is a country that attaches extreme importance to patriotism on the planet, this is the only way to provide cohesion to the most diverse population group of the planet. However, there's a precondition for this tactic to work, USA must keep its prosperous and militarily strong position, plus construct a harmonious social coexistence of different races and different cultures. It's like a group of bandits, if there's something to rob and share, your skin color, language is not important at all, when the bandits were defeated by another group bandits or police or can't find anything to rob, the bandits will kill each other among themselves and finally announce the disintegration of the bandit group.

For India, honestly speaking, although modern India is a direct heritage of British colonization, India does has internal ties among its diverse ethnicity and culture, however India has severe political reality that there's fierce mentality and religious collision among e.g. Muslim and Hindu, NE and India Mainland, Kashmir etc.

For China, although there's some minor issues in Xinjiang and Tibet, however we should understand these minorities walked along the tough history shoulder by shoulder with Han and other minorities for hundreds of years. China is an intrinsically much much more solid nation than USA and India.

If there's no a global nuclear war in the future, I'm not sure whether USA still exist after 100 years, because I'm not sure how WASP elites deal with the challenge that white majority America become a non white majority society or Latinized, whether their next next generation should speak Spanish etc. Again, uncertain future of America especially the dream of American exceptionalism and superiority is to be broken by rising developing nations, by oops Trump alikes, they feel frustration and get start to blame others and get start to throw bombs to others, they are not used to such a situation since July 4, 1776.

Military is still important but non decisive factor in modern era to shape a dominant power, human resource, education and effective governance etc combined to shape future powers, plus a little bit luck to shape a super power. Don't tell me USA become super power if there's no WWII, WWII is a big pie God thrown from the sky hitting on American's head. I'm pretty sure a lot of white far right has a strong desire to wage WWIII when they feel desperation to rescue America from dominant position in global politics and economy, because they deeply believe the God bless America and the God will throw another big pie on their head.

The problem is does God agree with them this time?

 

[Mangus Ortus Novem]

The Chinese empire... or the Rise of China or the Red Evil or the Yellow plague...

We have all seen this before... From Napoleon to well... you know....

As I have tried to instill many a time before... China is neither rising nor China will become an empire...

As a living Civilisation and longest continuous existing state China is just becoming what China was before the age of sorrow or Century of Humiliation.

Throughout Chinese history there have never been colonies or subhumanisation of its subjects... it is against the very essence of the Chinesseness..ie. the Confuscian Thought.

It is the existential angst, panic and a growing sense of loss by the current empire and its supporters to paint China in this manner. It is understandable...this is how black propaganda works.

Despite starting this biggest infrastructure project in human history or pulling millions out of poverty in a few decades without aid... China has not master the art of narrative building and positioning itself in the positive light in accordance to PRC's achievements on the ground...

While others can kill millions and call it freedom... China has saved millions and yet it is still bashed...

I guess troublemakers take China's restraint and desire for Harmony and Peaceful Co-existence as weakness... and when China finally starts to replace its ancient military equipment then they start fearmongering...while spending most on agressive weapons in the world.

This is black/dark propaganda... we should just ignore it...and take it is as compliment for China's progress.

It is all about Yuan becoming more and more international and defacto reserve currency.

For the next 30 years China has no time or resources to waste on stupid imperial adventure... its neither in their DNA nor do the Chinese have a need for it.

Simply because the Chinese work hard! They don't need colonies to work for them...

Funny thing is by using an ethnic Chinese troublemakers think that the story would have more legitimacy... those days are long gone. Sellouts have no future.

Harmony under the Heavens is the right course of action.

Let the Community of Prosperity eat the empire for lunch without firing a single bullet!!!

 

[TaiShang]

Who is that. Please don't tell me I sniff a Ganga here?

SP12 is Superpower 2012. Who do you think claims to be superpower 2012?

If one talking of population divident SP12, one is Indian.

Not just India, this closet Indian also treats its adopted country flags like it is another SP12.

Talking about Indian soft power spreading...

 

[gambit]

Soft power, hard power, at the end of the day it's still power. I don't think America can command its international influence today with purely the application of soft power. They didn't get to where they are today by the power of Hollywood or "freedom".

When I was a tourist in communist East Berlin -- I am that old -- whatever 'Western' commanded respect and desirability at the cultural level. The ability to wield immediate contestant hard power allows the slower but subtle influential soft power to flourish. That is why the communist bloc, including China, went to great lengths to control accessibility to Western influences of any kind, from intellectual to physical forms.

...the ability to apply that kind of force is very important in statecraft and having the ability often leads to less violence and more stability.

Essentially, peace thru superior firepower. Not saying that as a joke but as a statement of factual experience.

What is 'less violence' is really debatable. Depending on who does the research, violence, internal and/or external, remains relatively unchanged even after the creation of the UN, a body that is supposedly able to reduce violence and promote peace. But at least, what 'superior firepower' does is contain the spread of violence, either thru threats and intimidation into submission or thru outright military suppression of the sources of violence that has potential to spread. ECOWAS and the Liberian civil war is one example of superior firepower and external intervention to contain violence.

 

[TaiShang]

If we are to abide by objectivism then the metric of success for any idea are its fruits, why else would the idea have any value other than the fruits they bear or its potential fruits? Humans are evolutionarily selected to choose ideas conducive to survival (not just physical survival, there are layers to survival), idea works=good, idea doesn't work=bad. Simple binary A/B testing but often peoples that have been distanced from the consciousness of survival tend to produce convoluted ideas that they themselves might not be able to implement sucessfully beyond an abstract level. This tendency is not unique to particular groups, all are susceptible thus creating the rise and fall cycle of civilizations. The inertia of believing in an abstract idea without being flexible enough to test and readjust leads to the stagnation and downfall of nations. Human civilization doesn't have to repeat such disastrous episodes of history or experience such a large amplitude but that requires societal discipline along with both grounded and progressive attitudes.

This brings us to the idea of historical dialecticism, I guess, which means that each cycle should lead to a higher state of being. But, for the cycle to complete, it needs momentum, the problem with most of the US-led Western ideologism is that they have a frozen viewpoint, entirely against the notion of dialectical progress.

When they see themselves stagnated and others improving and progressing without copying their own historical practice, the Western intelligentsia (a good portion of it) are startled and then they produce the kind of ideas that similar to that of the OP. Instead of contemplating over their loss of momentum and progress, they concentrate on the question of other's progress which, by their formula, should not have happened. Then they produce lots of excuses for their failure (such as denying the fact that Trump is an outcome, not a symptom) and creative terminologies for the success of others.

Those countries you mentioned have too many different religious and ethnic groups. That is destabilizing to a country. Just let CIA fund a little uprising and all hell breaks out.

Multiculturalism is becoming a destructive force not only for the countries with weak institutions and arbitrarily-formed borders, but also for relatively stable Western countries with strong institutions and stable borders.

I think the reason is the erosion of the material ground, as we have been witnessing in the US. The struggle is not merely among those who occupy the lower strata of the society, but also among the power elite.

Consider the destructive fight between the so called right (nativist) and centrist (globalist) politics in the US. The fight has erupted because both what they share has remained stagnated and their hunger has grown.

Let the Community of Prosperity eat the empire for lunch without firing a single bullet!!!

An I think this is exactly what creates distorted reaction on part of the US because they are not educated to face a civilizational wisdom of governance as a rival. Trying to match the US bullet by bullet, the Soviets rewarded them the best enemy. But, China is not giving the US the enemy they want. This deranges the mental stability of the US power elite, including its politics and media/information.

 

[Dungeness]

Essentially, peace thru superior firepower. Not saying that as a joke but as a statement of factual experience.

What is 'less violence' is really debatable. Depending on who does the research, violence, internal and/or external, remains relatively unchanged even after the creation of the UN, a body that is supposedly able to reduce violence and promote peace. But at least, what 'superior firepower' does is contain the spread of violence, either thru threats and intimidation into submission or thru outright military suppression of the sources of violence that has potential to spread. ECOWAS and the Liberian civil war is one example of superior firepower and external intervention to contain violence.

So basically, you call this NYT article BS, which I agree.

The only time one would complain about "Power" (hard, soft, sharp, smart, etc.) is when one doesn't have it, or face the erosion of its own.

 

[gambit]

So basically, you call this NYT article BS, which I agree.

The only time one would complain about "Power" (hard, soft, sharp, smart, etc.) is when one doesn't have it, or face the erosion of its own.

What the US, and Western allies, had back during the Cold War was the most insidious influence -- culture.

Here is the definition of 'insidious'...

proceeding in a gradual, subtle way, but with harmful effects.

It is 'harmful' only to the target. Not that it is harmful in its nature. In other words, Western values are harmful to what the communists wanted to preserve under their rule.

When I was a tourist in communist East Berlin, my Levi's denim jean, US currency, Mickey Mouse, or the US Constitution, all were considered 'harmful' and threatening to East Germany. Threatening because they were desirable by the populace.

Culture is soft power at the most atomic level of any society -- the individual.

Above the individual is the community and over all is the state ( government ). We won the Cold War at the atomic level.

You can destroy a tank two ways: With a weapon or with water.

With a bomb or a missile, you can put the tank out of commission for a long time. If you put the tank in water, eventually, the water will literally dissolve the tank. It just takes time.

We won the Cold War because we won over the individuals. Just like water, it took time but the Cold War was won with practically no bloodshed, at least not in the context of warfare as we know it. The Western values were insidious to what the communists wanted.

China's type of soft power is effective at the state level. Like it or not, around the world, people want to be like an American or a European, not like a Chinese.

 

[war&peace]

I am not going to bother with a dick measuring contest with you over this. Suffice to say I have lot of experiance with the Chinese.

I do business with them. I had classmates and I've employees and business partners.

Underestimate India at your peril. Considering the demographic trends of China and India, it's clear that gap will close.

So you're anchoring all your hopes in increasing indian population?

 

[ZeEa5KPul]

An I think this is exactly what creates distorted reaction on part of the US because they are not educated to face a civilizational wisdom of governance as a rival. Trying to match the US bullet by bullet, the Soviets rewarded them the best enemy. But, China is not giving the US the enemy they want. This deranges the mental stability of the US power elite, including its politics and media/information.

Your posts in this thread have been spectacular. How do you get those green ticks on posts, because they definitely merit them.

I've thought for a long time that China owed Osama bin Laden a debt of gratitude for distracting the US for a decade as he did. I'm also starting to think that China also owes the USSR a debt (even though it latterly became an opponent). It primed the US for a specific kind of rival and gave it an experience that is not only inapplicable but also counterproductive to its competition with China.

Furthermore, since the USSR and its ideologies are associated with Marxism and historical materialism, these terms and modes of thought became heresy in the West, especially so in America. America willingly deprived itself of a rich theoretical framework with which to study the evolution of societies, including its own. Instead, all it has is the "end of history."

America is not going to pose the kind of challenge to China many here think it will. If America were a culture with deep civilizational roots transplanted onto a new continent, I would agree that it would be a formidable (though still defatigable) rival. But as one of Brad Pitt's characters once brilliantly put it, "America's not a country, it's just a business."

 

[Zsari]

Many Chinese people told me they still believed the country’s top leaders looked out for ordinary people, even if the party was rotting. This belief was rooted in abstract hope rather than empirical evidence. It was like peering through the toxic air enveloping Chinese cities in search of blue sky.

What empirical evidence is this author presenting? Are the air quality in Chinese city declining or actually improving as the author attempts to use "toxic air" to deliver a bleak perception? The entire article is trying to establish a false perception without providing empirical data contrary to author's own statement.

 

[Jlaw]

Multiculturalism is becoming a destructive force not only for the countries with weak institutions and arbitrarily-formed borders, but also for relatively stable Western countries with strong institutions and stable borders.

I think the reason is the erosion of the material ground, as we have been witnessing in the US. The struggle is not merely among those who occupy the lower strata of the society, but also among the power elite.

Multiculturalism is the greatest destructive tool of any country. Multiculturalism bring instability and hatred among the populace. Zionist favour card to destabilize stabilize countries.

Anyway apology for suggesting you are Indian. I was ready to believe that because I see this often on PDF. And before I go I don't agree one bit with your government but I am cool with Yanks. Nothing personal. Ta ta ....

You lived in UK and I grew up in North America. There is no way any white person would go into a Pakistan forum and religiously bash China . This dude has never posted any negative news about India nor has he ever argued or counter Indian perspective. He is definitely a false flagger. In reality, racist whites who dislike east Asians and Indians hate Indians a much more.

You are right. Quite a few countries plagued with destabilizing factors are the byproducts of arbitrary borders left by imperial powers and lack a distinct and powerful "national core" thus not being able to concentrate and direct state power. Many leaders that tried to go through the painful process of weaving a new national core from the fabric of the old were eliminated in the name of freedom and democracy, since they tended to be strongmen for good reason, only strongmen can keep these countries together. Perhaps these countries were never meant to be in the first place.

It is possible for a multitude of religious ethnic groups to live under one flag but there must be strong institutions (civil, social, cultural, religious, legal, armed forces etc.) to hold society together. For newly formed nations like post independence Iraq with relatively weak institutions relied on a strong man and the institution of the armed forces and secret police to hold society together. When all you have is a hammer all problems look like a nail. Over time often taking generations, strong civil institutions can form and bonding different groups on a deeper level within a cohesive society. Without the strongman to buy time for civil institutions to develop, that nation has little hope of attaining meaningful development. The state institution should be designed to be all encompassing of other societal institutions to maintain unity. For a religiously diverse nation a religious state is inherently divisive thus tend to be secular but for a mono-religious country a religious government could work. Each country must find a system that suits their conditions, there is no universal pill.

The assumption of your post is you assume the established government and institutions will always have a strong base going forward with the ability to keep an eye on different ethnic groups. You know that can't always work, ie Germany, Sweden, etc. nor can you assume the country will always be strong in the distant future. Example, when Tang pacified Xinjiang, they should have not allowed the uyghurs to stay. Hence centuries later they seem to be headache to Chinese society. Combined with CIA money and religion there could have been a disaster if China we're weak.