A revealing article. Frightening, delusion man. Mr Wong has invented a vision of China detached from reality. That he will have power is crazy and dangerous. His conception is less a reflection of China than a reflection of the China required to pursue America's traditional hegemonic policies. Believe the hope for understanding and realism springs less from intellectual insights than from the material impact on the US economy of trying to decouple from and isolate China. There are elements in the US economy whose prosperity depends on a productive relationship with China--both ordinary people and powerful corporate oligarchs.
Any ABC that uses the nomenclature "CCP" instead of the correct "CPC" is just another ignorant American. Got a Bachelors in English Literature and French from Pennsylvania University and a JD from Harvard. Bog standard US lawyer becomes politician/diplomat with no actual applicable knowledge or experience apart from within the US policy blob. The usual delusional, incompetent idiot.
You're right: ultimately the US will only hurt itself, until finally they come to their senses, and realise that "co-evolution", as argued by Henry Kissinger in his well informed book, "On China", back in 2012, is the best way forward.
Things have changed so much in such a few years, but hopefully those more intelligent voices in the US will become more influential again soon.
While I agree that the PRC isn’t intent on pillaging the world, I’m also unconvinced that it has the best interests of the people in mind. At its core, the Party’s main motivation is to stay in power, at whatever cost. Threatening regional countries and potentially throwing the country into conflict doesn’t seem to imply that its main concern is the welfare of the nation.
In an electoral system, a political party stays in power “at whatever cost”. In China’s one-party system, there is in the end only one way for a party to stay in power, which is to work for“the welfare of nation”. The alternative, otherwise, is rebellion and total collapse of order. And trust me, not only China has not shortage of experience with collapse, the ruling class also have full knowledge of this millennia-long experience as well.
> Moreover, we need to face the question of who exactly is insulating whom. If China is embracing, trading with, and working with the majority of the world, and the majority of the world is also willing to freely embrace, to trade with and to work with China, isn’t a containment strategy against China effectively a containment strategy around one’s self?
> The real endgame of such a “self-containment” policy stance will not be the de-legitimization of the CCP, but it will certainly de-legitimize the US in front of the world, which will be quite depressing for the US.
Although Washington regime shills will be quick to invent some mental gymnastics maneuvers to make it sound like that's the opposite of what's happening. Pure projection, as usual.
Humanity is not an actor here. Capital is, and Capital has spoken: it will not surrender control of the world's wealth without a war.
I doubt that capitalist countries can afford wars with Russia, China, Iran and the DPRK. They're all heavily in debt, their armories thoroughly depleted and their cunning plan in Ukraine defeated.
China’s Communist Party’s position as China’s ruling party is very secure for the foreseeable future
It is silly for MAGA to speak of regime change. They have moved from the QANON cult to the FaLunGung. (Is QANON a FaLunGung operation?)
The most realistic chance for China to become a multi party state lies with eventual peaceful reunification with the Republic of China on Taiwan. But no Americans realize that.
I think the 0-1 concession you make is just not factual. The accusation is one the West also used against Japan forty years ago. It's essentially racist where the issue is one of how far up the production chanin has been reached, and over what time and at what scale. China's newish to the game.
Having said that, studies have shown that China is now ahead of the world on +significant+ patents per year. For significant, read creative.
Actually as fair as this article attempts to go, it concedes far to much to Alex W by not closely examining his touchstone, the US, in the same areas Alex W accuses China.
As can be seen,there is no need for reasons to conjure anything. It is just how powerful pigs couch their economic interests.( Saying there was attack, even though they are the one doing attacks)
China should focus on production and for employment ( R& D is ok too ,evn in very large numbers) .why deflation is not good?
I am reading a book on regionalism that states the US has been held back from forming ties with Canada and Mexico due to the strength of the dollar. It may be in the interests of the US and world for US power to fall a bit.
I do want to point out that while China has settled some disputes, I imagine he was talking about Taiwan there. I still believe if that does happen, it will be from soft power, not hard power.
I read the Hong Kong diaries recently and Chris Patten has pretty much the same view: that the lenninist state is at odds with with liberal democracy and this structure is going to lead to increasing conflict.
The way to test this would be to look at post colonial liberal democracies and post colonial lenninist states and their relationship with Chris pattern. Hong Kong provides a pretty interesting case study as it's been both. But I don't see patten saying the same about Japan, USA Canada or Australia.
"It is also true that some aggressive posturing (e.g. wolf-warrior diplomacy) can score some credits at home. "
I've always seen this "wolf-warrior" action as an act of domestic political gamesmanship, much like the Red Scare, Who Lost China, etc. in Washington was and is used to undermine opponents who have more popular domestic policy. However I could be very wrong, so I'd like to know more about the credits / political ambit of wolf-warrior in wider China and CPC.
A revealing article. Frightening, delusion man. Mr Wong has invented a vision of China detached from reality. That he will have power is crazy and dangerous. His conception is less a reflection of China than a reflection of the China required to pursue America's traditional hegemonic policies. Believe the hope for understanding and realism springs less from intellectual insights than from the material impact on the US economy of trying to decouple from and isolate China. There are elements in the US economy whose prosperity depends on a productive relationship with China--both ordinary people and powerful corporate oligarchs.
Any ABC that uses the nomenclature "CCP" instead of the correct "CPC" is just another ignorant American. Got a Bachelors in English Literature and French from Pennsylvania University and a JD from Harvard. Bog standard US lawyer becomes politician/diplomat with no actual applicable knowledge or experience apart from within the US policy blob. The usual delusional, incompetent idiot.
Gordon Chang 2.0
Thanks very much, Robert.
You're right: ultimately the US will only hurt itself, until finally they come to their senses, and realise that "co-evolution", as argued by Henry Kissinger in his well informed book, "On China", back in 2012, is the best way forward.
Things have changed so much in such a few years, but hopefully those more intelligent voices in the US will become more influential again soon.
While I agree that the PRC isn’t intent on pillaging the world, I’m also unconvinced that it has the best interests of the people in mind. At its core, the Party’s main motivation is to stay in power, at whatever cost. Threatening regional countries and potentially throwing the country into conflict doesn’t seem to imply that its main concern is the welfare of the nation.
In an electoral system, a political party stays in power “at whatever cost”. In China’s one-party system, there is in the end only one way for a party to stay in power, which is to work for“the welfare of nation”. The alternative, otherwise, is rebellion and total collapse of order. And trust me, not only China has not shortage of experience with collapse, the ruling class also have full knowledge of this millennia-long experience as well.
I liked this part a lot:
> Moreover, we need to face the question of who exactly is insulating whom. If China is embracing, trading with, and working with the majority of the world, and the majority of the world is also willing to freely embrace, to trade with and to work with China, isn’t a containment strategy against China effectively a containment strategy around one’s self?
> The real endgame of such a “self-containment” policy stance will not be the de-legitimization of the CCP, but it will certainly de-legitimize the US in front of the world, which will be quite depressing for the US.
Although Washington regime shills will be quick to invent some mental gymnastics maneuvers to make it sound like that's the opposite of what's happening. Pure projection, as usual.
Humanity is not an actor here. Capital is, and Capital has spoken: it will not surrender control of the world's wealth without a war.
I doubt that capitalist countries can afford wars with Russia, China, Iran and the DPRK. They're all heavily in debt, their armories thoroughly depleted and their cunning plan in Ukraine defeated.
Alex W is writing to legitimize war, that’s it. They aren’t open to evidence or facts but just have an ideology
Amazing ignorance about China
China’s Communist Party’s position as China’s ruling party is very secure for the foreseeable future
It is silly for MAGA to speak of regime change. They have moved from the QANON cult to the FaLunGung. (Is QANON a FaLunGung operation?)
The most realistic chance for China to become a multi party state lies with eventual peaceful reunification with the Republic of China on Taiwan. But no Americans realize that.
I think the 0-1 concession you make is just not factual. The accusation is one the West also used against Japan forty years ago. It's essentially racist where the issue is one of how far up the production chanin has been reached, and over what time and at what scale. China's newish to the game.
Having said that, studies have shown that China is now ahead of the world on +significant+ patents per year. For significant, read creative.
Actually as fair as this article attempts to go, it concedes far to much to Alex W by not closely examining his touchstone, the US, in the same areas Alex W accuses China.
You make a lor of sense Robert. You would have my vote.
When are you launching your political party?
Lol
As can be seen,there is no need for reasons to conjure anything. It is just how powerful pigs couch their economic interests.( Saying there was attack, even though they are the one doing attacks)
China should focus on production and for employment ( R& D is ok too ,evn in very large numbers) .why deflation is not good?
I am reading a book on regionalism that states the US has been held back from forming ties with Canada and Mexico due to the strength of the dollar. It may be in the interests of the US and world for US power to fall a bit.
I do want to point out that while China has settled some disputes, I imagine he was talking about Taiwan there. I still believe if that does happen, it will be from soft power, not hard power.
I read the Hong Kong diaries recently and Chris Patten has pretty much the same view: that the lenninist state is at odds with with liberal democracy and this structure is going to lead to increasing conflict.
I wonder if a vestigial colonial mindset would have anything to do with such a view.
The way to test this would be to look at post colonial liberal democracies and post colonial lenninist states and their relationship with Chris pattern. Hong Kong provides a pretty interesting case study as it's been both. But I don't see patten saying the same about Japan, USA Canada or Australia.
Much too kind & polite!
By bullies this is always interpreted as weakness!
"It is also true that some aggressive posturing (e.g. wolf-warrior diplomacy) can score some credits at home. "
I've always seen this "wolf-warrior" action as an act of domestic political gamesmanship, much like the Red Scare, Who Lost China, etc. in Washington was and is used to undermine opponents who have more popular domestic policy. However I could be very wrong, so I'd like to know more about the credits / political ambit of wolf-warrior in wider China and CPC.