Hi, I went through a similar journey, admiring the West, and now feeling disillusioned. In truth, there was plenty to admire, and I like to think that the West today is not the same as what it once was. Perhaps it’s easy to be principled and magnanimous when the West collectively dominated the world’s economy. But not so easy when one feels threatened by the economic (and military) success of regimes that are supposed to fail.
Yet again, did the West ever deserve admiration? It’s only recently that I discovered how the CIA has overthrown (or helped to overthrow) democratically elected governments in Iran, Congo, Chile, Afghanistan, etc, … instigated the violence against the Chinese community in Indonesia for their alleged communist sympathies, …. Who knows what other atrocities have gone unreported? And know, the ongoing genocide in Gaza (which the US supports by continuing to provide arms) has laid bare the full hypocrisy of the West.
The hope I have for a better, more just world is the continued growth of the Global South, and the diminishing centrality of the West, economically and culturally. I also hope that more and more Chinese, Asians, Africans, Latin Americans wake up and see Western hegemony for what it is. Western soft power” remains formidable, and humans have an unfortunate tendency to admire the rich and powerful (which Adam Smith observed in his Theory of Moral Sentiments).
Also, too many people still conflate “democracy” either a particular set of Western liberal institutions, simply dismissing the possibility that other ways of doing democracy is possible. I agree with your observation about dualism, dividing the world into “democratic” vs “authoritarian”, and treating allies as “democratic” no matter how undemocratic they really are. (Is Israel really a democracy? Is Ukraine really democratic? Is the US really democratic when the wealthy have so much influence on preselecting candidates?)
I feel this is an important topic, and you should keep writing about it. It is something I am exploring in my own Substack publication “The possibility of democratic choice” (it’s a personal journal).
We went through a very similar experience in Eastern Europe. Compared to our Sovietized existence, everything was better. Then slow disillusionment.
I do think the West did in the past deserve admiration. Not everything is about politics. Consider the computer revolution. Where would Huawei be without IBM?
Even in politics, sometimes they managed to do the right thing. Imagine you are in 1945 and you have three options: live in a Nazi occupied zone, a Soviet occupied zone or Brit-American occupied zone. Which way would you bet?
As for "democracy", this is a misunderstanding. The full term is democratic republic or liberal democracy. It is just shortened to democracy. Anyhow more often than not, while people talk about democracy, they do not mean majority rule but they are talking about the liberal-republican aspect of it: individual rights. So they call Israel a democracy because there are Pride marches.
Anyhow to answer your question, a democratic choice is not possible, because organized elites will always defeat unorganized majorities. Every revolution is a revolution from above. Shoemakers make shoes, rulers rule. Rulers won't make shoes and shoemakers will not rule. The best possible thing is a sort of somewhat responsible-accountably aristocracy/oligarchy.
This brings to mind a section of Ken Liu’s short story The Perfect Match and I quote it here:
‘“I grew up in China,” Jenny said, wiping a strand of hair behind her ear. “Back then, the government watched everything you did on the Network and made no secret of it. You had to learn how to keep the insanity at bay, to read between the lines, to speak without being overheard.”
“I guess we were lucky, over here.”
“No….You grew up believing you were free, which made it even harder for you to see when you weren’t. You were like frogs in the pot being slowly boiled.”’
This is something I have been thinking about a lot (I am half-western, Hungarian). I am used to power having a certain authoritarian STYLE. It is the boss pounding the table and shouting "the report will be on my table or you are fired!". It is rude intimidation. We knew we are living in an authoritarian system because the police was rude. Our idea of democracy and freedom was polite policemen.
And the big trick of the West was abandoning authoritarian STYLE. People do not notice power structures when they are polite and looking helpful. This perception hides reality.
However this perception even only true for Britain and Europe. In America even the perception is that the immigration officers at the airports are super rude. And the police might call you "sir", but still there is a very clear perception that there is a high risk of getting shot.
A very interesting piece. The West has no understanding of balance. The closest we get is systems thinking which also allows us to differentiate wholes from parts & self organisation from top down control. The Western elite are trained factor-ists, reducing an argument to parts & hammering down against each part. But they are poorly equipped to see the complex whole. The Starling murmuration that pulls together into something bigger. That is governed by rules & order but always poised at the edge of state change ready to disassemble into parts. Your point about conservation & stability is a good one. In the West we are careless about the organic, adaptive tools of stabilisation that we possess. We develop something as remarkable as the common law & jury system then destroy it with a politically appointed SCOTUS that doles out ideology. Instead of patient, trial & error justice that is constantly updated & adapted at the local level, we get this top down, politically skewed code making. A court of 9 wielding more ideological influence than a congress of 535. The same is true for markets. We develop something local, adaptive & balanced & then hand it to 10 white men in Silicon Valley & ask them to pick winners. All the diversity & variation is stripped from the system & we’re forced to consume the output of 4-5 producers across all our ‘markets’. With Peter Thiel saying - out loud - that competition is for dummies. In short, in the West we took a balanced, varied, distributed, bottom up, local set of institutions & handed them to oligarchs. Our strongest organs of power cannot discipline these oligarchs & reintroduce variation. So we cover the whole thing with this nonsense about ‘democracy & freedom’ when a coup has taken place. A coup that does not seek balance, distributed power & conservation but power law distribution & oligarchy. We have so much to learn if we can just zoom out & see the whole scene instead of its parts.
I think Claire is identifying perhaps THE most fundamental factor in today's geopolitics. I'm a biologist so am much more comfortable with the systematists view of the world. And I was mentored in the 1970s by an early pioneer of systems biology who was a relentless critic of reductionism. There was a famous Alpbach Symposium in 1968 published with the title "Beyond Reductionism' that still gets described as ground-breaking by people who encounter it 50 years later. Arthur Koestler was one of the editors and his concept of the 'holon' and holarchical patterns of organisation gets an airing in that publication. I'm not any kind of expert on Eastern philosophical systems but I get the very clear impression that systemic thinking comes much more easily to the Eastern mind. Traditional Chinese Medicine and indeed Ayurvedic Medicine seem to be a reflection of that systemic worldview in which interdependencies are recognised as essential elements, not a complication of an otherwise simple system.
In my view the West does not recognise how deeply it is immersed in reductionism. It's like the fish that doesn't understand the significance of water.. But stemming directly from its reductionist logic the West adopts a wide range of fallacious assumptions. It is easier to think mechanistically, which then enables a militaristic view of problem solving. In doing so the West completely fails to understand the difference between 'control', (which does not exist within a complex system) and influence. The West then thinks that it is better that 'we' control the world than someone else. There is no 'control'. Hegemony is a nonsense. The 'Thucydides Trap', another total fallacy that can only exist within a reductionist logic.
If the West was remotely interested in actual solutions to the complex geopolitical problems it sees in Taiwan, Hong Kong, Xinjiang or Israel/Palestine it would be a strong supporter of developing governance systems build on the One Country Two Systems concept, coupled with theories of holarchy. But trapped in its reductionist logic it can only envisage solutions based on separateness, not integration. The South China Sea once again displays a prime example of the reductionist mapmaker's 'solution' of creating distinct separate entities where none previously existed. I could go on, but had better stop.
>The Western elite are trained factor-ists, reducing an argument to parts & hammering down against each part.
We were trying to fix it. Hegel and yes even Marx meant "dialectics" as an antidote to that tendency to take everything apart, then take the parts apart, and then take the parts apart and stick them into labeled specimen jars and call it "science".
But unfortunately "science" and "professionalism" won because this attitude is excellent for running a government bureaucracy.
Thanks for writing this article, it literally spoke my mind. I used to read The Economist at face value and looked up to it as well as other American/British media and publications (I refrain to generalize them as "Western" though since I don't read other European languages) like WSJ, NYT, 60 Minutes, Bloomberg etc. Monotony is the right word and I suspect it has to do with American culture of simplifying the world by drawing lines across binery categories i.e. good vs. evil, light vs. darkness, us vs. them, Optimus vs. Megatron, etc. After starting reading these publications since my college days many years ago, I have come a full circle and yes - these publications bore me. Often when I see the caption of an Economist article, I already know what it would talk about without reading the article. And I agree with you that the Chinese Government is not that good at propaganda - just look at the comments section of any state-backed article on WeChat. You views need to be made know - especially to the English-speaking world.
This is a very beautiful essay, and I think a lot of what you say about America is true. But I also think it’s worth understanding that this perception of America is just as based on propaganda as America’s perception of China is. (I think that’s probably unavoidable.)
For instance: Everyone in America hates our media. It is biased, isolationist, alarmist, and increasingly not based on any facts at all but rather political agendas. We also hate our politics too, and I don’t know anyone who thinks Iraq was a good idea, or that we should be meddling this way in Gaza.
You are conflating “what our media and politicians do” with “what Americans want to do.” And that makes sense because, as you very rightly point out, Americans are often conflating what Xi Jinping and China’s military does with what the Chinese people want to do. That conflation is a problem!
In big countries like the U.S. and even bigger countries like China, what “the people” want is a lot of different things. Even in smaller countries, when I wrote a piece praising Singapore and Yew for much of the same reasons you did, I had Singapore citizens writing me to tell me how right I was and that it is a great place to live, and I had other Singapore citizens writing me to tell me that I got it all wrong and that it’s a horrible place to live.
I wonder if we’re better off not generalizing at all and assuming that “American” or “Chinese” think one thing or the other when we both probably want all of the above depending on who you are asking. We can talk about what the American government does or what the Chinese government does, but that is independent of what the people think we should do.
I definitely don’t think democracy is the answer to everything, and most of the world doesn’t think American democracy is the answer to anything. But I also don’t think our only alternative is autocracy. I love your idea that we should take the best of the west and the best of the east and mingle them into something better. It would help us get there if we could have more access to independent writers such as yourself! A departure from mainstream media would probably help a lot toward that end!
1) Noah Smith’s focus, to me, seems very focused specifically on China’s military movements and how they might be a threat to America in a World War III situation. I haven’t understood his writing to be about American democracy vs Chinese autocracy, in fact he has often praised Chinese economics. But maybe I’m missing something. (I probably am!) Is there something specifically you think he is getting wrong? I would love to understand that better!
2) I am visiting China in the Spring to study various things the country is doing right, if you have specific projects you think I should look into I would really appreciate the inside scoop! I am currently studying utopia around the world and I would love to understand the things we could learn from people in China!
Thank you so much for giving me so much to think about this morning! I’m so excited to follow your work.
That article was about China's historical and cultural distate for war in general, which should have been a crucial factor for the West to consider. And then there was a specific question of Taiwan, which I have yet to address. It's a more complicated matter, and I have yet to finish my full thinking about this matter. But you may have a glimpse over it here: https://www.china-translated.com/p/fts-taiwan-scoop-whampoa-military
Regarding 2: Welcome! Your question is a very big one. There are many things China is doing right and many things China is doing wrong. Maybe a good place to start is our "China City" series to get some inspiration? https://www.baiguan.news/t/china-city I especially recommend the article on Dali (China's Utopia city) and Shengze (one of China's richest towns). I may have better recommendations for you if you can give a little more specifics about "various things" that you will study, and what type of projects you are looking for. Feel free to DM me!
Thank you so much for this response, and for these links to your work, this is very helpful! You are right, Noah’s tweet is extreme and I very much disagree with that take. That being said, I’m not sure I agree with yours either. (Though I might very well be ignorant here so please correct me if so!)
It might be true, for instance that China is not expansionist, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t also see the benefit of expanding (especially into key strategic locations.) China might not get involved with Iraq (why would they, they are a distant territory that have nothing to do with China) but China did take over Tibet as recently as the 50s, violently seized the Paracel Islands from Vietnam in the 70s, and are actively trying to get an edge in the South China Sea despite international authorities denying their claims.
I don’t think border disputes in the South China Sea and claims toward Taiwan and Hong Kong can be brushed under the rug as the country just figuring out their borders post-Sino-Japanese War. Especially when China is building their own islands, establishing their own ports on contested land, and drastically ramping up their military in a key military port. I also don’t think Taiwan can be brushed off as an edge case. That would be like me saying “The US philosophy is to help countries protect their democracies against external threats—except in Iraq, but we shouldn’t look at that case as an example of our philosophy.”
That said, I certainly don’t think these moves put China in the the same category as Russia or Nazi Germany, but the country does seem to be quietly expanding their borders to places that don’t want to be expanded to, and are we just supposed to say that that is ok because they are supposed to be China's land? That is what is causing the rest of the world to think: “Should we help the countries that don’t want to be expanded to?”
We didn’t help with Tibet but that’s also because it was very dangerous to do so. China might not be interested in starting a war, but if they try to takeover Taiwan and Taiwan resists with international support that might be how we find ourselves in a world war. (Already, Taiwan has ramped up their military and purchased a lot of military goods from other countries!) If there is no international support at all, then China just quietly takes Taiwan and folds another country into the mix.
Even if China isn’t playing the expansionist or provocateur, their moves are still geopolitically aggressive. Even if they don’t want war, they are so big and powerful they can expand without anyone poking them and turning it into a war because it would be incredibly dangerous and costly to do so. That’s why I struggle to understand the “China isn’t expansionist at all because they aren’t sending military troops out into other countries and trying to take them over like the Nazis.” They don’t need to do that to expand and to remain in a strong military position.
Again, I want to reiterate that I think China is doing a lot of things interesting and right, that’s why I am excited to visit and to study some of those things myself. I love their focus on city states and autonomous regions, a lot of their poverty alleviation initiatives are incredible, as well as their advanced technological abilities. But I struggle to see their political movements as not a threat at all because the country doesn’t want war and doesn’t want to expand. (It's worth mentioning that I could make similar statements about virtually all countries. As you rightly point out, the US is doing a lot of things interesting and right, but also is doing a lot of things horribly wrong. Such is geopolitics!)
Thank you so much for helping me understand your perspective!!! I really truly appreciate it, and I will happily amend any of my statements if I got them wrong. This is just me trying to figure out what's going on and trying to figure out how people think about what's going on so I appreciate the chance to do that. And I will DM you about China visits!!!!!!!
Thanks again! You raised many valid points, and deserve a well thought-out response. Many of your questions you asked touched on some of the points I want to write about in a future post. I will let you know once that’s ready.
If you would like to, we can publish it together as a back and forth conversation, I think my readers would be interested in that too! I appreciate you writing about and exploring these topics, especially as it is hard to get any good information about China from the U.S.!
I like that idea, as you have pushed back—rightly and politely—on some of the questionable arguments made here (and because Robert responded with equal politeness and respect).
Just want to echo some of the thoughts below - like you, I'm confused by the rhetoric against China, and am watching what's happening in the West with confusion and worry. I had my "awakening" way back in 2003, when I realised that the nation I thought was a friend of the world, was waging a war against a Middle Eastern country. Unlike many in the West, Malaysians are very good at spotting at propaganda, but I realised quite quickly that those in the West seem blind to the propaganda they're being fed.
Thus began a slow unravelling of my belief that "the West is best".
A thought-provoking piece with an interesting personal dimension. I agree more with Robert's US media analysis than his take on contemporary China, but I had an epiphany similar to that of Kishore Mahbubani in the same location, when I arrived in Cambridge, Mass as a Harvard Nieman Fellow. After many years in Asia, where I got accustomed to a diverse news diet delivered in a multitude of languages and contrasting views, I couldn't believe how provincial US TV was, and to this day I can hardly stand watching it.
I suspect that many millions worldwide have experienced similar. Being sceptical of the corporate press, or coming to understand that Western countries regularly fail to live up to their hallowed ideals is fairly commonplace.
What matters is what happens next. Do you learn to view all lofty political ideals with a critical eye, or simply replace one set of ideals with another. Unless I'm mistaken Robert, like many a teenage Marxist or alt-right MAGA edgelord, seems to have fallen into the latter category...
think extremely clearly and well. There is much merit and truth in your comments. But one thing I think is missed in your comments is the value of distributed power. One of China's underappreciated strengths is the power of its local governments. But also one of the underappeciated strengths of the West is the distributed power that comes with the "freedom" you perceive as propaganda.
To give a concrete example hidden amongst the "decline of the USA"
perceived in China and elsewhere (including by Americans themselves), Biden and Trump are truly subject to the will of the people. The people have noticed and perceived Biden's mental decline more than he has. As a result, all politics has had to adjust to that reality. Not only has Biden declined but the people have observed his decline. They will not be fooled any more. The Democrats can deceive themselves and pretend that nothing has happened and carry on, and be disappointed by voters who no longer believe them, or accept the wisdom of the people and adjust by presenting a better candidate.
Freedom and a distribution of power still have tremendous flexibility.
Given today's trends, we may over appreciate China's central planning and under appreciate freedom and distributed information and power, but don't be fooled by recency bias.
Distributed information and power does have benefits.
Agree. That’s why I say I am not against democracy, but fully supporting it. And also freedom. But I do think seeing one set of ideas to be necessarily “better” than others will be eventually harmful for freedom. I didn’t say freedom=propaganda. All I am saying is fixation on one value and one value only = propaganda.
With freedom comes responsibility. The latter is severely lacking in America. Consequently, the state of US society is atrocious.
One does not have to be for or against democracy. One just needs to observe and appreciate the practical results.
A blind monkey can see that America is in bad shape. People point to the US economy as a high point, ignoring the fact that 80% of the nation's wealth is concentrated in the top 10% of the population.
China, supposedly an autocratic nation, is demonstrably a better country. Millions of foreign tourists to China can see this with their own eyes. Chinese society is harmonious and stable. Homelessness and crime are practically nonexistent. Infrastructure is fabulous.
I'm not suggesting that China is perfect, but it's a lot less imperfect than the United States.
Wow! Thank you Robert for your extensive insights. As a Westerner, I have attempted to convey the same message, but without your Asian credentials and credibility. You are correct in your calling out of the monotonous Western philosophical arrogance as if the rest of the world had no history or sensible ideas.
I was doing some research on Richard Nixon's "mad man diplomacy" that was actually stolen from a S. Korean leader courageously fighting back against N. Korean and Russian Stalinist communism. Nixon called Russia and China's bluff in Vietnam by feigning the use of nuclear weapons against them if they sent troops into the Vietnamese War. China prides itself being balanced and pragmatic but was fully aware that the U.S. and the West in general is perpetually in a state of unhinged chaos generally leading to rash decisions and violence. China wisely backed down.
As an American, this current election brings this dangerous polarization into harsh focus for the entire world to witness. Someone mentioned that for such a young nation, the U.S. has a very old Constitution. We are clinging to 18th century ideals born of the then recent Renaissance and pretending that the world has not progressed since then. Stubbornly we cannot let the old European concept of imperialism die and begin to envision a new concept of prosperity and world order. We are terrified as the knowledge permeates that we have reached the end of a once bold experiment and have spent scant effort into imagining what might come next. We are trapped in our political hubris and refuse to do deep soul-searching as to where we are (dysfunctional) and how to chart a new future.
Einstein once said: "Insanity is repeating the same actions and expecting different results." China is perhaps prudent in respecting our "Mad Man Diplomacy." We are out of control and dangerous indeed.
Robert, I appreciated reading your perspective. I found your insight very helpful. While I probably don’t view everything the same as you, I think your point of view is really important to understand, and you did a great job writing this.
When Tiananmen Square demonstrations were taking place when I was in graduate school in the US. I saw those young people searching for hope. That’s what led me to teach at Jiangxi Medical College in Nanchang a few years later.
I loved my students and the people I had the joy of getting to know in China. I only worked there for two years, because of health, but I have kept strong ties with Chinese friends in the US and in various places ever since. I have been back in 2011 and 2018 and the changes were impressive.
You mentioned disillusionment and propaganda. Where do you live now? I think many Americans feel pretty disillusioned and deeply concerned about the direction of our country nowadays. We have had pathetic leadership and our media is just as prone to churning out propaganda now as China was back then. I think more Americans should spend some time working abroad. It’s so enriching to experience life in a different culture, even for a couple of years.
I often thought about the way China has sought to manage with a huge population, and while I certainly don’t idealize any nation, every country has some strengths and other weaknesses.
Anyway, thanks for an intriguing article. I’ll be checking out other articles you write. I liked hearing the context and the things that have shaped your perspective.
I have always been struck by how parochial and self-referential Western thinking is in regards to itself and world-view. Especially when it comes to China and the Chinese. Any other perspectives and nuanced, empathetic thinking is not only disregarded but actively denounced these days. Voices of such nuance are rare.
As an Chinese American I certainly don't like certain elements of the way the CPC goes about governing China but as far as I am concerned they have proven themselves to be quite competent and their style and results are to me something we in the West can learn from. Yet to credit the CPC and the Chinese and their different system of governance and belief is basically heresy. Patrick Porter was right when he noted that, "Liberalism as an engine of American statecraft is jealous, intolerant and messianic. Applied unchecked, from Wilson to the Bush Doctrine, it leads to its own illiberal opposite." How ironic that a political philosophy that emphasises tolerance is so intolerant of anything not like itself.
The Enlightenment West is frightened at the prospect of its loss of preeminence. Can't accept that others have their own preferences. Can't comprehend how others simply won't be like them. And is panicked at others being better in some areas than them. And in this age of crisis, I can't help but think that the West and even China are learning the wrong lessons from their refusal to accept the other and coexist. Both committing unnecessary mistakes that only worsen things despite in their eye trying to improve their position.
Sorry if this is rambly but I am glad to have found you some months back. Alongside Kaiser Kuo, the team at the China Global South Podcast and others, nuanced, textured analysis and commentary is simply rarer than gold. This was a fantastic essay.
"depressing pissing contest that’s the presidential debate," had me dying lol.
The whole "democracy" vs "authoritarian" narrative is instilled in US children in public school and is deeply racist because the terms are so vague that you can easily declare any country or group of people bad. It really gives people in the US an underserved since of superiority. I definitely won't let my son believe the same nonsense.
Hi, I went through a similar journey, admiring the West, and now feeling disillusioned. In truth, there was plenty to admire, and I like to think that the West today is not the same as what it once was. Perhaps it’s easy to be principled and magnanimous when the West collectively dominated the world’s economy. But not so easy when one feels threatened by the economic (and military) success of regimes that are supposed to fail.
Yet again, did the West ever deserve admiration? It’s only recently that I discovered how the CIA has overthrown (or helped to overthrow) democratically elected governments in Iran, Congo, Chile, Afghanistan, etc, … instigated the violence against the Chinese community in Indonesia for their alleged communist sympathies, …. Who knows what other atrocities have gone unreported? And know, the ongoing genocide in Gaza (which the US supports by continuing to provide arms) has laid bare the full hypocrisy of the West.
The hope I have for a better, more just world is the continued growth of the Global South, and the diminishing centrality of the West, economically and culturally. I also hope that more and more Chinese, Asians, Africans, Latin Americans wake up and see Western hegemony for what it is. Western soft power” remains formidable, and humans have an unfortunate tendency to admire the rich and powerful (which Adam Smith observed in his Theory of Moral Sentiments).
Also, too many people still conflate “democracy” either a particular set of Western liberal institutions, simply dismissing the possibility that other ways of doing democracy is possible. I agree with your observation about dualism, dividing the world into “democratic” vs “authoritarian”, and treating allies as “democratic” no matter how undemocratic they really are. (Is Israel really a democracy? Is Ukraine really democratic? Is the US really democratic when the wealthy have so much influence on preselecting candidates?)
I feel this is an important topic, and you should keep writing about it. It is something I am exploring in my own Substack publication “The possibility of democratic choice” (it’s a personal journal).
We went through a very similar experience in Eastern Europe. Compared to our Sovietized existence, everything was better. Then slow disillusionment.
I do think the West did in the past deserve admiration. Not everything is about politics. Consider the computer revolution. Where would Huawei be without IBM?
Even in politics, sometimes they managed to do the right thing. Imagine you are in 1945 and you have three options: live in a Nazi occupied zone, a Soviet occupied zone or Brit-American occupied zone. Which way would you bet?
As for "democracy", this is a misunderstanding. The full term is democratic republic or liberal democracy. It is just shortened to democracy. Anyhow more often than not, while people talk about democracy, they do not mean majority rule but they are talking about the liberal-republican aspect of it: individual rights. So they call Israel a democracy because there are Pride marches.
Anyhow to answer your question, a democratic choice is not possible, because organized elites will always defeat unorganized majorities. Every revolution is a revolution from above. Shoemakers make shoes, rulers rule. Rulers won't make shoes and shoemakers will not rule. The best possible thing is a sort of somewhat responsible-accountably aristocracy/oligarchy.
This brings to mind a section of Ken Liu’s short story The Perfect Match and I quote it here:
‘“I grew up in China,” Jenny said, wiping a strand of hair behind her ear. “Back then, the government watched everything you did on the Network and made no secret of it. You had to learn how to keep the insanity at bay, to read between the lines, to speak without being overheard.”
“I guess we were lucky, over here.”
“No….You grew up believing you were free, which made it even harder for you to see when you weren’t. You were like frogs in the pot being slowly boiled.”’
Exactly. I guess Ken must had gone through some similar personal growth. It’s hard to say which one is “better”.
This is something I have been thinking about a lot (I am half-western, Hungarian). I am used to power having a certain authoritarian STYLE. It is the boss pounding the table and shouting "the report will be on my table or you are fired!". It is rude intimidation. We knew we are living in an authoritarian system because the police was rude. Our idea of democracy and freedom was polite policemen.
And the big trick of the West was abandoning authoritarian STYLE. People do not notice power structures when they are polite and looking helpful. This perception hides reality.
However this perception even only true for Britain and Europe. In America even the perception is that the immigration officers at the airports are super rude. And the police might call you "sir", but still there is a very clear perception that there is a high risk of getting shot.
Fantastic take
A very interesting piece. The West has no understanding of balance. The closest we get is systems thinking which also allows us to differentiate wholes from parts & self organisation from top down control. The Western elite are trained factor-ists, reducing an argument to parts & hammering down against each part. But they are poorly equipped to see the complex whole. The Starling murmuration that pulls together into something bigger. That is governed by rules & order but always poised at the edge of state change ready to disassemble into parts. Your point about conservation & stability is a good one. In the West we are careless about the organic, adaptive tools of stabilisation that we possess. We develop something as remarkable as the common law & jury system then destroy it with a politically appointed SCOTUS that doles out ideology. Instead of patient, trial & error justice that is constantly updated & adapted at the local level, we get this top down, politically skewed code making. A court of 9 wielding more ideological influence than a congress of 535. The same is true for markets. We develop something local, adaptive & balanced & then hand it to 10 white men in Silicon Valley & ask them to pick winners. All the diversity & variation is stripped from the system & we’re forced to consume the output of 4-5 producers across all our ‘markets’. With Peter Thiel saying - out loud - that competition is for dummies. In short, in the West we took a balanced, varied, distributed, bottom up, local set of institutions & handed them to oligarchs. Our strongest organs of power cannot discipline these oligarchs & reintroduce variation. So we cover the whole thing with this nonsense about ‘democracy & freedom’ when a coup has taken place. A coup that does not seek balance, distributed power & conservation but power law distribution & oligarchy. We have so much to learn if we can just zoom out & see the whole scene instead of its parts.
A powerful take indeed
I think Claire is identifying perhaps THE most fundamental factor in today's geopolitics. I'm a biologist so am much more comfortable with the systematists view of the world. And I was mentored in the 1970s by an early pioneer of systems biology who was a relentless critic of reductionism. There was a famous Alpbach Symposium in 1968 published with the title "Beyond Reductionism' that still gets described as ground-breaking by people who encounter it 50 years later. Arthur Koestler was one of the editors and his concept of the 'holon' and holarchical patterns of organisation gets an airing in that publication. I'm not any kind of expert on Eastern philosophical systems but I get the very clear impression that systemic thinking comes much more easily to the Eastern mind. Traditional Chinese Medicine and indeed Ayurvedic Medicine seem to be a reflection of that systemic worldview in which interdependencies are recognised as essential elements, not a complication of an otherwise simple system.
In my view the West does not recognise how deeply it is immersed in reductionism. It's like the fish that doesn't understand the significance of water.. But stemming directly from its reductionist logic the West adopts a wide range of fallacious assumptions. It is easier to think mechanistically, which then enables a militaristic view of problem solving. In doing so the West completely fails to understand the difference between 'control', (which does not exist within a complex system) and influence. The West then thinks that it is better that 'we' control the world than someone else. There is no 'control'. Hegemony is a nonsense. The 'Thucydides Trap', another total fallacy that can only exist within a reductionist logic.
If the West was remotely interested in actual solutions to the complex geopolitical problems it sees in Taiwan, Hong Kong, Xinjiang or Israel/Palestine it would be a strong supporter of developing governance systems build on the One Country Two Systems concept, coupled with theories of holarchy. But trapped in its reductionist logic it can only envisage solutions based on separateness, not integration. The South China Sea once again displays a prime example of the reductionist mapmaker's 'solution' of creating distinct separate entities where none previously existed. I could go on, but had better stop.
>The Western elite are trained factor-ists, reducing an argument to parts & hammering down against each part.
We were trying to fix it. Hegel and yes even Marx meant "dialectics" as an antidote to that tendency to take everything apart, then take the parts apart, and then take the parts apart and stick them into labeled specimen jars and call it "science".
But unfortunately "science" and "professionalism" won because this attitude is excellent for running a government bureaucracy.
Thanks for writing this article, it literally spoke my mind. I used to read The Economist at face value and looked up to it as well as other American/British media and publications (I refrain to generalize them as "Western" though since I don't read other European languages) like WSJ, NYT, 60 Minutes, Bloomberg etc. Monotony is the right word and I suspect it has to do with American culture of simplifying the world by drawing lines across binery categories i.e. good vs. evil, light vs. darkness, us vs. them, Optimus vs. Megatron, etc. After starting reading these publications since my college days many years ago, I have come a full circle and yes - these publications bore me. Often when I see the caption of an Economist article, I already know what it would talk about without reading the article. And I agree with you that the Chinese Government is not that good at propaganda - just look at the comments section of any state-backed article on WeChat. You views need to be made know - especially to the English-speaking world.
This is a very beautiful essay, and I think a lot of what you say about America is true. But I also think it’s worth understanding that this perception of America is just as based on propaganda as America’s perception of China is. (I think that’s probably unavoidable.)
For instance: Everyone in America hates our media. It is biased, isolationist, alarmist, and increasingly not based on any facts at all but rather political agendas. We also hate our politics too, and I don’t know anyone who thinks Iraq was a good idea, or that we should be meddling this way in Gaza.
You are conflating “what our media and politicians do” with “what Americans want to do.” And that makes sense because, as you very rightly point out, Americans are often conflating what Xi Jinping and China’s military does with what the Chinese people want to do. That conflation is a problem!
In big countries like the U.S. and even bigger countries like China, what “the people” want is a lot of different things. Even in smaller countries, when I wrote a piece praising Singapore and Yew for much of the same reasons you did, I had Singapore citizens writing me to tell me how right I was and that it is a great place to live, and I had other Singapore citizens writing me to tell me that I got it all wrong and that it’s a horrible place to live.
I wonder if we’re better off not generalizing at all and assuming that “American” or “Chinese” think one thing or the other when we both probably want all of the above depending on who you are asking. We can talk about what the American government does or what the Chinese government does, but that is independent of what the people think we should do.
I definitely don’t think democracy is the answer to everything, and most of the world doesn’t think American democracy is the answer to anything. But I also don’t think our only alternative is autocracy. I love your idea that we should take the best of the west and the best of the east and mingle them into something better. It would help us get there if we could have more access to independent writers such as yourself! A departure from mainstream media would probably help a lot toward that end!
I am not sure "authoritarianism" is a valid category as such. Is the Dubai monarchy authoritarian? Was Yew? Was 1980 Hong Kong? 1900 Hong Kong?
My point - I don't think authoritarianism can be nailed down as a system, it is more of an attitude.
Oh, you are right, I meant to say autocratic. Thank you for pointing this out! I've edited my response.
Oh, and I have two questions!
1) Noah Smith’s focus, to me, seems very focused specifically on China’s military movements and how they might be a threat to America in a World War III situation. I haven’t understood his writing to be about American democracy vs Chinese autocracy, in fact he has often praised Chinese economics. But maybe I’m missing something. (I probably am!) Is there something specifically you think he is getting wrong? I would love to understand that better!
2) I am visiting China in the Spring to study various things the country is doing right, if you have specific projects you think I should look into I would really appreciate the inside scoop! I am currently studying utopia around the world and I would love to understand the things we could learn from people in China!
Thank you so much for giving me so much to think about this morning! I’m so excited to follow your work.
Thank you so much for your very thoughtful response, Elle.
Regarding 1). In fact war vs peace is the very first topic I addressed in my critique of Noah. You may check this article here if you got time: https://www.china-translated.com/p/noah-smith-is-clueless-about-china
That article was about China's historical and cultural distate for war in general, which should have been a crucial factor for the West to consider. And then there was a specific question of Taiwan, which I have yet to address. It's a more complicated matter, and I have yet to finish my full thinking about this matter. But you may have a glimpse over it here: https://www.china-translated.com/p/fts-taiwan-scoop-whampoa-military
Regarding 2: Welcome! Your question is a very big one. There are many things China is doing right and many things China is doing wrong. Maybe a good place to start is our "China City" series to get some inspiration? https://www.baiguan.news/t/china-city I especially recommend the article on Dali (China's Utopia city) and Shengze (one of China's richest towns). I may have better recommendations for you if you can give a little more specifics about "various things" that you will study, and what type of projects you are looking for. Feel free to DM me!
Thank you so much for this response, and for these links to your work, this is very helpful! You are right, Noah’s tweet is extreme and I very much disagree with that take. That being said, I’m not sure I agree with yours either. (Though I might very well be ignorant here so please correct me if so!)
It might be true, for instance that China is not expansionist, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t also see the benefit of expanding (especially into key strategic locations.) China might not get involved with Iraq (why would they, they are a distant territory that have nothing to do with China) but China did take over Tibet as recently as the 50s, violently seized the Paracel Islands from Vietnam in the 70s, and are actively trying to get an edge in the South China Sea despite international authorities denying their claims.
I don’t think border disputes in the South China Sea and claims toward Taiwan and Hong Kong can be brushed under the rug as the country just figuring out their borders post-Sino-Japanese War. Especially when China is building their own islands, establishing their own ports on contested land, and drastically ramping up their military in a key military port. I also don’t think Taiwan can be brushed off as an edge case. That would be like me saying “The US philosophy is to help countries protect their democracies against external threats—except in Iraq, but we shouldn’t look at that case as an example of our philosophy.”
That said, I certainly don’t think these moves put China in the the same category as Russia or Nazi Germany, but the country does seem to be quietly expanding their borders to places that don’t want to be expanded to, and are we just supposed to say that that is ok because they are supposed to be China's land? That is what is causing the rest of the world to think: “Should we help the countries that don’t want to be expanded to?”
We didn’t help with Tibet but that’s also because it was very dangerous to do so. China might not be interested in starting a war, but if they try to takeover Taiwan and Taiwan resists with international support that might be how we find ourselves in a world war. (Already, Taiwan has ramped up their military and purchased a lot of military goods from other countries!) If there is no international support at all, then China just quietly takes Taiwan and folds another country into the mix.
Even if China isn’t playing the expansionist or provocateur, their moves are still geopolitically aggressive. Even if they don’t want war, they are so big and powerful they can expand without anyone poking them and turning it into a war because it would be incredibly dangerous and costly to do so. That’s why I struggle to understand the “China isn’t expansionist at all because they aren’t sending military troops out into other countries and trying to take them over like the Nazis.” They don’t need to do that to expand and to remain in a strong military position.
Again, I want to reiterate that I think China is doing a lot of things interesting and right, that’s why I am excited to visit and to study some of those things myself. I love their focus on city states and autonomous regions, a lot of their poverty alleviation initiatives are incredible, as well as their advanced technological abilities. But I struggle to see their political movements as not a threat at all because the country doesn’t want war and doesn’t want to expand. (It's worth mentioning that I could make similar statements about virtually all countries. As you rightly point out, the US is doing a lot of things interesting and right, but also is doing a lot of things horribly wrong. Such is geopolitics!)
Thank you so much for helping me understand your perspective!!! I really truly appreciate it, and I will happily amend any of my statements if I got them wrong. This is just me trying to figure out what's going on and trying to figure out how people think about what's going on so I appreciate the chance to do that. And I will DM you about China visits!!!!!!!
Thanks again! You raised many valid points, and deserve a well thought-out response. Many of your questions you asked touched on some of the points I want to write about in a future post. I will let you know once that’s ready.
If you would like to, we can publish it together as a back and forth conversation, I think my readers would be interested in that too! I appreciate you writing about and exploring these topics, especially as it is hard to get any good information about China from the U.S.!
That's a good idea! I will think about it. Is it possible to send me the questions in a point format, so I can see if I can address them one by one?
I like that idea, as you have pushed back—rightly and politely—on some of the questionable arguments made here (and because Robert responded with equal politeness and respect).
Just want to echo some of the thoughts below - like you, I'm confused by the rhetoric against China, and am watching what's happening in the West with confusion and worry. I had my "awakening" way back in 2003, when I realised that the nation I thought was a friend of the world, was waging a war against a Middle Eastern country. Unlike many in the West, Malaysians are very good at spotting at propaganda, but I realised quite quickly that those in the West seem blind to the propaganda they're being fed.
Thus began a slow unravelling of my belief that "the West is best".
PS: I wrote a response here too: https://elizabethtai.substack.com/p/the-west-is-no-longer-the-best
A thought-provoking piece with an interesting personal dimension. I agree more with Robert's US media analysis than his take on contemporary China, but I had an epiphany similar to that of Kishore Mahbubani in the same location, when I arrived in Cambridge, Mass as a Harvard Nieman Fellow. After many years in Asia, where I got accustomed to a diverse news diet delivered in a multitude of languages and contrasting views, I couldn't believe how provincial US TV was, and to this day I can hardly stand watching it.
I suspect that many millions worldwide have experienced similar. Being sceptical of the corporate press, or coming to understand that Western countries regularly fail to live up to their hallowed ideals is fairly commonplace.
What matters is what happens next. Do you learn to view all lofty political ideals with a critical eye, or simply replace one set of ideals with another. Unless I'm mistaken Robert, like many a teenage Marxist or alt-right MAGA edgelord, seems to have fallen into the latter category...
(Happy to be proven wrong!)
No, I only fell into the category of a capitalist guerrilla fighter-hunter who just want to bring some food on the table for my team and my family.
You write from both the head and the heart about a topic where most people can only use one or the other. Kudos to you!
Robert, you write and
think extremely clearly and well. There is much merit and truth in your comments. But one thing I think is missed in your comments is the value of distributed power. One of China's underappreciated strengths is the power of its local governments. But also one of the underappeciated strengths of the West is the distributed power that comes with the "freedom" you perceive as propaganda.
To give a concrete example hidden amongst the "decline of the USA"
perceived in China and elsewhere (including by Americans themselves), Biden and Trump are truly subject to the will of the people. The people have noticed and perceived Biden's mental decline more than he has. As a result, all politics has had to adjust to that reality. Not only has Biden declined but the people have observed his decline. They will not be fooled any more. The Democrats can deceive themselves and pretend that nothing has happened and carry on, and be disappointed by voters who no longer believe them, or accept the wisdom of the people and adjust by presenting a better candidate.
Freedom and a distribution of power still have tremendous flexibility.
Given today's trends, we may over appreciate China's central planning and under appreciate freedom and distributed information and power, but don't be fooled by recency bias.
Distributed information and power does have benefits.
Agree. That’s why I say I am not against democracy, but fully supporting it. And also freedom. But I do think seeing one set of ideas to be necessarily “better” than others will be eventually harmful for freedom. I didn’t say freedom=propaganda. All I am saying is fixation on one value and one value only = propaganda.
With freedom comes responsibility. The latter is severely lacking in America. Consequently, the state of US society is atrocious.
One does not have to be for or against democracy. One just needs to observe and appreciate the practical results.
A blind monkey can see that America is in bad shape. People point to the US economy as a high point, ignoring the fact that 80% of the nation's wealth is concentrated in the top 10% of the population.
China, supposedly an autocratic nation, is demonstrably a better country. Millions of foreign tourists to China can see this with their own eyes. Chinese society is harmonious and stable. Homelessness and crime are practically nonexistent. Infrastructure is fabulous.
I'm not suggesting that China is perfect, but it's a lot less imperfect than the United States.
Wow! Thank you Robert for your extensive insights. As a Westerner, I have attempted to convey the same message, but without your Asian credentials and credibility. You are correct in your calling out of the monotonous Western philosophical arrogance as if the rest of the world had no history or sensible ideas.
I was doing some research on Richard Nixon's "mad man diplomacy" that was actually stolen from a S. Korean leader courageously fighting back against N. Korean and Russian Stalinist communism. Nixon called Russia and China's bluff in Vietnam by feigning the use of nuclear weapons against them if they sent troops into the Vietnamese War. China prides itself being balanced and pragmatic but was fully aware that the U.S. and the West in general is perpetually in a state of unhinged chaos generally leading to rash decisions and violence. China wisely backed down.
As an American, this current election brings this dangerous polarization into harsh focus for the entire world to witness. Someone mentioned that for such a young nation, the U.S. has a very old Constitution. We are clinging to 18th century ideals born of the then recent Renaissance and pretending that the world has not progressed since then. Stubbornly we cannot let the old European concept of imperialism die and begin to envision a new concept of prosperity and world order. We are terrified as the knowledge permeates that we have reached the end of a once bold experiment and have spent scant effort into imagining what might come next. We are trapped in our political hubris and refuse to do deep soul-searching as to where we are (dysfunctional) and how to chart a new future.
Einstein once said: "Insanity is repeating the same actions and expecting different results." China is perhaps prudent in respecting our "Mad Man Diplomacy." We are out of control and dangerous indeed.
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/nuclear-vault-vietnam/2023-03-24/movement-and-madman
Robert, I appreciated reading your perspective. I found your insight very helpful. While I probably don’t view everything the same as you, I think your point of view is really important to understand, and you did a great job writing this.
When Tiananmen Square demonstrations were taking place when I was in graduate school in the US. I saw those young people searching for hope. That’s what led me to teach at Jiangxi Medical College in Nanchang a few years later.
I loved my students and the people I had the joy of getting to know in China. I only worked there for two years, because of health, but I have kept strong ties with Chinese friends in the US and in various places ever since. I have been back in 2011 and 2018 and the changes were impressive.
You mentioned disillusionment and propaganda. Where do you live now? I think many Americans feel pretty disillusioned and deeply concerned about the direction of our country nowadays. We have had pathetic leadership and our media is just as prone to churning out propaganda now as China was back then. I think more Americans should spend some time working abroad. It’s so enriching to experience life in a different culture, even for a couple of years.
I often thought about the way China has sought to manage with a huge population, and while I certainly don’t idealize any nation, every country has some strengths and other weaknesses.
Anyway, thanks for an intriguing article. I’ll be checking out other articles you write. I liked hearing the context and the things that have shaped your perspective.
I have always been struck by how parochial and self-referential Western thinking is in regards to itself and world-view. Especially when it comes to China and the Chinese. Any other perspectives and nuanced, empathetic thinking is not only disregarded but actively denounced these days. Voices of such nuance are rare.
As an Chinese American I certainly don't like certain elements of the way the CPC goes about governing China but as far as I am concerned they have proven themselves to be quite competent and their style and results are to me something we in the West can learn from. Yet to credit the CPC and the Chinese and their different system of governance and belief is basically heresy. Patrick Porter was right when he noted that, "Liberalism as an engine of American statecraft is jealous, intolerant and messianic. Applied unchecked, from Wilson to the Bush Doctrine, it leads to its own illiberal opposite." How ironic that a political philosophy that emphasises tolerance is so intolerant of anything not like itself.
The Enlightenment West is frightened at the prospect of its loss of preeminence. Can't accept that others have their own preferences. Can't comprehend how others simply won't be like them. And is panicked at others being better in some areas than them. And in this age of crisis, I can't help but think that the West and even China are learning the wrong lessons from their refusal to accept the other and coexist. Both committing unnecessary mistakes that only worsen things despite in their eye trying to improve their position.
Sorry if this is rambly but I am glad to have found you some months back. Alongside Kaiser Kuo, the team at the China Global South Podcast and others, nuanced, textured analysis and commentary is simply rarer than gold. This was a fantastic essay.
吴先生几乎讲述了我自己世界观的形成过程。
从他的文章中，我读到了否定之否定定律，人对自身某些既有观点的否定，正是表明他在进步。
固守一种叙事逻辑，是抱残守缺的表现，无论这种思想来自“东方”，还是“西方”。
实事求是，是指引我们永恒不灭的明灯
另外，吴先生谈到了大跃进和文革，今天回首去看，这些运动既不全错，也不全对。
最后，吴先生将美国的问题归结为“意识形态单调”上，个人有不同看法。
对于美国国内的问题，其统治集团门清，甚至解决办法都是现成的。
红脖子们需要教育去提高他们的劳动能力，以适应美国在全球化过程中，占领经济高位这一历史现实。红脖子们需要产业，让他们劳动自立，而不是像万斯的母亲一样滥交、吸毒、旷工。这些产业导入，需要国家、州、县各级政府对红脖子的全力服务。
以上正是共产党在做得，不是神奇的方案，只是一个枯燥、漫长、繁琐、毫无吸引力的方案。
华尔街支持吗？
硅谷的精英们理解吗？
美国政府能做吗？
美国统治集团愿意去做吗？
Great post!
Not sure why you wrote "16" while there are only 12 official core Socialist values - https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-hant/%E7%A4%BE%E4%BC%9A%E4%B8%BB%E4%B9%89%E6%A0%B8%E5%BF%83%E4%BB%B7%E5%80%BC%E8%A7%82?wprov=sfla1
Great catch!!! Thanks. I will correct it
Thanks for writing this. This is certainly the zeitgeist of our generation. Greetings from Singapore!
"depressing pissing contest that’s the presidential debate," had me dying lol.
The whole "democracy" vs "authoritarian" narrative is instilled in US children in public school and is deeply racist because the terms are so vague that you can easily declare any country or group of people bad. It really gives people in the US an underserved since of superiority. I definitely won't let my son believe the same nonsense.