Through diplomacy and voluntary trade deals? I don’t see a problem with that. If that was how the US went about things, I’d feel pretty differently about the US than I do.
making friends with other world leaders who want to expand their power
I don’t really see “making friends” as being imperialist. China’s foreign policy is, generally speaking, to stay out of political questions and trade with everyone. This isn’t a perfect position, but it’s at least a degree of separation from imperialism.
In some situations that might be true but I think it depends. In some cases, the ruling class of your own country might be investing in a military which protects you, while a foreign government might want to invade your country and oppress you.
Yes, in some situations, I agree. This is a perspective argued by other theorists like Franz Fanon, who’s position was that developing countries escaping colonialism have more to worry about from foreign colonizers than from their domestic “bourgeoisie,” who are still relatively poor.
This is also why the CCP formed coalitions with the KMT in order to repell the Japanese fascists (and previously, to put down the warlords that emerged following the fall of the Qing). Likewise, the USSR condemned strikes that took place in the US during WWII, because defeating the Nazis was more important.
But these are exceptional cases, where either the class dynamics are different from developed countries, or where a truly existential threat exists, such as Germany and Japan in WWII. Of course, since WWII, US politicians have attempted to compare every conflict to it and to argue that there’s an existential threat, even when it’s completely absurd, including Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq.
We can argue about the merits and flaws of China and Russia, but neither of them represent an existential threat to me as an American. Pretty much the only thing that does present an existential threat, imo, is the rise of fascism domestically. And that threat is caused by declining economic conditions, perpetuated by maintaining status quo policies. And the only options we are offered in the existing political system are to maintain those policies and sink further into decline, or to move closer to fascism directly. This makes the rise of fascism inevitable, unless victories are won by the working class to, at minimum, extract the necessary policy concessions to restore stability and stave off decline. Therefore, in my position, class conflict should come before anything else.
We can argue about the merits and flaws of China and Russia, but neither of them represent an existential threat to me as an American. Pretty much the only thing that does present an existential threat, imo, is the rise of fascism domestically.
Fair point. Here in Europe though, Russia is probably a bit more worrying. E.g. I’m not surprised that Poland wants to take a firm stance of supporting Ukraine, because Poles are probably worrying that their land might be invaded if Ukraine is taken over by Russia.
As for China, maybe we would disagree, but I think they really want to expand their power, even if that means stamping on people’s rights… for one thing it might be good if China had political freedom and democracy. China will obviously do what it wants for the time being, but I think I will remain a bit wary of what seems to be expansionist ambitions.
Fair point. Here in Europe though, Russia is probably a bit more worrying. E.g. I’m not surprised that Poland wants to take a firm stance of supporting Ukraine, because Poles are probably worrying that their land might be invaded if Ukraine is taken over by Russia.
My perspective on that is that I’m not really convinced that Poland’s government is really that much better than Russia’s to the point to be worth fighting for. They’re both right-wing capitalist governments that don’t seem to do a lot for their people. If I were a Pole, or a Russian or Ukrainian, and the government tried to draft me to fight, I’d probably just flee. Is the average person’s life really going to be that different? A government is only worth fighting for if it actually does things for the people (or if the enemy is genocidal like the Nazis).
As for China, maybe we would disagree, but I think they really want to expand their power, even if that means stamping on people’s rights…
Of course. Every country, or at least every superpower, gets there because they’re willing to play the game, because they have their eye on the ball. That’s just the way the world works, realistically.
But China’s approach is mostly about winning the peace. China expands through economic investment and the production of goods. Every year, more and more small countries that used to be neutral are turning towards China and countries that used to be oriented towards the US are becoming neutral and dealing with both. Colombia, for example. Because the US is at best neglectful of these countries, at worst, it’s outright hostile, it maintains and expands control through outright invasions, bombing campaigns, funding insurgencies, covert regime change, and freezing assets. Every time it does this for the sake of controlling one country, a hundred countries see it and wonder if they’re next. In the past, they had little choice but to tolerate it, but now that China is a viable challenger, they have options.
Multipolarity restricts the abuse any country can commit, because of the option of turning to an alternative. Likely, part of why China offers more generous and less restrictive deals is simply because they’re trying to break into the market.
China is not my ideal system. Tbh, my ideals might be incompatible with achieving superpower status. But China makes it more likely that something closer to my ideals could be implemented in smaller countries around the globe, and, having been tested and proven in that context, those policies could spread further.
But ultimately my point is, you don’t make it to the top without stepping on people’s toes sometimes. You might say, “Well then maybe you shouldn’t try to make it to the top,” and that’s a valid point, but someone’s going to be on top, and the further up that person is from everyone else, the more ruthless they probably had to be to get there - and the more they are able to act with impunity. If you’re trying to bring the top down to a lower level, that is not achieved by primarily focusing on the top’s main rivals or competitors.
for one thing it might be good if China had political freedom and democracy
It might be good if the US had political freedom and democracy too.
I don’t really know how to evaluate how democratic a system is, from the outside. China has elections, and the government has a high degree of support (according to Western polls). It’s true that the system is dominated by one party but there were also reforms made to allow more ideological diversity to exist within the party than previously. Not having lived there, I find it difficult to evaluate.
But I can tell you that the American system is certainly not democratic. We have tons of untraceable dark money going into campaigns, our system is designed to only allow two parties, both of which are corrupt and serve the interests of the rich, polls consistently show overwhelming dissatisfaction with congress regardless of who’s in charge, people are being abducted off the streets without due process, taken to secret prisons (such as the one at Guantanamo, which has existed for decades under both parties), etc.
How am I supposed to worry about what’s going on in China? I have bigger fish to fry, don’t you think?
I think the US is a democracy, just a flawed one. The electoral college is a big flaw because it gives rural states a disproportionate amount of power. But there is still a democratic process in the US. Look at how Zohran Mamdani has become the Democrat candidate to become NYC’s mayor, despite the fact that many leading Democrats didn’t want him to be the candidate. The primary voters made their voices heard.
That’s one person in a mayoral position. The overall direction of the country is something that we don’t have a choice in. Mamdani can make buses free or whatever because that doesn’t really threaten the elites, at best, it inconveniences them.
We also haven’t seen what he’ll actually do in office. Obama promised to reign in the overreaches of mass surveillance and did no such thing, for example. AOC recently voted in favor of sending military aid to Israel.
Do you pay attention to mayoral races in China? Or do you just assume that they must be undemocratic and that all the candidates are bad without a second thought? I’ll admit, I don’t, because I have little reason to. But if there were a Mamdani-like figure in China’s politics, do you really think you’d hear about them?
It seems to me like you keep trying to make a rule from the exception. Zohran is notable precisely because he’s an exception. Taiwan, likewise, is an exception to China’s general approach to foreign relations. The general trend is that the rich exert a ton of influence over the US government, which pushes it in the direction of trying to dominate every corner of the globe, usually through force. Of course, I’ve mentioned some of the most recent and blatant examples, but spin a globe, put your finger on a random country you’ve never heard of, and look into that country’s history. You’ll almost always find the US doing something nefarious. You simply can’t say that about China.
spin a globe, put your finger on a random country you’ve never heard of, and look into that country’s history. You’ll almost always find the US doing something nefarious. You simply can’t say that about China.
I googled “chinese hacking” because I’ve seen articles about this before, and I came across some examples. So I think China is doing nefarious things.
Do you pay attention to mayoral races in China? Or do you just assume that they must be undemocratic and that all the candidates are bad without a second thought?
Sources like CNN and Wikipedia refer to China as a one-party state. I guess I’ll accept that this description is probably accurate, until I see news of China having national elections involving at least two competitive parties.
Christ, have you heard a single word I’ve said this conversation? Yes, China does hacking, Russia does hacking, the US does hacking, everybody does that kind of stuff. The difference is that China is generally limited to the kinds of bad things that every government is guilty of, whereas the US literally dominates the world by force, assassinating if not full-scale invading anybody they don’t like. You keep coming up with this tiny trivial stuff to compare to things like the occupation of Afghanistan, which makes me think that you simply don’t comprehend the scale of suffering that that entailed.
Sources like CNN and Wikipedia refer to China as a one-party state. I guess I’ll accept that this description is probably accurate, until I see news of China having national elections involving at least two competitive parties.
It’s kinda funny to say that in comparison to New York City, because you brought up Mamdani as if he had already been elected. In fact, he only won the Democratic primary. It’s just that the Democratic party is popular enough in NYC that it’s been more or less assumed that he would win. Of course, the incumbent Cuomo was also from the Democratic party, and yet there’s significant ideological differences between them.
You might say that NYC is, functionally, a one-party city. Of course, meaningful ideological differences can exist within that party, with competitive races between them. But I suppose the fact that the Republican party technically also exists there is the thing that determines whether NYC has democratic elections or not. Is that how that works? Should I be thanking the Republicans for making the US a democracy instead of “one party state?”
It’s very clear that you haven’t actually investigated or thought about how the Chinese system works and are just repeating lines you’ve heard. A one-party system doesn’t mean that the leaders of the party pick out who they want in each position and they run unopposed.
the US literally dominates the world by force, assassinating if not full-scale invading anybody they don’t like
China seems to aspire to this same modus operandi. They seem to want to invade Taiwan in the near future.
You might say that NYC is, functionally, a one-party city. Of course, meaningful ideological differences can exist within that party, with competitive races between them. But I suppose the fact that the Republican party technically also exists there is the thing that determines whether NYC has democratic elections or not.
It’s not that long ago that Michael Bloomberg and Rudy Giuliani were Republican mayors of NYC, but I think the last non-communist leader of China was decades ago. Before the PRC was established I would guess.
It’s very clear that you haven’t actually investigated or thought about how the Chinese system works and are just repeating lines you’ve heard.
To be honest I do trust sources like BBC News and other western sources. I know some people might say they’re pro-western biased sources. From my experience though, the BBC has been truthful and accurate. If they report on a multi-party election in China then I’ll read about it. Instead though I found this on their website:
China seems to aspire to this same modus operandi. They seem to want to invade Taiwan in the near future.
“Seems to aspire to” “seem to want to” those are just other ways of saying that they aren’t doing it, that there’s nothing that you can point to that’s in any way comparable to what the US has been doing for decades, if not since it’s conception. You’re just speculating about what you think might happen and saying that that hypothetical possibility makes them as bad as a country that’s actually done that and worse.
It’s not that long ago that Michael Bloomberg and Rudy Giuliani were Republican mayors of NYC, but I think the last non-communist leader of China was decades ago. Before the PRC was established I would guess.
Sure. But those communists have often had vastly different approaches. China saw extensive changes both economically and politically in the 80’s and different leaders have differed on their approaches since then.
So the leadership of a single party is in their constitution. I don’t think that’s true in the US, or other western democracies.
You’re right, it isn’t. In fact, the US constitution doesn’t say anything about political parties at all. That doesn’t stop our political system from being dominated by two parties, because of the way things are set up.
The Chinese system operates off a different set of assumptions than the US system does. But the assumptions that the US system makes are fundamentally incorrect. So I don’t see a reason to just broadly dismiss the entire Chinese system based off of it being described as a “one-party state.” I for one, would prefer to live in a system where only the Democratic party existed and the Republican party did not. But moreover, I don’t think you could accurately answer basic question about how the Chinese system works. Like, walk me through your picture of how someone becomes a mayor in China. Do you even have a picture?
Look, my politics are pretty simple. I see my government doing all this fucked up shit and I hate the people doing it, I want to get rid of them, ideally have them face justice, and then bring in new people who hopefully we won’t have to do the same thing to. But apparently I’m not allowed to want that? Apparently I suddenly have to answer for every alleged bad thing anyone around the world has ever done. And I’ve been entertaining that crazy idea quite a bit more than it really deserves. Without getting into details, I can tell you that my own family was very negatively impacted by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nobody I know has been negatively impacted (certainly not to the same extent) by China not having sufficiently democratic mayoral elections, or anything else China has done.
And again, I have absolutely no idea what purpose condemning the Chinese government is supposed to serve. I’m trying to solve problems that affect my own community. And if you think I have a moral responsibility to help liberate the Chinese people from their government, I mean, that’s insane. Again, there’s nothing I can do to bring down the Chinese government from the outside and even if I could I can not imagine any scenario where that would help the Chinese people.
I mean, if anything, shouldn’t I prioritize, say, Saudi Arabia over China? How about before we go around taking aggressive actions against a government that the people overwhelmingly approve of, we just stop giving weapons to a literal monarchy? Like, I’m not even saying we overthrow them, just stop aiding them. If you want me to ignore my own people for the sake of people all around the world, I’m down, it’s just that even if “Liberate Chinese people from the government they support” would be way, way down my list even if I put it on it. Why shouldn’t it be?
Genuinely, why shouldn’t it be? At a certain point, shouldn’t I be questioning your motivations for constantly trying to redirect my justified anger and my own government towards my government’s enemies?
It’s just saber-rattling.
Through diplomacy and voluntary trade deals? I don’t see a problem with that. If that was how the US went about things, I’d feel pretty differently about the US than I do.
I don’t really see “making friends” as being imperialist. China’s foreign policy is, generally speaking, to stay out of political questions and trade with everyone. This isn’t a perfect position, but it’s at least a degree of separation from imperialism.
Yes, in some situations, I agree. This is a perspective argued by other theorists like Franz Fanon, who’s position was that developing countries escaping colonialism have more to worry about from foreign colonizers than from their domestic “bourgeoisie,” who are still relatively poor.
This is also why the CCP formed coalitions with the KMT in order to repell the Japanese fascists (and previously, to put down the warlords that emerged following the fall of the Qing). Likewise, the USSR condemned strikes that took place in the US during WWII, because defeating the Nazis was more important.
But these are exceptional cases, where either the class dynamics are different from developed countries, or where a truly existential threat exists, such as Germany and Japan in WWII. Of course, since WWII, US politicians have attempted to compare every conflict to it and to argue that there’s an existential threat, even when it’s completely absurd, including Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq.
We can argue about the merits and flaws of China and Russia, but neither of them represent an existential threat to me as an American. Pretty much the only thing that does present an existential threat, imo, is the rise of fascism domestically. And that threat is caused by declining economic conditions, perpetuated by maintaining status quo policies. And the only options we are offered in the existing political system are to maintain those policies and sink further into decline, or to move closer to fascism directly. This makes the rise of fascism inevitable, unless victories are won by the working class to, at minimum, extract the necessary policy concessions to restore stability and stave off decline. Therefore, in my position, class conflict should come before anything else.
Fair point. Here in Europe though, Russia is probably a bit more worrying. E.g. I’m not surprised that Poland wants to take a firm stance of supporting Ukraine, because Poles are probably worrying that their land might be invaded if Ukraine is taken over by Russia.
As for China, maybe we would disagree, but I think they really want to expand their power, even if that means stamping on people’s rights… for one thing it might be good if China had political freedom and democracy. China will obviously do what it wants for the time being, but I think I will remain a bit wary of what seems to be expansionist ambitions.
My perspective on that is that I’m not really convinced that Poland’s government is really that much better than Russia’s to the point to be worth fighting for. They’re both right-wing capitalist governments that don’t seem to do a lot for their people. If I were a Pole, or a Russian or Ukrainian, and the government tried to draft me to fight, I’d probably just flee. Is the average person’s life really going to be that different? A government is only worth fighting for if it actually does things for the people (or if the enemy is genocidal like the Nazis).
Of course. Every country, or at least every superpower, gets there because they’re willing to play the game, because they have their eye on the ball. That’s just the way the world works, realistically.
But China’s approach is mostly about winning the peace. China expands through economic investment and the production of goods. Every year, more and more small countries that used to be neutral are turning towards China and countries that used to be oriented towards the US are becoming neutral and dealing with both. Colombia, for example. Because the US is at best neglectful of these countries, at worst, it’s outright hostile, it maintains and expands control through outright invasions, bombing campaigns, funding insurgencies, covert regime change, and freezing assets. Every time it does this for the sake of controlling one country, a hundred countries see it and wonder if they’re next. In the past, they had little choice but to tolerate it, but now that China is a viable challenger, they have options.
Multipolarity restricts the abuse any country can commit, because of the option of turning to an alternative. Likely, part of why China offers more generous and less restrictive deals is simply because they’re trying to break into the market.
China is not my ideal system. Tbh, my ideals might be incompatible with achieving superpower status. But China makes it more likely that something closer to my ideals could be implemented in smaller countries around the globe, and, having been tested and proven in that context, those policies could spread further.
But ultimately my point is, you don’t make it to the top without stepping on people’s toes sometimes. You might say, “Well then maybe you shouldn’t try to make it to the top,” and that’s a valid point, but someone’s going to be on top, and the further up that person is from everyone else, the more ruthless they probably had to be to get there - and the more they are able to act with impunity. If you’re trying to bring the top down to a lower level, that is not achieved by primarily focusing on the top’s main rivals or competitors.
It might be good if the US had political freedom and democracy too.
I don’t really know how to evaluate how democratic a system is, from the outside. China has elections, and the government has a high degree of support (according to Western polls). It’s true that the system is dominated by one party but there were also reforms made to allow more ideological diversity to exist within the party than previously. Not having lived there, I find it difficult to evaluate.
But I can tell you that the American system is certainly not democratic. We have tons of untraceable dark money going into campaigns, our system is designed to only allow two parties, both of which are corrupt and serve the interests of the rich, polls consistently show overwhelming dissatisfaction with congress regardless of who’s in charge, people are being abducted off the streets without due process, taken to secret prisons (such as the one at Guantanamo, which has existed for decades under both parties), etc.
How am I supposed to worry about what’s going on in China? I have bigger fish to fry, don’t you think?
I think the US is a democracy, just a flawed one. The electoral college is a big flaw because it gives rural states a disproportionate amount of power. But there is still a democratic process in the US. Look at how Zohran Mamdani has become the Democrat candidate to become NYC’s mayor, despite the fact that many leading Democrats didn’t want him to be the candidate. The primary voters made their voices heard.
That’s one person in a mayoral position. The overall direction of the country is something that we don’t have a choice in. Mamdani can make buses free or whatever because that doesn’t really threaten the elites, at best, it inconveniences them.
We also haven’t seen what he’ll actually do in office. Obama promised to reign in the overreaches of mass surveillance and did no such thing, for example. AOC recently voted in favor of sending military aid to Israel.
Do you pay attention to mayoral races in China? Or do you just assume that they must be undemocratic and that all the candidates are bad without a second thought? I’ll admit, I don’t, because I have little reason to. But if there were a Mamdani-like figure in China’s politics, do you really think you’d hear about them?
It seems to me like you keep trying to make a rule from the exception. Zohran is notable precisely because he’s an exception. Taiwan, likewise, is an exception to China’s general approach to foreign relations. The general trend is that the rich exert a ton of influence over the US government, which pushes it in the direction of trying to dominate every corner of the globe, usually through force. Of course, I’ve mentioned some of the most recent and blatant examples, but spin a globe, put your finger on a random country you’ve never heard of, and look into that country’s history. You’ll almost always find the US doing something nefarious. You simply can’t say that about China.
I googled “chinese hacking” because I’ve seen articles about this before, and I came across some examples. So I think China is doing nefarious things.
Sources like CNN and Wikipedia refer to China as a one-party state. I guess I’ll accept that this description is probably accurate, until I see news of China having national elections involving at least two competitive parties.
Christ, have you heard a single word I’ve said this conversation? Yes, China does hacking, Russia does hacking, the US does hacking, everybody does that kind of stuff. The difference is that China is generally limited to the kinds of bad things that every government is guilty of, whereas the US literally dominates the world by force, assassinating if not full-scale invading anybody they don’t like. You keep coming up with this tiny trivial stuff to compare to things like the occupation of Afghanistan, which makes me think that you simply don’t comprehend the scale of suffering that that entailed.
Actually, China has nine political parties.
It’s kinda funny to say that in comparison to New York City, because you brought up Mamdani as if he had already been elected. In fact, he only won the Democratic primary. It’s just that the Democratic party is popular enough in NYC that it’s been more or less assumed that he would win. Of course, the incumbent Cuomo was also from the Democratic party, and yet there’s significant ideological differences between them.
You might say that NYC is, functionally, a one-party city. Of course, meaningful ideological differences can exist within that party, with competitive races between them. But I suppose the fact that the Republican party technically also exists there is the thing that determines whether NYC has democratic elections or not. Is that how that works? Should I be thanking the Republicans for making the US a democracy instead of “one party state?”
It’s very clear that you haven’t actually investigated or thought about how the Chinese system works and are just repeating lines you’ve heard. A one-party system doesn’t mean that the leaders of the party pick out who they want in each position and they run unopposed.
China seems to aspire to this same modus operandi. They seem to want to invade Taiwan in the near future.
It’s not that long ago that Michael Bloomberg and Rudy Giuliani were Republican mayors of NYC, but I think the last non-communist leader of China was decades ago. Before the PRC was established I would guess.
To be honest I do trust sources like BBC News and other western sources. I know some people might say they’re pro-western biased sources. From my experience though, the BBC has been truthful and accurate. If they report on a multi-party election in China then I’ll read about it. Instead though I found this on their website:
So the leadership of a single party is in their constitution. I don’t think that’s true in the US, or other western democracies.
Anyway, I’m not trying to say any particular country is bad. Countries just have differences I suppose.
“Seems to aspire to” “seem to want to” those are just other ways of saying that they aren’t doing it, that there’s nothing that you can point to that’s in any way comparable to what the US has been doing for decades, if not since it’s conception. You’re just speculating about what you think might happen and saying that that hypothetical possibility makes them as bad as a country that’s actually done that and worse.
Sure. But those communists have often had vastly different approaches. China saw extensive changes both economically and politically in the 80’s and different leaders have differed on their approaches since then.
You’re right, it isn’t. In fact, the US constitution doesn’t say anything about political parties at all. That doesn’t stop our political system from being dominated by two parties, because of the way things are set up.
The Chinese system operates off a different set of assumptions than the US system does. But the assumptions that the US system makes are fundamentally incorrect. So I don’t see a reason to just broadly dismiss the entire Chinese system based off of it being described as a “one-party state.” I for one, would prefer to live in a system where only the Democratic party existed and the Republican party did not. But moreover, I don’t think you could accurately answer basic question about how the Chinese system works. Like, walk me through your picture of how someone becomes a mayor in China. Do you even have a picture?
Look, my politics are pretty simple. I see my government doing all this fucked up shit and I hate the people doing it, I want to get rid of them, ideally have them face justice, and then bring in new people who hopefully we won’t have to do the same thing to. But apparently I’m not allowed to want that? Apparently I suddenly have to answer for every alleged bad thing anyone around the world has ever done. And I’ve been entertaining that crazy idea quite a bit more than it really deserves. Without getting into details, I can tell you that my own family was very negatively impacted by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nobody I know has been negatively impacted (certainly not to the same extent) by China not having sufficiently democratic mayoral elections, or anything else China has done.
And again, I have absolutely no idea what purpose condemning the Chinese government is supposed to serve. I’m trying to solve problems that affect my own community. And if you think I have a moral responsibility to help liberate the Chinese people from their government, I mean, that’s insane. Again, there’s nothing I can do to bring down the Chinese government from the outside and even if I could I can not imagine any scenario where that would help the Chinese people.
I mean, if anything, shouldn’t I prioritize, say, Saudi Arabia over China? How about before we go around taking aggressive actions against a government that the people overwhelmingly approve of, we just stop giving weapons to a literal monarchy? Like, I’m not even saying we overthrow them, just stop aiding them. If you want me to ignore my own people for the sake of people all around the world, I’m down, it’s just that even if “Liberate Chinese people from the government they support” would be way, way down my list even if I put it on it. Why shouldn’t it be?
Genuinely, why shouldn’t it be? At a certain point, shouldn’t I be questioning your motivations for constantly trying to redirect my justified anger and my own government towards my government’s enemies?