With the way things have been going lately, I feel like it'd be irresponsible for a country not to be preparing for a post-American order, particularly the world's leading economy. That being...
With the way things have been going lately, I feel like it'd be irresponsible for a country not to be preparing for a post-American order, particularly the world's leading economy. That being said, I am concerned that the ascendancy of China on the world stage might lead to their authoritarian political system being exported across the globe. Pax Americana hasn't exactly been great for democracies that don't toe the capitalist line, but I can imagine things would be a lot worse in a world where the leading power doesn't even have pretensions of maintaining or promoting democracy.
Has US foreign policy been changed by these pretensions though? The US has cheerfully torn down democracies the second they really step on US corporate toes. The most interesting thing in the US...
...doesn't even have pretensions of maintaining or promoting democracy.
Has US foreign policy been changed by these pretensions though? The US has cheerfully torn down democracies the second they really step on US corporate toes. The most interesting thing in the US Diplomatic cables to me was the conversations around EU Patent law.
The US talks a great deal about freedom and democracy but talk is exceptionally cheap. With all the revelations around drone killings and domestic spying under Obama even when the 'pro-freedom' guys get elected it's not actually apparent that this translates into much useful action.
I'm aware that the US doesnt have a stellar track record for promoting democracy and human rights, I did say in my comment that: Nonetheless, it's undeniable that (liberal) democracy has done very...
I'm aware that the US doesnt have a stellar track record for promoting democracy and human rights, I did say in my comment that:
Pax Americana hasn't exactly been great for democracies that don't toe the capitalist line
Nonetheless, it's undeniable that (liberal) democracy has done very well in the past decades, better than at any other point in history, with a majority of humans living in democratically governed counties and China and Russia being the only really notable autocracies. Now, it's hard to say whether the US is responsible for this, since we don't have a control Earth where the US doesn't exist as hegemon, but I think it's a safe bet that if the Soviet Union or China had taken its place during the 20th century, democracy wouldn't have seen anywhere near the same popularity.
To me this seems like some kind of a fairy tale. The morally good Americans promoting democracy because of their ideological belief in freedom! In my view Democracy spread because of: The...
To me this seems like some kind of a fairy tale. The morally good Americans promoting democracy because of their ideological belief in freedom! In my view Democracy spread because of:
The levelling effects of growth.
Elites fears of revolutions (first Republican then Communist)
The vast destruction of capital caused by WW1 and WW2
The levelling effects of growth
(see capital in the 21st century)
If your economy is not growing people who own housing and farmland end up owning everything. Everyone has to live somewhere everyone has to eat so if you're charging them rent to fulfil those needs you can slowly accrue more land. This is Europe prior to the industrial revolution.
If your country is growing quickly (say 8% per annum plus) ownership of land or capital is much less important than being part of that growth. This is I think the original source of the American Dream, European immigrants having been dirt poor for generations are suddenly part of this explosive growth.
Elites fears of revolutions
What do you do if you're British aristocracy watching over the channel as revolutionary France stars lopping off heads? Maybe you're suddenly a bit more worried that your poor people aren't starving.
In other words the western elites allowed democracy and the welfare state to flourish only in response to their fears of first the French Reign of Terror and then Communists.
Since "Socialism with Chinese characteristics" (~1980) and the fall of the USSR (~1990) These fears are obviously much diminished. What revolutionary motivation is left for the left? This is before you get to the success of COINTELPRO & friends. So the elites fear of their fellow citizens are largely gone. The 2008 crisis made this really obvious with plenty of banking execs shamelessly in the media without the first thought that an angry mob might turn up.
Historic effects of WW1 and WW2
So the vast growth from the looting of colonization followed by sustained technological advances gave ideologies of equality a toe hold. Then the fear of violent revolution driven by these ideologies prompted the rich and powerful to look after their poorer fellows. But a huge un-ignorable effect came from WW1 and WW2 and the huge destruction of capital which these wars caused.
Every bombed factory, all the post war inflation to reduce bond payments and every colony which took it's freedom resulted in very rich Europeans losing big chunks of cash and thus power.
Honestly, so long as China remains as-is (being run in a manner antithetical to the values of most Western democracies) I would expect a large number of countries to avoid such a shift in the...
Honestly, so long as China remains as-is (being run in a manner antithetical to the values of most Western democracies) I would expect a large number of countries to avoid such a shift in the global power balance as much as they can. However, it would be very simple for a country with a large economy and the inclination to quickly gain sway with countries that are a) small, b) lagging in development, or c) corrupt at the highest levels.
If that happens (and signs seem to point that way, albeit not as aggressively as I might be making it sound) the question really becomes what will happen when there is a division between the formerly-developed world with all of their baggage and the rapidly ascendant 'new countries' who have largely been taken advantage of by the former while China is seen as a supporting ally. And honestly, that scares me - not because I think those smaller countries have an innate desire to harm the west so much as it could further entrench China's political status quo with a global power structure aimed at simply supporting the top - potentially leading to very nasty things worldwide.
What makes things worse is Russia's current presence. Even disregarding their likelihood to work with China before the US due to ultimately similar goals, the US seems to be suffering from 'the principle of two weaknesses' - were just one of those threats present it would be relatively straightforward to deal with, but when trying to handle multiple things at one focusing on one ultimately means allowing the other to make some progress and if attention is constantly see-sawed between the two both efforts can become ultimately ineffective.
And then there's Trump, who isn't exactly helping things either. I'm no real fan of the US at all, but the reality is that we do need them as a strong presence on the global stage so long as the alternative powers are as bad as they are, so I hope they get their shit sorted sooner rather than later both for the sake of the people within and outside its borders.
America built a world order on fossil fuels, authoritarian puppet regimes, and an endless thirst for blood. If China's new world order is built on infrastructure projects and renewables, then all...
America built a world order on fossil fuels, authoritarian puppet regimes, and an endless thirst for blood. If China's new world order is built on infrastructure projects and renewables, then all I can say is Ni Hao.
We are already getting a glimpse of what is to come through China’s various initiatives, ranging from the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) to the Belt and Road project and the 16+1 group, which is developing Chinese-financed projects in Eastern Europe and the Balkans. China is also seeking to connect a global electricity grid powered by wind and solar as a means to sustain development while fighting climate change.
With the way things have been going lately, I feel like it'd be irresponsible for a country not to be preparing for a post-American order, particularly the world's leading economy. That being said, I am concerned that the ascendancy of China on the world stage might lead to their authoritarian political system being exported across the globe. Pax Americana hasn't exactly been great for democracies that don't toe the capitalist line, but I can imagine things would be a lot worse in a world where the leading power doesn't even have pretensions of maintaining or promoting democracy.
Has US foreign policy been changed by these pretensions though? The US has cheerfully torn down democracies the second they really step on US corporate toes. The most interesting thing in the US Diplomatic cables to me was the conversations around EU Patent law.
The US talks a great deal about freedom and democracy but talk is exceptionally cheap. With all the revelations around drone killings and domestic spying under Obama even when the 'pro-freedom' guys get elected it's not actually apparent that this translates into much useful action.
I'm aware that the US doesnt have a stellar track record for promoting democracy and human rights, I did say in my comment that:
Nonetheless, it's undeniable that (liberal) democracy has done very well in the past decades, better than at any other point in history, with a majority of humans living in democratically governed counties and China and Russia being the only really notable autocracies. Now, it's hard to say whether the US is responsible for this, since we don't have a control Earth where the US doesn't exist as hegemon, but I think it's a safe bet that if the Soviet Union or China had taken its place during the 20th century, democracy wouldn't have seen anywhere near the same popularity.
To me this seems like some kind of a fairy tale. The morally good Americans promoting democracy because of their ideological belief in freedom! In my view Democracy spread because of:
The levelling effects of growth
(see capital in the 21st century)
If your economy is not growing people who own housing and farmland end up owning everything. Everyone has to live somewhere everyone has to eat so if you're charging them rent to fulfil those needs you can slowly accrue more land. This is Europe prior to the industrial revolution.
If your country is growing quickly (say 8% per annum plus) ownership of land or capital is much less important than being part of that growth. This is I think the original source of the American Dream, European immigrants having been dirt poor for generations are suddenly part of this explosive growth.
Elites fears of revolutions
What do you do if you're British aristocracy watching over the channel as revolutionary France stars lopping off heads? Maybe you're suddenly a bit more worried that your poor people aren't starving.
In other words the western elites allowed democracy and the welfare state to flourish only in response to their fears of first the French Reign of Terror and then Communists.
Since "Socialism with Chinese characteristics" (~1980) and the fall of the USSR (~1990) These fears are obviously much diminished. What revolutionary motivation is left for the left? This is before you get to the success of COINTELPRO & friends. So the elites fear of their fellow citizens are largely gone. The 2008 crisis made this really obvious with plenty of banking execs shamelessly in the media without the first thought that an angry mob might turn up.
Historic effects of WW1 and WW2
So the vast growth from the looting of colonization followed by sustained technological advances gave ideologies of equality a toe hold. Then the fear of violent revolution driven by these ideologies prompted the rich and powerful to look after their poorer fellows. But a huge un-ignorable effect came from WW1 and WW2 and the huge destruction of capital which these wars caused.
Every bombed factory, all the post war inflation to reduce bond payments and every colony which took it's freedom resulted in very rich Europeans losing big chunks of cash and thus power.
This really shows up in the data
Honestly, so long as China remains as-is (being run in a manner antithetical to the values of most Western democracies) I would expect a large number of countries to avoid such a shift in the global power balance as much as they can. However, it would be very simple for a country with a large economy and the inclination to quickly gain sway with countries that are a) small, b) lagging in development, or c) corrupt at the highest levels.
If that happens (and signs seem to point that way, albeit not as aggressively as I might be making it sound) the question really becomes what will happen when there is a division between the formerly-developed world with all of their baggage and the rapidly ascendant 'new countries' who have largely been taken advantage of by the former while China is seen as a supporting ally. And honestly, that scares me - not because I think those smaller countries have an innate desire to harm the west so much as it could further entrench China's political status quo with a global power structure aimed at simply supporting the top - potentially leading to very nasty things worldwide.
What makes things worse is Russia's current presence. Even disregarding their likelihood to work with China before the US due to ultimately similar goals, the US seems to be suffering from 'the principle of two weaknesses' - were just one of those threats present it would be relatively straightforward to deal with, but when trying to handle multiple things at one focusing on one ultimately means allowing the other to make some progress and if attention is constantly see-sawed between the two both efforts can become ultimately ineffective.
And then there's Trump, who isn't exactly helping things either. I'm no real fan of the US at all, but the reality is that we do need them as a strong presence on the global stage so long as the alternative powers are as bad as they are, so I hope they get their shit sorted sooner rather than later both for the sake of the people within and outside its borders.
America built a world order on fossil fuels, authoritarian puppet regimes, and an endless thirst for blood. If China's new world order is built on infrastructure projects and renewables, then all I can say is Ni Hao.