Dreams of a Red Emperor: The Relentless Rise of Xi Jinping

https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-10-22/china-xi-jinping-mao-zedong-communist-party

by rfreytag • 6 years ago

188 240 6 years ago

echelon2• 6 years ago

So is China going to surpass America to become the world's #1 economy? Or are the predictions that China's growth will decline true?

Some analysts think China's population is too old and that youth will peter out, whereas others think that all the CCP has to do is ask its millennials to have more babies.

Some analysts think that democratic nations will band together and give China the cold shoulder. China could just as easily form alliances.

Others say that the West will build factories in India, Vietnam, Mexico, and Africa and stop single-sourcing the supply chain. China's also playing that game with their One Belt initiative.

The West has bountiful resources. Oil, minerals. So does China.

The West has a huge military and space program. So does China.

The West has high-paying tech jobs because of its lead in tech, but China is catching up and has more people graduating into the field. This could drive dominance (and salaries) down.

China keeps reporting growth. Others say don't trust the numbers. At the same time, look at what's happening to Western economies and national debt. Is China pulling the same levers, or are they unscathed? What, if anything, can the West do to match that growth? Or is it impossible?

What's going to happen? What's the 20 to 30 year outlook?

Really hoping for some good analysis.

(note: this story was "flagged" and I was unable to reply, but I "vouched" for it because I really value conversation and want informed input to help shape my view. Maybe I was wrong to do so, and if Dang or the mods disapprove, I'm sorry. My opinion on this whole matter is constantly in flux, and I'd really like good sources of information so I can be up to date and well informed. It feels like one of the most important topics of our generation.)

rapsey• 6 years ago

The problem with the west is that it is largely leaderless. Actions happen due to some interest group getting their way.

China on the other hand is very much lead. I think the west constantly bringing up Chinese demographic and other issues is just the west being lazy and ignoring reality. China is becoming unstoppable.

Democratic nations banding together or building new supply chains are pipe dreams.

malandrew2• 6 years ago

Actions happen due to some interest group getting their way.

This is such a big reason. We no longer identify under a single identity. In America, that would be identifying as an American. In Europe, people still don't really identify as being European before they identify as English, French, German, etc.

Between both America and Europe, we no longer identify with being Western.

The fact that we now increasingly identify with some subgroup, means many of us focus on improving the success of the subgroup with which we align. That means that growing your piece of the pie means growing the size of the pie of your subgroup over growing the size of the pie for the larger group (European, American, Western, etc.)

In China, on the other hand, the focus is on growing the size of the pie for China. It's going to be hard to compete with this unless we adopt the same mindset.

delfinom2• 6 years ago

Democratic nations banding together or building new supply chains are pipe dreams.

New supply chains are in fact underway, even before Trump's horseshit. There was a inkling of migrating manufacturing to India and its only been accelerated further.

est316• 6 years ago

Authoritarianism has been tried out around the globe in the 20th century multiple times, but each attempt failed. In fact, moth western nations were kingdoms at the start of the 20th century, and WW1 and WW2 turned most of them into republics.

statquontrarian6• 6 years ago

Clearly leadership isn't sufficient. Central planning leadership under Mao led to poor results. Deng Xiaoping's reformation was to reduce centralized leadership.

Nor is central planning leadership necessary. The early United States overtook Great Britain as the largest economy with minimal central planning leadership.

bboygravity3• 6 years ago

Could you or anybody elaborate on why you think the West (US) and China are that different in the big picture?

The way I see it: in China politics/policy are largely steered by big money (companies) + the emperor. The only difference I see with the West is that the emperor of the West is less powerful than Xi.

The "nice" thing about a totalitarian king/emperor/dictator is that improvements in prosperity come quickly. The disadvantage is that the fall also comes quickly (easy example: Mao).

Aren't the root issues as simple as that? I mean this is not exactly the first time in history that we saw "The West" V.S. dictatorships. It's also not the first time that we saw a powerful Chinese totalitarian regime make the country very wealthy and then poor again. To clarify: regarding that last sentence I'm talking about the past 2500 years or so.

Don't dictatorships by their nature come with massive corruption and eventual downfall. Or is that my - just world fallacy - talking?

lobotryas3• 6 years ago

Even more precisely the vast majority of Chinese people are unified. They are patriots who think China is the best country ever and all the rest are just jealous of their success. Downvote me if you want, but that’s certainly the look that CCP is happy to push.

Comparatively the People of the West are divided. Not just the US but also Europe. They are divided not just by politics, but also by their world view, and few have anything good to say about their home countries.

This right here is the biggest wedge China can exploit. If they move as one while the West gets mired in debates then China will win.

yongjik2• 6 years ago

I think it's the other way: the strength of the West is that it's largely leaderless, and its "regional" leaders regularly gets switched out, so even a bad leader cannot leave much long-lasting harm.

China is at the mercy of bad decisions made by its single unopposed leader - in a quest to command fear, it's needlessly antagonizing pretty much all its neighbors, which seems to me like a result of flawed leadership.

danaos• 6 years ago

My take is that China will eventually surpass the United States in terms of GDP but the USA will continue to lead in terms of per-capita.

Simulacra2• 6 years ago

Only if foreign companies keep investing. If there is another Wuhan virus, then as possible the world may step back tremendously from China

delfinom2• 6 years ago

but the USA will continue to lead in terms of per-capita

Which will be further and further ironic as the 1% will eventually become the 0.1%

ffggvv• 6 years ago

yeah with more than 3x the population they only need 1/3 of the median gdp to surpass in overall gdp

puranjay• 6 years ago

It has been nearly impossible to find objective analysis of China. Most sources are either soft propaganda or irrational jingoism.

What are some good sources for a rational discussion about China's growing dominance?

whimsicalism26• 6 years ago

I don't think it is currently possible, there is such a war-footing in the West even among the intelligentsia.

Best you can do is to read Chinese documents and try to squint through their own bias or to read academics who have spent extensive time in China recently (ie. past 5 years).

throw513194• 6 years ago

Seriously. There are so many right wing that think they are a paper tiger, and there's so many left CCP apologists that cloud the discussion in their own way.

The West needs a completely unbiased body to release a report to the world about where stuff stands. Nobody wants a conflict. We realize our systems are like two huge tectonic plates about to grind against each other... but let's fix it

coupdejarnac• 6 years ago

The Axios Sinocism email list.

Edit: this whole thread is insane. Anyways, Sinocism is run by people who have spent significant time in China. It conglomerates Chinese, Western, and Asian news sources and provides balanced commentary.

philipkglass• 6 years ago

I found this NSCAI presentation "Chinese Tech Landscape Overview" extremely interesting:

https://epic.org/foia/epic-v-ai-commission/EPIC-19-09-11-NSC...

It's from May 2019 but was obtained under FOIA more recently. It was submitted here at HN a couple of months ago, but under the baity title "NSCAI Eric Schmidt says Mass Surveillance killer tool/opportunity" so it missed broad discussion. Surveillance is only a small part of the document.

It also addresses:

- China's homegrown digital innovators

- China's dependence on imported semiconductors

- AI in transportation and medicine

- Banking and payment systems

- The future global manufacturing landscape

- The future of global development and governance

Among other topics.

It was the most riveting slide deck that I can recall reading.

DevX101• 6 years ago

On Chinese history: The Search for Modern China by Spence (1990)

On China's history told through several biographies: The Search for Modern China by Schell and Delury

On modern China and it's ambitions, from Xi himself (these are speeches so there will be propaganda): Xi Jinping: The Governance of China Volume 1

On tech in China: AI Superpowers: China, Silicon Valley, and the New World by Kai-Fu Lee

ptx• 6 years ago

The Sinica podcast has plenty of rational discussion, usually in the form of interviews with various academics:

https://supchina.com/series/sinica/

rawgabbit2• 6 years ago

https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2020/country-chapters/china...

https://publications.armywarcollege.edu/pubs/2402.pdf

simonh4• 6 years ago

China is huge and powerful and still growing rapidly. It's nominal GDP is $15tn, compared to $20tn for the USA. However it's GDP per capita is 1/6th that of the USA because it has 4x the population.

Of course the west, or the developed democracies are much more than just the USA. Also while China is catching up in many areas, it is far behind in many of the ones that really count. China's military infrastructure and military technology is far, far behind. They have been struggling for almost a decade to get even one refurbished Russian aircraft carrier operational. Their space launch and satellite technology is decades behind, as is their silicon chip tech.

China is almost caught up to the USA by itself in raw industrial and economic power, they're close to parity, but this is just muscle. On the technology front they are still copying the basic stuff. It will take them another generation to catch up to the west in the ability to innovate in new technologies. They will do it though. It's just a matter of time. Then they will be a match for the west as a whole, not just the USA.

whimsicalism26• 6 years ago

It will take them another generation to catch up to the west in the ability to innovate in new technologies.

I think you are in for a rude awakening.

est316• 6 years ago

Good luck building a phone outside of China.

https://www.diamandis.com/blog/shenzhen-global-hardware-capi...

Huawei had basically cornered the 5G technology, getting all competitors out of the market, but then Trump ended it.

China is buying strategically important technology companies from around the globe, like Kuka for example, and then moves the knowledge into their country.

If this trend continues, eventually we'll be in the same situation again where we have to imitate China, not vice versa. It's only a few hundred years ago when China sold extremely expensive porcelain to europe and we reverse engineered porcelain manufacturing (check out Johann Friedrich Böttger).

roenxi3• 6 years ago

They have been struggling for almost a decade to get even one refurbished Russian aircraft carrier operational.

They launched their first domestic carrier last year, actually. Evidence is they are starting to get more serious about their navy. 3 more under construction.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_aircraft_carrier_progr...

sudosysgen7• 6 years ago

China is simply not behind in military technology. Neither are they "decades behind" in lithography, nor in launch, nor in satellites.

Their first reusable rocket is due for a test launch in a few months, their second domestic carrier is in construction, and in hypersonics they are, by the DoD's own admission, well ahead.

They have a fully domestic rocket online with a launch reliability over 94%, and their launch cost is only barely higher than that of the Falcon 9, at around 70 million dollars vs 50 million. They are also building a super-heavy, 140 000 kg LEO rocket.

In silicon tech, they have a 14nm fab online, which is hardly "decades behind".

In sat tech, they have pretty much all they could ask for.

I don't really get this viewpoint. China doesn't really advertise their capabilities, but it's clear that they aren't far behind in more than a few crucial sectors, and clearly ahead in others. At this point they are near competitors of the west.

skrebbel• 6 years ago

The only area I know something about in your list is silicon chip tech, and I'm convinced that China will have at least one ASML competitor and at least one ARM competitor (or comparable) in the next 20 years, likely faster. Western countries trying to their block access to that tech (eg the US govt trying to stop ASML from shipping chip machines to China), is going to speed that up, not slow it down, because it creates a giant internal market for such tech.

All the Chinese government has to do to accomplish this is sit back and wait. There's plenty smart Chinese engineers and the market forces will do the rest.

(Source: I freelanced for a Chinese-owned lithography startup some years ago. It got run into the ground by bad management but that doesn't change much about my observations about market forces and Chinese engineers)

I have a hard time taking the rest of your list all too seriously given that the one I know something about is, I think, mistaken.

coliveira6• 6 years ago

On technology, you're just replicating wrong ideas spread in the last 20 years. China has proven itself capable of developing innovative technology and science. They have the most advanced 5G tech and already working on 6G. They are leaders in green tech. They're behind on semiconductors, but they have chosen this a top priority and I see no reason for them to have their own silicon starting on next year.

hosh5• 6 years ago

Aircraft carriers are a weapons platform that requires both tech prowess and organizational culture to wield. For this reason, America has more than a single carrier task force. Russia and the handful of others could only field a single one. (Instead, Russia had focused on building up their submarine fleet). The carrier groups have allowed the US to project both military and soft power around the world.

But that is just on the surface. What may not be as well-known are asymetric weapons platforms that are cheaper to operate and have been demonstrated effectiveness against larger naval vessels, within the US's own military war game exercises. In the last one, the oppositional team had been able to use such platforms to defeat their larger opponents, to the point that the exercise was cancelled. China has definitely been developing those weapons platforms. (I think the US has been as well, but the US also need to maintain the facade that the carrier groups are the premier projection of power).

Furthermore, the cultural aspects are eroding. The US military is a voluntary service organization, which has been the leading explanation of why the US can field multiple carrier groups, and no other country could. However, training and operational fitness has been eroding. This is what lead to the several naval disasters a couple years ago. They threw the commanding officers under the bus, but the deeper causes are (1) erosion of quality training for ship handling and (2) the personnel are running ragged, where normal ship operations are being affected (let alone what that says about their ability to operate in wartime conditions). This all happened within the US 7th Fleet, that operates within China's sphere of influence.

It's just as well that US pressure on China is being exerted through a trade war instead of military positioning.

(I also have had talks with friends about space-based kinetic weapons platforms, which, if fielded, changes the game dramatically in favor of the US).

As far as China's economic and technological power in the civilian sector ... There is a lot of advantages there. Probably the biggest thing is that China has cultural unity, greater economic optimism, and a cohesive will of the populous to catch up and displace US as the leading world superpower. The US, in contrast, is wracked with a culture war, and 70 years of policing the world and 30 years of trying to maintain the post-Cold War liberal order has left a very tired, pessimistic country.

kerng• 6 years ago

This is pretty much a done deal - just look at China's trajectory of growth since 2000s.

The only way this would not happen, is some severe world wide trade embargos, which seems unrealistic.

Or if China tries to go to war with Taiwan or something like that, which would result in trade embargos probably.

RestlessMind5• 6 years ago

China could just as easily form alliances.

Can you please elaborate? I find this to be an Achilles heal for China. If there is a bipolar world with US on one side and China leading the other, who do you think will ally with China? I can see Russia, Iran and North Korea but not really anyone else.

In the US camp, I see Western Europe + NATO countries, Australia, NZ, Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam, India and Israel. Do you think China can match that alliance?

lobotryas3• 6 years ago

Countries that want money. When you ally with China you get fat stacks for infrastructure and other development projects that those nations (Africa, SEA, Eastern Europe) simply can’t afford on their own. Now you owe China favor so you will do as they ask when they come to collect.

vlozko• 6 years ago

In such a hypothetical situation, I think China is able to at a minimum neutralize nations into not being on a side at all given the economic sway that it has in the world.

whimsicalism26• 6 years ago

In the US camp, I see Western Europe + NATO countries, Australia, NZ, Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam, India and Israel. Do you think China can match that alliance?

Project population forward another 50 years. China will have Nigeria along with a few other African power houses, which at some point will probably comprise at least 40% of the world's population.

I don't think the US can count on India in the same way that it can count on the others in that list, although I suspect that the US and India will grow closer as immigration continues to increase/due to lingual bonds.

ImprobableTruth• 6 years ago

NATO countries

A lot of eastern European countries have quite close ties with china. Even with countries like Germany and Italy I wouldn't be so sure.

jfengel2• 6 years ago

The US has been doing its best to alienate its allies, and has called NATO "obsolete". The alliance hasn't fallen apart entirely, and in the event of an actual shooting war with China would most likely be forced together. But shooting is unlikely, and the fragility of the alliance makes peacetime coordination more difficult.

That's potentially to China's advantage. It's not larger than the US plus its allies, but when the US goes without its allies, it's no longer the largest player. In a multiplayer world, those allies you mention could well decide that China is, if not their ally, at least somebody they can do business with.

nradov2• 6 years ago

China is trying hard to gain a foothold in Europe by establishing an alliance with Serbia. So far Serbia has been shut out of NATO and the EU due to the Kosovo issue.

Robotbeat4• 6 years ago

China’s Purchase Power Parity GDP (in other words, adjusted for exchange rate and local costs) is already higher than the US’s and is probably around 10-20 years from being equal on nominal dollars as well.

There’s no doubt China’s growth will slow due to an aging population, but they’re coming already from a MASSIVE population size advantage.

The West can counter by increasing immigration significantly (and probably pursuing pro-natalist policies as well), plus picking some of the best of what China is doing with investments in infrastructure and R&D while maintaining the freedom and vitalism that has helped the West in the past.

whimsicalism26• 6 years ago

One major problem is that the people directing massive capital investments in the West are simply not as smart as the people directing massive capital investments in China.

If your nation gets rich earlier, then hereditary passing on of wealth will mean that in a few generations the people making the decisions about capital allocation are no longer your best and brightest. All you need to do is look at the difference between a scatter plot of "income vs. IQ in the US" and "wealth/assets vs. IQ in the US" to see at least part of the problem.

e: I'm downvoted, but concentration of hereditary wealth is definitely something dragging Western models down.

nostromo• 6 years ago

It doesn't make sense to use PPP when asking questions about a country's economic strength or power. It's designed for questions of manufacturing or cost of living.

China has a high PPP GDP simply because it has hundreds of millions of people living in some form of poverty, which drives down costs locally. Clearly if the driver of your high PPP GDP is a massive underclass living in poverty, you can't turn around and use that as an argument in support of your economic might -- it's incoherent.

statquontrarian6• 6 years ago

Why care who "wins" or who's "bigger"? Our goal should be the greatest wealth for the most people for the whole Earth. This is accomplished with innovation and peaceful trade. One "side" discovers a new technology and the whole world can benefit.

The primary driver of innovation is a competitive market in which individuals innovate through the pursuit of self-interest. The 20th century was a large experiment finalizing this hypothesis, including China through Deng Xiaoping's reforms.

The incendiary thought to both "sides" is that they're both suppressing such innovation: China through explicit communist philosophy and Western countries through some sort of devolution into Crapitalism due to varied causes.

In other words, are China and Western countries qualitatively different? In my opinion, not by a magnitude, and that's the scary thing.

However, barring idiotic wars by country leaders, humans are likely to continue to innovate _despite_ the chiefs, priests, and thieves, as we have done for the last few hundred years (see Pinker, Goklany, etc.).

GradientAssent2• 6 years ago

One reason to care which is bigger is the effect they each will have on the norms of governance around the world. Superpowers tend to nudge the rest of the world's governments to be more like them (see Britain and the US over the last 300 years). Do you want the rest of the world to be more like China or more like the West?

China has shown the world what it considers to be acceptable norms of governance: unrepentant, ongoing genocide against the Uigers, snuffing out liberal democracy in Hong Kong, and denying the sovereignty of a liberal neighbor in Taiwan.

I'm fully expecting plenty of whataboutism and false equivalencies in response to this comment and others making a similar point.

Believe me, I'm disappointed in the US and the rest of the West's recent slide away from liberal values, and I hope we can start doing better soon, but I encourage onlookers to ask themselves: do you really believe the there's no meaningful difference between China's vision for the future and the West's? No difference between the future each will create for you?

bigpumpkin• 6 years ago

1.China has 4 times the population of America, and 1/6 the per capita output.

Take your pick on what you think the long term per capita output ratio will be and you'll easily reach a conclusion on the relative size of the two economies.

2. The US has a greater inclination and ability to build alliances. However, managing the divergent interests of the members in the alliances won't be easy.

3. China does not have enough oil to sustain itself in the case of a war. So there will be a strategic competition for the South China Sea and the control of the Strait of Malacca.

4. Taiwan will be the key trigger for a possible war.

perardi2• 6 years ago

The US has a greater inclination and ability to build alliances.

I really hate to bring up the T factor…but I think this is more in doubt than it used to be, given the current administration.

Taiwan will be the key trigger for a possible war.

I cannot imagine the horror that would ensue if China tried to assert power over Taiwan. Just the potential of losing TSMC alone…

echelon2• 6 years ago

Could the US offer statehood (or less drastic protections) to Taiwan? It would allow the US to have joint ownership claim over the South China Sea and enforce that for its allies - Japan, Korea, Vietnam, et al. It would also allow missile defense systems to be installed.

China would fiercely oppose it. But what could they realistically do other than start an invasion, which would be vehemently opposed by the world and be an end to their rise?

Offer Taiwan statehood.

roenxi3• 6 years ago

So is China going to surpass America to become the world's #1 economy?

Well, who can comment on the World's #1 (India, after all, is a country). But exactly what mistakes will China have to make not to be bigger than the US (if they aren't already)?

They have 4 times as many people and all the indications are that they are making bigger real investments in infrastructure and industrial capacity than the US. I would wish for some of the pro-growth policies from China to come to the Western powers.

ardy42• 6 years ago

Some analysts think China's population is too old and that youth will peter out, whereas others think that all the CCP has to do is ask its millennials to have more babies.

I'm not sure how well "asking" will work. IIRC, they transitioned rapidly from a two-child policy to a "however many you want" policy because not enough Chinese families chose to have another kid.

Anecdotally, it's extremely expensive to have a kid in China because the culture is so cut-throat competitive and rankings-obsessed. If you don't provide your kid with a lot of (expensive) extra educational opportunities, he could fall behind. On the other hand, Chinese culture (compared to Western culture) appears to be much more comfortable with parents playing favorites with their children, but I'm not sure how much that's carried through to the one child generation.

sudosysgen7• 6 years ago

About the demographic collapse from the One Child policy, I'm going to volunteer an alternative analysis, since you've asked for it, copied from another of my comments:

The effects of the One Child policy has actually been pretty much as intended.

There are two hidden goals of the One Child policy that aren't communicated very often in the West.

The first is proletarianization. Indeed, almost 30% of Chinese people are peasants. This is not efficient. Only around 2-5% would be sufficient; therefore 20-23% of the productive potential is wasted for the same consumption. And so, creating a situation where it would be possible to shrink the size of the peasant class would allow for the productivity per capita to rise, thus allowing for better surpluses and better living conditions.

In this view, a demographic fall is not an actual issue, because there is already 20-23% of "dead-weight" that can be eliminated.

Secondly, the issue is of human capital. This is not so well-known, but the retirement age in China is extremely low. Indeed, the average retirement age is at 58 (!). This is done on purpose so that the younger generation may enter the job market faster and learn more, reducing unrest and permitting the investment in human capital. However, this comes at the cost of enforcing early retirement, which also makes for reduced efficiency.

The solution to both of these problems can be to simply reduce the population, this will allow for a sharp decline of the peasant class and for an increase in retirement age.

In this view, the demographic effects of the One Child Policy, while they might have been disastrous for a developed, urbanized economy, actually fits into the demographic and productive plans. It is thus an incorrect to call them an error, and there will likely not be an economic collapse in response.

coredog643• 6 years ago

It’s not just through the lens of Western demographics that it has to be examined. There’s still a very real possibility of unrest as a result of the gender imbalance created by the One Child policy.

op032• 6 years ago

Who makes better food?

Thats all that matter. It was a crucial factor in the fall of the Romans (they hadn't invented pizza yet), the Mongols, the Brits, the Soviets, the Germans etc etc.

ericmay2• 6 years ago

This is interesting. Can you expand?

jakeva• 6 years ago

My girlfriend is Chinese and she's the best cook I've ever met, so there's one opinionated bit of anecdata for you.

prepend• 6 years ago

The West has a huge military and space program. So does China

I don’t think this is true. China’s military is quite weak compared to the US (dollar amount, global reach, navy, nuclear) and it’s not able to project power globally. Even as far as the Middle East would be a problem as they don’t have bases or carrier groups.

This is actually kind of an advantage as they can funnel money into more productive purposes, but I think it means they won’t be the sort of unipolar force that the US was.

I think the 21st century will be multi-polar and if I had to bet on a single country, I would bet Nigeria or maybe even somewhere like DRC or Brazil. A truly digital world will be best for countries in Africa who have so much untapped raw power and resources.

loughnane• 6 years ago

By some measures China's navy is larger than the US's [0]:

In a report published this month, the Pentagon acknowledged a grim milestone: China’s navy, having churned out warships like sausages, has become the world’s largest.

I'm not aware of many signs that this trend will decrease.

[0] https://www.economist.com/united-states/2020/09/26/china-now...

hacknat3• 6 years ago

It's not just untrue is laughably untrue. I'm not a big fan of US military power, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be realistic about it. The US military really is the last global superpower. Pretty much all of the global sea lanes rely on the US navy for stability.

georgeecollins• 6 years ago

If you look at the fifty year picture, China and the US have been developing trade with each other and the rest of the world and growing in prosperity. Particularly vs important rivals from the last fifty years, such as the USSR and Japan. You can argue about the distribution of the prosperity in the US, and you can argue about the political liberalism in China, but neither country is exclusively responsible for the other countries problems in either regard.

Both countries depend on world trade and have a lot to loose from any event (like a war) that would upset trade. Neither country is really threatened by each other or any other power. It is possible that this could be a situation like the United States and Great Britain, where one country passed up another in power and wealth without a need for conflict.

rawgabbit2• 6 years ago

China is pragmatic. The CCCP portrays their leaders as competent technocrats who are building their way into a future of prosperity. The Belt and Road Initiative is a means for China to secure access to needed raw materials in Africa and other developing countries in exchange for Chinese financed and built public works projects such as ports highways and telecom. Similar to how the internet is splitting due to the Great Firewall, China is creating its alternative vision of world trade and international order.

I would argue that China is almost economically and technologically on par with the USA. It’s military is behind. It’s biggest weakness is internal politics. Xi Jinping is using the tools at his disposal to prevent China from falling apart like the USSR. What is unknown is the amount of push back he is getting for his crackdown of dissent, secret detentions, mass incarcerations and re-education. As the article mentioned both Xi and his father suffered from the Cultural Revolution which was triggered by Mao to regain power after he was temporarily sidelined by the failure of the Great Leap Forward. After Mao’s death it was Deng Xiao Peng who gave the Chinese the right to make decisions based on facts again instead of blindly following the latest central party dictates. This was the “Seek truth from facts” speech. It seems that China is reverting to its old ways with the enshrinement of Xi Jinping thought. But I think Chinese leaders are very much aware their legitimacy is based solely on providing material prosperity to their people. China is not actively seeking to antagonize the West but their relentless focus on winning the trade wars may be misinterpreted which is dangerous for everyone.

hacknat3• 6 years ago

Honestly, I don't think the 20-30 year outlook for China is all that great. Japan's bailout of its corporate sector was contingent on its corporate sector removing their supply chains from China.

A lot of natural incentives, globally, are not going China's way right now. A lot of corporations are going to repatriate or localize their supply chains, because, at long last, supply chains, and not labour, are the cost-center of most corporations. Over the next decade we're actually going to become a less globalized world from a manufacturing perspective.

Finally, while the manufacturing sector has always had more friendly relationships with China, the technology sector (particularly software) has a much more ambivalent relationship with China; and now tech makes up a huge percentage of corporate power. Given that Western domestic politics is becoming more economically nationalist and that the corporate sector of most Western countries is gaining less benefit from the labour arbitrage that China offers them, I think we'll see a significant draw down in economic power from China over the next 10-30 years. There will be sectors that stay in China, like high-tech hardware, but even they will become more regionalized as well. You'll start to see some iPhones (or whatever) get made in Western countries as hedges against the need to rapidly draw down manufacturing in China.

The Washington Consensus in the 90s thought that normalizing trade relations with China would turn them into a Democracy. No one who is serious thinks that any more, and given China's current bad bout with human rights violations there is a convenient cover for the West to take.

My two cents.

throwaway34241• 6 years ago

If you're interested in this question I think the recent articles by Ray Dalio might be exactly what you are looking for.

He founded and ran the world's largest hedge fund and in addition to studying the issue has had personal interaction with high level Chinese leaders going back decades, so he seems pretty well informed about both the macroeconomics in general and China specifically.

In addition the very question you're talking about seems to be currently his main point of interest and he's been writing a series of free articles about it on linked in ([1][2] and others).

The articles go very in depth and I can't do justice to them here. But I got the impression that he expects some of these things:

- China to surpass the US as the #1 economy. Beyond that, eventually become a developed country, so probably wildly surpass the US economy considering the population is 4x as large.

- Them to continuously increase in relative technological and military power relative to the US.

- For them to possibly supplant the US dollar as the world reserve currency, which could have implications on the value of the US dollar

- Not for them to give up their hierarchical government

[1] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/chapter-6-big-cycle-china-its...

[2] https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/chapter-7-us-china-relations-...

Fricken• 6 years ago

You blinked and missed it. China already has the world's leading economy:

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/china-now-world%E2%80%9...

TearsInTheRain4• 6 years ago

They have been ahead of us for a while when you measure by PPP. International orgs are only just now starting to use PPP as the standard

hintymad• 6 years ago

These factors are important, but I don't think they are as important as the people factor: Chinese people simply want to work hard to live a better life. Everyone knows education matters, so much so that you see news like this: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8296195/Chinese-gir.... Not that I personally know everyone, but I trust that what my Chinese coworkers told me had certain truth. They openly acknowledge that Chinese needed to learn from western civilization, especially STEM, and policy making, so much so that no one would mock CIT for not winning NCCA games. That's some serious respect. I mean, what kinda of sick country would openly mock their best university for sucking at basketball?

apengwin• 6 years ago

The title is a reference to Dream of the Red Chamber, one of the greatest novels ever written.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_of_the_Red_Chamber

wmeredith• 6 years ago

Can you recommend an English translation?

bxbb• 6 years ago

The Story of the Stone by Hawkes and Minford.

https://www.goodreads.com/series/175344

justicezyx9• 6 years ago

Warning: Lower your expectation.

The novel was written in traditional Chinese, with a different style and narration system.

The novel has many ancient poem mixed in the text, a major part of the plot, they were almost always vastly inferior when translated.

Lastly, even if the translation goes well, the cultural sensitivity required to appreciate the story and character is going to put you in such a disadvantage that you'll wonder why it feels so bland, even claimed one of the best...

chaostheory3• 6 years ago

Under XJ, China is declining. One of the big reasons for China's meteoric rise was that stupid laws weren't being enforced properly or at all, and free speech was on the rise which in turn led to more creativity and economic freedom. Under that old reality, I was worried that China would inevitably surpass the West, but Zhou Enlai & Deng Xiaoping's golden egg laying goose is dead now in exchange for more centralized power. China's destiny is now to become a giant Galapagos copy machine courtesy of the new emperor.

Who knows; maybe the new social credit system will prove me wrong?

excerionsforte• 6 years ago

I'll humor and agree with this take given it can take greater than 7 years for macro effects to occur stemming from policies and choices that countries make.

Example is the former One Child policy which took a long time for the effects to be seen. Another example is that pumping money into the economy doesn't have immediate effects.

India had its own policies (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-30040790) that would take decades for effects to be seen.

sudosysgen7• 6 years ago

The effects of the One Child policy has actually been pretty much as intended.

There are two hidden goals of the One Child policy that aren't communicated very often in the West.

In this view, a demographic fall is not an actual issue, because there is already 20-23% of "dead-weight" that can be eliminated.

The solution to both of these problems can be to simply reduce the population, this will allow for a sharp decline of the peasant class and for an increase in retirement age.

landryraccoon6• 6 years ago

China is declining.

It sounds to me like you're making a moral argument, not an empirical one. Are you saying that China deserves to decline, because they are authoritarian, or that they actually are declining, and the numbers show this?

If China's economy is really declining, I'm curious what the evidence of that is. What are the numbers? Are they experiencing a shrinking economy, declining productivity, technological stagnation? I'm not an expert, but I would be surprised if that was true.

chaostheory3• 6 years ago

I'm not making a moral argument, just a long term hypothesis based on history.

No, the data doesn't currently support my case. I posit what we're seeing now is similar to what happened when John Sculley took over Apple after Jobs' ouster. What we're seeing are the fruits from Zhou Enlai & Deng Xiaoping's faction.

I think it's really hard to have innovation without freedom of speech without relying on stealing technology.

kccqzy• 6 years ago

I find this hard to agree with, even though I really want to agree because I want the Chinese people to have the freedom they deserve. But the facts aren't right. China in the 1980s enjoyed a similar period of increasing freedom of speech under the leadership of Zhao Ziyang. We all know what happened in 1989. But the economy kept chugging along just fine.

chaostheory3• 6 years ago

I've already accounted for that. As I've already mentioned, stupid laws weren't enforced well if at all. That's one of the big changes.

Simulacra2• 6 years ago

I would like to see some analysis of what a nuclearized Japan, or Australia, would do. China has emerged as the single greatest threat to democracy, human rights, prosperity, and peace around the world. They can only do this because a foreign investment. If companies like Apple etc. did not make their products in China, Then perhaps I could see a future of China rising peacefully. Otherwise they are a grave in mortal threat to the world

perardi2• 6 years ago

Aren’t they, in a sense, nuclearized, as they live under our security aegis?

graeme2• 6 years ago

Yes and no. This was a big debate during the cold war. If the Russians invaded Europe, would America really nuke Russian and risk total destruction?

Many strategists considered this to be not a credible threat, on its own. This was part of the reason the US deployed so many conventional troops to Europe during the cold war. These troops couldn’t stop the russians, but their presence would force the US to act if the Russians invaded.

Hence, the US might actually irrationally nuke Russia. Hence, Russia would be deterred from invading.

This also partly explains the US presence in Japan and Korea. Apart from power projection, it is a tangible expression of US committment to potentially irrationally deploy nukes to defend those countries. However, recent US actions have greatly called into question the US’s commitment to this strategic nuclear umbrella. Hence those countries may be more interested in a deterrent they control.

Also of note: the US withdrew troops from Taiwan in 1979 when it switched diplomatic recognition to communist China. This switch was done to play China against the USSR.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tripwire_force

jl6• 6 years ago

Democracy and human rights - sure.

Prosperity and peace? I think China actually has a good track record there. Actions you might perceive as un-peaceful (building islands, modernizing military) could also be interpreted as defensive.

The world could achieve great peace and prosperity under a “Pax Sinica”, at the cost of individual liberty. That IMHO is the bigger threat: that authoritarianism will sneak in under the cover of prosperity - a Faustian bargain that too many will be willing to accept.

systemvoltage• 6 years ago

How is it defensive to build island military bases in places where there were barely any islands, in the international waters, in the most lucrative trade routes in the world?

How is it defensive to encroach Kashmir and provoke a conflict with India? Dispute borders with Vietnam and Bhutan?

sudosysgen7• 6 years ago

To note, Japan is in practice a one-party state. The LDP has only ever not been in power very briefly, and even then they conserved bureaucratic power.

naringas• 6 years ago

In my opinion how he handles his succession will be the key.

if he acts like a nepot and tries to keep the power within his lineage, that's a sure sign of a classic story of decreseaingly capable rulers.

I think that the capability of democractic systems to enforce a level of competence in the rulers are the real reason behind the West's success.

minerjoe2• 6 years ago

enforce a level of competence

Can you please elaborate? In the US, I see "lying" and "corrupt" as some of the most defining characterisics of modern US "rulers".

graeme2• 6 years ago

Lying and corruption don’t exclude competence. The parent comment meant competent in the sense of whether the state can achieve its goals.

A state may lie about its goals to its public, or enrich its elite, while also being capable of meeting state goals.

US state competence has clearly declined, but it is worth making this distinction. Strictly speaking the two factors you cite aren’t necessarily linked to competence. Every politician must lie, it’s part of the job.

tehjoker3• 6 years ago

Y'all need to stop seeing other countries through the lens of existential competition before it causes cold or hot wars and start cooperating internationally.

lobotryas3• 6 years ago

You need a little more realpolitik in your life. Nations are absolutely competing with each other because we live in a world of limited resources. Recognizing this fact and wanting your nation to come out on top are very normal.

count• 6 years ago

Normal and necessary are different.

tehjoker3• 6 years ago

I am quite familiar with realpolitik, the American post-war perspective and how the idea of international cooperation was undercut and destroyed by our national bourgeoisie. The UN system was put in place for America to exert its post-war dominance. China is a complicated nation. It is constructing a parallel system to the IMF/World Bank that under-girds US hegemony. It also controls a huge fraction of world manufacturing due to the laziness and greed of the business community. However, because it is not a pure capitalist country, it doesn't have the same imperial market imperatives that western countries certainly have.

If we don't try to build a better future, we will realpolitik ourselves into a dystopian one.

Also, nations are fake creations of the elites. The working class is international in scope and we have no quarrel with one another.

Der_Einzige• 6 years ago

Realpolitik means that we acknowledge that great power wars aren't an option while MAD exists - and that MAD isn't going anywhere for 100 years or more. That means that soft/economic power is far more important than hard power.

Anti-ICBM tech sucks balls and it only gets worse with new weapons like nuclear cruise missiles.

throw513194• 6 years ago

China's plan is definitely to absorb countries into their growing economic sphere. Then they absorb countries into their network/techno-sphere by selling communication and surveillance equipment.

This will allow them to assist the leaders in power by swaying public opinion at a whim. Further consolidating control. This pushes out western companies and doesn't allow their capital to operate.

Eventually this "virus" will reach the main western countries and engulf them. The capitalist system will be turned against itself.

In the past, you couldn't automate the managing of perception and access like you can now with a "technosphere" of capabilities that increase by the year.

They exploit weaknesses like the "racial divide" to pit us against each other, to hasten this.

coliveira6• 6 years ago

China had been the most advanced country for centuries, having lost this position during the capitalist advances in the West. This should be welcome as it returns China to its traditional position as an advanced civilization.

logicslave• 6 years ago

...where are all the great Chinese inventions? the great literature? philosophy? math? science?

Aside from gun powder and a few others, it all came from the west in the last thousand years.

fakedang2• 6 years ago

Chinese discoveries were more suited to their local needs and geographies, just as the Western ones were unique themselves. Besides, Chinese decline began way back, from the Yuan era, with a brief rise during the Ming Era, then stagnation again during the Manchurian period.

For some Chinese inventions: the meritocratic bureaucracy, which inspired the civil services in the UK, India and many other countries. Or the seismograph, block printing (which enabled a much higher literate population than the West in its time), their variant on paper, and tons of water-powered "appliances".

China might have been very different had the Ming not stagnated badly, and the Jurchens not invited to exploit the chaos.

onlyrealcuzzo• 6 years ago

What are you considering the "West"?

Prior to 1600, almost nothing of importance came out of Europe. For the last 400 years, Europe and the US have dominated technologically.

Maybe you mean the last few hundred years? I think this is what the parent comment was getting at.

For most of history, what we now consider "China" had -- by far -- the largest population. To think that nothing much came from there is a bit naive.

tim3332• 6 years ago

Inventions:

Paper, printing, banknotes, bombs, dental amalgam, rockets, drilling rigs, natural gas as fuel, oil refining, smallpox inoculations, land mines, grenades, seismometers and some other stuff. Admittedly mostly a while ago.

There's an article here that

It is now reliably estimated that more than 60% of all the knowledge existing in the world today originated in China, a fact swept under the carpet by the West. https://www.algora.com/Algora_blog/2020/03/01/history-of-chi...

And more recently social credit systems, anti ship ballistic missiles, tik tok, maybe covid.

tigerlily• 6 years ago

Two things China has in common with the West are aging demographics, and asset price bubbles.

I figure somewhere the two go hand in hand, and I will go out on a limb here and suggest that by the end of the decade, either or both lateral hemispheres will experience an asset price bubble the likes of which have never been seen before.

I think there is scope in China for heinously priced real estate in the coming years, for example.

I believe it's human-behavioural stuff like that which will confound the best laid plans of our leaders, in both east and west.

neonate• 6 years ago

https://archive.is/yAGcM

known• 6 years ago

China is like a giant jail;

“If you want total security, go to prison. There you’re fed, clothed, given medical care and so on. The only thing lacking is freedom” --Eisenhower (b. 1890)

LargoLasskhyfv• 6 years ago

Anybode else feeling reminded of the Carousel in Logan's Run by the first picture?

(With the caption "Actors run through the air, eager to join the Communist Party, in a propaganda musical in Yanan.")

Dreams of a Red Emperor: The Relentless Rise of Xi Jinping

Related Stories