"Geopolitics and Geoeconomics Won the Cold War and Can..." Topic

… Help Contain China

""[T]he entire realm of strategy," wrote Edward Luttwak in his 1987 classic Strategy: The Logic of War and Peace, "is pervaded by a paradoxical logic of its own." War and conflict, he explained, fundamentally involve "the struggle of adversary wills." Grand strategy, he noted, is dominated by "political considerations," and it "pervades the upkeep of peace as much as the making of war."

Luttwak has been writing about strategy since at least the late 1960s. His notable books include Coup d'Etat (1968), The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire (1978), Strategy and Politics (1980), The Grand Strategy of the Soviet Union (1983), The Pentagon and the Art of War (1985), On the Meaning of Victory (1986), Turbo Capitalism (1999), The Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire (2009), and, most recently and most relevant, The Rise of China vs. The Logic of Strategy (2012)…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Until China has as many or more marbles to lose than their major adversaries they will be aggressive with not much to lose.
They will always intimidate their weaker neighbors.

Agree.

Amicalement
Armand

All very good except China already figured out geoeconomics and has been waging a very aggressive "war" of economic expansion.

The Soviet Union and its satelites were effectively economically disconnected from the west.

The west could wage geoeconomic warfare on them because the cost of such warfare to the west was non-existent.

China on the other hand is a critical player in the global economy. The west relies on it for production of everything from cheap consumer goods to critical rare earth magnets.

Indeed today 11 of the 50 biggest companies on the planet are Chinese, yet none are Russian! (And note 10 of those are government owned and the 11th is heavily affiliated with the government).

China is the second largest economy after the US in terms of GDP but is actually larger than the US if Purchasing Power Parity is used!

Thus waging economic warfare on the Chinese has much greater risk to the west.

The west also isn't as economically strong as it was in 1945-90. Indeed the USA has been in relative economic decline since the 1970s.

And since the 1970s the west has dismantled most of the institutions that facilitated industry development in favour of neoliberalism and free trade. This is unlike the east Asians who have retained these institutions and mechanisms.

The end result is that any economic warfare against China will encounter resistance from western private sector that enriches itself through China.

This is already happening in Australia where the largest and most vocal supporters of China are leading CEOs and billionaires!

arealdeadone +1

The same strategy can't be applied to China. Bringing about the collapse of the Soviet empire by exposing the inherent weaknesses and unsustainability of monolithic and austere communism is all well and good, but China is only nominally "communist," which is an economic concept based on perfect egalitarianism ("from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs") and not a political one. It is as unabashedly capitalist as any western country economically.

There are talks of pushing China out of the financial system dominated by the US dollar, but even if that can be achieved it will likely result in economic mutually assured destruction:

link

That is why I say China is now a fascist state. Fascism proposes a mixed economy state and corporatism ( to steal from Wikipedia "the organization of society by corporate groups, such as agricultural, labour, military, scientific, or guild associations on the basis of their common interests").

China also has other elements of fascism including authoritarian government, growing ultra nationalism, and increasing imperialistic tendencies.

I would also argue that pre-democratisation in the 1980s South Korea and Taiwan were also essentially fascist.

The east Asian cultures with their history of collectivism, Confucianism and Taoism open themselves up to fascism.

Terms such as fascism, communism etc. are not helpful in describing China. It makes people resort to comparisons with Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union etc. These are lazy thinking and dangerous oversimplifications of the problem.

Arealoldone in describing China as fascist is not entirely wrong – I can see the logic. I just think it's too simple.

China is authoritarian. It doesn't seem to matter what theory a state is based on, as it become more authoritarian the powerful interests monopolise resources and become more authoritarian to protect themselves.

This is why Stalin's USSR and Hitler's Germany and Mao's China all ended up so similar.

Western democracies are also becoming more authoritarian and serve the interests of the mega-rich while the wishes of the people are ignored.

What hope we have rests in revitalisation or the free press. If nobody reports what the powerful do, elections, the rule of law, civil liberties are all moot.

Skarper agreed on retreat of democracy in the west.

9-11 really did unleash authoritarian tendencies in the west and fatally damaged democracy.

With regards to political ideology, something must be applied to understand the nature of the regime.

Whatever the case with China, their star is ascendant and their ambitions are insatiable.

And the west through ignorance and greed allowed them to become a critical component of the global economy.

Be clear – I think you understand the meanings of the terms you are using. I just suspect most people use and hear them as synonyms of 'baddies'. The CCP really pushes the Chinese racial/cultural superiority agenda and is able to play the victim card with regard to Japan too. Xi is also accumulating more power to himself and building up a cult of personality. I can also see signs of a drive for autarky, though this is to a large extent an impossible dream. All are characteristic of fascism.

Democracy in the UK [I am British but live in Vietnam] and the US has been under attack since the late 70s/early 80s. Without this 9/11 could not have had such a fatal impact on democracy. Many around the White House saw it as an opportunity rather than a catastrophe.

Those who view China in a more favorable light call it a "meritocracy," recalling the age-old Chinese tradition of merit-based civil service entrance exams. By the same token, Xi likens himself to be the new emperor with the "Mandate from Heaven" to make China great again.

arealdeadone +1 … again …

Arguably all societies are meritocracies – the most ruthless, dishonest and ambitious get to the top be they politicians or corporate executives etc etc.

It's not about hard work (otherwise cleaners would be paid the most).

What we define as "good people" do not get to the top in any society.

Yeah that seems to be true in many cases …

Arguably all societies are meritocracies – the most ruthless, dishonest and ambitious get to the top be they politicians or corporate executives etc etc.

I was referring to the historical Chinese practice of admitting the "best and the brightest" into civil service based on scholarship through passing a rigorous battery of entrance exams. You can read about it below:

link

link

link

The trouble with meritocracy is it doesn't survive long. Rich and powerful people will naturally do all they can to give their kids every advantage they can. It's human nature.

"Survival of the fittest" … The strong survive … other don't … It is how nature works.