China Sees U.S. as Competitor and Declining Power

dteowner said:

JemyM said:

If most of a nation exist to the far sides of the spectrum instead of the center of the spectrum, events can happen very rapidly when neighbors turn on neighbors.

Click to expand...

Second, you're so scared to death of nationalism (as usual) that you ignore other possibilities. I could see a couple "grass roots" movements prompting your civil war, rather than it having to be a top-down revolution. You could easily get a populist revolution ala Marie Antoinette France that doesn't really require a dynamic leader. Riots create their own inertia.
On the other end, if government continues its overreach, you run the risk of prompting a backlash from what I generalize as the "militia righties". Those folks are generally well-armed and fairly prepared to carry on a guerrilla campaign against the government. They'd be more likely to bubble up a charismatic figurehead of some sort, but I don't know that it would be a definite requirement. You'd probably categorize the latter as a nationalist movement, but there's just as many differences as similarities between the militias and the traditional posterboy for textbook nationalism, Uncle Adolf. Both situations would drag on much longer than necessary due to the populace and government having vocal sympathetic minorities supporting each movement.

Click to expand...

I thought I covered that as I proposed both a bottom-up and top-down process. The Bosnian War wasn't a top-down process.

There are plenty of ways to carve up the world. Nationalism comes from natio- which means people, so nationalism is translated "a political ideology based on a people". I may (as a consequence of reading too much anthropology) use this a bit more generalized than I should, because to me "the people" can be just any group that recognizes itself as a group, including "workers".

When a nation hits a certain level of uncertainty the beliefs about the world that already exist there will surface and lines are drawn.

blatantninja said:

The thing that the US has over those two though is that it has a much more adaptable system, hence giving us a better chance to continue our dominance.

Click to expand...

It used to be much more adaptable BN. Right now your position is declining and you seems to be unable to stop the rot due to the ever growing rivalry between center and right.

zahratustra said:

It used to be much more adaptable BN. Right now your position is declining and you seems to be unable to stop the rot due to the ever growing rivalry between center and right.

Click to expand...

Politics are temporary. I'm more referring to things such as the caste system in India and the gender/age imbalance in China.

I think that you are overestimating impact of cast system. It is most prevalent in rural areas and those aren't engines of India's development. Urban centers are and those, like most urban centers, are much more mixed and relaxed.

Then why are caste-less ones or lower-caste ones gaining so many votes in elections ?

Too many people quickly turn this in to a contest of whose tower will stand the longest. That isn't really the point of the article. The point is a somewhat sad one: China and the United States may at some levels see each other as enemies.

I'm a bit confused as to what they feel they are in direct competition for? Is it most unruly tourists? Largest amount of pollution? The power to have dibs on the last oil well on earth?

Neither nations are interested in conquering the world or their neighbors; both see their neighbors as culturally lost or beneath their notice. Neither nations have any need for the destruction of their greatest economic ally; which is for China the US, and for the US, China.

China feels like trying to grow as well as it can. Good for them. The United States feels like they should continue their upward trajectory. Good for them. Both can count their lucky stars if either is able to accomplish this on into the future. Short sighted politicians in both nations seem to feel entitled to have a pissing contest with a country on the other side of the world by using the resources their people gave them to facilitate the improvement of their lives.

Someday, when I have a house, I won't care if it is bigger than yours. I'll care that my house is the way I want it.

staylost said:

The point is a somewhat sad one: China and the United States may at some levels see each other as enemies.

I'm a bit confused as to what they feel they are in direct competition for?

Click to expand...

Have you missed all the not-so-Chinese-friendly rhetoric here in the USA? Some of it is undoubtedly justified but a lot of it is just sour grapes. Just for example: how can a country with the greatest military budget in the World criticize Chinese military spending?

zahratustra said:

Have you missed all the not-so-Chinese-friendly rhetoric here in the USA? Some of it is undoubtedly justified but a lot of it is just sour grapes. Just for example: how can a country with the greatest military budget in the World criticize Chinese military spending?

Click to expand...

As a Canadian/American living in China, I see and hear much from both sides of the lake. Of course there are politicians stirring up anger at the 'other' in order to promote their careers (In both China and in the USA).

But I fail to see how misplaced American anti-Chinese sentiment is a material point of contention. Instead, it is just an example of why the situation is so sad.

I've yet to hear of any serious reason as to why either country has a reasonable motive to be a threat to the other.

Don't know that you'd consider it "reasonable", but the motive seems fairly straightforward to me-- it's far easier to keep a citizenry under thumb if you can trot out an external threat for them to focus on. Economy in the shitter? It's those damn Chinese not playing fair. Inflation starting to get exciting? It's those damn Americans crying about currency exchange rates.

Throw in a dash of arrogance on both sides, and there you go.

Couldn't put it better myself dte.

zahratustra said:

Couldn't put it better myself dte.

Click to expand...

I manage brief moments of lucidity amidst the raving...

Right, and that is pretty obviously not a material point of contention, but rather is a way for any nation to exert internal control in a malicious way. The type of person who would find this method acceptable would also be the type of person who actively contributes to Stormfront.

Coping the blame on some "other" is the way many of the world's worst crimes have begun.

It's not really means of control but of distraction from internal problems. But than countries went to war as a distraction (Falklands/Malvinas Conflict).

zahratustra said:

It's not really means of control but of distraction from internal problems. But than countries went to war as a distraction (Falklands/Malvinas Conflict).

Click to expand...

If distraction wasn't a form of control, why would any government use it? I don't want to sit here and argue semantics, I'll leave that to British philosophers. Suffice to say, we agree well enough what the point is, and hopefully agree that it is dishonest and an insult to the people so governed.

Don't get me started on the Falklands. Argentina is trying to use it again even now. I hope Cristina burns for it. The Falklands would already be flying the white and blue if it weren't for their stupid stupid leaders. Their charm offensive was winning hearts an minds until they suddenly decided they'd better shoot some people because it was more convenient for the current regime. Now the Falklands will forever be British, and God bless them, it is a lesson for people of every nation on why not to be belligerent jerks.

And this new government?What could it be like people ask if a democratic country which the world wants to model fails.I have been saying for a few yrs now that the next step is a peoples government.We once were ruled by kings where one person held the countries direction….insane or not…stupid or brilliant.Democracy and we vote but are we in control?No way its now being run by the senate who are a bunch of "kings" who decide the countries fate.

So what I am thinking is the next step is where the countries direction is controlled by its people.Many people have access to internet so a voting system where you enter your SS number and vote on your countries future is rather easy to do.Debates by the new style of leaders will be not a debate of who we choose to vote for but a debate where we choose sides on given arguments.

Should we go to war with Iraq???Listen tonight on CNN at 8pm Eastern time for the debate to ensue and vote by ………

JemyM said:

I agree. What worries me is how awful that implosion will be. The US is currently a divided nation with two distinct ideas about what the nation is supposed to be, ...

Click to expand...

You might consider that the US has always been a divided nation in terms of what the nation is supposed to be. our founding fathers argued nearly the exact same issues while they were forming this nation, and the often vagueness of the Constitution reflects the compromises required to pass it at that time.

Meanwhile, we have come from a mostly agricultural weak former colony to the undisputed economic and military power we are today, even as we have struggled with this crisis of identity.

Don't overestimate our political divisions. We all believe in the rule of law.

staylost said:

I've yet to hear of any serious reason as to why either country has a reasonable motive to be a threat to the other.

Click to expand...

It's a matter of balance of regional power and who is going to control a very important stretch of ocean and the trade routes it represents.

China wants to control the sea lanes in it's region, and perhaps rightfully so. We want to deny this strategic benefit to them. It seems eerily similar to the US/Japanese issues which brought on WW II.

blatantninja said:

China has enough of their own issues that I'm not too concerned. Between their real estate bubble (that vastly dwarfs what the US had) and their rising wages, the era of their manufacturing dominance is steamrolling to a bad end.

Click to expand...

Further, the economic disparity between the heavily industrialized coastal region and the hinterland is a fundamental, and structural social time bomb, and the fuze is burning low. The Communist central government will have to face the economic disparity resultant in free market capitalism, and i'm not so sure they are up to the task. If they can't maintain hyper growth and come up with a way to distribute more wealth to the hinterlands, They will ahve another long, bloody, peasant revolution on their hands.

More than one Chinese empire has imploded due to this sort of wealth distribution.

Back to the OP:

I would suggest that the Chinese implode long before the US does.

Jhari said:

Don't overestimate our political divisions. We all believe in the rule of law.

Click to expand...

Regardless where I go in social sciences, psychology or any relevant field the polarization in US is seen as a growing social problem. Part of my psychological research atm is about polarization, what creates it, how strong it is and how to reduce it.

It's not a new social problem, it's a very old one having a modern relapse. I would suggest that the extremists, as they always do, will find themselves increasingly marginalized in the next several years. Despite the best attempts by fringe movements, we will be electing a right or left leaning moderate.

However, to set a frame for reference, you may wish to examine the election of 1800, which is well know for it's vicious campaign tactics and personal slander, to the extent that it would never be tolerated in modern times.