This is one of the most idiotic articles I have ever read in my life, and it also kind of feels racist to me. Why is learning Mandarin symbolic of being submissive rather than being considerate/respectful to a person and people you have a close relationship with? What happens if Xi Jinping learns Russian? The border issue just seems silly to me, why would China go through the effort to forcefully take this land? What is the strategy here? The article seems to focus more on war capabilities rather than why it would be worth it in the first place. To me, if China did do what this article wants then it would just benefit the West, since their two most opposing powers would be fighting each other which leaves room for the West to wreak havoc.
Why is learning Mandarin symbolic of being submissive rather than being considerate/respectful to a person and people you have a close relationship with?
I wonder if it is their perspective too that learning English is subordination to the West. In many ways a validation of what Frantz Fanon was saying:
Every colonized people-in other words, every people in whose soul an inferiority complex has been created by the death and burial of its local cultural originality-finds itself face to face with the language of the civilizing nation; that is, with the culture of the mother country. The colonized is elevated above his jungle status in proportion to his adoption of the mother country's cultural standards. Black Skin, White Masks
This is very interesting, thank you for sharing. I guess if we are using English as an example, since it is the best one due to how widespread it is. English wasn’t really learned in the way Mandarin is learned by Putin’s family members; by that I mean English was forced onto the colonized people, which would be a form of subordination. Criticizing the learning of Mandarin as submissive comes across as projection.
The piece inadvertently provides us with a profound insight into Western mentality, unveiling an inherent inability to view itself as equal among diverse cultures and fostering a reluctance to contemplate equitable partnerships where one party does not assert its dominance over the other. Any perceived vulnerability must swiftly exploited for fleeting gains, reflecting a myopic shortsightedness that undermines potential long-term benefits and mutual growth.
It is sociopathic, but I do think that a lot of the decision making is demonstrably short sighted. And that's precisely why the west finds itself in its current predicament.
I don't think we should underestimate modern western strategists. They were dealt a terrible hand. They have to maintain a world empire while not having the population or industry to do so anymore. It's like playing whack a mole, even if you are good at the game, you will never "win" because that's the fundamental nature of the game.
Even so, western strategists have continued to demonstrate an ability to gain strategic depth in Europe (severing Europe from Russia/China while torpedoing the Euro as a competitor to the dollar) and Asia (multiple regime changes in the past few years capable of disrupting the BRI and BRICS).
I would argue that western strategists were left with an incredibly advantageous position. Europe was entirely subjugated to the US interests during the cold war. Russia was basically in a state of collapse in the early 90s, China wasn't even a player at the time. There was nobody to stand in the way of the US empire.
What ultimately created the situation we see today was pure greed and hubris. The west could not stomach making even the barest of concessions to Russia, which ultimately forced Russia to start reindustrializing and becoming more self dependent. Meanwhile, globalization drive completely hollowed out the imperial core, and played a huge role in making China into the powerhouse that it is today. Yet, China was still perfectly willing to find ways to peacefully coexist with the west, and of course that simply wasn't acceptable to the US. As a result we now see a strong alliance between Russia and China that's at the core of BRICS.
There was nobody to stand in the way of the US empire.
That was precisely the problem. The defeat of the soviet union paved way for the most extreme liberalisation (something that western military strategists had no control over), leading to a situation where western military strategists have, since the 90s, been forced to defend an extemely expansive empire with ever shrinking resources.
Furthermore, the Chinese, far from not being players, pulled off one of the greatest geostrategic moves in all of human history by "tricking" capitalist countries to transfer their industries to a socialist country.
The west could not stomach making even the barest of concessions to Russia
NATO expansion was a mistake from the standpoint of peace, but America got to upgrade its military capabilities, sever Europe from russia/china and throttle the euro as a competitor to the dollar. Even if the move didn't work out gully as planned, I don't think we can say that there wasn't some strategic logic to it.
Meanwhile, globalization drive completely hollowed out the imperial core
Yes but this is the fundamental process of capitalism. It is not something western strategists could control in the first place. Even China, which is ruled by MLs is affected by the tendencies of capital.
As a result we now see a strong alliance between Russia and China that’s at the core of BRICS.
Definitely a problem for the Americans, but it would have been impossible for them to maintain unity between all of the "great powers" of the world under their wing forever.
What I meant is that if the west was smart they would've realized that moving all their production to China would have negative consequences for them down the road. The idea that they would just liberalize China and subjugate it to their interests was pure hubris. China would've advanced regardless, but it would've had a much harder path developing a lot of the tech from scratch instead of being able to leverage existing western experience.
I understand the rationale for NATO expansion, but we can see that the end result is a disaster. NATO has been exposed as being impotent by Russia. Before the war started, it was simply assumed that NATO was the superior fighting force, and that it would be foolish to try and stand up to it. Now everyone can see that NATO is not all it's cracked up to be. Importantly, the lack of industrial capacity in the west has been exposed as a glaring problem. We also see how the war in Ukraine emboldened countries around the world to start kicking out western colonizers, particularly in Africa. I expect this will be a self reinforcing phenomenon going forward.
Yes but this is the fundamental process of capitalism. It is not something western strategists could control in the first place. Even China, which is ruled by MLs is affected by the tendencies of capital.
I agree that the problems are inherent in the system, and that's the fundamental problem. The whole house of cards was destined to collapse sooner or later, but the hubris accelerated the process.
Definitely a problem for the Americans, but it would have been impossible for them to maintain unity between all of the “great powers” of the world under their wing forever.
Right, the whole western alliance is very fragile by nature.
So even though this is a fumble, it is a fumble on a timescale that is difficult for anyone to plan for.
I should add to my point on the other comment. I can imagine that the 90s would have been very dark times for any socialist or communist. I certainly would have never been able to hold on to any hope if I was alive back then no matter how much of a principled ML I would have been.
I think it is as much a testament to the faith that Deng Xiaoping had in the Chinese people as it is a matter of western hubris that China was able to take over the world's industries.
I do think it is important for us to highlight not just the west's weaknesses, but also the strengths that other parts of the world possessed. Otherwise we might fall into a eurocentric trap of thinking that Euro-American imperialism's defeat is just because of their decadent nature.
I very much agree. China ultimately charted their own course, and they managed to outplay the west at every turn. In fact, I think it can be argued that China managed to recognize and capitalize on western hubris. China played an excellent game hiding their true strength, and allowing western chauvinism blind the west to the shift in power balance. Even today, most westerners still don't understand just how advanced China has become since the 90s. The shock around China's chip production is a perfect example of that.
they would’ve realized that moving all their production to China would have negative consequences for them down the road.
Fair enough, but historically, China's relations with the west have not been so overall hostile. Even before reform and opening up, China often sided against the Russians. And especially after reform, China has been more than willing to play ball with the west. Only in modern times has China started to become an obstacle to western hegemony. So even though this is a fumble, it is a fumble on a timescale that is difficult for anyone to plan for.
We also see how the war in Ukraine emboldened countries around the world to start kicking out western colonizers, particularly in Africa.
That is certainly a big loss for the west. Won't argue on this point.
Regardless of how good the relations have been between China and the west, it should've been obvious that losing industrial capacity would put the west in a weak position in the long run. I disagree this is something that couldn't have been foreseen.
This is one of the most idiotic articles I have ever read in my life, and it also kind of feels racist to me. Why is learning Mandarin symbolic of being submissive rather than being considerate/respectful to a person and people you have a close relationship with? What happens if Xi Jinping learns Russian? The border issue just seems silly to me, why would China go through the effort to forcefully take this land? What is the strategy here? The article seems to focus more on war capabilities rather than why it would be worth it in the first place. To me, if China did do what this article wants then it would just benefit the West, since their two most opposing powers would be fighting each other which leaves room for the West to wreak havoc.
I wonder if it is their perspective too that learning English is subordination to the West. In many ways a validation of what Frantz Fanon was saying:
This is along the lines I thought too. The idea that it's subservient to learn another language is related to a superiority complex.
Why learn Mandarin or Russian? Only English is civilized.
This is very interesting, thank you for sharing. I guess if we are using English as an example, since it is the best one due to how widespread it is. English wasn’t really learned in the way Mandarin is learned by Putin’s family members; by that I mean English was forced onto the colonized people, which would be a form of subordination. Criticizing the learning of Mandarin as submissive comes across as projection.
The piece inadvertently provides us with a profound insight into Western mentality, unveiling an inherent inability to view itself as equal among diverse cultures and fostering a reluctance to contemplate equitable partnerships where one party does not assert its dominance over the other. Any perceived vulnerability must swiftly exploited for fleeting gains, reflecting a myopic shortsightedness that undermines potential long-term benefits and mutual growth.
I don't think the west is as inherently short-sighted as we think. It's sociopathic on purpose.
It is sociopathic, but I do think that a lot of the decision making is demonstrably short sighted. And that's precisely why the west finds itself in its current predicament.
I don't think we should underestimate modern western strategists. They were dealt a terrible hand. They have to maintain a world empire while not having the population or industry to do so anymore. It's like playing whack a mole, even if you are good at the game, you will never "win" because that's the fundamental nature of the game.
Even so, western strategists have continued to demonstrate an ability to gain strategic depth in Europe (severing Europe from Russia/China while torpedoing the Euro as a competitor to the dollar) and Asia (multiple regime changes in the past few years capable of disrupting the BRI and BRICS).
I would argue that western strategists were left with an incredibly advantageous position. Europe was entirely subjugated to the US interests during the cold war. Russia was basically in a state of collapse in the early 90s, China wasn't even a player at the time. There was nobody to stand in the way of the US empire.
What ultimately created the situation we see today was pure greed and hubris. The west could not stomach making even the barest of concessions to Russia, which ultimately forced Russia to start reindustrializing and becoming more self dependent. Meanwhile, globalization drive completely hollowed out the imperial core, and played a huge role in making China into the powerhouse that it is today. Yet, China was still perfectly willing to find ways to peacefully coexist with the west, and of course that simply wasn't acceptable to the US. As a result we now see a strong alliance between Russia and China that's at the core of BRICS.
That was precisely the problem. The defeat of the soviet union paved way for the most extreme liberalisation (something that western military strategists had no control over), leading to a situation where western military strategists have, since the 90s, been forced to defend an extemely expansive empire with ever shrinking resources.
Furthermore, the Chinese, far from not being players, pulled off one of the greatest geostrategic moves in all of human history by "tricking" capitalist countries to transfer their industries to a socialist country.
NATO expansion was a mistake from the standpoint of peace, but America got to upgrade its military capabilities, sever Europe from russia/china and throttle the euro as a competitor to the dollar. Even if the move didn't work out gully as planned, I don't think we can say that there wasn't some strategic logic to it.
Yes but this is the fundamental process of capitalism. It is not something western strategists could control in the first place. Even China, which is ruled by MLs is affected by the tendencies of capital.
Definitely a problem for the Americans, but it would have been impossible for them to maintain unity between all of the "great powers" of the world under their wing forever.
What I meant is that if the west was smart they would've realized that moving all their production to China would have negative consequences for them down the road. The idea that they would just liberalize China and subjugate it to their interests was pure hubris. China would've advanced regardless, but it would've had a much harder path developing a lot of the tech from scratch instead of being able to leverage existing western experience.
I understand the rationale for NATO expansion, but we can see that the end result is a disaster. NATO has been exposed as being impotent by Russia. Before the war started, it was simply assumed that NATO was the superior fighting force, and that it would be foolish to try and stand up to it. Now everyone can see that NATO is not all it's cracked up to be. Importantly, the lack of industrial capacity in the west has been exposed as a glaring problem. We also see how the war in Ukraine emboldened countries around the world to start kicking out western colonizers, particularly in Africa. I expect this will be a self reinforcing phenomenon going forward.
I agree that the problems are inherent in the system, and that's the fundamental problem. The whole house of cards was destined to collapse sooner or later, but the hubris accelerated the process.
Right, the whole western alliance is very fragile by nature.
I should add to my point on the other comment. I can imagine that the 90s would have been very dark times for any socialist or communist. I certainly would have never been able to hold on to any hope if I was alive back then no matter how much of a principled ML I would have been.
I think it is as much a testament to the faith that Deng Xiaoping had in the Chinese people as it is a matter of western hubris that China was able to take over the world's industries.
I do think it is important for us to highlight not just the west's weaknesses, but also the strengths that other parts of the world possessed. Otherwise we might fall into a eurocentric trap of thinking that Euro-American imperialism's defeat is just because of their decadent nature.
I very much agree. China ultimately charted their own course, and they managed to outplay the west at every turn. In fact, I think it can be argued that China managed to recognize and capitalize on western hubris. China played an excellent game hiding their true strength, and allowing western chauvinism blind the west to the shift in power balance. Even today, most westerners still don't understand just how advanced China has become since the 90s. The shock around China's chip production is a perfect example of that.
Fair enough, but historically, China's relations with the west have not been so overall hostile. Even before reform and opening up, China often sided against the Russians. And especially after reform, China has been more than willing to play ball with the west. Only in modern times has China started to become an obstacle to western hegemony. So even though this is a fumble, it is a fumble on a timescale that is difficult for anyone to plan for.
That is certainly a big loss for the west. Won't argue on this point.
Regardless of how good the relations have been between China and the west, it should've been obvious that losing industrial capacity would put the west in a weak position in the long run. I disagree this is something that couldn't have been foreseen.