| ▲ | newsclues a day ago |
| Who do we expect will replace Americas global leadership and will they really be better for everyone? |
|
| ▲ | bborud a day ago | parent | next [-] |
| China seems to be the only candidate. But whatever happens it won’t be in the same way as before. As for whether it is better for everyone, that question became a lot harder in just the last year. Who is «everyone»? And what do we mean by «better»? With the US wanting to annex territory from its NATO allies, and engaging in extortionate tariffs, it is harder to argue that the US is good for Europe. Which is why Europe has already started to look eastward. Starting with a comprehensive trade deal with India. What’s happening is good for Russia and China. Not so much for the rest of the world. |
| |
| ▲ | michaelsshaw a day ago | parent [-] | | I disagree that something good for China is necessarily bad for the rest of the world, which you seem to imply here includes only Europe. China alone has a higher population than Europe and the USA combined. I'd say that even if things got worse for Europe, to humanity it still constitutes a net benefit. Lives aren't of less value just because they're in a (gasp) communist country. | | |
| ▲ | lm28469 a day ago | parent | next [-] | | > communist country New things need new words to describe them, I know people love to call bad guys "nazis" or "communists" and that everyone seems stuck with 1939 lingo but come one. 1950s china isn't 1980s china which isn't 2026 china, yet they're all ""communists"" | | |
| ▲ | NoGravitas a day ago | parent | next [-] | | "Socialism with Chinese Characteristics" is the official name of the ideology of the Communist Party of China. | |
| ▲ | AnimalMuppet a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | China is ruled by the Communist Party. It does not seem unreasonable to call them a communist country. Yes, I know, they have moved away from historical communism, and it's more of a "brand name" than an ideological description. Still, it is their chosen name for what they're doing. | | |
| ▲ | ryoshoe 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | Sure but this is like calling North Korea a democracy because the official name of the country is the "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" | | |
| ▲ | jfyi 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | China is a Communist country (in the Leninist sense), it's just that Shenzhen is a special economic zone. This allows them to keep their ideology while operating within the global market economy. It's also why Democracy and unbridled Capitalism leaking into Hong Kong is problematic for them. Though, to be fair, Hong Kong is also why Shenzhen has been such a success for them. |
|
| |
| ▲ | newsclues a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | No words are not required. Authoritarian. Totalitarian. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_fascism is an OLD term. | | |
| ▲ | lm28469 a day ago | parent [-] | | None of these are "communism"... people who don't know better use it as a "china bad" gotcha because it's about as far as their political education allows them to think but it really is way more complex than that. > Authoritarian. Totalitarian. Yes these apply, but they're not synonyms of communism. The Iranian government is authoritarian, totalitarian and absolutely not communist > Red fascism is an OLD term. But surely you see how dumb this sounds? Fascism is by definition a far right moment, communism is by definition far left moment. By definition fascism is opposed to communism... Of course if we start using literal American propagandists buzzwords ("red fascism") as a basis for modern political discussions we're not going to get anywhere... | | |
| ▲ | amanaplanacanal a day ago | parent [-] | | I'm not sure left vs right is that useful a distinction. Both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany called themselves socialist, and both claimed to be doing what was best for their people. | | |
| ▲ | triceratops 15 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The addition of "socialist" to the Nazi party's name was done in the early 1920s to appeal to socialist-leaning people. Hitler was against the change but was overruled by the rest of the party's leadership. | |
| ▲ | krapp a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | >Both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany called themselves socialist, and both claimed to be doing what was best for their people. The Nazis weren't socialist. They appropriated the term as a propaganda tactic, a means of appealing to the masses. North Korea calls itself a democratic republic, but is obviously neither. One can't simply assume political labels to be correct. In terms of their actual policies and beliefs, the Nazis were vehemently anti-socialist. https://www.britannica.com/story/were-the-nazis-socialists | | |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | bborud 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I didn’t say or imply that. | |
| ▲ | johnnyanmac a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Not necessarily. But China's aggression towards Taiwan and their recent rare earth metals move last year show that China does not have the worlds best interests at heart either. We're picking between two evils and China's evil is more predictable than the US's right now. This goes for Asia in general. Korea, Japan, and China spent centuries fighting and making them the de facto super power makes it easy to resume the Korean war or try to overtake the (military wise) crippled Japan should they be emboldened by the faltering/collapse of NATO. | | |
| ▲ | newsclues a day ago | parent [-] | | How much coal do they burn? Did climate change suddenly become NOT an existential threat? Are their global fishing fleets sustainable? Where do the precursors for fentanyl come from? | | |
| ▲ | dh2022 a day ago | parent | next [-] | | I have to say that China will probably be a major force in reducing carbon emissions. Yes, China burns a lot of coal; but they also produce and deploy a lot of solar, wind, and soon nuclear energy. Someone else said it better: future will run on China’s batteries. | |
| ▲ | bborud 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | They seem to have achieved peak coal and coal use is slowly declining. Its percentage of the energy mix has been declining over the last decade. That’s not great, but it is a positive. And certainly better than we feared a decade ago. The world isn’t static. | |
| ▲ | michaelsshaw 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > How much coal do they burn? Did climate change suddenly become NOT an existential threat? As in any developing country, China has relied on cheap fossil fuels for rapid growth. Now, China is a global leader in reducing emissions, essentially blowing every other country out of the water. > Are their global fishing fleets sustainable? Is literally anything about the US sustainable? > Where do the precursors for fentanyl come from? You mean the legal drug that is absolutely 100% necessary for use in hospitals? Yeah, don't care. It seems you're supremely focused on "China bad" gotchas as a desperate final gasp because you may be realizing that you don't actually have anything interesting to add to any conversation on any topic. Perhaps think more before opening your mouth. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | bilekas a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The US is resigning the position intentionally. It's not as if someone is gearing up to replace it. But as a trade partner? China, markets love reliability and stability. Not every 4 years wondering if there will be another trade war for reasons unknown. You'd be very surprised the amount of malicious behavior countries will ignore to allow trade. Look at Saudi Arabia. |
|
| ▲ | operation_moose a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The single superpower thing was an anomaly which was mostly a result of one specific country being largely untouched by WW2; we're more likely heading back towards multiple regional powers with varying levels of cooperation, e.g. EU+Mercosur+India agreements that just happened. The lines are still being drawn, but its doubtful one single power will emerge. |
|
| ▲ | tock a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Seems like the rest of the world is just signing new trade deals and continuing on as normal. I hope America returns to normalcy in the next election and everything settles down. Else it seems like back to the old multipolar world. |
| |
| ▲ | operation_moose a day ago | parent [-] | | I don't see any way we're not heading back to the multipolar world. They've managed to burn almost all of the goodwill and soft power that took 80 years to accumulate in 373 days. Even with a "return to normalcy", the trade and military agreements being forged are permanently diminishing America's influence. Especially given that we're never more than 4 years away from this happening again. |
|
|
| ▲ | ranguna a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| No one, we don't need a leader. We need decentralised governance. |
| |
| ▲ | bborud a day ago | parent | next [-] | | We have that. What has broken down is cooperation. The kind that has ensured relative peace for 80’ish years. That order is breaking down and creates instability. Instability means more conflict and less productive use of resources. | | |
| ▲ | operation_moose a day ago | parent [-] | | Well, cooperation with one specific player. Cooperation among the rest of the world is rapidly progressing in response. | | |
| ▲ | bborud 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes and no. Internal cohesion is weakened (the most extreme example of which is brexit) by resurgence of nationalism and xenophobia. At the same time new trade deals and alliances are formed and deepened. | | |
| ▲ | ranguna 17 hours ago | parent [-] | | That's a good overview. As usual: things are complex, not necessarily bad overall. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | delaminator a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | That's not how it works though, is it? What you're really saying there is global governance. Which faction that emerges as a dominant ever says "Oh no! We better stop using our advantage to improve our condition". |
|
|
| ▲ | saubeidl a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The EU just signed large deals with Latin America and India, binding a sizable chunk of the world to its rules. ASEAN is on the docket, Japan, Canada and South Korea have been signed for a while now. Make of that what you will. Power isn't always tanks and soldiers. Sometimes its bureaucracy and contracts. |
|
| ▲ | causalscience a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [dead] |
|
| ▲ | wolvoleo a day ago | parent | prev [-] |
| China probably. No I don't think it is better but at least their leadership is actually sane. Evil, but sane and predictable. |
| |
| ▲ | scotty79 a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Even the evil adjective starts to look debatable in contrast to what current hegemony is doing on its way down. Apparently their worst offence so far was calmly outgrowing and out competing their peers while benefiting global consumers with he fruits of organized labor of their own society. | | |
| ▲ | throwawayqqq11 a day ago | parent | next [-] | | Iam sceptical whether china is more evil than the current and historic US. Both countries have commited atrocities but the US was way more involved "for their interests overseas". Maybe the western distrust towards china will make it a different power equilibrium. | |
| ▲ | Buxato a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | If you think that's the worst offence then you should check the recent and past news more often. | | |
| ▲ | scotty79 a day ago | parent [-] | | What was the most grusome Chinese offence you learned about form the news recently? |
| |
| ▲ | card_zero a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Stop getting Chinese territory under your fishing boats! Leave immediately for correct and healthy harmony! Fires water cannon | | |
| ▲ | RobotToaster a day ago | parent [-] | | As opposed to America who uses cruise missiles on fishing boats in a different continent? |
| |
| ▲ | RobotToaster a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Maoist protracted people's war has traditionally relied on being less of an asshole to the peasants than the enemy. | |
| ▲ | wolvoleo a day ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I was referring more to the millions of Uyghurs in political prisons and their overreaching surveillance of the population. And I was just speaking of what I think about China, not saying the current US administration is any better. I don't think it will be there forever though. | | |
| ▲ | scotty79 a day ago | parent [-] | | Right the Uyghurs, a word we never knew before. When faced with credible threat of islamic terror in their country China implemented some harsh, systemic ideas about what to do with it. I'm sure if they just started two wars in the middle east instead the western community would be way more lenient towards them. China did what it though was the correct thing and the west happily classified it as racism and religious persecution. However when the pandemic came China had zero restraint towards applying harsh measures on the bulk of their population regardless of race and relligion. And while their solutions are harsh and possibly incorrect is it really unique on the global stage? US, the shining city on the hill, when faced with a problem of having inadequate social support systems to help the more recent immigrants decided that it will try to build concentration camps on the teritorry of one of their closest vassals. This can't be correct or humane solution either. And when it comes to surveillance, China is on the forefront, but US and UK closely follow. What's different is that China does their surveillance overtly and tries to make it socially useful. I don't for one second believe that technologically Palantir and such are more than one step behind. |
| |
| ▲ | philipallstar a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | I'm particularly annoyed that the US is for the people of Iran and not, like China, for the government of Iran. And the US putting secondary sanctions on Russian oil to starve Putin from Chinese and Indian oil revenues? Disgusting. |
| |
| ▲ | mschuster91 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | China wants but China won't. They lack the military capability of force projection that is the basis of the US dollar dominance, their currency cannot be used as a reserve/trading currency due to capital transfer controls (that have no sign of ever going away because otherwise everyone who has money in China will move it immediately out of the reach of the CCP), foreign investors have gotten very skeptical over the years regarding IP theft on one side and supply chain law issues (e.g. underage labor, 996 and modern slavery, environmental concerns) on the other, and on top of that China is getting rocked hard by the inevitable consequences of the one-child policy that is driving up labor costs, further reducing the attractivity for foreign investors. | | |
| ▲ | bborud a day ago | parent [-] | | China doesn’t need to project force. Economics might is sufficient. Yes, they want Taiwan, but that’s a silly national pride thing. It would not really benefit them to take it by force. | | |
| ▲ | ulfw 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | And the US wants Greenland, Canada, random other countries here or there... | |
| ▲ | mschuster91 a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Yes, they want Taiwan, but that’s a silly national pride thing. It would not really benefit them to take it by force. We thought the same about Putin, and yet he went and invaded Ukraine. We thought the same about Trump, and yet he went and abducted the president of a sovereign country. Never underestimate nationalist BS or outright mental deficiency. | | |
| ▲ | bborud 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | The difference is desperation. Putin was facing instability and was afraid of ending up like Khadafi. He needed a war. Xi is not facing those challenges. He wants Taiwan, but the Chinese play long games so he can wait. | | |
| ▲ | i2km 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > but the Chinese play long games And yet they got themselves into a demographic death spiral | |
| ▲ | mschuster91 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Xi is not facing those challenges. He is facing other challenges, a lot of chickens are coming home to roost - chiefly the demographic collapse, the inevitable result of the one-child policy, but also the rise of wages leading other countries to be the outsourcing target, decades of selling out nature / the environment, a crashing real estate sector, brain drain... | | |
| ▲ | bborud 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | You have to look at the likelihood of these problems leading to a violent regime change. The reasons why Xi is much more safe than Putin are structural. Xi controls the politburo standing committee which is packed with loyalists. Loyalty is centralized and based in ideology. The state, functions as the embodiment of Xi’s ideology. There exists no independent power base.
Military or otherwise. And this is the most important reason Xi is pretty safe. China’s elite is deeply invested in the system (wealth, family, careers). They lose everything if the party fractures. So the choice for those who don’t like Xi is between Xi and chaos. In Russia power is split. Between oligarchs, security services, military and regional elites. All of which represent a threat to Putin’s power. Just look at Prigozhin’s mutiny: armed forces hesitated, elites stood back to see who would win, system didn’t close ranks. Institutions are hollowed out with no clear loyalty. And loyalty itself is highly transactional. Never ideological. There is zero cohesion in the elite. Zero. It is also important to look at the histories of China and Russia respectively. In Russia power has _always_ been fragmented. Even under Stalin, considerable power was in the hands of criminal organizations and the communist regime had to co-exist with the criminal classes. In fact, during Stalin, they actually got a worse as the harsh political climate forced them to become more resilient. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
