CONTENTS
OPPONENT MODELLING: GETTING CHINA RIGHT
THE PROBLEM OF GLOBAL GOVERNANCE
CHINESE STRATEGY
GUNS AND BUTTER
REACTIONS TO CHINESE STRATEGY
CHINESE STRATEGEMS AND US STRATEGY
CHINESE VIEWS OF KOREAN JUCHE IDEOLOGY:
US STRATEGY: FAILURE TO PLAN IS PLANNING TO FAIL.
ELITES AND ORDINARY PEOPLE IN THE USA AND CHINA
GETTING CHINA RIGHT: CHINESE SELF PERCEPTIONS
FACTS ABOUT CHINA AND CHINESE CHARACTERISTICS
ELITE MISPERCEPTION IS MUTUAL
ECONOMICS
(the articles and news follow the free subscribe and share links
THE PROBLEM OF GLOBAL GOVERNANCE
The problem facing global governance is how each country can take into account and influence other countries without war. In one country we can have votes, but there is no voting mechanism between countries. For example: if we took a vote "should the USA and China go to war" in China or the USA I am sure neither would vote for war! But there is no such mechanism internationally. Diplomatic ministries of foreign affairs, treaty making, and trade agreements are now inadequate to govern the world because of intensive trade and communication. there is not enough possibility for non-military political interactions to influence other states' policies in the current system. Intelligent well-informed elites in ministries of foreign affairs, even when well-intended, cannot keep pace with the speed or number of issues facing a world where communication is world-wide, instantaneous, inexpensive, and transportation is likewise rapid and inexpensive. Old mechanisms need to be intensified and expanded and new institutions must be formed to close this governance gap, for that gap creates the risk of war.
Military means are often inadequate to actual tasks of global governance.
If a country develops well, other countries will naturally be influenced and learn from it, without the need for military force. Military power is a backup plan, a defensive measure. Simply using military force won't impress other countries; instead, it will trigger their resistance. Therefore, comprehensive strength is necessary to attract them. Use powerful military capabilities as a backup, and combine them with a thriving economy, high moral standards, abundance, empathy, and rich culture as the frontline, then they will come together, which is what a great nation should do.
CHINESE STRATEGY
China seeks energy autarchy, and through this theory I look at Chinese foreign policy.
If we understand Chinese history, we can better understand current Chinese beliefs and policies. Chinese history is vast,so I cannot expect to ever attain more than a superficial understanding, though we can and should strive for better understanding Chinese language and history. Sometimes a superficial knowledge suffices. But the more I know the fewer my errors. Errors in thought lead to miscalculations in strategy and tactic. Errors and miscalculations are a main cause of wars. Our own errors are also usually the cause of our defeat. Thus we must strive to make know errors and to attain a correct and complete understanding of things.
The overall current Chinese approach to strategy, policies, and foreign and political relations idea can be summarized as follows: Seeking unity, seeking solidarity, concentrating resources to achieve grand goals, starting from practicalities; professional people doing professional jobs, and seeking balance (moderation). #
China's policies are moderate and seek to maximize the well being of the Chinese if only to maintain the party in power. China thereby relates to the rest of the world on common-sense business-like rather than warlike terms. This explains the pax sinica.: China has not had a war in forty years.
To understand China's policies, it is important to understand Chinese history and China's geographical environment and environment (both climactic and intercultural). Ancient Chinese policy-making was heavily influenced by climatic conditions and climate still influences affairs of state. One must also understand geography and China's environment : though I do have geography and language and ideology so now I work on pre CCP history.
China's peripheral environment is very complex, with many neighboring countries, and some of them were even tributary states or part of China's territory in the past. They have a strong sense of vigilance towards China, fearing that their former suzerain state might return. Moreover, the neighboring countries in Central Asia are a probable point of strategic rivalry between China and the United States for security, trade, and influence. In fact, both the USA and China have been victims of radical terrorism justified by outlandish religious interpretations. They would be wise to seek cooperation rather than provocation in their mutual struggle against random mass murder and their mutual striving to peace through prosperity. Their shared vision of the pursuit of wealth -- peace through prosperity -- alongside continued technological innovation and improvement thanks to inventions and the natural sciences are why I am confident that this will prove to be the pacific century and that my plan to build a grand pacific peace is realistic despite headwinds, choppy waters, or other unforeseen circumstances.
The Belt and Road Initiative, China's strategy for economic development of impoverished countries especially those which are Chinese neighbors is sensible, wise. to go to war. Impoverished neighbors are dangerous. People who are not poor are much less likely to go to war with you and may even do business with you.
For structural reasons both China and the USA face the risk of inappropriate over-reactions to each other, whether by misperception or recollection of historic experience. There is enough mutual misunderstanding thanks to cultural and language differences that inappropriate policies and reactions are likely, and so must be anticipated and prevented or, failing that, corrected.
Chinese people may well believe U.S. foreign policy to be driven by economic considerations and that the U.S.A. seeks to hobble the Chinese economy, to cripple a competitor. This is more or less the opposite of the historical facts and actual intentions of U.S. elites and leaders. It is a Chinese miscalculation and reflects a misapprehension of past and present U.S. actions and intentions as to create the risk of armed conflict between the USA and China, whether indirectly via proxy wars or directly by open combat.
There is an entire world for Chinese markets outside the USA. Thus, the USA probably could not hobble the Chinese economy, even if it wanted to, and it does not.
1. Some do argue that the USA should try to cripple China's economy.
I argue that is foolish, unnecessary, may not even be possible. The people who make argument 1 are extremists, unrealistic, reactionaries, reacting to China and not thinking things through and acting calmly. These would be economic saboteurs misperceive the challenges and opporunities China presents.
2. Others argue that rather than seeking to cripple China's economy the U.S. instead should seek not to benefit, but also not to harm China's economy, more or less they seek a stagnant Chinese economy which they claim is inevitable due to demographic and/or limitations in Xi Jinping's governance of China.
3. My own view is radical but on the other extreme. China isn't really a threat to the USA militarily speaking. But to hem in Chinese extremist nationalists the USA should contain Chinese military adventures through policies of deterrence to prevent wars between China and any of China's neighbors.
4. I also argue that China can and should do development relief among Chinese neighbors using e.g. Peace Ark.
The real military missions facing China are anti-piracy and counter-terrorism, not "let's invade Taiwan".
I don't think the U.S. militarists need deterring, but do recognize China will want to deter them anyway.
Each of them will try to reign in and deter the other's extremists but in different ways.
5. Because the USA can and will contain China militarily it can and should also continue to trade and invest with China. Compliance with common sense security policies leads to commercial carrots. Non-compliance leads to sticks. T
Consequently, I anticipate increased economic exchanges between China and countries China wishes to trade with.
Anti-terrorism, anti-piracy, and humanitarian relief in the face of natural disasters, as well as U.N. peacekeeping missions are the real military missions facing China.
GUNS AND BUTTER
Basically every country faces the security problem of wanting lots of weapons and a strong economy. Keyword "guns and butter", how much of which do you want? The smart Chinese strategy is to make China too expensive to attack. That is also what Singapore does and with a far smaller population. There is in fact no reason to attack China, but why should China take my word for it? The smartest Chinese military strategy is also the least expensive.
Chinese policies have changed toward Taiwan, from conciliation to confrontation. Beijing believes if China continues using preferential policies for Taiwan, others will think that the Chinese government is weak. Chinese people almost universally resent Taiwan's approach.
The United States should bring peace to the Middle East and concentrate on encircling Russia and in Eastern Europe and the Asia-Pacific region. Chinese people almost universally resent Taiwan's approach.China believes it must recover Taiwan to maintain its own security.
Taiwan is the Gordian knot of Chinese-US relations and foreign policies.
1. I cannot well-understand China's internal political questions of governance, this is especially true in cross straits relations.
2. I don't see the USA as trying to use Taiwan to provoke the rest of China.
3. No one wants another Chinese civil war, not even the extremists in the USA let alone extremist Chinese people.
The USA has over-match with respect to China, and can assemble a coalition of allies, which China currently cannot do. By making that really public it would humiliate Chinese people and Chinese leaders. So I rarely point out the fact of over-match: why embarrass, humiliate, or shame an economic partner? In fact, we should be happy there is over-match, not just in numbers or technology or allies but at least two and really three of those factors of war. This means China and the USA do not have to arms race and can focus on economics and peace as opposed to preparing for a war that neither wants and should not ever happen.
REACTIONS TO CHINESE STRATEGY
Basically I am working on strategies of defensive isolationism in the military sector coupled with economic engagement. To deter and contain China militarily to protect the world from militarism and misadventures and at the same time to intensify globalization of trade and cross border investment by evolving existing international institutions and developing new ones to close the international governance gap. That is roughly speaking how i think the future of transpacific relations should grow. One may call this a defensive realist deterrence strategy. China and the USA both have long histories of military isolation and neutrality alongside their economic engagement with the rest of the world, including each other. Unlike Japan, China's markets were never completely closed, though the Emperor insisted only on trade in silver, which sparked the opium wars, since Britain could only pay in machined good that China could not produce and that the emperor of China did not want.
CHINESE STRATEGEMS AND US STRATEGY
China does not seek an alliance with Russia nor a military confrontation. China is not seeking to build alliances for war-making or defense, as they regard such as a waste of resources and even counter-productive. For China, alliances mean military confrontations and entanglements, getting dragged into unnecessary or even unwinnable conflicts. To the Chinese leaders, a new Cold War would be meaningless and would only drain the country's strength.
China believes the United States does not have the ability to wage war on three fronts: Eastern Europe, the Asia-Pacific region, and the Middle East. Chinese leaders believe Russia can win in Ukraine and would thereby also win the rest of Europe forcing the USA to abandon Europe. Chinese leaders wish to drive the USA out of Eurasia, but I expect they will be unable to. They underestimate the utility of alliances. Chinese leaders likely do not understand the strenghts of alliances and also do not understand how alliances are formed, why they work, and how. In any case, China believes Russia and the United States cannot be committed to the Middle East in the long term, though for different reasons.China believes the USA cannot remain in the Middle East in the long term due to the costs associated with power projection half way around the world. Russia, for its part, is unable to remain in the Middle East because of its war in Ukraine. In other words: China expects to be able to emerge from the US-Russia proxy war in Ukraine entirely unscathed and to be able thereby to become the dominant force in the Middle East. There are many reasons their view is mistaken, but why should I correct those errors?
China also believes the USA is using Taiwan and the Philippines to stir up trouble in the South China Sea, hoping to force China to use force against those countries so that the USA can concentrate its forces against Russia. This is another Chinese misperception: US deterrent actions are often perceived as provocations by Leninists, which is one of the reasons Leninism is dangerous: it creates an unstable world of violence rather than peace and prosperity. The Leninists proved unable to transition from revolution to good domestic governance due to such misinterpretations, seeing the world defensively, in vicious, deceptive, violent terms. Thus instead of predicting the obvious, that a Chinese invasion or attack on the Philippines, Taiwan, or Japan would lead to US intervention in defense of its allies. In other words, the Chinese presume US deterrent moves are in fact tricks intended to cause conflicts of the "Let's you and him fight." variety, a tactic that Leninists and Chekists frequently use so this may be Chinese projection along the lines of "if we were in bad faith we would do this, and they might be doing something in bad faith and are doing something similar! Distrust!". This is the essence of "the security dilemma" and explains why we must elaborate political as well as legal institutions so that countries can relate to each other outside of diplomatic and military terms but rather, somehow, as mutual constituents, at least in security though likely also in commercial fields. None of these countries want to start wars and all of them face the problems of terrorism, insurgencies, piracy, and "ordinary" policing issues such as transnational organized crime.
In any case, Chinese leaders believe that the current risk of war in the East and South China seas is very low due to Chinese geographic weaknesses: that China is in no position, currently, to start wars in the far east: as if they want to? They do not.
Their mutual misapprehensions can get them in trouble. Example: China proceeds fearing American traps, which is prudent, but as a result can lead China to take actions which exacerbate conflict. U.S. foreign policy doesn't go around trying to set up traps. This is because it is a status quo hegemon, more interested in stabiity than marginal power gains. The U.S. attitude toward trappy situations is like this: "we would prefer you to do this other thing, very much so in fact, and really hope you do, and can even point out these benefits if you do this thing. In contrast, you could do that other thing, which we would prefer you not to do, but we will not do anything if you do. I wonder what others will do?" They are not racist against Chinese nor do they fear China. If anything U.S. people like Chinese people because you are hard working intelligent and even kind. It is the people and their businesses, not their military forces, which shall drive them together to a better future.
Inversely, just as the USA does not go around trying to set up traps and force other countries into them, other countries may indeed do exactly that. The reason for this is due to an asymmetry in military power:
a) The USA has over-match against every other state and so can afford the risks of a policy of benevolence. The cost of a catastrophic error by opponents of the USA would be great, but certainly bearable to the USA, and such errors would work to the detriment of the would-be opponent. Chinese benevolence is hopeful and courageous. American benevolence is common sense. Westerners ought be glad and thankful for the hard work of the Chinese people and the patience of the Chinese government. Is "Thank you for all that cheap swag!" so tough to say?
b) In contrast, most other states lack the military power projection and logistics networks which the USA enjoys. Thus, they must rely on indirect methods, namely luring the USA into foolish unwinnable wars, to weaken U.S. military and economic power and to distract U.S. leaders. Since China can try to lure the USA into "one, two, many Vietnams" it is natural the Chinese leaders fear the USA doing the same thing to China. Each side makes errors of projecting their own actions, aims, attitudes onto the other resulting in mistakes, and it is mistakes which mostly cause war and mistakes determine the outcome of war. We must avoid error both to prevent war and to win war, which is why we must thoroughly understand our counterpart's point of view, their beliefs, aims and objectives. These qualitative and intangible factors are important in war, perhaps less so than quantitative factors but the fact is: inferior weapons in the hands of those who are trained, disciplined, and motivated are more effective than superior weaponry in the hands of the untrained, the unmotivated, and the badly led. There are qualitative and quantitative aspects to war: both are important. Each must be measured and estimated in proper deterrent strategy and good foreign relations. Napoleon saw it this way: "In war, the moral is to the material as three is to one".
Understanding the opponent leads us out of the error of projecting our own views onto our opponent. Your opponent is not just like you: if he were, he would not be your opponent.
Anglo-Chinese cultural commonalities are why they are likelier, despite misapprehensions, to relate peaceably through trade rather than antagonistically through war. In Maoist terms: the USA and China are only in relative and not absolute contradiction. Yet since war is mostly the result of miscalculations and errors we must thoroughly understand our counterpart and not merely blindly trust in "natural market forces" or "inevitable popular forces and technological development" to lead us out of war and into peace and prosperity.
Economically speaking, I expect global trade to continue under any circumstance short of a war between China and any or all of the USA, Japan, ASEAN , EU. Although I can envision the USA containing China militarily I do not think China could drive the USA out of the Eastern Hemisphere.
Religion as Legitimator and Guide, only, for State Power (Secularism)
It is the Confucian or is it Buddhist benevolence of China and the Christian benevolence of the USA people that will drive them together. Each is in fact benevolent and thus will eventually see that about the other. I do not regard the Chinese ideology as malevolent, and one can certainly find benevolent aspects about Marxism-Leninism-Maoism if one wishes to: in any case I do think Xi Jinping's ideology is well-intended, seeks the best for China and the world. As history shows regimes built on fear force and fraud fail, and thus benevolence is not merely the wiser policy, it is also the practical one.
However, the United States does regard China as the successor of the Soviet Union. The US perceives China a bit in that respect and wishes to treat two very different cultures alike. Chinese leaders believe that since the United States is located on the periphery of Eurasia it must create unrest in Eurasia, otherwise the United States would become an isolated island in the American continent, thanks to geography. In fact, the USA would prefer to have fewer, not more conflicts and was forced out of isolationism by two European wars. If the USA were to become isolationist again, that would be a problem in this way:
1. China would be unable to impose order on Eurasia.But that would be problem how -- and for whom?
2. The USA would eventually get dragged into a third world war that would result from Eurasian instability: it happened twice before.
There is in fact the tendency for the USA to (mis)perceive China as "just like the USSR". It is a mistake to do so, and I constantly point that fact out to others. The most evident example if Steven Kotkin (might be stephen anyway he is very famous). There are few anglophone people who, like me, are fluent in both Chinese and Russian and have studied the various communist parties fairly closely. But even I could not tell you about Ho Chi Minh's supposed innovations or clearly define the distinctive features of Juche ideology as contrasted against Maoism. As I have said there is a vast amount of information to master, and a lot of things about which one can make mistakes. However, recognizing others errors enables me to exploit them, and correcting my own errors means I am defeated less often. Here is a Juche summary:
CHINESE VIEWS OF KOREAN JUCHE IDEOLOGY:
As I am not an expert on Juche (yet) let me quote in translation:
"Juche thought originated from a new idea formed on the Korean Peninsula during the feudal era and after the establishment of a new regime. Because in the feudal era, the Korean Peninsula was a vassal state of China, it has always had the idea of serving a great power. The Juche idea emphasizes that the country should be independent, but it also emphasizes that the leader is like a father and has absolute authority, so the people must obey the authority of the leader like a child. . In the eyes of the Chinese, this combines the Confucian ideas of monarch, minister, minister, father, father and son. I cannot simply say that this is backward thinking, but the Juche idea is contrary to the ideas of Marx and Engels. Because the theory of Marx and Engels emphasizes the absolute leadership of the party. Even from a Confucian perspective, the premise of absolute obedience is that the leader (king) is a qualified leader. If he is an unqualified and cruel leader, then the people should not obey him. This idea reflects the dialectical thinking of the Chinese. I think the Juche idea is the product of a fusion of many ideas. The worship of leader would not be approved by Comrade Mao Zedong, because he himself was very opposed to the cult of personality. Although I do not deny that excellent leaders play an important role in the implementation of policies (such as the fourth crossing of Chishui under the guidance of Comrade Mao Zedong), the success of the policy is also inseparable from the efforts of others. The right leadership plays a decisive role, but it is not the only role. And just because a leader does this thing right doesn’t mean he can do it right next time. So I think personality worship means blindly worshiping correct strategic predictions. I very much agree and appreciate the idea of national independence, but objectivity limits the implementation of this idea. Although humans have entered modern society, the geographical environment will not change with people's ideas. Small countries still need, and even rely on, big countries to survive. Independence is the most ideal state, but this does not mean that any country can realize this idea. North Korea currently uses the first year of Kim Il-sung's birth as its chronology, which is no different from the ancient Chinese period that used the monarch's reign name to chronologically. In my opinion, this has the color of an autocratic monarchy, and the fact that three generations of the Jin family have been in power intuitively confirms my idea. North Korea often talks about wanting to be independent, but it often asks for assistance from China. I don’t know what independence means. I just think it is a disgusting behavior that requires both dignity and practical help.
What is particularly ironic is that the founder of Juche defected to South Korea. North Korea is very lax, the theories it creates cannot be justified, and many of its actions are truly confusing. North Korea does not allow women to wear jeans or dye their hair, saying it is a symbol of capitalism. But Kim Jong Un himself buys a Maybach. Isn’t the Maybach a symbol of capitalism? This is privileged behavior. Although North Korea is an orthodox government on the Korean penins
ula, its leaders are not upright, lie habitually, behave badly, and have poor military discipline."
US STRATEGY: FAILURE TO PLAN IS PLANNING TO FAIL.
WHAT HAPPENS WHEN DOGGO FINALLY CATCHES THE CAR?
Just like the USA did not plan for "what do we do to the USSR after we rip it to shreds" the USA also did not plan for "what do we do if China grows out of near starvation". They just stupidly assumed China would magically turn into "just like America".
A disordered world is not the objective of the US leaders. We are not Britain. A disordered world is bad for business: this common logic of common prosperity is why there will not be a new cold war.
In the USA imagination the whole world becomes prosperous, thus peaceful, thus democratic, also with human rights. But they really suck at planning for "what if that doesn't happening" or in figuring out what the concrete steps are to attain democracy, rule of law, and protection of human rights and thus implement inapt solutions. For example, in Afghanistan, the USA tried to take a patriarchal tribal subsistence economy organized around clans and sincere Islamic faith and turn that into a multi-party liberal democracy with protection of women's rights and gay rights too, what could possibly go wrong with implementing a model of governance appropriate for a highly advanced industrialzed economy like Sweden on ... a tribal patriarchal religious subsistence economy? I don't know either, let's ask the Iraqis...
In any case, since China is succesful, or at least was prior to 2019, I expect China will be able to convince/coerce/compel the USA to sensible policies, which are in fact in the interests of the USA
ELITES AND ORDINARY PEOPLE IN THE USA AND CHINA
MY BIOGRAPHY
Unfortunately, I am not diplomatic. I lack the social graces, patience, and am much too direct and honest, even outright rude. To have been a diplomat I would have had to be much finer, refined, tactful, comfortable with ambiguity and uncertainty. At least I have some brains! And I make a great fug. "What's a fug" you say?
Come clother, wet me swoh you...
Things never motivated me.
Generally speaking the elite leaders in the USA and China are in absolute contradiction. They now appear to see themselves locked in a zero sum struggle for power, where if one gains the other must lose. It is exactly this which I am trying to change. That is because the ordinary people in China and the USA are in, at worst, only relative contradiction and in some cases are even in non-contradiction.
I think the U.S. can be tamed, civilized, because they mistakenly think China is Russia due to their ignorance and opportunism. Chinese leaders don't really think the U.S. elite can be cured of its vices: "the essence of pirates is to plunder. They have no other way of survival than plundering. Moreover, the United States controls the whole world through the sea. Since it is the boss, it must give benefits. This is an important way to maintain hegemony, but the loss of hegemony means that the United States cannot be the boss by distributing benefits, and the top management cannot enjoy a luxurious life, so I think the elite will not be domesticated, after all. They really don't know how to govern the country."
While it is true I can easily see many aspects of U.S. mal-governance I don't regard U.S. hegemony as if it were a giant mafia because war for profit, robbing resources, and slavery are economically unsustainable. To be sustainable U.S. hegemony could notbe based on plundering. Plunder engenders resistance and rebellion. Mere bribery is inadequate to obtain effective governance one needs acquiescence or even cooperation. The problem with bribery is people don't stay bribed. In fact, once they get a taste of money for nothing they want more and come back expecting more. It is very likely the Chinese leadership faces a fundamental misapprehension of U.S. foreign policy since it does not understand alliance networks or the goals and methods of U.S. foreign policy.
Consequently, at least currently, the elites in the USA and China are in absolute contradiction but their masses are only in relative contradiction.
Elite absolute contradictions are dangerous because they create conditions for wars.
If they are on top of masses who are in relative contradiction then they are both dangerous and foolish.
For my part I definitely tell my stupid so called leaders that China PRC isn't the USSR. The USSR was corrupt, drunk, thievery, lies, and poor. Violent, too. The western elites will have a tendency to think of China like the USSR. China is hard working honest productive and not: drunk lying murderers.
Chinese elites believe, I think mistakenly, that the American elite has a pirate logic: "if you have it, I don’t have it". After all, the capitalist elites are in fact greedy. Only by colonizing the world can the West have the ability to rule and distribute benefits to people in their own group, otherwise they will lose their dominance. Chinese leaders have no illusions about them.
GETTING CHINA RIGHT: CHINESE SELF PERCEPTIONS
In contrast Chinese leaders perceive themselves as having a a farmer mentality, that there is enough for everyone and the benefits can be shared together. The geographical environment leads to these two thoughts. Chinese leaders regard the fall of the Soviet Union as the result of revisionism leading to a "Red Tsarist Empire" in the later period of the USSR. Despite this, Chinese leaders know Russia had earlier provided badly needed industrial assistance to China, which was crucial to the construction of New China. The Chinese believe that without assistance from the Soviet Union, there would be no development in China. This view over-estimates the contributions of the USSR, which went to war with China in 1964, and underestimates the hard work and moral virtue of the Chinese people. Chinese leaders genuinely believe the USSR represented the highest ideals of mankind. This is the result of seeing only the Russian elites and not carefully examining how Russia in fact was and is governed. If all the Westerners you met were diplomats you would think we all must be fine, no? China's leaders also claim that the complete industrial system and complete industrial chain were taught by the Soviet Union, which had at one time sincerely helped China, which might be true or, likelier, the USSR took loot from defeated nazis and gave it to China which then smartly figured out how to actually make it work and maintain it: production, maintenance, and repair of industrial goods were and remain a weak point among Russians who are more interested in farming, wilderness adventure, and militaria than they are in industrial production. China and Russia are cultural mirrors... in any case the Chinese consider themselves to have been the best student of the USSR, and if that means not having gulags, massacres, blood purges, and red terrors, then they are right, for all those horrors were in fact features of the USSR under Lenin and Stalin.
FACTS ABOUT CHINA AND CHINESE CHARACTERISTICS
1. China is a multi-ethnic state. 52 recognized nations, though at least 80% are Han.
2. Naturally there is a lot more to Chinese philosophy than Confucius. But I find Taoism/Lao Tzu to be dialectical idealism and thus worse than useless. I find Mozi to be hopeful. No one likes legalism, even people like me who think rule of law really matters . China held itself back in that legalism equates law with punishment. Short story: law is exhortation and emulation hopes and ideals plans and policies as well as punishment.
3. We are likeliest to attain mutual comprehension by focusing on China's historical thinkers rather than by understanding Marxism-Leninism because there are more opportunities for compromise thereby. Marxism is violent and Leninism is deceptive, it will be far too easy for China or the West to escalate their ideological views on Marxism Leninism leading to the risk of a stupid war driven by ideology rather than necessity.
Confucius was an educator and a great man, but he did not understand the current international situation. His theory is beneficial to improving personal moral level and cultivation. One of his propositions: cultivate one's moral character, manage one's family, govern the country, and bring peace to the world. Start from small things, work on self improvement, morality and overall quality, make the family harmonious, then participate in the governance of the country, and finally participate in international affairs. His second proposition: benevolence, benevolence, friendliness, compassion, tolerance, sympathy, and understanding. This is the core of people-to-people interactions. Through benevolence, people-to-people and country-to-country interactions can be achieved. Confucius’s third proposition: Respect tradition, and don’t let others bear what you don’t want to bear. In international exchanges: respect the traditions of other countries and not bullying others. Confucius's idea was biased towards the rule of law, but rule of law and rule of force should be combined. Moreover, China not only has Confucius, but also Mozi, Han Feizi, Xunzi, Mencius, Guanzi, etc. Their ideas are all beneficial to the governance of the country. Although China mainly promotes Confucianism, it is actually a combination of Confucianism and Legalism and the ideas of other thinkers. China's thoughts, religions, clothing or food are all products of various fusions.
China is the sum of hundreds of countries, a synthesis of many countries and nationalities, so some people think that China is a culture disguised as a country. Confucius's ideas were highly praised by Liu Che, Emperor Wu of the Han Dynasty, because they were suitable for establishing a hierarchical system. However, whether it is Confucianism represented by Confucius, Taoism represented by Laozi and Zhuangzi, Mohism represented by Mozi, Yin-Yang family represented by Han Feizi, or military strategists represented by Sun Tzu, they all have the limitations of their own ideas. Only by integrating various ideas can a suitable idea and method of governing the country be produced. Confucius advocated noble morality, so what should we do if we encounter strong force? Lao Tzu, Zhuangzi advocates that the government should not interfere excessively and obey the laws of the market. So what should the government do if it encounters others manipulating the market economy? What should be the level of intervention? Mozi advocated equality and fraternity and opposed unjust wars. He believes that the reason for war is that people have no love, which shows that he does not realize the essence of war. People compete for profit, it has nothing to do with love. This is purely pacifist thinking, and he does not propose how to eliminate war from its source. Han Feizi advocated governing the country according to law, but the governance of the country only relies on the law without the assistance of morality, which will inevitably cause people to lose their humanity and turn into machines. Sun Tzu was a military strategist, and his work "The Art of War" is the earliest surviving military work. But if the ruler can only fight wars but cannot develop the economy, govern the country, or carry out diplomacy, the country will soon perish. Representative: Yuan Dynasty. These ideas are all very good, but they are specialized in certain aspects. In practical application, its shortcomings need to be discovered and supplemented and corrected. China has always respected harmony, and various ideas can complement each other and account for a certain proportion. This kind of thinking is also reflected in diplomacy.
ELITE MISPERCEPTION IS MUTUAL
I am of the opinion that the Chinese and U.S. elites misperceive each other, which creates the real risk of miscalculation, which is a problem because most wars result from mistakes.
I am currently writing about their mutual misperceptions.
One source of their misperceptions is Western ignorance of Chinese history, language, and culture. China's history is vast so Chinese leaders might see or draw from parallels which Westerners do not see because of their ignorance of Chinese history.
How would two powerful Chinese states despite fear, distrust, hatred,or anger avoid war and grow peacefully together? That IS a part of Chinese history, there ARE lessons to be learned.
It is true that the western elites are greedy, self-interested, and then some. I am not. So I am poor. I guess I must be stupid!
ECONOMICS
I think poverty causes wars: people starving may feel they have no choice, and may also be more easily manipulated by their so-called leaders. But its mostly mistrust, fear, hate, and (resulting) miscalculation that causes wars.
The great majority of people want wealth. Marx believed greed caused wars: War for profit is the way Marx thought of war. However, wealth does not cause poverty, just the opposite. I'm not poor because other people are rich. The entire western system is built around the desire of most people for wealth.
It is materialist to recognize the material basis of wealth: raw materials.
It is also labor theory of value to see that wealth arises out of labor. Raw materials, worked into finished products.
Unfortunately most Western or at least American economists stupidly reject the labor theory of value, which is one of the ideas that Adam Smith and Karl Marx both believed. Happily, the labor theory of value and modern machines and other inventions mean that even with limited resources many people can become wealthy. Inventions and innovations do in fact create greater wealth.
THE WESTERN ECONOMY
The entire Western economy is built on lending money at interest. That really makes no sense to me. Yet that is the case.
However, the Western economy is not built on monopolistic dominance. Bankers and generals are not sitting down at a table plotting out how to enslave China. Capitalist domination is less intensively networked and finer. It's lots of small decisions by many similar actors rather than a few decisions by a vicious greedy tightly controlled imperialist general staff.
It is more effective, I think, to distinguish among the various wealthy countries, rather than treating them as all alike.
Monopolies "naturally" occur because of economies of scale and network effects. Monopoly tends to be more efficient. All the modern liberal capitalist states seek to do is to make sure the monopoly does not abuse market dominance. Consumer protection is the logic of contemporary anti-trust law. This is really different from: generals and priests and bankers sitting around a table figuring out how to split up africa and take all the wealth they can.
Japan and Britain both have few resources but because they could not be easily invaded and conquered were able to build a strong economy. Hard work is more productive than slavery or thievery, which is why capitalism abolished slavery and doesn't go around launching wars to seize resources anymore. China had no exploitation wars yet was able to become rich or at least no longer facing literal famines because production is more profitable than war.
HOLLYWOOD
Why would hollywood make a film about Mulan?
1. The USA has the world's fourth largest Chinese population. Feel free to call us 美洲 I'm fine with it!
Don't be upset: Hollywood is the greatest propaganda machine in history. There is money to be made and a world to win! The first animated mulan was good, the second sucked and the live action version also sucked. Holywood makes films for a global market.
I expect Chinese film studios as they keep growing will make films in Chinese language about Western myths and legends. Cultural production is partly from the heart, partly from heritage, partly for money.
Cultural production definitely has political influence (not power). Power = Force, Influence = Persuasion, attraction. Don't discount influence, it is more important than power since power is sharp but rigid whereas nuance is flexible.
Empty spots of any myth are marketing opportunities!
I am not greedy but try to understand those who actually make art to make money.
PREDICTIONS FOR THE FUTURE
I remain of the opinion the world will grow closer together with even greater trade and cross border investment: we are more greedy than fearful, and more greedy than hateful. It takes fear and hate to make war. Most wars result from mistakes:miscommunications, misperceptions, and inaccurate estimations of relative power and the objective facts of war, not greed. More than one politician has imagined war to be an easy solution to any problem, a magic weapon, and that is often magical thinking. One more prediction:
UKRAINE WILL WIN!
What was I saying about the USA and Humint?