"This is a divine lantern: because all evil men fear it; because it can give the good people prosperity and happiness."
-The Lotus Lantern
I review books about law, politics, economics, history. If you have a book you would like me to review just comment or contact me.
Free eBooks this week (more follow later in the text)
Claim your free eBook this week and let us know what you think. Write a review here.
“A man's head is not like a scallion, which will grow again if you cut it off; if you cut it off wrongly, then even if you want to correct your error, there is no way of doing it.” Mao Zedong
Unlike Russia, China does not do blood purges. Putin got himself into this all on his own, and will get out, or not, the exact same way. Poka, sukha!
Word of the Day: encrypt. crypter, cifrar, verschlüsseln, krüpteerima, шифрувати, шифровать, 加密。Example sentence: We encrypt names to protect people. Nous cryptons les noms pour protéger les personnes, Ciframos los nombres para proteger a las personas, Wir verschlüsseln Namen zum Schutz von Menschen, Meie krüpteerime nimesid inimeste kaitsmiseks, Ми шифруємо імена для захисту людей, Мы шифруем имена для защиты людей., 我们加密姓名来保护人们。
Free Law Search Engines and Online Law Dictionaries
I don’t think Putin has Dementia but he is fighting this war far, far worse than the 2014-2015 war. Maybe!
They clearly imagine a stalemate and permanent conflict, a “frozen” conflict. They are Wrong. At some point the Russian central government or the Russian front line will break and run. Not “if” but “when”.
Russias-elite-questioning-Putin’s judgment
Blood Purge in Moscow Rolls On.
Strelkov (Girkin) has been "detained" aka arrested, next interrogation, then he "disappears"
When Joseph Stalin, the leader of the Soviet Union, died in 1953 a power struggle ensued among his top lieutenants to succeed him. After Stalin's death in 1953, several of his closest associates and high-ranking officials in the Soviet government were purged or executed, including Lavrentiy Beria, the head of the secret police and a key member of Stalin's inner circle. Beria was arrested, tried, and executed in 1953, shortly after Stalin's death.
Other members of Stalin's entourage were also purged or marginalized in the years following Stalin's death, including Molotov, Kaganovich, and Mikoyan.
Here’s a list of some of the most prominent members of Stalin's entourage who were killed:
1. Lavrentiy Beria - Head of the NKVD (Soviet Secret Police) and a member of Stalin's inner circle. Arrested, tried, and executed in 1953.
2. Nikolai Voznesensky - Soviet economist and member of the Politburo. He was arrested, tried, and executed in 1950.
3. Nikolai Vozdvishensky - Soviet politician. He was arrested in 1950, charged with anti-Soviet activities, and executed in 1951.
4. Viktor Abakumov - Head of the MGB (Ministry of State Security) and a member of the Politburo. He was arrested in 1951, charged with anti-Soviet activities, and executed in 1954.
5. Sergey Sogomonov - Soviet military commander. He was arrested in 1952, charged with anti-Soviet activities, and executed in 1952.
All this, and more, is happening again in Moscow now. And these are just a few of the Reasons Mao split from Khruschev…
India & Mercantilism
Kotkin
It is perhaps wrong of me to criticize someone so nearly correct. However, the stakes are too high to tolerate simple error.
The Chinese government will choose its own path. However, the path they are likely to choose is one of authoritarian (not totalitarian) nationalism with globalization tendencies (not liberalism).
Kotkin nearly correctly argues there are three self-destructive tendencies in communist states. There are also a couple he missed. Marxist states seek:
abolition of property / capital
abolition of law
abolition of state power
All of which makes building a strong state both necessary and impossible.
Kotkin is willing to presume, or at least speculate, about "after the CCP", without explaining how the CCP would collapse or abolish itself. I suppose he figures the self-destructive ideology is sufficient, or, likelier, he does not want to detail his work for political reasons. I do not expect the the CCP to disappear. It has already survived a century despite purges, famines, civil war, foreign wars (Korea, Vietnam), the great leap forward, and the cultural revolution. Despite all that, the CCP went on to take up policies which resulted in the industrialization of China and led to remarkable growth, in many cases fueled by labor exploitation, unfair trading practices, theft and more theft of blueprints, patents, and trademark infringement. Somehow all that was acceptable to the West, which now has "buyer's remorse": greed blinds.
Although the CCP is very unlikely to collapse it may reform itself into ever greater dictatorship or instead seek a more moderate approach of "mere" authoritarian nationalism. I can imagine CCP governance converging to Western standards throughout the next century.
I expect at its core China will remain a mercantilist, national security isolationist, defensive, reactive authoritarian, party state.
I do not expect China to return to revolutionary self criticism or broad sweeping party purges, especially not blood purges.
I expect ideas like rule of law, human rights, multi-party or non-party local democracy, and "new democracy" can be implemented over what, at core, is authoritarianism mercantlist economic nationalism and a basically isolationist approach to the world. I expect that because these values and rules are in China’s own self-interest.
Most westerners misapprehend China by casting it into the roles of a Western statebecause of their ignorance of Chinese history, culture and language.
The main task of the Chinese state is to prevent Yet Another Chinese Civil War. I talk about that all the time. Partly because no one else is doing so in English. Also because the Chinese government does. The CCP knows full well that it is the ONLY thing standing between China's various nationalities and Yet Another Chinese Civil War and it is right. China historically has serious centripetal forces, namely nationalities, different religions, and foreign countries. The fact the CCP defends against and prevents Yet Another Chinese Civil War legitimates it. But rich white western "know it alls" ignore that fact entirely. The CCP is considered legitimate because not only did it end and prevent further Chinese civil wars it also as a result just-so-happened to be in charge while western suckers dreaming of a billion cokes a day payday stuffed China full of surplus capital. Sure, the West could shatter China's economy! Spark another civil war! Happily we are not monsters. But the Chinese government and the CCP are 100% aware the West could do that, yet will never never say so!
Kotkin basically puts too much of the USSR Leninist CPUSSR and copies it over into the Chinese Communist Party. That ignores or glosses over China’s / Mao’s split with Khruschev, the great leap forward, the cultural revolution, the hundred flowers campaign, and the Chinese war in Vietnam. Kotkin needs a China specialist. Mao pretty clearly rejected Lenin in his later years, seeking instead a mass democracy to prevent capitalist restoration and revisionism. Maybe there are still Leninist influences in the United Front Works Department? Or perhaps at the Ministry for State Security? Otherwise, I just don't see any of the conspiratorial elite vanguard party subject to democratic centralism exercising an all around dictatorship of the proletariat on behalf of the workers and farmers on contemporary China. In contrast, China rejected revolutionary terrorism and overseas military adventures. And we should somehow punish them, because?
China is just not that bad, unlike Russia. Putin’s Russia is a horrible kleptocracy, a criminal regime which fosters conflict and consistent commits war crimes whether in Syria, Ukraine, or Africa. Which is why the “Russian” Federation will be demolished. It's horrible. This is also why China, though a far more serious challenger, will basically go untouched. I expect China to learn many lessons from Putin’s failed smash-and-grab Ukrainian adventure.
The USA and maybe even some of its allies could make trouble for China, yes, in many regions, including even Shanghai. I don't think the USA could get rid of the CCP unless it sparks yet another Chinese civil war (with millions of dead and much lost production) or were it to goad China into trying to invade Taiwan, with the view to seeing it defeated leading to an ouster Galtieri style. Each results in lost production, less wealth, and death. I don't think the USA wants or intends to do the former, and I don't think China intends to fall for the latter. I do think we are stuck with the CCP but also think we can foster further political reform in China. I regard the CCP as a very “hopeful monster”, to be tamed, channeled, and reformed. I agree with Kotkin in supposing that "socialism with Chinese characteristics" is likely preferable to (ultra) nationalist restoration and consequent fascism. I don't think Kotkin has charted out the course for CCP reform. I don't think he wants or intends that. He prefers a docile muted China, one rendered powerless externally by internal conflicts and mal-governance, yet short of civil war or even domestic terrorism. This is an understandable policy but sub-optimal because he doesn't want to help China reform further, he wants to contain them.
Basically Western, especially American, capitalists were very naive and greedy and full of wishful thinking in the 1990s and 2000s. That's over at least. But they also move the goal posts. China is no longer a raving dictatorship on the brink of starvation, more red terror, and/or civil war. Western capitalists and foreign policy elites wanted to get China hooked on property and wealth. They are! But those same Western capitalists and foreign policy elites are now unhappy. It's their buyers remorse: China turned out to be smart, hard working, sharp traders, and Western wishful thinking failed. But, instead of fostering further liberalism to actually help China transform into something like a Western liberal democracy "with Chinese characteristics" they unrealistically seek the ouster of the CCP or at least to contain it and hamstring its growth. Both policies are very foolish, the first since it would not work but would stoke conflicts. The second because it is also under-productive: policies of impoverishment are repulsive. They now seek such policies, yet they could instead actually help China reform politically and legally.
I understand China better than Kotkin and know legal systems thoroughly. Consequently I can more or less outmaneuver him. His isn't a losing or horrible position, hobbling China's economy is possible and probably not dangerous. However, Kotkin's China policy is not optimal, and can't be since it miscasts China somewhat and lacks the legal ideas needed for further real reforms.
Even if the Western capitalists
transform China into a giant California,
and they could, U.S. capitalists would probably STILL be unhappy. They don't really want partners, they want servile obedient cheap labor. Where am I mistaken?
Don't miss out on our free eBook offer this week. After you've read it, we'd love to hear your thoughts. Write your review here.
I don’t ask much:
Just actually live up to your stated ideals.
Why-china-wont-talk-to americas-militaryhow-Xi-Jinping’s-policies-could-lead-China-to economic-implosion
TROIKA…
字 espresso is an excellent resource for learning economic vocabulary in the context of current events. Catharine is head of the Chinese department at the London School of Economics. She's really generous and kind, a great teacher. 加油!
三驾马车 “China's Economy after a Half a Year of the 'Troika" exports and investment
Cribs optional.
Chinas-foreign-minister- Qin Gang goes-missing
amid-peculation-about-his-absence-qin-gang-still-listed-as-china-s-foreign-minister
At worst, house arrest, possibly in camera self-criticism. Maybe demoted? It’s not so much that he took a mistress, had an out of wedlock child as it is he proved to be unable to control her yappy blabby mouth, while fronting for anti-Xi factions.
Oops. Tax audit time! Just because I play for blood, not money, does not mean i don’t recognize others play for money and a few play for both (they generally suck at least at one of them money getting, war, and politics, are distinct skill sets).
You see? I can play for money, but don’t. The lives of others matter more than personal wealth.
Get your free eBook this week and share your thoughts with us! Write your review here. Now with more subtle hints about economic warfare!
TACTICS AND STRATEGY: DETERRENCE AND GAME THEORY
In the face of wrongful or at least undesired behavior by one’s counterpart, tit-for-tat has been mathematically proven(!) to be the optimal strategy in a case of zero sum conflict. Neither escalation nor toleration of wrong acts are optimal strategies in a zero sum conflict such as the sparring over the South China Sea.
Not all political actors are rational, but even rational political actors are constrained by path dependence and suffer from imperfect information. We enjoy only bounded rationality. However, whether dealing with a rational counterpart or irrational opponent we can constrain the set of possible outcomes in a given political interaction to a range of those acceptable to ourselves, some of which will also be acceptable to our counterpart. Thus we can cope and manage our relations despite limitations on rationality, including our own limitations. This is why policies of restraint are often, and I think usually, better than unrestrained unpredictable and extreme policies. No matter how well-informed or rational we, as individuals or our collectives try to be, we lack perfect information in any exchange and may be constrained by path dependent variables like language, education, religion, customs, history, climate, into less than perfectly rational action. Knowing our own limitations explains why prudence, restraint, are generally very good ideas. Furthermore, our counterpart or opponent, observing our restraint is in turn enabled thereby to better predict our possible actions and reactions to their own "moves". Thus, rather than a wild range of actions from terrorism through foreign intervention all the way up to nuclear war, we and our opponent are able to recognize the range of our actions is not so broad, and is both rational and predictable, despite the constraints and bounds under which face all political actors.
I have the impression Dr. Kissinger's mission is going very well.
Although it is true the USA could shatter the Chinese economy that would not be without costs. I do not advocate a policy of ouster of the CCP, neither in the short nor long term. Extreme economic counter-measures are unwarranted and self-destructive. Worse, such counter-measures would not be seen as reflections of tactical issues of military maritime or air patrols. I say all I say all that despite being of the opinion the Wuhan virus was a Chinese bio-weapon which accidentally escaped from one of their two (count 'em, two!) bio-war research labs in Wuhan 武汉 (Martial Han). Wuhan is also a major Chinese shipyard, the world's largest navy didn't come from nowhere. I also say that despite serious repeated Chinese espionage. We are better to meet those threats and challenges tactically than strategically for the same reason we were better to fight the USSR with a cold war rather than a hot one. China can compete with the West economically, but cannot compete militarily since dictatorship and mercantilism repel support.
I believe we can and ought see Kissinger’s mission as having the purpose of securing Dr. Kissinger's reputation and legacy rather than as an attempt at further break-throughs. It is better to make progress, and then consolidate it, rather than try to leap and leap again on ever less secure rocks or stones. Slow but steady progress is preferable to illusory showmanship.
I do not agree with all of Dr. Kissinger's past policies, but hindsight is 20/20. This is the world he and his have greatly shaped. We must secure the progress which was made thereunder and prepare for reforms and adjustments in those areas where his foresight was less than perfect.
Kissinger said something like this: the guiding star of his policies is to secure the long term strategic interests of the United States.
The USA has these long term strategic interests: a free and open world for trade and investment with rule of law and a great global peace. Those goals appear to be common goals of all NATO Member States and also of all EU Member States. The attractive ideas of the global "core", of The EU and ASEAN can and very likely will go on to form a real and enduring global peace thanks to mass instant global communication. China's stated goal, and they do mean it, of building common global prosperity is not inconsistent with any of that. China has discovered, somewhat to their shock and peril, their incapacity to directly or indirectly wage offensive war. The USA has likewise discovered, also with shock, that China can nonetheless out-maneuver it diplomatically in the Middle East, at least so far. Often, it is in the end impossible to oppose good ideas well-implemented.
There have been obstacles, there will be more obstacles. I am entirely confident the attractive power of these good ideas will marshal support, adherence, replication; and that the repulsive alternatives will likewise generate justified resistance, rejection, and ultimately rebellion.
By helping the CCP secure and reform itself China can avoid the worst possible outcomes and continue apace to achieve great things for the Chinese people and indeed the entire planet. We should keep trying.
Neocunts:
Everywhere absolutely everywhere the neocons crazy stupid ideas were implemented turned into "a problem from hell". That’s not an accident. They are NOT “well meaning”. Just read Carl Schmitt or Leo Strauss. The neocons explicitly adopt a policy of lies and half truths in short, all varieties of deception. You can see the results for yourself. They imagined they would turn patriarchal tribal agrarian single product religious societies into ... Sweden.
The funny thing about a deal? It leaves both sides a bit dissatisfied, even though each side got the best deal it could have gotten. Even though both parties to a deal are better off after the deal, neither is completely satisfied. The deal I am offering is far better than the deal you took with the neocons, who wasted 2 or 3 trillion dollars for 20 years of failure after failure. Not only is my plan much less expensive it is far more realistic and thus more effective. Ukraine proves it.