America seems to think that, just because they were the global hegemon, that any rising power also seeks hegemony by military power.
Historically, this is supported by the post-Cold War context: the Warsaw Pact, NATO, and US enforcement of the Monroe Doctrine maintained American dominance in the West.
But then, the USSR collapsed. It’s a new world, old man.
It’s the projection of hegemonic capitalist imperialism, that can’t see things through any other lens than capitalist imperialism. It’s so hegemonic that even most of the non-wealthy see it this way, be they “conservative,” “liberal,” or even “ultra-leftist”.
Yes. They are Marxist, from their founding through today, with everyone from peasants to school children studying some of the most advanced political science developed to date. This understanding of the world concludes that global hegemony is unsustainable and leads to total social collapse. There are other ways to succeed that don’t inherently involve failure. China has no interest in failing in the exact same way Western Europe and the USA are failing. They have no interest in building an empire that will, by all analysis, collapse. They want to build something better, not equally terrible.
I’ve followed the developing belt and road initiative and it works like this:
China invests in various countries’ infrastructure to expand trade capacity. So far the only criticism the western media has leveled at it is that it is supposedly a debt trap. And the big evidence for that is Sri Lanka’s port. However, the majority of Sri Lankan debt is held by Western banks. The Chinese loan was not at a higher interest rate. Yet somehow, China is to blame?
In what way do you consider the BRI to be a hegemonic project?
That’s a very naive take. Even if BRI was only meant for trade - so much influence on trade necessarily means that China will have greater political power over included countries. The debt trap thing is also true - the westerners noticed it because they employed the same tactics to gain influence over other countries. These are pretty hegemonic things to do.
America seems to think that, just because they were the global hegemon, that any rising power also seeks hegemony by military power.
Historically, this is supported by the post-Cold War context: the Warsaw Pact, NATO, and US enforcement of the Monroe Doctrine maintained American dominance in the West.
But then, the USSR collapsed. It’s a new world, old man.
It’s the projection of hegemonic capitalist imperialism, that can’t see things through any other lens than capitalist imperialism. It’s so hegemonic that even most of the non-wealthy see it this way, be they “conservative,” “liberal,” or even “ultra-leftist”.
Is there any evidence that China wouldn’t want to be a hegemon?
Yes. They are Marxist, from their founding through today, with everyone from peasants to school children studying some of the most advanced political science developed to date. This understanding of the world concludes that global hegemony is unsustainable and leads to total social collapse. There are other ways to succeed that don’t inherently involve failure. China has no interest in failing in the exact same way Western Europe and the USA are failing. They have no interest in building an empire that will, by all analysis, collapse. They want to build something better, not equally terrible.
Removed by mod
5 words:
Past, recent past, near future, and the next in line.
Removed by mod
The whole One Belt One Road initiative?
I’ve followed the developing belt and road initiative and it works like this: China invests in various countries’ infrastructure to expand trade capacity. So far the only criticism the western media has leveled at it is that it is supposedly a debt trap. And the big evidence for that is Sri Lanka’s port. However, the majority of Sri Lankan debt is held by Western banks. The Chinese loan was not at a higher interest rate. Yet somehow, China is to blame? In what way do you consider the BRI to be a hegemonic project?
Because China bad duh, go away tankie
That’s a very naive take. Even if BRI was only meant for trade - so much influence on trade necessarily means that China will have greater political power over included countries. The debt trap thing is also true - the westerners noticed it because they employed the same tactics to gain influence over other countries. These are pretty hegemonic things to do.
Removed by mod
Yes, just look at the BRI compared to the US interventions in the global south