We are a country of performance as opposed to substance (which perhaps explains the preponderance of superb actors). Thus, the need to substantially increase defense spending to counter Russia has barely entered the national consciousness too. Often it seems like the UK exists in a constant state of wilful amnesia.
Yes, it is a country of contending fever-dreams. The British have a genius for form, which is generally admirable, but it increasingly distracts us from questions of substance.
You've probably heard Stephen Kotkin's revelation after years trawling through the Soviet archives and studying Stalin: "the Communists were, in fact, Communists."
there's an interesting article in the NS by Daniela Gabor which is related to this:
"In order to counter China, the West is beginning to adopt the communist state’s strategies: targeted protectionism, supply-side interventions, public investment and industrial subsidies. The Western consensus around free and open markets, limited government intervention and the private sector’s ultimate preferability when it comes to the allocation of capital is over."
To some extent it is copying China, yes, but I think to some extent it is just belatedly trying to address some of the consequences of globalisation and free market theology. Dani Rodrik treats it as a new paradigm, "productivism."
"Perhaps, it is here that one should locate the "danger" of capitalism: although it is global, encompassing the whole worlds, it sustains a stricto sensu "worldless" ideological constellation, depriving the large majority of people of any meaningful "cognitive mapping." The universality of capitalism resides in the fact that capitalism is not a name for a "civilization," for a specific cultural-symbolic world, but the name for a truly neutral economico-symbolic machine which operates with Asian values as well as with others, so that Europe's worldwide triumph is its defeat, self-obliteration, the cutting of the umbilical link to Europe."
In Canada, our national security has identified at least a dozen sitting MPs as Chinese assets, but our current govt won't arrest them, let alone reveal their identities. China has been using Canada (Vancouver especially) for their fentanyl trade with cartels, and our govt is in on it, our banks are in on it, the US won't share intelligence with us anymore, and our relationship with the US overall has gone to shit because we're basically in the middle of a proxy war. Our leftist leadership has been sympathetic with China for quite some time — Justin Trudeau is infamous for saying publicly how much he "admires China's basic dictatorship" — and since our left and your left are part of the whole crumbling globalist thing I'm sure it's not that different with your govt over there. China doesn't get the attention it deserves because of the concerted effort of our leaders to let it graft itself perniciously and with impunity onto our institutions.
It's one of those situations that you see at many other moments in history – a big rising power spreading its tendrils into the affairs of lots of other states – and you think, well that's inevitable, just how power works. But then you see it happening in real time in your own country and the process is actually quite corrupt and shameful.
İ wonder if it's got something to do with a form of power that, relatively speaking, is less overtly violent? İ mean, it's been equally extractive, hasn't it?
Also, could it be that in some sense China is just an extension of western power (capitalist development)? N.S. Lyons, China Convergence, is good on this. İn that sense China's dominance isn't really a threat to global capitalism but just a shuffling of the cards.
My position would probably be that China has risen within (and has been facilitated by) a global capitalist framework, but that it has also massively transformed global capitalism in the process. Haven't read much Lyons but the parallels between the US, in particular, and China are striking. China's model does not fit within the "neoliberal" paradigm in my opinion, but aspects of its society and culture (like the emphasis on personal responsibility) do.
I don't know much about China but I'm somewhat sceptical of the idea that it's massively transformed capitalism (except in scale and speed). In both the east and west there's an emphasis on bureaucracy (Graeber, Rules), tech, productivity, a focus on growth (& a disregard for the environmental consequences), quantification, ‘control’/surveillance.
That is all true. But I think the role played by the Chinese state, and especially the Party, is quite unique and unprecedented (which is not to say the Western precursor was a "free market" or anything).
Partly agree. I think the state has been ‘involved’ in capitalist development during colonialism, the glorious thirty years and in different ways our neoliberal era (Mirowski, ‘Crisis’). Again, I'm sure there are sharp differences but I do wonder if there's a desire by some to distance themselves from China by positing an essential difference based on individuality and/or freedom.
The interesting thing is how capitalism seems to be compatible with different political systems.
You are right that many in the west want to believe that the Chinese system is more different than it actually is, mainly because they don't want to acknowledge the forces at work in their own system. There's certainly no necessary link between capitalism and liberalism or democracy, and in fact, prior to the post-war era, many saw them as irreconcilable.
A similar misconception about parity is found in America’s motion picture industry chasing film release quota slots in China in exchange for altering the content of films to meet CCCP requirements. The industry trumpeted the export of American values into that market through film as a net positive, but really it was abandoning those same values (free speech and other human rights causes) to chase revenue deemed too critical to pass up.
This is basically it. And an open society can’t defend itself when it’s opened up to closed ones, and rights don’t work if you don’t enforce obligations, and tolerance doesn’t work when it invites intolerance. And so on, and so on.
I feel like all my life I’ve been watching our elites not only refuse to learn these lessons, but deny there are any lessons to learn at all.
Agreed. In hindsight it appears so obvious, but there was a lot of ideology at work, people believing blindingly (and demanding that others believe) rather than looking.
"... America, empire of spectacle" -- very apt.
Seems we've chosen virtual ephemera over productive realia.
We're inventive and incautious.
Realia – you have just taught me this word, and it's a very useful one! Thank you.
We are a country of performance as opposed to substance (which perhaps explains the preponderance of superb actors). Thus, the need to substantially increase defense spending to counter Russia has barely entered the national consciousness too. Often it seems like the UK exists in a constant state of wilful amnesia.
Yes, it is a country of contending fever-dreams. The British have a genius for form, which is generally admirable, but it increasingly distracts us from questions of substance.
We forgot they were communist. Never forget that communists are communist.
You've probably heard Stephen Kotkin's revelation after years trawling through the Soviet archives and studying Stalin: "the Communists were, in fact, Communists."
Wessie,
there's an interesting article in the NS by Daniela Gabor which is related to this:
"In order to counter China, the West is beginning to adopt the communist state’s strategies: targeted protectionism, supply-side interventions, public investment and industrial subsidies. The Western consensus around free and open markets, limited government intervention and the private sector’s ultimate preferability when it comes to the allocation of capital is over."
To some extent it is copying China, yes, but I think to some extent it is just belatedly trying to address some of the consequences of globalisation and free market theology. Dani Rodrik treats it as a new paradigm, "productivism."
"Perhaps, it is here that one should locate the "danger" of capitalism: although it is global, encompassing the whole worlds, it sustains a stricto sensu "worldless" ideological constellation, depriving the large majority of people of any meaningful "cognitive mapping." The universality of capitalism resides in the fact that capitalism is not a name for a "civilization," for a specific cultural-symbolic world, but the name for a truly neutral economico-symbolic machine which operates with Asian values as well as with others, so that Europe's worldwide triumph is its defeat, self-obliteration, the cutting of the umbilical link to Europe."
---Zizek.
In Canada, our national security has identified at least a dozen sitting MPs as Chinese assets, but our current govt won't arrest them, let alone reveal their identities. China has been using Canada (Vancouver especially) for their fentanyl trade with cartels, and our govt is in on it, our banks are in on it, the US won't share intelligence with us anymore, and our relationship with the US overall has gone to shit because we're basically in the middle of a proxy war. Our leftist leadership has been sympathetic with China for quite some time — Justin Trudeau is infamous for saying publicly how much he "admires China's basic dictatorship" — and since our left and your left are part of the whole crumbling globalist thing I'm sure it's not that different with your govt over there. China doesn't get the attention it deserves because of the concerted effort of our leaders to let it graft itself perniciously and with impunity onto our institutions.
It's one of those situations that you see at many other moments in history – a big rising power spreading its tendrils into the affairs of lots of other states – and you think, well that's inevitable, just how power works. But then you see it happening in real time in your own country and the process is actually quite corrupt and shameful.
haha ah god, I know. I might not mind so much if the tendrils weren't from such a hostile, sneaky, censorious nation
İ wonder if it's got something to do with a form of power that, relatively speaking, is less overtly violent? İ mean, it's been equally extractive, hasn't it?
Also, could it be that in some sense China is just an extension of western power (capitalist development)? N.S. Lyons, China Convergence, is good on this. İn that sense China's dominance isn't really a threat to global capitalism but just a shuffling of the cards.
My position would probably be that China has risen within (and has been facilitated by) a global capitalist framework, but that it has also massively transformed global capitalism in the process. Haven't read much Lyons but the parallels between the US, in particular, and China are striking. China's model does not fit within the "neoliberal" paradigm in my opinion, but aspects of its society and culture (like the emphasis on personal responsibility) do.
I don't know much about China but I'm somewhat sceptical of the idea that it's massively transformed capitalism (except in scale and speed). In both the east and west there's an emphasis on bureaucracy (Graeber, Rules), tech, productivity, a focus on growth (& a disregard for the environmental consequences), quantification, ‘control’/surveillance.
That is all true. But I think the role played by the Chinese state, and especially the Party, is quite unique and unprecedented (which is not to say the Western precursor was a "free market" or anything).
Partly agree. I think the state has been ‘involved’ in capitalist development during colonialism, the glorious thirty years and in different ways our neoliberal era (Mirowski, ‘Crisis’). Again, I'm sure there are sharp differences but I do wonder if there's a desire by some to distance themselves from China by positing an essential difference based on individuality and/or freedom.
The interesting thing is how capitalism seems to be compatible with different political systems.
You are right that many in the west want to believe that the Chinese system is more different than it actually is, mainly because they don't want to acknowledge the forces at work in their own system. There's certainly no necessary link between capitalism and liberalism or democracy, and in fact, prior to the post-war era, many saw them as irreconcilable.
A similar misconception about parity is found in America’s motion picture industry chasing film release quota slots in China in exchange for altering the content of films to meet CCCP requirements. The industry trumpeted the export of American values into that market through film as a net positive, but really it was abandoning those same values (free speech and other human rights causes) to chase revenue deemed too critical to pass up.
It's a simple point but free trade doesn't work with a partner who doesn't believe in it.
This is basically it. And an open society can’t defend itself when it’s opened up to closed ones, and rights don’t work if you don’t enforce obligations, and tolerance doesn’t work when it invites intolerance. And so on, and so on.
I feel like all my life I’ve been watching our elites not only refuse to learn these lessons, but deny there are any lessons to learn at all.
Agreed. In hindsight it appears so obvious, but there was a lot of ideology at work, people believing blindingly (and demanding that others believe) rather than looking.