In a previous article, "Is the USA in 'irreversible decline'?" I argued that China was unlikely to supplant the USA as global hegemon any time soon.

(See: http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13872)

I qualified this by writing:

>>I am using the word "China" to mean China under the current Communist Party regime.>>

And went on to write:

>>It is always possible that China, like Taiwan and South Korea before it, morphs from dictatorship into a decent democracy. If that happens all bets are off. ...>>

Here is a contrary argument from Foreign Policy Magazine:

POSTCARD FROM THE FUTURE THE 75 MOST DYNAMIC CITIES OF 2025

(http://www.foreignpolicy.com/cities_issue )

>>Our special issue dedicated to the cities of the future has its eye squarely toward China, because the cities of the future are increasingly going to be speaking Mandarin -- even more than you realize….In an exclusive index for FP, the McKinsey Global Institute has run the numbers to produce what we're calling The 75 Most Dynamic Cities of 2025 -- an extraordinary 29 of which are in China….Europe, meanwhile, will manage only three cities on the list by 2025; the United States finishes second to China -- a very distant second -- with 13. Still think that debate about Western decline is overblown?>>

See especially:

Cities of the Future: Made in China

>>From traffic-jumping buses to electric taxis, China is at the forefront of the world's flashiest urban innovations.>>

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/08/13/cities_of_the_future_made_in_china

In my article I also wrote:

>>In many ways America's worst enemy is America>>

If we look at the current US presidential campaign nobody is discussing the issues raised by the Foreign Policy piece. They're just recycling the old sterile sound bites. America real is America's worst enemy.

Come to think of it, this pretty well describes Australian politics as well.

>>If the speed of China's rise has been astonishing, it's about to get even faster. A Chinese construction firm has pioneered a modular construction technique that allows it to build energy-efficient skyscrapers in a matter of weeks, ...>

Steven like that well known lover of all things American, Bob Carr, I have an interest in this.
In fact have once tried to launch a thread on the matter, rejected.
I had gone too far in defending Americas right to defend its self/kill its enemy's.
I care not who is to become the worlds economic leader, almost as little for its super powers of the future.
I care however that America has so many street people, that so many of them once served in its military.
That universal health care can be seen as unnecessary, that a Nation with the greatness to land on Mars with all that meant, values money more than those it eats up.
Yet if it falls and the wrong nation rises?
America may well look like heaven in compassion.

Belly wrote:

>>Yet if it falls and the wrong nation rises?
America may well look like heaven in compassion.>>

I appreciate your point but I'm trying to keep the moral judgments out of this.

The question I'm posing is not:

"Is it desirable that China supplants America."

It is:

"Will China supplant America?"

And I want to emphasise yet again that I am using "China" as shorthand for "China ruled by the current authoritarian regime."

If China, morphs into a decent democracy, as have Taiwan and South Korea, then I think it probably will supplant the US. But then, from the Australian perspective, it will not really matter.

Sorry Steve will leave you to it and try not to invade your fixed opinion threads again.

Dear Steven,

Centuries ago, Napoleon commentated that China
was a "sleeping giant, and when she wakes, she will
shake the world." Much the same could be said today.

China is now irrevocably embarked on the path to
modernisation. Yet China has a long way to go.
For example, in rural areas where electricity is available,
peasant families, even now, are often permitted only
one 25-watt bulb a year to light their homes.

China is still determinedly socialist and authoritarian.
It will be interesting to see how far the country will
stray from the socialist path and whether economic
liberalisation will in turn lead to political
democratisation.

Predicting the future is not easy - the best that can be said
is that given China's size and potential, it's economic
future will undoubtedly be of world historical significance.

I think China will probably break up.

She has been great before, but could not maintain cohesion, & disintegrated. I think today the pressures for this are greater than ever before.

With the advance of the internet, & millions of migrant workers seeing for the first time, the inequalities between different areas on the country, I doubt break up, or extreme civil strife can be avoided.

In the US there is the perception, & probably the fact, that anyone can make it. This is obviously not the case in China, & unless it becomes in fact possible, disruption is bound to occur.

Well Napoleon got it right. We must now ask what type of world has the historically insular China awoke to? China finds herself now the largest producer of manufactured goods, surpassing the US a year ago.

Her prosperity depends on the global trade network, consisting of global trade agreements , a global fiscal policy, a global banking system, a global transport and handling system. These are all managed, directed and owned by the European Banking Cartels.

These Cartels have all first world nations house trained, but can they house train China, whose culture has been homogeneous for all the time they have been a people.

Morris Strong has been one of the Cartels key agents over the past 30 years and right now he is operating in China under the auspices of Peking University. He is also on the Asia Security and Sustainability board.

We will see if they can subjugate the Chinese as easily as they did us. I can’t see it, but greed and consumerism are not just Caucasian traits.

China has a relatively well educated population that has sacrificed liberty and freedoms for a rapid increase in the standard of living.

Growth rates of 8-10% p.a. are fantastic, but probably sustainable only in the short term. China's cheap labour is now not as cheap with wages rising in some sectors by 20% p.a. and manufacturing jobs are moving to India, Vietnam, the Philippines etc.

The danger is as China's growth slows, the people will be less inclined to tolerate the oppression and corruption, and the threat to China may well be from within.

Militarily, it is also not the only emerging super power. India (a firm ally of the US) shares a border is nuclear, and has a large well trained army. If the push for Japan to re arm succeeds, China will be surrounded by considerable forces that are happy with the status quo.

I don't see China emerging as the new hegemon, rather as one of several giants.

Shadow Minister wrote:

>>Growth rates of 8-10% p.a. are fantastic, but probably sustainable only in the short term.>>

China's growth already seems to be slowing.

Rapidly growing manufacturing productivity across the world is making labour costs less and less relevant compared to, say, logistics costs. I think the era in which countries can use disciplined low-wage labour to leverage their way to prosperity may be coming to an end.

The Chinese leadership are well aware of this. I think they understand the next phase of Chinese growth will be harder.

>>India (a firm ally of the US) shares a border is nuclear, and has a large well trained army>>

I wonder whether the Indians will be able to hold it together. In 1947 the Indian sub-continent split into India and Pakistan. then Pakistan split with the emergence of Bangladesh.

I seriously wonder whether India may split between North, South and East.

Note, both Japan and China have rapidly aging populations.

On the whole I think a war with China is unlikely. Countries with aging populations rarely go to war.

It is always possible that China does morph into a fairly decent democracy. That would be the optimal outcome.

If the USA nationalises the US Federal Reserve and ends the wars of imperialism created by the Banking Military Industrial complex,then they will rise again.

Steven,
I subscribe to a range of blogs and news sites from all over the world, mostly ethno Nationalist in their views, from India to Israel to South Africa to Europe and the United States the general outlook is that multiracial societies are not working.
The great experiment, South Africa's "Rainbow Nation" probably only has weeks or at most months to live, India is in turmoil over Assam and the myriad other ethnic and religious problems they have over there, Israel is once again seeing race riots and violence against African migrants. ...rinse and repeat for Syria, Egypt, Libya, Sudan, Nigeria and the U.S.A.
I doubt China is immune to these issues, for the time being they are just better at covering it up.

Dear Steven,

In the last conversation on this topic and this one you are making an assumption that is both yet to be proved and actually stands a good chance of being wrong.

When you say “It is always possible that China, like Taiwan and South Korea before it, morphs from dictatorship into a decent democracy.” and thus contend it is the only way for China to surpass the US in the foreseeable future, you don't seem to be able to entertain the thought that China's one party system and its managed capitalism may well be the most efficient way of attaining global dominance yet concocted by humans.

Three of the top dozen companies in the world are run by the Chinese government. The Communist party structure has allowed it to wield power and advance the country much like a board of directors in a company might. This communist/capitalist combination may well prove to be the vehicle to take China to unsurpassed global dominance within the next two decades. Yet you still questioned it.

Globalization, the unfettering of multi-national companies, the diminution of democratic state power all have contributed to a playing field ripe for a China Inc.

The notion that capitalist/democracy/freedom are inseparable has been a fallacy espoused by the US and its presidents since the Republic began. We shouldn't make the same mistake.

csteele

You are making the mistake of assuming that when I talk about China morphing into a decent democracy I mean they become a carbon copy of the US.

I mean nothing of the sort.

Actually I think US democracy has become dysfunctional and that is the biggest problem facing the US.

You are also making the mistake of assuming that because there is no free media in China we can form a reasonable picture of what problems China and Chinese people face. We can't.

We know all about the problems of the US precisely because they have a free media. Many people make the mistake that because we don't see the same, often coruscating, reports from China these issues do not exist.

We also need to recognise that the US is a multi-ethnic, multi-racial, multi-religious and multi-cultural society. China has a variety of ethnicities but is mostly run by Han Chinese. I wonder how they will cope with greater pluralism. If Falun Gong is anything to go by, not well.

My gut feel says to me that an overly authoritarian regime running a modern pluralistic society reliant on high tech is not sustainable.

We shall see what we shall see

Dear Steven,

I think you might be constructing straw men here.

You wrote;

“You are making the mistake of assuming that when I talk about China morphing into a decent democracy I mean they become a carbon copy of the US“

Not at all. I think the 'mistake of assuming' is yours, possibly understandable as the title of your thread reads "Is the USA in 'irreversible decline'?". However you clearly mentioned South Korea and Taiwan and these were the examples I had in mind when you spoke of democracies. I even quoted the passage in my post.

My last sentence was about the US being the most vocal proponents of the idea of that capitalism, democracy and freedom go hand in hand. I agree their version has indeed become dysfunctional.

You also wrote;

“You are also making the mistake of assuming that because there is no free media in China we can form a reasonable picture of what problems China and Chinese people face. We can't.”

I made no such assumption. You are confusing what is in the interests of the ordinary Chinese with what will make the nation the most powerful in the world within the next 20 years. Democracy may obviously better serve the former but my contention is the latter may well be best realised through a communist leadership husbanding a strident capitalism.

However I will make the point again, free media or not I see incarceration rates as a not inconsequential indicator of what a system needs to do in order to maintain itself. The US would appear to be the least sustainable by this measure.

Cont...

Cont...

What I do see as a huge strength of China is its diaspora. As conduits for Chinese interests both business and political these will prove to be incredibly valuable.

I have for many years felt Singapore, with its faux democracy was a harbinger of China's future and to a degree ours. Both solidly one-party states benefiting from stable and often dictatorial leadership. Singapore has the third highest GDP per capita. Its powerful government businesses buy up what we sell off, look at Singapore's stake in OPTUS. Just image what China will be capable of doing when it hits its stride.

Proper democracy is expensive in resources and efficiency. It requires nurturing from both the people and their governments plus some acceptance that it can sometimes hinder progress. Our governments of both stripes have been busily shovelling into the maw of globalisation the power we ordinary citizens once had to control our destiny and that of our nation.

China is showing us that capitalism and democracy are not strict bedfellows. The danger for us is that our leadership does not have the imagination yet to properly decouple them. If we want our democracy protected then it needs to happen soon or a nation tenant farmers and miners on tonnage rates could well be our future.

I was surprised Michael that you seem to have adopted a business as
usual stance on this matter.
Surely energy depletion will change the situation dramatically for a
nation like China with a majority of very poor people.

Western countries can go down the depletion curve more or less evenly.
In China those at the bottom are already there, it will be the rest
that will be affected dramatically.