3 ms·

This all works fine right up until China invades Taiwan. As we've seen with Brexit and Trump, nationalism trumps economics. America is having a hard time toler

This all works fine right up until China invades Taiwan. As we've seen with Brexit and Trump, nationalism trumps economics. America is having a hard time tolerating a growing China, and frankly, China is worth opposing. It had been hoped their growing middle classes would lead to demand for a more liberal government, but that hasn't happened, and instead the CCP sees Western liberal ideas as a kind of alien mind virus which must be extirpated. Another cold war with local hotspots looks almost inevitable.

londons_explore 6y ago
Would China invade anywhere with strong US backing... I doubt it! The most aggression we'll see is covert secret service actions, disinformation campaigns, cyber war, etc. They'll never dare drop real bombs.
- barrkel 6y ago
  Let's talk again in 20 years. See e.g. https://www.storm.mg/article/2971332 https://www.storm.mg/article/2971332
nostrademons 6y ago
It'll be interesting to see how this evolves over time. Nationalism in its modern (post-1865) form is a product of technology + economics. The U.S. before 1865 was a relatively lose confederation of states: this is enshrined in the 10th amendment (now largely forgotten, but which reserved all powers not explicitly delegated to the federal government or people "to the states"), and indeed in the word "state". Same thing in other nations like Germany and Italy: before 1871 these were independent states like Prussia, Bavaria, Saxony, Hanover, Brandenburg, Westfalen, Bohemia, Sardinia, Tuscany, Venetia, Florence, etc. The driver for national unification was largely industrialization. New technologies like the railroad, telegraph, steel-making, mass production, etc. gave large advantages (particularly on the battlefield) to larger political unions that could draw on the labor of many regions and specialize. Political bodies that didn't adopt these technologies got rolled. The North likes to view the American Civil War in terms of slavery, and the South likes to view it in terms of states rights, but fundamentally it was a clash between the industrial system in the North vs. the plantation system in the South. And just like Brexit and Trump are doing now, the South fought viciously to preserve their self-determination and way of life, but the industrial system was just more efficient. Right now, we're seeing protectionist lip-service. My iPhone is still made all over the world, my employer still makes a majority of its money in foreign countries, I still have to compete with foreign buyers when buying a home (though it's better now than it was in 2015-2018). It'll be interesting to see what happens if there's a serious threat to that. We had a previous era of globalization in 1900-1914 that ended with WW1 - but arguably that was because the world wasn't ready for it, and globalization was entwined in the lives of the rich but not the common people. Now there's a significant number of people who are largely unaware of how dependent their lifestyles are on globalization, and I'm curious what'll happen if it's actually threatened.
- baybal2 6y ago
  Beautiful observation, I for long claimed, and been looked upon like a madman too for that, that the universal access to communication will for the first time allow for creation of a "supranational" state, and obsoletion of nation states. Take a good look. Back in 2012, people were genuinely thinking that Zuckerberg was going to run for the election. And they rightly though that if facebook was for example post "Go Vote Zuck" on the frontpage, he might've well won.
- mullingitover 6y ago
  > The North likes to view the American Civil War in terms of slavery, and the South likes to view it in terms of states rights Minor nitpick, but the Confederacy viewed slavery as the cornerstone of their government[1]. Those who now claim the Civil War was about 'states rights' are engaging in simple, brazen revisionism. > In what’s now known as the “Cornerstone Speech,” Stephens told a Savannah, Ga., crowd in 1861 that “our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas [as those of slavery foes]; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.” [1] https://www.csmonitor.com/Books/chapter-and-verse/2015/0708/The-famous-1861-Cornerstone-Speech-that-aimed-for-hard-truths-about-the-Confederate-battle-flag#:~:text=In%20what's%20now%20known%20as,the%20white%20man%3B%20that%20slavery%2C https://www.csmonitor.com/Books/chapter-and-verse/2015/0708/...
- marvin 6y ago
  This was a very fascinating read and elegantly generalizes some truths that I've been only vaguely aware of. History and warfare is more often in effect a brutal and bloody competition between societies' efficiency. This has implications for how the future could look that go far beyond what seems most "reasonable", what looks most like the past and what will make each individual person feel best. It doesn't necessarily have to be war - it could also happen through peaceful but intense competition and trade.

londons_explore 6y ago

Would China invade anywhere with strong US backing... I doubt it! The most aggression we'll see is covert secret service actions, disinformation campaigns, cyber war, etc. They'll never dare drop real bombs.

barrkel 6y ago
Let's talk again in 20 years. See e.g. https://www.storm.mg/article/2971332 https://www.storm.mg/article/2971332

nostrademons 6y ago

It'll be interesting to see how this evolves over time. Nationalism in its modern (post-1865) form is a product of technology + economics. The U.S. before 1865 was a relatively lose confederation of states: this is enshrined in the 10th amendment (now largely forgotten, but which reserved all powers not explicitly delegated to the federal government or people "to the states"), and indeed in the word "state". Same thing in other nations like Germany and Italy: before 1871 these were independent states like Prussia, Bavaria, Saxony, Hanover, Brandenburg, Westfalen, Bohemia, Sardinia, Tuscany, Venetia, Florence, etc. The driver for national unification was largely industrialization. New technologies like the railroad, telegraph, steel-making, mass production, etc. gave large advantages (particularly on the battlefield) to larger political unions that could draw on the labor of many regions and specialize. Political bodies that didn't adopt these technologies got rolled. The North likes to view the American Civil War in terms of slavery, and the South likes to view it in terms of states rights, but fundamentally it was a clash between the industrial system in the North vs. the plantation system in the South. And just like Brexit and Trump are doing now, the South fought viciously to preserve their self-determination and way of life, but the industrial system was just more efficient. Right now, we're seeing protectionist lip-service. My iPhone is still made all over the world, my employer still makes a majority of its money in foreign countries, I still have to compete with foreign buyers when buying a home (though it's better now than it was in 2015-2018). It'll be interesting to see what happens if there's a serious threat to that. We had a previous era of globalization in 1900-1914 that ended with WW1 - but arguably that was because the world wasn't ready for it, and globalization was entwined in the lives of the rich but not the common people. Now there's a significant number of people who are largely unaware of how dependent their lifestyles are on globalization, and I'm curious what'll happen if it's actually threatened.

baybal2 6y ago
Beautiful observation, I for long claimed, and been looked upon like a madman too for that, that the universal access to communication will for the first time allow for creation of a "supranational" state, and obsoletion of nation states. Take a good look. Back in 2012, people were genuinely thinking that Zuckerberg was going to run for the election. And they rightly though that if facebook was for example post "Go Vote Zuck" on the frontpage, he might've well won.
mullingitover 6y ago
> The North likes to view the American Civil War in terms of slavery, and the South likes to view it in terms of states rights Minor nitpick, but the Confederacy viewed slavery as the cornerstone of their government[1]. Those who now claim the Civil War was about 'states rights' are engaging in simple, brazen revisionism. > In what’s now known as the “Cornerstone Speech,” Stephens told a Savannah, Ga., crowd in 1861 that “our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas [as those of slavery foes]; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.” [1] https://www.csmonitor.com/Books/chapter-and-verse/2015/0708/The-famous-1861-Cornerstone-Speech-that-aimed-for-hard-truths-about-the-Confederate-battle-flag#:~:text=In%20what's%20now%20known%20as,the%20white%20man%3B%20that%20slavery%2C https://www.csmonitor.com/Books/chapter-and-verse/2015/0708/...
marvin 6y ago
This was a very fascinating read and elegantly generalizes some truths that I've been only vaguely aware of. History and warfare is more often in effect a brutal and bloody competition between societies' efficiency. This has implications for how the future could look that go far beyond what seems most "reasonable", what looks most like the past and what will make each individual person feel best. It doesn't necessarily have to be war - it could also happen through peaceful but intense competition and trade.