3 ms·
> I've done two quick passes over this transcript, and a theme stands out to me: Thiel and company repeatedly claim that there is no meaningful difference betwe
by slibhb 6y ago
> I've done two quick passes over this transcript, and a theme stands out to me: Thiel and company repeatedly claim that there is no meaningful difference between the Chinese military and individual Chinese nationals who work for American companies, because China is essentially a fusion state where the government dictates the flow of capital. In this account, America is supposed to be distinct: there is a clear division between capital and state, and the US government (overwhelmingly) does not interfere with capital interests. I don't think this is particularly accurate (in either direction), but that's the claim that I see staked out.
The fact that Google and other companies have declined to work with the US government in various capacities proves that there's a distinction to be made here. Do you ever hear about Huawei declining to work with the Chinese government because of its treatment of the Uighurs?
Of course there's no bright line. There is intermingling between US private companies, US defense industry, and US government/military. But that doesn't mean you can't make a distinction between the situation in the US and the situation in China.
> So my question: what gives? The latter is very explicitly a "fusion" (i.e., Chinese) approach to state and capital; isn't that exactly what the Thiel and paleoconservative types are claiming to be against? Is there some inner logic to this that I'm not perceiving, or is this all just Kissinger-style realpolitik?
There's an element of realpolitik, i.e. Thiel doesn't seem to be explicitly against a "fusion." He's arguing that a "fusion" exists in China and not in the US.
The inner logic you appear to be missing is "the United States is an open society" and "China is a closed society". Again, a bright line can't be drawn. But isn't it true that the US is more open than China?
- warkdarrior 6y agoThe question is not whether China is more open than US or vice-versa. Rather the question is what is Thiel's argument? Should US move to be more like China? Or should US try to push China to be more like US? It seems that he is in support of US becoming more like China, in order for US to be competitive or whatever.
- kgantchev 6y agoI think his argument is that we shouldn't just let the US companies essentially work for the Chinese government, while they're seeking to be conscientious observers in the US. In other words, we should do more to block the Chinese government's efforts and he's not arguing that we should do what the Chinese government is doing.
- slibhb 6y agoThe idea that the US is better than China seems key to Thiel's perspective. Many people simply do not accept that idea, they protest that the US is just as bad as China, or there's no meaningful distinction between the two in moral terms. My point was that, if you want to understand Thiel, you have to understand that value judgement. I don't think that Thiel is "in support of US becoming more like China," though I understand where you're coming from. His argument is that China is a closed society where industry and research are subservient to the state. He's saying that Americans should voluntarily pursue their national interest, not that they should be subservient to the state. In Thiel's perspective there is a distinction here: it's the distinction between convincing someone and forcing them.
- toiletfuneral 6y agoIf your basic position is everything the us gov does is ultimately justifiable because it contrast with an enemy, I'm not sure any of this rationalization is worth the effort. Just be up front and say you're a fucking nationalist who doesn't give a shit about our citizens, you're just scared of our economic elite losing hegemony.
- api 6y ago> Do you ever hear about Huawei declining to work with the Chinese government because of its treatment of the Uighurs? No, of course not, which is why we can feel somewhat proud of America as comparatively freer than China.