4 ms·

Thanks for the links and references. > but because "we" do. I'd go even deeper and say because "we" want to trade with others and extract resources (oil in ir

by _8j50 3y ago

Thanks for the links and references. > but because "we" do. I'd go even deeper and say because "we" want to trade with others and extract resources (oil in iraq for example) from other countries. But also, it isn't just another world ruler that is the problem. The british empire was in a way "ruling the world" post 1945, but they were allies. The US competing against another power is one thing but competing against another communist power with a completley different and hostile world view is another, because that doesn't just mean economic loss but loss in political influence and an inevitable path toa global conflict between the countries they influence vs the countries the US influences. Japan for example is in Asia and econmically has been a major US competitor. But yes, I don't disagree with what you said. And honestly, whether it is China or Russia, I would much prefer my own government to dominate. The only thing I don't like is how the USGOV arm-twists other countries into accepting its views on human rights and all that, things that are purely an enforcement of the US's values and worldviews on others, but does not benefit US interests one bit. I can't remember if it was an african or east european leader who was saying something on the lines of "the US wants to turn our men homosexual and our women become like men with no respect to our culture and China wants to exploit us..." basically describing how they felt siding with the US meant abandoning their moral, religious and cultural views and siding which China meant taking on a lot of risks such as heavy debt and long term subjuguation to China. But at least China doesn't care about their internal politics at all. All the machetes in the rwandan genoicide were imported from china. In an ironic way, China is more capitalist than the US because they put their capital and economic interests above spreading their communist rhetoric and beliefs. The US just has to export democracy and its view on human rights, even if that has an economic cost or causes wars and conflicts.

somenameforme 3y ago
I don't really think there's any reason to believe the US cares about human rights nor democracy, outside of our utterly cynical rhetoric. But that's a lengthy tangent to what I think is a bigger point here. And that point is that the future does not inherently entail any dominant worldpower. The alternative is a multi-polar world where each nation is largely able to operate, at its own discretion, within its own sphere of influence. In many ways BRICS is an anti-alliance, in that it's an alliance of countries aligned largely in their view that nobody should be the world hegemon. I mean you couldn't really pick a more diverse group of headline nations than Brazil/Russia/India/China/South Africa. They're all just largely united by their disdain for US hegemony. But the thing is, is that the US's role as unifying antagonist there is only because of our desire for hegemony. If we chose to stop trying to be the world ruler, and China took up the mantle, the alliance could again work just as well, perhaps even with the US as a member, against Chinese hegemony. It seems to be a concept much more in tune with reality, rather than e.g. the UN which was just a continuation of the failed League of Nations which was just a continuation of the failed Concert of Europe, and so on.
- _8j50 3y ago
  > I don't really think there's any reason to believe the US cares about human rights nor democracy I'd have to disagree there because the US not only witholds aid but politically assails countries whose laws offend the US. Uganda is a common example of this. Although, I would guess that most of the people on the US side that arm-twist weaker nations do so to get political points state side (like with many HNers who love the idea if undermining other countries laws using technology), but I would imagine there a lot that genuinely believe using US might to "correct" other countries laws much like how colonial powers corrected "the savages" with many missionaries and such having good intent is also probably true today. But as a policy, I would say it is the former, arm-twist them if it scores domestic points. > The alternative is a multi-polar world where each nation is largely able to operate, at its own discretion, within its own sphere of influence That's a very interesting perspective. I think it was actually this way historically. But the thing is, global trade, travel and communication is a thing today. If a country trades with China instead if the US, that's a loss to the US. If China blocks access to shipping routes in the south China sea, that will hurt a lot of US interests. Operating in their own sphere is really hard to make a reality. For example, is China invading Taiwan operating in their own sphere? After all, they used to be the same country. Can TSMC be allowed to fall under China's control? If the US blocks the suez and panama channel for Chinese ships using the superior navy, wouldn't that cripple China? Or would that be telling them that is outside their sphere of influence. The core problem is that at the political and worldview level, the US and China just don't get along. China refuses to leave Taiwan and NK alone and the US refused to accept a communist world power. Look at India, similar in many ways as China, if they prospered like China the US wouldn't be hostile to them, largley because they trade a lot with the US and they have democracy. So long as these conflicts remain, both sides wi continue hostilities. But if the conflicts are resolved, they will be influencing each other with trade and other means. As far as BRICS goes, you will note that all members are powerful enough to fend for themselves. You can see with the Ukraine war that when it comes down to it, you're either a friend or a foe. India trading oil with Russia for example is understandable since they're trying to feed their people after all, but if India sells weapons that's picking a side against the US (not even Ukraine) and China continues being hostile by selling weapons to Russia. Brazil, India and SA by refusing to sell weapons to Russia have picked sides. Neutrality isn't really a thing, they can limit how strong of an ally they are without pissing off the other side but ultimately the hard choices they make determines whose friend they are. > is only because of our desire for hegemony Not really, it isn't just the US but all the 5-eyes and NATO and west europe as a whole that has hegemony. Th US is not hostile to all the BRICS countries just China and Russia. I mean, the soviet union and China/CCP alike also want hegemony. Even today, Chinese operatives work out Cuba, using their influence on Cuba to spy on the US. I think BRICS largley exists because the US alone can't meant the economic neeeds of Brazil, India and SA. Brazil for example can't use only US refineries or survive on only US wheat and other grains and even if they could, they would become subjugated by the US if they didn't maintain alliances elsewhere. > If we chose to stop trying to be the world ruler, and China took up the mantle, the alliance could again work just as well, perhaps even with the US as a member Other countries becoming a democracy has been very beneficial to the US. I would say China would need to get rid of the CCP and become democratic for that to happen. If China was a democracy and got along with India, the US will largley lose hegemony without a fight. But the CCP influencing the world without the US in their way sounds like a nightmare for everyone involved. Keep in mind, even in the US China is more powerful already than any other country or corporation. Sports teams, big corps and even movies and media do what China tells them to do and censor/adapt their products to meet China's demands. China is not better than the US when it comes to leaving others alone, they just have different techniques and they're less overt about it.

by _8j50 3y ago

somenameforme 3y ago

I don't really think there's any reason to believe the US cares about human rights nor democracy, outside of our utterly cynical rhetoric. But that's a lengthy tangent to what I think is a bigger point here. And that point is that the future does not inherently entail any dominant worldpower. The alternative is a multi-polar world where each nation is largely able to operate, at its own discretion, within its own sphere of influence. In many ways BRICS is an anti-alliance, in that it's an alliance of countries aligned largely in their view that nobody should be the world hegemon. I mean you couldn't really pick a more diverse group of headline nations than Brazil/Russia/India/China/South Africa. They're all just largely united by their disdain for US hegemony. But the thing is, is that the US's role as unifying antagonist there is only because of our desire for hegemony. If we chose to stop trying to be the world ruler, and China took up the mantle, the alliance could again work just as well, perhaps even with the US as a member, against Chinese hegemony. It seems to be a concept much more in tune with reality, rather than e.g. the UN which was just a continuation of the failed League of Nations which was just a continuation of the failed Concert of Europe, and so on.

_8j50 3y ago
> I don't really think there's any reason to believe the US cares about human rights nor democracy I'd have to disagree there because the US not only witholds aid but politically assails countries whose laws offend the US. Uganda is a common example of this. Although, I would guess that most of the people on the US side that arm-twist weaker nations do so to get political points state side (like with many HNers who love the idea if undermining other countries laws using technology), but I would imagine there a lot that genuinely believe using US might to "correct" other countries laws much like how colonial powers corrected "the savages" with many missionaries and such having good intent is also probably true today. But as a policy, I would say it is the former, arm-twist them if it scores domestic points. > The alternative is a multi-polar world where each nation is largely able to operate, at its own discretion, within its own sphere of influence That's a very interesting perspective. I think it was actually this way historically. But the thing is, global trade, travel and communication is a thing today. If a country trades with China instead if the US, that's a loss to the US. If China blocks access to shipping routes in the south China sea, that will hurt a lot of US interests. Operating in their own sphere is really hard to make a reality. For example, is China invading Taiwan operating in their own sphere? After all, they used to be the same country. Can TSMC be allowed to fall under China's control? If the US blocks the suez and panama channel for Chinese ships using the superior navy, wouldn't that cripple China? Or would that be telling them that is outside their sphere of influence. The core problem is that at the political and worldview level, the US and China just don't get along. China refuses to leave Taiwan and NK alone and the US refused to accept a communist world power. Look at India, similar in many ways as China, if they prospered like China the US wouldn't be hostile to them, largley because they trade a lot with the US and they have democracy. So long as these conflicts remain, both sides wi continue hostilities. But if the conflicts are resolved, they will be influencing each other with trade and other means. As far as BRICS goes, you will note that all members are powerful enough to fend for themselves. You can see with the Ukraine war that when it comes down to it, you're either a friend or a foe. India trading oil with Russia for example is understandable since they're trying to feed their people after all, but if India sells weapons that's picking a side against the US (not even Ukraine) and China continues being hostile by selling weapons to Russia. Brazil, India and SA by refusing to sell weapons to Russia have picked sides. Neutrality isn't really a thing, they can limit how strong of an ally they are without pissing off the other side but ultimately the hard choices they make determines whose friend they are. > is only because of our desire for hegemony Not really, it isn't just the US but all the 5-eyes and NATO and west europe as a whole that has hegemony. Th US is not hostile to all the BRICS countries just China and Russia. I mean, the soviet union and China/CCP alike also want hegemony. Even today, Chinese operatives work out Cuba, using their influence on Cuba to spy on the US. I think BRICS largley exists because the US alone can't meant the economic neeeds of Brazil, India and SA. Brazil for example can't use only US refineries or survive on only US wheat and other grains and even if they could, they would become subjugated by the US if they didn't maintain alliances elsewhere. > If we chose to stop trying to be the world ruler, and China took up the mantle, the alliance could again work just as well, perhaps even with the US as a member Other countries becoming a democracy has been very beneficial to the US. I would say China would need to get rid of the CCP and become democratic for that to happen. If China was a democracy and got along with India, the US will largley lose hegemony without a fight. But the CCP influencing the world without the US in their way sounds like a nightmare for everyone involved. Keep in mind, even in the US China is more powerful already than any other country or corporation. Sports teams, big corps and even movies and media do what China tells them to do and censor/adapt their products to meet China's demands. China is not better than the US when it comes to leaving others alone, they just have different techniques and they're less overt about it.