4 ms·

The story back in the ancient history of ~1989->2021 was our free open liberal system was so obviously superior that we were just going to wait around for China

by themgt 3y ago

The story back in the ancient history of ~1989->2021 was our free open liberal system was so obviously superior that we were just going to wait around for China to realize their dumb mistake and join us at the end of history. Their great firewall would cripple their economy until then. The new story is we're copying China's tactics because China did it first and it works great. I mean, sure, go with that. But it doesn't negate the irony.

j0ba 3y ago
Nonsense. A free and open system does not require foreign adversaries to be given free access to manipulate and control the population. That's not an open system, that's pure stupidity.
tristor 3y ago
> The story back in the ancient history of ~1989->2021 was our free open liberal system was so obviously superior that we were just going to wait around for China to realize their dumb mistake That story worked out fine until US companies started sending all their IP over to China for manufacturing which resulted in 3 key outcomes that broke the initial strategy: 1. It funded and supported the buildout of China's manufacturing base. China now has the best manufacturing base in the world, and in some cases is the only place in the world certain things can be feasibly made. 2. It guaranteed an export market for Chinese goods which helped to drive their economic engine. 3. It allowed unfettered industrial espionage. There is a reason that nearly every product in existence has a Chinese clone/counterfeit available within a week of launch. The strategy failed, because the Great Firewall only keeps information out of China that the government wants kept out of China, but any other information goes in, but it prevents pretty much all information from flowing out. Firewalls are not binary, they are tunable with policy, and the Chinese government has historically had a strong strategy and nuanced policy, which has allowed them to see great economic success despite reducing freedom of information. Fundamentally, it's economics that drives the rise and fall of governments.
- intrasight 3y ago
  > US companies started sending all their IP over to China That's how capitalism works. And it worked extremely well and to most everyone's benefit.
gretch 3y ago
We're copying china's tactics wrt CHINA specifically (and other foreign adversaries) This is not the same thing as copying China's approach to the world Reciprocation is rational and good
falleng0d 3y ago
Sorry but reciprocation is not copying. This is basic game theory. A 'tit for a tat'.
23B1 3y ago
There's no irony in realpolitik.
- sudosysgen 3y ago
  The rejection of realpolitik is at the core of modern liberalism (indeed, in international relations, liberalism is antipodal to realism which is realpolitiks namesake), so the irony persists.
  - 23B1 3y ago
    That's... a fair point.
  - alickz 3y ago
    > The rejection of realpolitik is at the core of modern liberalism why do you believe so? i see no reason why rationalism and political pragmatism are mutually exclusive with liberalism. in fact to me it seems they complement each other well
    - sudosysgen 3y ago
      Realpolitik and rationalism are not the same thing. Realpolitik is the idea that politics (esp. international politics) is ultimately dominated by power politics where each actor is trying to maximize their power and self-interest, and is generally an idea of the realist school of politics While that might arguably be compatible with liberalism within a society where there is a relatively benevolent monopoly of power imposing a certain number of rights and rules molding the self-interest of all in such a way as to be compatible with civilization, within the international system there is no monopoly of violence, and therefore norms and rights are contingent on countries not acting purely in their self-interest and therefore to maximize their power. Since modern liberalism is inherently internationalist (arguably since Woodrow Wilson, some called his approach to diplomacy "idealpolitik"), modern liberalism does have to reject realism as a school of thought. The debate between liberalism and realism as it pertains to international politics is the main topic of contention in international relations theory. More generally, you can also argue that liberalism assumes the good faith of powerful people not to destroy the liberal system to maximize their own power, but this is far easier to argue against in the domestic setting than in the international setting.
mjamesaustin 3y ago
Reciprocation is actually the policy more likely to get China to open up. As long as they can impose rules on US companies with impunity, while we stand back and give them free reign in our market, they have a zero likelihood of compromising.
janalsncm 3y ago
I don’t see this as reciprocation, I see it as a continuation of an existing policy that requires US media to be owned by Americans. I do agree with you though that the capitalism=democracy experiment was a pretty obvious failure. You can have pretty free markets with or without democracy. The US emerged from the Cold Wa with ideological battle scars which prevent us from doing what’s best for the people because that might be communism. We are gradually finding out that concentrated corporate power is potentially an even greater threat.

by themgt 3y ago

j0ba 3y ago

Nonsense. A free and open system does not require foreign adversaries to be given free access to manipulate and control the population. That's not an open system, that's pure stupidity.

tristor 3y ago

> The story back in the ancient history of ~1989->2021 was our free open liberal system was so obviously superior that we were just going to wait around for China to realize their dumb mistake That story worked out fine until US companies started sending all their IP over to China for manufacturing which resulted in 3 key outcomes that broke the initial strategy: 1. It funded and supported the buildout of China's manufacturing base. China now has the best manufacturing base in the world, and in some cases is the only place in the world certain things can be feasibly made. 2. It guaranteed an export market for Chinese goods which helped to drive their economic engine. 3. It allowed unfettered industrial espionage. There is a reason that nearly every product in existence has a Chinese clone/counterfeit available within a week of launch. The strategy failed, because the Great Firewall only keeps information out of China that the government wants kept out of China, but any other information goes in, but it prevents pretty much all information from flowing out. Firewalls are not binary, they are tunable with policy, and the Chinese government has historically had a strong strategy and nuanced policy, which has allowed them to see great economic success despite reducing freedom of information. Fundamentally, it's economics that drives the rise and fall of governments.

intrasight 3y ago
> US companies started sending all their IP over to China That's how capitalism works. And it worked extremely well and to most everyone's benefit.

gretch 3y ago

We're copying china's tactics wrt CHINA specifically (and other foreign adversaries) This is not the same thing as copying China's approach to the world Reciprocation is rational and good

falleng0d 3y ago

Sorry but reciprocation is not copying. This is basic game theory. A 'tit for a tat'.

23B1 3y ago

There's no irony in realpolitik.

sudosysgen 3y ago
The rejection of realpolitik is at the core of modern liberalism (indeed, in international relations, liberalism is antipodal to realism which is realpolitiks namesake), so the irony persists.
- 23B1 3y ago
  That's... a fair point.
- alickz 3y ago
  > The rejection of realpolitik is at the core of modern liberalism why do you believe so? i see no reason why rationalism and political pragmatism are mutually exclusive with liberalism. in fact to me it seems they complement each other well
  - sudosysgen 3y ago
    Realpolitik and rationalism are not the same thing. Realpolitik is the idea that politics (esp. international politics) is ultimately dominated by power politics where each actor is trying to maximize their power and self-interest, and is generally an idea of the realist school of politics While that might arguably be compatible with liberalism within a society where there is a relatively benevolent monopoly of power imposing a certain number of rights and rules molding the self-interest of all in such a way as to be compatible with civilization, within the international system there is no monopoly of violence, and therefore norms and rights are contingent on countries not acting purely in their self-interest and therefore to maximize their power. Since modern liberalism is inherently internationalist (arguably since Woodrow Wilson, some called his approach to diplomacy "idealpolitik"), modern liberalism does have to reject realism as a school of thought. The debate between liberalism and realism as it pertains to international politics is the main topic of contention in international relations theory. More generally, you can also argue that liberalism assumes the good faith of powerful people not to destroy the liberal system to maximize their own power, but this is far easier to argue against in the domestic setting than in the international setting.

mjamesaustin 3y ago

Reciprocation is actually the policy more likely to get China to open up. As long as they can impose rules on US companies with impunity, while we stand back and give them free reign in our market, they have a zero likelihood of compromising.

janalsncm 3y ago

I don’t see this as reciprocation, I see it as a continuation of an existing policy that requires US media to be owned by Americans. I do agree with you though that the capitalism=democracy experiment was a pretty obvious failure. You can have pretty free markets with or without democracy. The US emerged from the Cold Wa with ideological battle scars which prevent us from doing what’s best for the people because that might be communism. We are gradually finding out that concentrated corporate power is potentially an even greater threat.