[Donna]

His point is, if the Chinese people's living standards aim so high it will result in a single-polar world because the world will not be enough for them.

His point is simply wrong. We would still have a multi-polar world situation.

[Unthinking Majority]

We would still have a multi-polar world situation.

If China's GDP per capita rose to 30k per person or higher, they would be much more richer than the USA that I don't think it would be a multipolar world anymore. Their goal is hegemony. Having 1.5 billion people and a skyrocketting economy means by mid-century it will be interesting to see how the world shakes out. In 50 years there's little reason to think they won't be the hegemon.

[Donna]

If China's GDP per capita rose to 30k per person or higher, they would be much more richer than the USA that I don't think it would be a multipolar world anymore. Their goal is hegemony. Having 1.5 billion people and a skyrocketting economy means by mid-century it will be interesting to see how the world shakes out. In 50 years there's little reason to think they won't be the hegemon.

We're not really talking about just the US, but also the integration of European and Asian markets into the same counter-Sino bloc.

Uni-polar domination of the world is outmoded and belongs to a period in history when the geological unevenness of capitalist development was more pronounced.

[late]

China has a history of collapsing into chaos and violence.

That's what China is running from..

They have ambitions, to be sure, but mostly they are doing trade and diplomatic efforts like BRI and Silk Road.

Here's the long and short of it.. we will still trade with China, they will continue to grow and expand their influence. We will need to find ways to get them to play by the rules.

Europe, and some other countries want to band together to lean on China about the virus. If our president was a total idiot, he would be leading them.

[Atlantis]

Europe, and some other countries want to band together to lean on China about the virus. If our president was a total idiot, he would be leading them.

Isn't that the opposite? Europe wants to cooperate with China, while the US is going for confrontation to defend its hegemony.

[Unthinking Majority]

We're not really talking about just the US, but also the integration of European and Asian markets into the same counter-Sino bloc.

Uni-polar domination of the world is outmoded and belongs to a period in history when the geological unevenness of capitalist development was more pronounced.

The US has been a uni-polar hegemon for the last 30 years.

[Donna]

The US has been a uni-polar hegemon for the last 30 years.

It was a uni-polar power for about 60 years following WWII, but that trend has been in decline and giving way to multi-polarity for almost two decades now.

[Patrickov]

It was a uni-polar power for about 60 years following WWII.

False. USSR. Communism. It's only that they were inferior (in execution) and they lost.

[Donna]

False. USSR. Communism. It's only that they were inferior (in execution) and they lost.

lol @ Cold War narratives. The USSR was always an underdeveloped, isolated and contiguous bloc that offered more of a multi-polarity in ideas/ideology than of a global socioeconomic order.

[Patrickov]

The USSR was always an underdeveloped, isolated and contiguous bloc that offered more of a multi-polarity in ideas/ideology than of a global socioeconomic order.

Which renders the statement "United States being a uni-polar power since WW2" false. The mere existence of USSR means at least between 1945 and 1990 the world was at least bi-polar and United States was just "one of them".

[Potemkin]

Which renders the statement "United States being a uni-polar power since WW2" false. The mere existence of USSR means at least between 1945 and 1990 the world was at least bi-polar and United States was just "one of them".

Quoted for truth. The generation born after the end of the Cold War don't seem to have any understanding of just how successful the Soviet Union was as a geopolitical rival to the US. For a couple of decades after the end of WWII, it looked like the Soviet Union was going to sweep the world. The US started the Cold War in 1948 out of a sense of desperation.

[Donna]

Which renders the statement "United States being a uni-polar power since WW2" false. The mere existence of USSR means at least between 1945 and 1990 the world was at least bi-polar and United States was just "one of them".

Not really. Whether economically, militarily or technologically the Soviet Union was never able to catch up to the United States (though it did succeed in economically and militarily modernizing) and culturally it was arguably more advanced. When we talk about multi-polarity today it is entirely about the discourse that exists around Chinese economic development since the 1990's, a dynamic that was never achieved by the Soviet command economy. Furthermore it includes the substantive tension between different modes of market-driven development, whereas the Cold War narrative was more about creating a premise to domestically suppress the workers' movement in the US.

[Unthinking Majority]

It was a uni-polar power for about 60 years following WWII, but that trend has been in decline and giving way to multi-polarity for almost two decades now.

It was a multi-polar world pre-1945. 1945 to 1991 it was bipolar (US vs USSR). Post-1991 (post-USSR collapse) it was uni-polar, or in George Bush Sr's words "a new world order". Rise of China it's becoming bipolar again. Read any International Relations textbook it will tell you this. The most stable system is unipolar.

[Unthinking Majority]

Not really. Whether economically, militarily or technologically the Soviet Union was never able to catch up to the United States (though it did succeed in economically and militarily modernizing) and culturally it was arguably more advanced. When we talk about multi-polarity today it is entirely about the discourse that exists around Chinese economic development since the 1990's, a dynamic that was never achieved by the Soviet command economy. Furthermore it includes the substantive tension between different modes of market-driven development, whereas the Cold War narrative was more about creating a premise to domestically suppress the workers' movement in the US.

https://www.e-ir.info/2011/02/17/the-po ... ary-times/

[Godstud]

Most stable for who?

USA. 10 Wars since 1990. Real stable...

I think you are VERY biased.

[Unthinking Majority]

We're not really talking about just the US, but also the integration of European and Asian markets into the same counter-Sino bloc.

I hope there becomes a western bloc to counter China. It doesn't seem to have happened yet. Militarily yes, with NATO, but China isn't going to dominate the world using conventional military means. Right now they're trying to gain power via economics, and there's no unified western economic bloc.

[Unthinking Majority]

:lol: Most stable for who?

USA. 10 Wars since 1990. Real stable...

I think you are VERY biased.

I'm not talking about the USA i'm talking about worldwide. There's no proxy wars in Africa or Latin America anymore, or the constant real threat of nuclear annihilation.

[Patrickov]

It was a multi-polar world pre-1945. 1945 to 1991 it was bipolar (US vs USSR). Post-1991 (post-USSR collapse) it was uni-polar, or in George Bush Sr's words "a new world order". Rise of China it's becoming bipolar again. Read any International Relations textbook it will tell you this. The most stable system is unipolar.

But uni-polar also has its problems. Actually China's problem is exactly that it is extremely uni-polar internally. (In contrast, US is internally bi-polar while Europe, and to a lesser extent, the UK, are internally multi-polar)

I do not mind a multi-polar world but I expect at least the pole which influences me the most be reasonable and just, which China is not.

[Donna]

I hope there becomes a western bloc to counter China. It doesn't seem to have happened yet. Militarily yes, with NATO, but China isn't going to dominate the world using conventional military means. Right now they're trying to gain power via economics, and there's no unified western economic bloc.

There definitely is an American-led economic sphere (read: CETA, TPP, NAFTA, etc.)

[Godstud]

The Second Libyan Civil War, Paraguayan People's Army insurgency, the Ukrainian crisis, and the Syrian conflict are American proxy wars, @Unthinking Majority. That's only since 2011, too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_proxy_wars


USA just moved the location of proxy wars. It never stopped them.