China as Global Hegemon - Doesn't Seem Likely

.... finally a topic completely relevant to this list (and the IPE one) and one
which I actually have time to make a contribution to; i will do so cautiously
(these are some of my thoughts)

I believe the idea of China as a global hegemon, in the manner of, say, the
United States or Britain, during the past 200 years, or so - how long has it
been, exactly? - seems in the short-term (say, 25 years) improbable. I am
possibly one of the more peculiar marxist-existentialists (i had to throw
existentialist in - indulge me) who believe that we have been beaten by systemic
capitalist forces (for a number of reasons, including endogenous factors) and
that there appears to be very little chance, in the next 50-75 years, at least,
that a credible Marxist state/organisation/institution (or socialist order, for
that matter) will attempt to move us into an epoch that is not determined by the
price mechanism, or by capitalist orthodoxy - in short, we're @#$%ed.

Having said that, it is my understanding that the USA and its capitalist allies
(with limited support from its marginal ideological opponents, in Europe and
Scandinavia) have created most of the institutions of global governance. Through
these institutions - physical and non-physical - global capitalist hegemony,
cutural hegemony, or global capitalist orthodoxy (or the liberal international
economic order, as Gilpin, based on his understanding of Modelski, would call
it)...however one wishes to name the beast,  may well continue to prevail for
the next several decades; in other words, the outcomes have been guaranteed.

There appears to be very littled evidence that China is trying to assert itself
in global (ideological, or power) struggles (at least not in the international
forums that I have encounered them; China seems more concerned with becoming
like the west, in terms of industrialisation and capitalist expansion; it seems
more concerned with joining the clubs (organisations and institutions) created
under western/US hegemony .

On another level (this may seem reductionist, or change the level of analysis,
somewhat, but...) one ought not under-estimate the value (and power) of the two
main languages of global capitalist orthodoxy - English and
Corporo/Techno-speak, which is essentially derived from English. Sure, there are
more people that speak other languages in the world, but we don't see the
English-speaking world learning Chinese (other than among specialists, or people
"interested in different cultures"), or Hindi, or Bahasa, or Tagalog, or Zulu
(would be interesting to know what the trajectory of Spanish in the United
States looks like)  I am not, here, promoting the primacy of the English
language... I think the nomenclature of global capitalist orthodoxy is
essentially English; and the Chinese want to be part of that.

To conceive, therefore, of China as a global hegemony, is easy, only in
abstraction, or in theory - china wants to join the global capitalist community.
Whether it will dominate economically after about 50 years, or so, may be
another story, but there is every indication that China might (then) be a
capitalist behemoth.

This is the first time I have spent more than 20 minutes on a WSN/IPE, or PSN
forum response... would love to hear feedback/criticism.

Ismail (the views in this message are, of course, my own and do not reflect
those of the institution that employs me - for another three months, that is)


Ismail Lagardien
World Bank Institute
J4-163
1818 H Street
Washington DC
20433
USA

202 473 9603

Visit the World Bank Institute's Website
http://www.worldbank.org/wbi/