Re: China as Global Hegemon - Doesn't Seem Likely

        I would have to agree with this post on China's short-term
prospects and those of the world-system as a whole.  China seems clearly
embarked on a project similar to Khrushchev's USSR 40 years ago, except
that it is buying more than 50% into the Western capitalist way of doing
business.  The result is expanding production and rising standards of
living.  But the Western model assumes Western preconditions:  virtually
unlimited supplies of cheap clean energy, raw materials, industrialized
agriculture, and competitive advantage, together with relatively low
fertility rates and relatively high levels of mass education, especially
in areas such as science, engineering, and management.  Much of
eastern and southern China has done well with what it has, but I don't
think it can keep driving down the same road indefinitely.  Environmental
constraints are likely to kick in.  Already China is a food-importing
country.  The greater the volume of its manufacturing output and diversion
of labor from farm to factory, the more acute its food problem will
become.  Meanwhile, its population continues to surge, not at the same
rate as India or many African and other countries, but also nothing like
the demographic situation of, say, Germany.  And unlimited supplies of
cheap clean energy are rapidly becoming a thing of the past.  Nor are the
United States, Europe, and Japan taking a nap to allow China to "catch
up."  Forecast (and beware of forecasts!):  over the next 50 years, China
will not catch up and may even fall further behind, China will not imperil
the hegemons of the world-system militarily, and the whole world-system
will be paralyzed and perhaps will implode as the consequence of its
multiple internal contradictions.

        Cheers,

        Warren   

On Thu, 1 Mar 2001 ilagardien@worldbank.org wrote:

> 
> 
> .... 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/
> 
> 
>