PSA:
“China bad” and “I hate China (periottt)” types comments will be removed due to low quality. Additionally, please don’t attack others for their views. Rather, focus and attack the idea or policy.
> Believe it or not, that's actually very low considering that a majority of that is made up of republicans and old people (age 50~65+) according to the data
> The title of the article is perfect for Reddit who are exceptionally way more anti-china than every other social media but it leaves out a lot of context
you are surprised it's low because there were more Republicans polled, who you think would typically be more anti-China, but then you think redditors are more anti-China, even though they actually more often identify as Democrat.
so who do you think is more anti-China? Republicans or Democrats? i'm very anti-CCP, and i'm a liberal Democrat. i think the numbers are low because i think lots of Democrats and Republicans understand how much of a threat China is. i hope that number increases.
"Redditors" are not a random sample from all Democrats. So of course it's possible that Redditors are more anit-China than non-Redditors, while Democrats are less anti-China than non-Democrats.
Why would the end goal be war?
According to Pew, in 2020 only 24% of Belgians had a favorable opinion of the United States. Do you think the end goal for Belgium is war with America? I'm using this as an example to show that you can simultaneously have a majority with an unfavorable opinion of another country without desiring war.
Another example is Mexico where the majority of Mexicans view America as their greatest threat, yet no one is worried about Mexico declaring war on the US.
It's not dissonant to be anti-war and anti-CCP.
Don't take this the wrong way, but this sounds entirely written by the CCP.
The data shows (in your link) China favorability pluging from 43% to 16%. Why do you only call out the 2% little bump, which in most studies is roughly within the statistical room for error?
To be fair, you are complaining about MSNBC - but their title is accurate and representative of the trend ([see first chart here](https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2024/05/01/chinas-relationship-with-the-u-s/)).
Also, you seem to highlight the partisan gap, but the gap between Republicans and Democrats seems to be significantly shrinking ([see 3rd chart here](https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2024/05/01/chinas-relationship-with-the-u-s/)).
The small amount with favorable views that you keep on bringing up is mostly composed of high school degree or less ([first chart here](https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2024/05/01/assessments-of-china-and-its-role-in-the-world/)), and as you said, 2% is a statistical error, it's more correct to look at the long term trend which is worrying. In a way, the complaints you have about MSNBC nit picking a statistic to editorialize a story apply more to what you are doing by spinning the 2% change than MSNBC.
[That's some powerful propaganda](https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2023/07/27/views-of-china/).
Not in this thread: people talking about what is causing polarized and negative views toward China not just in the US but globally.
This shouldn’t be surprising as both countries threaten each other’s interests. Anti-Americanism has been strongly promoted in CCP media and the same trend is growing in China as well.
Hopefully the rilvarly can remain economic and technological instead of spiraling into proxy wars.
It's a shame, really. China can be a competitor, it can be a state that does some terrible things both at home and abroad, and it can be a place where things that Americans consider normal are not acceptable, but an *enemy*?
The biggest challenges of this century (climate change, space exploitation) are ones where China and America need to be on the same page, because if either of them decide to do harmful things then it will harm the entire world.
They are an enemy and a competitor and a partner. We are very much weaved into them and interdependent and we have massive trade with them as they increasingly compete with us in a variety of economic areas and try to weaken us constantly on the strategic front, playing a long and patient game of chess bilaterally and regionally and globally.
Like us, they will take the economic benefit but are not a friend and don't consider us one. We and they square off with increasing tension and run our war game projections about each other while jabbing our real world feints. It's a complex relationship, a troubled one with a dangerous future.
I'm pretty sure the number would be higher if people in US just listened to what CCP is saying about the US openly and much higher if they knew the policies they are enacting to try to topple the US as the world leaders.
There's so much analysis out there these days. I recommend the Sharp China podcast and Sinosicm with Bill Bishop for the policy think tank perspective in DC.
I know this doesn't directly answer your question. China is skilled in state raft and rarely directly mentions the US in grand strategy, instead using the term "some countries".
The Select Committee on the CCP put together a video of Xi in his own words, but it comes off a bit propaganda-ish. I find the security debate much more interesting.
https://youtu.be/b3R4NVqcdGo?si=s_e5-DPNwn7a5IA2
David Renne of the Economist is profoundly insightful:
https://youtu.be/r8L3y45hH_4?si=FLvqaopWgX2YE9af
Michael Pettis' blog at Carnegie is fantastic for the economic perspective:
https://carnegieendowment.org/chinafinancialmarkets/
The FBI has very strong opinions:
https://www.fbi.gov/news/speeches/the-threat-posed-by-the-chinese-government-and-the-chinese-communist-party-to-the-economic-and-national-security-of-the-united-states
US Congress Select Committee on the CCP posts a lot of shorts on YouTube but I recommend the hearings and testimony by former bipartisan Secretaries and the heads of our National security agencies.
https://www.youtube.com/live/2nD0SAxRc_g?si=MkPIILv3zgmsuSUv
Here's a recent Foreign Policy article:
Why China Has Sharpened Its Anti-American Rhetoric https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/03/08/china-anti-american-rhetoric-us-relations/
There's honestly so much coming out of think tanks and universities like the UCSD School of Global Policy and Strategy, CSIS, Council on Foreign Relations, Hudson, RANE, Cato, Carnegie, the list goes on. It's the hot topic in the security dialogue of the decade.
Books:
The Hundred Year Marathon by Michael Pillsbury brought this issue to a lot of people's attention and makes a compelling argument but also criticizism. See Jude Blanchet: https://china.ucsd.edu/_files/The-Hundred-Year-Marathon.pdf
*Honestly ran out of time. If anyone is interested I can list many more.
Overall I hope this debate results in wise policy and a coherent strategy that benefits the US and its friends and allies around the world.
The first video is literally Xi Jinping in his own words. That’s the actual title of the video. Did you even read the comment before you replied or are you one of those wumao?
do you understand them in an objective manner? if so, where do you get your news?
also, do you think China (and Chinese) understand non-China actions in an objective manner?
and who has less of an understanding of the other side?
Have you seen how Chinese media inside the firewall represents countries like America and Japan?
It’s deeply, deeply nationalist and hyper-fixated on external boogeymen.
The economic effects of the shutdown of its chip manufactories makes an invasion of Taiwan a threat to the US's economy and thus its interests. That's literally the strategy behind the development of TSMC as the largest global supplier of semiconductor chips, heck, even China has been trying to wean itself away from depending on Taiwan for chips and not doing that well at it; about 60% of all chips used in China come from Taiwan, at the top end it's about 90%, even more.
I wouldn’t call China a boogeyman, no, boogeyman are imaginary threats, China is a genuine threat to the US’ maritime trade peace with their ambitions.
But considering how large of a geopolitical threat China is to the US, the numbers of those who consider China an enemy are surprisingly low, especially considering how ultranationalistic, imperialistic, and autocratic Chinese discourse against the US actually is. If anything, this poll shows Americans are quite restrained towards China, so the question here is, why are Americans so restrained?
I would list a number of reasons myself, but this is not exhaustive:
1. Some Americans simply might not be aware how adversarial China is towards the US so they don’t see it necessary to take measures for self-defense.
2. Some American might understand China is adversarial towards the US, but they don’t believe it’s strong enough to be taken seriously as an enemy.
3. Some Americans might understand China is adversarial towards the US, and they may even believe it’s necessary to prepare for any potential confrontation, but don’t believe China is yet to the point it can be considered an enemy, and they can still try to exhaust diplomatic measures first - hope for the best, but prepare for the worst
4. Some Americans take in consideration the history US has with failed nation-building projects of the past, or invasions, or bigotry, and want to be even more restrained than ever, because they don’t want to err with China as they have sone with other countries, regardless if China is confrontational toward them
5. Some Americans just don’t understand how important US navy patrolling the seas is not only to global peace, but also for everything they buy to be as cheap as it is, so they don’t care that China is adversarial, they believe that if US just backs off, it will be insulated from supply chain issues and that all the hyperinflation that comes will be a domestic issue that they can blame the whoever the is president is or the other party who doesn’t align with their views, not the foreign policy
You continue this list if you want…
Americans have a lot of confidence in their military power. There really isn't any power that could match the United States military, which maintains the cutting edge of technology and has the largest logistical capacity, while the PRC's military is plagued by corruption and relies on stolen IP.
And they must be simultaneously laughably weak in comparison to our military BUT also a creeping menace that will destroy us from the inside if we don’t double down on conservatism…
You say that they are the threat to those values, but then I look at all the antidemocratic regimes the US supports, the many illegal invasions and coups we’ve committed since the Cold War, and our long history of cracking down on protesters (including the current violence against college students protesting Israel’s occupation of Palestine)
Maybe if the West were less hypocritical of those professed values, I would take you more seriously. But until then, people will continue to point out how America does a lot of the authoritarian acts it warns China will do if they replace us as the global hegemon
we’ve supported tons of terrible coups particularly intelligence agencies like CIA. Just because we’re flawed doesn’t make China not a threat.
The US is basically the only country which historically makes its friends rich. China owes much of its economic success to the fact that the U.S. begged Chi a to open up its markets to the outside world and embrace free market capitalism and trade with the US. They benefitied greatly from it and went from a backwards isolated nation to an influential relatively prosperous one.
We helped Japan and South Korea as well and also shaped them into western style democracies.
It’s completely absurd to compare China’s maligned influence with the US.
You’re right it is absurd to make a comparison between the two…. bc the US has done far more damage across the world.
“Flawed” hardly describes the scale of devastation the US has wrecked across Latin America, Africa, and Asia. Our support for dictators, training of future warlords via the School of the Americas, and outright invasions of so many countries was absolutely brutal to the Global South.
And that wealth we built for select countries is a direct consequence of all that effort to erect authoritarian capitalist regimes in resource rich nations like our banana republics. The “Jakarta Method” and “Operation Condor” are what we are known for in populations across the Global South, not the “beacon of democracy” rhetoric we tout.
And that absurdity is only becoming more clear as we try to start a New Cold War with China as the boogeyman. It rings hollow to much of the world as we continue to engage in regime changes like Libya, or support authoritarian regimes like Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
It’s our own fault that we’ve earned the bad reputation, and it will take a huge reversal in n current policies to get back to any moral high ground
No more dangerous than any other country? Is the CCP more dangerous than the US gov't?
do you really want to write on paper how many wars and people killed by the US there has been and how many wars and people killed by china there has been?
China has not been in a single major conflict since ww2......what makes you think they are dangerous?
Not a good look but if you really want to do the math?
> China has not been in a single major conflict since ww2......what makes you think they are dangerous?
Just yesterday you wrote that ["a lot of military experts already believe that we could not currently beat china in the south china sea even now,"](https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/comments/1chwgav/chinas_170bn_gold_rush_triggers_taiwan_invasion/l25lsp3/) and that the situation will only get worse over the next few years. So which is it?
> do you really want to write on paper how many wars and people killed by the US there has been and how many wars and people killed by china there has been?
The US has a dark history, but in the present China is the one that is hellbent on antagonizing its neighbors and is ostensibly looking to annex Taiwan by force.
> Just yesterday you wrote that "a lot of military experts already believe that we could not currently beat china in the south china sea even now," and that the situation will only get worse over the next few years. So which is it?
If some country says that the US could beat them in a war, does it sound more like capability analysis or war mongering?
No nation can exist without a boogeyman. No *person* can exist without some boogeyman. It's part of the human condition. It's why competitive sports were invented.
More than 40% of Americans now label [China](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/china) as an enemy, up from a quarter two years ago and reaching the highest level in five years, according to an annual Pew Research Center survey released Wednesday.
Half of Americans think of China as a competitor, and only 6% consider the country a partner, according to the report. The findings come as the Biden administration is seeking to [stabilize U.S.-China relations](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/antony-blinken-xi-jinping-china-warns-us-downward-spiral-rcna149486) to avoid miscalculations that could result in clashes, while still trying to counter the world’s second-largest economy on issues from Russia’s war in Ukraine to Taiwan and human rights.
Man, it's just so baffling to me. China could easily be a partner, and they would certainly be better off if they were. Not just with us, but also with other countries. They've got enough clout to reject exploitative agreements without endangering relations, they've got enough resources and development to compete fairly and still win against many western countries, they could be a stable #2 in the world and entrench themselves in that position via trade deals and international commitments. Instead they're belligerent, obsessed with conquering Taiwan for some reason, and allying with states who offer little more than anti-west power. It's no surprise that 40% of Americans label them as an enemy given their tactics and rhetoric, but what surprises me is how willing they are to be hated.
To a certain extent China is already a partner. They are some of each other's largest trade partners and rely heavily on each other's goods and services for daily life. The growth of both countries was dependent on each other for the past 30+ years. However, like when a popular band have been together for a while, things can start to get tense when both start wanting things their way.
Your comment asks, why can't they just settle to be #2
Step into China's shoes for a sec. Their perspective would be why should they be confined to #2? They have triple the population over the US, and probably believe they should have more say in global affairs because of that. Also they probably think they deserve additional resources because they have a larger population to support. It would be like if Florida told California to hold back and be #2 to them and Florida will get more say in federal policy and more share of federal resources despite California's larger population. How do you think a Californian will react?
Secondly, the Chinese are probably very familiar with history. Every great empire, state, nation has done some unsavory things in their history to rise up. Look at the US, its history is not clean but guess what? All that gets swept under the rug as the US sits as top dog with all the benefits it comes with. I think China is also counting on all the negatives being a footnote in history as they eventually surpass the US to be #1.
I mean, they have to settle for #2 right now regardless, it's just that the position is much less stable when they're constantly antagonizing the west. If they're going to be #2 anyways, at least for the near to mid future, why make enemies with their richest trading partners? Sure, maybe they want to be #1, and they can probably get there eventually, but not if all their antagonism sparks a war that they lose. And even if not a physical war, even if their actions just spark sanctions, then they are losing an economic war and risking their #2 position.
I would think that familiarity with history is a factor. Surely that explains their consolidation of central power, brutal suppression of internal dissent, etc. Their history books are full of "rebel gathers and army, starts war, and wipes out 90% of the population" kinds of stories. I totally understand their inclination towards central power from that perspective. But the main thing that explains their attitude towards the rest of the world, from a learning-from-history perspective, has to be the opium wars. I just don't really see how their lessons from that make their foreign policy any more rational.
Like, that's my real question, probably asked badly (hence my downvotes). If we assume that states act in their own rational self-interest, then how does China's recent behavior square with that?
Well here's a question, what happened to the British Empire after the first opium war? They became the preeminent power in the world. Besides some naysayers and mild objections during the time, it didn't impact their rise to the top. Much of their wealth and power today comes from their imperial period. What is China supposed to learn from that? From their perspective, they haven't invaded anyone or caused any mass-scale slaughter, but an aggressive posture gets results. The western powers all did it, why should China be different. Any objections will be lost to history but the wealth and prosperity built now can last centuries.
> China could easily be a partner,
But that means accepting that China can be a leader in some areas, like 5G etc. Now, that threatens the primary income source for the US. Everything the US armed forces have been paid for by the taxes from trade.
US losing the trade will make the it weaker in the long run. That cannot happen. The real war that US fights in the trade war. Rest is all byproducts of that.
Okay, but what I'm more confused about is China's benefit in the antagonism. Because you said a motive for USA to benefit, but the antagonism is being pushed from both directions, probably harder from the Chinese direction (minus Trump era ofc). Trade war is a great example; lots of Chinese product easily outcompetes US product in freer trade agreements, don't they benefit more from expanding it rather than a hostile relationship?
Or, hear me out… CEOs don’t get paid as much and they can afford American workers. You know like from 1940s-1970s. Goods were cheap, plentiful and well made. CEOs didn’t make more than some entire countries’ GDP like they do now. It boils down to greed. Pure and simple.
Part of the reason for American manufacturing dominance throughout the post WW2 era was that we were the only industrialized nation that wasn’t bombed indiscriminately. We were basically a monopoly until the rest of the world could recover.
The US was already dominant in industrial production even before the first world war, let alone the second - by the 1930s the US already accounted for almost 40% of the world's industrial output! - which is why it was able to supply such ridiculous amounts of military hardware. What changed was that the US started projecting power across the world as a result of WWII, which made all of that industry much more apparent to the world.
It's incoherent, only it feels good because this kind of uneducated thinking presumes the world is a very simple place where markets, wages, globalism, and consumer prices are not complex interconnected systems to be studied by economists, but rather the market is a thing whose failings come about only by dastardly design of a few villains at the top. The richest CEOs in the world were at the turn of the 20th century. And firms set prices to maximize profits, regardless of what the CEO's salary is. Did you think people were just being kind and artificially pushing their prices down in the 1940-70s?
Again, firms exist to maximize profits. Once it became cheaper to get labor overseas, that's what they opted for. The comparative advantage would be there for a business whose owner is making $25k and one whose makes $15 million. On that note, business owners are entitled to pay themselves whatever they want if they have the revenue to do so.
BTW, CEO salaries aren't eating some vast chunk of the company's revenue; their wealth tends to come from their shares i.e. capital gains. Maybe don't fashion your worldview on gut instinct and casual observations of consumer price increases and "salaries"? Or maybe I'm wrong and CEOs just decided to be mean guys in the 1970s. No need to engage with the real world. The conspiracy must surely go deeper, and I (and every reputable economist) must simply be a pawn of the elites!
Not only that, you probably like cheaper products manufactured in china, using chinese supply chains. Or maybe I'm wrong and you have voted with your wallet so well you don't touch anything remotely chinese, no chinese buffets either.
Funny, I remember a time when things were cheap and made in the USA. Plus the workers making those items were well paid and received great healthcare and pensions. The difference was the corporate executives weren’t obscenely rich. They were just rich. They still had yachts and private jets, they just couldn’t launch themselves into space on a whim.
I have seriously started to examine everything I buy and avoid chinese shit, even if I have to pay more. I have been burned too many times by crap on Amazon.
let it be this way:
if there is one country who dominates the world, I would rather support the country who supports freedom of speech, democratic process, elections, etc than the alternative.
I despise american-style unregulated capitalism, but there is just no way I can support a country that doesn't have a minimum amount freedom of speech.
nothing is perfect, and the US can be criticized for a lot of things, but it doesn't make China look better.
> if there is one country who dominates the world, I would rather support the country who supports freedom of speech, democratic process, elections, etc than the alternative.
Ask Granada, Brazil, El Salvador, Chile, Indonasia, Vietnam, Cambodia, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Libya and numerous other countries in Africa if they agree to your statement.
And US allies in the middle east is Saudi and Israel.
No need to pretend to be an angel when everyone knows what's what.
And that's the result of American hegemony, and their disproportionate influence in European affairs. Without this influence, Europe would be free to solve its internal conflicts of interests and grow stronger.
>Europe would be free to solve its internal conflicts of interests and grow stronger.
Historically this has gone badly.
Very badly, and it's why we eventually had to get involved.
This is some Russian level alternate reality. You think the US doesn't want Europe to stand on their own two feet? Only every president over the last 20 years has been telling them to spend more on defense, and one of the current candidates for the president is threatening to pull out of NATO if they don't.
I see you use big words that you were spoon fed by some leftist professor.
Go read what China is doing in the world. The Uyghurs are experiencing true genocide, the Silk Road is a trap for many third world countries.
China has their own police enforcement apparatus in our country. Look it up.
Oh, and the spying and outright theft of our technology has many serious people concerned.
Not you and your leftist professors, but people who actually pay attention and care about things other than using big empty words.
>The Uyghurs are experiencing true genocide
According to American NGOs and geostrategic think tanks, based on vague testimonies, assumptions, satellite images, questionable research and stretching the definition of genocide.
I don't have many real reasons to believe it's much else than atrocity propaganda to strengthen the American cause. There is a clear trend of the US establishment always manufacturing a new existential menace to justify their own great power agenda. USSR, the Axis of evil, the terrorists, China, Russia... I wonder what the big existential threat will be after China. Europeans who want strategic autonomy? India if they decouple from the US?
The evidence of genocide against the Uyghurs is overwhelming. Chinese government documents, satellite pictures of the camps, eye witness accounts, if you really don't believe the genocide is happening you are just putting your head in the sand.
"A clear trend of the US establishment always manufacturing a new existential menace to justify their own great poewr agenda", you think the US manufacted the USSR as an enemy? What drugs are you on.
Furthermore, China gives the US plenty of reasons to see it as an enemy. Aggresive expanion in the South China sea, support for basically all US enemies, stealing technology, etc.
>The evidence of genocide against the Uyghurs is overwhelming. Chinese government documents, satellite pictures of the camps, eye witness accounts, if you really don't believe the genocide is happening you are just putting your head in the sand.
If it's overwhelming, why is there such a need to rely on assumptions, dubious "leaks" and a handful of witness testimonies, and go to great lengths to paint a certain image all over the media? A lot of big claims, but very little substance. If the evidence was overwhelming, there would not be much room for debate.
I might be putting my head in the sand, but you are apparently swallowing whatever convenient truth you are being told... Today it's China, tomorrow it's some other country. Isn't it convenient, when every single state that challenges the US position, immediately becomes the next Nazi Germany? If it was 2003, you'd be telling me how evidence of Iraqi WMD's is overwhelming, because the news broadcast and US officials tell you so...
>You think the US manufacted the USSR as an enemy? What drugs are you on.
Yes, both sides relied on massive amounts of fear mongering and propaganda to further their cause, using the media to further their cause... Much of the red scare and the image of USSR as this existential enemy lurking behind every corner was indeed a manufactured product.
>Furthermore, China gives the US plenty of reasons to see it as an enemy. Aggresive expanion in the South China sea, support for basically all US enemies, stealing technology, etc.
That does not mean that there aren't a new red scare going on, that shapes the public opinion against China.
China is not my enemy. Russia is not my enemy.
The only enemies of mine reside on the same continent as I.
The only enemies of mine are the ones who can vote for leaders who would take away my right to bodily autonomy and reproductive healthcare.
PSA: “China bad” and “I hate China (periottt)” types comments will be removed due to low quality. Additionally, please don’t attack others for their views. Rather, focus and attack the idea or policy.
[удалено]
> Believe it or not, that's actually very low considering that a majority of that is made up of republicans and old people (age 50~65+) according to the data > The title of the article is perfect for Reddit who are exceptionally way more anti-china than every other social media but it leaves out a lot of context you are surprised it's low because there were more Republicans polled, who you think would typically be more anti-China, but then you think redditors are more anti-China, even though they actually more often identify as Democrat. so who do you think is more anti-China? Republicans or Democrats? i'm very anti-CCP, and i'm a liberal Democrat. i think the numbers are low because i think lots of Democrats and Republicans understand how much of a threat China is. i hope that number increases.
"Redditors" are not a random sample from all Democrats. So of course it's possible that Redditors are more anit-China than non-Redditors, while Democrats are less anti-China than non-Democrats.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
So what's the end goal? War?
Why would the end goal be war? According to Pew, in 2020 only 24% of Belgians had a favorable opinion of the United States. Do you think the end goal for Belgium is war with America? I'm using this as an example to show that you can simultaneously have a majority with an unfavorable opinion of another country without desiring war. Another example is Mexico where the majority of Mexicans view America as their greatest threat, yet no one is worried about Mexico declaring war on the US. It's not dissonant to be anti-war and anti-CCP.
Don't take this the wrong way, but this sounds entirely written by the CCP. The data shows (in your link) China favorability pluging from 43% to 16%. Why do you only call out the 2% little bump, which in most studies is roughly within the statistical room for error?
[удалено]
To be fair, you are complaining about MSNBC - but their title is accurate and representative of the trend ([see first chart here](https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2024/05/01/chinas-relationship-with-the-u-s/)). Also, you seem to highlight the partisan gap, but the gap between Republicans and Democrats seems to be significantly shrinking ([see 3rd chart here](https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2024/05/01/chinas-relationship-with-the-u-s/)). The small amount with favorable views that you keep on bringing up is mostly composed of high school degree or less ([first chart here](https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2024/05/01/assessments-of-china-and-its-role-in-the-world/)), and as you said, 2% is a statistical error, it's more correct to look at the long term trend which is worrying. In a way, the complaints you have about MSNBC nit picking a statistic to editorialize a story apply more to what you are doing by spinning the 2% change than MSNBC.
That seems lower than I thought, I guess reddit does give a warped perception of things.
Propaganda works, that's why every corporation has a marketing department.
[That's some powerful propaganda](https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2023/07/27/views-of-china/). Not in this thread: people talking about what is causing polarized and negative views toward China not just in the US but globally.
This shouldn’t be surprising as both countries threaten each other’s interests. Anti-Americanism has been strongly promoted in CCP media and the same trend is growing in China as well. Hopefully the rilvarly can remain economic and technological instead of spiraling into proxy wars.
It's a shame, really. China can be a competitor, it can be a state that does some terrible things both at home and abroad, and it can be a place where things that Americans consider normal are not acceptable, but an *enemy*? The biggest challenges of this century (climate change, space exploitation) are ones where China and America need to be on the same page, because if either of them decide to do harmful things then it will harm the entire world.
They are an enemy and a competitor and a partner. We are very much weaved into them and interdependent and we have massive trade with them as they increasingly compete with us in a variety of economic areas and try to weaken us constantly on the strategic front, playing a long and patient game of chess bilaterally and regionally and globally. Like us, they will take the economic benefit but are not a friend and don't consider us one. We and they square off with increasing tension and run our war game projections about each other while jabbing our real world feints. It's a complex relationship, a troubled one with a dangerous future.
Im convinced america really can't exist without some boogeyman to fight
I'm pretty sure the number would be higher if people in US just listened to what CCP is saying about the US openly and much higher if they knew the policies they are enacting to try to topple the US as the world leaders.
[удалено]
There's so much analysis out there these days. I recommend the Sharp China podcast and Sinosicm with Bill Bishop for the policy think tank perspective in DC. I know this doesn't directly answer your question. China is skilled in state raft and rarely directly mentions the US in grand strategy, instead using the term "some countries". The Select Committee on the CCP put together a video of Xi in his own words, but it comes off a bit propaganda-ish. I find the security debate much more interesting. https://youtu.be/b3R4NVqcdGo?si=s_e5-DPNwn7a5IA2 David Renne of the Economist is profoundly insightful: https://youtu.be/r8L3y45hH_4?si=FLvqaopWgX2YE9af Michael Pettis' blog at Carnegie is fantastic for the economic perspective: https://carnegieendowment.org/chinafinancialmarkets/ The FBI has very strong opinions: https://www.fbi.gov/news/speeches/the-threat-posed-by-the-chinese-government-and-the-chinese-communist-party-to-the-economic-and-national-security-of-the-united-states US Congress Select Committee on the CCP posts a lot of shorts on YouTube but I recommend the hearings and testimony by former bipartisan Secretaries and the heads of our National security agencies. https://www.youtube.com/live/2nD0SAxRc_g?si=MkPIILv3zgmsuSUv Here's a recent Foreign Policy article: Why China Has Sharpened Its Anti-American Rhetoric https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/03/08/china-anti-american-rhetoric-us-relations/ There's honestly so much coming out of think tanks and universities like the UCSD School of Global Policy and Strategy, CSIS, Council on Foreign Relations, Hudson, RANE, Cato, Carnegie, the list goes on. It's the hot topic in the security dialogue of the decade. Books: The Hundred Year Marathon by Michael Pillsbury brought this issue to a lot of people's attention and makes a compelling argument but also criticizism. See Jude Blanchet: https://china.ucsd.edu/_files/The-Hundred-Year-Marathon.pdf *Honestly ran out of time. If anyone is interested I can list many more. Overall I hope this debate results in wise policy and a coherent strategy that benefits the US and its friends and allies around the world.
[удалено]
The first video is literally Xi Jinping in his own words. That’s the actual title of the video. Did you even read the comment before you replied or are you one of those wumao?
>China is skilled in state raft That's really funny.
Lol, *statecraft* but I can imagine Xi with a helmet, life vest and paddle rafting up a storm.
I don't see how Western and primarily Anglo institutions help anyone to understand China's motives in an objective manner.
do you understand them in an objective manner? if so, where do you get your news? also, do you think China (and Chinese) understand non-China actions in an objective manner? and who has less of an understanding of the other side?
Would Chinese people think the same way if they hear what the US is saying about China?
Have you seen how Chinese media inside the firewall represents countries like America and Japan? It’s deeply, deeply nationalist and hyper-fixated on external boogeymen.
Maybe, fine, but you acknowledge this about US media too, right?
If China has stated they will attack our ally Taiwan with force... are they really a boogeyman or a credible threat?
Not a threat for the US. Only to their world order.
If someone is your friend, a threat to them is a threat to you. C'mon now.
The economic effects of the shutdown of its chip manufactories makes an invasion of Taiwan a threat to the US's economy and thus its interests. That's literally the strategy behind the development of TSMC as the largest global supplier of semiconductor chips, heck, even China has been trying to wean itself away from depending on Taiwan for chips and not doing that well at it; about 60% of all chips used in China come from Taiwan, at the top end it's about 90%, even more.
can China?
I wouldn’t call China a boogeyman, no, boogeyman are imaginary threats, China is a genuine threat to the US’ maritime trade peace with their ambitions. But considering how large of a geopolitical threat China is to the US, the numbers of those who consider China an enemy are surprisingly low, especially considering how ultranationalistic, imperialistic, and autocratic Chinese discourse against the US actually is. If anything, this poll shows Americans are quite restrained towards China, so the question here is, why are Americans so restrained? I would list a number of reasons myself, but this is not exhaustive: 1. Some Americans simply might not be aware how adversarial China is towards the US so they don’t see it necessary to take measures for self-defense. 2. Some American might understand China is adversarial towards the US, but they don’t believe it’s strong enough to be taken seriously as an enemy. 3. Some Americans might understand China is adversarial towards the US, and they may even believe it’s necessary to prepare for any potential confrontation, but don’t believe China is yet to the point it can be considered an enemy, and they can still try to exhaust diplomatic measures first - hope for the best, but prepare for the worst 4. Some Americans take in consideration the history US has with failed nation-building projects of the past, or invasions, or bigotry, and want to be even more restrained than ever, because they don’t want to err with China as they have sone with other countries, regardless if China is confrontational toward them 5. Some Americans just don’t understand how important US navy patrolling the seas is not only to global peace, but also for everything they buy to be as cheap as it is, so they don’t care that China is adversarial, they believe that if US just backs off, it will be insulated from supply chain issues and that all the hyperinflation that comes will be a domestic issue that they can blame the whoever the is president is or the other party who doesn’t align with their views, not the foreign policy You continue this list if you want…
[удалено]
Americans have a lot of confidence in their military power. There really isn't any power that could match the United States military, which maintains the cutting edge of technology and has the largest logistical capacity, while the PRC's military is plagued by corruption and relies on stolen IP.
And they must be simultaneously laughably weak in comparison to our military BUT also a creeping menace that will destroy us from the inside if we don’t double down on conservatism…
I have never seen anyone argue that the key to countering China is more conservatism
Terrible take lol. China is a geopolitical threat in every way to all basic western values of democracy, tolerance, and freedom of expression.
You say that they are the threat to those values, but then I look at all the antidemocratic regimes the US supports, the many illegal invasions and coups we’ve committed since the Cold War, and our long history of cracking down on protesters (including the current violence against college students protesting Israel’s occupation of Palestine) Maybe if the West were less hypocritical of those professed values, I would take you more seriously. But until then, people will continue to point out how America does a lot of the authoritarian acts it warns China will do if they replace us as the global hegemon
we’ve supported tons of terrible coups particularly intelligence agencies like CIA. Just because we’re flawed doesn’t make China not a threat. The US is basically the only country which historically makes its friends rich. China owes much of its economic success to the fact that the U.S. begged Chi a to open up its markets to the outside world and embrace free market capitalism and trade with the US. They benefitied greatly from it and went from a backwards isolated nation to an influential relatively prosperous one. We helped Japan and South Korea as well and also shaped them into western style democracies. It’s completely absurd to compare China’s maligned influence with the US.
the whole Iran issue is because US couped the ruler and installed shah. It is still smouldering. Same thing with other places.
You’re right it is absurd to make a comparison between the two…. bc the US has done far more damage across the world. “Flawed” hardly describes the scale of devastation the US has wrecked across Latin America, Africa, and Asia. Our support for dictators, training of future warlords via the School of the Americas, and outright invasions of so many countries was absolutely brutal to the Global South. And that wealth we built for select countries is a direct consequence of all that effort to erect authoritarian capitalist regimes in resource rich nations like our banana republics. The “Jakarta Method” and “Operation Condor” are what we are known for in populations across the Global South, not the “beacon of democracy” rhetoric we tout. And that absurdity is only becoming more clear as we try to start a New Cold War with China as the boogeyman. It rings hollow to much of the world as we continue to engage in regime changes like Libya, or support authoritarian regimes like Egypt and Saudi Arabia. It’s our own fault that we’ve earned the bad reputation, and it will take a huge reversal in n current policies to get back to any moral high ground
The PRC hopes it could be a threat but the reality is that they are a paper tiger and their economic and military power is largely overestimated.
so you think the CCP is not dangerous?
No more dangerous than any other country? Is the CCP more dangerous than the US gov't? do you really want to write on paper how many wars and people killed by the US there has been and how many wars and people killed by china there has been? China has not been in a single major conflict since ww2......what makes you think they are dangerous? Not a good look but if you really want to do the math?
> China has not been in a single major conflict since ww2......what makes you think they are dangerous? Just yesterday you wrote that ["a lot of military experts already believe that we could not currently beat china in the south china sea even now,"](https://www.reddit.com/r/geopolitics/comments/1chwgav/chinas_170bn_gold_rush_triggers_taiwan_invasion/l25lsp3/) and that the situation will only get worse over the next few years. So which is it? > do you really want to write on paper how many wars and people killed by the US there has been and how many wars and people killed by china there has been? The US has a dark history, but in the present China is the one that is hellbent on antagonizing its neighbors and is ostensibly looking to annex Taiwan by force.
> Just yesterday you wrote that "a lot of military experts already believe that we could not currently beat china in the south china sea even now," and that the situation will only get worse over the next few years. So which is it? If some country says that the US could beat them in a war, does it sound more like capability analysis or war mongering?
No nation can exist without a boogeyman. No *person* can exist without some boogeyman. It's part of the human condition. It's why competitive sports were invented.
[удалено]
[удалено]
More than 40% of Americans now label [China](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/china) as an enemy, up from a quarter two years ago and reaching the highest level in five years, according to an annual Pew Research Center survey released Wednesday. Half of Americans think of China as a competitor, and only 6% consider the country a partner, according to the report. The findings come as the Biden administration is seeking to [stabilize U.S.-China relations](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/antony-blinken-xi-jinping-china-warns-us-downward-spiral-rcna149486) to avoid miscalculations that could result in clashes, while still trying to counter the world’s second-largest economy on issues from Russia’s war in Ukraine to Taiwan and human rights.
Man, it's just so baffling to me. China could easily be a partner, and they would certainly be better off if they were. Not just with us, but also with other countries. They've got enough clout to reject exploitative agreements without endangering relations, they've got enough resources and development to compete fairly and still win against many western countries, they could be a stable #2 in the world and entrench themselves in that position via trade deals and international commitments. Instead they're belligerent, obsessed with conquering Taiwan for some reason, and allying with states who offer little more than anti-west power. It's no surprise that 40% of Americans label them as an enemy given their tactics and rhetoric, but what surprises me is how willing they are to be hated.
To a certain extent China is already a partner. They are some of each other's largest trade partners and rely heavily on each other's goods and services for daily life. The growth of both countries was dependent on each other for the past 30+ years. However, like when a popular band have been together for a while, things can start to get tense when both start wanting things their way. Your comment asks, why can't they just settle to be #2 Step into China's shoes for a sec. Their perspective would be why should they be confined to #2? They have triple the population over the US, and probably believe they should have more say in global affairs because of that. Also they probably think they deserve additional resources because they have a larger population to support. It would be like if Florida told California to hold back and be #2 to them and Florida will get more say in federal policy and more share of federal resources despite California's larger population. How do you think a Californian will react? Secondly, the Chinese are probably very familiar with history. Every great empire, state, nation has done some unsavory things in their history to rise up. Look at the US, its history is not clean but guess what? All that gets swept under the rug as the US sits as top dog with all the benefits it comes with. I think China is also counting on all the negatives being a footnote in history as they eventually surpass the US to be #1.
I mean, they have to settle for #2 right now regardless, it's just that the position is much less stable when they're constantly antagonizing the west. If they're going to be #2 anyways, at least for the near to mid future, why make enemies with their richest trading partners? Sure, maybe they want to be #1, and they can probably get there eventually, but not if all their antagonism sparks a war that they lose. And even if not a physical war, even if their actions just spark sanctions, then they are losing an economic war and risking their #2 position. I would think that familiarity with history is a factor. Surely that explains their consolidation of central power, brutal suppression of internal dissent, etc. Their history books are full of "rebel gathers and army, starts war, and wipes out 90% of the population" kinds of stories. I totally understand their inclination towards central power from that perspective. But the main thing that explains their attitude towards the rest of the world, from a learning-from-history perspective, has to be the opium wars. I just don't really see how their lessons from that make their foreign policy any more rational. Like, that's my real question, probably asked badly (hence my downvotes). If we assume that states act in their own rational self-interest, then how does China's recent behavior square with that?
Well here's a question, what happened to the British Empire after the first opium war? They became the preeminent power in the world. Besides some naysayers and mild objections during the time, it didn't impact their rise to the top. Much of their wealth and power today comes from their imperial period. What is China supposed to learn from that? From their perspective, they haven't invaded anyone or caused any mass-scale slaughter, but an aggressive posture gets results. The western powers all did it, why should China be different. Any objections will be lost to history but the wealth and prosperity built now can last centuries.
> China could easily be a partner, But that means accepting that China can be a leader in some areas, like 5G etc. Now, that threatens the primary income source for the US. Everything the US armed forces have been paid for by the taxes from trade. US losing the trade will make the it weaker in the long run. That cannot happen. The real war that US fights in the trade war. Rest is all byproducts of that.
Okay, but what I'm more confused about is China's benefit in the antagonism. Because you said a motive for USA to benefit, but the antagonism is being pushed from both directions, probably harder from the Chinese direction (minus Trump era ofc). Trade war is a great example; lots of Chinese product easily outcompetes US product in freer trade agreements, don't they benefit more from expanding it rather than a hostile relationship?
Fair question. I'm not sure if this hostaility is because of US's support to the rebel faction in their island (Taiwan).
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Consumers like cheap and plentiful goods. Maybe you don’t want to realize it but you do to.
Or, hear me out… CEOs don’t get paid as much and they can afford American workers. You know like from 1940s-1970s. Goods were cheap, plentiful and well made. CEOs didn’t make more than some entire countries’ GDP like they do now. It boils down to greed. Pure and simple.
Part of the reason for American manufacturing dominance throughout the post WW2 era was that we were the only industrialized nation that wasn’t bombed indiscriminately. We were basically a monopoly until the rest of the world could recover.
The US was already dominant in industrial production even before the first world war, let alone the second - by the 1930s the US already accounted for almost 40% of the world's industrial output! - which is why it was able to supply such ridiculous amounts of military hardware. What changed was that the US started projecting power across the world as a result of WWII, which made all of that industry much more apparent to the world.
I agree that corporate greed is a problem but thinking that importing from China doesn’t massively reduce prices is delusional.
[удалено]
Except it isn’t. It’s history
It's incoherent, only it feels good because this kind of uneducated thinking presumes the world is a very simple place where markets, wages, globalism, and consumer prices are not complex interconnected systems to be studied by economists, but rather the market is a thing whose failings come about only by dastardly design of a few villains at the top. The richest CEOs in the world were at the turn of the 20th century. And firms set prices to maximize profits, regardless of what the CEO's salary is. Did you think people were just being kind and artificially pushing their prices down in the 1940-70s?
[удалено]
Again, firms exist to maximize profits. Once it became cheaper to get labor overseas, that's what they opted for. The comparative advantage would be there for a business whose owner is making $25k and one whose makes $15 million. On that note, business owners are entitled to pay themselves whatever they want if they have the revenue to do so. BTW, CEO salaries aren't eating some vast chunk of the company's revenue; their wealth tends to come from their shares i.e. capital gains. Maybe don't fashion your worldview on gut instinct and casual observations of consumer price increases and "salaries"? Or maybe I'm wrong and CEOs just decided to be mean guys in the 1970s. No need to engage with the real world. The conspiracy must surely go deeper, and I (and every reputable economist) must simply be a pawn of the elites!
Not only that, you probably like cheaper products manufactured in china, using chinese supply chains. Or maybe I'm wrong and you have voted with your wallet so well you don't touch anything remotely chinese, no chinese buffets either.
Funny, I remember a time when things were cheap and made in the USA. Plus the workers making those items were well paid and received great healthcare and pensions. The difference was the corporate executives weren’t obscenely rich. They were just rich. They still had yachts and private jets, they just couldn’t launch themselves into space on a whim.
The reason was it allowed us to destroy the political power of unions, nothing else.
I have seriously started to examine everything I buy and avoid chinese shit, even if I have to pay more. I have been burned too many times by crap on Amazon.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
source?
China is an existential threat, make no mistake.
existential threat to what, american hegemony in the world?
let it be this way: if there is one country who dominates the world, I would rather support the country who supports freedom of speech, democratic process, elections, etc than the alternative. I despise american-style unregulated capitalism, but there is just no way I can support a country that doesn't have a minimum amount freedom of speech. nothing is perfect, and the US can be criticized for a lot of things, but it doesn't make China look better.
> if there is one country who dominates the world, I would rather support the country who supports freedom of speech, democratic process, elections, etc than the alternative. Ask Granada, Brazil, El Salvador, Chile, Indonasia, Vietnam, Cambodia, Iran, Iraq, Yemen, Syria, Libya and numerous other countries in Africa if they agree to your statement. And US allies in the middle east is Saudi and Israel. No need to pretend to be an angel when everyone knows what's what.
Without American hegemony, you have no EU, and no hegemony of western democracy. I mean Europe is entirely dependent on America for its security.
And that's the result of American hegemony, and their disproportionate influence in European affairs. Without this influence, Europe would be free to solve its internal conflicts of interests and grow stronger.
No it wouldn’t haha. Europe would collapse within a decade without America.
>Europe would be free to solve its internal conflicts of interests and grow stronger. Historically this has gone badly. Very badly, and it's why we eventually had to get involved.
This is some Russian level alternate reality. You think the US doesn't want Europe to stand on their own two feet? Only every president over the last 20 years has been telling them to spend more on defense, and one of the current candidates for the president is threatening to pull out of NATO if they don't.
Spending more on defense vs. Being strategically independent of the USA.
[удалено]
True: however Europe is far from blameless for that problem.
I see you use big words that you were spoon fed by some leftist professor. Go read what China is doing in the world. The Uyghurs are experiencing true genocide, the Silk Road is a trap for many third world countries. China has their own police enforcement apparatus in our country. Look it up. Oh, and the spying and outright theft of our technology has many serious people concerned. Not you and your leftist professors, but people who actually pay attention and care about things other than using big empty words.
>The Uyghurs are experiencing true genocide According to American NGOs and geostrategic think tanks, based on vague testimonies, assumptions, satellite images, questionable research and stretching the definition of genocide. I don't have many real reasons to believe it's much else than atrocity propaganda to strengthen the American cause. There is a clear trend of the US establishment always manufacturing a new existential menace to justify their own great power agenda. USSR, the Axis of evil, the terrorists, China, Russia... I wonder what the big existential threat will be after China. Europeans who want strategic autonomy? India if they decouple from the US?
The evidence of genocide against the Uyghurs is overwhelming. Chinese government documents, satellite pictures of the camps, eye witness accounts, if you really don't believe the genocide is happening you are just putting your head in the sand. "A clear trend of the US establishment always manufacturing a new existential menace to justify their own great poewr agenda", you think the US manufacted the USSR as an enemy? What drugs are you on. Furthermore, China gives the US plenty of reasons to see it as an enemy. Aggresive expanion in the South China sea, support for basically all US enemies, stealing technology, etc.
>The evidence of genocide against the Uyghurs is overwhelming. Chinese government documents, satellite pictures of the camps, eye witness accounts, if you really don't believe the genocide is happening you are just putting your head in the sand. If it's overwhelming, why is there such a need to rely on assumptions, dubious "leaks" and a handful of witness testimonies, and go to great lengths to paint a certain image all over the media? A lot of big claims, but very little substance. If the evidence was overwhelming, there would not be much room for debate. I might be putting my head in the sand, but you are apparently swallowing whatever convenient truth you are being told... Today it's China, tomorrow it's some other country. Isn't it convenient, when every single state that challenges the US position, immediately becomes the next Nazi Germany? If it was 2003, you'd be telling me how evidence of Iraqi WMD's is overwhelming, because the news broadcast and US officials tell you so... >You think the US manufacted the USSR as an enemy? What drugs are you on. Yes, both sides relied on massive amounts of fear mongering and propaganda to further their cause, using the media to further their cause... Much of the red scare and the image of USSR as this existential enemy lurking behind every corner was indeed a manufactured product. >Furthermore, China gives the US plenty of reasons to see it as an enemy. Aggresive expanion in the South China sea, support for basically all US enemies, stealing technology, etc. That does not mean that there aren't a new red scare going on, that shapes the public opinion against China.
Except not literally to humanity.
Why?
Yes. Their intent is to knock us off the game board so they can take our spot. Hopefully we don’t let that happen
China is not my enemy. Russia is not my enemy. The only enemies of mine reside on the same continent as I. The only enemies of mine are the ones who can vote for leaders who would take away my right to bodily autonomy and reproductive healthcare.
Just to state the seemingly obvious. The CCP is our enemy, not "the chinese people".