site banner
-_-_-_-_-  13d ago (noahpinion.blog)   1801 thread views

Noah Smith: Manufacturing is a war now

noahpinion.blog

Industrial policy has been a frequent subject on Smith's blog, for those who don't follow it. (He's for it, and thinks that Biden's industrial policy was mostly good - it's worth following the links in this post.) This post focuses on defense-related geopolitical industrial policy goals and pros and cons of anticipated changes under the incoming Trump administration and Chinese responses. Particularly, he highlights two major things China can do: Restrict exports of raw materials (recently announced) and use their own industrial policy to hamper the West's peacetime industrial policy (de facto policy of the last 30 years). These are not extraordinary insights, but it's a good primer on the current state of affairs and policies to pay attention to in the near-future.

9
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

China doesn’t seek dominion over European civilization.

Neither does the U.S., and yet we continue to keep it aligned. Cooperative. The legacy of WWII was that you don’t have to literally occupy a territory to get value from it. Set up the right rules, and the subsequent international order serves your interests.

China would prefer a different set of rules. That’s why they’re reclaiming SCS islands, pushing the rules on international waters, and making passes at Taiwan, eroding the (admittedly weak!) rules about self-determination. The SCS connects major U.S. allies to the rest of the world. Handing those routes over to Chinese control would seriously damage the current order.

What matters is the cultural rot that has hollowed out the West,

I do not believe this can be done while abandoning the world stage. Hand-wringing over whether we’re worthy of dominating the planet is quintessential slave morality. Extending it down to surrendering our own borders and our own cities—isn’t that the source of most of your complaints?

China is responsible for relatively little of this [fecklessness].

I think that’s a difference of opportunity rather than one of character. Say what you will about modern Chinese urbanism; I draw the line at whitewashing the Cultural Revolution.

Waging a war against China would be an act of nightmarish self-harm.

Well…yes. I desperately hope it doesn’t come to this. If the CCP is rational, they hope it won’t, too. We can make it out of this without any nightmares.

Extending it down to surrendering our own borders and our own cities—isn’t that the source of most of your complaints?

If anything, I’m an American imperialist. I think America should directly rule the majority of the world, especially Central and South America, Western Europe and probably Japan and Korea. I just don’t care about China. The Chinese have no great imperialist instinct the way the Japanese, Russians, Anglos and French have or have had. They don’t seek to rule me or convert me to the Chinese system and never have. Theirs is not - in a deep sense, deeper than surface level marxism - an imperial civilization with global aims.

The Chinese have no great imperialist instinct

That is absolute nonsense. Where you got this idea? See: Xinjiang, Tibet, nine dash line. See: long line of emperors. See: obsessive superiority obsession. See: growing military. See: their wolf diplomacy self-inflicted mess. See: belt-and-road attempts.

They don’t seek to rule me

Well, for now they try for example with Latvia, Tibet, Hong-Kong, Taiwan, bunch of places in Africa (all in various coercive stages). Hopefully they will bungle it as most as they can.

And on top of that, I expect that they - like any other humans and nearly all animals - would proceed to run extractive imperialism if they could get away with it. (to the limits of their abilities, for deer it would be gorging on all the grass they have. Still smarter than say praising Mao.)

It really feels like a stretch to say that they'll domino their way from Tibet and Hong-Kong to the US. Those places are chinese speaking neighbors that were part of their territory not long ago. I really can't imagine them trying to invade Europe or the US. They might try to dominate the economy and make censor movies but... that's what the US is already doing.

If they fuck around Taiwan then you immediately will be hit by effects. See where CPU are produced.

Also, I was not disputing "USA will not be invaded" claim. I was disputing mainly "The Chinese have no great imperialist instinct" and "not (...) an imperial civilization with global aims."

"they will not invade USA in predictable future" is hardly proof of "have no great imperialist instinct"

It feels like you're making a bizarre 19th century type argument over which countries have an "imperialist instinct" or are an "imperial civilization." Should we also go after Mongolia and Macedonia just in case they try to take over the world again?

I also find it dubious that the US would fight WW3 just to protect our high-end gaming rigs and bitcoin miners. It's more likely we would simply onshore production (as we are already attempting to do) and put up with slightly decreased performance for a few years.

I am disputing claim that they have some unique "imperialist instinct" or are an "imperial civilization." or lack thereof.

I think America should directly rule the majority of the world

*proceeds to ignore the 1st/2nd largest population country on earth*

Bruh.

No one can afford to be imperialist in the coercive military sense anymore. Wars take far too long and are far too expensive, even for relatively small fronts (see: Ukraine). We're talking about Taiwan, which is a tiny island very very close to Mainland China. Even taking that would likely push the Chinese economy to the brink ... and they may still try.

What matters is who is at the "center" of the world order - economically, military, politically (in the power projection sense). USA is still number 1 in this but it's easy to identify the likely challengers; look at the places with the most people and largest economies contained within a totally self-governing polity. That's China. For a while in the 1990s-2000s, there was some speculation that the EU might create a new pan-Europa, but this was largely a feels based analysis and any intelligent observer saw that the political architecture of the EU and its member states created all sorts of horrible barriers to collective action that would be necessary to displace the Americans. But, I digress.

The Chinese aren't going to sail to Hawaii and San Diego to murder all of us counterrevolutionaries. But they, starting with Taiwan, can change the balance of power in East/Southeast asia .... an area with about 1/3rd of the global population and disproportionate importance in global shipping and trade ... and really disproportionate importance in the semiconductor industry.

"Letting China have Taiwan" doesn't result in the Taiwanese only having a no-good-very-bad-day, it results in the kind of trade war that can destabilize and, frankly, deflate (in all ways) the economic prosperity of the entire planet. The end state scenario of an ascendant China is a generation or two of global depression.

The Chinese have no great imperialist instinct

Throughout most of it's history China had a tributary empire, regarding itself as the centre of civilisation (hence the 'Middle/Central Kingdom'). Neighbouring states were generally forced to adopt Chinese customs and pay tribute (with those that didn't being considered barbarians). It also expanded considerably over the centuries.

It wasn't colonial in the same way as Western European powers were and didn't have overseas territorial expansion or settler colonies (presumably largely due to China having such extensive land borders and territory to expand into), but it was definitely imperialistic.

One might argue that imperial Chinese history has little to no bearing on the posture of the modern Chinese state. As I understand we don't have good insight into the internal dynamics and political factions within the CCP, so it's difficult to talk definitively, but I do think it's pertinent that:

  • The period from the 19th century up to the formation of the current People's Republic of China is known as the Century of Humiliation, which emphasises China's loss of sovereignty and exploitation at the hands of European powers. Restoration of territorial integrity and becoming a global superpower is seen as a response to this. Personally, I think that the long history of China as the perceived centre of civilisation commanding tribute from surrounding nations is undoubtably relevant here.
  • Unlike say the US, China is a major importer of food (with relatively little arable land compared to its population) and energy (especially oil). Even if it wanted to, due to this it cannot be isolationist in the same way that the US now arguably could since the advent of fracking.

In terms of foreign relations policy the argument is more mixed. Certainly the CCP's stated foreign relations principles generally emphasise territorial respect, non-aggression and non-interference, and as I understand it the CCP does generally vote in accordance with these at the UN. However:

  • The CCP is frequently belligerent with its neighbours, and has the view that any territory formally part of the Chinese empire is rightfully theirs.
  • While it is always difficult to determine intent, it's quite plausible that this foreign policy position is a temporary posture. Its origins are from Xiaoping who came to power of the CCP in the 1970s, and while it emphasised the avoidance of controversy and use of cooperation, it was based on a Chinese idiom about biding one's time while building up strength.
  • Since the 2010s, and with China being in a much stronger position, the CCP's public diplomacy has definitely been much more combative (being colloquially dubbed 'Wolf Warrior' diplomacy).

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats