This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
From PRC perspective, US sustaining RU/UKR conflict has:
Turned EU from potential spoiler that PRC was willing to expend massive resources to to court/neutralize to becoming geopolitically irrelevent short/medium term. Pro-atlantist views have become stronger, but atlantlist as a bloc as become significantly weaker, and will likely continue to. For PRC Weak EU being removed from the board (by US hand no less) is preferrable to strong EU that could lean pro US.
Forced PRC + RU coupling. Made india to be less committal to west alignment. PRC just gained reliable energy / resource partner in RU who will continue to export to eager global south who has demonstrated comforting indifference to LIO interests, and will likely increase opportunities of de-dollarization. RU sanctions was illustrative for PRC, many other lessons learned for TW scenario. Meanwhile central asia also open to PRC influence.
"Created a ring of allies in the Pacific" is (continues to be) opposite of reality. Go check out the OG first island chain PRC containment schemes proposed by US policy wonks from 5 years ago. Both Trump and Biden tried to push IRBMs, AGILE Combat Support basing and military hardware actually neccessary for PRC containment... but there's been no takers. Contrary to western narrative, PRC wolf warrior has been extremely successful in cowling region into ineffective hedging, even more so after Pelosi visit and PRC exercises in response. Apart from JP and AU whose too far away, no one in region has even virtue signalled any substantive commitment to enhancing US security architecture in the region. With strengthening dollar and where global economy is heading, it's safe to dial back JP and AU commitments as well, weak economy will likely stall JP efforts at increasing defense spending, and the chance of AUKUS delivering subs before a PRC TW invasion is miniscule. If you follow the space closely, US has basically thrown every tool in the box to "create a ring of allies" in the last 5 years and relative to what US wonks imagined, current arrangement is massive failure. Ergo heavy strategic focus on porcupining TW, which wouldn't be desperately necessary if PRC could have been deterred with viable containment framework.
PRC slow growth (largely self imposed) adjusted for inflation is still higher than US. More so adjusted by PPP. Combine with even more startling relative real decline by US partners. Sure, PRC doing not great, but almost everyone else relevant is doing much worse.
When Blinken said in May:
All this US flexing has made her sphere weaker (with more room to fall) while improving PRC's relative economic, diplomatic, and military space. Hence US going extra hard cracking down on PRC tech, but hard to say how effective it will be. PRC was suppose to be US priority while RU the sideshow, but I'd argue US efforts in Europe has largely strengthened PRC's position, especially near periphery including IndoPac. In terms of US grand strategy, that's relative decline.
Time isn't on the PRC's side. It needs to open a wide lead over the US economically and militarily to achieve its regional goals before its demographic storm hits, and limping slightly faster to the finish line doesn't help there.
Time is on PRC side, especially demographically.
There are two demographic shifts happening in PRC.
Net demographic decline which will only reduce PRC import dependancy and increase strategic flexibility.
Massive demographic boom in high skill workforce - PRC generating as much as all OECD countries combined in talent.
Even shit tier PRC demographics will producing multiple times more indigenous talent than US via births + immigration due to base effect. Incidentally this relatively new cohort (result of Academic / S&T / R&D reforms in 00s) is barely starting to be tapped, and within 10 years has saw PRC rapidly climbing up science and innovation index controlled for quality. Skilled workforce demographic is divident responsible for advanced economic development and building comprehensive national power. It's how the other Tigers with terminal demographics kept climbing up value chain. It's how PRC went from capturing $4 in assembly fees for every iphone assembeled to $100 in componenent fees. Now it's going after the other $400 left on the BoM. High tech growth still has decades of run way in PRC relative to current position, combined with massive automation (more than next 14 advanced economies combined) and is doing it's part in:
Look at regional military force balance, where PRC is rapidly and massively overtaking. And my guess is, short/medium term (next 5-10 years) PRC rockety advancement will comprehensively negate any US capital assets advantage - see how battleships reset the field. Economically, PRC GDP by PPP has led for years and relative gap has been increasing. Also consider PRC limping in technology driven growth will be coupled with disruption in western growth due to PRC eating advanced economies market share. It will start hallowing out the premium manufacturing sectors west reserved for herself. Once PRC industry starts spitting out mature high value sectors for export, every $1 PRC sells is going to take $3 from western competitors. Or PRC industrial policy will absorb selling at -$1 loss to deny $6 to west. That's the game being played, combination of growth and convergence.
TBH any appeal to demographics on hobbling PRC geostrategic aspirations is stupid for the simple reason that exquisit modern militaries don't require much labour and medium/long term move towards autonomous platforms will require even less. Sustaining military several times current size (which has already been massively downsized due to reforms) is trivial for just the sheer stupid amount of bodies PRC has (and will have). PRC is generating so much skilled talent + covid that there's record youth unemployment - talent btw the PLA has been screaming to recruit.
TLDR no country in the world is positioned to have BETTER high-skilled workforce / demographics than PRC for building economic and military power in the coming decades. And decades is about time PRC needs to properly exploit said workforce.
That doesn't mean declining demographics won't increase pressures / squeeze QoL. Competitive pressure will drive top end productivity if anything. PRC/east asia is used to being pressure cooker society. Meanwhile, unlike more developed Tigers or west, massive regional income disparity + huge home ownership + enviable house hold savings rate = significant (imo most) PRC elderly simply don't have significant expectation (or need) for comprehensive old age social support like those already at risk of collapsing in advanced economies. That's the secret. No need to worry about having an umbrella to weather the storm when *taps head* there's no expectation for an umbrella. The actual demographic storm is going to consist of stubborn savings being turned into consumption and wealth transfers from those with excess into even more consumption, resolving PRC's current economic bug of being unable to stimulate consumption beacuse said savings locked into retirement. Is it going to suck? Yes. Is it going to stop PRC from converging and surpassing US. IMO not even a little.
That's well-stated and something I'll think over.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link