Comment by dbasedweeb | Hacker News Reader

Comment by dbasedweeb | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The original “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere” was a concept of the Japanese empire during WWII. Given the deep and abiding loathing many in China still have for Japan, what you’re saying seems phrased in a way to be maximally upsetting. Note that I don’t think you’re wrong, I’m just impressed at how much needling can be packed into one post!

One possible argument against the notion is that China has always been manically focused on internal unity. Their ambitions abroad, while extensive, will always take a backseat to internal cohesion. China seems to be preparing for a certain amount of internal social upheaval, and if that does happen it would probably curb their external activities to an extent.

This kind of economic “outreach” is possibly a way to get imperial without having to overcommit. It’s a little scary, because as you say it could work. If the Chinese play it right, they could dominate economically without firing a shot, except maybe in Taiwan

I wouldn't say always focused -- maybe since the start of the Ming dynasty. Also, I would think that implying the Chinese have taken their old enemy's plans, and used them with far more success than the Japanese ever did, was a roundabout form of compliment.

> maybe since the start of the Ming dynasty

Why do you choose that date? The following cycle is a well known model of Chinese history and has been true for millennia (I might misremember a detail here or there): 1. civil war -> 2. cohesion and ascendant power -> 3. corruption and declining power -> goto 1

As an interesting tangent: The model above emphasized order as the priority, which means centralized authoritarian power. A recent history published in Hong Kong[0] says that order was really just consolidated power for the Emperor (or Paramount Leader, as they are called now), but for common people the periods of 'disorder' provided more freedom, prosperity, and innovation. As the author says in one interview:

"Since the imposition of imperial absolutism and centralized government in the Qin dynasty, China has not produced the democratic politicians of ancient times, nor the great thinkers like Laozi, Confucius and Mencius. Quite the opposite – totalitarian society has produced many despotic and violent rulers and corrupt officials and brought China into a great dark age." [1]

[0] China History Revisited by Xiao Jiansheng, published by New Century Press of Hong Kong. I read that it was banned in China, but a best-seller in Hong Kong. This first link is the forward, which I recommend:

https://chinahistoryrevisited.blogspot.com/

https://asiancorrespondent.com/2010/01/chat-with-chinese-aut...

[1] https://www.asiasentinel.com/society/revisiting-chinese-hist...

I say that because the last major overseas voyages by Chinese sailors (cf. Zheng He) happened around the start of the Ming dynasty. Neither the Ming nor Qing saw any need to sponsor expeditions, and the Ming further lost control of the seas to the wokou. You could argue that the late-Qing modernization efforts could have ended up with overseas voyages, if they had had Meiji-style success (and not fallen apart), but ifs and buts.

I'm Han Chinese, grew up in Shanghai, living in US right now.

The whole point is that we can all see this is a form of imperialism.

And I don’t really see the “problem” with that, insomuch as realpolitik is definitely a thing. The US “cheats” other countries in the same way for its own influence and goals, but living here it’s wrapped up in a cultural superiority complex by our principles which while one may agree with them, are only exercised in as much as they keep the idea flowing. Exceptionalism only really works when you’re exceptional, and in many ways we do things worse.

That said, I’d not want to live under a Chinese culture and it’s Confuscianistic rules.

> Exceptionalism only really works when you’re exceptional

We’re contrasting a democracy and a dictatorship. Each can be cruel. But one is more stable than the other.

I'm honestly not so sure thats what is being constrasted. Its more of a hard-capitalism (as little state power as possible with exceptions) vs soft-socialism (a lot of state power and planning, with some affordances to private industry) thing in my mind.

historically speaking japan was maniacally focused on internal unity during the years 1640-1900 as well.

True, but there were 40 years between that focus and their attempts at empire in WWII, while China is still very much still in “hold it all together” mode. Even though Japan has an impressively chaotic internal political history, it’s always been a small nation. China has always been huge, with lots of land routes and connections to other potential invaders. While superficially similar, I think that the Chinese commitment to unity Uber Alle is unlikely to change the way Japan’s did.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com