American Revolution vs. Chinese Revolution — Frank Li

What is the key difference between the U.S. and China?

They were born differently, almost totally opposite to each other! The U.S. was founded by/of/for the rich, whereas the PRC (People's Republic of China) was founded by/of/for the poor. In other words, the American Revolution was a bourgeois revolution, whereas the Chinese Communist Revolution was a proletarian revolution. Let me explain ...

Exactly. As I have been saying, the US was founded on bourgeois (Lockean) liberalism in the Western sense of favoring owners of property of European (white) descent. The People's Republic of China was founded on Marxist-Leninist socialism "with Chinese characteristics." These views are fundamentally incompatible, just as East and West are fundamentally incompatible based on historical path-dependence.

The differences are civilizational — Western civilization, Chinese civilization, Indian civilization, Islamic civilization, Russky Mir, etc. In the West especially, this is further differentiate by nationalism. Much of the world is further divided by remnants of tribalism or actual tribalism.

One of the difficulties for Westerners is the fundamental assumption of a universal human nature, which Westerners identify with their own cognitive biases. While all may be identical as persons, e.g, equality of persons before the law, which is the basis of Western liberalism, all are unique as individuals and individuals are shaped by association and affiliation.

I don't always agree with Frank Li's position but his view is always interesting as a Chinese ex-pat that made it in the US and is now trying to bridge the systems by showing strengths and weaknesses.

econintesect.com
American Revolution vs. Chinese Revolution
Frank Li | Chinese ex-pat, Founder and President of W.E.I. (West-East International), a Chicago-based import & export company, B.E. from Zhejiang University (China) in 1982, M.E. from the University of Tokyo in 1985, and Ph.D. from Vanderbilt University in 1988, all in Electrical Engineering

China Plus — What the U.S. has really done to China over the past 25 years

These are some contributions the United States government has made to China's reform and opening up – one failed attempt at sabotage after another. And it won’t stop until the "America first" policy has become worn out, and China's reform and opening up policy has become unbreakable....

The message to the people of China. Western powers are still trying to humiliate China, now chiefly the US. This is the most powerful adversarial message short of accusing the US of threatening war.

The climate is becoming toxic.

Ecns
What the U.S. has really done to China over the past 25 years

China Plus

See also at Ecns

In his address, Pence said that, “When China suffered the insults and exploitations during her so-called ‘Century of Humiliation,’ America refused to join in, and instead advocated an “Open Door” policy, with the aim of developing freer trade with China, and preserving its sovereignty.” His words gave the impression that the United States had chosen not to join the ranks of the colonial powers and Japan in their aggressions at the time, but instead had acted to protect China’s sovereignty.

If that were true, the Chinese people would be giving the United States a big thumbs up. But the facts of history suggest otherwise. It’s not strictly true, as Mr. Pence suggested, that the U.S. “refused to join in” with the imperial powers.” If that were so, then how did the inequitable Treaty of peace, amity, and commerce between the United States of America and the Chinese Empire come about in 1844? And what about the unequal China-U.S. Treaty of Tianjin in 1858?And where did the U.S. troops, found among the Eight-nation Alliance that attacked China in 1900, come from? Perhaps we should examine more closely that Open Door policy and consider whether it really was designed to “preserve” China’s sovereignty”....

Historical truth behind U.S. Open Door policy toward China

China Plus

See also at Ecns

Note: This is a translation of a Chinese-language article first published by Xinhuanet.com. The article reflects, Zong Ze, the author's own views.

Xinhua is state media.

When it comes to Taiwan, America should reflect on its own history

Xinhua

Se also at Ecns

When President Trump spoke, the whole world laughed; when Pence spoke, Chinese netizens laughed, said a Chinese netizen. But now the jokes are over, and it's time for China to get back to the serious work of addressing the problems the country still has to solve along its path towards development. Because, regardless of Pence's barrage of criticism, China will continue to move forward, to build partnerships with countries around the world, and to play its part as a responsible member of the community of nations – and not be the butt of a joke for the world.

In Asia, laughed at someone or something is a most serious form of insult aimed at  humiliation. In some asian countries, when a person of honor was humiliated, they were to expected either to retaliate or commit suicide.

Mike Pence's speech arouses laughter on China's social media

China Plus

The Saker — NY Times: 1949 – When China lost that ‘elusive’ quality needed for Anglobalization

Snarky backgrounder. Humorous read of some sorry history, centered around former US Secretary of State Dean Acheson.

The Vineyard of the Saker
NY Times: 1949 – When China lost that ‘elusive’ quality needed for Anglobalization
The Saker

Xinhua — Xi's world vision: a community of common destiny, a shared home for humanity

The chief value for Western liberalism is personal freedom. The chief value for traditional Chinese culture is harmony. 

President Xi is positioning China to reassert its traditional role as the Middle Kingdom, which can also be rendered as Central Realm or even Center of the World based on harmony among all peoples.

Economically, this pits the market state, in which distribution is based on competition among wants, against the welfare state, in which distribution is based on a constellation of needs.

This is often or usually characterized in the West as the distinction between a free market economy and a command economy, but it is actually different approaches to a managed economy, since government necessarily plays key roles in each. There are many such approaches possible and some of them have already been tried.

The looks like it may be the beginning of a new stage in the historical dialectic as China and other non-Western countries become developed countries capable of competing with the West not only economically and militarily but also in the conflict of ideas that drives the historical dialectic from the Hegelian point of view.

In in the view, different ideas clash in the conflict of ideas and some have their moment as dominant before being replaced by a fresh idea in the succeeding moment. However, the idea that is replaced is also subsumed and continues to influence historically. 

A previously subsumed idea may also reemerge subsequently in a fresh form to do battle in the conflict of ideas that drives history. Chinese traditionalism is reemerging in a fresh form to confront the dominant liberalism of West on the world stage. 

They will both be subsumed in another moment in the series of moments that constitutes the temporal unfolding of the historical dialectic. What that might look like then we can only guess at now.

Ecns.cn
Xi's world vision: a community of common destiny, a shared home for humanity

Xinhua

D.S.Rajan — China: Interconnection Between Tradition And Thinking Of leaders In Modern Era – Analysis

Backgrounder

Asia Review
China: Interconnection Between Tradition And Thinking Of leaders In Modern Era – Analysis

D.S.Rajan | Distinguished Fellow, Chennai Centre for China Studies, Chennai, India

Kimball Corson — China's Developing Thoughts on Statecraft

A short summary of the Chinese history of statecraft and governance from ancient times to Xi Jinping. This is a should-read unless you are up to date on it already. It's short. I think that Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin are pretty close on this. The US leadership not so much.

 Having studied Chinese martial arts and strategy for some time, I believe that Kimball gets it basically right. Kimball observes that the Chinese integrate various traditions into an ideology and worldview suitable for the contemporary context. Understanding this gives insight into their way of thinking.

Western people tend to adopt a single ideology based on a preferred historical view that they then interpret in contemporary terms. 

This makes Westerners seem simple to the Chinese, and the Chinese "inscrutable" to Westerners. A basic rule of strategy in the martial arts is to understand the opponent so that one knows what he is likely to do, whereas one should be invisible to the opponent, so that he does not know what you are likely to do. Hence, the Chinese have an advantage over Westerners in this regard, since Westerners send signals whereas Chinese don't.

While I am less familiar with Russian strategy, people who are familiar with it say that it is more similar to the Chinese than the Western. Additionally, Vladimir Putin has been a judoka for many years, so he presumably understands this very well.

Wandering the Oceans
China's Developing Thoughts on Statecraft
Kimball Corson

Caleb Maupin — Who’s Afraid of Xi Jinping? And Why?

Why are the primary voices of US capitalist opinion in such an uproar? Why do they so greatly fear that the leader of the People’s Republic of China may revive anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist sentiments that once defined Chinese politics? 

The implications of such a reality, if it is indeed true, are huge. China is the center of world industrial production. It has a rapidly growing and globally connected economy, with worldwide relationships that are beyond calculation. If China is indeed having a revival of Marxist-Leninist ideology and Mao Zedong Thought, this is no laughing matter for all who take world events seriously. If China is once again going down the revolutionary road, the centers of finance, the Pentagon, and the very global role of the United States are all now facing a bigger threat than ever. 

Just as the halls of power echoed with “Who lost China?” in 1949, the recent declarations of the capitalist press indicate that they are undoubtedly now echoing with “Who lost China, again?” and “Why didn’t we see this coming?”…

New Eastern Outlook
Who’s Afraid of Xi Jinping? And Why?

Caleb Maupin