5. A gradual shift from a Western to an Eastern model of society
5.2.5. the rise of the Asian model of governance
Regional Economic Blocks have a decisive governance advantage over the present world institutions. For one they group neighboring countries that have privileged and often long-standing inter-relations. Secondly they are not burdened by the weight of bureaucracy and corruption that characterize present day International Institutions. Thirdly these regional blocs are not torn apart by the ideological divisions between the declining power and the upcoming power.
Seen these advantages it does not take a leap of faith to conclude that the REBs could fairly easily legislate and implement a governance system to manage the specific rules of engagement of their own inter-relations. And once this principle is implemented there would automatically be a call for the institutionalization of the inter-relations between all REBs that in the most natural of fashions would be best served by a model of confederation.
The world’s present institutional configuration dates back to the end of the 2nd World War when the US GDP represented, for a short time, something like just under 50% of the world’s GDP. And amidst such an economic dominance the US naturally dictated the establishment of a world order that would further maximize its interests. But times have changed. The center of gravity of the economy-world is now moving from the US to East-Asia with Beijing at its core. In this changing context Beijing asked for a re-calibration, of the exiting international institutions, that would recognize it a role proportionate to its new found stature. But that was vetoed by the US who stubbornly wants to keep its unilateral privileges.
China now is pushing for multilateral solutions within the present international institutions while also gradually encouraging ‒ an East-Asian institutional build up to manage the relations and policies of its member states and sub-groupings ‒ and the deepening of the REBs along the New Silk Roads. In the meantime China will let grow the contradictions, of the present International institutions with the realities on the ground, until they collapse under the plight of their own inefficiency.
This means that the institutions of the REBs are growing in parallel, with the falling US-centric international institutions, and are bound to eventually take-over the conversations between nations about all matters presently of the competence of the Western-centric order.
While China is not attracted to hegemony the fact is that its economic dominance will naturally foster spontaneous emulation by other nations of some aspects of its system of governance. Societies in the different REBs will most probably adopt at least some of the characteristics of the Chinese model of governance and the traditional Western pretense at universality will thus gradually fade away.
Seen these advantages it does not take a leap of faith to conclude that the REBs could fairly easily legislate and implement a governance system to manage the specific rules of engagement of their own inter-relations. And once this principle is implemented there would automatically be a call for the institutionalization of the inter-relations between all REBs that in the most natural of fashions would be best served by a model of confederation.
The world’s present institutional configuration dates back to the end of the 2nd World War when the US GDP represented, for a short time, something like just under 50% of the world’s GDP. And amidst such an economic dominance the US naturally dictated the establishment of a world order that would further maximize its interests. But times have changed. The center of gravity of the economy-world is now moving from the US to East-Asia with Beijing at its core. In this changing context Beijing asked for a re-calibration, of the exiting international institutions, that would recognize it a role proportionate to its new found stature. But that was vetoed by the US who stubbornly wants to keep its unilateral privileges.
China now is pushing for multilateral solutions within the present international institutions while also gradually encouraging ‒ an East-Asian institutional build up to manage the relations and policies of its member states and sub-groupings ‒ and the deepening of the REBs along the New Silk Roads. In the meantime China will let grow the contradictions, of the present International institutions with the realities on the ground, until they collapse under the plight of their own inefficiency.
This means that the institutions of the REBs are growing in parallel, with the falling US-centric international institutions, and are bound to eventually take-over the conversations between nations about all matters presently of the competence of the Western-centric order.
While China is not attracted to hegemony the fact is that its economic dominance will naturally foster spontaneous emulation by other nations of some aspects of its system of governance. Societies in the different REBs will most probably adopt at least some of the characteristics of the Chinese model of governance and the traditional Western pretense at universality will thus gradually fade away.
5.2.5.1. economic size and economies of scale
The US economy became the largest in the world sometime early in the 20th century but European nations were not far behind. This changed with the 2nd World War. European economies had been battered and coming out of the war they suddenly discovered that the US had jumped ahead. By the end of the 2nd World War the US represented not far from 50% of the world GDP and by 1950 this had decreased to some 30-40% (1)
Economic size procured the US the leverage to set up a world order fashioned to serve its interests.
But as the following graph shows the US economic might continually went south from there.
Economic size procured the US the leverage to set up a world order fashioned to serve its interests.
But as the following graph shows the US economic might continually went south from there.
Source : World Development Indicators from Mike Patton. Forbes. 2016-02-16.
Since 2014 the US share of world GDP decreased further. The following graph represents GDP in PPP terms which explains the difference with the graph here above giving a 2014 share of 22 %.
in Statista by H. Plecher,2020-05-27
These graphs leave no place for doubt. The US is on a path of relative decline. And the decline of its economic size compared with the rest of the world comes with a price. While, coming out of the 2nd World War, all nations acquiesced to the US proposed world order but this time around nations are contesting this order.
By the end of the 2nd World War the most significant industrial economies were European nations (Britain, Germany, France, Italy) + the US + Japan. What distinguished them mostly was their economic size. As the following graph attest the size of the US economy procured it unbeatable economies of scale. These countries are represented in the cells with the clear background
By the end of the 2nd World War the most significant industrial economies were European nations (Britain, Germany, France, Italy) + the US + Japan. What distinguished them mostly was their economic size. As the following graph attest the size of the US economy procured it unbeatable economies of scale. These countries are represented in the cells with the clear background
1950 : List of countries by past and estimated future population
2020 : List of countries and dependencies by population
2020 : List of countries and dependencies by population
During the cold war, for reason of propaganda against Communist China, the West intervened actively in the development of the “4 Asian tigers” represented in the table above in the dark-gray background.
By the year 2000 things have dramatically changed. Countries with large populations have or are emerging. China has risen to the top rank in economic terms (PPP measurement) and India, Indonesia, Brazil and others are growing rapidly. These rising giants are represented by the black background
The US population in 1950 procured a huge advantage to the country in terms of ‒ a gigantic internal market dwarfing the internal market of European countries, ‒ larger production runs that lowered production costs, ‒ and most importantly larger revenues and thus larger investments which left European national champions in the dust in terms of production runs, R&D, and marketing budgets.
These 1950 advantages of the US have recently gone to China :
1. Its internal market, in PPP terms, has already overtaken the US market by a large margin and will continue to grow over the next decades to represent a multiple of the combined market of the US and EU.
2. Larger production runs will beat US and EU production costs
3. Larger Chinese revenues will allow for larger Chinese investments which will leave US and EU champions in the dust in terms of production runs, R&D, and marketing budgets.
5.2.5.2. economics as “political economy”
Covid-19 laid bare the governance weakness of Europe. The enforcement of 40 years of neoliberal policies has liquidated state protection institutions like health and social services while the institutions of force were adjusted to cope with rapidly declining social conditions which explains the police brutality against the “gilets jaunes” that has been on show over the last few years in France.
Europeans are always fond to engage in talks about human rights and democracy against Russia, China and other countries that do not follow their liberal political prescriptions. The daily images of violence against the “gilets jaunes” projected the hypocrisy of Europe for the whole world to see. European citizens did furthermore not fail to notice the contrast between the handling of Covid-19 by their own countries and its handling by East-Asian countries. And no anti-China propaganda is ever going to succeed in erasing this contrast from the popular perception.
The record deaths from Covid-19, in European countries, have unveiled the extreme weakness of European governance systems. People have been forced to witness first hand how the privatization of state protection institutions hampered the national answers against covid-19. And the total absence of solidarity from the EU institutions during the ravages of the pandemic was duly noted by all European citizens.
The neoliberal market deregulation of the last 40 years is now coming undone. In all countries people are calling for a new cycle of economic interventions by state institutions and public opinion is largely turning against the liberal order. In this particular context the temptation, to use anti-China propaganda to deflect popular criticism, is never going to be successful and it seems that European leaders have resigned themselves at this idea. And all sides, on the political landscape, are now starting to rewrite their narrative.
While the success of China’s answer to Covid-19 is never acknowledged publicly the fact is nevertheless that from the entire spectrum of European politics we observe that the narratives are now been rewritten along the lines of China’s model of state intervention in the economy. And so over the coming years we are going to assist at a redrawing of the European policies at the national and the international level.
But the combined effect over the past decades of, skyrocketing public debts and the socialization of corporate losses, have left nations in a financial quandary. In classical economic terms their financial agency has been severely handicapped. But, the popular pressure being what it is, the elites understand that decisions have to be implemented to take off at least some of this pressure in order to try to avoid social explosions that could end up terminating their privileges. And such decisions will start to affect everyone at the national and at the international level.
At the national level the role of national governments will expand. No doubt about that. In Europe states will try to reinforce the remaining protection mechanisms and will create new ones while further expanding their institutions of force. But many states are so far in the doldrums financially that these measures will fall short of the will of the people. Such moments in history always gave way to ‒ or social revolutions, ‒ or war, ‒ and sometimes both.
At the global level the restructuring of the economic order will go forward and the center of gravity of the economy-world year after year will shift further towards East-Asia with Beijing at its core. China already accounts, in dollar terms, for over 16 percent of the world’s GDP. In PPP terms its share of the 2019 world GDP reached something as 27%. The country has already contained the effects of the virus and, if the projections by the International financial institutions stand, its expected GDP growth in 2021 could reach 9 percent.
In contrast Europe’s GDP is projected to decrease by some 7.5% in 2020 and will not enter positive territory before 2022 at the earliest. On June 1st the US Congressional Budget Office said that it could take a decade for the U.S. economy to fully recover (2). In such an international economic environment, if it wants to avoid falling into economic insignificance, Europe has no other choice than to align its policies with those of Eurasia which means negotiating a common path forward with Beijing and Moscow. Only war could now distract Europe from an alignment with Eurasia.
German capital holders have started signaling their preference for such a re-alignment since a few years already. The first clear political signals about the turning of Europe were given by French President Macron (3) and EU foreign affairs commissioner Josep Borrell who went so far as to say that an Asian century had arrived :
A first priority for Europe is the signing of a ‘EU-China Comprehensive Agreement on Investment’ (CAI). Both Europe and China presently share a small percentage of the total FDI in the other’s economy. So the potential growth is immense. European big capital holders and their political servants are now so much more motivated to get the job done that China’s FDI’s in Europe have overtaken the EU’s FDI’s in China :
This ‘CAI’ will replace all existing bilateral agreements on investment between China and the EU. The deal could be signed as early as by the end of 2020 and could result in an explosion of cross-investments. Both sides then plan to set their sight on the negotiation of a Free Trade Agreement. But …the more time passes the more the size of China’s economy is bound to relegate Europe in a weak spot.
China’s success is also re-awakening past European economic theories. Both France and Germany were once following an economic model that reserved to the state the role of economic organizer in chief. During the 16th and 17th centuries French kings invested in state manufactures that put France in command of the first burst of European industrialization through the production of luxuries at the attention of the European aristocracy. At the tail-end of the era of commercial capitalism France localized the production of luxuries that had been imported over the last centuries from the Middle-East and the Italian city-state.
By the end of the 18th century a second industrial burst was occasioned by Britain’s protectionist policies that incentivized its individual investors to localize the production of cotton textiles, that hitherto had been imported, by mechanizing their production. This mechanization of Britain’s textile eventually resulted in the process of industrialization, as it is known today, with its expansion of the consumer base to the whole of society. This is what finally procured economic supremacy to Britain.
In the meantime Germany was lagging behind and by the end of the 19th century under Bismark the ‘Landern’ were unified in a single country. The state then initiated protectionist policies that engaged the country into a process of systematic industrialization. The proceeds of the tariffs on foreign goods were invested in state protection institutions procuring services like health insurance, accident Insurance, old age pension, and a technical education that continues to distinguish Germany from its competitors to this very day.
Nowadays Western countries are accusing China of implementing policies that they themselves have been practicing successfully till quite recently. These accusations are rooted in the ideology of Neoliberalism that was initiated in the seventies by big capital holders and their servants to overwhelm Western citizens in order to open the world to the free circulation of capital and the delocalization of Western productions to third world countries.
Today the indoctrination to this ideology is causing the malaise that destabilizes Western societies : complete corruption of state institutions, hijacking of the money creation process, extreme levels of inequality, societal atomization, loneliness and despair. The riots today in the USA, France, and other Western countries are somehow the natural outcome of this destabilization and people are questioning the legitimacy of neoliberalism. To deflect the attention of Western people, from their responsibility in generating the malaise of their societies, big capital holders and their servants are now scapegoating China.
Europeans are always fond to engage in talks about human rights and democracy against Russia, China and other countries that do not follow their liberal political prescriptions. The daily images of violence against the “gilets jaunes” projected the hypocrisy of Europe for the whole world to see. European citizens did furthermore not fail to notice the contrast between the handling of Covid-19 by their own countries and its handling by East-Asian countries. And no anti-China propaganda is ever going to succeed in erasing this contrast from the popular perception.
The record deaths from Covid-19, in European countries, have unveiled the extreme weakness of European governance systems. People have been forced to witness first hand how the privatization of state protection institutions hampered the national answers against covid-19. And the total absence of solidarity from the EU institutions during the ravages of the pandemic was duly noted by all European citizens.
The neoliberal market deregulation of the last 40 years is now coming undone. In all countries people are calling for a new cycle of economic interventions by state institutions and public opinion is largely turning against the liberal order. In this particular context the temptation, to use anti-China propaganda to deflect popular criticism, is never going to be successful and it seems that European leaders have resigned themselves at this idea. And all sides, on the political landscape, are now starting to rewrite their narrative.
While the success of China’s answer to Covid-19 is never acknowledged publicly the fact is nevertheless that from the entire spectrum of European politics we observe that the narratives are now been rewritten along the lines of China’s model of state intervention in the economy. And so over the coming years we are going to assist at a redrawing of the European policies at the national and the international level.
But the combined effect over the past decades of, skyrocketing public debts and the socialization of corporate losses, have left nations in a financial quandary. In classical economic terms their financial agency has been severely handicapped. But, the popular pressure being what it is, the elites understand that decisions have to be implemented to take off at least some of this pressure in order to try to avoid social explosions that could end up terminating their privileges. And such decisions will start to affect everyone at the national and at the international level.
At the national level the role of national governments will expand. No doubt about that. In Europe states will try to reinforce the remaining protection mechanisms and will create new ones while further expanding their institutions of force. But many states are so far in the doldrums financially that these measures will fall short of the will of the people. Such moments in history always gave way to ‒ or social revolutions, ‒ or war, ‒ and sometimes both.
At the global level the restructuring of the economic order will go forward and the center of gravity of the economy-world year after year will shift further towards East-Asia with Beijing at its core. China already accounts, in dollar terms, for over 16 percent of the world’s GDP. In PPP terms its share of the 2019 world GDP reached something as 27%. The country has already contained the effects of the virus and, if the projections by the International financial institutions stand, its expected GDP growth in 2021 could reach 9 percent.
In contrast Europe’s GDP is projected to decrease by some 7.5% in 2020 and will not enter positive territory before 2022 at the earliest. On June 1st the US Congressional Budget Office said that it could take a decade for the U.S. economy to fully recover (2). In such an international economic environment, if it wants to avoid falling into economic insignificance, Europe has no other choice than to align its policies with those of Eurasia which means negotiating a common path forward with Beijing and Moscow. Only war could now distract Europe from an alignment with Eurasia.
German capital holders have started signaling their preference for such a re-alignment since a few years already. The first clear political signals about the turning of Europe were given by French President Macron (3) and EU foreign affairs commissioner Josep Borrell who went so far as to say that an Asian century had arrived :
“ The EU’s foreign policy chief told a group of German envoys that the dawn of an Asian century would mean a diminished role for the US.
Josep Borrell created a diplomatic headache as Germany prepares to take over the presidency of the EU and of the UN Security Council in July.
“Analysts have long talked about the end of an American-led system and the arrival of an Asian century,” Mr Borrell told the ambassadors.
“This is now happening in front of our eyes.” (4)
A first priority for Europe is the signing of a ‘EU-China Comprehensive Agreement on Investment’ (CAI). Both Europe and China presently share a small percentage of the total FDI in the other’s economy. So the potential growth is immense. European big capital holders and their political servants are now so much more motivated to get the job done that China’s FDI’s in Europe have overtaken the EU’s FDI’s in China :
“ While European investment flows into China historically outpaced Chinese outbound flows, the tide has turned rapidly since 2014, driven by Chinese FDI in the EU. In 2016, new Chinese investment in the EU was more than four times higher (reaching a record high of 35 billion euros) than the European FDI in China (8 billion euros). (…)
Total Chinese investment in Europe, including mergers and acquisitions (M&A) and green-field investments, now amounts to $348 billion, and China has acquired more than 350 European companies over the past 10 years.
Of course, the share of Chinese FDI in Europe, at 2.2 percent, remains low relative to the United States’ market-leading 38 percent. Similarly, the EU countries held only 4 percent of the total FDI in China in 2016, versus 36 percent of the total FDI in the United States. Although Chinese investments in the EU are still comparatively low, they are evolving rapidly and increasing at unprecedented growth rates”. (5)
This ‘CAI’ will replace all existing bilateral agreements on investment between China and the EU. The deal could be signed as early as by the end of 2020 and could result in an explosion of cross-investments. Both sides then plan to set their sight on the negotiation of a Free Trade Agreement. But …the more time passes the more the size of China’s economy is bound to relegate Europe in a weak spot.
China’s success is also re-awakening past European economic theories. Both France and Germany were once following an economic model that reserved to the state the role of economic organizer in chief. During the 16th and 17th centuries French kings invested in state manufactures that put France in command of the first burst of European industrialization through the production of luxuries at the attention of the European aristocracy. At the tail-end of the era of commercial capitalism France localized the production of luxuries that had been imported over the last centuries from the Middle-East and the Italian city-state.
By the end of the 18th century a second industrial burst was occasioned by Britain’s protectionist policies that incentivized its individual investors to localize the production of cotton textiles, that hitherto had been imported, by mechanizing their production. This mechanization of Britain’s textile eventually resulted in the process of industrialization, as it is known today, with its expansion of the consumer base to the whole of society. This is what finally procured economic supremacy to Britain.
In the meantime Germany was lagging behind and by the end of the 19th century under Bismark the ‘Landern’ were unified in a single country. The state then initiated protectionist policies that engaged the country into a process of systematic industrialization. The proceeds of the tariffs on foreign goods were invested in state protection institutions procuring services like health insurance, accident Insurance, old age pension, and a technical education that continues to distinguish Germany from its competitors to this very day.
Nowadays Western countries are accusing China of implementing policies that they themselves have been practicing successfully till quite recently. These accusations are rooted in the ideology of Neoliberalism that was initiated in the seventies by big capital holders and their servants to overwhelm Western citizens in order to open the world to the free circulation of capital and the delocalization of Western productions to third world countries.
Today the indoctrination to this ideology is causing the malaise that destabilizes Western societies : complete corruption of state institutions, hijacking of the money creation process, extreme levels of inequality, societal atomization, loneliness and despair. The riots today in the USA, France, and other Western countries are somehow the natural outcome of this destabilization and people are questioning the legitimacy of neoliberalism. To deflect the attention of Western people, from their responsibility in generating the malaise of their societies, big capital holders and their servants are now scapegoating China.
5.2.5.3. if you can’t beat them copy them
The malaise observed in European societies is also affecting the USA. And big capital holders and their servants have launched an all out propaganda campaign to scapegoat China in order to deflect popular attention from their responsibilities in fostering the malaise in the first place.
While the tradition of direct state economic interventionism was always weaker in the US we nowadays nevertheless observe that none other than the technology sector is recommending that the state resist Chinese dominance by directly intervening in the economy. I laid out the case made by its representatives in 4.2.3.3. a radical Restructuring of US society and concluded by citing the views of US big capital and its servants about the future :
In other words this radical restructuring of US society is nothing else than the implementation of an internationalist liberal manifesto that is most vocally expressed by the managers and representatives of the US technology sector which is also one of the most vocal and liberal components of US society. This begs for a pause. Indeed, while the US political Zeitgeist is overwhelmed by MAGA nationalism, the big capital holders and their most active corporations are positioning the country behind a liberal internationalist strategy !
What this implies is that the US public is being manipulated into acquiescence of an agenda that is far outside of its acceptance and willingness to follow. I have stated earlier that the investments, of the nationalist wing among big capital holders, are concentrated within the territory of their nation. As such the holdings of the nationalist wing are out-competed by the holdings of the internationalist wing which, by the way, is dominated by its technology sector. And the fact is that, as Byung-Chul Han describes it, technology transforms freedom into servitude :
The NSCAI published its ideas, about the need for the US to copy China, sometime in May of 2019 with the stated goal of eventually surpassing it. I summarized its argument in 4.2.3.3. a radical Restructuring of US society. Basically this document states that the structural conditions within the US market have to be changed :
By structural factors the NSCAI means the removal of obstacles to the mass adoption of AI technologies and the adoption of the same kind of policies that were initiated by China :
1. mass surveillance : a killer application for deep learning that also attracts the ‘first-and-best customers’ for AI
2. clearing regulatory barriers : privacy laws, self-driving cars, smart cities, digital money, and so on
3. the elimination of ‘legacy systems’ : systems that are hindering the adoption of new AI driven systems have to be eliminated or adapted to the needs of the new technological context
4. more explicit government support and involvement : the state has to participate in launching the adoption of new systems : ‒ large public investments in AI start-ups ‒ public-private AI task-force to implement smart cities
Was it a coincidence that the recommendations of the NSCAI were put in application merely a few months after their publication ? The outbreak of the corona-virus came at an appropriate time indeed. In normal circumstances it would have been nearly impossible to implement such unpopular measures. But, under the guise of the urgency to combat the corona-virus, they were implemented without any discussion. Were the implementation of so many changes and the removal of so many “structural obstacles” merely coincidences ? If yes then we have to conclude that the corona-virus outbreak was astutely used as a test-bed of the NSCAI’s proposals. If no then we have to ask if it could be possible that the whole ccorona-virus thing was planned before-hand and the NSCAI’s proposals were an anticipated response.
Whatever may be the answer to this question one thing is certain. The corona-virus permitted to implement a slew of structural changes that the NSCAI had published less than a year earlier. Among those changes 2 in particular stand out in my mind : ‒ mass surveillance of the citizens ‒ active state involvement in the economy. In normal times the media should have splashed fat titles on their front pages about this proposal to revolutionize the public system of governance. But we are not in normal times is it not ? The fact is that the mainstream media remained silent about this planification of a revolution in Western governance while it incessantly accuses China of practicing what the West does silently.
Is it too much to ask why mass surveillance, and active state involvement in the economy, are deemed good when implemented in the West but evil when implemented in China.
While the tradition of direct state economic interventionism was always weaker in the US we nowadays nevertheless observe that none other than the technology sector is recommending that the state resist Chinese dominance by directly intervening in the economy. I laid out the case made by its representatives in 4.2.3.3. a radical Restructuring of US society and concluded by citing the views of US big capital and its servants about the future :
“ In summary this restructuring strategy is meant to divide the US and its client societies into 3 parallel worlds :
• the corporations, owned by the biggest capital holders, will be supplied with free money for as long as the eyes can see (fiat money creation) and they will also be freed from the application of national protection laws (two tier implementation of the law). The big capital holders themselves will be living in foreign sanctuaries that are completely detached from the obligations imposed by national laws (taxes, housing, education, health, and so on).
• the servants of big capital holders will act as a TINA kind of technocracy that will have full power to re-engineer society technologically in order to maximize the returns on the investments of big capital holders while ensuring that the rest of the world becomes captive of these new technologies.
• the majority of citizens will be made captive of ‘the reason that is at work within capital’ and will thus be forced to labor against low remunerations while being imposed high interest rates on their loans and being subjected to strict national laws governing their daily lives. A sizable chunk of society will be constituted of ‘no teeth deplorables’ who live in misery on the margins and they will opportunistically be proposed part-time gigs to remember the majority that there is a huge reserve army waiting to take over … “
In other words this radical restructuring of US society is nothing else than the implementation of an internationalist liberal manifesto that is most vocally expressed by the managers and representatives of the US technology sector which is also one of the most vocal and liberal components of US society. This begs for a pause. Indeed, while the US political Zeitgeist is overwhelmed by MAGA nationalism, the big capital holders and their most active corporations are positioning the country behind a liberal internationalist strategy !
What this implies is that the US public is being manipulated into acquiescence of an agenda that is far outside of its acceptance and willingness to follow. I have stated earlier that the investments, of the nationalist wing among big capital holders, are concentrated within the territory of their nation. As such the holdings of the nationalist wing are out-competed by the holdings of the internationalist wing which, by the way, is dominated by its technology sector. And the fact is that, as Byung-Chul Han describes it, technology transforms freedom into servitude :
“ We live in digital feudalism. Digital feudal lords like Facebook bring us a piece of land saying: it’s free, plow it now. And we plow it like crazy! In the end, these gentlemen come to get the harvest. This is how communication is fully exploited and monitored. It’s an extremely efficient system. There is no protest because we live in a system that exploits freedom itself.
Capitalism as a whole is transformed into a surveillance capitalism. Platforms like Google, Facebook or Amazon, monitor and manipulate us to maximize their profits. Each click is recorded and analyzed. We are carried around like puppets by algorithmic threads. But we feel free. We are witnessing a dialectic of freedom that transforms it into servitude. Is it still liberalism?
The question we need to ask ourselves is: why should this digital surveillance, already present, take a break in times of virus? The pandemic, on the other hand, is likely to lower the inhibition threshold that prevents the extension of bio-political surveillance to the individual. The pandemic leads straight to a bio-political surveillance regime. Not only our communications, but also our body, our state of health, is being monitored digitally. The digital surveillance company is experiencing a bio-political expansion.
According to Naomi Klein, author of No Logo, the moment of shock is an opportune moment to set up a new system of domination. The pandemic shock will lead to the global domination of digital bio-politics - which will take control of our body with its control and surveillance system, - to the creation of a bio-political disciplinary society that continuously monitors our health. It is not excluded that we feel free within this bio-political surveillance regime. In fact, we will think that all these monitoring measures are necessary for our good health.
Domination is completed when it coincides with freedom. In the midst of the shock of the pandemic, will the West be forced to abandon its liberal principles? Are we at risk of becoming a bio-political quarantine society that will permanently restrict our freedom? Is China the future of Europe? “ (6)
The NSCAI published its ideas, about the need for the US to copy China, sometime in May of 2019 with the stated goal of eventually surpassing it. I summarized its argument in 4.2.3.3. a radical Restructuring of US society. Basically this document states that the structural conditions within the US market have to be changed :
“ to ‘leapfrog’ competitors in emerging markets what is needed is not ‘individual brilliance’ but instead specific structural conditions within the market”. The idea being that “the U.S. must alter the ‘structural factors’ that are currently responsible for its lagging behind China in the ‘adoption’ phase of AI-driven technologies ”.
By structural factors the NSCAI means the removal of obstacles to the mass adoption of AI technologies and the adoption of the same kind of policies that were initiated by China :
1. mass surveillance : a killer application for deep learning that also attracts the ‘first-and-best customers’ for AI
2. clearing regulatory barriers : privacy laws, self-driving cars, smart cities, digital money, and so on
3. the elimination of ‘legacy systems’ : systems that are hindering the adoption of new AI driven systems have to be eliminated or adapted to the needs of the new technological context
4. more explicit government support and involvement : the state has to participate in launching the adoption of new systems : ‒ large public investments in AI start-ups ‒ public-private AI task-force to implement smart cities
Was it a coincidence that the recommendations of the NSCAI were put in application merely a few months after their publication ? The outbreak of the corona-virus came at an appropriate time indeed. In normal circumstances it would have been nearly impossible to implement such unpopular measures. But, under the guise of the urgency to combat the corona-virus, they were implemented without any discussion. Were the implementation of so many changes and the removal of so many “structural obstacles” merely coincidences ? If yes then we have to conclude that the corona-virus outbreak was astutely used as a test-bed of the NSCAI’s proposals. If no then we have to ask if it could be possible that the whole ccorona-virus thing was planned before-hand and the NSCAI’s proposals were an anticipated response.
Whatever may be the answer to this question one thing is certain. The corona-virus permitted to implement a slew of structural changes that the NSCAI had published less than a year earlier. Among those changes 2 in particular stand out in my mind : ‒ mass surveillance of the citizens ‒ active state involvement in the economy. In normal times the media should have splashed fat titles on their front pages about this proposal to revolutionize the public system of governance. But we are not in normal times is it not ? The fact is that the mainstream media remained silent about this planification of a revolution in Western governance while it incessantly accuses China of practicing what the West does silently.
Is it too much to ask why mass surveillance, and active state involvement in the economy, are deemed good when implemented in the West but evil when implemented in China.
5.2.5.4. culture follows the money
In my understanding culture is the sum of all ideas and behaviors of the citizens of any given society in any given present moment. Among multiple societies culture appears thus as a kaleidoscope of different forms that distinguish each society from one another. In human common sense each of these different forms appears as equally valid and interesting. But in the real world of power societies these different forms are not viewed as equally valid. Some appear to be more attractive then other and the determinant factor of such a cultural attractiveness resides in economic power.
A few years back I was investigating how art throughout the history of Modernity reified as the catalog we know of today. What I mean is that the past works we know about today are but a fraction of past productions. My mind kept inquiring about the reasons that transmitted these works to the present. Was it the inherent quality of past works that conserved them for our attention in the present ? Or were other factors at work ? I did not have an appropriate response.
In the meantime while I was reviewing the emergence of Early-Modernity, and merchant capitalism in Western Europe, I discovered that there had been 5 successive historical shifts of the center of economic gravity :
1. the crusades had opened the eyes of the Western European aristocracy to the luxury goods available in Middle-Eastern markets. Due to their half-way location the Italian city-states became a transit hub for those Middle-Eastern goods on their way to their Northern aristocratic customers and this gained these city-states their economic preeminence in Europe from mid 13th to the end of the 14th century
2. by early 15th century Bruges established itself as the center of a European triangle of commerce between : Britain (sheep wool), Bruges (wool textiles and finance), and Bordeaux (wine).
3. following the great discoveries the looting of South American gold, silver, and precious stones flowed back to Spain and Portugal ensuring them a short burst of dominance from early to mid 16th century but much of this wealth soon left Spain as the country used it to finance the repression of the reformation in the Low-Countries of Flanders
4. by mid 16th century, under the reign of the Spanish kingdom, protestants merchants from Bruges were repressed and they emigrated further north which positioned Antwerp as the new economic center of Europe
5. when the repression of protestants reached Antwerp the city was set aflame ad most rich merchants fled further North to the impregnable swamps of Amsterdam. This new shift of the economic center of gravity at the beginning of the 17th century consecrated Holland as the new center of European commerce and the country kept its title till sometime in mid 18th century
6. emigration, of prosecuted protestants, opened a British colonial dominion in the Americas that was then expanded to colonial possessions in Asia. Following the example of the Dutch “United East India Company” the “East-India Co” ensured British economic centrality in Asia sometime after mid 18th century. Great-Britain remained dominant till the 2nd World War
7. with the 2nd World War the US became hegemonic
One day, while I was visiting the national museum of the arts in Brussels, my mind was suddenly enlightened. The answer seemed so evident indeed. Wandering from chamber to chamber I was blown away by the close correlation of the works in the museum and the accumulation of financial power that followed the historical and geographical shifts of the economic center of gravity in Europe …
The Italian City-States gave us the first masters of the Early modern era : Giotto (1267 – 1337), Fra Angelico (1395 – 1455), Piero della Francesca (1420 – 1492), Sandro Botticelli (1445 – 1510), Leonardo da Vinci (1452 – 1519), Michelangelo (1475 – 1564), Raphael (Raffaello Santi) (1483-1520), …
Flanders (Bruges and Antwerp) gave us Flemish masters like : Jan Van Eyck (1390 – 1441), Rogier van der Weyden (1400 – 1464), Hieronymus Bosch (1450 – 1516), Pieter Bruegel the Elder (1530 – 1569), Peter Paul Rubens (1577-1640), Anthony Van Dyck (1599-1641), …
The emigration of the rich Flemish merchants shifted the economic center of gravity to Amsterdam. Many Flemish painters followed them and Holland was gifted its golden century of painting (8) with artists such as : Frans Hals (1582 – 1666), Rembrandt van Rijn (1606 – 1669), Jacob van Ruisdael (1628 – 1682), Johannes Vermeer (1632 – 1675), …
Colonial plunder and exploitation resulted in much gold being shipped to Britain but that gold was leaving as soon as it arrived to pay for Chinese Tea, fine ceramics, and Indian cotton textiles. British merchants soon found a way to keep the gold at home. They paid for Chinese tea and fine ceramics by force-flooding China with opium from India. And protectionist policies, mostly in the form of import taxes, eventually incentivized merchants to invest in research and development in the hope to circumvent the need to import cotton textiles from India. The British economy remained thus for a long time the focus of attention and the arts stayed on the margins :
Britain surely contrasted with France. Since the 16th century the French kings had attracted craftsmen from all over Europe to work in their State manufactures and the country had transformed in the production center of luxury goods for the European nobility and the new rich merchants (10). So it was only natural that Paris would steal the opportunity that Britain could not size.
From the end of the 18th century till as late as the 2nd World War Paris had the reputation of being the "City of Art" and artists from all over Europe were congregating there : Jacques-Louis David (1748 – 1825), Jean-Auguste Ingres (1780 – 1867), Théodore Géricault (1791 – 1824), Eugène Delacroix (1798 – 1863), Honoré-Victorin Daumier (1808 – February 1879), Jean-François Millet (1814 – 1875), Gustave Courbet (1819 – 1877), Puvis de Chavannes (1824 – 1898), Édouard Manet (1832 – 1883), Edgar Degas (1834 – 1917), Paul Cézanne (1839 – 1906), Berthe Morisot (1841 – 1895), Claude Monet (1840 – 1926), Paul Gauguin (1848 – 1903), Vincent van Gogh (1853 – 1890), Toulouse-Lautrec (1864 – 1901), ...
These 19th century painters, mostly all French, exerted a determinant influence on the Modernist avant-garde that grew in influence by the turn of the 20th century : Wassily Kandinsky (1866 Р1944), Henri Matisse (1869 Р1954), Georges Rouault (1871 Р1958), Maurice de Vlaminck (1876 Р1958), Kees van Dongen (1877 Р28 1968), Raoul Dufy (1877 Р1953), Francis Picabia (1879 Р1953), Andr̩ Derain (1880 Р1954), Pablo Picasso (1881 Р1973), Henri L̩ger (1881 Р1955), Georges Braque (1882 Р1963), Marie Laurencin (1883 Р1956), Amedeo Modigliani (1884 Р1920), Robert Delaunay (1885 Р1941), Marcel Duchamp (1887 Р1968), Juan Gris (1887 Р1927), Andr̩ Breton (1896 Р1966), Tristan Tzara (1896 Р1963), Philippe Soupault (1897 Р1990), ...
By the end of the 2nd World War European nations were drowning in debt while the US counted for just under 50% of the world GDP. I earlier described, how the propaganda of the CIA and the State Department then transformed New York into the art center of Late-Modernity. Those interested to read my take can go to “what is going on ? Part 5. Art in the maelstrom”. I will not delve further on this subject here. Suffice to say that the artists of the New York Art School who were made famous in the operation have largely lost their luster and are now mostly ignored by art lovers around the world.
After re-reading this list it downs on me that it is a perfect sketch of 3 quarters of a millennium history of Western art. The list is furthermore a powerful illustration of how fame today is linked to the economic dominance of their country at the time these artists were active. This list goes from the emergence of Modernity (long distance trade following the crusades) to High-Modernity (terminating with the 2nd World-war).
I will now complete it with the names of the artists who gained notoriety in the 1950s and 1960s in New York City and who are still vaguely remembered today : Adolph Gottlieb (1903 – 1974), Barnett Newman (1905 – 1970), Lee Krasner (1908 – 1984), Jackson Pollock (1912 – 1956, Robert Motherwell (1915 – 1991), Roy Lichtenstein (1923 – 1997), Robert Rauschenberg (1925 – 2008), Helen Frankenthaler (1928 – 2011), Andy Warhol (1928 – 1987), Jasper Johns (1930 - ), ...
Some modernist artists fled the Nazis, or other turbulence in Europe, and found a safe haven in the US where they shared the artistry of the European avant-garde with their American colleagues. Among those are : Hans Hofmann (1880 – 1966), Marcel Duchamp (1887 – 1968), Mark Rothko (1903 – 1970), Willem de Kooning (1904 – 1997), Arshile Gorky (1904 – 1948), Claes Oldenburg (1929 - ), ...
The era starting in the sixties and lasting until today is called Late-Modernity. It glorifies hyper-individualism and advocates a postmodern ending of all grand-narratives. But as a consequence Late-Modern Western societies are dominated by finance, speculation, and the corruption of all their societal systems which unfolded into societal atomization …
Today that the center of gravity of the economy world is shifting to East-Asia, with Beijing at the core, the art-market in China is already emerging as one of the largest on earth but history is still in the making…
A few years back I was investigating how art throughout the history of Modernity reified as the catalog we know of today. What I mean is that the past works we know about today are but a fraction of past productions. My mind kept inquiring about the reasons that transmitted these works to the present. Was it the inherent quality of past works that conserved them for our attention in the present ? Or were other factors at work ? I did not have an appropriate response.
In the meantime while I was reviewing the emergence of Early-Modernity, and merchant capitalism in Western Europe, I discovered that there had been 5 successive historical shifts of the center of economic gravity :
1. the crusades had opened the eyes of the Western European aristocracy to the luxury goods available in Middle-Eastern markets. Due to their half-way location the Italian city-states became a transit hub for those Middle-Eastern goods on their way to their Northern aristocratic customers and this gained these city-states their economic preeminence in Europe from mid 13th to the end of the 14th century
2. by early 15th century Bruges established itself as the center of a European triangle of commerce between : Britain (sheep wool), Bruges (wool textiles and finance), and Bordeaux (wine).
3. following the great discoveries the looting of South American gold, silver, and precious stones flowed back to Spain and Portugal ensuring them a short burst of dominance from early to mid 16th century but much of this wealth soon left Spain as the country used it to finance the repression of the reformation in the Low-Countries of Flanders
4. by mid 16th century, under the reign of the Spanish kingdom, protestants merchants from Bruges were repressed and they emigrated further north which positioned Antwerp as the new economic center of Europe
5. when the repression of protestants reached Antwerp the city was set aflame ad most rich merchants fled further North to the impregnable swamps of Amsterdam. This new shift of the economic center of gravity at the beginning of the 17th century consecrated Holland as the new center of European commerce and the country kept its title till sometime in mid 18th century
6. emigration, of prosecuted protestants, opened a British colonial dominion in the Americas that was then expanded to colonial possessions in Asia. Following the example of the Dutch “United East India Company” the “East-India Co” ensured British economic centrality in Asia sometime after mid 18th century. Great-Britain remained dominant till the 2nd World War
7. with the 2nd World War the US became hegemonic
One day, while I was visiting the national museum of the arts in Brussels, my mind was suddenly enlightened. The answer seemed so evident indeed. Wandering from chamber to chamber I was blown away by the close correlation of the works in the museum and the accumulation of financial power that followed the historical and geographical shifts of the economic center of gravity in Europe …
The Italian City-States gave us the first masters of the Early modern era : Giotto (1267 – 1337), Fra Angelico (1395 – 1455), Piero della Francesca (1420 – 1492), Sandro Botticelli (1445 – 1510), Leonardo da Vinci (1452 – 1519), Michelangelo (1475 – 1564), Raphael (Raffaello Santi) (1483-1520), …
“By the 15th century the reach and influence of the Burgundian princes meant that the Low Countries' merchant and banker classes were in the ascendancy. The early to mid-century saw great rises in international trade and domestic wealth, leading to an enormous increase in the demand for art”. (…)
The mid-century saw the development of art dealership as a profession; the activity became purely commercially driven, dominated by the mercantile class. (…)
Many of the Burgundian dukes could afford to be extravagant in their taste. Philip the Good followed the example set earlier in France by his great-uncles including John, Duke of Berry by becoming a strong patron of the arts and commissioning a large number of artworks.
Wealthy foreign patronage and the development of international trade afforded the established masters the chance to build up workshops with assistants. Although first-rank painters such as Petrus Christus and Hans Memling found patrons among the local nobility, they catered specifically to the large foreign population in Bruges. Painters not only exported goods but also themselves; foreign princes and nobility, striving to emulate the opulence of the Burgundian court, hired painters away from Bruges. (7)
Flanders (Bruges and Antwerp) gave us Flemish masters like : Jan Van Eyck (1390 – 1441), Rogier van der Weyden (1400 – 1464), Hieronymus Bosch (1450 – 1516), Pieter Bruegel the Elder (1530 – 1569), Peter Paul Rubens (1577-1640), Anthony Van Dyck (1599-1641), …
The emigration of the rich Flemish merchants shifted the economic center of gravity to Amsterdam. Many Flemish painters followed them and Holland was gifted its golden century of painting (8) with artists such as : Frans Hals (1582 – 1666), Rembrandt van Rijn (1606 – 1669), Jacob van Ruisdael (1628 – 1682), Johannes Vermeer (1632 – 1675), …
Colonial plunder and exploitation resulted in much gold being shipped to Britain but that gold was leaving as soon as it arrived to pay for Chinese Tea, fine ceramics, and Indian cotton textiles. British merchants soon found a way to keep the gold at home. They paid for Chinese tea and fine ceramics by force-flooding China with opium from India. And protectionist policies, mostly in the form of import taxes, eventually incentivized merchants to invest in research and development in the hope to circumvent the need to import cotton textiles from India. The British economy remained thus for a long time the focus of attention and the arts stayed on the margins :
“ Society was still ruled by the aristocracy and the gentry, who controlled high government offices, both houses of Parliament, the church, and the military. Becoming a rich businessman was not as prestigious as inheriting a title and owning a landed estate. Literature was doing well, but the fine arts languished as the Great Exhibition of 1851 showcased Britain's industrial prowess rather than its sculpture, painting or music. “ (9)
Britain surely contrasted with France. Since the 16th century the French kings had attracted craftsmen from all over Europe to work in their State manufactures and the country had transformed in the production center of luxury goods for the European nobility and the new rich merchants (10). So it was only natural that Paris would steal the opportunity that Britain could not size.
From the end of the 18th century till as late as the 2nd World War Paris had the reputation of being the "City of Art" and artists from all over Europe were congregating there : Jacques-Louis David (1748 – 1825), Jean-Auguste Ingres (1780 – 1867), Théodore Géricault (1791 – 1824), Eugène Delacroix (1798 – 1863), Honoré-Victorin Daumier (1808 – February 1879), Jean-François Millet (1814 – 1875), Gustave Courbet (1819 – 1877), Puvis de Chavannes (1824 – 1898), Édouard Manet (1832 – 1883), Edgar Degas (1834 – 1917), Paul Cézanne (1839 – 1906), Berthe Morisot (1841 – 1895), Claude Monet (1840 – 1926), Paul Gauguin (1848 – 1903), Vincent van Gogh (1853 – 1890), Toulouse-Lautrec (1864 – 1901), ...
These 19th century painters, mostly all French, exerted a determinant influence on the Modernist avant-garde that grew in influence by the turn of the 20th century : Wassily Kandinsky (1866 Р1944), Henri Matisse (1869 Р1954), Georges Rouault (1871 Р1958), Maurice de Vlaminck (1876 Р1958), Kees van Dongen (1877 Р28 1968), Raoul Dufy (1877 Р1953), Francis Picabia (1879 Р1953), Andr̩ Derain (1880 Р1954), Pablo Picasso (1881 Р1973), Henri L̩ger (1881 Р1955), Georges Braque (1882 Р1963), Marie Laurencin (1883 Р1956), Amedeo Modigliani (1884 Р1920), Robert Delaunay (1885 Р1941), Marcel Duchamp (1887 Р1968), Juan Gris (1887 Р1927), Andr̩ Breton (1896 Р1966), Tristan Tzara (1896 Р1963), Philippe Soupault (1897 Р1990), ...
By the end of the 2nd World War European nations were drowning in debt while the US counted for just under 50% of the world GDP. I earlier described, how the propaganda of the CIA and the State Department then transformed New York into the art center of Late-Modernity. Those interested to read my take can go to “what is going on ? Part 5. Art in the maelstrom”. I will not delve further on this subject here. Suffice to say that the artists of the New York Art School who were made famous in the operation have largely lost their luster and are now mostly ignored by art lovers around the world.
After re-reading this list it downs on me that it is a perfect sketch of 3 quarters of a millennium history of Western art. The list is furthermore a powerful illustration of how fame today is linked to the economic dominance of their country at the time these artists were active. This list goes from the emergence of Modernity (long distance trade following the crusades) to High-Modernity (terminating with the 2nd World-war).
I will now complete it with the names of the artists who gained notoriety in the 1950s and 1960s in New York City and who are still vaguely remembered today : Adolph Gottlieb (1903 – 1974), Barnett Newman (1905 – 1970), Lee Krasner (1908 – 1984), Jackson Pollock (1912 – 1956, Robert Motherwell (1915 – 1991), Roy Lichtenstein (1923 – 1997), Robert Rauschenberg (1925 – 2008), Helen Frankenthaler (1928 – 2011), Andy Warhol (1928 – 1987), Jasper Johns (1930 - ), ...
Some modernist artists fled the Nazis, or other turbulence in Europe, and found a safe haven in the US where they shared the artistry of the European avant-garde with their American colleagues. Among those are : Hans Hofmann (1880 – 1966), Marcel Duchamp (1887 – 1968), Mark Rothko (1903 – 1970), Willem de Kooning (1904 – 1997), Arshile Gorky (1904 – 1948), Claes Oldenburg (1929 - ), ...
The era starting in the sixties and lasting until today is called Late-Modernity. It glorifies hyper-individualism and advocates a postmodern ending of all grand-narratives. But as a consequence Late-Modern Western societies are dominated by finance, speculation, and the corruption of all their societal systems which unfolded into societal atomization …
Today that the center of gravity of the economy world is shifting to East-Asia, with Beijing at the core, the art-market in China is already emerging as one of the largest on earth but history is still in the making…
5.2.5.5. culture opens the minds to Chinese governance
History is abruptly accelerating. The corona-virus, and its differential handling by nations around the world, has indeed forced the population of the world to witness the following :
• the rapidity and mastery of China at containing the virus stands in stark contrast with the complete ineptitude of the large majority of Western countries
• the world witnesses that an all out unhinged and odious propaganda campaign has been undertaken by the US and its English speaking allies against China. And as a result the public opinion in these English speaking countries has largely turned China-phobic. Over 94% of the world population is watching, stunned by this sudden eruption of brazen narrative barbarity, and is wondering if civilized relations between nations will survive after the extinction of this aggressive outburst.
What we are witnessing today is simply astounding. The Western societal atomization, that I laid out in earlier chapters, has now immersed the West in a fog of sheer madness. Astute observers are contemplating how Western countries are going to come out of this madness. Clearly they are not going to re-emerge unscathed.
The intensity of the damages, to their economies and to the cohesion of their societies, has still largely to play out. But what is already known with certainty is that, by the time they finally emerge in the coming years, China will have stepped up its lead over all countries at the exception of the United States. In dollar terms she will have succeeded to make up most of the US lead but in PPP terms she will have left the US trailing far behind.
This shows that the world will be forced to realize soon that it has taken a leap forward in history. And when the madness dissipates from Western minds people will come to acknowledge that China’s handling of the corona-virus is proof of the validity of its system of governance. But this will not close the debate, on the contrary, the debate will merely start.
But for there to be a debate the West will need to show some humility. The time of monologues has passed. The West has now to acknowledge the equality of “the other” Chinese and it has to show that it is willing to inquire about China’s history. Not about the last few centuries under Modernity but about the last few millennia under different civilizations and worldviews. This will have the advantage to shed some light on what passes in Western eyes for China’s otherworldiness and the parties will finally be able to engage in a dialogue about how to engage forward.
Dialogue will gain the different civilizations a better understanding of humanity’s present predicament and a clear vision about the dynamic to successfully address this predicament. I’m afraid that if civilizations can’t start to engage into such a dialogue the governance-world will enter a maelstrom of violence that the present predicament of humanity will eventually extinguish once and for all. This last alternative is so dark that it makes no sense to pursue it any further. So back to the first alternative that concludes on a positive outcome of humanity’s present dual problem during this Late-Modernity :
• the governance-world has to adjust to the present shift of the center of gravity of the economy-world to East-Asia with Beijing at the core
• the multiple side-effects of Modernity are converging (population explosion, climate change, pollution of air water and land, chemical poisoning of life, invasion of the micro world by nano-meter plastic particles, 6th mass extinction of living species, and finally societal atomization leading to societal madness). This is what is called humanity’s predicament.
This is the general context in which China and East-Asia are taking over the mantle of economic dominance over the world. Things are changing rapidly indeed. The art-market is starting to boom in China and Chinese R&D is topping the World in sector after sector. But it will take a decade or more for the country to mature and to be perceived as the economic horse that pulls the world cart.
• the rapidity and mastery of China at containing the virus stands in stark contrast with the complete ineptitude of the large majority of Western countries
• the world witnesses that an all out unhinged and odious propaganda campaign has been undertaken by the US and its English speaking allies against China. And as a result the public opinion in these English speaking countries has largely turned China-phobic. Over 94% of the world population is watching, stunned by this sudden eruption of brazen narrative barbarity, and is wondering if civilized relations between nations will survive after the extinction of this aggressive outburst.
What we are witnessing today is simply astounding. The Western societal atomization, that I laid out in earlier chapters, has now immersed the West in a fog of sheer madness. Astute observers are contemplating how Western countries are going to come out of this madness. Clearly they are not going to re-emerge unscathed.
The intensity of the damages, to their economies and to the cohesion of their societies, has still largely to play out. But what is already known with certainty is that, by the time they finally emerge in the coming years, China will have stepped up its lead over all countries at the exception of the United States. In dollar terms she will have succeeded to make up most of the US lead but in PPP terms she will have left the US trailing far behind.
This shows that the world will be forced to realize soon that it has taken a leap forward in history. And when the madness dissipates from Western minds people will come to acknowledge that China’s handling of the corona-virus is proof of the validity of its system of governance. But this will not close the debate, on the contrary, the debate will merely start.
But for there to be a debate the West will need to show some humility. The time of monologues has passed. The West has now to acknowledge the equality of “the other” Chinese and it has to show that it is willing to inquire about China’s history. Not about the last few centuries under Modernity but about the last few millennia under different civilizations and worldviews. This will have the advantage to shed some light on what passes in Western eyes for China’s otherworldiness and the parties will finally be able to engage in a dialogue about how to engage forward.
Dialogue will gain the different civilizations a better understanding of humanity’s present predicament and a clear vision about the dynamic to successfully address this predicament. I’m afraid that if civilizations can’t start to engage into such a dialogue the governance-world will enter a maelstrom of violence that the present predicament of humanity will eventually extinguish once and for all. This last alternative is so dark that it makes no sense to pursue it any further. So back to the first alternative that concludes on a positive outcome of humanity’s present dual problem during this Late-Modernity :
• the governance-world has to adjust to the present shift of the center of gravity of the economy-world to East-Asia with Beijing at the core
• the multiple side-effects of Modernity are converging (population explosion, climate change, pollution of air water and land, chemical poisoning of life, invasion of the micro world by nano-meter plastic particles, 6th mass extinction of living species, and finally societal atomization leading to societal madness). This is what is called humanity’s predicament.
This is the general context in which China and East-Asia are taking over the mantle of economic dominance over the world. Things are changing rapidly indeed. The art-market is starting to boom in China and Chinese R&D is topping the World in sector after sector. But it will take a decade or more for the country to mature and to be perceived as the economic horse that pulls the world cart.
The collision of these 2 problems is what I call humanity’s
predicament. It forms also the general context in which China and
East-Asia are taking over the mantle of economic dominance over the
world. Things are changing rapidly indeed. The art-market is starting
to boom in China and Chinese R&D is topping the World in sector
after sector. But it will take a decade or more for the country to
mature and to be perceived as the economic horse that pulls the world
cart.
Responding to humanity’s predicament will necessarily involve the whole world. Communication will be central for that to happen. And sharing a common language is central for communication to work in a world of so many different languages. Hugo Bardi just published an interesting and provocative article, about the subject of language, titled “ English as a Sacred Language: the path to a new global ecclesia”. He sets the stage by relating the context of Latin dominance after the fall of the Roman empire :
If the future is a continuation of the technological present Bardi’s assumption is not without merit. But he does not take into account the fact that Chinese is already the most spoken language on earth today and by a large margin.
Responding to humanity’s predicament will necessarily involve the whole world. Communication will be central for that to happen. And sharing a common language is central for communication to work in a world of so many different languages. Hugo Bardi just published an interesting and provocative article, about the subject of language, titled “ English as a Sacred Language: the path to a new global ecclesia”. He sets the stage by relating the context of Latin dominance after the fall of the Roman empire :
“ In religious terms, English has never been as directly linked to God's words as Latin and older languages, although many people claim to have received revelations in English directly from God. But English became the language of the Ecclesia, the assembly of the citizens of the world and, for this reason, it can justly claim to be sacred.
(...)
And now? For one thing, English could expand more and maintain its leading role as the world's global language. Or it may not. Just as Latin was destroyed by a technical improvement, the printing press, the same could happen for English. It could be mercilessly replaced by a new language that we could call "Googlish," the result of the Google translating engine.
The beauty of this way of communicating is that you don't have to be ashamed of your poor English (or your poor Italian). You speak in the language you know best and the mistakes are a fault of the translating engine. And you can communicate with almost everyone on this planet: this has never been possible up to now.“ (11)
If the future is a continuation of the technological present Bardi’s assumption is not without merit. But he does not take into account the fact that Chinese is already the most spoken language on earth today and by a large margin.
Sources : table by laodan (12)
The fact
of the matter is that Chinese is the native language of nearly a
fifth of humanity. The rapid economic development of the country
attracts furthermore many students from ‒ Africa, ‒ South-America
‒ the Inter-Continental-Area ‒ the Eurasian-Union and East Asia,
to study Chinese and that language thus already started to assume the
role played hitherto by English for the West which was to unify a
bunch of comparably highly developed Modern countries.
This time
around the unifying addresses the populations of emerging countries.
Advanced Modern countries have reached the stage of development of
Late-Modernity and represent less than 15% of the world population.
These countries are on the descending side of the historical curve of
Modernity while emerging countries are on the ascending side ! And
the Chinese language is starting to unify the emerging countries that
are ascending …
But there
is still more to the story. Language procures indeed a common mental
framing of reality to its native speakers. And in the case of China
this mental framing of reality is furthermore reinforced by the
sharing of common axioms of civilization and a common worldview that
is grounded in a pragmatic approach to knowledge that the Chinese
civilization inherited from animism some 5-6000 years ago. (13)
"Googlish” does not solve the other-worldliness experienced by Westerners and Chinese in their perceptions of reality as viewed by ‘the other’. AI translation relates to the formal aspect of language, I mean, the words, the syntax, the sentences. Translation is then no more than a technical exercise. Such technical translations work quite well when the readers share a common set of background assumptions with the writer of the text :
If the writer of a text, and the readers of its AI translation, do not share these assumptions the readers will transfer to the text their own assumptions which will inevitably transforms in their minds the deep meaning of the text that the writer wanted to convey.
"Googlish” does not solve the other-worldliness experienced by Westerners and Chinese in their perceptions of reality as viewed by ‘the other’. AI translation relates to the formal aspect of language, I mean, the words, the syntax, the sentences. Translation is then no more than a technical exercise. Such technical translations work quite well when the readers share a common set of background assumptions with the writer of the text :
-
axioms of civilization and worldviews : as I showed earlier (14)
-
writing conventions : I suppose these writing conventions relate to the level of education, of the writer of the text and the reader of an AI translation
If the writer of a text, and the readers of its AI translation, do not share these assumptions the readers will transfer to the text their own assumptions which will inevitably transforms in their minds the deep meaning of the text that the writer wanted to convey.
A long history of
Western imperial aggression that fostered a lot of misery in the
non-Western world, + a momentous attraction to Chinese
economic success + the
attraction to what
appears like a magically successful system of governance +
the pragmatism, the Chinese civilization and worldview, inherited
from animism ; these are all very powerful
factors that motivate a bunch of comparably lowly
developed emerging countries to
learn Chinese. It is
as if our
present contextual
setting was
conspiring to seduce
the large majority of the world population to follow a different
societal model.
____________
Notes
1. Different sources give different estimates but the tendency is clear. The US GDP in percentage of the world GDP is decreasing fast :
* Mike Patton. Forbes. 2016-02-16. “U.S. Role In Global Economy Declines” The United States was 40% of the world's economy in 1960 and 22% in 2014.
* Azar Gat (2008). "War in Human Civilization". Oxford University Press. p. 517. The United States accounted for 1.8% of the world's economy in 1820, 8.9% in 1870, and 19.1% in 1913, 28.69% in 1960 (highest point), and 21.42% in 2011.
2. “Coronavirus will have long-lasting effects on US economy for next decade, CBO says” USA TODAY by Jessica Menton. 2020-06-01.
* “CBO’s May 2020 Interim Projections of Gross Domestic Product”
* In 2020 the US GDP could be down by more than 10% according to a study by Mercatus. A free PDF available here.
4. “EU’s foreign policy chief tells diplomats ‘arrival of Asian century’ has eclipsed US” in The National by Callum Paton. 2020-05-29.
6. “Toward a digital feudalism” in Mediapart, by Byung-Chul Han a philosopher of South-Korean origin and professor of philosophy at the University of the Arts in Berlin, translated in French from the original German by Jean-Marc ADOLPHE. 2020-05-10. (English translation by Reverso Context).
7. “Early Netherlandish painting” is the work of artists, sometimes known as the Flemish Primitives, active in the Burgundian and Habsburg Netherlands during the 15th- and 16th-century Northern Renaissance, especially in the flourishing cities of Bruges, Ghent, Mechelen, Brussels, and Antwerp.
8. The history of Dutch art is dominated by the Dutch Golden Age painting, mostly of about 1620 to 1680, when a very distinct style and new types of painting were developed, though still keeping close links with Flemish Baroque painting. There was a healthy artistic climate in Dutch cities during the seventeenth century. For example, between 1605 and 1635 over 100,000 paintings were produced in Haarlem. After the end of the Golden Age, production of paintings remained high, but ceased to influence the rest of Europe as strongly.
11. “English
as a Sacred Language: the path to a new global ecclesia” in
Cassandra’s Legacy by Hugo Bardi. 2020-06-28.
12. Different sources (all in the English speaking world) give
figures that vary considerably and the biggest variations relate to
the Chinese language. It is as if the figures were manipulated to
satisfy the authors ideological bias.
Having said that I relied on Ethnologue, the most often cited reference, at the exception of their figures for the Chinese language which are far off the mark.
-
Mandarin Chinese is the first language of the Han majority which represents 91 % of China’s total population of 1,439,282,831 as of June 28, 2020, based on Worldometer elaboration of the latest United Nations data - 1,309,000,000. The figures given by Ethnologue are way off the mark at 918,000,000.
-
Mandarin is also the most spoken language (figures Worldometer). All citizens of the PRC learn Chinese at school = 1,439,323,776 + Taiwan 23,816,384 + other (incl. HgKg & Singapore + foreigners) 15,000,000 = 1,478,140,160.
13. See blog
posts 12 to 19
corresponding to the first draft of “From Modernity to
After-Modernity” Book 2 : theoretical Considerations. Volume
4 : Governance and societal evolution”.
14. See “From Modernity to After-Modernity” (11) See “From Modernity to After-Modernity” (11) Part 2. Theoretical considerations. Chapter 3. About culture, worldviews, civilizations (Links in this article direct to other posts on my Weebly blog that I closed.
No comments:
Post a Comment