• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

China the next power?

Will China become the next hegemonic power?

  • Yes

    Votes: 7 38.9%
  • No

    Votes: 7 38.9%
  • Maybe, it depends

    Votes: 4 22.2%
  • Another Country will, but not China

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    18

Lightning

Active member
Joined
May 14, 2012
Messages
342
Reaction score
118
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Many people, due to the U.S. economy and status declining in global politics believe that China will be the next great hegemonic power. Thoughts?
 
Many people, due to the U.S. economy and status declining in global politics believe that China will be the next great hegemonic power. Thoughts?

There won't be any powers who can exert hegemonic influence over the entire globe, which in effect means no more superpowers. Instead, there will be a couple "great powers" in the manner of 19th century Europe.
 
Last edited:
But throughout the history of the world, there have been many hegemonic powers, i.e. state actors that exert enormous -whether political or economic- influence on the rest of the world. This is where the long cycles theory of hegemonic power comes from. Whats to say that there will not be another hegemonic power after the U.S. is removed from its position for whatever reason? If not, why?
 
Last edited:
But throughout the history of the world, there have been many hegemonic powers, i.e. state actors that exert enormous -whether political or economic- influence on the rest of the world. This is wear the long cycles theory of hegemonic power comes from. Whats to say that there will not be another hegemonic power after the U.S. is removed from its position for whatever reason? If not, why?

And there still will be. Just not one who enjoys all the hegemonic power.

The periods of history where a state acquired superpower status stand out to the casual historian, but it is common for there to be multiple powerful states lording over a smaller number of weaker states -- "Great Powers", in the way of the 19th century European states that enjoyed the run of Asia and Africa. The British Empire was consistently the largest and strongest of them, but the diffrence wasn't significant enough for Britain to be considered a superpower relative to either France or Prussia (Germany). Even Belgium enjoyed disproportionate power thanks to its lucrative trade in the Congo.
 
Last edited:
And there still will be. Just not one who enjoys all the hegemonic power.

The periods of history where a state acquired superpower status stand out to the casual historian, but it is common for there to be multiple powerful states lording over a smaller number of weaker states -- "Great Powers", in the way of the 19th century European states that enjoyed the run of Asia and Africa. The British Empire was consistently the largest and strongest of them, but the diffrence wasn't significant enough for Britain to be considered a superpower relative to either France or Prussia (Germany).

I realize that there was bilateral and multilateral divisions of power throughout history, I was just poking around to see what your reasoning is. The difference was in fact according to text books significant, since the British empire did possess a navy that was far more superior to any other state actor during the time, which gave them the power to extend to most corners of the world.

And as mentioned, most IR text books disagree with you, and do teach that Great Britain was at that point the hegemonic power.
 
I realize that there was bilateral and multilateral divisions of power throughout history, I was just poking around to see what your reasoning is. The difference was in fact according to text books significant, since the British empire did possess a navy that was far more superior to any other state actor during the time, which gave them the power to extend to most corners of the world.

And as mentioned, most IR text books disagree with you, and do teach that Great Britain was at that point the hegemonic power.

They really weren't, and I think you are mistaken on the number of scholars who would assert the British Empire was comparable to post-WWII United States, aka, was a superpower. They couldn't make France, Prussia, the United States, or any other industrialized state do much of anything that those states didn't want to do. In contrast, the United States could make Europe do quite a bit, had the run of South Africa, were big in Asia, and generally came out ahead in the Middle East. Since all states were compelled to choose between "allying" with one of two states, anyone who went more in the direction of democracy and capitalism ended up in the American sphere of influence. Nobody was breaking their neck in the rush to get in the British Empire's sphere of influence.

The British Empire was definitely the strongest thanks to its Navy, but their state suffered from internal problems due to their size/diversity from the beginning, whereas countries like France and Prussia had much smaller but also much more manageable economic holdings. The British Empire was the best at lording over small states, but had too devote too many resources to it for them to come out ahead against France and Prussia, their political and cultural rivals.
 
Last edited:
I agree. That brought their downfall, proving the long cycles theory correct. Will the same thing happen to the U.S. though? Why? Many people argue that the U.S. is over-extending their reach, and believe that we're proving the long cycles theory to be the explanation (for lack of a better word) of global power and change. Is that true? Who will take our place as hegemonic power?

I personally agree with you, and believe that if by chance we are knocked off the top of the totem pole, we won't be replaced by China.
 
China, even though its seen massive growth in the last decade, is still quite unstable. They are almost over inflating themselves. I think sometime very soon you will see them eventually come back down to earth.
 
To me, it seems the Great Powers were the result of Big Banks and investing outside the home country. England and France and Spain didn't send ships to the New World for exploration, it was for profit. It worked well and grew their power and banking. Learn about Big Banking. Try BIS, and really big Reserve banks and then decide what it is they do with money.
 
There will be hegemons again on a regional basis. Will there be a planetary wide hegemon like America again? That depends on whether the forces of history line up in some unforeseeable age which permit a prepared people to seize the opportunity. The only certainty is uncertainty.
 
It is possible that China will rise, but unlikely that it will claim the top spot alone. The U.S. has many allies that are unlikely to leave us. The problem, as I see it, is that both the U.S. and much of Europe are racing toward economic collapse to maintain social welfare systems based on income redistribution. China, while not having nearly our standard of living, does have a fast growing economy, but no desire to share that wealth with its masses (thus keeping a big export market), even if most of its economy is based on only producing cheaper clones of the inventions of others. Military power alone does not make a nation into a superpower, it requires both economic might and strong allies to remain on top. I do not see any nations teaming with China to push it into the top spot, certainly not Japan, India or Russia, its closest and most powerful neighbors. I don't see the middle east or southeast Asia stabilizing enough to be counted on as anyone's ally.
 
Last edited:
It is possible that China will rise, but unlikely that it will claim the top spot alone. The U.S. has many allies that are unlikely to leave us. The problem, as I see it, is that both the U.S. and much of Europe are racing toward economic collapse to maintain social welfare systems based on income redistribution. China, while not having nearly our standard of living, does have a fast growing economy, but no desire to share that wealth with its masses (thus keeping a big export market), even if most of its economy is based on only producing cheaper clones of the inventions of others. Military power alone does not make a nation into a superpower, it requires both economic might and strong allies to remain on top. I do not see any nations teaming with China to push it into the top spot, certainly not Japan, India or Russia, its closest and most powerful neighbors. I don't see the middle east or southeast Asia stabilizing enough to be counted on as anyone's ally.

Agreed. China does not have the political power necessary to project itself into hegemonic status. Adding on to your comment about their reluctance to share wealth. China throughout their history have never engaged in economic and political discords with the rest of the world. They have maintained a predominantly isolationist stance in realpolitik. They refer to China as "All under Heaven" or the middle of the world, and believe that everyone else is privileged to engage with China instead of engaging in a mutual reach towards wealth. Not to mention that their economic rise is being rested on shaky ground. As you said, military power alone does not automatically mean you're the big dog. Industrialization, geographical size, political and economic power, and a strong capable and advanced military are all some of the most important factors that will determine hegemonic status. All of which the U.S. still surpasses by far every country on Earth.
 
Good points and I would agree with most of them. The American military became highly advanced in a relatively short space of time, namely during and immediately after the second world war and this was built upon in the previous decades. Given time and economic power, Chinese progress shouldn't be underestimated. Statistics show China is pushing quite hard on all fronts, but again I agree, the political side is more complex. International partnerships are essential to push forward and I can't see much happening on that front.
 
There won't be any powers who can exert hegemonic influence over the entire globe, which in effect means no more superpowers. Instead, there will be a couple "great powers" in the manner of 19th century Europe.

That makes sense to me...and I agree
 
My greatest concern is if russia and china ever decide to pair...its very unlikely however
 
Going to be? It already is.. the US is just in denial and clinging to its power just as the empires the US took power from.
 
Going to be? It already is.. the US is just in denial and clinging to its power just as the empires the US took power from.

In a way I agree with you...they certainly have a better economny since our corps sent all our jobs there and guess what they also have more money than us because of it.
 
In a way I agree with you...they certainly have a better economny since our corps sent all our jobs there and guess what they also have more money than us because of it.

Well, while China is not a bigger economy, it has more people, a bigger military, and produces most of the worlds goods. It controls key resources and can influence world politics considerably.. mostly with soft power. Even the US bends over when China says it should. No one wants to piss off the Chinese too much, since then we wont be able to get our iPads and iPhones at a cheap rate (yes that is ironic since they are hugely expensive and overpriced..)

If we look at it historically, then it even fits more. The British Empire was in decline from WW1 to WW2 and totally knocked out after WW2.

What made the British Empire powerful, was not its economic power, but its navy and military power... but that was expensive and that is where the economic power came in. Another factor was simply the amount of people in the Empire.. . As long as the money from colonies came in and it was profitable, then the Empire could keep its massive navy and military going and maintain its power over its subjects. But then WW1 came and the British military along with other colonial powers took serious hits both economically and militarily but also morally in the colonies. The colonies went from being profitable to be hotbeds of revolution and what not and not worth the military presence there. But because of pride and stupidity, the British (and others) maintained their empire. When WW2 happened, the economies of the former Imperial nations was gutted by debt and destruction and that let the new kid on the block.. the US into the frame and the time of the US empire started.

Driven by a massive military, and untouched industrial infrastructure and vast resources, the US basically took over the role of global empire from the British over night. They forced the British out of Egypt, and other places.. and yet maintained their own colonies in Puerto Rico and other areas. They used the military to spread economic power.. Coca Cola is a great example. The reason Coca Cola is so big today world wide, is simply because the company had a contract to supply the US military and built bottling plants on the US tax payers dime world wide, and then was able to establish it self cheaply in many markets and start selling to the locals as well. It is in many ways no different than what the British East India Company did. Monopolies are "great" no? They also set up a sign basically saying.. "forget your past come to our shores and we will pay you for your ideas and technology".. that is how you got to the moon first...and then there was of course the "payment" for helping the Europeans.. the British basically handed over their whole Jet technology research to the US because of this.

Now days, that economic power based on the surge after WW2 is declining, in part because others have been rising out of the ashes.. Japan and Germany, and then of course the new powers like China, South Korea, Taiwan, Brazil. The US is not nr. 1 in many industries as it once was, it is not the best at everything (despite what many Americans think) and the military power that created the economic world wide power is getting so expensive that in the medium and long term it is not sustainable .. much like the British Empire.

Look at the facts. Are new technology releases done in the US first these days? Most are not. Only major phone release that is done first in the US now days is the iPhone. How about movie releases? Nope, many of the big blockbusters are actually released in Europe and China first... Avengers had earned in its costs in Europe and Asia before it hit the US theatres over a month after the world release date. More and more technology innovation and especially manufacturing is done outside the US.. the list goes on and on.

It is exactly what happened to the British Empire. It started with industries popping up in the UK.. Liverpool, Manchester and so on.. driven on by resources from the colonies. The decline started when those industries were moved to "cheaper" areas of the world .. sound familiar?

Now will the decline take 2 decades as the British Empire or will it be a longer one like the Roman Empire.. I tend to think the few decades version more and more (maybe not as short as 2.. but under 100 years that is for sure), considering that China dwarfs the US in people alone... and future consumers.

Of course that can all change.. had WW1 not happened and especially WW2, then the world could still be run by the British Empire... so who really knows, but based on the facts as they stand now... China is near if not at the top of the global economic power house and the US is "only" nr 2. Russia is also banging on the US door.. alone on its massive amount of natural resources it has. Like it or not, the future is dependent on control of a few types of natural resources, and the US controls none of them, and China controls a considerable amount. If China wanted to hurt the US.. then it should not recall its loans.. but stop selling rare earth metals to the US.. bye bye the mobile phone and computers in general. Intel would go belly up over night. That is real power..
 
Last edited:
Well, while China is not a bigger economy, it has more people, a bigger military, and produces most of the worlds goods. It controls key resources and can influence world politics considerably.. mostly with soft power. Even the US bends over when China says it should. No one wants to piss off the Chinese too much, since then we wont be able to get our iPads and iPhones at a cheap rate (yes that is ironic since they are hugely expensive and overpriced..)

If we look at it historically, then it even fits more. The British Empire was in decline from WW1 to WW2 and totally knocked out after WW2.

What made the British Empire powerful, was not its economic power, but its navy and military power... but that was expensive and that is where the economic power came in. Another factor was simply the amount of people in the Empire.. . As long as the money from colonies came in and it was profitable, then the Empire could keep its massive navy and military going and maintain its power over its subjects. But then WW1 came and the British military along with other colonial powers took serious hits both economically and militarily but also morally in the colonies. The colonies went from being profitable to be hotbeds of revolution and what not and not worth the military presence there. But because of pride and stupidity, the British (and others) maintained their empire. When WW2 happened, the economies of the former Imperial nations was gutted by debt and destruction and that let the new kid on the block.. the US into the frame and the time of the US empire started.

Driven by a massive military, and untouched industrial infrastructure and vast resources, the US basically took over the role of global empire from the British over night. They forced the British out of Egypt, and other places.. and yet maintained their own colonies in Puerto Rico and other areas. They used the military to spread economic power.. Coca Cola is a great example. The reason Coca Cola is so big today world wide, is simply because the company had a contract to supply the US military and built bottling plants on the US tax payers dime world wide, and then was able to establish it self cheaply in many markets and start selling to the locals as well. It is in many ways no different than what the British East India Company did. Monopolies are "great" no? They also set up a sign basically saying.. "forget your past come to our shores and we will pay you for your ideas and technology".. that is how you got to the moon first...and then there was of course the "payment" for helping the Europeans.. the British basically handed over their whole Jet technology research to the US because of this.

Now days, that economic power based on the surge after WW2 is declining, in part because others have been rising out of the ashes.. Japan and Germany, and then of course the new powers like China, South Korea, Taiwan, Brazil. The US is not nr. 1 in many industries as it once was, it is not the best at everything (despite what many Americans think) and the military power that created the economic world wide power is getting so expensive that in the medium and long term it is not sustainable .. much like the British Empire.

Look at the facts. Are new technology releases done in the US first these days? Most are not. Only major phone release that is done first in the US now days is the iPhone. How about movie releases? Nope, many of the big blockbusters are actually released in Europe and China first... Avengers had earned in its costs in Europe and Asia before it hit the US theatres over a month after the world release date. More and more technology innovation and especially manufacturing is done outside the US.. the list goes on and on.

It is exactly what happened to the British Empire. It started with industries popping up in the UK.. Liverpool, Manchester and so on.. driven on by resources from the colonies. The decline started when those industries were moved to "cheaper" areas of the world .. sound familiar?

Now will the decline take 2 decades as the British Empire or will it be a longer one like the Roman Empire.. I tend to think the few decades version more and more (maybe not as short as 2.. but under 100 years that is for sure), considering that China dwarfs the US in people alone... and future consumers.

Of course that can all change.. had WW1 not happened and especially WW2, then the world could still be run by the British Empire... so who really knows, but based on the facts as they stand now... China is near if not at the top of the global economic power house and the US is "only" nr 2. Russia is also banging on the US door.. alone on its massive amount of natural resources it has. Like it or not, the future is dependent on control of a few types of natural resources, and the US controls none of them, and China controls a considerable amount. If China wanted to hurt the US.. then it should not recall its loans.. but stop selling rare earth metals to the US.. bye bye the mobile phone and computers in general. Intel would go belly up over night. That is real power..

China is working feverishly to improve its military...it already has the economic structure, <thanks to us> to fuel any growth they want...military, infrastructure...they are doing what japan did a few decades ago, buying up american business and realestate...the difference now is japan didnt have the economic engine long term to sustain its growth and expansion outside its borders...china does...
 
China is working feverishly to improve its military...it already has the economic structure, <thanks to us> to fuel any growth they want...military, infrastructure...they are doing what japan did a few decades ago, buying up american business and realestate...the difference now is japan didnt have the economic engine long term to sustain its growth and expansion outside its borders...china does...

Yes, but the Chinese military is still dominated by men and more men.. and not by expensive technology, hence the several million men under arms by China are far far cheaper than the US military. Hence the Chinese economy, which is booming, can easily absorb the cost and even higher cost, where as the US is having problems. Like it or not, the US military is hugely expensive compared to what you get out of it.
 
Yes, but the Chinese military is still dominated by men and more men.. and not by expensive technology, hence the several million men under arms by China are far far cheaper than the US military. Hence the Chinese economy, which is booming, can easily absorb the cost and even higher cost, where as the US is having problems. Like it or not, the US military is hugely expensive compared to what you get out of it.

Well pete I disagree totally with your last sentence...we get every penny we spend out of those kids...I dont care what the military costs if its to keep our kids alive and healthy...if your going to send them to every chithole in the world then make sure you give them everything they need and more....I wont budge on that belief....
 
Well pete I disagree totally with your last sentence...we get every penny we spend out of those kids...I dont care what the military costs if its to keep our kids alive and healthy...if your going to send them to every chithole in the world then make sure you give them everything they need and more....I wont budge on that belief....

Has nothing what so ever to do with keeping the kids alive and healthy... that would be a noble goal!

If that was true, then why is it that US military members had to buy their own body armour for the Iraq war? Why did the US military have to refit tons of equipment at hugely expensive costs just because they some how had missed that there are mines/IDFs or the middle east has a lot of dust? You just gave up a multi billion dollar base in Iraq, built with all the home comforts of Burger King, Mac D, and so on... does that keep your troops safe.. not healthy that is for sure... You have a multi billion dollar new fighter aircraft that is suppose to be stealth, but is not that stealthy, and oh yea.. the pilots can choke while flying the craft.. just a small bug. I am all for keeping troops as safe as possible and healthy as possible, but that does not come with faulty expensive military gear that often the military actually dont want or need.

Like it or not, the amount of waste in US military spending is massive and it is costing the US hand over fist to maintain its expensive military presence world wide. That is no difference to the British Empire or any other Empire through out history and eventually the cost of military presence outside your borders lead to the decline and ultimately destruction of those empires. The list is very very long, and every time it is the price of military power that is the key part of the downfall.
 
Last edited:
Going to be? It already is.. the US is just in denial and clinging to its power just as the empires the US took power from.

I totally disagree. The process and requisites (to put it lightly) to become the hegemonic power is extremely complex. It isn't solely based on military power.
 
I totally disagree. The process and requisites (to put it lightly) to become the hegemonic power is extremely complex. It isn't solely based on military power.

It aint? Okay show me an empire/powerful nation that did not base its power on military power...
 
China, even though its seen massive growth in the last decade, is still quite unstable. They are almost over inflating themselves. I think sometime very soon you will see them eventually come back down to earth.

China could see an economic downturn, but there are other aspect to consider.

Will China attack Taiwan, the Phillippines, or any other nearby nation? Will they use their military to create their own version of the USSR?
 
Back
Top Bottom