|
 |
Russian is past, Chinese is future? | ||
Share with:
| ||
 Language Learning Forum : Philological Room |  | |
| Eriol Diglot Senior Member Sweden Joined 6855 days ago 118 posts - 130 votes  Speaks: Swedish*, English Studies: Portuguese | Message 33 of 150 09 February 2006 at 4:45pm | IP Logged | |||||
Thank you. Unfortunately I can't say that I know of any better sources, but I can maybe search a little. I think it would be interesting to compare with official USSR statistics from the end of the eighties, if there are any available. Not that I would deem them anymore trustworthy, but it would perhaps put things into perspective. 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| Skandinav Hexaglot Senior Member Denmark Joined 6876 days ago 139 posts - 145 votes Speaks: Danish*, English, German, Russian, Swedish, Norwegian | Message 34 of 150 10 February 2006 at 6:31am | IP Logged | |||||
Russian has never been useful language in the same sense as French or English, unless one lived under communist rule or in Russia/CIS. I would actually say that Russian is more important today than 20 years ago. As for Chinese, I don't buy the provincial economic argument. The Chinese economy has always been among the biggest economies in the World. Surely, the Chinese economy has never been as open as today, but the economic, social, technological and spiritual gap between China and the West is as big today as it was 500 years ago. Perhaps even bigger. To be honest I do not see China as more of an economic superpower today, in 20 or in 50 years than it was when Marco Polo made his journey. I'm not saying Chinese is useless; obviously, the country accounts for 1/6 of the world population, but there is no reason to believe that population size will be the defining criteria for importance/power. 2 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||
| Cthulhu Tetraglot Senior Member Canada Joined 7212 days ago 139 posts - 235 votes Speaks: French*, English, Mandarin, Russian | Message 35 of 150 10 February 2006 at 11:45am | IP Logged | |||||
I don't understand what you mean...500 years ago China was ahead of the West economically and technologically, and I don't see how they were behind socially or "spiritually", what with all their religious tolerance and social programs and whatnot, stuff the West lacked. Do you mean the gap is the same size only reversed? That would still be a huge exaggeration but at least it would make some sense. When Marco Polo made his journey, China was the heart of one of the most developed and advanced nations the world had ever seen. If it wasn't an economic superpower then I don't know what is. You seem to have a skewed view of history; it's really only been the last couple centuries, some time after the Industrial Revolution, that the West in any way surpassed China. Now China is well on its way to becoming a fully industrialized nation within decades, and a fully industrialized nation with 1.3 billion people can hardly not be an superpower. You might not see it as such, but that doesn't change the reality of the situation.
It isn't the defining criteria, but a population size significantly larger than the EU and North America combined, plus even a middling amount of economic development, equals a huge amount of both importance and power 2 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||
| Skandinav Hexaglot Senior Member Denmark Joined 6876 days ago 139 posts - 145 votes Speaks: Danish*, English, German, Russian, Swedish, Norwegian | Message 36 of 150 10 February 2006 at 4:13pm | IP Logged | |||||
Ok, 500 years was probably an exaggeration, but at least from the 18th century and until today, the West or Europe was well ahead of China within all possible fields of value. At least since the Enlightenment has Europe, and later on Western Europe and the US, been ahead of everyone. China has made impressive progression over the past 25 years or so, but it is still a middle-income country facing huge challenges. I'd go as far as to say that China is a great power, but that is it. How can China be a superpower? Its GDP is half the size of US or EU, and it cannot continue 8 or 10 per cent annual growth rate. Its capacity within spheres such as military technology (nuclear and conventional weapons) is by far outstreched by US and Russia. In terms of global power, China demonstrates an ability to engage in global governance when state-managed (as in the UN and its agencies) and transnational business relations (benefiting from investments from transnational companies), but where issues of dissent and their wider ramifications are involved (particularly democracy and human rights issues), global civil society is not overly impressed with China. Social networks independent of the state, including human rights activists, as well as postmodernist views on diversity and tolerance, find the authoritarian government of China troubling and out of touch with the global ethos. I might add that recognition as defined by the so-called English School is almost as important as material strength (case France, Britain, Russia). Lets assume that a civil war arose in East Asia. If China decided to engage it would be an aggression; if the US did, it would be an intervention, because the latter has legitimacy whilst the former does not. This (unipolarity) could of course change, and hopefully it will, but I do not see China as an emergent superpower (if superpower means equal strength between two or more parties).
No. If China had the same standard of living, the equalient political rights and civil liberties as the West, its human ressources would be of great value. But this is not the case. On the contrary, China is competing on things such as labour costs(!) Look how the state and different foreign as well as Chinese firms treat Chinese "citizens." Humans are of no value. Of course this is likely to change if China continues its impressive economic growth. 2 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||
| Cthulhu Tetraglot Senior Member Canada Joined 7212 days ago 139 posts - 235 votes Speaks: French*, English, Mandarin, Russian | Message 37 of 150 11 February 2006 at 11:19am | IP Logged | |||||
No one said that the Chinese government were particularly nice people. Global civil society and human rights activists and what not may not be impressed by China, and they may find it out of touch with the "global ethos", but the rest of the world has already shown that it's more than willing to look past China's little picadillos and trade with them anyway. As China becomes more integrated (And, due to it's massive production capability and potential market, more integral) into the global economy, it will become even more necessary to treat with them regardless of their let's just say unpopular views of democracy and human rights. Global civil society already let them into the club, and now it can't get rid of them without paying a price far higher than anyone would be willing to pay. Being nice and being respected by human rights activists has nothing to do with being a superpower in the game they're playing. No one's ever told the US that they can't be a superpower because of Kent State, or its own less than pristine human rights record, or its little habit of supporting some dictators but arbitrarily overthrowing others; or maybe they did, but I don't think anyone paid much attention. And don't even get me started on the Soviet Union.
No one's saying that China is a superpower at the moment; not even China says that. Its rapid economic growth can't continue indefinitely, but it can continue plenty long enough. Or at the least the potential is there. South Korea would probably be the closest model for China's economic development; similar speeds, similar patterns of development, similar degrees of foreign investment, and so on. Nothing more than low labour costs, and an eventual phasing in of specialized industries, took South Korea from pretty much nothing to a developed nation with a GDP per capita comparable to Spain (One of the less developed Western European nations) in 50 years. China's already come half that way in, not surprisingly since it is following the same path, 25 years. All they need to do is stave off the same problems that South Korea faced for another maybe 10 years and the sheer size of their GDP will surpass that of the US or the EU; another maybe 25-30 years, and it'll dwarf them. Both of them combined even according to some estimates. This is of course just an "if", but when you're dealing with the future that's always the case. China spends a much smaller percentage of its GDP on the military than does the US or Russia, so yes (Russia: 3.8%, 28.4 billion; US: 3.7%, 400 billion ; China: Officially 1.4%, 30 billion, possibly as high as 2.4%, 51 billion), it's not surprising if its military falls short of that of the two powers who spent a large chunk of the twentieth century stockpiling arms against each other. China's conventional military is improving quickly however, and will soon surpass Russia's; as its economy develops, its military will follow suit, and its only a matter of decades before it catches up to the American. Its nuclear arsenal is as you say underdeveloped, but having an arsenal of super-powerful weapons that they can't use against each other or each other's allies without destroying the planet and can't use against any other countries because of the bad PR involved has never really done either Russia or the US much good. It certainly didn't help the Soviet Union in the long run. I'm just stating the way things are headed now based on precedent; obviously a lot could change in 25 years, but there's no reason to assume *something* will interfere. To just say, "I don't see it happening" seems hopelessly naive in the face of all the facts. 3 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||
| Skandinav Hexaglot Senior Member Denmark Joined 6876 days ago 139 posts - 145 votes Speaks: Danish*, English, German, Russian, Swedish, Norwegian | Message 38 of 150 11 February 2006 at 12:05pm | IP Logged | |||||
|
I maintain my point of view that recognition is as important as material capabilities, especially if material capability is nuclear weapons. Otherwise, every state with second-strike capability would be a superpower. For sure China is a great power as much as Pakistan and India are not, but the important thing is that within the present world order there can be only one hyperpower (United States), and the only relevant contestant is the European Union. I'm not saying that China cannot make it a longterm goal to establish multipolarity, but an important things is that without legitimacy China will only be a material dominant state, and not a superpower. The West is empire by invitation. 90% of all middle-income and underdeveloped states have seen the light striving either to become part of the West or at least emulating it. Even China itself seeks to emulate the West and to become "integrated" into the "globalized economy" while submitting to US/Western hegemonic "rules" expressing themselves throughout international institutions such as the "WTO". Unless China neglect those roles and norms and creates an alternative, China cannot become a superpower in the same sense as the USSR was. I guess it goes without saying that Communism is not an alternative, and I don't see what ideology should be promoted if not liberal democracy and market economy. The West, Latin America, CIS countries, India, South East Asia or Africa surely will not emulate barbarianism. Edited by Skandinav on 11 February 2006 at 12:09pm 1 person has voted this message useful | ||||||
| Cthulhu Tetraglot Senior Member Canada Joined 7212 days ago 139 posts - 235 votes Speaks: French*, English, Mandarin, Russian | Message 39 of 150 11 February 2006 at 12:48pm | IP Logged | |||||
|
^China plays by the American rules (Except for the whole "liberal democracy" part, which people complain about in theory but ignore in practice) because at the moment those are the only rules in town; it's absurd to think that they'd keep playing by those rules once their economy takes the dominant position. It's strictly a utilitarian matter. The globalized economy is only a western-tool as long as the West remains at the helm, which they won't necessarily do, and even imitating the West and adopting a market economy does not mean becoming the West (Japan as a case in point). Furthermore, no one said that China had to become a superpower in the exact same fashion as the Soviet Union was; a multipolar cooperative world is just as much a possibility as a multipolar competitive one, as long as you define "pole" as a centre of power without adding any assumptions requiring there to be competition between alternatives.
Anyway, I don't think the point is whether or not China is going to take the place of the Soviet Union and act as a counter-weight to American hegemony in the international sphere, and/or eventually replace the US as the dominant power in the world. At the moment, with the US unquestionably holding the top spot, and the EU still divided on too many issues to be considered a single force, China (Bringing Mandarin along with it) has quickly become one of the most important players on the world stage, and this trend has yet to show any obvious signs of slowing down. Just exactly where that will end up is impossible to say, and is clearly open to debate, but China just as clearly has a nearly limitless amount of potential, and its language really has nowhere to go but up. 4 persons have voted this message useful | ||||||
| Skandinav Hexaglot Senior Member Denmark Joined 6876 days ago 139 posts - 145 votes Speaks: Danish*, English, German, Russian, Swedish, Norwegian | Message 40 of 150 11 February 2006 at 1:59pm | IP Logged | |||||
|
All that "United States/West is evil" doesn't have my sympathy. It is a clear paradox of American supremacy: what is perceived within the USA as 'resentment' at its liberty and prosperity, as 'anti-Americanism' from hostile outsiders, has partly flowed from the spillover of domestic controversies onto the international stage. The 'global' NGOs which demonstrated against US domination of the global economy at the WTO meeting in Seattle were largely American-led. The narratives of anti-globalization and the corruption of free market capitalism have drawn upon American critiques as well as on diatribes from other countries, and have been disseminated across the world through English-language media. This is ironic. All criticism directed towards the current US administration, McDonald's or whoever has to go through the lens of Anglo-Saxonism. That is hegemony.
That being said, any country aspiring to become a superpower will have to deal with the community of states and their decision to grant someone the status of superpower. If a state is not acknowledged as a superpower (e.g. Nazi-Germany), then it cannot become a superpower. China's progress is built on areas within which the West cannot and does not want to compete: cost of labour. But at some point China will have to modernize otherwise its economy will stagnate. This requires investments in the intellectual sphere, and eventually people will demand freedom. Even if China surpasses US or EU GDP by 500%, which it will not, it will still not be a superpower if it doesn't also represent an alternative ideology. In no means am I trying to downplay China, but to believe that Chinese Mandarine language will become as important as English or French is unrealistic. Of course everything has to be seen in context. French is not very useful in China, and if someone is dealing with Chinese companies, Chinese Mandarine will definitely be an asset. 1 person has voted this message useful |
|  | 
Printable version
|
| Copyright 2024 FX Micheloud - All rights reserved No part of this website may be copied by any means without my written authorization. |
