The fact that one of the top comments is:
If this were mainstream media the title would be: “China quietly saved the world last month… but at what cost?”
with 45k likes, is refreshing to see.
That said, I watched it through and I’m not sure I think any of the possible “theories for why” that he came up with are all that solid. I think he is looking at it too much from the assumption that China is behaving like a cynical hegemon (the west) would.
I think a 5th explanation is that China’s international policy is more about stability than anything else and watching the world come apart is not in alignment with that. And though the cynical business view might argue that’s because of how China is “the factory of the world”, how tied up its economy is in producing stuff that other countries buy, China is also (in my estimation of how they function, though I am open to correction if somebody has data that would suggest otherwise) one of the countries most prepared/equipped to weather crisis. So if they were thinking about it cynically (for example, as an imperialist would), wouldn’t it benefit them more to watch a global oil crisis happen and then swoop in to take advantage of the chaos?
Whereas if they are viewing it from a pro-social standpoint, then stability is the largest benefit for everyone. And given their cultural tendency toward humility over boasting, naturally they wouldn’t want to be going around trying to brag about doing it.
Stability can also benefit them defensively. The imperialists are practiced at exploiting crises to instigate color revolutions and other such fuckery. Maintaining stability keeps them on a track of weaning the world off of dependency on the empire. Mass instability could create rapid changes in power structures in other countries, some of which may descend right into open fascism and go on the warpath, along with rupturing the global economy and putting China in a more tenuous position as to its influence.
If I were to put a name to it, I’d posit that their strategy is something like “weather the storm” (as a socialist fortress). The empire is already in the process of declining. The main question is how much damage it will do on the way out and how desperate it may get to reassert power. When China has more power over the levers of stability, that means there is less chaos the empire can directly cause in its desperation, which deprives the empire of one of its tools for regime change.
Stability can also benefit them defensively. The imperialists are practiced at exploiting crises to instigate color revolutions and other such fuckery. Maintaining stability keeps them on a track of weaning the world off of dependency on the empire. Mass instability could create rapid changes in power structures in other countries, some of which may descend right into open fascism and go on the warpath, along with rupturing the global economy and putting China in a more tenuous position as to its influence.
If I were to put a name to it, I’d posit that their strategy is something like “weather the storm” (as a socialist fortress). The empire is already in the process of declining. The main question is how much damage it will do on the way out and how desperate it may get to reassert power. When China has more power over the levers of stability, that means there is less chaos the empire can directly cause in its desperation, which deprives the empire of one of its tools for regime change.
This makes more sense than every YouTube and article I have read so far. Thank you
I really can’t disagree and your last paragraph is a lovely thought.I posted it not for the conclusion but the saved the world.
This guy is a limited hangout personified.
I found a YouTube link in your post. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
