The inaction of China reportedly deeply disappointed the Russian elites. That's understandable. Many expected that China would exploit the chaos in Europe seeing it as a chance to conquer Taiwan. Still, they didn't invade. Why?🧵
Throughout its history China suffered from the uncountable number of civil wars and inner conflicts. Naturally, some of them could trigger the Chinese expansion rather than hamper it, transition from Ming to Qing being probably one of the most vivid examples
With the victorious Qing army marching south, the last Ming loyalists had little choice but to escape. A fraction led by a Ming loyalist and a pirate admiral Koxinga chose to evacuate their base from the mainland. The Dutch-controlled Taiwan (Formosa) looked as an obvious choice
Koxinga's troops smashed the Dutch and took control of the island. Tonio Andrade whom I highly recommend framed this as the victory of China over the West. But it was not the central government in Beijing that captured Taiwan for China, it was a defeated fraction in the civil war
Civil strife being a trigger of the territorial expansion is a well-known pattern in the history of the British Isles. Stuarts are imposing the High Church (yeah, it's ahistorical term, but it conveys the idea) conformity so the Puritans have to escape to what is now New England
Civil War brings the fall of the Stuarts and the Low Church triumphs over the High . Most English overseas possessions were reluctant to accept the defeated Cavaliers. Except for Virginia, whose governor welcomed them warmly. Soon they comprised the bulk of the local ruling class
Considering that the American North and the South were built by the political emigres who represented the two opposing fractions in the English Civil War, and hold the opposite views on nearly everything, it's striking how they managed to live in relative peace for so long
At least this is the impression I had when reading this book. You may disagree with its conclusions, but they're certainly interesting. Its argument is way more nuanced than what I just outlined, I just don't want to go any further for now
Thinking in higher orders, the story of the British civil wars and the emigration waves they triggered reminded me of the following idea. "It was probably the inability to live in peace with each other rather than thirst for food or resources that triggered the human expansion"
The Transition from Ming to Qing that triggered the destruction of European colonies on Taiwan and the true incorporation of the island into China may be a good example of this pattern. It was not the government who conquered it, it were the evacuating rebels
Being located far enough from the mainland to grant a certain security but close enough to allow for a mass evacuation, Taiwan was an obvious choice of a safe haven for a losing fraction in the civil war. In the 17th c it would be Ming, in the 20th c it was the Kuomintang
The civil war between the KMT and the Communists with the numerous warlord fractions clinging to this or that side, had been going for decades. During the WWII the KMT was too busy fighting the Japanese. WIth the KMT attention deflected, the Communists grew very much stronger
Upon the end of the WWII, Communists were ready to crystallise their new influence by effectively dividing the country with the KMT. In 1945 Mao Zedong offered Chiang Kai-shek to keep the south, living a few northern provinces (including Beiping) to Mao. Chiang refused. See p. 55
Back in 1945 Communists wanted to divide China into two zones of influence because they still perceived themselves as a weaker side in the civil war. But by 1949 they were winning. With victorious Communists marching south, the KMT had little choice but to evacuate to Taiwan
Let me summarise:
- It's not necessarily the unity that triggers the territorial expansion. It's quite often the division
- It was the division of China that triggered the incorporation of Taiwan into its structure. Taiwan was an obvious refuge for the losers in a civil war
- Communists didn't always stand for the unity of China. They wanted to divide it while being weaker
- In 1945-1949 the balance of power between the CPC and KMT reversed
- Taiwan was the only foothold the KMT could evacuate to and realistically hope to keep from the CPC onslaught
That's enough for today, I'll continue next time. End of 🧵
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
What I am saying is that "capitalist reforms" are a buzzword devoid of any actual meaning, and a buzzword that obfuscated rather than explains. Specifically, it is fusing radically different policies taken under the radically different circumstances (and timing!) into one - purely for ideological purposes
It can be argued, for example, that starting from the 1980s, China has undertaken massive socialist reforms, specifically in infrastructure, and in basic (mother) industries, such as steel, petrochemical and chemical and, of course, power
The primary weakness of this argument is that being true, historically speaking, it is just false in the context of American politics where the “communism” label has been so over-used (and misapplied) that it lost all of its former power:
“We want X”
“No, that is communism”
“We want communism”
Basically, when you use a label like “communism” as a deus ex machina winning you every argument, you simultaneously re-define its meaning. And when you use it to beat off every popular socio economic demand (e.g. universal healthcare), you re-define communism as a synthesis of all the popular socio economic demands
Historical communism = forced industrial development in a poor, predominantly agrarian country, funded through expropriation of the peasantry
(With the most disastrous economic and humanitarian consequences)
Many are trying to explain his success with some accidental factors such as his “personal charisma”, Cuomo's weakness etc
Still, I think there may be some fundamental factors here. A longue durée shift, and a very profound one
1. Public outrage does not work anymore
If you look at Zohran, he is calm, constructive, and rarely raises his voice. I think one thing that Mamdani - but almost no one else in the American political space is getting - is that the public is getting tired of the outrage
Outrage, anger, righteous indignation have all been the primary drivers of American politics for quite a while
For a while, this tactics worked
Indeed, when everyone around is polite, and soft (and insincere), freaking out was a smart thing to do. It could help you get noticed
People don’t really understand causal links. We pretend we do (“X results in Y”). But we actually don’t. Most explanations (= descriptions of causal structures) are fake.
There may be no connection between X and Y at all. The cause is just misattributed.
Or, perhaps, X does indeed result in Y. but only under a certain (and unknown!) set of conditions that remains totally and utterly opaque to us. So, X->Y is only a part of the equation
And so on
I like to think of a hypothetical Stone Age farmer who started farming, and it worked amazingly, and his entire community adopted his lifestyle, and many generations followed it and prospered and multiplied, until all suddenly wiped out in a new ice age
1. Normative Islamophobia that used to define the public discourse being the most acceptable form of racial & ethnic bigotry in the West, is receding. It is not so much dying as rather - failing to replicate. It is not that the old people change their views as that the young do not absorb their prejudice any longer.
In fact, I incline to think it has been failing to replicate for a while, it is just that we have not been paying attention
Again, the change of vibe does not happen at once. The Muslim scare may still find (some) audience among the more rigid elderly, who are not going to change their views. But for the youth, it is starting to sound as archaic as the Catholic scare of know nothings
Out of date
2. What is particularly interesting regarding Mamdani's victory, is his support base. It would not be much of an exaggeration to say that its core is comprised of the young (and predominantly white) middle classes, with a nearly equal representation of men and women
What does Musk vs Trump affair teach us about the general patterns of human history? Well, first of all it shows that the ancient historians were right. They grasped something about nature of politics that our contemporaries simply can’t.
Let me give you an example. The Arab conquest of Spain
According to a popular medieval/early modern interpretation, its primary cause was the lust of Visigoth king Roderic. Aroused by the beautiful daughter of his vassal and ally, count Julian, he took advantage of her
Disgruntled, humiliated Julian allied himself with the Arabs and opens them the gates of Spain.
Entire kingdom lost, all because the head of state caused a personal injury to someone important.