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
Yes, and that is super duper quadruper important to understand
Koreans are poor (don't have an empire) and, therefore, must do productive work to earn their living. So, if the Americans want to learn how to do anything productive they must learn it from Koreans etc
There is this stupid idea that the ultra high level of life and consumption in the United States has something to do with their productivity. That is of course a complete sham. An average American doesn't do anything useful or important to justify (or earn!) his kingly lifestyle
The kingly lifestyle of an average American is not based on his "productivity" (what a BS, lol) but on the global empire Americans are holding currently. Part of the imperial dynamics being, all the actually useful work, all the material production is getting outsourced abroad
Reading Tess of the d'Urbervilles. Set in southwest England, somewhere in the late 1800s. And the first thing you need to know is that Tess is bilingual. He speaks a local dialect she learnt at home, and the standard English she picked at school from a London-trained teacher
So, basically, "normal" language doesn't come out of nowhere. Under the normal conditions, people on the ground speak all the incomprehensible patois, wildly different from each other
"Regular", "correct" English is the creation of state
So, basically, the state chooses a standard (usually, based on one of the dialects), cleanses it a bit, and then shoves down everyone's throats via the standardized education
Purely artificial construct, of a super mega state that really appeared only by the late 1800s
There's a subtle point here that 99,999% of Western commentariat is missing. Like, totally blind to. And that point is:
Building a huuuuuuuuuuge dam (or steel plant, or whatever) has been EVERYONE's plan of development. Like absolutely every developing country, no exceptions
Almost everyone who tried to develop did it in a USSR-ish way, via prestige projects. Build a dam. A steel plant. A huge plant. And then an even bigger one
And then you run out of money, and it all goes bust and all you have is postapocalyptic ruins for the kids to play in
If China did not go bust, in a way like almost every development project from the USSR to South Asia did, that probably means that you guys are wrong about China. Like totally wrong
What you describe is not China but the USSR, and its copies & emulations elsewhere
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