Consider this clip. That’s the Chinese ambassador to the US. Yet he can’t make his case in English.
Despite the fact that there are millions of Chinese nationals with far better English skills and cultural fluency, they weren’t tapped for this position.
Why? Perhaps someone who was very culturally fluent with the West would nowadays be suspect in China. Might not get an ambassador posting.
This extends to other parts of the PRC. They are internally focused. People aren’t selected for their ability to message out, but inward.
Basically, for China, their interface to the outside world is monetary & martial, not moral.
India is different. It’s not as strong monetarily or martially. But even a random Indian anchor shows a stronger penchant for moral argumentation in English than the Chinese ambassador.
Yet another contrast to the CCP’s chosen spokesmen is Lee Kuan Yew, who helped Deng turn China away from Maoism and who was highly eloquent in English.
A bizarro-world thought experiment: imagine if the Chinese government could communicate like this.
I don’t think CCP China will be easily out-manufactured, out-executed, or out-fought. They are strong on physical things.
But they can perhaps be out-innovated, and definitely out-argued. A big weakness is their inability to argue in English, to make a moral case to the world.
By the way, a wildcard here is if AI gets so good that it can not just translate an argument into English, but make it convincing. I don’t think this is likely but can’t fully dismiss it.
Also, China *has* had global cultural success recently with (admittedly nonverbal) TikTok.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Westerners like John Reed were prominent in the revolution. Germany let Lenin go to Russia. Sutton wrote about Wall Street’s financing of the Bolsheviks.
It’s true that Americans & other Westerners intervened on the side of the Russian Whites during the Russian Civil War.
But there were Westerners backing the Reds too. After all, many Western elites were sympathetic to communism, all through the century. smithsonianmag.com/history/forgot…
This shouldn’t be that implausible if you’re aware of how the Nazis drew inspiration (and funding) from some groups in America.
The Soviets were similarly backed by other factions in the West.
There is an emergent dynamic here where progressives are taking away the status returns from philanthropy, thinking the state will fill the gap, but actually sawing off their own tree branch by cutting grants.
The capital then goes to (say) biotech investments instead.
This is part of a broader concept.
If you read Easterly & Levine, or Blattman, you see that foreign aid actually keeps countries poor. But foreign *investment* gets them up and running.
“This network state idea could be dismissed…Except that they’re not proposing some unlikely future, but rather describing a de facto reality that’s only accelerated with the post-COVID crackup.”
I write about this exact phenomenon in The Network State.
At scale, a startup becomes a bureaucracy. The CEO must ensure that all are replaceable, because otherwise one departure could kill a company. However, this leads to alienation. And then decline. thenetworkstate.com/left-is-the-ne…
Without picking on this guy at all — seems like a perfectly reasonable person — this attitude is why Google* hasn’t shipped innovative products in years.
* Their AI work is still amazing, but that’s research. Publishing isn’t as easily blocked by the rest of the org.
No, VCs couldn't have "just funded nuclear", because regulations like ALARA increased the price of nuclear until it had no advantage over other sources.
I've thought about how to fix this, and my conclusion is: tracking polls.
To change the law, you need moral consensus. You measure that consensus with tracking polls. And you shift that consensus with rational + emotional arguments in a variety of media.