Global powers are – indeed – global in impact, with economic power influencing virtually the whole world. One can argue that the whole concept has historical precedents, only in different forms and reach, from Mesopotamia, Babylon, to Egypt, Rome and its empire, Arab conquests, and European colonialism. More recently, the USSR and US. Powers absorbing and conquering others, with a disproportional impact on world affairs.
GLASS
China has historically always been powerful, but also rather isolationist in a sense. The famed Chinese wall being a symbol of that. Its economic power of yesteryear did a period compete with the Western world, until one invention/discovery by the West: crystal or glass. This in turn allowed development of telescopes, glasses for people, chemical reactions, and also e.g. electronics, based on glass. It gave the West a competitive edge over China, also a technological one, that it long has maintained.
The influence of China was culturally dominant in a large part of East Asia (incl. Japan), but remained seemingly inward-looking. There still was in history “expansionism” too, though, throughout the different imperial periods of China.
The competitive edge of the West over China since, simply said “glass”, could only recently be questioned, in modern (post-imperial) times: the Chinese republic was followed by a Communist state, that with some setbacks, in a ruthless manner, became a world power.
MAO
Mao Zedong epitomized that in the early stage, being a fascinating figure all in all. Contrary to popular myth, it was not Adolf Hitler who had one testicle/ball: it was another dictator who liked killing: namely Mao Zedong. It was never reported in Hitler's medical reports, so not the case, but probably a joke about a cruel dictator somehow overcompensating for having only one testicle.
In a sense this still applies, as Mao was certainly cruel and murderous in ruling, although his ideals seemed on paper more humane and positive: social equality versus Germanic superiority. Besides lacking one testicle, Mao was also relatively tall for a Chinese person, by the way, enabling more psychological theorizing.
CORPORATISM
The effect, anyway, the centralist Chinese state – mixing Marxist ideas with ingrained Chinese Confucian and Taoist (albeit adapted to the regime’s benefits and goals) values of obedience and family – became powerful. In time it incorporated capitalism and modernity with this centralist state approach. In reality, this shared remarkable similarities with Mussolini’s Fascism, started in Italy in the 1920s.
Probably as a way to end stifling “class struggle” in Italy, Mussolini made “corporatism” an important building stone of Fascist state rule: big capital (commercial companies) aligning with the state in controlling the masses/people. A first step toward totalitarianism, that in Italian society back then could be largely, but not fully implemented – though Il Duce Mussolini and his Fascist clique might have wanted that – due to the unorganized and “loose” structures of Latin/Catholic culture, characterizing Italy then.
It was attempted, though. My Italian father – born in the 1930s, once told me that he started going to school as a child during the last years of Mussolini’s rule (internal strive already started develop, and WW II in process), and had to give the Fascist greeting in a strict Italian school setting. This stopped with democracy after 1945.
TOTALITARIANISM
Hitler and the Nazi’s were more successful in establishing a “full” totalitarian state in Nazi Germany – influenced by Italian Fascism. Hitler named Mussolini as one of his inspirers. From school curricula, to local councils: the Nazi doctrine was supposed to shape all Germans mentally. Fascist corporatism mixed with racial and racist ideas of Northern Germanic, Aryan superiority, with partly roots in colonialism and separate sources, such as old German resentments and despise of Jews and Gypsies, or even the ridicule of neighbouring European peoples like Slavs, Celts, and Latins.
Especially the anti-Semitism became vicious, as is known, as well as the anti-gypsy policies, resulting in a mass genocide by Nazi Germany of especially Jews and Gypsies (Roma) in their occupied territories, as is widely known.
Such aspects of supposed cultural (or racial) superiority are historically recurring of course, with differing degrees of “totalitarianism”. It also recurs in China, especially today.
China’s Communism turned totalitarian/corporatist, some say, a “surveillance state”, adapted to modern technology (cameras, computer technology), but to repress and control the masses, and keep the central state power as absolute as possible, and obedience intact. Like in Nazi Germany, this totalitarianism was and is now “successfully” applied. The supposed superiority is now based on an ideology.
The cases of repressed culture in Tibet and the Uygurs (and other minorities in China), however, show that a Han Chinese sense of (ethnic) superiority is also there, despite ideological rhetorics.
CULTURE AND POLITICS
This lends itself to some interesting reflections on the relationship between culture and politics. The recent corona “pandemic” crisis showed this contradiction on a global scale. Not all people realized or saw this, since many were fooled into thinking it was actually a dangerous pandemic, and not – what it actually was – a “pLandemic”.
Some saw in those corona policies a type of global communism, China-style. Despite an obvious Chinese connection – the Wuhan lab - I consider it more capitalist-totalitarian and Western (in light of the WEF, Gates, and Fauci, being involved), and moreover: China is neither really Communist, but rather capitalist-totalitarian.
Culture in the end is stronger than politics, though it can be repressed. I experienced first- hand how Communism was applied in Cuba, in the Caribbean. A totalitarian control, including “snitching” on a neighbourhood level , seemed even to work there. Yet, there was also a way to get around it.
I do not know whether the latter is the case in China too: ways to get around it, flexibility in practice. The culture of obedience is supposedly much stronger there, although Cuba’s history of colonialism and slavery might have shaped such a passivity, albeit partly.
The “social credit” system in China, results from a cynical use of modern computer and internet technology, to control the masses’ behavior. It fights against all individuality, or individual deviance.
INDIVIDUALISM
This is a difference with Cuban communism. Some Protestants say that “individualism” arose with the Reformation: when Christians could read and interpret the Bible themselves, before it not allowed by the Catholic Church.
That is too simplistic. The creative ways of expressing one’s individuality have always existed, and even been the norm, within Catholic contexts, even if espoused otherwise.
Even during slavery in the Caribbean, Africans found ways to maintain their culture, even when not allowed. Spanish colonizers in Cuba allowed some cultural organizations for Africans, but even outside of that, more covert, African culture lived on.
The rich and varied musical legacy of Cuba is a testimony to this free spirit.
CONTROL
This “escaping state control” seems harder now in the computer and Internet age, and indeed China has a tradition of collectivism and popular obedience to authorities. At least, that is what is said.
This is only relative, and can only be, in my opinion. This is because I argue that culture is stronger than politics, even if the latter is aided by modern technology. People want love, enjoyment, relaxation, fulfillment, be pleased, and fun. Everywhere.
That “collectivist” sense in parts of Asia is in part an urge for “harmony” and security within a community, citizens may find relaxing or pleasing when knowing no better. It relates according to some to Confucian and Taoist ideas, - called “wu wei” – ingrained in Chinese culture, emphasizing from some perspective “inaction”, “passivity”, respect for elders, and “detachment of desires”.. but this is of course terribly simplified..
I think the Chinese Communist Party, however, only brought tension among most Chinese with their “social control” policies. Just like I have not encountered one Cuban in Cuba who liked to be controlled. Some went along with it, or even “snitched” to authorities, because their job or livelihood depended on it, but no one really wanted such a system. Let alone the culturally oppressed and repressed Tibetans, and other minorities (including religious ones) in China, or – I contend – most Chinese citizens.
Also, the Communist regime (Derg) that, in 1975, overthrew Emperor Haile Selassie in Ethiopia, and with that ended the ancient monarchy in Ethiopia, was no mass improvement. It substituted a – perhaps - archaic institution (an absolute monarch), that at least did not interfere with people’s lives, replacing it with Marxist totalitarian control over citizen’s lives at Ethiopian local levels. Even the Communist promise of education, social equality, and economic improvement in Ethiopia proved in balance not beneficial: more and larger famines were reported in Ethiopia after 1975 than during Selassie’s reign, and ethnic and other strives and conflicts (latently there) only increased with this stronger, interfering Communist state. Even with some benefits (e.g., food provision, egalitarian measures), common Ethiopian citizens did not want too much “top down” state control, and preferred to live their life and culture in their own way.
FREEDOM
Despite appearances, I think that what applies to Cuba and Ethiopia, also is the case for most Chinese citizens, though many may be hesitant to admit it. This admitting and self-realization takes time. Just like some only after about two years came to realize that “lockdowns” (also before this a common policy tool in China, by the way), and that entire corona policy, might not be appropriate in free, democratic societies, for such a relatively mild virus, and that some other goals may hide behind it.
Freedom and independence seeking values may be more in the culture of Cubans (Afro- and Hispanic-) or Ethiopians historically, but are somewhere within most Chinese too, I contend. Also within most Europeans/North Americans, even if too many let themselves so passively be deceived by the corona plandemic hype, and accompanying fear-mongering. The search for freedom is, simply, too universal and human to be repressed long. In the end, I opine, people will want to break free.
In that sense, the recent “total lockdown” (in April 2022) of the city of Shanghai, because of a few corona cases, is the peak of absurd totalitarian wickedness. Millions of people in this big city were forcibly locked down in their own house, strictly limited in their movements, by the state and its forces. This is Fascism, even more than Communism.
It also is – in another sense – capitalism. State capitalism or corporatism, one can also call it. Shanghai is a crucial economic hub in China and the world, and the world’s biggest port. People with a flu (virus) might not work so hard, or at all temporarily, and slave masters want their slaves - exploited labourers - after all to be healthy, but not free..
Freedom is a road, seldom travelled by the multitude.. But it should.. (and that rhymes, ha!).
COLLECTIVISM
The cultural aspect of “collectivist” values in China, comes more to the fore when one considers the “capitalist” parts of China: Taiwan, Hong Kong, known for big manufacturing industries. “Made in Taiwan” has become economic cliché.
Someone I know well, a woman from the Philippines, settled later in the Netherlands with a Dutch citizen. She met him in a Taiwanese company (based in the Netherlands), that she already worked for in Taiwan, relating about harsh, “modern slavery” conditions: not allowed to leave a terrain, rough manners, extreme demands, no longer accepted (formally) in Western companies. The blatant disregard and lack of consideration for individual labourers/workers could be related to Chinese culture (collectivistic) – and its lack of democratic tradition -, she found, also differing from the Philippines. Her Netherlands partner, she met in the Taiwanese company based in the Netherlands, I know well too, and he told me how he was truly shocked by the bad manners and demeaning treatment he received, provoking in him so much anger, that he found it hard to control himself against the rude bosses, but contained himself, needing the job and income then.
This disregard and lack of respect for individual needs is thus found in both Chinese communist (China) and capitalist contexts (Taiwan, Hong Kong). A collectivistic culture of obedience, characterizing China historically, to a large degree might explain it. Still, there is more to it, I argue.
MATERIALISM
These "isms” (communism, capitalism) are ideological, yet also materialistic. In fact, “materialism” is the overriding category of both.
The “egalitarian” goals of Marxism and Chinese communists by Mao Zedong c.s. seem more humane, that the “profit maximalizing” exploiting capitalism represents. Both deny, however, individuality. Their materialism also denies true “spirituality” which in a sense is related to individuality.
Mao Zedong said to the Dalai Lama in the 1950s (when the Chinese started to conquer Tibet more) “religion is poison”. Tibet was then extremely religious – Buddhist -, with many religious festivals, and structures, determining the whole society, with a large proportion of the male population e.g. being trained for Buddhist “monks”.
Was it really just “religion” though - an institute and ideology -, and not just as much spirituality - a culture -, guiding Tibetan life and culture, that Chinese government forces sought to repress or destroy since the later 1950s? About 85 days of a year were up to then taken up by various religious festivals in Tibet, of an own Buddhist nature, before the Chinese communist take-over. These were all then banned by the atheist Chinese government.
DEHUMANIZATION
It is here that the “culture versus politics” question becomes more complex.
Common labourers at the bottom of societies suffer in all isms. Fascism, capitalism, and communism.
I structure my values partly by sincere, eye-opening conversations I had during my life with close ones, apart from own experiences of course (and reading good works). My mother (growing up under the Franco regime in Spain, a more or less Fascist regime) told me several times, often sadly, that she felt she was only meant to be a “slave” working - under harsh, demeaning conditions - as labourer in Francoist Spain, for bosses who were generally Franco supporters, reaching positions often through nepotism. Little freedom or respect for individual rights there, especially for the poor and powerless.
An ex-girlfriend of mine in Cuba, living then under Castroist Communism, said – also sadly – something similar: “they treat me like a slave”, with much compulsory extra work, e.g. agricultural harvesting in rural Cuba, as part of the national plan economy, also for people already working as teachers with a degree, as she did. Added to usual working hours, and compulsory. Often even uncompensated (perhaps some food items). She being mainly of African descent, made her use of the term “slave” extra painful, in light of Castro’s Cuba propaganda of “improving the position of Afro-Cubans”. In what way, improving?
All those materialist “isms” disrespect individuality, the own human “spirit”, which expresses itself in culture, replaced by a cold, dehumanizing view on humans, needing to fit in an unnatural and unequal economic ideology. As I sing in one of my songs: “ideology is not humanity”.
One can argue, thus, that historical “collectivist” and “obedience” cultural values of “harmony” in Chinese culture, have been hardened and “coldened” by these dehumanizing “isms”.
The totalitarian regime now in place in China, therefore has ironically ideological similarities with Western elites, such as those joined in the World Economic Forum, and the wealthiest 2% in all Western countries, the Rockefellers, Bill Gates etcetera, often family fortunes going back generations with large capitalist enterprises, or even to colonialism, as the origin of “multinationals” (e.g. Shell) goes back to colonial times. That the father of founder of the “club of wealthiest people” in this world, the WEF, the German Klaus Schwab, was an influential active member of the Nazi party is telling in itself.
Marxism, in theory, countered that capitalist exploitation, but within the same collectivist, materialist value system. It’s all about the money, still.
This same dehumanizing value system oddly suddenly “normalized” totalitarian, undemocratic policies, earlier practiced in China, also in Western nations, during that Covid “plandemic” since 2020. Lockdowns, curfews (in some countries last imposed under Nazi rule!), non-working (obligatory!) face masks, even obligatory “vaccination”/MRNA injection in some countries, unconstitutional yet structural discrimination of unvaccinated, etcetera.. all attacking and damaging free culture, medical freedom, bodily integrity, gathering, and small businesses, in other words: individual humanity.
The unholy, unhappy “social credit” system for citizens, in practice for some time now in a large part of China, treating citizens like children or even animals, is even experimented with – to degrees – now in some parts of Europe: Bologna and Rome in Italy, Bavaria in Germany. A cheap shot, maybe, but also countries with Fascist/Nazi pasts.
However, I am quite sure that the free individual spirit, indestructibly inherent in humans, will eventually want to break free from this, to return to “free culture” and “free spirituality”. There and everywhere.
The shocking footage I saw recently of people locked up in their apartments above sinister empty streets in Shanghai under state-enforced “covid” lockdown (for a relatively mild flu virus) – almost like animals in stables in industrial farms -, and the desperate screaming I heard from the houses, exemplifies this struggle, and this dehumanizing injustice.
It also should be a warning sign for most reasonable and decent people in this world: this dehumanizing totalitarianism is not what we want (anymore), nowhere in the world.
