The US hasn’t won a war since it partnered with communists. The wars it’s lost since have been against underdeveloped states, attacked at their weakest moments. The US has missed its chance to hit China while it’s down. Now it’ll be a peer conflict and the only peer conflict the US has won was against itself. The only other conflicts it’s won have been clandestine murder campaigns or ones with disproportionately massive firepower advantage. To my knowledge, the US has also lost every hot war against communists that it’s been in, which is why it stopped trying and now goes with other methods. The lesson is that communists can only be defeated by cloak and dagger.
The US is highly unlikely to be able to defeat China in a conventional war. China is highly unlikely to start a war with the US and/or launch troops on US soil. Which means there are only four realistic options. One, the US attacks China on Chinese soil (and loses). Two, the US convinces someone else to either launch an attack (who loses). Three, the US convinces someone else to drag Chinese troops into their homeland (and loses). Either option leads to the same result: China wins. The fourth option is Cold War. I think we’re already in that (and China seems to be winning).
Those who run the US know all this. So they’re unlikely to start a hot war. Maybe they can convince someone to start a proxy war. It’s possible, but China isn’t Russia. It’s still run by communists and they act very differently to the Russian capitalists who purposely chose to abandon Marxism. I suspect that China would be (a) faster to prevent a situation like the Donbas from escalating and (b) very difficult to provoke into a proxy war. Maybe history will prove me wrong. I’ll be shocked if it does.
The US managed to appear to ‘win’ the first Cold War by dividing the USSR’s leadership and outmanoeuvring it to make mistakes until it dissolved ‘itself’. The USSR wasn’t prepared for the internal betrayals, the consequence of materially improving the living conditions of a large section of the population that wanted more luxury that was possible within the then-arrangements and which created liberals 🤮. At the same time, the US only ‘won’ if the Cold War was against the USSR and not against communists/socialists in general. And as socialism/communism were not – because they cannot – be defeated, the US didn’t really win. It declared an end to history while letting China develop in plain sight 🤣 and having learned the lessons of the USSR’s destruction.
China is becoming self sufficient while the US (and Europe) remain(s) overly dependant on China. The US is so far trying and generally failing at causing rifts between China and the rest of BRICS+ and the BRI members/partners. Under imperialism, it’s all zero sum. A loss to the US is a gain for China. And a win for China is a loss for the US. It works both ways but imperialism can only ignore its contradictions for so long. The US isn’t doing much winning lately. I don’t see that trend changing.
So it’s not just that China is ‘winning’ the Cold War (tbh I was being a little hyperbolic), it’s also that capitalism cannot be sustained for much longer. Even if it finds a way to resolve its ‘ordinary’ class contradictions, capitalists have absolutely no solutions to address, reverse, or respond to climate change (maybe this is as a class contradiction?). That means it’s also a matter of logic and survival: either China is winning or it doesn’t matter; because China winning is socialism winning and China losing is capitalism winning.
If socialism wins, humanity has a future, which could be great or grim but it is a future. If capitalism wins, I don’t know if we have enough time for other socialist powers to develop enough to prevent climate catastrophe. I’m an optimist, though: communism won’t fail us.
(Maybe I also partly answered your question, above?)
It’s unlikely.
The US hasn’t won a war since it partnered with communists. The wars it’s lost since have been against underdeveloped states, attacked at their weakest moments. The US has missed its chance to hit China while it’s down. Now it’ll be a peer conflict and the only peer conflict the US has won was against itself. The only other conflicts it’s won have been clandestine murder campaigns or ones with disproportionately massive firepower advantage. To my knowledge, the US has also lost every hot war against communists that it’s been in, which is why it stopped trying and now goes with other methods. The lesson is that communists can only be defeated by cloak and dagger.
The US is highly unlikely to be able to defeat China in a conventional war. China is highly unlikely to start a war with the US and/or launch troops on US soil. Which means there are only four
realisticoptions. One, the US attacks China on Chinese soil (and loses). Two, the US convinces someone else to either launch an attack (who loses). Three, the US convinces someone else to drag Chinese troops into their homeland (and loses). Either option leads to the same result: China wins. The fourth option is Cold War. I think we’re already in that (and China seems to be winning).Those who run the US know all this. So they’re unlikely to start a hot war. Maybe they can convince someone to start a proxy war. It’s possible, but China isn’t Russia. It’s still run by communists and they act very differently to the Russian capitalists who purposely chose to abandon Marxism. I suspect that China would be (a) faster to prevent a situation like the Donbas from escalating and (b) very difficult to provoke into a proxy war. Maybe history will prove me wrong. I’ll be shocked if it does.
Thanks for this analysis comrade. Can you please elaborate more on how China is winning the cold war?
I’ll try to be brief 😬
The US managed to appear to ‘win’ the first Cold War by dividing the USSR’s leadership and outmanoeuvring it to make mistakes until it dissolved ‘itself’. The USSR wasn’t prepared for the internal betrayals, the consequence of materially improving the living conditions of a large section of the population that wanted more luxury that was possible within the then-arrangements and which created liberals 🤮. At the same time, the US only ‘won’ if the Cold War was against the USSR and not against communists/socialists in general. And as socialism/communism were not – because they cannot – be defeated, the US didn’t really win. It declared an end to history while letting China develop in plain sight 🤣 and having learned the lessons of the USSR’s destruction.
China is becoming self sufficient while the US (and Europe) remain(s) overly dependant on China. The US is so far trying and generally failing at causing rifts between China and the rest of BRICS+ and the BRI members/partners. Under imperialism, it’s all zero sum. A loss to the US is a gain for China. And a win for China is a loss for the US. It works both ways but imperialism can only ignore its contradictions for so long. The US isn’t doing much winning lately. I don’t see that trend changing.
So it’s not just that China is ‘winning’ the Cold War (tbh I was being a little hyperbolic), it’s also that capitalism cannot be sustained for much longer. Even if it finds a way to resolve its ‘ordinary’ class contradictions, capitalists have absolutely no solutions to address, reverse, or respond to climate change (maybe this is as a class contradiction?). That means it’s also a matter of logic and survival: either China is winning or it doesn’t matter; because China winning is socialism winning and China losing is capitalism winning.
If socialism wins, humanity has a future, which could be great or grim but it is a future. If capitalism wins, I don’t know if we have enough time for other socialist powers to develop enough to prevent climate catastrophe. I’m an optimist, though: communism won’t fail us.
(Maybe I also partly answered your question, above?)