A Clash of Capitalisms
Remember, it was a few months ago. We talked of a G2 or of a ChinAmerica, like a couple whose capacity to collaborate would shape the future of the planet. On all the grand matters (economic recovery, global warming, the fight against nuclear proliferation), if Beijing and Washington were able to get along, the rest of the world would follow. Just as “happy globalization” owed much to the “virtuous circle” of the America that feasted on Chinese thanks for Beijing’s financing of American credit, a form of new global governance uniting the interests of rich countries and developing countries would spring from this Chinese-American couple.
Today one measures to what point that vision — issued by close advisors to the White House — was based, at best, on a misunderstanding, more likely on ignorance. We had already seen that the so-called “virtuous circle” had proven itself harmful and destabilizing for the entire world economy. In the new showdown between the U.S. and China, it is clear how antagonistic their relationship could become. With the forced march of Beijing to integrate the market model of globalization, one might think that their differences are diminishing. Nothing is less certain.
After having long been under the illusion of the market’s ability to democratize China, the United States seems to be rediscovering — all of a sudden — the true nature of the Chinese regime. The clash of values that highlighted the “Google Affair” is also a clash of capitalism. In the face of the American liberal model, strongly discredited after the “lost decade” — as Barack Obama puts it — of the Bush era, emerged a Chinese counter-model of authoritative capitalism that has not only proved its effectiveness in a time of crisis, but is seducing more and more developing countries. It is undoubtedly necessary to consider this “Chinese capitalism” the principal challenge posed to liberal democracies. As Beijing keeps repeating: Western democracy was not made for the Chinese.
That does not mean that China and the West are condemned to confrontation. That does not mean that the Chinese regime cannot one day evolve toward political openness. But it is better to be perfectly conscious of these differences and know that they will endure — whether we like it or not.
Today one measures to what point that vision — issued by close advisors to the White House — was based, at best, on a misunderstanding, more likely on ignorance. We had already seen that the so-called “virtuous circle” had proven itself harmful and destabilizing for the entire world economy. In the new showdown between the U.S. and China, it is clear how antagonistic their relationship could become. With the forced march of Beijing to integrate the market model of globalization, one might think that their differences are diminishing. Nothing is less certain.
After having long been under the illusion of the market’s ability to democratize China, the United States seems to be rediscovering — all of a sudden — the true nature of the Chinese regime. The clash of values that highlighted the “Google Affair” is also a clash of capitalism. In the face of the American liberal model, strongly discredited after the “lost decade” — as Barack Obama puts it — of the Bush era, emerged a Chinese counter-model of authoritative capitalism that has not only proved its effectiveness in a time of crisis, but is seducing more and more developing countries. It is undoubtedly necessary to consider this “Chinese capitalism” the principal challenge posed to liberal democracies. As Beijing keeps repeating: Western democracy was not made for the Chinese.
That does not mean that China and the West are condemned to confrontation. That does not mean that the Chinese regime cannot one day evolve toward political openness. But it is better to be perfectly conscious of these differences and know that they will endure — whether we like it or not.
Previous article![]( "Obama Wins the Gold")
