NationStates Jolt Archive

Let's consider the current situation. As of present, the US is the sole superpower on the planet. That will likely change in the next half century, and China is the most likely candidate, as they are growing fast, and have a helluvalot more potential. Yet some optimists (myself included) believe that a liberal, if not democratic China, is possible within the next two generations. Yet if they become so, can they still become a superpower?
They may by some definitions, but not mine. Let's consider the nature of alliances. The US and Western Europe have been allies for the better part of the 20th century, drifting apart only recently. I blame it on shifting ideaologies in these two nations. The US prefers an individualist capitalist society, while most in Western Europe favor a centralized social and economic system. Another example is German-French relations. France was always democratic, whereas Germany bounced between a monarchy and fascist regime. Today, with nearly identical ideaological structures, they are great allies.
Nations with ideaologies in kind rely on the strongest of their kind to defend them, cover their interests diplomatically, and look to for inspiration. The only exception is in times of war or in unstable areas, which can be exemplified with the relationship between the US and Saudi Arabia, or the US and China during the Cold War.
If China, or India, or whoever the next power may be, shares the same goals and aspirations as the US, then it has no need to become a superpower. Yet all of these nations may form diffierent ideaologies, and wish to assert them. That was the basis of many wars, and that is going to be the basis of the diplomatic wars in the mid-21st century.

smart gentleman.

smart gentleman.
thank you. I'm a woman.

bump

Surely the colonial empires were all effectively superpowers which shared the same ideology?

Surely the colonial empires were all effectively superpowers which shared the same ideology?
No. Imperialism is a method, not an idea. Britain was a capitalist society moving towards democracy. France was part socialist, fully democratic, and treated its colonies like dirt. Germany just gained them for prestige. The two most alike imperial powers were the US and Britain, and while the US may have been potentially more powerful by 1900, they did not care about running the world. Yet I wish we do not dwell on this single example, as it misses the bigger picture.

bump

Superpowers can exist, but no superpower will ever exist forever, until a majority of the world is behind it.

Well, let's think about what it means to be a superpower... I guess?

If America is the ONLY super power in the world, then I really want to see your reasoning behind that...

Why would the appearance of a super power be based one separate ideologies? This is edging the question. I think that to be a superpower a nation must have successfully developed A) industrial, B) economic C)Political D)militaristic influence in the world, or an equivalent amount of those influence that would allow that country to TAKE OVER the world.

Therefore, ideologies mean nothing. It is about the ability to seize the world--NOT ACTUALLY doing it. If the superpower in question does take over the world, good for them.

If we're going by your ideology idea (you'll have to explain...), then I don't see how 2 superpowers can exist with only one ideology--your system is based on polarity, that one is good and one is bad. And you may have gotten the good guys wrong, or equivalent.

HOWEVER, also MUST be true is there cannot be ONE superpower with the ideology theory, it must be two, four, even numbers, etc.

WIKIPEDIA...A superpower is a state with the ability to influence events or project power on a global scale. In modern terms, this may imply an entity with a huge economy, a large population, and strong armed forces, including air and space power and a considerable arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.

If I were using that definition right there, then I might easily be able to say that North Korea is a superpower. It a) influenes events on a global scale, b)has a strong armed forces (or can get a strong armed force), c)has a considerable arsenal of WMDs.

The US doesn't even go there because of either a) the delicate balance that must be maintained in that area or b)we got beat the last time....with the U.N.

However, I could say the same of so many countries. We either must elevate our definition of a superpower (possibly excluding America, with its shrinking influence in the world), or allow more superpowers.

Yes they can, but it's easier to maintain it with 2 or more seperate ideologies, because the term "superpower" is applied to militarilly powerful nations, and its a hell of a lot easier to justify gross military expenditure when there is a competing ideology out there that you consider a threat.

Well, let's think about what it means to be a superpower... I guess?

If America is the ONLY super power in the world, then I really want to see your reasoning behind that...

Why would the appearance of a super power be based one separate ideologies? This is edging the question. I think that to be a superpower a nation must have successfully developed A) industrial, B) economic C)Political D)militaristic influence in the world, or an equivalent amount of those influence that would allow that country to TAKE OVER the world.

Therefore, ideologies mean nothing. It is about the ability to seize the world--NOT ACTUALLY doing it. If the superpower in question does take over the world, good for them.

If we're going by your ideology idea (you'll have to explain...), then I don't see how 2 superpowers can exist with only one ideology--your system is based on polarity, that one is good and one is bad. And you may have gotten the good guys wrong, or equivalent.

HOWEVER, also MUST be true is there cannot be ONE superpower with the ideology theory, it must be two, four, even numbers, etc.

WIKIPEDIA...A superpower is a state with the ability to influence events or project power on a global scale. In modern terms, this may imply an entity with a huge economy, a large population, and strong armed forces, including air and space power and a considerable arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.

If I were using that definition right there, then I might easily be able to say that North Korea is a superpower. It a) influenes events on a global scale, b)has a strong armed forces (or can get a strong armed force), c)has a considerable arsenal of WMDs.

The US doesn't even go there because of either a) the delicate balance that must be maintained in that area or b)we got beat the last time....with the U.N.

However, I could say the same of so many countries. We either must elevate our definition of a superpower (possibly excluding America, with its shrinking influence in the world), or allow more superpowers.

if north korea gets that position, so too does China, russia, France, and Britain...

The only extra-national power it has is a few nukes, hardly much. Many nations could conscript large forces, as could NK. NK wouldnt be able to arm them all, or well anyways.

Every society, every revolution, contains in it the seeds of it's own demise.
Can two superpowers share an ideology? (No 'A', buys :D )
Hmm.... I think I need to ponder this one for a while. There have been times when two states have been exceedingly powerful, but did not share an exact ideology. Plus, as ideology changes with the times, the generation, it would be hard to pin down an exact moment.

If Two Powers follow the same Ideologies, then are they two seperate superpowers? If, as you have predicted, China does adopt western ideals, will it truly be competing against the United states or will it just fall under the umbrella of Capitalism? I predict that nations will continue to globilize until a fanatical religous or idealogical group incites the Working class into a frenzy and undermines society.

Well, let's think about what it means to be a superpower... I guess?

If America is the ONLY super power in the world, then I really want to see your reasoning behind that...

Why would the appearance of a super power be based one separate ideologies? This is edging the question. I think that to be a superpower a nation must have successfully developed A) industrial, B) economic C)Political D)militaristic influence in the world, or an equivalent amount of those influence that would allow that country to TAKE OVER the world.

Therefore, ideologies mean nothing. It is about the ability to seize the world--NOT ACTUALLY doing it. If the superpower in question does take over the world, good for them.

If we're going by your ideology idea (you'll have to explain...), then I don't see how 2 superpowers can exist with only one ideology--your system is based on polarity, that one is good and one is bad. And you may have gotten the good guys wrong, or equivalent.

HOWEVER, also MUST be true is there cannot be ONE superpower with the ideology theory, it must be two, four, even numbers, etc.

WIKIPEDIA...A superpower is a state with the ability to influence events or project power on a global scale. In modern terms, this may imply an entity with a huge economy, a large population, and strong armed forces, including air and space power and a considerable arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.

If I were using that definition right there, then I might easily be able to say that North Korea is a superpower. It a) influenes events on a global scale, b)has a strong armed forces (or can get a strong armed force), c)has a considerable arsenal of WMDs.

The US doesn't even go there because of either a) the delicate balance that must be maintained in that area or b)we got beat the last time....with the U.N.

However, I could say the same of so many countries. We either must elevate our definition of a superpower (possibly excluding America, with its shrinking influence in the world), or allow more superpowers.
I define superpower a bit differently from you. Economically, there are about six or seven superpowers. The true mark of a superpower is one developed economically, and in additon, wiith a large and powerful military, a vast diplomatic apparatus, and a global intelligence agency to boot. That may not sound hard, but only the US, UK, and Russia have truely global intelligence networks.

If Two Powers follow the same Ideologies, then are they two seperate superpowers? If, as you have predicted, China does adopt western ideals, will it truly be competing against the United states or will it just fall under the umbrella of Capitalism? I predict that nations will continue to globilize until a fanatical religous or idealogical group incites the Working class into a frenzy and undermines society.
That was predicted during the last era of globalization that began after the American Civil War. It did happen, but it barely succeeded. If anything, any new upheavals won't be a workers' revolution.
However, I believe that the current global order will collapse, baring any major diplomatic crisis. There is no underlying reason to believe that one is likely, and if there is, it is far too imperceptable to detect. It is not like the last major upheaval during WWI, when the signs were there for all to see, if not connect.

That may not sound hard, but only the US, UK, and Russia have truely global intelligence networks.

I'd say Israel has a pretty extensive intelligence network also, but it's certainly not an economic or military superpower.

I'd suspect a yes. Super-powers do not really need to be polarized. They can exert influence all over the world, and as such, they need not be in competition.

That's an interesting proposition, Mystic. I guess it would depend on the size of the the superpowers, because that term is relative. If they were in each others' backyards constantly, that could lead to conflict. If they are relatively spaced, I think they can get along to some degree.

bump

I'd say Israel has a pretty extensive intelligence network also, but it's certainly not an economic or military superpower.
Israel is simply a regional power. It has done extremely well for itself in the Middle East, being both the wealthiest and the strongest state around. However, it is simply a littlier version of the US and many European states.

I think that to be a superpower a nation must have successfully developed A) industrial, B) economic C)Political D)militaristic influence in the world, or an equivalent amount of those influence that would allow that country to TAKE OVER the world.

Hmmmm......this sounds vaguely familiar, have you by any chance read any of Michael Mann's books?

I blame it on shifting ideaologies in these two nations. The US prefers an individualist capitalist society, while most in Western Europe favor a centralized social and economic system.
Is America really so individualist? Consider that the agricultural system is on the road to being as centralised as the USSR's, with only a few corporations running everything. Same with the media. Most of that is only owned by 5 or 6 corporations.

You must remember that the opposite of socialism is not necessarily individualist.

If I were using that definition right there, then I might easily be able to say that North Korea is a superpower. It a) influenes events on a global scale, b)has a strong armed forces (or can get a strong armed force), c)has a considerable arsenal of WMDs.



That's not true at all. The DPRK does not influence events in other nations. Events can occur in other nations as a result of the actions of the DPRK, but it cannot force an event to occur. Nor does it have a considerable arsenal of WMDs, I doubt it has more than ten or twenty warheads and it doesn't have any sort of deliver system with which to launch them.

Let's consider the current situation. As of present, the US is the sole superpower on the planet. That will likely change in the next half century, and China is the most likely candidate, as they are growing fast, and have a helluvalot more potential. Yet some optimists (myself included) believe that a liberal, if not democratic China, is possible within the next two generations. Yet if they become so, can they still become a superpower?
They may by some definitions, but not mine. Let's consider the nature of alliances. The US and Western Europe have been allies for the better part of the 20th century, drifting apart only recently. I blame it on shifting ideaologies in these two nations. The US prefers an individualist capitalist society, while most in Western Europe favor a centralized social and economic system. Another example is German-French relations. France was always democratic, whereas Germany bounced between a monarchy and fascist regime. Today, with nearly identical ideaological structures, they are great allies.
Nations with ideaologies in kind rely on the strongest of their kind to defend them, cover their interests diplomatically, and look to for inspiration. The only exception is in times of war or in unstable areas, which can be exemplified with the relationship between the US and Saudi Arabia, or the US and China during the Cold War.
If China, or India, or whoever the next power may be, shares the same goals and aspirations as the US, then it has no need to become a superpower. Yet all of these nations may form diffierent ideaologies, and wish to assert them. That was the basis of many wars, and that is going to be the basis of the diplomatic wars in the mid-21st century.
Well, european union is also becoming a superpower, and their ideology is very similar to US.

You cannot truly measure who is a super power and who is not. Some experts say the US is the only super power, others claim Russia and China are super powers as well, while others claim there are no super powers left.

I go with the last one. I believe the US fails to be a super power BECAUSE:
Nations can tell them to talk to the hand. Take Iraq. The US hoped for support from the Arab community. I have a memory that almost every Arab state(Kuwait excluded) condemned the invasion. They showed Bush their middle finger. China said it was a bad thing to do, right after the invasion the Chinese foreign minister was unhappy with the decision to invade. In the Cold War the USSR would have led anti-American protests in the UN and armed the insurgents. But, since the USSR is no more there was no great power willing to support the Iraqis. Saddam wasn't liked by anyone really.

During the Cold War nations would rarely stand up against the US or USSR unless backed by the other. I think the US super power era ended with the end of the cold war, together with the USSR. The US military has shrunk to become a shadow of its former self with a small army(big navy though). It is still an economic and military great power, but with the European Union it has been economically surpassed(if counting it as one) in the case of a single European nation the US is second on the economic frontier(and militarily unless the armies of Europe are cut down).

China is more relevant. China will soon become number one on the economy and its military is quickly becoming better trained and equiped(the ranks shrink at the same time). I can see China sending peacekeepers around the world as peacekeeping missions give the impression that a nation cares about others. We Europeans and the Americans do it all the time!

I say that ideology can never be exactly the same. Nationalism is the key thing. Before world war one France was a French Republic, UK a british constitutional monarchy, Russia a Russian monarchy, Germany a German monarchy, etc.

Democracy is not an ideology anyway. The US is an American federal republic. Russia is a Russian federal republic. Sweden is a Swedish constitutional monarchy. And so on and so forth. There is no democratic ideology. With the type of government you can also add what kind of views the nation holds at the moment. Be it social conservative, socialist, or whatever.

China is not governed by a communist government, in fact it is not communist anymore. It is a nationalist Chinese republic(Beijing say it's Chinese socialism).

Every nation has its own interests(part of the nationalism). A nation always acts in its own interests. Sending food to starving children in Africa is for our own interests. When Sweden feed starving people the people in Sweden feel happy with themself(don't you feel guilty when you throw food while children are starving?) and their government(as do all countries). Peacekeeping forces are sent both for the people's conscience and for brownie points in the international community.

So no, there cannot be two super powers with the same ideology. No nation has the exact same ideology. Sorry for the rant!

Is America really so individualist? Consider that the agricultural system is on the road to being as centralised as the USSR's, with only a few corporations running everything. Same with the media. Most of that is only owned by 5 or 6 corporations.

The media is not government owned, however. It is rather an oligopoly, but it doesn't need to be. New media groups are popping up all the time, with varying success. And don't forget that the FOX network, along with cable television, only about twenty years ago.
As for the roads, yes, they are centrally controlled. So are many things in the US. However, the economy is not as centralized and as in government control as in France, or Sweden.

The basic problem with your question seems to be that people are impling ideology is the same of national interest. Can two countries share the same ideology? Yes, there is no reason why becoming more powerful will have to change your ideology. Will they still fight? Probally, this is because two great powers will have conflicting national interest. I believe national interest influnces what a country does more then ideology. So no matter if a two super powers share ideology there will still be conflict and maybe war.

The media is not government owned, however. It is rather an oligopoly, but it doesn't need to be. New media groups are popping up all the time, with varying success. And don't forget that the FOX network, along with cable television, only about twenty years ago.

As for the roads, yes, they are centrally controlled. So are many things in the US. However, the economy is not as centralized and as in government control as in France, or Sweden.
You misunderstand. Just because something is centralised, doesn't mean that it is necessarily government owned. In my eyes a privately owned centralised monopoly is just as bad as the government verion of the same thing.

You misunderstand. Just because something is centralised, doesn't mean that it is necessarily government owned. In my eyes a privately owned centralised monopoly is just as bad as the government verion of the same thing.
That is only true if it is regulated heavily. The entire transportation infrastructure is a good example. The major carriers are all subject to FAA regulations, only allowed to fly to and from one other country, and are heavily subsidised. The US airline industry, needless to say, is collapsing. This is also true with the US Post Office, which tries to operate like a private company, but is hemorrhaging taxdollars.
Unregulated industries encourage investments to flow where they are most productive. Take Enron, for example. Their scandolous practices, such as rigging the California market and shell companies that did nothing, caused its financial collapse. It was once the seventh largest company in the US. Today, it barely exists, but the utility sector wasn't hurt at all.

The media is not government owned, however. It is rather an oligopoly, but it doesn't need to be. New media groups are popping up all the time, with varying success. And don't forget that the FOX network, along with cable television, only about twenty years ago.
As for the roads, yes, they are centrally controlled. So are many things in the US. However, the economy is not as centralized and as in government control as in France, or Sweden.
European media is government-owned?

European media is government-owned?
I never said that it was or wasn't. However, most every European and Asian nation, in fact, most every nation, has at least one state owned channel. Almost all of them have more power in their respective countries than PBS does in the US. The BBC is arguably the most powerful government owned network on the planet.

Fair enough. So, to the question at hand...

I think that it's fair to define the USA as a superpower. One only has to witness the keenness with which its domestic events are followed by the outside world. The USA, whether we like it or no, matters. Its status is pivotal in world terms.

With respect to superpowers having convergent ideologies... I think the whole concept of a superpower is too new to really answer the question with any confidence. I would imagine that nations or political entities of superpower stature could emerge that have similar ideologies yet are still bitterly opposed. Broad ideology is not enough; you only have to look at the entrenched sectarianism of the left-wing to see that.

In short, I don't know, but I suspect so. Not very useful. I think I'll keep my mouth shut next time...

personaly, i think that superpowers can co-exist peacefully, but only when that is their only option.if china becomes the next super power, it has two options: becom a US style power or a USSR style power. no alternative really.

what scares me is we[humans] dont have a World War fresh on our minds to act as concience.

The reason Europeans follow domestic policy is most likely because they don't understand it. I am not bashing Americans, but the domestic policies are very alien to Europeans. The guns for everyone attitude is very rare in Europe, there are people who think so but not many. Many Europeans frown upon homophobia, while in the US it seems natural. Following US domestic policies is like watching sport, when there is nothing better on TV. Americans are aliens to us in politics but in heritage and appearance they are identical. Americans are mainly of European descent. I guess we wonder how we can be so different.

China which matters more than most nations on this earth(on the global scale) is very much ignored. Is this because they look different and are simply boring to us? The elections in UK is followed across the world, yet few claim that it is a super power.

I still believe that no two countries can have the exact same ideology since all nations, like it or not, have nationalism in their politics(some more obvious than others).

personaly, i think that superpowers can co-exist peacefully, but only when that is their only option.if china becomes the next super power, it has two options: becom a US style power or a USSR style power. no alternative really.


Not exactly. Some in the US worry that China is adopting a neo-mercantalist ideaology, as evidenced by its tripling of reserves last year alone, from $200 bn to $600 bn, by far the largest in the world.

With respect to superpowers having convergent ideologies... I think the whole concept of a superpower is too new to really answer the question with any confidence. I would imagine that nations or political entities of superpower stature could emerge that have similar ideologies yet are still bitterly opposed. Broad ideology is not enough; you only have to look at the entrenched sectarianism of the left-wing to see that.

A superpower is not new. Probably the first superpower with global consequences was the Mongolian empire. Spain was next, then the French, British, then Americans and Soviets.

A superpower is not new. Probably the first superpower with global consequences was the Mongolian empire. Spain was next, then the French, British, then Americans and Soviets.
Global? Really? I'm pretty sure that great swathes of the world were at the time unaffected by the predominance of these nations.

Meh. It all boils down to semantics, I guess.

China is the largest creditor after Japan to the US. Chinese money is loaned to the US which is fighting for democracy. That is ironic.

"The world will tremble when China awakes." -Napoleon Bonaparte

He was right. Boney was right. I can feel the White House trembling from here.

Global? Really? I'm pretty sure that great swathes of the world were at the time unaffected by the predominance of these nations.

Meh. It all boils down to semantics, I guess.
The Spanish only did manage not only to destroy American civlizations, but also wipe out the inhabitants and absorb them into their populations. In addition, the Spanish monopolized trade with China for a while, and had direct or indirect rule over much of Europe. And of course, the British and the French had a huge iimpact on the world.

China is the largest creditor after Japan to the US. Chinese money is loaned to the US which is fighting for democracy. That is ironic.

"The world will tremble when China awakes." -Napoleon Bonaparte

He was right. Boney was right. I can feel the White House trembling from here.
I personally don't see that as a threat. For one, it is bringing much needed capital into the Chinese economy, giving them impetus for reforms. But even if that doesn't convince you, this might: China's banks are extremely unstable. There are only four major banks in China, and all of them are state owned. They are technically insolvent, yet loan like crazy. If China's economy ever turns for the worse, the banks may fail. And guess what may happen? The US won't be obligated to pay back the debts, anymore.

The Spanish only did manage not only to destroy American civlizations, but also wipe out the inhabitants and absorb them into their populations. In addition, the Spanish monopolized trade with China for a while, and had direct or indirect rule over much of Europe. And of course, the British and the French had a huge iimpact on the world.
Hmm. I'll retract the original statement and plead uncertainty on the matter.

Hmm. I'll retract the original statement and plead uncertainty on the matter.
Welll you do have some points. The ideaologies flowing from the US and USSR affected people like never before. Every other system concerened only governments and the rich. 20th century ideaology concerned everyone.

I personally don't see that as a threat. For one, it is bringing much needed capital into the Chinese economy, giving them impetus for reforms. But even if that doesn't convince you, this might: China's banks are extremely unstable. There are only four major banks in China, and all of them are state owned. They are technically insolvent, yet loan like crazy. If China's economy ever turns for the worse, the banks may fail. And guess what may happen? The US won't be obligated to pay back the debts, anymore.

Why would it matter that they are State owned? With cash reserves of $600 BILLION it is likely to keep the banks alive. Besides one of the largest banks was recently privatised as part of the increasing privatisation. The US obligation to pay its loans will never disappear. It owes a total of nearly $8 trillion, an ever increasing debt to various countries and banks. If the government pays off the debt by printing the money it will be like post ww1 Germany. Americans will be taking wheelbarrows with $10,000 bills to Walmart.

China is to be feared. It will outsource the West and Japan. Yep, we're dead!

Why would it matter that they are State owned? With cash reserves of $600 BILLION it is likely to keep the banks alive. Besides one of the largest banks was recently privatised as part of the increasing privatisation. The US obligation to pay its loans will never disappear. It owes a total of nearly $8 trillion, an ever increasing debt to various countries and banks. If the government pays off the debt by printing the money it will be like post ww1 Germany. Americans will be taking wheelbarrows with $10,000 bills to Walmart.

China is to be feared. It will outsource the West and Japan. Yep, we're dead!
So what? The important thing is that they take everyone along for the ride, and have a truely free economy.

thank you. I'm a woman.
*Giggles hysterically.*

*Giggles hysterically.*
Okay, I'm not. But I like to say that to confuse those that will never see my face.