Top Ten World Powers

[Ben Kenobi]

actually the reason why we paid for RN dreadnaughts, and did not construct our own navy.

You forget about the BC submarine fleet at the start of the first World War.

[notyoueither]

Are you talking about sunken fishing boats?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
The US not hegemonical?

Seriously, I think it is, if we look at the success they have in lifting trade barriers. I don't want to debate AGAIN if this is good or bad to the rest of the world, but using force and diplomacy to impose your agenda is being hegemonical- whatever the consequences.

Say the USSR had not fallen, and that in most countries the communist guerillas had won (which is not the case). Of course, the Soviets would say "communism is a done deal, it is the winner system, and we are not being hegemonical because what we're doing is good anyway".

BZZZZT wrong.

If you claim that democracy is a done deal, then you are postulating the END of history and the beginning of 'post-history'. So far, there are no strong arguments to demonstrate that 'democracy/capitalism' is the ultimate system by which humans have found common ground for truth and efficiency. It is highly probable that within a two centuries or longer timeframe, a new system will rise and supplant the last one, just as things have been since 3000 BC. My question now: is China the last great empire of the democratic/capitalist tradition, or the first empire of the [insert semantico-sociological theory here].

My intuition on this (it is embryonic) is that possibly the end of history as we know it, or at least the coming of a new age, will come with an unified Earth government that undergoes serious space colonization. China might or not be the unifying power behind this- as 'power consolidation' is about a stronger force reuniting weaker ones long enough for the members to melt in a new nation (the birth of European identities followed this pattern during the Middle Ages up to the creation of a national identity).

I think post-modernism is about the spleen in the face of absurdity; i.e. capitalism's driving force is profit, which is quantitative in its nature, and thus necessarily unsatisfying. Nationalism-imperialism and evangelization (both children of cultural relativism) are probably over. What will be humanity's next qualitative goal? (this is where space colonization might come in)...

Its the end of history, as Fukiyama says, in the sense that there is no competitive ideology anymore. I would venture that a slightly more protectionist trading system than advocated by the US, or controls on short term financial flows, as advocated by Malaysia, does NOT constitute an alternative ideology, in the way that Communism and Fascism once did. As FF says, these, like disputes about the extent of the social welfare state, are not world historical issues. Universal suffrage my only be 200 or so years old, but the broader outlines of a tolerant liberal society have been developing for at least 400 years. And there is no prospect of returning to a limited suffrage society - the drive for individual dignity and equality before the law, which are the driving forces of liberalism, not profit, prevent that. Perhaps a new ideology will arise - one could imagine that democratic liberalism will fail to deal with issues relating to sentient machines, for example - but there is no particular sign of that happening in China any time in the near future. China may not be the last dominant power - why should the cycles of national power end? but in all likelihood it, at least, will arise to dominance as a liberal democratic power.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sandman


It has a great tertiary education programme, because of the caste system.

But it still has a dismal literacy rate, especially for women.

China, on the other hand, took the opposite approach, and concentrated on primary education. Who's doing better?

China took off economically starting in the early '80s, when Deng adopted quasi-liberal economics. India didnt liberalize till the '90s, and so its takeoff began later.

BTW, i thought the top-heavy Indian educational system was a legacy of the Brits.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Comrade Tassadar


However one does have to consider that, especially in Southern India, some schools don't teach Hindi but only their own local languages.

And yes, much of the Indian population isn't that bright, the ones that are (and there are PLENTY, trust me) are incredibly bright.
Which is why I get such amusement when Americans try to protray Indians as being backwards and all they can do is run a fastfood chain etc etc....

Aren't I jingoistic about India?

Speaking of language, one of India's advantages is widespread use of English, which makes it naturally more open to the world service economy and world science, and culturally closer to the declining dominant power.