One of my questions coming into the class is how relevant is Marxist ideology in contemporary China? To what degree does Marxist ideology guide state decision making? The material this week provided information around this question, without resolving the issue for me.  This tension between Marxism and the current philosophy of the state continues to draw my interest.  It is a tension between the idealistic ideology of the revolution tempered by the current pragmatic philosophy. Jeffery Bader’s article dwelt on this juxtaposition.  He points out that at the moment the Communist Party mechanism is being used to support capitalist enterprise.  ”To deal with the massive disruptions that the economic reform program will bring, on top of the array of existing problems, Xi has strengthened the role of the Communist Party as a tool of governance in an authoritarian but market-dominated system.”  This sort of paradox displays the complexity of contemporary China.

The Global Times article articulated a sophisticated understanding of the United States that has evolved from study and shared interactions.  I admired the long-term vision of seeing recent US policy as being an abheration rather than a reversal. There is a deliberate attempt to avoid over-reaction. The Cambell and Ratner essay discussed, “Tao guang yang hui,” the notion of keeping a low profile while making progress. This too illuminates sophisticated vision in foriegn policy.

While policies like the Belt and Road  initiative show links to the internationalism of Marxist thought, authoritarian domestic policies do not. It is difficult to reconcile these different directions of thinking.  Like many world powers through time, China too has its contradictions.

We have explored contemporary China through different lenses, eras and challenges, yet as Mossy articulated, I also remain curious about the interplay of China's Marxist ideological values with its domestic and foreign policies. I also really enjoyed reading Bader's "How Xi Jinping Sees the World" and appreciated viewing recent Chinese history through the leadership styles of its Presidents as well as their economic inheritances and opportunities. I'm curious how personality-driven these policy initiatives have been. Clearly, Mao's influence was domineering. Yet, Deng Xioping, Jiang Zemin and now Xi have seemed to steer China with an equally strong arm. I'm curious about the mechanations and rise of these leaders as well as the considerations that these leaders have prioritized during their rule. China clearly has an identity contradiction when defining itself as both a victim of imperialism as well as a global superpower with imperialist ambitions. It's fascinating to see China's evoloution from resistance leader of Non-Alligned nations to American and European power from the revolution through the seventies, to greater cooperation in the global order in the 80s and 90s, and more recently, offering alternatives to international organizations whether it be financial institutions like the Chinese Development Bank or leadership on international trade routes such as the Belt and Road. It's a fascinating contradiction to explore an authoritarian but market-dominated system. Likewise, recent controls on media are tightened, yet Chinese have never been more exposed to western and international ideas through travel and trade. 

I really enjoyed the video lectures as well, and laughed upon hearing the phrase that America and China "are in the same bed but with different dreams". I appreciate the two slides that demonstrate the differences in the US and Chinese economies where Chinese manufacturing dwarfs American trade goods, yet the US service economy outweighs China's contribution. This is another economic concept that would benefit my students as it demonstrates the changing economic dynamics of the last century where nations have moved from industrial to service economies. And, as China develops to a more services-driven economy, will it therefore compete more with the United States than it has in the past? Is there another economic arrangement for the US and China to balance its manufacturing and service sectors in the fight to mitigate the industrial and shipping costs of climate change?

I'm amazed about the graph that demonstrates the enormous rising numbers of Chinese students who study abroad. I would love for my students to build an awareness about study-abroad programs as they are usually only taken advantage of by students with greater economic advantages. Such opportunities pay off dividends throughout an individual's professional and personal life, and I'm curious how the current generation of Chinese students' exposure to life outside of China will shape Chinese culture and policy in the decades to come when these students come of age to take leadership roles in Chinese politics. Imagining a Chinese President and an American President both fluent in each other's language and culture would be such a step toward global peace and progress. It doesn't seem like such a far-fetched idea. 

Finally, in terms of military demonstrations of power in the region and threat perception from citizens of other nations, China has not universally increased or decreased in other nations' perceptions of its malevalent intentions. I was surprised to see such a high percentage (80%) of Vietnamese viewed China as a threat. Given past military conflicts and proximity, that makes sense. However, I had incorrectly believed that China served more as a buffer and a restraint on North Korean aggression, and was surprised that S Korea viewed it in such increasingly alarmist views. I wonder what the percentage of Indian people who view China as a threat are. Given that just last week, the Chinese were reported to have infiltrated India's electric grid and caused a blackout in Mumbai as a warning, how severe is that relationship? As China's achilles heel has been (as we analyzed in our first meeting) the many bordering states that pose potential threats, is China stretching itself too thin as it flexes its military might from its coasts to its far western borders? And, as its revenues decline and economic might seems to be suffering (at least in terms of foreign investment) will that also curtail its military spending? Is Xi the type of leader whose larger economic and military aspirations are tempered by market forces, or is he looking to take greater risk? Ultimately, is China creating a network of economic interdependency in Afroeurasia that does not require the United States' presence? I really appreciate the greater complexity with which this class has increased my awareness and piqued my curiosity in current global affairs.

I was initially a bit confused when I listed to the first video, because I always associate Nixon with normalizing relations with China, and it seems that the actual "normalization happened under Carter. Perhaps, because years later , I recall a Chinese official telling my father what high regard he had for Nixon which made an impression on me.

I was only able to watch part of the videos. The links seem to have frozen (perhaps it is my connectivity). In any case, I will add to these comments later. I am not sure why there is so much angst over the idea that we might become number two. It is always hard to go from being the world leader --- to losing one's splendor. I think the British accepted this change. The French? Maybe not as much. In my own opinion, we can retain leadership in the world. However, this will require making investments here at home (tax-payers are loathe to do this), and maintaining alliances abroad (isolationists think we can go-it alone). The course we choose, will cause an unstoppable force to meet an immovable object. or simply have us fade into the background --- while the luminosity of China fill the scene. Given recent US policies, my guess is it will be a mix of both --- which is most unstabalizing. China was in a position of weakness under Mao. Now, they have much more strength. I think this means the future is less predictable.

As an Economics teacher I really enjoyed this week's video lectures.  I am all about statistics and numbers and I really enjoyed the statistics  presented in the lecture.  I really would like to get more in depth information on the economic prowess of China and more numbers on their influence.  One particular area I would like to get more data on would be the debt owed to China from around the world.  I liked hearing about the Sri Lanka port turned over to China due to the inabilty of repayment.  Venezuela's $5 billion debt was of interest to me and as a North American, I would like to learn more about the heavy investments in North America, with particular interest in Mexico where my parents were born.  I am assuming most investment is occurring in the huge metropolis of Mexico City.  I would love to see some insight on the trillion dollar debt of the United States to China and how that has changed over time.  In connection to this, the global community's perception of China as a threat and how it's changed over time was also interesting to me.  I recall the newly-elected president prompted to confirm China as a threat to the competition.  As all politicians, he did a good job of dancing around the question.  Speaking of politics, I also enjoyed the breakdown of popular opinion on China, by political party and also by nation.  Lastly I found humor in the banking system and how it said it was clean, green, and not mean.  I know I'm missing one, but found it interesting how they promoted the idea they would not take advantage of consumer deposits as much as our banks of America do.  Lastly, getting into the dynamic relationship of African-Chinese relations seems interesting to me.  I like to learn the most of developing nations in this global economy we live in today.  I also like learning about our backyard, so the constructions accross Staples Center is something I would like more information on, especially the pause in construcion.  Once again these polls are interesting to me and seeing political corruption as a primay concern grabbed my attention.  It will be interesting to see if we touch on this concern through the lens of the pandemic.

Kimberly, I agree that the Belt and Road Initiative leads to the question of soft power. As the project will not result in any real economic gains for China, it seems that the motive behind is to establish political influence in neighboring countries. I wonder if the timing of China's projection of soft power as US soft power is in decline is deliberate, and how the US will respond as this soft power continues to increase. 

Jeanine, I agree that the US China interrelationship is exceedingly complex. China's recent attempts to increase its influence around the world through soft power and through involvement in global organizations has definitely made it a rival of the United States. But the two nations are also deeply interdependent, so it will be really interesting to see how both nations navigate their relations with one another in the coming years.