Agreed. If the USA wants to lead the world its up to the USA to prove its way is better morally and in every other way. Not simply stronger/more brutal. China & the USA have something in common. They are both "young". Yes, Chinese civilisation is 5000 plus years old, but their system is relatively speaking brand new. The USA started with the pilgrim fathers. Passed through genocide of its indigenes and the invasion of the Mexican empire -- resulting in the seizure of what has now been generally accepted as their southern states (Texas, Arizona, California, Florida etc.) And how come Samoa & Hawai are now part of the USA? Then there was the kidnap and forced labour of millions of Africans (ie.slavery). These things were (relatively speaking) not so long ago. Therefore so much for Flatspin's national chauvinist argument that the USA doesn't make invaded territories part of the USA.
One of the problems with Americans I find is that they think world history started with the founding of the USA. They see only today, not yesterday --- and often not tomorrow either. Back to USA Vs. China. IMO China has the advantage because it is still in the formation stage of its "new" system. China will change and mature --- particularly as the old fossils still in evidence there, relics of the Great March gradually die out and are replaced by a new generation. Its already happened with Xi, but he was still the product of the Great Leap Forward (infact backward!), the Gang of Four, the Red Guards and all the other events of the Mao and imeadiately post-Mao era. In another few years, those taking over the reins there will of the AliExpress, Baidu, Tik-Tok educated-in-the-West generation. I therefore forsee great but (hopefully) largely peaceful changes in China over the next 100 years or so as their "new" system consolidates. Invading isn't their thing. Tibet, Xinkiang and Hong Kong/Macau were historically part of China since long time ago.
Same way as the Crimea was part of Russia since 1783. It was Kruschev that attached it to the Ukraine Soviet during the Soviet Union. For those interested Kruschev's son, Sergei Kruschev --- a Us citizen Senior Fellow at the Watson Institute for International Studies at Brown University --- wrote a long essay on this very subject (for those who don't "know-it-all already" and have the patience and a mind open enough to at least read what he writes):
https://www.voltairenet.org/article183288.htmlThe USA on the other hand has become brittle with age. Its system, once revolutionary has become corrupted. Now the USA is governed only by the rich or hyper-rich in favour of the rich and hyper-rich. It is also trying to impose its twisted view (ie.greed is good) on the rest of the world leading to much resentment in other countries where the population just want to get on with doing their own thing. Seems to me very few poor or working class people ever get to govern in the USA. However, if you look at the demographics a very large part of the population fall into that category. There seems to be a tendance for the "ruling class" --- particularly the GOP mafia --- to encourage the less fortunate to fight amongst themselves whilst the rich/hyper-rich clean-up "winner takes all" style. This is obviously chronically unstable and unsustainable. It seems probable to me therefore that the USA will sooner or later break down in some form of internal conflict --- maybe even a civil war. This may even eventually lead to the break up of the Union. For example California claiming its independance perhaps. Or Texas.
This is just my opinion, however. I note, however, that one of your arch capitalists --- Ray Dalio --- is of much the same view.
