Well the solution is right there in the prompt. The concentration of wealth leads to political power, which leads to wealth, leading to concentration of wealth and power. Marx talks extensively about this. If you can organize the state in such a way as to permanently decouple wealth and power--which the PRC, as a Marxist-Leninist state, does--perhaps you won't succumb to this cycle as readily.
Trump 2.0 official thread
- Thread starter siegecrossbow
- Start date
Well the solution is right there in the prompt. The concentration of wealth leads to political power, which leads to wealth, leading to concentration of wealth and power. Marx talks extensively about this. If you can organize the state in such a way as to permanently decouple wealth and power--which the PRC, as a Marxist-Leninist state, does--perhaps you won't succumb to this cycle as readily.
话说天下大势，分久必合，合久必分。
The dynastic cycle existed even during the Warring States period. Take for example the state of Chu. It was riven by internal politics between the king and nominally subordinate powerful feudal lords/nobles. Eventually the internal politicking led to the exiling of competent people, the installation of a stupid puppet king, and poor decisions that led to Chu being unable to take advantage of the full resources of its territory, then being soundly defeated and weakned by Qin, to finally having its final remnants conquered by Qin.
In Europe, even when there was constant competition, there was the ongoing internal tension within each petty state between the ruler, the other feudal lords, and the Church. The Magna Carta was a result of the feudal lords being victorious over the king. Louis XIV seemingly exerted dominance over other nobles, but did not address the underlying flaws within the taxation system of the ancien regime under which nobles and Church paid no tax (or virtually none). Half hearted attempts by him or his successors failed because of the risk of revolt by the nobles and Church, and because some of the throne's supporters came from within these groups.
As for Rome, the fall of the Roman Republic certainly follows the same themes. The levers of government had fallen under oligarchic capture, or perhaps they always had been from their founding, and government became merely a means for the oligarchs to squeeze wealth from the territories they were supposed to govern. The founding of the empire or Principate was more the decisive victory of one oligarch over all the others, and a resetting of the board with new names and faces.
The PRC is not immune as evidenced by how anti-corruption drives and investigations arrest officials for abuse of official powers and corruption. Government officials get tempted to use their official power to accrue wealth as those with wealth come to them offering to pay for favors such as speeding through permits and regulatory bureaucracy or turning a blind eye to bad business behavior. Wealthy people use their wealth to influence officials and this translates into unofficial political power. Then there is the influence of background. In Imperial times, those first nobles and high government officials were often the direct supporters of the dynasty founder, and the descendants of these people became the oligarch class. It has been argued that the same has occurred even with the PRC with those coming from more distinguished Red or revolutionary backgrounds/families having an advantage within political and business circles compared to those that do not come from such backgrounds.
Last edited:
It is a constant struggle to maintain though, current CPC method can be liken to whack a mole approach, anti-corruption campaign here and there and putting over ambitious capitalist in their place (cough Jake Ma...)....etc. Honestly if it weren't for Xi's policy, things may look very different now.
There needs to be a fundamentally systematic way of separating capital and political power for it to last. But even so, at least for the foreseeable future China is on the right path, decay will not set in for a very long time, which is of course great for our generation of Chinese
First, I’ll briefly outline the logic here.
China’s vision of a community with a shared future for mankind stands in opposition to the West’s so-called “rules-based order” (Western hegemony). Why do you assume this system solely targets vested interests rooted in plunder-based civilizations?
This framework inherently weakens any “great power” built on predatory exploitation. Fairness demands these nations surrender some gains to reinvest in former colonies they harmed. The goal of dismantling Western colonialism—both old and new (all derivatives of plunder culture)—is to liberate nations and peoples from perpetual exploitation.
This is the mission of the shared future community: breaking the exploitative cycle (masked as a “rules-based order”) and forcing all nations to adapt. The Global South’s true emancipation, guided by Chinese principles, will mature their societies and prove the superiority of China’s civilizational ethos. Results will speak for themselves.
As for the U.S., Europe, and Japan: none will willingly relinquish their entrenched privileges. But when alternatives emerge, their vampiric pathways vanish. Refusal to reform? History buries them. None are foolish enough to cling to obsolescence.
In the next era, colonial models cannot survive through force or economic coercion. Why?
Militarily, they cannot overpower.
Technologically, they cannot monopolize.
Innovatively, they cannot dominate.
What remains? For ordinary people worldwide, the demand is simple: better lives. If material prosperity expands (via affordable, abundant industrial goods), societies stabilize. What choice do they have but to embrace the new paradigm?
World wars erupt only when survival collapses. If global populations thrive, what government dares ignite chaos? Any aggressor would face universal condemnation.
Thus, the core divide between your view and mine: you fixate on legacy colonial powers—unrepentant predators—incapable of abandoning plunder, no matter their wealth. You’re right: this is the world’s central flaw.
Yet their continued predation relies on economic colonization of the weak and lingering advantages in tech, economy, and military. The old system still feeds them, creating an illusion of invincibility.
The new order shatters their blood-sucking cycle. This is, simply put, the “encircling the cities from the countryside” strategy of the new era.
Most nations and peoples remain trapped in exploitative “order.” Once they develop outside this framework, colonial shackles break. To prevent new colonizers, they must adopt China’s logic (understanding how the world truly operates). As for others? Let them awaken in due time.
I think US need to demonstrate the ability to rise again at least once to be compared to the Chinese dynastic cycle.
So far no non-Chinese power has ever demonstrated this.
Russian Empire > Russian Civil War > Soviet Union
You can probably say the same about Japan. To a lesser extent, Italy, and to an even lesser extent, Germany.
But no country has had a similar experience to China in terms of sheer scope, number of cycles, and prolonged fragmentation.
FriedRiceNSpice
Major
The comparison is to a single iteration of the cycle.
To be fair, Indo-Europeans have proven this ability as a group, even if it's a different group of Indo-Europeans each time.
From the conquest of most of Europe, West Asia, Central Asia, and northern India ~4,000 years ago, to Alexander and the Roman Empire ~2,000 years ago, to the British and American empires ~200 years ago.
From the above, their cycle of regional / world conquest is about 2,000 years. So probably not much to worry about once the most recent cycle is ended. Given the pace of technology development, it's not likely humans will have another 2,000 years before the singularity arrives.
manqiangrexue
Brigadier
LOL They probably told Trump, "You're messin' with our money and that's not funny. This is a capitalist society; we got more money in the sock drawer than you have in all your bankrupt crap across the country. You're gonna make those exemptions by the time those ships pull into port or you're gonna say hi to Kennedy."
Meanwhile, Trump trying to get China to negotiate:
0:21 China's response: "We have no negotiations with the US. This is fake news."
Last edited: