I don't really buy the "value" argument for the West's political ideas actually came from machiavelli,who actually sees value as a mean to an end that is political power itself.
What the West actually stand for,I think, is relentless economic expansion and growth that is the central myth of the West.
This is what animates it,the colonization of India,the opening up of China,is for the West to grow exponentially and industrially,this is logical,because we can see the economy of scale is what growth at the industrial age rely on,technology came from this expansion and help it to grow.
This growth actually stalled in the 80s which is now called the era of stagflation,it came from the Western countries themselves hit their industrial potential thus unable to grow exponentially,the opening up of China and the collapse of the Soviet Union actually saved the West for a while,this is why the West financialized itself because it need to run a deficit to sustain its living standard.
Reindustriallization have a real cost that is a decline in living standard of the Western middle class that will not be tolerated by them,and even if successful can only sustain living standard not growing it.
The problem now is that the industrial expansion actually hit a limit,because at a constant material base,to sustain growth,R&D cost must grow exponentially thus making it impossible to sustain growth,we will not see a society devote half of its economy on R&D,thus its illogical to assume it can grow further.
The Western people and elites still believe in endless growth,but the material base make this belief unsustainable,thus when scarcity actually hit,I expect political repression will come to the West,and the West itself will not sustain the facade of Democracy because even as a formality,in a crisis it impede bureacratic efficiency.
Values were always used to exert power and promote interests anyway. Problem is, some politicians started buying their own b!^&$%t, and can't seem to change.
I don't really buy the "value" argument for the West's political ideas actually came from machiavelli,who actually sees value as a mean to an end that is political power itself.
What the West actually stand for,I think, is relentless economic expansion and growth that is the central myth of the West.
This is what animates it,the colonization of India,the opening up of China,is for the West to grow exponentially and industrially,this is logical,because we can see the economy of scale is what growth at the industrial age rely on,technology came from this expansion and help it to grow.
This growth actually stalled in the 80s which is now called the era of stagflation,it came from the Western countries themselves hit their industrial potential thus unable to grow exponentially,the opening up of China and the collapse of the Soviet Union actually saved the West for a while,this is why the West financialized itself because it need to run a deficit to sustain its living standard.
Reindustriallization have a real cost that is a decline in living standard of the Western middle class that will not be tolerated by them,and even if successful can only sustain living standard not growing it.
The problem now is that the industrial expansion actually hit a limit,because at a constant material base,to sustain growth,R&D cost must grow exponentially thus making it impossible to sustain growth,we will not see a society devote half of its economy on R&D,thus its illogical to assume it can grow further.
The Western people and elites still believe in endless growth,but the material base make this belief unsustainable,thus when scarcity actually hit,I expect political repression will come to the West,and the West itself will not sustain the facade of Democracy because even as a formality,in a crisis it impede bureacratic efficiency.
counterarguments (historical examples, non-hegemon states driven by values forming their own order)
1. Franco-British naval rivalry --> non hegemonic states form League of Armed Neutrality (1780), later codified in 1856 Declaration of Paris
2. Protestant-Catholic rivalry in Europe --> Defensionale of Baden (1647), Swiss Confederation
3. Rise of Ottoman Empire --> Peace of Lodi (1451), Italic League (1454–1494)
Interest based anything is the ONLY thing. That simple. Darwinistic as well. Until most humans understand this concept, we are all lost.
Thank you.
Values were always used to exert power and promote interests anyway. Problem is, some politicians started buying their own b!^&$%t, and can't seem to change.
Further, this is where the Darwinist instinct prevails to the most prepared, potentially.
The problem with that view is: whose values versus whose interest. The answer should be fairly obvious to most.