Let us begin with a somewhat lengthy, though crucially important and relevant quote from Chinese leader Xi Jinping, taken from his 2013 speech delivered at the 18th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party, delivered a month after he became the CCP General Secretary:
"First of all: Socialism with Chinese characteristics is socialism, not any other “ism.” The guiding principles of scientific socialism thus cannot be abandoned. Our Party has always emphasized adherence to the basic principles of scientific socialism, but adapted to the particular conditions of China. This means that socialism with Chinese characteristics is socialism, not some other doctrine... It was Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought that guided the Chinese people out of the long night and established a New China, and it was socialism with Chinese characteristics that led to the rapid development of China."
To the extent China is a principal driver of the global transition away from Western imperial hegemony of which the fictional author Chen writes from an historical perspective, is it not significant that Xi Jinpeng highlights the significance of Marx and Lenin, the "fathers" of socialism and socialist revolution? While he stresses that China is pursuing the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics, it is nonetheless the path of socialism as a scientific approach to organizing and running societies. And socialism is itself the product of Western enlightenment (let's not underestimate Hegel's influence here).
China and Russia are both pluralistic societies within which numerous ethnic groups live, retaining to a certain extent their cultural and religious practices within the framework socialism (China) and increasingly centralized state capitalism (Russia). Contrary to what Chen imagines, the decline of the West during the period under consideration was not the result of multicultural "wokeness" - itself a tactic used by Western ruling elites to prevent the masses from organizing against the state apparatuses which actually oppress them - but of the emergence of forces external to the West over which it had no control and to which its elites in fact contributed through economic globalization.
There's a fair bit of cringeworthy stereotyping about Asians / Chinese which, of course, misses the point I make at the very beginning - China since 1947 has been following the path of Marxism-Leninism not Confucianism or Taoism, even if those cultural influences endure (though increasingly less so among the Douyin generation). And Islam gets stereotyped by Chen as well, despite the overwhelming evidence that the path forward for contemporary Islam is modern and technocratic, not just in Indonesia and Malaysia, but even in countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the Emirates - i.e., they are not Afghanistan.
Ultimately, what's missing in this fictional "history" is any reference to class and late capitalism in the decline of the West, nor the complicity of ruling elites in fomenting hatred within Western countries to protect their own hegemony. And while we indeed see the ugly side of ethno-nationalism occasionally show itself in China and Russia, it is not allowed free expression in ways that would fundamentally undermine their commitment to being ethnically diverse, multicultural states.
One last point about the allegedly impropriety of applying contemporary moral judgements to the actors and actions of the past. While the ideal of historical impartiality may seem appealing, it more typically conceals an unwillingness to hold to account the way in which past actions have contributed to present moral travesties. Let's take Lord Balfour, for example, and his tireless - and deeply anti-semitic - efforts to create a Jewish state in Palestine. An "impartial" history would simply recite the facts that Lord Balfour expended considerable effort and influence to get Great Britain to commit to the formation of a Jewish state. But as soon as one asks "why" Lord Balfour did this, one is immediately thrust into the world of moral judgements - e.g., Lord Balfour shared the desire of most non-Jewish European elites to rid Europe of Jews, even at the expense of taking away land belonging to Arab and Christian Palestinians and condoning acts of terrorism which continue to this day. This is an interpretation of the facts with a moral dimension which places blame for the contemporary genocide in Gaza squarely where it belongs - on anti-semitic Europeans and their American fellow-travelers.
Anyway, while it's an interesting thought experiment I think Chen's take radically oversimplifies in ways that cannot be overlooked even by acknowledging up front that the work is an oversimplification. And this is because it dog whistles prejudices and misconceptions about multiculturalism and ethnic diversity that too many people take as facts to which they then apply their own moral judgements.
"Arab and Christian Palestinians" is better said, "Muslim and Christian Palestinians." Some argue (including me) that the original inhabitants of Palestine have endured for millennia. They are Jews, Christians, Muslims, all sharing the land (until the European invaders came). Palestinians speak Arabic and have some Arabic customs, but that is because of the Conquest.
Yes but Lord Balfour was just a cog in a bigger machine.
What's lacking in Chen's analysis is an appreciation of the complexity in dimensions of power wielded between different groups.
I think this was what you were driving at (I could be wrong).
We in the west operate under the cloak of ideology while rejoicing in our freedoms from being ideologues.
And those with power naturally take advantage.
This does not mean we should retreat into the Marxist class struggle as a framework for analysis, but we need to discuss the fallacy of inequality as a natural condition of human society (westerners always claim universality of their ideas, whereas Asians don't).
I've heard too many liberals, progressives, conservatives, moderates, extremists, etc, all abscond from debate (usually by denigrating the other) out of fear of being excluded socio-economically by their peers.
You are correct. Balfour was just an example of one piece of a complex web of relationships. Historical events are, as Althusser put it, overdetermined.
First, what is 'socioeconomics' but class-struggle by an academic term? Second, the unsaid part of Balfour's antisemitism is the extreme hypocrisy of the liberal Brits who wanted to keep their Imperial toe-hold in West Asia regardless of damage done.
I think the Brits imagined they could maintain a literal presence in the region right up to the very end, when they were driven out by the Zionists, Egyptians and Yemenis. Indeed, to this day they cling to their delusions of imperial grandeur by refusing to give up the Falklands, Gibraltar, the Chagos Islands, and every other vestige of their "glorious" past.
Sorry for my misspelling. What I mean is the convention al notion in the West of Afghanistan misses the reality. So, the 'Afghanistan' you cite is not Afghanistan.
Well, yes, but my point was precisely that the West's view of Afghanistan is precisely what it applies across the board to all Muslim countries. And, to be fair, the Afghanistan of current Pashtun / Taliban governance is not the Afghanistan of the era of socialist governance leading up to the Soviet military intervention.
I agree that the Collective West has an unfortunate and erroneous view of Muslims, and this is one marked difference between the West and the SCO/BRICS+ countries. Recently, Russia removed Afghanistan from it 'bad list'; other Asian countries and China are making similar overtures. Steadily, Taliban-ruled Afghanistan is returning to the world of its neighbors as a full partner and all are rejecting the Western stigma resulting from its victory against the Americans.
Which brings us back to one of the flaws in Chen's (Aurielien's) worldview inasmuch as it still traffics in islamophobic stereotypes and sees the immigration of Muslims into Europe as having a deleterious impact on the cultures of European countries, as if cultures are fixed, once and for all time, and not constantly evolving based on precisely these kinds of historical changes.
But Chen misses a couple of elephants roaming the living room.
To me the book is about the history of power relations between individuals and groups nestled within greater socio-econ-political contexts.
But more importantly, to me, it's a bit of wishful thinking because it ignores a part of what it means to be human. Humans of today are just as violent as those psychopaths of the Roman empire or the Nazis (or whoever, take your pick: pol pot was pretty deranged if you ask me). We keep forgetting this (ie Jung, shadow, collective subconscious, etc), and it exists even if we pretend to ignore it or wax lyrically about how much better we are today than those others in the past.
Ironically it's been said lately that if you take a shot at the king, you better not miss.
And neoliberals, neoconservatives, NWO, WEF, etc, they're all taking their shots at moulding society, and yet the results aren't there yet (so far, lucky for us plebs).
So then I ponder uncle Clif's predictions (15 July, witnessed by hundreds lol) and the next few on the horizon, they don't look so peaceful (Ireland is leading the charge on local vs foreigner conflict).
Humans are capable of extreme violence. Anyone who thinks otherwise has just never had a need to bloody their hands to survive.
I keep thinking about Rwanda (94). Over half a million lives lost in 6 months (out of a total population of 5m). And the weapon of choice were machetes. I have a degree in violence and conflict, and the gist of Rwanda boils down to about 100-150 years of aggravating propaganda pitting two identities against each other until the dam burst. FYI the British started the narratives of Tutsi vs Hutu, it's called divide and conquer, and it works, just look outside your window lol.
So yeah maybe out of inertia and inaction we'll be stuck in a full on western dystopia by the 2030s, or maybe something will spark violence and then we'll all be fracked because it'll be a nightmare for everyone, including those who think they've prepared.
Sorry for the rant.
Great essay, it was a pleasure to read such creativity.
Postulating a view from 2124 should require more optimism than I can muster.
The capitalists that run the West are striving to subjugate Russia to obtain its natural resources. If Russia will not succumb then it must be destroyed not matter the consequences.
So what nuclear war or climate driven catastrophes leave over for a century from now these are some perspectives that might take hold:
1) The Soviet Union had amazing economic growth and truly delivered a more prosperous life for its citizens in the face of a hostile capitalist West during its inception.
2) The West never gave the credit due to the Soviet Union for the defeat of Germany and Japan.
3) Amazement that there was no universal condemnation for the use of atomic weapons on Japan.
4) The gullibility of U.S. citizens to accept the Warren Commission's account of the JFK assassination.
5) The assault on free speech by the silencing of protest against the genocide of the Gazans in public spheres and college campuses.
6) The disregard for public health by punting on COVID and greasing the skids for the deadly H5N1 pandemic.
7) The full speed ahead of a consumer driven consumption society despite the fact that so many were cast adrift either financially or by loss of a survivable homestead.
There's more, but suffice it to say that there is much work to do to stave off an utter collapse of our species on this, our favorite and only planet.
As to 6), I ascribe the COVID failure as an attempt to apply neoliberal principles to epidemiology, just as neoliberalism has produced this modern dystopia of income inequality, precarity, war, and climate change.
If I may weigh in, in my capacity as headmaster of Garstang College, 2079-2091*, the philosophy of our institution, which was already in place when I took the helm, was that our students should always border on the legally objectionable, in so far as their attitudes and opinions were concerned. Garstang had positioned itself as an interventionary organisation whose aim was to address low level delinquency (making lascivious eye contact with facial recognition devices, etc) before it could escalate into serious criminality. This gave us a certain amount of leeway, in addition to the kind of generous buffs to social credit that once allowed me to travel 40 miles beyond my designated point of habitation.
At Garstang our ethos (ruefully described by Pierre LeGirr at his unpersoning as 'clairvoyant futurism') was to unleash upon society successive waves whose outlook, while initially obnoxious to the point of being criminal, would be more warmly received as they entered the world of work, when the vicissitudes of cultural change would have (according to our calculations) turned in their favour. Those digging into their past, hoping to find ammunition that might result in cancellation, would instead be faced by the cogent arguments of a forward-thinking generation who had been well-positioned to seize the reins of power. It did lead to an unusual environment at the college, where the outgoing class would be vulgar in a completely different way to the incoming first years, who were groomed to an entirely different set of objectionable social standards.
* Not in my later role as Problema Sennacia Ento (Problematic Stateless Entity) who was required to navigate those social and geographical corridors that remained open to me on a curtailed vocabulary of 400 words and 130 stock phrases, many wilfully out of date or limited in application – ('Is this the queue for the bridge competition?'). As an aside, I did get very good at bridge during this time.
A non European perspective of the future written by someone with European heritage.
Thanks to Cryogenic technology I am an Australian that lived in south east Asia for over 20 years. From 2004 until 2030. I was reborn 3 years ago in the year 2140.
I find it odd to think that the Asian centralised period from 2020 to the present, 2140, was one of technology and finance.
Asia had no interest in finance and tech, lagging behind European countries for 100's of years prior to the creation of the Brics block in the late 1900's, but they knew they must use this European cultural norm to limit the effects of capitalism. A cultural norm required due to just how inhospitable the climate of "northern Europe" was over the preceding 1000 years.
Many non European cultures new that they had to control the forces of Capitalism. A system that can work if the leaders are focused on improving the lives of the people. Unfortunately as Capitalism became more centralised it lost focus of what an economy actually was. Replacing the well being of the people with the idea that the movement of money ( FIAT) solved all problems.
The Asian countries did not follow this spiritual idiocy. They kept their leaders in place. Many bad decisions were placed on them due to the problems associated with the end of Capitalism. The leaders did not lose sight of the people and their needs. The 200 years between 1800 and 2000 were hard times for the Asian cultures but they did not lose sight of what is really important. The extended family. Fiat currency is not a bases for an economy. It is a non existent human construct that can be manipulated for the benefit of a few. The extended family is real. A natural phenomenon. The basis of life for all species.
From 2050 food became more scarce, due to over production of what is today referred to as "the bright shiny plastic revolution" that occurred between the years 1800 to 2050. The resources needed to continue large levels of consuming natural minerals dried up.
The Asian, and all those countries located on or near the equator, were able to grow natural building materials very quickly. Old and decaying cement based housing was repaired with Bamboo and other fast growing materials. Banana trees, and many other food sources, continued to grow in the ever changing climate.
Those north and south of the Tropic of Capricorn and the Tropic of Cancer found life to be much more unbearable. As they had limited technologies to manufacture and did not have any fast growing natural materials to continue their once successful large scale consumption. They were unable to mount any resistance to the new world order.
The Siesta, which most countries around the equator have followed for 1000's of years, was one older custom that was reintroduced in those countries located close to the equator. This small but effective change allowed the Asian populations to rest and stop consuming at high rates. As we now know the rat race for more and more bright shiny mass produced items was replaced by a traditional system allowing plenty of rest and relaxation that improved mental health outcomes for all.
The disease of European expansion has now been controlled. Their technology is no longer seen as an advancement but of the cause of many of the problems created by the human race that have led to where we are today. Europe is now just another dead empire to study and learn from.
In the 20th century, steps were taken to control the Jewish influence, on the human race, by creating a designated area for them to live in. It was disguised as a country and gave them a sense of exceptionalism.
Today the Asian countries have used this idea to create the means to give the European peoples the sense that they are exceptional by allowing them to inhabit Mars. One way transport to the promised land is now cheap enough to allow the deportation of the Capitalist forces to rebuild their technology to destroy this new habitable land. They will repeat their mistakes.
Earth must not forget the previous 500 years of history. We must learn from it. Realise that it is only a matter time before the Capitalist forces will regather their strength and threaten the Earths recovery in the future. Once they destroy the new Martian lands they will come back to the Utopia that earth has become.
Through migration and vetting some capitalists will be able to return. We will use our strongly held emotion of Empathy, and a new perceived need by the ruling classes, to help those that have changed their ways and are of benefit to the Earth culturally. Unfortunately this will be the crack to our own undoing as we are just like those living on Mars.
you will find a different picture. In the article linked to, the first graph shown estimates that by 2100 extraction of non-renewable natural resources will be 1/6th of present, pollution will be three times that of present, world population will be 2/5th of present, food production 1/6th of present and Industrial output will be approaching 0.
These figures are derived from the 1972 ‘Limits to Growth’ study, updated in ‘Recalibration 23 and scientifically validated - as far as such things can be.
It is possible that Comrade Professor Chen would be able write such an essay, but he probably won't be using a laptop or 'tablet' to do so - more probably oak-gall ink on bamboo paper.
The human race does not know as our measuring systems are flawed at their very basis.
We have been using climate modelling designed through mathematical algorithms.
In maths there is a big problem.
The symbols used in Maths tell us that if we place an item (1) next to nothing (0) that item becomes ten (10) times bigger.
Can anyone tell me anywhere in the natural world where this occurs naturally?
To deal with an unreasonable solution was found. To allow maths to make sense numbers had to replaced with letters that we can change whenever we like. Allowing the mathematician to achieve the result they wish to achieve. In other words they can mimic the natural world by designing a language that gives them the results they what to achieve. This is not an understanding of the natural world. Just like a bird will say Hello if it knows it is going to get fed. It does not say hello because it understands that in English speaking culture it is being polite.
Westernized East-Asians do not have the in group solidarity they may appear to have, in general. Family dynamics are often quite toxic underneath the surface. Think Cultural Revolution conditions before Cultural Revolution triggers.
To the extent Russia has the Orthodox Church to act as Principle, China certainly no longer has Confucius or Imperial loyalty. Materialist success can only take a people's so far. Chinese in the West are very adaptable, for sure, but that adaptability prevents unity as well.
Islam as a force that binds will also be as force that limits if it remains shackled to colonial sectarian visions of what religion is and where law comes from. Asian adaptability plus Qur'anic (non sectarian) Principle work out pretty well together though.
I've just finished reading J.D. Vance's "Hillbilly Elegy"; it describes his personal experiences of aspects of Western society which appear to be some of the precursors to the period that Professor Chen will look back on. I wonder how, or if, J.D. Vance will be regarded by our future historians?
When I saw this piece alluded to in another essay, I actually got quite excited to read it, because your analysis is typically very sharp and I thought could make for interesting if not prescient speculative fiction. But this was really atrocious. I get that this is tongue in cheek(?), but attributing the future fall of western civilization to THE DREADED WOKE is so lazy and intellectually beneath you that it kind of makes me question a lot of your analysis in general. However you self-define, you have enormous ideological blind spots that make your opinions on youth culture and immigration extremely similar to reactionaries. It comes up again and again in your essays. There are obviously a lot of reactionaries on this site who reward narrow-minded scaremongering about things like Islam and Cancel Culture, but if you are truly committed to "understanding the world", you ought to interrogate these very obvious biases more. Your conclusions here, whatever degree of satire was intentional, are really laughable. The idea that "Asians" writ large will somehow come to dominate the US politically through "cultural cohesiveness" speaks to a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of American racial politics and political economy. In an essay alluding to the conflicts that will define the near future you also make no mention of climate change. The idea that "cultural sensitivity" would inevitably lead to legalized pedophilia and polygamy is frankly just racist bullshit unworthy of much comment at all. I think your exploration of immigrant labor as a modern form of slavery, or at least filling an equivalent social role to earlier forms of slavery, is the one point that's interesting and may actually appear in a future history book. But a lot of this stuff betrays a worldview that is deeply chauvinistic and makes me question what I felt like I was getting out of your serious essays.
History is... as history does - www.crushlimbraw.com - and you can trudge the same path I have done so for the last 20 some years - arriving at the conclusion that everything I learned in public school was bullshit and propaganda!
Let us begin with a somewhat lengthy, though crucially important and relevant quote from Chinese leader Xi Jinping, taken from his 2013 speech delivered at the 18th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party, delivered a month after he became the CCP General Secretary:
"First of all: Socialism with Chinese characteristics is socialism, not any other “ism.” The guiding principles of scientific socialism thus cannot be abandoned. Our Party has always emphasized adherence to the basic principles of scientific socialism, but adapted to the particular conditions of China. This means that socialism with Chinese characteristics is socialism, not some other doctrine... It was Marxism-Leninism and Mao Zedong Thought that guided the Chinese people out of the long night and established a New China, and it was socialism with Chinese characteristics that led to the rapid development of China."
To the extent China is a principal driver of the global transition away from Western imperial hegemony of which the fictional author Chen writes from an historical perspective, is it not significant that Xi Jinpeng highlights the significance of Marx and Lenin, the "fathers" of socialism and socialist revolution? While he stresses that China is pursuing the path of socialism with Chinese characteristics, it is nonetheless the path of socialism as a scientific approach to organizing and running societies. And socialism is itself the product of Western enlightenment (let's not underestimate Hegel's influence here).
China and Russia are both pluralistic societies within which numerous ethnic groups live, retaining to a certain extent their cultural and religious practices within the framework socialism (China) and increasingly centralized state capitalism (Russia). Contrary to what Chen imagines, the decline of the West during the period under consideration was not the result of multicultural "wokeness" - itself a tactic used by Western ruling elites to prevent the masses from organizing against the state apparatuses which actually oppress them - but of the emergence of forces external to the West over which it had no control and to which its elites in fact contributed through economic globalization.
There's a fair bit of cringeworthy stereotyping about Asians / Chinese which, of course, misses the point I make at the very beginning - China since 1947 has been following the path of Marxism-Leninism not Confucianism or Taoism, even if those cultural influences endure (though increasingly less so among the Douyin generation). And Islam gets stereotyped by Chen as well, despite the overwhelming evidence that the path forward for contemporary Islam is modern and technocratic, not just in Indonesia and Malaysia, but even in countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the Emirates - i.e., they are not Afghanistan.
Ultimately, what's missing in this fictional "history" is any reference to class and late capitalism in the decline of the West, nor the complicity of ruling elites in fomenting hatred within Western countries to protect their own hegemony. And while we indeed see the ugly side of ethno-nationalism occasionally show itself in China and Russia, it is not allowed free expression in ways that would fundamentally undermine their commitment to being ethnically diverse, multicultural states.
One last point about the allegedly impropriety of applying contemporary moral judgements to the actors and actions of the past. While the ideal of historical impartiality may seem appealing, it more typically conceals an unwillingness to hold to account the way in which past actions have contributed to present moral travesties. Let's take Lord Balfour, for example, and his tireless - and deeply anti-semitic - efforts to create a Jewish state in Palestine. An "impartial" history would simply recite the facts that Lord Balfour expended considerable effort and influence to get Great Britain to commit to the formation of a Jewish state. But as soon as one asks "why" Lord Balfour did this, one is immediately thrust into the world of moral judgements - e.g., Lord Balfour shared the desire of most non-Jewish European elites to rid Europe of Jews, even at the expense of taking away land belonging to Arab and Christian Palestinians and condoning acts of terrorism which continue to this day. This is an interpretation of the facts with a moral dimension which places blame for the contemporary genocide in Gaza squarely where it belongs - on anti-semitic Europeans and their American fellow-travelers.
Anyway, while it's an interesting thought experiment I think Chen's take radically oversimplifies in ways that cannot be overlooked even by acknowledging up front that the work is an oversimplification. And this is because it dog whistles prejudices and misconceptions about multiculturalism and ethnic diversity that too many people take as facts to which they then apply their own moral judgements.
"Arab and Christian Palestinians" is better said, "Muslim and Christian Palestinians." Some argue (including me) that the original inhabitants of Palestine have endured for millennia. They are Jews, Christians, Muslims, all sharing the land (until the European invaders came). Palestinians speak Arabic and have some Arabic customs, but that is because of the Conquest.
I agree across the board and should have phrased it that way.
Yes but Lord Balfour was just a cog in a bigger machine.
What's lacking in Chen's analysis is an appreciation of the complexity in dimensions of power wielded between different groups.
I think this was what you were driving at (I could be wrong).
We in the west operate under the cloak of ideology while rejoicing in our freedoms from being ideologues.
And those with power naturally take advantage.
This does not mean we should retreat into the Marxist class struggle as a framework for analysis, but we need to discuss the fallacy of inequality as a natural condition of human society (westerners always claim universality of their ideas, whereas Asians don't).
I've heard too many liberals, progressives, conservatives, moderates, extremists, etc, all abscond from debate (usually by denigrating the other) out of fear of being excluded socio-economically by their peers.
You are correct. Balfour was just an example of one piece of a complex web of relationships. Historical events are, as Althusser put it, overdetermined.
First, what is 'socioeconomics' but class-struggle by an academic term? Second, the unsaid part of Balfour's antisemitism is the extreme hypocrisy of the liberal Brits who wanted to keep their Imperial toe-hold in West Asia regardless of damage done.
I think the Brits imagined they could maintain a literal presence in the region right up to the very end, when they were driven out by the Zionists, Egyptians and Yemenis. Indeed, to this day they cling to their delusions of imperial grandeur by refusing to give up the Falklands, Gibraltar, the Chagos Islands, and every other vestige of their "glorious" past.
And Afghanistan is not 'Afhanistan'.
Actually I think I spelled it correctly.
Sorry for my misspelling. What I mean is the convention al notion in the West of Afghanistan misses the reality. So, the 'Afghanistan' you cite is not Afghanistan.
Well, yes, but my point was precisely that the West's view of Afghanistan is precisely what it applies across the board to all Muslim countries. And, to be fair, the Afghanistan of current Pashtun / Taliban governance is not the Afghanistan of the era of socialist governance leading up to the Soviet military intervention.
I agree that the Collective West has an unfortunate and erroneous view of Muslims, and this is one marked difference between the West and the SCO/BRICS+ countries. Recently, Russia removed Afghanistan from it 'bad list'; other Asian countries and China are making similar overtures. Steadily, Taliban-ruled Afghanistan is returning to the world of its neighbors as a full partner and all are rejecting the Western stigma resulting from its victory against the Americans.
Which brings us back to one of the flaws in Chen's (Aurielien's) worldview inasmuch as it still traffics in islamophobic stereotypes and sees the immigration of Muslims into Europe as having a deleterious impact on the cultures of European countries, as if cultures are fixed, once and for all time, and not constantly evolving based on precisely these kinds of historical changes.
This is at the same time hilarious and sad.
It brings a tear or two to the eye - but also a renewed determination to stand against the neo-Jacobins. Europeans should, I think, look to the East.
Awesome!
But Chen misses a couple of elephants roaming the living room.
To me the book is about the history of power relations between individuals and groups nestled within greater socio-econ-political contexts.
But more importantly, to me, it's a bit of wishful thinking because it ignores a part of what it means to be human. Humans of today are just as violent as those psychopaths of the Roman empire or the Nazis (or whoever, take your pick: pol pot was pretty deranged if you ask me). We keep forgetting this (ie Jung, shadow, collective subconscious, etc), and it exists even if we pretend to ignore it or wax lyrically about how much better we are today than those others in the past.
Ironically it's been said lately that if you take a shot at the king, you better not miss.
And neoliberals, neoconservatives, NWO, WEF, etc, they're all taking their shots at moulding society, and yet the results aren't there yet (so far, lucky for us plebs).
So then I ponder uncle Clif's predictions (15 July, witnessed by hundreds lol) and the next few on the horizon, they don't look so peaceful (Ireland is leading the charge on local vs foreigner conflict).
Humans are capable of extreme violence. Anyone who thinks otherwise has just never had a need to bloody their hands to survive.
I keep thinking about Rwanda (94). Over half a million lives lost in 6 months (out of a total population of 5m). And the weapon of choice were machetes. I have a degree in violence and conflict, and the gist of Rwanda boils down to about 100-150 years of aggravating propaganda pitting two identities against each other until the dam burst. FYI the British started the narratives of Tutsi vs Hutu, it's called divide and conquer, and it works, just look outside your window lol.
So yeah maybe out of inertia and inaction we'll be stuck in a full on western dystopia by the 2030s, or maybe something will spark violence and then we'll all be fracked because it'll be a nightmare for everyone, including those who think they've prepared.
Sorry for the rant.
Great essay, it was a pleasure to read such creativity.
Postulating a view from 2124 should require more optimism than I can muster.
The capitalists that run the West are striving to subjugate Russia to obtain its natural resources. If Russia will not succumb then it must be destroyed not matter the consequences.
So what nuclear war or climate driven catastrophes leave over for a century from now these are some perspectives that might take hold:
1) The Soviet Union had amazing economic growth and truly delivered a more prosperous life for its citizens in the face of a hostile capitalist West during its inception.
2) The West never gave the credit due to the Soviet Union for the defeat of Germany and Japan.
3) Amazement that there was no universal condemnation for the use of atomic weapons on Japan.
4) The gullibility of U.S. citizens to accept the Warren Commission's account of the JFK assassination.
5) The assault on free speech by the silencing of protest against the genocide of the Gazans in public spheres and college campuses.
6) The disregard for public health by punting on COVID and greasing the skids for the deadly H5N1 pandemic.
7) The full speed ahead of a consumer driven consumption society despite the fact that so many were cast adrift either financially or by loss of a survivable homestead.
There's more, but suffice it to say that there is much work to do to stave off an utter collapse of our species on this, our favorite and only planet.
As to 6), I ascribe the COVID failure as an attempt to apply neoliberal principles to epidemiology, just as neoliberalism has produced this modern dystopia of income inequality, precarity, war, and climate change.
If I may weigh in, in my capacity as headmaster of Garstang College, 2079-2091*, the philosophy of our institution, which was already in place when I took the helm, was that our students should always border on the legally objectionable, in so far as their attitudes and opinions were concerned. Garstang had positioned itself as an interventionary organisation whose aim was to address low level delinquency (making lascivious eye contact with facial recognition devices, etc) before it could escalate into serious criminality. This gave us a certain amount of leeway, in addition to the kind of generous buffs to social credit that once allowed me to travel 40 miles beyond my designated point of habitation.
At Garstang our ethos (ruefully described by Pierre LeGirr at his unpersoning as 'clairvoyant futurism') was to unleash upon society successive waves whose outlook, while initially obnoxious to the point of being criminal, would be more warmly received as they entered the world of work, when the vicissitudes of cultural change would have (according to our calculations) turned in their favour. Those digging into their past, hoping to find ammunition that might result in cancellation, would instead be faced by the cogent arguments of a forward-thinking generation who had been well-positioned to seize the reins of power. It did lead to an unusual environment at the college, where the outgoing class would be vulgar in a completely different way to the incoming first years, who were groomed to an entirely different set of objectionable social standards.
* Not in my later role as Problema Sennacia Ento (Problematic Stateless Entity) who was required to navigate those social and geographical corridors that remained open to me on a curtailed vocabulary of 400 words and 130 stock phrases, many wilfully out of date or limited in application – ('Is this the queue for the bridge competition?'). As an aside, I did get very good at bridge during this time.
Thank you! All contributions from the future are very welcome.
Well done.
It might be a bit exaggerated but quite prophetic nonetheless.
You sure know how to kill time between 2 flights by the way :)
A non European perspective of the future written by someone with European heritage.
Thanks to Cryogenic technology I am an Australian that lived in south east Asia for over 20 years. From 2004 until 2030. I was reborn 3 years ago in the year 2140.
I find it odd to think that the Asian centralised period from 2020 to the present, 2140, was one of technology and finance.
Asia had no interest in finance and tech, lagging behind European countries for 100's of years prior to the creation of the Brics block in the late 1900's, but they knew they must use this European cultural norm to limit the effects of capitalism. A cultural norm required due to just how inhospitable the climate of "northern Europe" was over the preceding 1000 years.
Many non European cultures new that they had to control the forces of Capitalism. A system that can work if the leaders are focused on improving the lives of the people. Unfortunately as Capitalism became more centralised it lost focus of what an economy actually was. Replacing the well being of the people with the idea that the movement of money ( FIAT) solved all problems.
The Asian countries did not follow this spiritual idiocy. They kept their leaders in place. Many bad decisions were placed on them due to the problems associated with the end of Capitalism. The leaders did not lose sight of the people and their needs. The 200 years between 1800 and 2000 were hard times for the Asian cultures but they did not lose sight of what is really important. The extended family. Fiat currency is not a bases for an economy. It is a non existent human construct that can be manipulated for the benefit of a few. The extended family is real. A natural phenomenon. The basis of life for all species.
From 2050 food became more scarce, due to over production of what is today referred to as "the bright shiny plastic revolution" that occurred between the years 1800 to 2050. The resources needed to continue large levels of consuming natural minerals dried up.
The Asian, and all those countries located on or near the equator, were able to grow natural building materials very quickly. Old and decaying cement based housing was repaired with Bamboo and other fast growing materials. Banana trees, and many other food sources, continued to grow in the ever changing climate.
Those north and south of the Tropic of Capricorn and the Tropic of Cancer found life to be much more unbearable. As they had limited technologies to manufacture and did not have any fast growing natural materials to continue their once successful large scale consumption. They were unable to mount any resistance to the new world order.
The Siesta, which most countries around the equator have followed for 1000's of years, was one older custom that was reintroduced in those countries located close to the equator. This small but effective change allowed the Asian populations to rest and stop consuming at high rates. As we now know the rat race for more and more bright shiny mass produced items was replaced by a traditional system allowing plenty of rest and relaxation that improved mental health outcomes for all.
The disease of European expansion has now been controlled. Their technology is no longer seen as an advancement but of the cause of many of the problems created by the human race that have led to where we are today. Europe is now just another dead empire to study and learn from.
In the 20th century, steps were taken to control the Jewish influence, on the human race, by creating a designated area for them to live in. It was disguised as a country and gave them a sense of exceptionalism.
Today the Asian countries have used this idea to create the means to give the European peoples the sense that they are exceptional by allowing them to inhabit Mars. One way transport to the promised land is now cheap enough to allow the deportation of the Capitalist forces to rebuild their technology to destroy this new habitable land. They will repeat their mistakes.
Earth must not forget the previous 500 years of history. We must learn from it. Realise that it is only a matter time before the Capitalist forces will regather their strength and threaten the Earths recovery in the future. Once they destroy the new Martian lands they will come back to the Utopia that earth has become.
Through migration and vetting some capitalists will be able to return. We will use our strongly held emotion of Empathy, and a new perceived need by the ruling classes, to help those that have changed their ways and are of benefit to the Earth culturally. Unfortunately this will be the crack to our own undoing as we are just like those living on Mars.
A species that is ultimately flawed.
"Pale Fire" Anyone? Certainly has that sort of ring to it. Thanks!
In 2124, the New Harward University in Shanghai will be on stilts...
The article might be somewhat optimistic. If you read this:
https://thehonestsorcerer.substack.com/p/2025-a-civilizational-tipping-point
you will find a different picture. In the article linked to, the first graph shown estimates that by 2100 extraction of non-renewable natural resources will be 1/6th of present, pollution will be three times that of present, world population will be 2/5th of present, food production 1/6th of present and Industrial output will be approaching 0.
These figures are derived from the 1972 ‘Limits to Growth’ study, updated in ‘Recalibration 23 and scientifically validated - as far as such things can be.
It is possible that Comrade Professor Chen would be able write such an essay, but he probably won't be using a laptop or 'tablet' to do so - more probably oak-gall ink on bamboo paper.
Indeed the writings of John Michael Greer go further into this.
PS Who knows what the climate might be doing!
The human race does not know as our measuring systems are flawed at their very basis.
We have been using climate modelling designed through mathematical algorithms.
In maths there is a big problem.
The symbols used in Maths tell us that if we place an item (1) next to nothing (0) that item becomes ten (10) times bigger.
Can anyone tell me anywhere in the natural world where this occurs naturally?
To deal with an unreasonable solution was found. To allow maths to make sense numbers had to replaced with letters that we can change whenever we like. Allowing the mathematician to achieve the result they wish to achieve. In other words they can mimic the natural world by designing a language that gives them the results they what to achieve. This is not an understanding of the natural world. Just like a bird will say Hello if it knows it is going to get fed. It does not say hello because it understands that in English speaking culture it is being polite.
Jasper Fforde's 'Early Riser' explores one possibility in his usual inimitable and humorous fashion.
Peace,
Westernized East-Asians do not have the in group solidarity they may appear to have, in general. Family dynamics are often quite toxic underneath the surface. Think Cultural Revolution conditions before Cultural Revolution triggers.
To the extent Russia has the Orthodox Church to act as Principle, China certainly no longer has Confucius or Imperial loyalty. Materialist success can only take a people's so far. Chinese in the West are very adaptable, for sure, but that adaptability prevents unity as well.
Islam as a force that binds will also be as force that limits if it remains shackled to colonial sectarian visions of what religion is and where law comes from. Asian adaptability plus Qur'anic (non sectarian) Principle work out pretty well together though.
Peace.
At least the future historians are real humans, not vat grown like Logan-5 or THX-1138, or just straight up cyber-bots.
That should count as a win.
I've just finished reading J.D. Vance's "Hillbilly Elegy"; it describes his personal experiences of aspects of Western society which appear to be some of the precursors to the period that Professor Chen will look back on. I wonder how, or if, J.D. Vance will be regarded by our future historians?
Compare that with Joe Bageant's "Dear Hunting with Jesus - Dispatches from America's Class War" and spot the difference...
When I saw this piece alluded to in another essay, I actually got quite excited to read it, because your analysis is typically very sharp and I thought could make for interesting if not prescient speculative fiction. But this was really atrocious. I get that this is tongue in cheek(?), but attributing the future fall of western civilization to THE DREADED WOKE is so lazy and intellectually beneath you that it kind of makes me question a lot of your analysis in general. However you self-define, you have enormous ideological blind spots that make your opinions on youth culture and immigration extremely similar to reactionaries. It comes up again and again in your essays. There are obviously a lot of reactionaries on this site who reward narrow-minded scaremongering about things like Islam and Cancel Culture, but if you are truly committed to "understanding the world", you ought to interrogate these very obvious biases more. Your conclusions here, whatever degree of satire was intentional, are really laughable. The idea that "Asians" writ large will somehow come to dominate the US politically through "cultural cohesiveness" speaks to a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of American racial politics and political economy. In an essay alluding to the conflicts that will define the near future you also make no mention of climate change. The idea that "cultural sensitivity" would inevitably lead to legalized pedophilia and polygamy is frankly just racist bullshit unworthy of much comment at all. I think your exploration of immigrant labor as a modern form of slavery, or at least filling an equivalent social role to earlier forms of slavery, is the one point that's interesting and may actually appear in a future history book. But a lot of this stuff betrays a worldview that is deeply chauvinistic and makes me question what I felt like I was getting out of your serious essays.
History is... as history does - www.crushlimbraw.com - and you can trudge the same path I have done so for the last 20 some years - arriving at the conclusion that everything I learned in public school was bullshit and propaganda!
Reminds me that I should reread Bolano’s Nazi Literature of the Americas