In English, that's the IR speak for the difference between people who believe that the rules of things like the WTO are permanent in broad terms, versus realists who seem them as fundamentally variable institutions rather than something structural

Domestically, I think that the problem is that the proposition that markets exist in social contexts that generate social protection when economic activity tries to dismbed itself harming the human aspects of life is given terrible form.  The rising cost of Chinese goods in American markets, leads to millions of urban workers being forced out.  Unable to subsist off the land as before the great transformation, their efforts to restoret the human character of life take root in religous and cultural fundamentalism.

 The Chinese Communist Party either channels this anger into the creation of a virulent nationalism, or falls to those who will.  And the horrors of the 20th century  live once more. Falun Gong, Christians, Homosexuals, and other groups are made scapegoats, are discriminated against, and then genocide.

It's a question of whether China merely implodes or takes East Asia with it.

Now the happy version of this supposes that enough social capital exists in the Chinese state unions and other elements of civil society to faciliate a social democratic response.


And I'll give my consent to any government that does not deny a man a living wage-Billy Bragg