And now, courtesy of G4, a fair and balanced note re: parallels between prewar Japan and China.
Love the use of the word “dirigisme.” Haven't seen it years. “Memory politics” is also a handy reference:
Historical and Contemporary Parallels Between Prewar Japan and Modern China
The term “prewar Japan” typically refers to Imperial Japan in the 1930s, under militaristic rule, characterized by aggressive expansionism, rapid industrialization, and ultranationalism leading up to World War II. Comparisons to contemporary China under Xi Jinping often highlight themes of rising power dynamics, territorial ambitions, and state-driven economies, though these analogies are debated and not exact. Analysts draw from historical patterns like Japan’s invasion of Manchuria (1931) and the broader Sino-Japanese War (1937–1945) to parallel China’s actions in regions like the South China Sea and Taiwan. Below, I’ll outline key similarities and differences, based on a range of scholarly, journalistic, and analytical sources representing diverse perspectives, including pro-Western critiques and more neutral or pro-China views that emphasize contextual distinctions.
Economic Models: State-Driven Growth and Mercantilism
Both eras feature economies blending state control with capitalist elements to fuel rapid ascent. Prewar Japan pursued autarky through zaibatsu conglomerates—family-controlled monopolies aligned with government goals—focusing on heavy industry and exports while suppressing labor rights to maintain competitiveness. Similarly, modern China employs state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and “national champions” like Huawei, guided by Five-Year Plans that prioritize self-sufficiency in tech and resources, often at the expense of fair trade practices. This mercantilist approach—accumulating trade surpluses through subsidies and currency manipulation—echoes Japan’s prewar strategies, which strained relations with the West and led to sanctions like the U.S. oil embargo in 1941. China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) has been likened to Japan’s “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere,” both ostensibly promoting regional development but serving hegemonic interests.
However, differences abound: Japan’s economy was resource-poor, necessitating conquest for oil and raw materials, whereas China, with vast domestic reserves and global supply chain integration, faces less existential pressure for outright invasion. Post-1978 reforms under Deng Xiaoping made China more market-oriented than Japan’s rigid militarized system, though Xi’s recentralization has narrowed this gap. Critics from Chinese perspectives argue that labeling China as “unfair” mirrors historical Western biases against Japan’s rise, ignoring how both were responses to colonial humiliations.
Political and Ideological Control: Nationalism and Historical Grievances
Nationalism rooted in “century of humiliation” narratives unites both. Imperial Japan invoked pan-Asianism to justify expansion, portraying itself as liberator from Western imperialism while committing atrocities like the Nanjing Massacre (1937). Modern China under Xi amplifies anti-Japanese sentiment through education and media, framing territorial disputes (e.g., Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands) as rectifying historical injustices, much like Japan’s prewar propaganda. Both regimes consolidated power by suppressing dissent: Japan’s Peace Preservation Law targeted communists and liberals, paralleling China’s social credit system and crackdowns in Hong Kong and Xinjiang. Xi’s cult of personality and “Chinese Dream” rhetoric evoke the emperor worship and militaristic fervor of 1930s Japan.
Yet, distinctions are clear. Japan’s government was chaotic, with military factions often acting independently (e.g., the Mukden Incident as a false flag), unlike China’s centralized CPC bureaucracy under Xi. Contemporary China emphasizes “peaceful rise” and multilateralism (e.g., via the UN), contrasting Japan’s outright rejection of the League of Nations in 1933. Pro-China narratives stress that Beijing’s actions are defensive, reclaiming sovereignty lost to imperialism, not aggressive like Japan’s unprovoked invasions. Moreover, nuclear deterrence and economic interdependence make full-scale war less likely today.
Military and Geopolitical Ambitions: Expansionism and Regional Dominance
Militarily, both pursued rapid modernization to challenge Western hegemony. Prewar Japan’s buildup led to annexations in Korea, Taiwan, and Manchuria, justified as securing “living space.” China’s PLA expansion, island-building in the South China Sea, and threats toward Taiwan mirror this, with “wolf warrior” diplomacy echoing Japan’s prewar belligerence. Analysts warn of a “Thucydides Trap,” where rising powers (like Japan vs. Britain/U.S. then, China vs. U.S. now) risk conflict. Economic sanctions against Japan in the 1930s parallel U.S. tariffs and tech restrictions on China today, potentially escalating tensions.
Counterpoints emphasize China’s restraint: Unlike Japan, which launched surprise attacks (e.g., Pearl Harbor), China avoids direct combat, opting for salami-slicing tactics. Japan’s military was battle-tested from earlier wars (e.g., Russo-Japanese War 1904–1905), while the PLA lacks recent experience, reducing adventurism. From a Japanese viewpoint, modern narratives grapple with war guilt, unlike China’s unified victimhood story, highlighting cultural divergences in memory politics.
In summary, while parallels in economic dirigisme, nationalist ideology, and geopolitical assertiveness are well-substantiated, they are tempered by modern realities like globalization and deterrence, making outright replication unlikely. The analogy serves as a warning for potential escalation but risks exaggeration, as China’s scale and integration differ profoundly from Japan’s isolationist aggression. |
