Illustration: Xia Qing/GT

I recently read a New York Times article discussing how the US should respond to "China Shock 2.0," titled "We Warned About the First China Shock. The Next One Will Be Worse." 

The authors provide a thorough analysis of China's industrial policy success and suggest that the US should establish similar investment institutions, adopt a long-term strategic vision and even learn from China's public-private partnership model.

This viewpoint is similar to recent arguments by some American scholars who emphasize that the US should learn from China's development experience.

Why is there a call for the US to learn from China? There are roughly two purposes. One is the genuine belief that the US should learn from China's successful industrialization experience to defeat China. The other is to use China's rise as motivation for the US, essentially setting China as a target of rivalry or a potential enemy and emphasizing the need to adopt necessary policy measures to beat China.

This line of thinking itself is absurd. Both approaches want to "learn" from a country's experience with the ultimate goal of "defeating" that same country.

The starting point still treats US-China competition as a winner-take-all "game" - if China wins, the US loses; if the US wins, China loses.

These articles resemble a three-part joke with a punchline in traditional Chinese folk art: First, the US plays the role of imperial arrogance; second, the US must dominate the world; third, it absolutely cannot yield to any country; and the punchline is "defeat China."

This contrasts with China's approach during its reform and opening-up, when it learned from the US and the West. The difference is that China not only revitalized its self-reliant energy through learning and cooperation, but it enhanced cooperation and achieved development through reform and opening-up. Even when China had ambitious goals in certain areas, these goals were aimed at surpassing, not defeating or beating, any particular country. China never had a strategic design to replace or defeat the US.

Some American experts share a common view, attributing their country's relative decline and manufacturing downturn to China's rise. So, when they see China's success, their first reaction isn't to consider the opportunities that China's rise provides, but rather the "threats" it poses, followed by how the US should "counterattack" and "win."

This mind-set prevents them from truly understanding the historical significance of China's rise, let alone grasping the secrets of China's industrialization.

It's also important to emphasize that China's experience was generated within its system. Many key experiences may seem learnable, but due to their close relationship with institutional and social ecosystems, they cannot be applied to a country with a different system and cultural tradition. Even if they are adopted, these experiences would likely be "deformed." 

About two decades ago, I proposed "de-Americanization," making precisely this point. At that time, China was learning from the US in every field. But today's China has shifted to a new path of Chinese modernization.

The fundamental differences in political systems, cultural traditions and development concepts between China and the US mean that the core of China's success isn't based on some replicable technical means, but on deep institutional foundations and cultural heritage.

More importantly, the entire US economic model is built on hegemonic dependence. Dollar hegemony enables the US to accumulate global wealth by printing money. Financial capitalism prioritizes short-term profit maximization, and the military-industrial complex relies on continuous international conflicts to sustain its profits.

The core logic of this system is maintaining an advantageous position through various forms of "plunder." Moreover, the inertia of hegemony means it cannot tolerate any country challenging its dominance, even if other countries develop peacefully. 

Last but not least, why does China's rise exhibit such strong resilience? Because it's not built on suppressing or plundering other countries, but on the foundation of enhancing its strength through self-reliance.

When a country's development can be achieved without weakening or "defeating" other countries, and instead provides opportunities for common development through cooperation, that development becomes sustainable.

Therefore, some American experts can only seek "solutions" at the technical level without addressing the fundamental issues. In the face of China's rise, they see only threats, not the inevitability of human historical development. 

When some American experts are still pondering how to "learn from China to beat China," they are destined to trap themselves in the maze of hegemony.

The author is a senior editor with the People's Daily and currently a senior fellow with the Chongyang Institute for Financial Studies at the Renmin University of China. dinggang@globaltimes.com.cn. Follow him on X @dinggangchina