China vs. Japan: The Soft Power Battle

China vs. Japan: The Soft Power Battle

A customer enters a Chinese-owned grocery store, buys persimmons, and the shopkeeper calls him "handsome." This anecdote, recounted with near-ethnographic detail, serves as more than just an amusing story: it summarizes the clash between the everyday perception of a country and its actual weight on the global stage. The debate over whether Chinese people are the best quickly shifts to a more uncomfortable question: what exactly does this supposed superiority measure?

The trigger is an unnuanced assertion. The response comes in the form of a regional comparison: Japan appears as the rival that, according to some participants, "leaves China far behind" in cultural influence. The argument rests on series consumption, tourism, and image export capabilities. It is the old thesis of soft power: relevant countries spread their culture and colonize foreign imaginations. Those defending this metric receive an immediate rebuttal: if series are the criterion, Venezuela and Turkey should lead the world.

Soft Power as a Thermometer for Powers

The discussion gets tangled in the very definition of a major power. For some, pop culture is the definitive indicator; for others, it is an accessory that explains nothing. In the middle, action cinema emerges as a counterexample: Jackie Chan and his films are cited as proof that China has indeed exported mass cultural products, although it had been doing so from Hong Kong for decades.

Tourism functions as another battlefield. The question of who would want to visit China when Japan is next door is answered with documentaries about beaches and specific cities that become, for some, desired destinations. Chengdu is mentioned as an example of a city with no obvious equivalent in the West. The comparison then becomes geographical rather than cultural.

The Pandemic as a Litmus Test

The Chinese lockdown enters the conversation indirectly. Some argue that the degree of confinement was much higher than in Spain and lasted much longer, revealing the level of population subordination to political power. The reply is not long coming: it is argued that in China, foreigners could enter with controls and a 14-day quarantine, while in Spain the country was closed to Spaniards and foreigners entered without any hindrance.

Vaccination slips into the exchange. It is claimed that in China there were free tests everywhere and that those who did not want to be vaccinated had no problem. The Chinese vaccine is described as attenuated bicho, in contrast to the Spanish one, which is labeled an experimental RNA treatment. This is an assertion circulating in the exchange without documentary support and should be read for what it is: just another opinion among many exchanged.

The Historical Origin of Gunpowder and the Narrative of Plunder

The discussion goes back centuries. It is recalled that the Chinese invented gunpowder, but that it reached Europe through Jovenlandeses, long before Europeans had direct contact with China. The English took a long time to reach Asia; before them came the Spanish, Portuguese, and Dutch. By then, European dominance in gunpowder exceeded Asian dominance. The Japanese, seen as more astute in this reading, copied Portuguese weapons.

Another intervention claims that China was conquered by the Anglo-Saxons 200 years ago and that its best legacy, Tibet, was destroyed by the minions of Anglo-Saxon evil, including its millennia-old culture. This statement mixes history, geopolitics, and an undeveloped ideological charge. In parallel, it is defended that in nature, China leaves Japan far behind, returning the comparison to the terrain of physical geography.

Hive Minds vs. Balcony Minds

The harshest exchange arrives with the characterization of societies. It is asserted that Chinese people are "bots, hive minds, worker bees." The response flips the mirror: Spaniards would be "balcony minds," who applaud at eight in the evening and defend media-repeated dogmas as their own opinions to appear good citizens. The conclusion drawn is that the average Chinese person has more judgment than the average Spaniard.

The counterattack distinguishes between generalizing about a group and describing a structural trait. It is maintained that Chinese people have been like this since time immemorial, while some Spaniards have not. The discussion drifts toward demographics, geopolitics, and historical circumstances, with the warning that these should not be confused with individual merit. It is praised, however, that the average Chinese person loves and defends their country, in contrast to an average Spaniard accused of entertaining themselves with identity "trivialities" while allowing themselves to be invaded.

Chinese Growth: Between Copying and Hierarchy

The economic explanation for China's rise is summarized in three factors: cheap labor, repression, and respect for hierarchy. With this, and by copying, China would have grown to match first-world powers, taking advantage of benefits allowed by the West. The thesis is not developed with figures, but it sets the tone for part of the exchange.

Against this reading, another intervention describes growth as parasitism: exploiting cracks and gaps in other walls, settling inside, and rotting whatever it touches until the inhabitants leave. The house remains converted into a degraded space, but habitable for those accustomed to it. The metaphor is harsh and unsupported by data, but illustrates the degree of hostility reached in the exchange.

The Grocery Store Anecdote and the Debate's Closure

The grocery store scene returns at the end. The customer recalls that the shopkeeper called him "handsome" every time he entered, that he attributed it to a commercial formula, and that one day, seeing that another customer was not addressed similarly, he decided to strike up a conversation. The anecdote cuts off before the outcome, leaving the story hanging. It is the most concrete portrait of the entire exchange: a daily commercial relationship used to discuss two countries that most participants have never visited.

The disorienting fact is not a number. It is that, after 176 replies and 853 days of discussion, no one has provided a single comparable indicator—per capita income, productivity, life expectancy, patents—to determine who is "the best." They debate series, beaches, gunpowder, and vaccines. Regarding everything else, silence.