Summary of Key Points
Recently, the Wikipedia entry for “superpowers” listed China and the United States as “two universally recognized superpowers,” with Russia being reclassified from a “potential superpower” to a category of contention. However, this classification is not an official designation (Wikipedia is edited by volunteers and relies on Western sources); it reflects the narrative of Western elites. The hawkish faction in the U.S. and defense think tanks use this to justify requesting more military funding and industrial subsidies, portraying China as an “equivalent opponent.” China today resembles the United States in the 1920s: it has a leading global industrial capacity, but still has shortcomings in areas such as its currency and academic language. Although China’s nominal GDP is not high, its citizens have already benefited from the advantages of industrialization. This change to the Wikipedia entry could impact AI training (Wikipedia is an important source for AI algorithms), which in turn affects how the world defines China’s status in the future. It is unlikely that China will officially accept this label, but its actual strength—its industry, technology, infrastructure, and other capabilities—are what truly define it as a superpower.
Detailed Analysis
1. Wikipedia’s “Superpowers” Label: Not an Official Designation, but a Reflection of Western Narratives
Wikipedia is not the United Nations; it has no authority to officially designate countries as superpowers. It is a website edited by volunteers based on “reliable sources,” and the entries can change at any time. The main drivers behind this recent change were Western scholars (such as Jennifer Lind from Dartmouth College), hawkish U.S. politicians, and defense think tanks:
- Scholars argued that the global landscape has returned to a bipolar structure between the United States and China.
- High-ranking U.S. officials explicitly referred to China as a “global superpower” during hearings.
- Think tanks recommended reclassifying China from an “almost equivalent competitor” to an “equivalent opponent.”
Why do the West make such claims? This is an example of “political economics of threat narrative”: by portraying the enemy as more powerful, the U.S. can justify requesting more military funding from Congress, persuading taxpayers to support industrial subsidies, and urging allies to implement export controls. Wikipedia simply reflects these opinions from Western elites.
2. China Similar to the United States in the 1920s: Industrial Dominance with Weaknesses
China today shares similarities with the United States in the 1920s:
- Industrial Dominance: In 1929, the U.S. accounted for 43.3% of global industrial output, equivalent to the entire European economy; today, China’s industrial output (including Western overseas production) is roughly equal to that of the entire Western world. China leads in sectors such as new energy vehicles, shipbuilding, and hypersonic technology.
- However, There Are Still Weaknesses:
- Currency: The RMB is not yet a core international settlement currency (similarly, the U.S. dollar was not as dominant as the British pound back then).
- Academia: Chinese is not the international language of choice for academic research; papers must still be published in English.
- International Engagement: China focuses on its own development, similar to how the United States pursued isolationism and avoided involvement in European affairs.
Europe once viewed the U.S. as “large but lacking in sophistication” and a “cultural desert,” but it eventually became the global leader. The same is now true for China.
3. Nominal GDP May Be Low, but Ordinary People Enjoy Superpower-Level Conveniences
Don’t be misled by nominal GDP (calculated based on exchange rates); the actual standard of living in China is due to its robust industrial foundation:
- Strong Purchasing Power: In China, a young person earning 3,000 yuan per month can afford rent of 500 yuan, buy 10 cooked duck legs for 18 yuan with free shipping, and get a ping-pong paddle for 10 yuan. In Florida, a teacher earns 3,500 yuan after taxes, with rent costing 1,200 yuan, and commuting takes an hour—these items are much more expensive there.
- Infrastructure Benefits: High-speed railways, fiber optics, and a well-developed road network are national public services. Traveling by high-speed train costs just a few yuan, and broadband is affordable and fast, all of which are typical of superpowers.
These benefits stem from a large industrial base, ensuring that daily necessities and basic services are readily available to the general population.
4. Changes to the Entry Affect AI Development
The revision of the Wikipedia entry will influence how AI systems understand the world. Currently, AI (such as ChatGPT and domestic models) learns from large datasets, and Wikipedia’s structured and high-quality content carries significant weight. This change means that when children ask AI questions about superpowers in the future, it may answer “China and the United States.” If we do not actively produce content recognized internationally, others will continue to define China’s role, potentially relegating us to a secondary position in their narratives.
5. It Is Unlikely That China Will Officially Accept the Label of Superpower
Why wouldn’t China officially accept this label?
- Different Interpretations: In our context, “superpower” is often associated with hegemony.
- Geopolitical Strategy: By not accepting the label, China avoids providing a pretext for the U.S. to impose restrictions (for example, by claiming China is a superpower to justify chip embargoes).
However, whether China accepts the label or not is a matter of attitude; what truly defines its status are its actual capabilities—its factories, engineers working on cutting-edge technologies, destroyers capable of advanced missions, and ordinary citizens benefiting from industrialization. These tangible aspects constitute the real foundation of a superpower.
In Conclusion
Wikipedia’s labels reflect others’ narratives, but China’s strength comes from its own achievements. Focusing on development is more meaningful than striving for an official title.