The Essence of the U.S. Political System: Money Politics and Dependence on Expansion
The historical trajectory of U.S. development clearly demonstrates the central role that external expansion has played in supporting its economic growth. If we compare human society to a finely tuned machine, the forces driving it can be broadly divided into two categories: external plunder and internal reform. The current U.S. system of money politics fundamentally determines that it can only choose the former—capital groups directly control the direction of policy through political donations. They will never support bottom-up systemic reforms that harm their own interests, but will only push for piecemeal adjustments that deregulate capital.
Once external expansion encounters significant resistance, capital groups inevitably turn to internal expansion—in plain terms, settling scores with one another. When the Democrats take power, they encroach on the Republicans’ sphere of influence; when the Republicans take power, they do the same to the Democrats. The core objective for both is to ensure the continuous expansion of their own camp’s sphere of control.
Power Struggle: The Battle Between Silicon Valley’s New Rich and Wall Street’s Old Money
The policy shift during Trump’s second term laid bare the power transition among American capital groups. He completely reversed his first-term opposition to cryptocurrency, signing a series of executive orders to deregulate cryptocurrency and AI technology. He even permitted 401(k) retirement funds to invest in illiquid private equity assets with exit cycles of three to five years—a move driven by the power struggle between Silicon Valley’s new money and Wall Street’s old money.
Trump sought to suppress traditional Wall Street capital by supporting the tech-right faction represented by Peter Thiel, while the Silicon Valley upstarts needed political power to expand their market reach—a perfect match for both sides. As the de facto controller of the cryptocurrency giant Palantir, Peter Thiel not only propelled Vice President Vance into office, but his company also served as a core supplier for Trump’s “Golden Dome” initiative and provided significant critical technology and intelligence support to the U.S. and Israel during the recent Middle East conflict. At the White House tech dinner on September 4, a host of CEOs from companies linked to Peter Thiel were in attendance. The Department of Management and Budget, established this past January, is also controlled by his think tank. The tech right has deeply infiltrated the U.S. administrative system.
Technocratic Monarchy: Peter Thiel’s Ideology and Ultimate Goal
Peter Thiel’s ideology contains inherent contradictions: as a skeptic of democracy, he advocates returning society to a medieval state, keeping the general public in a state of information scarcity to reduce social entropy, and even openly praises India’s caste system; yet as a tech accelerationist, he is desperately pushing for exponential technological development. These two seemingly contradictory goals can only be reconciled within the framework of “technocratic monarchy.” Its ultimate form is almost identical to the First Earth Civilization described in Liu Cixin’s The Support of Mankind: all means of production and technology are monopolized by a tiny oligarchy; AI and robots ensure absolute protection of property rights; knowledge becomes a commodity affordable only to the wealthy; and ordinary people are reduced to “information proletarians,” forming a caste-based society reinforced by technology.
The ideal world in Peter Thiel’s mind is the ultimate form of private ownership: a handful of tech oligarchs act as the world’s absolute rulers, dictating social rules as casually as writing a novel, while ordinary people have no possibility of resistance.
The Crossroads of Trump’s Second Term
Trump’s second term marks a critical turning point in America’s political trajectory. Surviving the assassination attempt has bolstered his narrative of divine mandate. In theory, he does have the opportunity to use his personal authority to strengthen government power, curb the excessive expansion of capital, alleviate pressure on U.S. debt, and improve the distribution of wealth. But now, U.S. economic data has laid the contradictions bare: employment figures are worsening, the University of Michigan Consumer Sentiment Index has been declining consecutively, yet the stock market continues to hit new highs—a clear indication that the distribution structure has become severely distorted.
Judging by the actual trajectory, Trump will most likely serve only as an agent for capital groups and is unlikely to genuinely pursue reform. His policies are entirely skewed toward the tech-right, allowing pension funds to invest in cryptocurrencies and private equity—essentially acting as a fall guy for capital groups, with absurdly vast opportunities for利益输送. If the U.S. fails to implement domestic reforms, once the momentum for external expansion is completely exhausted, it will be trapped in a vicious cycle of internal factional strife, and its national strength will only continue to weaken.
Core Differences Between the Chinese and U.S. Development Models
The fundamental difference between the Chinese and American development models lies in their sources of momentum: the American model relies entirely on incremental gains from external expansion to sustain its distribution system; when expansion is blocked, it can only resort to internal zero-sum games, inevitably leading to an oligarchic monopoly under a technocratic monarchy. The Chinese model, on the other hand, emphasizes internal structural reform, achieving endogenous growth by continuously adjusting the distribution structure, stimulating the domestic consumer market, and enhancing technological innovation capabilities. It possesses far greater resilience to economic cycles and long-term development potential.
The competition between these two models has entered uncharted waters: The United States seeks to preserve its monopolistic position through technological blockades and geopolitical containment, while China offers the world a new development path by promoting global cooperation and building a community with a shared future for mankind. Ultimately, the winner will be determined by which model can better resolve the contradiction between the development of productive forces and the distribution structure, thereby providing development opportunities to more people.