According to Acemoglu and Robinson, China is an example of a Despotic Leviathan. A brutal regime has been extensively discussed, where China Party members systematically subjected the people to hunger, brutally beat those with opposing views, and subjected them to inhumane treatments in so-called re-education camps. Contrary to Hobbes’s Leviathan, which suggests that the state ends war and chaos, resulting in the absence of hunger, poverty, and slavery, the authors emphasize the two-faced nature of the Leviathan. Those with malicious intentions shape the Leviathan they create for their own purposes.

In the famine of 1959 in China, with astonishing details, it is estimated that 45 million people lost their lives. However, unlike Hobbes’s theory of a stateless society, the Chinese Party Government meticulously planned and executed everything. People were left to starve as the government confiscated harvests from villages. The government’s goal was modernization, to develop the state into a modern urban and industrial society. For instance, villagers were deprived of food, and initially, they resorted to eating soft creatures, and later, the government’s harsh plan was to establish a centralized kitchen. Despite the existence of the state, life, contrary to Hobbes’s theory, was short, lonely, poor, and savage. Those who did not obey were subjected to a policy of deprivation of food, essentially eating those who did not comply. The villagers had lost control over their survival, and there was no way or benefit in resisting or rebelling against the existing power. Young people arbitrarily thrown into so-called re-education camps reported being fed with their own feces and urine. Unfortunately, this practice continued in the next government.

China’s closed structure to external intervention allowed all these humanitarian crimes to persist and increase. Despite being a modern and respected country on the international stage, China continued all these practices. According to Acemoglu and Robinson, China is not a democratic country. According to Hobbes’s definition of Leviathan, the establishment of the state has ended war but replaced it with another nightmare. The authors argue that the Red Queen effect and the proper implementation of Leviathan occur simultaneously through joint effort and will.

China is claimed to be an example for many developing countries due to the progress made through the unmatched Party, but it is never like the United States. This is because China lacks a societal structure for cooperation. Without a balance of power between the state and society, the Red Queen does not come into play, and Leviathan remains at a lower capacity. China, which moves forward with a Despotic Leviathan structure, may be one of the world’s major economies, but it can never achieve the welfare and power balance of the United States due to its inhumane actions and plans that oppress its people. There is no mechanism or structure in China where the state is controlled. In contrast, the United States established this structure during the establishment process. A significant portion of the country has stated that they will not approve the constitution unless basic rights are included. They also have a mobile society and a spirit of resistance. All of these factors have brought the United States to the level it has achieved with a Pranged Leviathan over 230 years and made it one of the world’s most powerful states. However, China, progressing with a Despotic Leviathan structure, has never been like the United States because the Red Queen effect can only occur with a balance of power between the state and society. With its current policies, the People’s Republic of China is not a democratic state.

Foucault and the Concept of Power: According to Foucault, we still cannot fully grasp what power is. It is both visible and invisible, overt and covert at the same time. When defining power, Foucault does not confine it within specific limits. According to him, power is not something held by any individual or social group within us, and therefore, it is not a structure that can be lost. For Foucault, power relations are not only about imposing and limiting; they are also “productive.” Power relations exist in love, friendship, and work. Power is neither a structure, nor an institution, nor a possession. Power and resistance to power are directly connected; wherever power is, there will always be a force, a response against it. Power is never limited to interpersonal relationships; it is a form of action that influences and directs the actions of others.

Foucault views power as a form of action that influences and directs the actions of others. Therefore, power is an action on actions. Foucault talks about continuous mechanisms of surveillance, aiming to cultivate obedient individuals. This concept has been applied in prisons. People, under the observation and control of the panopticon, feel cognitively monitored even when not physically watched. After a point, they feel as if they are under scrutiny and pressure, shaping their actions accordingly. Foucault describes this power relationship as bio-power, stating, “Power is everywhere, at all times.”

There are various tools of domination. For instance, from my own life, when I come home late, my family questions me using their authority: Where were you? You won’t go out past this time anymore, etc. Such questions stem from the authority and domination over us. Even within a friend group, there exists a power relationship. According to Foucault, power is always based on the collection, distribution, or concealment of knowledge. Knowledge emerges as a tool of power.

Foucault argues that power involves many strategic games, and these games are ethically ambiguous. They share similarities with emotional relationships. According to Foucault, there is no pause or stop; he speaks of continuous resistance. He anticipates uninterrupted opposition. He criticizes and condemns the Enlightenment movement, arguing that reason, as exalted by the Enlightenment, is not pure; it is tainted by power and dirtied, implying that it is not innocent.