[okc]

Well, which came first, the government or peoples views on it.

When people can't openly express dissatisfaction and are censored and are subject to organised propaganda, then it's very hard to say.

Under the communist government peoples lives haven't improved: look at the great famine. So yes I disagree peoples lives have not improved because of communism in China.

You ask me to pick which era of government I would like to be under. But its all the same government using propaganda the same way.

So what if it is now improving the vast amount of peoples lives. What about the minority being tortued by it?

My conversations with Chinese people don't show a favour with the current government. But that's not much of an indicator, under the great famine, their was probably even more vast support for the Government. That's the nature of propaganda.

You say China has improved under communism. Think what it could have achieved without it. Or look back even further at what it achieved as an empire.

The average Chinese persons life has improved from an absolutely horrific existence under communism to a slightly better one - might be more like what your saying.

As I said before, it's the same party as always. Until propaganda is removed and freedom of speech installed, public opinion is far from fact and the average Chinese persons quality of life is as much fiction as it is belief.

[mikeash]

I don't understand what you mean by "it's all the same government." If you were being oppressed and murdered and starved in 1940, it wasn't the Communist government, it was probably the Japanese Empire. In 1900 it was the old imperial government. In between you probably had the chance to be oppressed and murdered and starved by the Republic of China, who are now the government of Taiwan.

I'm not defending the Chinese government nor am I denying the role that propaganda plays in shaping public opinion there (as it does everywhere). But it is not only propaganda which does this. Life in China is much better compared to how it was in 1949, and part of the public's view of the government is due to that.

[okc]

The view that life is better is meaningless if you mean its better than mass death and torture.

Portraying life as better now, is propaganda. Its a view that affirms the current government policies (even if you don't personally believe it).

Propaganda is very unique in China and communism. Mainly because it is unified, enforced, systematic and backed up with violence. The communist party have been in rule so long that they are experts in it and social engineering.

Taking any view on what the public think of its goverment, ain't easy or factual. It fraught in one of the most organised regimes of properganda in existence today.

You can't compare that to America, where you can openly disagree with the government. Without fear of imprisonment in a work camp without trial.

Basically when you say things like life is better because peoples positive views support it - I hear nothing but the torture and oppression which supports that state. And that ain't improvement. Its propaganda and control.

[mikeash]

It sounds like you value freedom extremely highly, to the point where material improvements in your quality of life don't matter if not accompanied by freedom.

I can understand that, and even agree with it to a degree. But most people don't. If they have food and shelter and schools for their kids (well, kid, since we're talking about China) and consumer electronics and whatever else, and they're allowed to go about their lives, they mostly don't care if you're not allowed to criticize the government. It's not like East Germany where a third of the population was a Stasi spy, or like the Stalinist USSR where a huge number of ordinary people were shipped off to prison camps.

You say "You can't compare that to America." Why do you say that? I am nowhere comparing anything to America.

You seem bound and determined to take what I say as an endorsement of the Chinese Communist Party, or as saying that freedom doesn't matter, or that life in China is just as good in every way as it is in a Western democracy. But all I'm saying is that life in China improved a lot since 1949 by many concrete measures, and this improvement helps form the Chinese public's opinion of their government.

[okc]

I think we have both expressed our views. I understand what you mean more with your summary of freedom.

We could go over the subtle points for a long time. I believe they mean far more than you might.

My overall point is more along the lines of this full scale propaganda really makes it hard to read peoples opinions of the government on quite a few levels. Perhaps that's not a fair direct retort to your development narrative. But they are connected.

I don't want to be to picky, but the great famine was caused by the government after 1949. May seem trivial now but.. I still see its effects.

The other problem with state control and censorship is you don't really know the level of what's going on. China has work camps without trial in regions far from where the person might live, offences are usually based around expressing dissent over policy. China also has a lot of snitches.. I was told that any one wearing the red armbands was one. And that's a lot of people. I know a lot of the government send young family members to study in places like new Zealand in case they start to lose favour.. So they have a way out.

Besisdes all these points China is a big place. Generalisations over public opinion and the importance of it are fairly misleading. Take Tibet for example, I doubt Tibetans have an improved opinion of the government.

I dont like disregarding your views but in all this dialogue I can't help thinking that your views in the context we are discussing - censorship - are legitimising and downplaying the problem of Hunan rights in China. The Chinese people have no voice and the kind of support you are giving the government by saying they are developing and represent the peoples views, seem to be the final nail in exstinguishing dissenters voices in China.

I doubt that is your intention but that's how it comes across and that's why I've been asking you to clarify.

I can't agree China has improved but that's a debate for how you define improve. For me improved in the context of China, doesn't mean shit if people can't express dissent. Its more like reinforcement.

Edited for typos.

[mikeash]

It's weird that you're now criticizing me, not on the basis of facts or principle, but on the basis of what you perceive to be the consequences of my statements. Is that not the exact same argument that censorship regimes use, that certain things must not be said, regardless of factual basis, because discussing them is harmful?

[okc]

I'm disregarding your views not censoring them.

[tps5]

He's saying that life is better in concrete ways.

Life expectency is higher.

Medicine is more available.

Wages are higher.

Quality of life is higher.

Less crime.

More security.

Those are concrete things. Can we measure them perfectly? No. But clearly things have improved in China over the past 60 years...

[okc]

Security and crime: Doublespeak.

Wages and medicine: actually more inequality than ever.

Life expectancy: scraping the barrel.

These aren't concrete things. If they were we could, like you say, measure them properly. But even in the best conditions your anlysis would be linking your values to your methods.

My point: measuring stuff like this in a 60 year old regime based on self perpetuation and social control is not improvement its indoctrination.

For example: are wages higher by mean, mode or median.

Or more simply does less crime measure the improvement of a country. I can think of several pertinent examples of regimes and dictators who were quite sucsesfull with crime.

Higher life expectancy.. Well that's quite an easy one to improve when you stop starving everyone.

I'm not saying all my points are 100% kosher. I'm saying improvement is a very subjective term reaking of contradiction when not simplified or taken out of context.

[malaeisd]

> Higher life expectancy.. Well that's quite an easy one to improve when you stop starving everyone.

If that's the only reason, then why is the quality of life so much better in China than in India, the world's largest democracy?

For example,

- Life expectancy at birth in China is 73.5 years; in India it is 64.4 years.

- The infant mortality rate is fifty per thousand in India, compared with just seventeen in China.

- The mortality rate for children under five is sixty-six per thousand for Indians and nineteen for the Chinese.

- Maternal mortality rate is 230 per 100,000 live births in India and thirty-eight in China.

- Only 66 percent of Indian children are immunized with triple vaccine (diphtheria/pertussis/tetanus), as opposed to 97 percent in China.

- The mean years of schooling in India were estimated to be 4.4 years, compared with 7.5 years in China.

- China’s adult literacy rate is 94 percent, compared with India’s 74 percent.

- India's literacy rate for women between the ages of fifteen and twenty-four is still not much above 80 percent, whereas in China it is 99 percent.

Source: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2011/05/12/quality-life-indi...

[okc]

No its not the only reason I have! as I made clear - it wasn't the reason at all. You reply is meaningless without context.

It was one example of many providing a point that statistics are misleading.

Especially in describing quality of life under a controlling reigeme. Yes some things improve in some way. No - that's not improvement.

Its like saying if you sent me to prison my life expectancy, security, and perhaps even literacy might improve. Would I count being in prison an improvement? No.

Not unless of course you think I'm guilty, incapable, and need controlling.

Edit: typo.