I have one Chinese friend who employs a double entendre, calling him "Xitler"
In all seriousness, this is a black period for Chinese people and China's neighbors. The fledgling democracy in Hong Kong, and democratic nations around China's periphery including Taiwan, Japan, Nepal, and India should be very wary dealing with a strongman who will stop at nothing to further his power and nationalism-focused legacy.
Japan has nothing to worry about. The Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security Between the United States and Japan, signed after WWII, basically means that Japan AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA are responsible to ensure the national security of Japan (It's actually mutual with the understanding that the Japanese constitution forbids deploying armed forces abroad). In other words, if china is actually aggressive towards Japan in any way, the full force of the United States armed forces will stand with them. As one of China's main trading partners, China doesn't want to pick a fight with the united states any more than we want to pick a fight with China. Similarly, South Korea has little to fear from China (even if they're propping up North Korea to do it), since the US has a similar relationship there. Nepal and Taiwan are screwed. India... its hard to imagine things going worse for India to be honest. Lets focus on getting most of their people clean, proper toilets before we start worrying about the influence of communist dictatorships, eh?
Mutual defense treaties have a poor track record in the face of heavily armed, aggressive regimes playing up real or imagined injustices while undermining political and military obstacles. If the alliance is weak, disaster can result.
Examples abound - Poland and France both had mutual defense treaties with various allies that failed when Germany invaded. In Japan's backyard, the Philippines lost territory in the South China Sea to China after it decided to cut ties with the U.S. military. As soon as the U.S. pulled away, the Chinese PLA moved right in. An international tribunal in The Hague ruled China's actions were completely illegal, but China has since strengthened its hold by building landing strips and military fortifications on the reefs and small islets.
The Japan/U.S. alliance is strong, but relationships and power profiles can change. Xi's not going anywhere, and he can play the long game when it comes to the Diaoyutai and other territorial claims.
"As one of China's main trading partners, China doesn't want to pick a fight with the united states any more than we want to pick a fight with China."
Such thinking was very common going into World War I. The mutual economic interests of all of the nations involved led many people to believe it would be over in a few months.
> The Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security Between the United States and Japan, signed after WWII, basically means that Japan AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA are responsible to ensure the national security of Japan
China has long-range nukes. Behind every treat is political resolve. Would America risk lighting its cities on fire to defend a country across the ocean? (I hope so. But I'm not sure.)
> China has long-range nukes. Behind every [th]reat is political resolve. Would America risk lighting its cities on fire to defend a country across the ocean? (I hope so. But I'm not sure.)
The same could be said of China. Would it risk MAD by invading Japan? The US could be spurred to act due to the threat of eventual isolation and defeat after its allies are picked off. That fear is what fueled the regional wars like Vietnam fought during the Cold War.
In any case, it's estimated that Japan could develop its own indigenous nuclear capability very quickly if the need arose.
If there's one thing we should have already learned from Trump, it's that treaties mean absolutely nothing if they don't meet US interests in realpolitik. All Trump has to do is start complaining about Japan "taking advantage of us" and before you know it, they'll be public enemy number one in his supporters' eyes.
Even if someone is a lover of the communist party, isn't it somewhat of a bad idea to have a cult of personality style leader? Wasn't that what the party wanted to put an end to after Mao?
They may have said it, but the CCP nevertheless used propaganda, Han-centric nationalism, and control of the news media to elevate certain leaders into cult status. Xi and Deng are obvious examples, but I also recall the Jiang apparatus trying to play that card as well.
I wonder if it will have some sort of long term impact on the economy. Is there a way of measuring relative government authoritarianism on economic development of a nation?
Political stability encourages growth [1]. The form of government seems largely irrelevant [2]. China is moving from a stable if novel mode (small-group democratic dictatorship) to an unstable mode (single-leader dictatorship).
Absolutely. That is why the US, thanks to having a multi-party democracy, never got anywhere with the industrial revolution. And that is why Putin's Russia is leading the world in technological innovation and economic growth.
Of course, if when you say "political stability" you mean the absence of things like civil wars and coups, well yes, that really helps economic growth. But I don't think Xi is making himself dictator-for-life because China is on the verge of that sort of instability.
When strongman-based cults of personality (real or wannabe) appoint themselves ruler for life, policy can go off the rails. Wars, purges, persecution of minority groups, and civil unrest are more likely. Corrupt systems of checks and balances, which may have already been weak, slide ever further.
Mao, Stalin, Chavez, Castro, Hitler, Mussolini, Chiang Kai-Shek ... a few of these strongmen presided over brief periods of spectacular economic growth, but always under unsustainable conditions. Many citizens (and the citizens of neighboring countries) paid a terrible price.
When you have a great king, it's among the best forms of government. The problem is that that great king's successor is probably not also great, and under a bad ruler, it's among the worst forms of government, and that bad king can last for your entire lifetime.
It's never spectacularly efficient, but the US' form of democracy is meant to be much lower variance. I think it's a good tradeoff.
Typo there with _rose_ quality of life in Venezuela?
Pretty sure we've watched that 'democratic' experiment fail spectacularly, at least what news I know of the economy and living conditions in general seem very poor at best. Failed state comes to mind.
He might have raised the quality of life temporarily (I'm not sure even about that), but what is happening now in Venezuela was practically inevitable. You might be warmer for a little while as you take apart your house and burn it piece by piece, but in the end you will more assuredly freeze. In my opinion, it was a great tragedy that Chavez is not still alive today. Now people can say ridiculous things like this. If he was alive today, Venezuela would still be collapsing and it would be clear whose fault it was.
Hitler came to power on top of a democratic system, too (IIRC, by leveraging political alliances and grassroots violence in the pre-1933 parliamentary system). He surely improved the quality of life for the Nazi base in the mid-30s after he took power.
Didn't stop him from dismantling democratic institutions, eliminating all political rivals, invading his neighbors, and murdering millions of people.
What happened when Mao unilaterally declared that ploughshares should be melted down for the good of the economy?
I'm not a huge fan of authoritarian systems, but individual people are even more fallible. Laying decision-making power on one individual is a recipe for failure; they're going to be wrong eventually, and chances are people will be reluctant to speak out against their god-emperor when that happens in a system where power is so ridiculously centralized.
provide an economic argument for not implementing additional authoritarian policies. Seems that these decisions are incredibly hard to measure. For example how much did Turkey's economy suffer from the previous failed coup?
It's amazing to me how China is so effectively creating a 1984-type situation without much stir among the rest of the world. These chat programs are super important for everyday life in China. The same company that provides chatting also provides your ability to pay for everything, and a credit score that determines what you can buy, how much you pay, and more. So if you say something you shouldn't, this could very easily be something where your entire life is destroyed. If they choose, these ultimately government controlled companies can easily make it so you can't buy things anymore, you are not trusted anywhere, and even your friends all disconnect with you because your bad score could affect theirs.
>It's amazing to me how China is so effectively creating a 1984-type situation without much stir among the rest of the world.
This is perhaps because of several things:
1) That's the way "the rest of the world's" governments and corporate interests want their own countries to go, and have been pushing towards since decades. The rest of the world's leaders (most of them) could not care less for the lip service they pay to "freedom" et al.
2) A superpower gets to do whatever it likes "without much stir from the rest of the world". Heck, France and Britain had 1/3rd of the world, outside or their national borders, enslaved "without much stir from the rest of the world" until well after WWII. And suddenly the "rest of the world" will care for what China does to its own citizens?
3) It's nobody's business really what China does to its own citizens. There are other countries with the worlds largest prison population and most police shootings (by crazy amounts, like having 25% of the worlds prisoners for 4% of the worlds population), and they continue in that path "without much stir among the rest of the world". Why would it be different here?
It’s amazing to me that the argument of “don’t go after those guys for what they are doing when those other guys are doing bad things too” never dies. Even with all of its blatant fallacy. It will persist until the end of time. And solve nothing.
I think it does more to illustrate hypocrisy and priorities than anything; it's like worrying about another driver's flat tire, when your own car is literally on fire. Though I do understand and agree with your overall sentiment.
Accusation of "what-aboutism" is the real BS cold-war trick (notice how it's also one-sided itself: it's an accusation against the other side of which the good people of our side are clear).
It amounts to "put on blinders and follow your side when it accuses the other, and never see things in perspective".
It generally means that only one side has the right to criticize (if the other side answers back, it's "whataboutism") -- and that third parties shouldn't call bot the pot and kettle black (it's whataboutism to even mention the pot), and instead should listen to the pot accusing the kettle of blackness.
Even worse when it's not bloody business of the pot what the kettle does -- but they want to make it so anyway, because they like to boss other kitchen implements around.
>It’s amazing to me that the argument of “don’t go after those guys for what they are doing when those other guys are doing bad things too” never dies.
Actually the argument is more like: bad guys shouldn't go after bad guys. It's hypocritical, self-serving in the name of some "cause", and creates worse outcomes.
You know, like a bad guy going in to bring "democracy" (assert control for strategic interests and/or ensure cheap oil and favorable currency use) and ends up in chaos, civil war, fundamentalism, and refugee waves. Time and again.
But I guess hypocrisy never dies. Even with all of its blatant fallacy. It will persist until the end of time. And solve nothing.
As for good guys, they can go after the bad guys all they want, and we'll even cheer for them.
Bad guys can go after bad guys. Good guys can still go after the remaining bad guys.
If we sit around waiting for he without sin to cast the stones, if on the off-chance that such a rare soul exists, then that small army-of-one will be outnumbered and overpowered and neutralized.
As a US citizen it is a valid argument because those "other guys" is our own country.
It's not "don't go after those guys", but "take care of our own problems first". This way, when offering solutions to other oppressive countries we wouldn't look like hypocrites.
Would you believe a massively obese and sickly person telling you the importance of diet and exercise?
So we shouldn't try to help people in other countries until we are literally perfect? Or are you making the argument that the US government is in fact more oppressive than the Chinese government?
The reality for the US is if it tries to take action to improve perceived injustices in the world, it is being hypocritical and "imperialist". If it does nothing, it is selfish and heartless, having the power to help but doing nothing. As far as the US goes, we are screwed either way.
Regardless, I think I can look at what is happening in China, not like it, and feel foreboding about the future. This isn't some small country somewhere. This is the most populous country in the world and I empathize with the people who live there. And frankly, China is the heir apparent to the US as the global super power. This concerns us all.
>So we shouldn't try to help people in other countries until we are literally perfect?
You shouldn't try to help people in other countries, period. Who appointed you world cop? Besides, it always ends up in tears (besides it being hypocritical help with strategic ambitions attached from the establishment side, even if ordinary people mean it sincerely).
>Or are you making the argument that the US government is in fact more oppressive than the Chinese government?
Dang, okay, that was a stupid analogy I made. It should have been something like "If you're obese and sickly, should you spend your time evangelizing the importance of diet and exercise to other unhealthy people instead of eating right and exercising yourself?" I don't think its even a good analogy anymore though.
I get that 'what-aboutism' is a logical fallacy in general, and it can prevent beneficial action from taking place. Isn't it a special case when the 'other party' is yourself? (obviously this is a US centric comment).
Don't disagree with you that nobody else is very different. Way too many "progressive" "change the world" techies are willing to get into bed with governments like this as long as they are making money. It's sickening.
Where you are wrong is the suggestion that this isn't entirely different. People bitch about US policy all the time. 50% of the political discussion on HN is bitching about US policy. I can't blame anyone for that (especially because it affects so many), but HN is a site based in the US, started by a VC firm based in the US, etc. It's super annoying when people from other countries who have never lived for any length of time in the US and act like their country is heaven on earth complain, but you get to complain, nobody stops you, you'll often get upvoted.
That doesn't happen in China. If the government (the party), which has been in power for 80 years, decides you don't get a voice, you don't get a voice. Given enough time, because we allow criticism and discussion, US policy will probably change as it has many times over the centuries. What's gonna happen in China? Nobody knows.
If it scares people that we now have strongmen dictators in Russia, the Philippines, Turkey, etc, and we've now got that in China, a nation with a small cadre of party leaders ruling over 1 billion people that have no real outlet to disagree, and which only gains more and more power, you really can't blame them. And if you're being honest with yourself, you can't really act like those systems are really the same thing.
The Chinese government is effectively the one described in 1984. If we're not that far gone in the West, it's because we allow things like free media and the publication of stuff like 1984. You can't really say they are the same thing.
It really is insane to hear the very passionate thoughts of my Shanghainese friends when it comes to how bad the US system is or how bad Trump is. But then I realize they have no other outlet for expression about their own system, So they direct their energy at what they think they know however badly reported to them by controlled media. The only thing people will talk about in very hushed tones on a completely unsolicited basis is how badly their families suffered under the CR. Even X generation kids know what was done to them by their own government. That's why the military police popped up in Shanghai train stations 2 days ago. Government protecting itself from its own citizens.
> Way too many "progressive" "change the world" techies are willing to get into bed with governments like this as long as they are making money. It's sickening.
Hey, gotta enhance shareholder value, man.. Fiduciary responsibility and all that.
> Whataboutism (also known as whataboutery) is a variant of the tu quoque logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument, which is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda. When criticisms were leveled at the Soviet Union, the Soviet response would be "What about..." followed by an event in the Western world. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism)
1. Identity Characteristics (15%) Public Security Real Name Authentication Identity Information Information Stability ... 2. Credit History (35%) Credit Card Repayment History Micronesia Repayment Record Utilities Fee Ticket ... 3. Compliance Capability (20%) Payment Account balance balance balance balance car information real estate information ...... 4. Personal connections (5%) relationship circle circle of friends credit level of social influence ... ... 5. behavior preferences (25%) account activity level consumer level payment level consumer preferences ...
> So if you say something you shouldn't, this could very easily be something where your entire life is destroyed.
According to the article, this has already happened: Over on WeChat’s top messaging service, there were reports that some users had been banned or restricted based on the content they had shared. WeChat owner Tencent has disputed claims that it stores or reads chat logs, but — regardless — the app includes a social media-like feed where users can share public messages with friends.
99% of the population could oppose a policy, but no individual could never know they aren't alone and they'll be disarmed against disciplinary power requiring fewer and fewer people at the top to control the rest with machines. Just a handful of decision makers controls search results, the new Google shopping censorship of the last two days, the massive purge of even very moderate conservative YouTube channels over the past few weeks... the only difference here is that the rulers skewing our discourse are "private". One "engineer" at a computer can silence the voices of over a billion people, whether in China or California.
"The rest of world" occasionally complains about China's dictatorial measures as it occasionally complains about dictatorial measures in other areas.
The only time there have been angry crusades against a given dictatorship (NAZIs, Soviets, etc) is when a given group of nations view these dictatorships as enemies. Which isn't to say these areas weren't dictatorships but that it's always taken more than dictatorship to get the ire of even those nations claiming to care most about democracy and human rights.
>can easily make it so you can't buy things anymore
This actually happened to me on a small scale with a legitimate US company, as a US citizen placing a legitimate order. The company deals in high-fraud-risk physical goods, their system decided that I was a high fraud risk, and outright banned me for life. I would have been happy to provide any kind of ID, sent them cash in the mail, whatever. But nope, banned for life, end of story. Truly a bizarre, bizarre experience.
After their support line was no help, I emailed their CEO with no response so far. Their investors are up next.
This account has only used HN to engage in political battle—in this case national battle about China. Regardless of what you're battling for, that's an abuse of the site as explained at https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html, so we've banned the account. Please don't create accounts to break the site rules with.
Anonymity paired with speech is a new modern invention which didn't always exist. I don't this it is necessarily true that that kinds of speech is always for the ultimate good.
I'm fine with societies experimenting with more surveillance with the aim of improving people's behavior. It just seems like the modern version of sitting around a fire face to face and not being an asshole.
I'm fine with societies experimenting with more surveillance with the aim of improving people's behavior.
A listening device in private homes is a genie that won't go back in its bottle. Are you willing to stand up and say, I trust every official, elected or otherwise, for the rest of my life, and the lives of any descendants I might have? Because you have just written a blank cheque that says exactly that.
Echo Show is not an anonymous broadcast platform. Using it to talk to friends is the modern version of doing it face to face; why do we suddenly need to have corporations or the government in the middle?
It is true that societies are experimenting with policing what people say online; Germany's attempts to combat hate speech and fake news come to mind. But that is (hopefully) different from punishing political dissent.
Do you honestly believe that it is better for society if people can't openly say "I disagree with removing presidential term limits"?
> I'm fine with societies experimenting with more surveillance with the aim of improving people's behavior.
If only that surveillance didn't open up avenues for exploitation, targeting, and suppression even more.
And I'm pretty sure we've got a little too much "cpmpliance" monitoring as we are right now... I'm ready for ALPRs, Stingrays, and a bunch of other LEO practices to get curtailed or even stopped outright.
We can't only experiment with structures and tools that have only upside positive consequences.
The existence of a bad outcome is something to be avoided and guarded against, but I don't see why any possible tool which has a potential to be abused should be avoided.
Surveillance isn't a good or evil unto itself. That's all I'm saying. It's a tool. I think it could be used to nudge behavior toward better global outcomes. I'm not wedded to the idea that everyone nearly everywhere should feel free saying anything free from consequences. Making speech accountable and attributable could be good.
You're risking a large evil to solve a small one (people being "assholes" it appears).
Also, I think "anonymity paired with speech" is older than you think, and probably arose soon after the invention of the printing press. One notable instance of centuries-old anonymous speech are the Federalist Papers from 1787-88 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Federalist_Papers#Authorsh...). Anonymous speech is also important for attacking oppressive regimes, even if it's more often used for far less lofty purposes.
Even good, trustworthy regimes go bad, and any surveillance system designed to be powerful enough to expose assholes can be perverted to serve oppressive ends. I'd rather those regimes have to build their surveillance from scratch rather than finding them ready-made.
Your credit score isn't affected by what you post on Hacker News. Your credit score is affected if you don't pay your bills. You'll find it harder to get credit in the future. I don't see the relation with state sponsored suppression.
Also, you can still buy things with cash. In China they use these apps to pay for things, you can't buy some things with cash.
A lot of companies use publicly posted stuff + friends on facebook to create a credit score though so it does happen in the west. Just not quite in the same way as in China.
Is this true of the US? I see articles from 2015/2016 about credit rating agencies (FICO in particular) looking into "alternate data" to inform scores, including social media stuff, but it looks like FB was fighting that to some extent (more regulatory burden) and the tone is "this is coming" not "this is here".
Source: worked for an online payday lender. There are a lot of commercial APIs from "Consumer Reporting Agencies," providing public information beyond credit rating agencies, that are in use to determine lending decisions. The Wikipedia article on the FCRA[1] has a brief list of these firms and a summary of the laws around data collection and dissemination. IMO the United States needs to both step up enforcement of existing data privacy laws, and more legislation protecting people.
Credit score is just a mechanism to help people borrow other peoples money from across different institution in the US. Back in the day, your religious leader might walk down to the bank with you to vouch for your moral character, but that isn't really feasible today. China can literally block you from the market. A bad credit score in the US just lets other free actors see that you are a bad investment.
The Chinese government isn't stupid enough to commit an act of war and open up their own satellites to retaliation. They'll just ban possession of the ground terminals like they ban firearms, drugs, "subversive" literature, etc. It won't be completely effective but will prevent most people in China from having unfettered satellite Internet access.
> They'll just ban possession of the ground terminals like they ban firearms, drugs, "subversive" literature, etc.
They probably already have. I think their customs forms have a checkbox to declare radios and telecommunications equipment, sort of like the US has for agricultural products. My guess is you'll get extra scrutiny, at a minimum, if you check the box.
Related: How the Chinese Government Fabricates Social Media Posts for Strategic Distraction, not Engaged Argument (PDF)
>The Chinese government has long been suspected of hiring as many as 2,000,000 people to surreptitiously insert huge numbers of pseudonymous and other deceptive writings into the stream of real social media posts, as if they were the genuine opinions of ordinary people. Many academics, and most journalists and activists, claim that these so-called “50c party” posts vociferously argue for the government’s side in political and policy debates. As we show, this is also true of the vast majority of posts openly accused on social media of being 50c. Yet, almost no systematic empirical evidence exists for this claim, or, more importantly, for the Chinese regime’s strategic objective in pursuing this activity. In the first large scale empirical analysis of this operation, we show how to identify the secretive authors of these posts, the posts written by them, and their content. We estimate that the government fabricates and posts about 448 million social media comments a year. In contrast to prior claims, we show that the Chinese regime’s strategy is to avoid arguing with skeptics of the party and the government, and to not even discuss controversial issues. We show that the goal of this massive secretive operation is instead to distract the public and change the subject, as most of the these posts involve cheerleading for China, the revolutionary history of the Communist Party, or other symbols of the regime. We discuss how these results fit with what is known about the Chinese censorship program, and suggest how they may change our broader theoretical understanding of “common knowledge” and information control in authoritarian regimes.
I have always assumed as much. Like the chaff that defensive systems on a fighter plane has. Shoot out a bunch of garbage to confuse the highly targeted offensive action.
Not surprising at all. In fact, many of the Chinese expats (visitors of mitbbs.com) are pro-china in general. They become less agreeing to western values after spending years in US. (I am one of those examples myself)
I'm an American, I've had many close Chinese friends. What follows is completely anecdotal, but I've spent a lot of time trying to wrap my mind around it, for what it is worth.
Our cultures are incredibly different. At the same time our cultures are both unusually strong. And for some reason, part of American culture seems to be assuming everyone in the world is just like us, just in different circumstances. This is extremely foolish.
It took me quite a while to be able to understand some things about my Chinese friends that really confused and sometimes frustrated me. A big part of it is the American concept of freedom and personal independence is practically part of our DNA, while it is not valued very highly by many Chinese. Stability, peace and order are highly valued. Of course it would be nice to be able to do whatever you want, but it is much more important that the government is strong. Period. And you get away with what you can as an individual (I've noticed much less respect for the rule of law, much greater respect for personal relationships). And of course many (not all) are highly patriotic, as a great culture with a great history that has been under great pressure for generations, and feels that the rest of the world doesn't respect them like they should or wants to see them fail.
I guess I'd sum it up, that it seems to me an unusual amount of mainland Chinese would choose strength over freedom, and almost all mainland Chinese see themselves as part of a bigger society and a somewhat oppressive government is inevitable and it is futile to resist.
In America, we would prefer to free 10 guilty people than unjustly imprison 1 innocent person. In China, the concept is reversed, it is better to imprison 10 innocent people than let 1 guilty person go free. I actually heard someone say that. Think about it.
So if this is true and the majority of Chinese people don’t have freedom as a basic value then there is no reason to opress it. If they truly believed in the values and ideas you expressed there is no reason to opress free speech or am I missing something? (Genuine question)
This is a good question. Perhaps it is as simple as this is the leadership culture in China. Their great leaders are firm, are tough, do not tolerate dissent. And maybe people respect them for it.
"I don't know" is the real answer, but here is my guess.
My Chinese friends are incredibly social, incredibly loyal (to each other), trustworthy (to each other) to a fault. They may be ready to submit to an irresistible power, but if they feel they could resist, and somehow benefit their group, they might resist. They love China, they know a strong government is a necessity, they might not particularly care who that government is run by, and might be happy to help replace one dictator with another.
I think the social nature of the culture is the key here. Americans often try to stand out and be independent. Chinese seem to see themselves as part of a group, and they are very good at self-organizing even large groups of people. While the government is in power, that is their government. If it seems like the tide of the opinion of your group is we need a new government, maybe they'll take the streets en masse (like tiananmen square). So maybe the culture means that 99% of the time everyone is peaceful and cooperative, and then that 1% of the time everyone is in the streets burning down the governors house. I don't think anyone would enjoy mob rule, so maybe even the mob would tend to replace a strong ruler with another strong ruler.
These are just my thoughts based on the people I know.
But I think the Chinese government has always lived in fear of the mob. Their biggest threat has never been an outside power, but their own people. There are an incredible number of people living in a small area. This explains the one-child policy in my mind, too many people == not enough food == mobs in the street. So, perhaps as simply self-preservation, the government has 1) limited their population 2) ensured constant economic growth 3) limited the ability for a mob to form at all by controlling communication 4) tried to instill national pride and patriotism whenever possible.
This. At least in my family most of my older Chinese relatives prefer order and peace to American democracy, for their income increased dramatically over the past 5 years. But I guess after family income gets to certain threshold, people will start weighting more on freedom.
But if you get to any Chinese over 60, they still remember the chaotic cultural revolution very clearly, they definitely don’t want a return to strongman cult of personality Maoism where Xi seems to be going.
Xi is the last vestige of Maoism, the last president who grew up under Mao’s shadow. The next generation of leadership is surely going to be much more modern than any before it. That they are delaying it for something in china’s past is a travesty.
While I appreciate your perspective, and I am not disagreeing, I recently took a survey amount young SH professionals asking about their life paths. Should they do what others (defined broadly) wish them to do for work and/or life or should they seek out what makes them happy and they are skilled and interested in? Overwhelmingly for the latter which surprised me. The educated younger generation is skewed more towards Western ideals I believe. You can't have the extreme western materialism without getting the personal aspirations not to be controlled.
Alot of the opposite is true. Alot of the Chinese old timers remember the brutality they suffered under Mao and are very upset at this current event. Many of them want to sell their factories and move the money to HK (and eventually out of China).
I could go downtown tonight, stand on the street corner, and shout "F--- the president!" at the top of my lungs. What would happen? I might get dirty looks. I might get some people shaking my hand. And I might - might - get an angry tweet from the president. I probably would not get either arrested or beaten up. (And this isn't a political statement. I could have done the same under the previous president, with the same results except for the tweet.)
China's touchiness on these matters reveals the Communist Party's insecurity.
It's not just China. Being able to publicly yell "Fuck the $RULER" is an anomaly in human history, not the norm.
In the US, the current party in power is always on the verge of instituting totalitarianism. My plan is to start worrying about it when people face systematic government consequences for actually mouthing off about the ruling party. Right now, to a first approximation, nobody has in a long time. Any examples that anxious partisans will rush to contradict me will simply further demonstrate my point with how minor and unsystematic they are in the US.
(If anything gets you in trouble in 2018, it's not mouthing off about the ruling party, it's pissing off the social media mob. That may yet be something we have to culturally reckon with, but it remains the case that it's not the government doing it.)
> In the US, the current party in power is always on the verge of instituting totalitarianism.
And I'm pretty sure that you didn't mean it like people are taking it. Let's start with, I don't know, FDR. He was on the verge of implementing totalitarianism. Really! Just ask the Republicans of 1933! Clinton was. So was Bush. So was Obama. So is Trump. Or so some vocal minority says.
I'm pretty sure jerf is dismissive of all that noise, and intends to ignore it... within limits.
> My plan is to start worrying about it when people face systematic government consequences for actually mouthing off about the ruling party. Right now, to a first approximation, nobody has in a long time. Any examples that anxious partisans will rush to contradict me will simply further demonstrate my point with how minor and unsystematic they are in the US.
Downvoters, I think you're misreading one line, and reacting based on your misread.
>> In the US, the current party in power is always on the verge of instituting totalitarianism.
> And I'm pretty sure that you didn't mean it like people are taking it.
That blanket absolutist statement is at best false, and is easily disproven with the current situation. Then the whole argument is undermined by the last paragraph about angering the social media mob.
If you mean that the current party isn't instituting totalitarianism, I would agree with that. Trump has taken more steps to put down government power than to pick it up. A totalitarian does not lower taxes, which is a form of government power, nor does he cut regulations, which is obviously a form of power. You can argue about the effectiveness, but there's no way to argue that into an increase in power.
If you mean that nobody is accusing Trump of being totalitarian... I have no idea how you could possibly have that impression. Google "Trump" and "authoritarian" together and start reading.
And if you don't fear the social media mob, poke them and see how you like it. Talk is cheap; prove you aren't afraid of them, and that you get away with it, and I'll reconsider.
From the perspective of a non-American it seems this is becoming less true over time; I see things like "Free Speech zones", and violence from Antifa and the alt-right. Not State actors in some cases, but proxies for them.
I hope that in my lifetime we see a revolution in China that overthrows the current authoritarian state and things like the great firewall and quasi-private/state run agencies go the way of the dodo bird.
Unfortunately I don't see big American companies doing anything but continuing to court China and their growing class of wealthy consumers.
I have expat friends in China. I don’t think there is a perception of oppression amongst the population. If anything China has made some serious gains in the well being of its citizens. I would say the Chinese have different priorities. Calling for a revolution in a country of 1 billion people is asking for a human catastrophe.
A country that willfully removes traces of its history (tianamen(?) square) or references to law that presidents have two term maximums? Your friend sounds oblivious.
Freedom isn't free. Unless there's a coup and it's non-violent but remember this is one American's opinion. If the Chinese don't want this then it won't happen. But give people some freedom and they'll want to be free. Just look at the student protests in Hong Kong. Once people learn that things don't have to be run via the current way they might rise up. Or they might not, and that's ok too, since the price could be death.
My core belief has always been that as long as China has this culture of authoritarian and heavy handed internet control, it will always have a self-imposed limit on their ability to compete. I understand they have a deep rooted value of stability and that they believe they're keeping their society from running off the rails, but if they were to allow their citizens to contribute more to the direction of the government, then the end of the U.S. hegemony would not just be a possibility, but practically a foregone conclusion (some seem to think it already is inevitable, but it's been predicted for so long now, it's starting to feel like the forever predicted rise of Linux on the desktop).
However, I'd be curious to hear good reasons for China's economy to dominate the world stage even with this sort of thing constantly happening.
I can kind of understand the brute-force approach of just pure production from a gigantic population, but India has a comparable population size, but not a comparable economy, so I tend to think that a large population doesn't guarantee a large economic output.
There is so much innovation I see happening in the tech of China, but their fear of their own citizenry and fear of transparency make me think they'll stay behind their potential.
This could all be my own Western bias for democracy, so I'd love to hear other thoughts on this.
I want to think like that but would like to understand the details before believing in it.
Recently, I read "China's Future" by David Shambaugh. He argues along the same lines as you. He claims that the development driven by exports and government investing is exhausted because of growing protectionism, competition from nearby countries and growing inefficiency on government companies.
Meanwhile the country still has a lot inequality to solve, between west and the east coast and rural and urban population. It is also getting old very fast and doesn't have a good welfare network.
Therefore, the only path ahead is development of internal market. He claims that for this the country needs transparency, the rule of law and diversity of ideas but I don't think he made it very clear to me, however. Truth is that autocratic countries (e.g: Russia, Turkey, Cuba, Belarus, etc) are very, very bad at creating diversified economies. Let's see if China finds a way to do it.
Really agree on the inequality point, especially in the West around Xinjiang. Some of the stories my friends have told me about growing up there were ridiculous.
I think after you travel around China a bit, it's really difficult to see it as a first world country that's at the forefront of innovation.
You can go to a city like Shenzhen and see all these cool products being launched and huge skyscrapers, which is impressive given 30 years ago it was just a fishing village overshadowed by Hong Kong. But then you travel around and see that a lot of China consists of huge cities with shoddy living conditions and very limited opportunities.
EDIT: I see a couple of links below that compare him to Winnie the Pooh in pictures. Is the intent behind it to be derogatory or is it just poking a bit of fun?
As far as I've always understood it (I poke around on Chinese internet from time to time), it was mostly just a little joke because Xi is kinda pudgy. I think the backlash is because this kind of messes with an attempted cult of personality.
This seems like a fun new opportunity to find new ways to avoid censors.
One way would be to seed messages or websites with pre-loaded meanings, and use new, unrelated comments to refer to them. Example of a social media feed:
8/15/2017: "Today at noon in the square."
9/15/2015: "I think it's evil and corrupt and we can not stand for it!"
10/22/2017: "The government has taken a new decision today that affects us all."
Obviously this is clunky, but in theory you could chain together random bits of other people's messages to post a new one, and a censorship bot would have to be written to merge them all together to filter them; if some of these were behind logins on other sites, this could be very difficult. You could also make them less literal and more made up of memes and concepts with hidden meanings.
This is why the US should not worry about China as a long-term economic threat - authoritarianism has never worked. The Soviet Union, 1930s Germany and Italy, all collapsed. I think the Chinese realize this and are pessemistic about their own future. The Constitution was designed to make the US Government as weak as possible, because a strong government ultimately turns on its people.
I'm not sure why you say this. Germany and Italy didn't collapse-- they were conquered. The Soviet Union did collapse, it's true, but it collapsed because of external pressures and sclerotic bureaucracy causing an inability to adjust to internal problems. In all three cases there was an external force contributing to the problem. However, there's no reason to assume that China's authoritarian rule will collapse as well. Indeed, in several Soviet successor states (including Russia), authoritarianism has reasserted itself.
Authoritarianism is easy to impose and democracy is fragile; the civic discourse required for a strong and stable democracy relies upon a considerable amount of mutual respect and rhetorical restraint.
External pressure as one of reasons of USSR collapse? Come on, really. You can't be serious. It had lived under much more strong pressure more than 70 years before authority decided to demolish the union. What pressure do we speak about? Commodity prices decrease? I can't believe the west is involved in the free market manipulations though. Unthinkable.
> The Constitution was designed to make the US Government as weak as possible, because a strong government ultimately turns on its people.
This is false, though it's a popular modern myth; the whole reason for the Constitutional Convention was to strengthen the government under the Articles of Confederation to address problems caused by it's weakness, and the framers decided they needed to go a lot further than minor tweaks in doing that, sure some of them wanted to go even farther—Hamilton proposed an elective monarchy, for instance—but even the more modest final outcome was neither in intent or fact “as weak as possible.”
The US has been an instrumental part of a system where we all benefit when others are successful, it is not a zero-sum game. China's economic success is good for America. What is not good for an America is a new xenophobic super power that doesn't share our values.
A stable, prosperous, democratic China is ideal. An easy way for an authoritarian government to keep internal dissent down is to make an external enemy. Think of all the examples you mentioned. So this is probably bad news for the U.S. and the whole world.
Neither has democracy, depending on the definition of "worked". Try to narrow it down.
> The Constitution was designed to make the US Government as weak as possible
That is a premise, not a truism. Every democracy has, in time, given in to an appeal by the masses to (either by dupe or passively) give the government more power until it's not relatively weak.
I wouldn't be so quick to write them off. A large percentage of the world respects the Chinese government which usually acts in their own economic interest is stable over the long term. Whereas in the US the government does nothing but enact poor economic and social policies as well as saber rattling or war every time a right wing president is elected.
China has quarrels with almost every nation that surrounds it. Even nations too far way to be affected by the sabre rattling are starting to question China and their influence (ie the debate in Australia right now).
From the outside looking in it seems like Xi has been doing a great job leading China. Are there any serious contenders for Chinese leadership like Navalny in Russia?
Not to mention that historically there have been many excellent leaders who rules for decades. An arbitrary term limit can be useful to prevent corruption, but it's also the reason for the fiasco that is Washington in 2018.
There's a reason why it looks like he's doing a great job from the outside. Same with why there aren't really any viable alternatives. His political rivals have been punished with corruption charges[1], and he's ruled China with a calculated level of control that hasn't been seen in decades[2].
The move to remove term limits means he will be an absolute dictator for life. One of the only "good" things about the Chinese political system was the 10 year limit, and governance through an oligarchy, so there wouldn't be another cult of Mao type scenario. Since taking office Xi has slowing consolidated power for himself alone, and now with the removal of term limits, I think his control over China is complete.
> Not to mention that historically there have been many excellent leaders who rules for decades
There are probably more historical examples of not-so-excellent (incompetent, evil, tyrannical, etc) leaders ruling for decades than excellent ones. The problem with tyranny is that the only way out is revolution. You may have an excellent dictator for decades, but then he dies and his son/crony/not-so-excellent replacement arrives for the next N decades...
At least with Trump there are a variety of strategies besides bloodshed to get rid of him if people decide they don't like him.
Well, in fairness, there are probably more historical examples of not-so-excellent leaders than excellent ones, regardless of whether they ruled for decades. The problem is, if you've got a not-so-excellent one and you're stuck with him/her for decades, that's a really big chunk of your life...
Exactly, there's your problem. China is suffering from 300%+ debt, capital outflows (hidden, unreported), fake gdp growth (several provinces have claimed 20-30% fake revenue), demographics time bomb, middle income trap, shrinking population (800M estimated in 2100), corruption, pollution, belligerent behaviors against all its neighbors (Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Vietnam, Australia, India, etc), smart people wanting leave, rich people wanting to leave, etc
Chinas rise has been remarkable, and it's great so many people have been able to lift themselves out of poverty. But we really should temper our expectations, and our view of just how well China is doing, which is often sensationalized. The above is just what manages to make it past the censors as well.
I'm not worried about a superpower overtaking the US, I'm worried about a sharp economic collapse causing it to lash out. I'm worried about the global economic consequences if that were to happen.
Can you name six of those “great rulers” and as a bonus, make those sure those six allowed for a peaceful transfer of power when they were done. No fair if you pick rulers who were “great” and the whole place suffered terribly upon their death or removal from power.
Off the top of my head:
Solon,
Trajan,
Hadrian,
Marcus Aurelius,
Akbar,
Charlemange
There are many more examples, those are just some that come to mind right away. You can argue whether or not they were "good", but they certainly did good things for their empires.
Marcus Aurelius was followed by Commodus, and Charlemagne's grandsons broke the Carolingian Empire in civil war. As IntronExon pointed out, a major problem with benevolent dictators for life is that their successors may not be as benevolent. Furthermore, most dictators throughout history were not nearly as competent as the half-dozen handpicked examples.
I too yearn for the good old days of the Massacre of Verden, and forced religious conversion under penalty of death.
...and a bunch of Roman emperors. I prefer modern politics to that of imperial Rome, thanks.
Oh, and Solon. Arguably a truly great man, but um...
After completing his work of reform, Solon surrendered his extraordinary authority and left the country. According to Herodotus[123] the country was bound by Solon to maintain his reforms for 10 years, whereas according to Plutarch[59] and the author of the Athenian Constitution[124] (reputedly Aristotle) the contracted period was instead 100 years. A modern scholar[125] considers the time-span given by Herodotus to be historically accurate because it fits the 10 years that Solon was said to have been absent from the country.[126] Within 4 years of Solon's departure, the old social rifts re-appeared, but with some new complications. There were irregularities in the new governmental procedures, elected officials sometimes refused to stand down from their posts and occasionally important posts were left vacant. It has even been said that some people blamed Solon for their troubles.[127] Eventually one of Solon's relatives, Peisistratos, ended the factionalism by force, thus instituting an unconstitutionally gained tyranny. In Plutarch's account, Solon accused Athenians of stupidity and cowardice for allowing this to happen.[128]
I’ll argue that off the top of your head is what’s getting you into so much trouble with sweeping generalizations.
Even the greatest emperor isn't going to fix all of the ills of society. What matters is what they can achieve during their time in power. If tomorrow some all-knowing wise leader were be elected to power in China, do you really think there would be no problems? That corruption and violence would vanish? You have to look at the historical context of their reigns.
I think the point that is being made is that regardless of whether or not that particular ruler is effective, in the long term they have weakened their society because they have broken the system that ensures that capable people/groups peacefully succeed each other to power.
In all seriousness, this is a black period for Chinese people and China's neighbors. The fledgling democracy in Hong Kong, and democratic nations around China's periphery including Taiwan, Japan, Nepal, and India should be very wary dealing with a strongman who will stop at nothing to further his power and nationalism-focused legacy.