[vehemenz]

The problem is that the CCP has nothing to replace this cultural vacuum with. They want to legislate a return to "old" (post 1949) values by banning foreign tutors, suppressing dissent on WeChat and Weibo, and doing generally authoritarian shit to encourage nationalism. Meanwhile, young, educated people almost exclusively consume the cultural products of the West, Korea, and Japan. And they find the North Korean style propaganda embarrassing. The disconnect really cannot be understated.

[georgeecollins]

>> The problem is that the CCP has nothing to replace this cultural vacuum with.

I am no expert, but I disagree and I think this is the kind of thinking that has failed the west for the last thirty years. I think the idea started with the fall of the Soviet Union. That culture and ideology was bankrupt. So a lot of western people thought that when there was a free exchange of ideas with China, the Chinese would eventually reject the CCP.

My experience of people in China-- admittedly a long time ago-- was they are generally very patriotic or nationalistic, like Americans. They appreciate the CCP and what it has accomplished. They have a strong domestic arts industry making movies, books, games. Sure lots of people disagree with the party, but that doesn't that they want a western liberal democracy. So lots of people will speak in favor of a benevolent elite and against populism or what they see as western chaos or oppression. When people are against the government, they aren't wishing for a different government system, just less corrupt or more benevolent authoritarians.

Anyway, that is the way I am thinking about these days. But I could be very wrong and I would love to hear from people who are from or spend time in China.

[tablespoon]

I think you're broadly correct. With regard to China, a lot of people's understanding is driven in large part by wishful thinking, which is a serious weakness and vulnerability.

> Sure lots of people disagree with the party, but that doesn't that they want a western liberal democracy. So lots of people will speak in favor of a benevolent elite and against populism or what they see as western chaos or oppression. When people are against the government, they aren't wishing for a different government system, just less corrupt or more benevolent authoritarians.

I think it's important to note those views are in large part created an reinforced a deliberate propaganda program. For instance, I believe one of the ideas the Chinese government pushes is the Chinese people "aren't ready" for democracy (while carefully preventing anything that could make them ready). When educated Chinese people were better exposed to ideas about liberal democracy, they were very clear that they wanted it (e.g. 80s leading up to Tiananmen Square, the Liberal Studies curriculum in Hong Kong), but the government has learned from those episodes and has taken action to get the ideological results it desires.

[dillondoyle]

+1. When you take what you're saying with the parent above you, Xi is also pulling all the state media strings to play up the less-corrupt benevolence thing - using it to consolidate power. Check out this recent good article about their extrajudicial 'repatriations' which has examples of the bragging in their government controlled media about it (kidnappings).

It's both trying to show less corruption and simultaneously scaring everyone away from dissent. Gross but seems powerful.

https://www.propublica.org/article/operation-fox-hunt-how-ch...

[jjaammee]

That's maybe true when young people in China first learned western democracy ideas. Nowadays I think most of educated Chinese believe democracy is not suitable for China. They didn't get the whole picture of western world, but who does nowadays. They see signs of culture revolution in western social movements and rejected those wholeheartedly.

[tablespoon]

> Nowadays I think most of educated Chinese believe democracy is not suitable for China.

Isn't that exactly 1) what the Communist Party wants them to think, and 2) an idea that they can manipulate the information environment to promote?

[bllguo]

I don't see how this is a productive point. "Democracy is best" is 1) what the US government wants you to think, and 2) an idea that they can manipulate the information environment to promote.

[lmm]

Can they? The US government has very limited "hard" control over what information is published, e.g. there are no banned books in the US and it would be impractical for the government to try to impose any such ban, in stark contrast to the PRC.

[em500]

Assume for the moment that you're American, liberal, white collar and live in one of the more affluent blue coastal states. Now imagine that 75% of your countrymen are rabbid red state Trump supporters, of low education, get most of their news and information from low quality Facebook shares, and are clearly misinformed about the world in many ways. Now imagine that the Federal government is much more powerful than the States, and that representative democratic policy will mostly reflect the will of Trump True-believers, the people fully supportive of the Capitol riots. How principled are you really about the rule of democracy?

Now I'm not suggesting that this is a good analogy for the Chinese situation, nor that this is how highly education urban Chinese think about democracy (though I do know a few who do seem to think that way). What I am suggesting is that democracy is not always and everywhere the slam dunk win that some Western liberals appear to think it is.

I write this as a second generation immigrant raised since elementary school with Western democratic values. I do believe that despite some flows it is the best system for most of Europe and the US. My parents fled the madness of the Mao CCP regime, and they've probably seen the worst side of the CCP. Yet they are ambivalent whether a US-style democracy today would be superior for the Chinese citizens to the current CCP.

[tablespoon]

> Assume for the moment that you're American, liberal, white collar and live in one of the more affluent blue coastal states. Now imagine that 75% of your countrymen are rabbid red state Trump supporters, of low education....How principled are you really about the rule of democracy?

Though implicit in that fantasy is that, without democracy, the blue-state liberal gets to impose his will on the Trumpers. Something that can keep someone like that committed to democracy is (for instance) the thought that the alternative is could actually be a never-ending dictatorship of Mitch McConnell, beating humanity with its chin waddle forever.

> Now I'm not suggesting that this is a good analogy for the Chinese situation, nor that this is how highly education urban Chinese think about democracy (though I do know a few who do seem to think that way). What I am suggesting is that democracy is not always and everywhere the slam dunk win that some Western liberals appear to think it is.

Are you saying that educated urban Chinese are hesitant about democracy because they get to vicariously impose their will (or something close enough to it) on the rabble via the CCP?

[em500]

> Though implicit in that fantasy is that, without democracy, the blue-state liberal gets to impose his will on the Trumpers. Something that can keep someone like that committed to democracy is (for instance) the thought that the alternative is could actually be a never-ending dictatorship of Mitch McConnell, beating humanity with its chin waddle forever.

Right. I don't think it's a given that democracy is demonstrably superior to meritocracy or even aristocracy or enlightened despotism in delivering better outcomes for the majority of people (working definition, GDP/capita, or some honest measure of life satisfaction).

> Are you saying that educated urban Chinese are hesitant about democracy because they get to vicariously impose their will (or something close enough to it) on the rabble via the CCP?

I'm saying that I do know some educated urban Chinese who seemed to believe that, at least the post-Mao CCP leadership probably did a better job than a counterfactual popular elected leadership. I have no idea how representative those few opinions are of the general Chinese urban population. I don't know the country or politics well enough to agree or dispute such views either, but I can certainly see where they're coming from. Mobocracy by the uneducated masses was also one of the largest worries of the American Founding Fathers if I recall my history correctly. Bear in mind that the urbanization rate in China ("blue states" from the educated Chinese perspective) barely reached 30% until 2000 or so. And some Chinese friends summarized Mao-China as basically mob-rule by the peasants.

[beaunative]

The concern I have with China, right now, is that I suspect liberal democracy in China will be in favor of someone like Donald Trump, who will then have the power to turn it into dictatorship and this time 70% of the population will vote in favor of the Chinese Trump. Or likely a civil war would break out.

The ideological difference within China is not anything less then that of America. The gay marriage issue along could leave the country 80% to 20%, with the liberals on the 20% side. Yet in a authoritorian state like China, I don't think I've heard anything amount to hate crimes like that in the US, A lot of them would be scared to come out, but no one would be murdering them just for their identity. I think the issue with electoral democracy is that every issue is public, in constant debate, and people's political identity became so important to some that they are willing to kill.

People, expats especially, who live in affluent areas of China often lack the knowledge necessary to understand the less-developed areas of China. Like how people in California lack understandings of Alabama.

[bllguo]

> When educated Chinese people were better exposed to ideas about liberal democracy, they were very clear that they wanted it

This falls flat for me. So the implication is that there are no educated Chinese today with exposure to liberal democracy? I think we take for granted the supposed superiority of a system that empirically has delivered many recent failures.

[tablespoon]

> This falls flat for me. So the implication is that there are no educated Chinese today with exposure to liberal democracy? I think we take for granted the supposed superiority of a system that empirically has delivered many recent failures.

I'm not saying "no exposure," I'm saying they were "better exposed" in the past. You can even see changes like that happening in Hong Kong now, under the new crackdown on civil liberties. For instance, the government is now tinkering with the curriculum of a "Liberal Studies" course in Hong Kong to make it more "patriotic."

> I think we take for granted the supposed superiority of a system that empirically has delivered many recent failures.

Would you trade Donald Trump, Joe Biden, the Democrats, and Repubicans for Xi Jinping and the CCP (and everything that entails)?

[refenestrator]

Educated Chinese generally speak some English, they are way more exposed to our system/culture than we are to theirs.

[bllguo]

my experience is obviously anecdotal but interactions with Western-educated Chinese immigrants, many of whom left in the 80s and 90s, suggest that "democracy is the best" is not some universal wisdom that people will naturally converge to

If it were solely between these two choices? I'm not exactly ecstatic about these options, but I would. The fact that someone like Trump could come to power here - a fact that we, amazingly, seem to be trying to sweep under the rug - says this system is a complete failure and is just waiting to be exploited further.

[tablespoon]

> The fact that someone like Trump could come to power here - a fact that we, amazingly, seem to be trying to sweep under the rug - says this system is a complete failure....

That's unhelpful hyperbole. Trump was an idiot with charisma, but by way of comparison, he caused nowhere near the damage to the US that Mao did to China.

[fighterpilot]

Sure, liberal democracies have had many recent failures, but they're still the most prosperous societies on a per-capita basis by a gigantic margin. If an authoritarian or non-democratic country can achieve over $40,000 GDP per capita, then we can revisit.

[dirtyid]

If you go by PPP, top 5 per capita territories are Luxembourg, Singapore, Ireland, Qatar, Macau. That's 3/5 non democracies. Rank 6-10 is Switzerland, Norawy, US, Brunei, HK. 5/10 non democracies.

Many systems can become prosperous if relatively small and sufficiently aligned to US foreign policy to preserve the hegemony. Democracies that don't will get crushed / contained inspite of "democratic peace". The real disruption of PRC's rise is an alternate system that could create a prosperous or even moderately wealthy society, despite US supremency.

[bllguo]

that's true. but none of this is happening in a vacuum. liberal democracies are also the ones trying to change or destroy non-democratic regimes by force. imo you can sum up everything evil China is accused of, and it would not come close to what we pulled in South America, the Middle East, and Asia

I'm all for a fair comparison. And as someone who currently benefits from Western ideals of personal liberties, I'd be happy to see it proven that they are superior. But let's make it fair

[quickthrowman]

> imo you can sum up everything evil China is accused of, and it would not come close to what we pulled in South America, the Middle East, and Asia

I know you said Asia and that includes China, but Western countries (and Japan) did similar things to China in the 19th and 20th centuries:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century_of_humiliation

[refenestrator]

There's an interesting phenomenon, specific to US tech, where there are a ton of Chinese who quietly have a problem with the recent anti-china rhetoric, but they're not going to put a target on their back over it, they stay quiet. How do you even engage with someone who doesn't speak a word of Chinese and is so confident that they know all about China?

Meanwhile, the anti-china folks blithely go on about how much better freedom of expression is in America, and assume that silence means they are right.

[marderfarker2]

I feel like a lot of frustration in the west are due to a lack of voice from within China, who can explain the context and give their point of view. Instead all you get are these disjointed news and headlines without any depth to it. People then make assumptions based on it.

[sudosysgen]

Well, yes and no. Go to reddit for example, you can find endless amounts of people explaining the Chinese perspective and getting voted down and accused of being wumaos, and you'll get banned for it in many places too. At some point I imagine it gets tiring.

[Steltek]

Isn't that the problem though? How do you know you're getting a genuine opinion when there's a public, broad, and well funded astroturf campaign? What even is a genuine opinion or free thought when the government employs such ruthless censorship?

[refenestrator]

If you're not open to other opinions, you will hear none, and that's entirely on you.

In extremely broad strokes, China has gone from colonized and poor to powerful and rich. Is it so hard to believe that the average Zhao is pretty OK with things?

[sudosysgen]

There is a 90% chance there are ruthless, public, broad and well funded astroturf campaign for and against most of your impactful opinions.

You have to take it with détachement. I have enough Chinese friends living away to know that opinions often aren't that different living here vs in China. Censorship isn't that effective in the era of anyone easily getting a VPN.

[dirtyid]

>a public, broad, and well funded astroturf campaign?

Abroad where 50c doesn't operate? Reality is there aren't any substantial large scale astroturf campaigns from PRC according to recent foreign influence reports from western social media companies (see Twitter, Facebook). There's hand full of practice bit increasingly competent script kiddie tier campaigns with limited exposure on subject matters most westerners don't care about but CCP does (i.e. GuoWenGui). Even less so per studies before 2020 that only found anti-China social media manipulation that targeted PRC netizens who jumped the firewall. The real brainwashing is thinking Chinese opinion can't be "genuine opinion or free thought" because ruthless western manufactured consent created a misinformation enviroment that insinuates PRC opinions are totally controlled even abroad. There's plenty of genuine PRC supporters in the diasphora, and plenty of opponents as well. The former are usually the educated folks who immigrated in the last 10-30 years with duo perspective on Chinese/western models, largely normal people. The latter are dissidents, groups marginalized by CCP, who only has snapshot / out of date / time bubble memory of PRC. Incidentally they're the ones creating epochetimes, hanging with insurrectionist, and trying to convince western audiences that being pro PRC can't be a genuine opinion.

Here's the 2021 RAND report on PRC disinformation from a week ago:

* China has not carried out substantial disinformation attacks on other U.S. allies or partners (such as Singapore, the Philippines, or Japan).

https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR4373z3.html

PRC information campaigns are being tested, they may target west one day. But the idea that PRC is astroturfing the west is the product of western astroturfing itself.

[dillondoyle]

I strongly hold this skepticism of there being targeted CCP shills, including on HN. If true, that goes beyond censorship of their own citizens. How do you prove though. There has been some reporting about it, I remember one about their distributed mechanical turk-ified gamification of astro turfing basically.

And I think that not knowing is part of the value for them. The Putin way of power through questioning reality, just throw out lots of lies, deflect, scapegoat, whataboutism. Class troll behavior has invaded the real world.

I also see parallels in the US, at first from the extreme right 'media' just taking this bold faced bs approach and sadly it works.

[refenestrator]

Go one level deeper and ask why you're never exposed to that viewpoint.

Washington Post and NYT will happily run Adrian Zenz all day long, even though he's a right wing religious nut and they're secular liberals, but you never see them print the majority viewpoint of actual Chinese people.

[starfallg]

>My experience of people in China-- admittedly a long time ago-- was they are generally very patriotic or nationalistic, like Americans. They appreciate the CCP and what it has accomplished. They have a strong domestic arts industry making movies, books, games. Sure lots of people disagree with the party, but that doesn't that they want a western liberal democracy.

Having been on the inside, it's not that they don't want a different system, it's that they see the real or perceived problems of our system as highlighted by their domestic media and generally from their point of view. This makes them substantially less enthusiastic than we think they would be.

The only way to convince them is to show them that liberal democracy does indeed yield better results, with people feeling more secure and leading happier lives. In order to do that we need to ensure that our democratic processes lead to solidarity and not division. That's why the last 4 years have been so damaging to our system, the fabric of the system has been damaged by extreme partisanship, without considering that standing together with our neighbours is in many cases more important than being 'right'.

[ypzhang2]

Anecdotally, western democracy was seen as a means to an end for many “common folk Chinese”. The end is prosperity. Now that the prosperity gap has drastically closed (also there are more clear paths to prosperity), the desire has also dissipated. China has also seen a China-like society in Singapore achieve a very strong economic and social outcome with authoritarian government, so western style democracies aren’t the only “role model” so to speak anymore

[starfallg]

I don't think Singaporean politics is particularly well regarded within China. In fact, it reflects the same issues as with the CCP and its authoritarian system. The Singapore system is seen as a necessary evil given the geopolitics of the region and the racial makeup of the city-state. The CCP is seen as a necessary evil to propel China into advanced economy status. This is just how things are.

[dirtyid]

Singaporean political academies trained 50K CCP cadres until recently. Their system is/was highly well regarded and emulated, but within the last decade CCP has evolved/developed beyond the Singaporean methods designed for small fish geopolitics. LKI was the preeminant statesmen that every CCP leader visited/consulted with personally, outside of state-to-state dialogue. I think Trumps America, drama HK in has turned more and more away from representative democracy. Western system in general started losing luster post 2007 GFC. Whatever model PRC will pursue in future, it's not going to look towards "declining west" until west sorts out it's issues.

[starfallg]

The political element is hugely overblown as the training is mostly limited to mid-level cadres and in the areas of Managerial Economics and Public Administration. There's a reason why they are called the "Mayors' Class". It's also a top down policy, not the popular view.

[sudosysgen]

I think this position is very valuable. By far the best way for us to effect change in China politically, and every other major ideologically opposed nation, is to effect change at home, and be so sucessful that the superiority of our approach cannot be refuted.

Bonus point that there is a lot less chance of war this way.

[tablespoon]

> I think this position is very valuable. By far the best way for us to effect change in China politically, and every other major ideologically opposed nation, is to effect change at home, and be so sucessful that the superiority of our approach cannot be refuted.

I don't think so. Fixing domestic problems is a worthy goal, but it's wishful thinking to believe it will do anything to "effect change in China politically."

[sudosysgen]

Perhaps it won't, if things don't stop improving in China and we don't improve enough. But if that happens I don't see any way at all of changing things in China from our position.

[nichtich]

For US it will. People in the US seldom think about just how powerful their media environment and general influence is. Like women have been sexually harassed since forever in China, and it's the #MeToo movement that led to a lot of the victim to stand up and people to support them.

[em500]

Yup. People who get their news mostly from Western media might believe Chinese live in a repressive Orwellian hellscape, and conclude that if there is not widespread resentment against the CCP it must be because it's all suppressed. The truth is probably a lot more pedastrian: life in modern China is not bad at all, both in comparison to their own history and compared to other large countries in the world (NOT compared to exlusively rich countries). So a large part of the population is probably at least somewhat content with the current government.

Life is probably far from pleasant if you're an Uyghur or a Falung Gong, but the overwhelming majority of the population is not too concerned with their lot. The CCP clearly does suppress dissent, but it can be targetted to minority opinions.

The median Chinese citizen doesn't just see Western Europe and the USA and concludes that democracy leads to great results. (S)he can also see that it did not appear to bring great prosperity to India, Brazil or Russia.

[hodgesrm]

I'm troubled that your comment was downvoted. It seems very reasonable. Thank you for posting.

[Kaze404]

I don't understand the premise that the Chinese need to be convinced that the system we live in is the better one. Can we not accept that they are happy with the choices they made, and that not everyone needs to live under a repressive capitalist system?

[starfallg]

>repressive capitalist system

Are you implying that the current Chinese system is not repressive, nor capitalist?

[Kaze404]

No

[radmuzom]

One your comment on a "strong domestic arts industry", I would recommend this video.

"The Curious Story of China's Indie Gaming Scene"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_VrTZ_UeUxM

[georgeecollins]

Thanks, that was interesting.

[JMTQp8lwXL]

Re-frame the question: if they could have western style liberal democracy without any bloodshed, would they? The answers you're seeing might be tainted with knowing the path to democracy would be painful, and all else equal, that pain is worse than the current power structure.

[sudosysgen]

There is without any bloodshed and without any bloodshed. The Soviet Union fell down with very little bloodshed, but around 7 million people died from the economic disruption, and the democracy that came from it was rapidly compromised both by local oligarchs and foreign powers in most of it.

I don't think the Chinese would want a fall of the USSR scenario, however little the bloodshed is. Economic disruption can kill a lot of people and there is not even any guarantee the next system would stand on it's own.

[tablespoon]

> There is without any bloodshed and without any bloodshed. The Soviet Union fell down with very little bloodshed, but around 7 million people died from the economic disruption, and the democracy that came from it was rapidly compromised both by local oligarchs and foreign powers in most of it.

But you're comparing apples and oranges.

Russia was still a command economy when the Soviet Union disintegrated, and went straight to democracy and capitalism at the same time with very little transition (IIRC, mainly because of the bad advice of Westerners who were too ideological and infatuated with markets).

China has already made the transition to capitalism, so I don't think a political transition to liberal democracy there would entail the kind of economic disruption Russia experienced.

[sudosysgen]

China has never made a transition to capitalism. Roughly half of the workforce is employed by the State, it's at best state capitalism.

A transition to hard capitalism and a collapse of the government would absolutely bring economic disruption. And China right now is much less self sufficient than Russia was in 1991, and gets its foreign exchange from complex and vulnerable supply chains.

China is also much less educated than Russia was at the time, and would be even more vulnerable to corruption.

[tablespoon]

> A transition to hard capitalism and a collapse of the government would absolutely bring economic disruption.

I mean, one of the takeaways from the experience of Russia is to not repeat the same mistakes. If China makes a transition to liberal democracy, it should continue to protect its state sector for a long time, and draw out any reform of it to minimize economic disruption.

It absolutely should not let a bunch of crazed free marketers come in and "creatively" fuck everything up with a blind application of their ideology.

[caoilte]

Don't forget that western liberal democracies look pretty un-attractive at the moment. When the choice is between a raving loony geriatric dementia patient and Trump a lot of people think they'd be better off without.

[forkLding]

This is still a similar viewpoint held by the young to adult generations of China although the idea of China as a democracy is definitely warming up but its more of at a certain date, China will transition to democracy instead of the current system being replaced now.

[dirtyid]

> exclusively consume the cultural products of the West

There's more penetration of western media and products in PRC, but vast majority of consumption is still domestic even among educated. And trends show the young are more nationalistic than ever, especially among those with more exposure to the west.

>North Korean style propaganda embarrassing. The disconnect really cannot be understated.

Yeah, folks are embarassed at the style of propaganda, ran by old cadres from for a bygone era. Not the idea of propaganda itself. They want better, modernized propaganda that effectively reinforces nationalism, especially abroad.

[magicsmoke]

On the one hand, they're right to cringe at the tone-deaf socialist era government communist propaganda. "How do you do fellow kids" with a communist flare. Clearly produced by cadres in their 60s in a communist bubble.

On the other hand, the current nationalist Chinese bubble is not that much better. Listening practice on Bilibili would be a lot better without the equally tone deaf comments about how all their neighbors are puppets of the US without any personal agency and owe their culture and history to 5000 years of glorious Chinese civilization. The current anti-Chinese sentiments in the west would be far worse if your average American spent even 30 minutes on Chinese websites. They can complain all day about how biased BBC is towards China (arguably true), but I don't see CGTV overtaking BBC globally in popularity anytime soon. One whiff of that smug self-superiority is enough to make anyone regret learning Chinese.

[dirtyid]

Nationalists everywhere are insufferable. The aspiration for "lovable" PRC propanda is just aspirational. IMO very little chance PRC will be able to out-propagandize west/US especially among west/US aligned partners. Language/cultural divide too big. I think domestically people will just settle for less cringy interntionational rhetoric, which itself is a losing game since western media will interpret translations with liberty regardless. It doesn't matter that PRC citizens are relatively apolitical on the whole, with 1.4B population statistics there's will always be too many absurd nationals to paint narrative. Really PRC strategy of maintaining different internet/cultural bubbles and targetting msgs at more receptive Chinese diasphora audiences is on point. Once attempt at "lovable" propaganda fails, PRC will pursue Russia style disinformation because ultimately that's whats most pragmatic given the divide and realities of competition. Also more of those PRC cartoons that called out western hypocrisy that was well recieved domestically and made western media look ridiculous by coordinated labelling them photographs. Or calling out Canadian indigenous drama, Australia enviromentalism etc, stuff that has had more ramifcations on the domestic politics of Canada and Australia leaders than west pressing on XJ/HK/Tibet, which Xi doesn't lose sleep over.

[tablespoon]

> Meanwhile, young, educated people almost exclusively consume the cultural products of the West, Korea, and Japan.

What now? China has a pretty extensive film and television industry, and as far as I know it's very popular.

> And they find the North Korean style propaganda embarrassing. The disconnect really cannot be understated.

And in that case, the most logical reaction is political disengagement, which is completely A-OK in the CCP's book.

[blacksmith_tb]

You might think so, but slacking now seems to be considered to be dangerously rebellious[1] by the CCP.

1: https://qz.com/2019322/why-lying-flat-a-niche-chinese-millen...

[tablespoon]

That's different, the "slacking" of which you speak is a kind of dissent.

What I mean by "political disengagement" keeping a distance from political issues and otherwise "saying withing the lines," so to speak.

[blacksmith_tb]

I see what you mean, it's "going through the motions" without trying too hard, compliance but not enthusiasm.

[mc32]

I'm sure this is one aspect of it. They surely don't want "foreign decadence" to influence their youth --which is part of losing control over narrative.

It's kind of typical socialist thinking that you can have forever revolutionary songs and chants, forever reconstruction and forever community activism (for the party of course). Obviously, that can work in tightly controlled environments such as North Korea, and it looks like they are taking some of that social control back so they can better dictate what they population should do (for its own good as they see it, obviously).