[echelon]

> Screenshots of Peng's original post continued to circulate widely on the Chinese internet even as censors scrambled to delete any references to her allegations within group chats and blogs, a sign of the immense public interest in her allegations. The speed with which her post was deleted also reflects the extreme sensitivity of her remarks, which come just as Communist Party leaders convene in Beijing for the Sixth Plenum, an important political meeting during which the state is on high alert for any sign of discord.

This model of government is toxic. You cannot memory hole the abused to protect the inner circle.

Maybe she's a liar, but this claim warrants investigation and corroboration with other potential victims. It should embolden other victims to come forward.

The government should serve the people. And its members should be held to a greater standard of accountability.

[FooBarWidget]

Censorship in China is completely orthogonal to whether the issue will be investigated or not. This is because censorship's primary goal is not to suppress anti-government information, but to supress collective action. Both pro- and anti-govt messages are censored if they have collective action potential. Conversely, anti-govt messages are not censored if they lack collective action potential.

Furthermore, the Chinese government is very responsive to citizens' feedback. This means actually addressing feedback by changing policies. Online criticisms and offline protests are common. Threatening the govt with collective action, increases response rate.

Thus, a seemingly paradoxical phenomenon is common in China: messages get censored and the govt does something about the issue.

All these claims are shown by research:

Harvard: Conditional Receptivity to Citizen Participation: Evidence From a Survey Experiment in China http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.703...

American Journal of Political Sciences: Sources of Authoritarian Responsiveness: A Field Experiment in China https://china.ucsd.edu/_files/pe-2014/10062014_Paper_Jen_Pan...

Harvard: How Censorship in China Allows Government Criticism but Silences Collective Expression https://gking.harvard.edu/publications/how-censorship-china-...

At the end of the day, westerners will still not agree with how China works. But I think it's important to keep in mind that China works quite differently from popular imagination.

[rsj_hn]

FYI, it would help if you provided links to the cited studies.

[strogonoff]

I’d love to see an example of a pro-government message that had collective action potential (what kind of action would that even be?) and that was censored by the party.

[FooBarWidget]

From the paper:

> Another example is the following censored post supporting the state. It accuses the local leader Ran Jianxin, whose death in police custody triggered protests in Lichuan, of corruption:

> “According to news from the Badong county propaganda department web site, when Ran Jianxin was party secretary in Lichuan, he exploited his position for personal gain in land requisition, building demolition, capital construction projects, etc. He accepted bribes, and is suspected of other criminal acts.”

One way collective action potential is measured is by measuring the virality of a post.

[graeme]

“Let’s form a patriotic march to support the govt on day X”

If there are to be such marches, it is the govt which will organize them. Not bottom up action, not via any process which could generate alternate leaders, power structures, organizations, etc

[bmn__]

Anti-Japanese collective action, which nominally aligns with the interest of the government, would occur every year but it's clamped down early. When uninhibited, it culminates in riots where sushi restaurants, Japanese cars, buildings with Japanese consulates are torched and demolished.

The owners of those are fellow Chinese citizens who become understandably ticked off and come to the government for redress for the damage and can be a right pain. So it's less work to maintain public order and not let demonstrations like in 2012 spiral out of control.

[danielrpa]

> When uninhibited, it culminates in riots where sushi restaurants, Japanese cars, buildings with Japanese consulates are torched and demolished.

This is, then, ultimately against the government's interests and thus it is suppressed. The CCP would be completely okay with the torching of Japanese property if it wasn't against the state's economic/diplomatic interests (arguably such property would not even exist if it was against the state's interest).

So let's stop saying the CCP will suppress "pro government" speech.

[nradov]

The CCP is afraid of any unsanctioned collective action, even if that action is aligned with CCP policies. They don't want alternative power structures to arise which might challenge their authority in the future.

[FooBarWidget]

Done.

[thefounder]

>> The government should serve the people. And its members should

In the real world the government serves the party people. This happens in democratic systems as well but in a communist/uni-party system is rapart as there is no election, no opposition and no real judiciary system! CCP can never be wrong or do wrong things because that would mean it must held accountable(by who?) and/or be changed...

[FooBarWidget]

Despite not having elections for higher representatives (China does have elections for lower-level representatives) and independent judiciary, China does have accountability for government officials, as well as citizen consultation on policies. It's also not true that China is a country in which CCP "can never be wrong", because criticisms and protests are common.

These claims are backed by eyewitnesses (expats living in China) as well as research.

Cyrus Janssen: The Truth about Protests in China 2021 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqcScSCTgbM

Harvard: Conditional Receptivity to Citizen Participation: Evidence From a Survey Experiment in China http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.703...

American Journal of Political Sciences: Sources of Authoritarian Responsiveness: A Field Experiment in China https://china.ucsd.edu/_files/pe-2014/10062014_Paper_Jen_Pan...

Interesting bits from this last source:

- In China, citizen engagement and protest do not contribute to regime change. Instead citizen engagement contributes to regime survival.

- Section 6: “upper levels of government use citizens as an oversight mechanism on subnational leaders, which imbues citizens with the ability to sanction lower level leaders, and generates responsiveness among local leaders to citizen demands.”

China is neither a western democratic system, nor a totalitarian/communist/dictatorial system. Instead, China is a third distinct category, fitting neither of the first two.

[infamia]

> Despite not having elections for higher representatives (China does have elections for lower-level representatives) and independent judiciary

If there is no accountability at the top (and there clearly isn't), then there is no meaningful accountability at all. Such arrangements provide a veneer of agency, with lower level functionaries and regional governments acting merely as scapegoats when embarrassing situations get out of hand and cannot be suppressed. Likewise, when only one party is allowed to run for "elections", those "elections" by definition are a fraud with no meaningful choices.

[FooBarWidget]

That is certainly one way to view it, but it's not the only one. China is all about outcome legitimacy (actually governing well = legitimate, regardless of the selection process) as opposed to process legitimacy (legitimacy is tied to how officials are selected). Many Chinese prefer meritocracy because it makes it harder for bad leaders to get to the top in the first place. Many think it's backwards to oust a bad president after the fact. In China, it takes 30 years of political career to become the president. Of course meritocracy has its problems, as has democracies in which the top leader is directly elected. They both have their own pros and cons. There are examples which are accountable in the Chinese system but not in western democracies, and vice-versa.

> Likewise, when only one party is allowed to run for "elections", those "elections" by definition are a fraud with no meaningful choices.

In China, parties don't run for elections, people do. People from other parties (China has 8) are elected. At present, there are 152000+ members from other parties that hold positions in People's Congresses (China's representation body) as deputies. [1]

Parties don't form adversarial, power-balancing relationships with each other. The existance of other parties are not used to put up a fake display of western-style multiple-party elections. Instead, the system works completely differently, trying to push participants towards unity, even if only outwardly.

> and regional governments acting merely as scapegoats

Given the meritocratic system, in which officials are promoted based on KPIs, this is not a logical thing to do. Scapegoating your own subordinates undermines the system's selection process of a future leader. Even Xi himself started at the village level, working his way up to county, city and province level over a 30-year period.

It is also illogical given that China's governance system is highly decentralized. The central government doesn't make all the policies, a lot are left to local governments. They aren't mere puppets that follow instructions. That wouldn't even be scalable given the country's size.

---

China's system is distinct, and different from both actual western systems and from western imagined dystopias or fake democracies.

You can argue that only the western democratic way is acceptable. Fine, that's your opinion. I disagree. I subscribe to Kishore Mahbubani's thought. He's ex-UN Security Council head, ex-Singapore diplomat. He says that the west should accept that not all countries will become carbon copies of the west. He says that the west should accept a world with a diverse range of governance systems.

[infamia]

> In China, parties don't run for elections, people do. People from other parties (China has 8) are elected. At present, there are 152000+ members from other parties that hold positions in People's Congresses (China's representation body) as deputies.

This is sophistry considering that out of the one group of representatives that are elected directly, those candidates are only allowed to run at the pleasure of Chinese Communist Party (the "CCP") leadership. Saying there are eight parties, when one party controls the candidate selection process is again just thin a veneer slapped on a defacto single-party system. It is worth noting it is impossible for the populace to determine if a leader is "actually governing well" considering the heavy restrictions on information, free speech, and a non-existent free press.

> You can argue that only the western democratic way is acceptable. Fine, that's your opinion. I disagree.

I made no such claim about democracies. My main point is that the CCP is objectively repressive and despotic on a scale, consistency, and breadth not yet seen over such a sustained period of time (i.e. Cultural Revolution, Great Leap Forward, One Child Policy, The Great Firewall of China, Hong Kong, etc.). Therefore, the CCP regime is utterly loathsome from a humanitarian perspective.

[ashwagary]

>objectively repressive and despotic on a scale, consistency, and breadth not yet seen over such a sustained period of time

Not familiar with Chinese governance but on your last point, if we take the worst actions of the US Democrat and Republican party, don't they also have a horrific track record over the last 70+ years, both domestically and internationally (mass murder in Vietnam, Iraq, Cambodia, Japan, Afghanistan, South America, and so on..., mass surveillance, assassinations, racist laws, mass incarceration, etc)?

It would be hard to claim that just because we segment the atrocities into 4-8 year periods, these parties (which are united during the execution of much of these atrocities) are not as objectively repressive and despotic as the Chinese variety.

Where scale is concerned, we get equivalent scale by operating internationally while the CCP operates primarily domestically.

[bmn__]

Mister Lai, I accuse you of being a sly fox who can tell lies with true words.

> China does have accountability for government officials

True, but is it the case that the laws are upheld every time? Is there an independent judiciary that sees violations persecuted through with due process?

I submit: no, this is not even possible due to the level of corruption. Officials accumulate influence, wealth and power so they can extract themselves out of sticky situations. Occasionally, officials are held accountable to much public fanfare, but they happen to be unwitting pawns, scapegoats taking the fall for someone else, or faction members that are opportunistically eliminated by their rivals.

> criticisms and protests are common

True, but do they effect change? I submit: rarely. The vast amount of forms of criticisms and protests are suppressed before collective action can occur.

Source: eyewitnesses (expats living in China)

> China is [not] a totalitarian/[…]dictatorial system.

Shill harder. I've seen you approve of CCP apologist Barrett.

[FooBarWidget]

> I accuse you of being a sly fox who can tell lies with true words.

I deny your accusation. I have my own opinion based on my own knowledge and research, thank you very much.

> True, but is it the case that the laws are upheld every time?

No. Accountability is not perfect. There is no country in which accountability is perfect. Accountability does not have to be perfect in order for there to be accountability.

I submit that the situation in China still has room for improvement, and that it is improving.

> True, but do they effect change? I submit: rarely.

The paper I showed you contradicts your submission. They define "receptiveness" as "actually changing policy".

> Source: eyewitnesses (expats living in China)

Please post their videos. I posted one, I showed data. In his videos he makes concrete, verifiable claims. I would like to see your data as well as concrete, verifiable claims.

> Shill harder. I've seen you approve of CCP apologist Barrett.

This reference to "shill" is uncalled for. It is an evidence-free out-of-hand dismissal of anybody who has a different opinion of China than yours.

I don't even watch Barrett's videos that often. The only time I posted something was when Barrett documented on how sanitary workers in Shenzhen receive 1 free meal every week. That's not even political, so why do you categorize this under "shilling"? Aren't we supposed to be "only against the CCP and supporting the Chinese people"?

[usui]

I was following this chain until the parent poster said "Shill harder". What a shame.

I think it's made obvious that you're operating on a level in which you still critically think about the opinions that you hold. Most of the people who resort to anti-China platitudes or accusing others of shilling have simply tuned out the actual thinking part of the equation.

Most outrage culture nowadays involve blatant rage without giving a second thought. I checked out your links and it seems more substantial than "eyewitness accounts from expats".

[nradov]

The third distinct category of governance in China has more in common with mafia crime families than with what most westerners think of as political parties or government bureaucracies. The mafia also has accountability of a sort, and processes for selecting leaders. They can be surprisingly responsive to local communities, as long as no one challenges their power. At the higher levels there is constant hidden maneuvering, and a fall from favor can be quickly fatal.

[FooBarWidget]

I disagree. I think it has more in common with the traditional Chinese imperial Confucianist meritocratic bureaucracy. In fact, this is corroborated by political science professor Daniel A. Bell: https://www.economist.com/open-future/2018/06/12/chinas-poli...

A mafia family does not work for the interest of those it "protects", nor do people approve of them. The Chinese government does work for the interest of its people, even if you don't agree with all of the ways they operate. It also enjoys very high levels of approval by its people. Apart from hearsay or informal street interviews [1], there are two researches that corroborate this [2][3].

As Kishore Mahbubani, ex-UN Security Council head, ex-Singapore diplomat, puts it: the CCP is more accurately described as the Chinese Civilization Party. Ultimately, they work to further the interest of Chinese civilization.

[1] Street interview: what does democracy mean to the Chinese? https://youtu.be/nl59t---30g

[2] https://ash.harvard.edu/files/ash/files/final_policy_brief_7...

[3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2021/05/05/did-pande...

[enaaem]

Chinese can vote but only for party approved candidates.

https://www.refworld.org/docid/4ec268b328.html

[FooBarWidget]

Low-level elections in China are by no means perfect. That I do not dispute. But you know that your source is Radio Free Asia, a CIA-funded propaganda organization, right?

[thefounder]

Yeah, they are elections but first you must be a "club member" like in the mafia elections ...of course everyone can become the big boss but first it must prove loyalty to the "family" aka "party". There is a whole process from becoming a made man to reaching the top chair and become the big boss.

Everthing in a communist party is about loyalty and fear not merit or election. If you don't like censorship or try to challenge the direction of the CCP you are out of the club for life and maybe even in jail.

Imagine Jack Ma saying the Xi is a stupid bear and doesn't know anything about finance or technology and that he (Jack Ma) would be a better leader for China so the people should be let to vote him as China's leader.

[catlikesshrimp]

"These claims are backed by eyewitnesses (expats living in China) as well as research."

Inland Chinese call these government agents "Little pinkies"

If they were Russian, those agents would be called spies.

[FooBarWidget]

What does rigorous research from renowned institutions such as Harvard have to do with "little pinkies" a.k.a. nationalistic Chinese Internet users? Are you saying that their research methodology does not sufficiently account for bias? If so, can you point out which part of the methodology is flawed and why?

[catlikesshrimp]

First, Harvard is a very renowed institution, as you say. That has to do with the people who goes and has gone there, as it should. There are no absolute guarantees about quality or morality. We asume the quality is good because it often is, but no guarantee. Zuckerberg studied at Harvard, and started Facebook while at it. Draw your own conclusions.

Second, the authors in your Harvard article are * Tinguang Meng * Jennifer Pan * Ping Yang

Jennifer Pan has Chinese backgrouds, as Tinguang and Ping do. I won't say the article is fake, I only hoovered over it, but I will put it in the same shelf where I keep RTNews (russian television) articles.

Edit: When I see a Harvard backed piece, the same as a Lancet piece, I don't give it a free pass. I read it because I know it is influential because of the name. We still have to go indeep, whenever possible.

[FooBarWidget]

But research is still research. It is still backed by data even if the data or methodology may be flawed. Where is your evidence that my claims are not true? As far as I can tell, your statement is complete speculation. Why does that deserve more priority?

You view the paper with suspicion because of Chinese names. Don't people usually tend to say "I support the Chinese people and I'm only against the CCP"? And yet Chinese people who live outside the mainland are suspect by default, without any evidence? Heck, whatever happend to "guilty until innocent"? I find your attitude to be highly problematic.

Furthermore, there is additional research which shows that:

1. The Chinese government doesn't force people to have positive opinions about the Chinese government. "How Censorship in China Allows Government Criticism but Silences Collective Expression" https://gking.harvard.edu/publications/how-censorship-china-... Pro- and anti-government messages are equally censored, based solely on the criteria of whether messages have collective action potential. Anti-government messages that lack collective action potential are not censored.

2. The Chinese government has no hidden astroturfing agents. "How the Chinese Government Fabricates Social Media Posts for Strategic Distraction, not Engaged Argument" — https://gking.harvard.edu/files/gking/files/50c.pdf They have agents, but these are government employees, and they post messages to distract to a different topic as opposed to defending a position in the same topic.

These two researches' authors only have western names.

The way I see it is that you have a prejudice. You stick to your beliefs even in the absence of evidence.

[redis_mlc]

What's fascinating in China is the extradjudicial repossession of residential land.

Normally one gets a 99-year land lease to build a house, but the CCP has been repossessing the land after 30-40 years as it increases in value.

The CCP sends a goon squad with no uniform or id and a backhoe to tear down the house. Sometimes they wait for the "owner" to go to work, sometimes they just pull the house down with the occupants inside.

But here's the wrinkle. Since it's extrajudicial, the owner can kill the goons and no arrest or prosecution follows.

This actually happened in 2020. An owner threw a brick at the backhoe operator, IIRC, killing him, without being arrested. Although the court system is fixed in China, the CCP doesn't want the publicity, since it would reveal a war on citizens' property.

So if you can keep killing the goons, you keep your house until the next round.