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.
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)
It'll take too much time to talk in details. Democracy in general in better than totalitarian in general, i don't disagree with that. However, establishing American democracy in China at this moment, most likely won't bring anything good or solve any problems China is facing now. And it's dangerous: If a presidential candidate say "Elect me and we'll take Taiwan back by force", the most likely outcome is that he'll get a shit ton of votes for that stance.
> And it's dangerous: If a presidential candidate say "Elect me and we'll take Taiwan back by force", the most likely outcome is that he'll get a shit ton of votes for that stance.
Sure, a revolution that ends in democracy would be extremely dangerous right now (the aftermath of Arab Spring comes to mind).
But if Xi's CCP keeps repeating that the Chinese should feel deeply humiliated by the West, and that conquering Taiwan (and the South China Sea, etc...) is the only way out, then the situation will become increasingly dangerous no matter the form of government.
It's fine if Chinese culture values stability, the problem is that ignoring politics leads to anything but.
It seems like your real issue isn't with "American democracy", but democracy in general. It doesn't appear you have much faith in the Chinese people exercising power directly or through elected representatives.
I'd totally support that if it's working as designed. Having a level of indirectness is very different from having everyone vote for who becomes president.
NPC has thousands of members, and I'd expect them to be much more educated and rational than general public overall (again, if the system actually works). They could be elected for various reasons and do not need majority vote of the entire population to become a member of NPC. Their opinions would be a lot more diverse.
The way Chinese government is supposed to work, is actually another form of democracy: People elect representatives to become "National People's Congress", which is supposed to have highest power in China, and decides who the president is going to be. The reality is that NPC do not have real power and the voting process to elect representatives are very flawed.
However, if that actually work as designed, it's not entirely non-democratic, and it's a form I think would be a better fit for China at least in foreseeable future.
The US Federal Government, as originally envisioned, had much less direct representation, with the House of Representatives being the only directly elected body. The Senate was elected by the State governments, the President by a group of directly-elected "electors," and the Supreme Court appointed/confirmed as it is now.
The vulnerability of a democracy to a demagogue who would do things like run on a platform of "elect me and we'll take Taiwan back by force", has been known since the Ancient Greeks. At least in the American system, the solution has been to "separate" those powers so no one individual or small group can exercise them, forcing a consensus. You see this still working even today, with Trump, whose the most demagogue-like president in memory. He's mostly foolish talk, since most of his actions have been held in check by the courts or his inability to get legislation passed.
A tendency towards deadlock has been the major failing and problem of American democracy (at least in recent memory), as I see it. I don't really see a good democratic solution to it either, besides reversing course back towards a more decentralized republic with a weaker central government.
I believe you're right. What I am against is really just pushing China towards American style democracy right now, at this moment. As one of the reasons, the danger of "elect me and we'll take Taiwan back by force" right now is not hypothetical, based on what I know about other fellow Chinese, this is a very real possibility.
We also don't want anything like the deadlocks in American government for sure.
Deadlocks aren't actually all that bad, in my humble opinion. They encourage stability when the major factions disagree strongly but have similar levels of support. The alternative is whip-lash policy changes as control changes, which I think would be much worse.
I think the real problem in America is too much centralization. If more policy was made locally, it could be adapted to match diverse local conditions and attitudes, and the preferences of other regions wouldn't be as threatening. Unfortunately the winner-take-all aspect of centralized politics makes the sides more entrenched.
Do you think the current Chinese government is helping or hurting with the attitudes that lead to the appeal of "elect me and we'll take Taiwan back by force"? Seems to me there's some danger of things going badly if they don't prep the ground for democracy and lose control somehow.
> I don't really see a good democratic solution to it either, besides reversing course back towards a more decentralized republic with a weaker central government.
This is definitely the way things are moving towards in the US. We had gotten accustomed to a strong federal government during the 20th century as it had necessarily become extremely built up from world wars, massive infrastructure works, the cold war, etc. But as that whole world has faded away in the 21st century, we are seeing states assert their rights again. I'm talking specifically of California, where elected officials are openly defying federal authorities on certain issues like immigration and drug enforcement. The feds seem powerless to do anything since their is such overwhelming local support for these policies, and California is an economic powerhouse.
The moment the Chinese government becomes aware of hacker news and starts paying people 50 cents a post, we won't be able to even find the legitimate comments under the epic pile of shill :D
I'm surprised it hasn't happened yet, when I think about it.
Also, there are actual Chinese people (a lot of them) that are pretty supportive of their government. And many that aren't. But unfortunately you can't assume trolling behavior based on this.
I've looked a bit in your posting history and can't say with confidence that you are shill, but a certain patern is clearly emerging: the Chinese government is always right, it serves the people and listens to them, in fact it knows what people want; there is certainly no need for those pesky elections and wasted energy voting. Oligarchy ad infinitum.
In the off chance that you are a real person, I'm sorry to say but you have the gullibility and critical thinking of a child and I mean that in the most non-ofensive way. It's troubling that propaganda could be so effective.
lol, it's not a long history anyway. I'm glad you read.
I came to read tech news mostly and didn't feel the need to create an account to post comment until a few days ago
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.
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.
Not sure how to explain this best, but let's just say cultural revolution's most devastating impact was on culture. If you ask any elderly with good upbringing, you'll probably hear the answers you expect, but I'm from a working class family, and the only bad thing my relatives experienced was unable to go to college.
Xi came of age during the cultural revolution, which means he participated as a red guard, was sent down to the country side, went to college late, and much of his college education was ideological rather than practical. He is the first leader who is a career politician (has an engineering degree but never used it) and the first whose appointment is clearly about nepotism rather than merit. So...interesting guy.
> 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.
It's interesting that to note that Xi Jinping is from that exact same generation, and both he and his family were persecuted during the Cultural Revolution:
> When the pandemonium of the Cultural Revolution erupted, he was a slight, softly spoken 13-year-old who loved classical Chinese poetry. Two years later, adrift in a city torn apart by warring Red Guards, Xi Jinping had hardened into a combative street survivor.
> His father, a senior Communist Party official who had been purged a few years earlier, was seized and repeatedly beaten. Student militants ransacked his family’s home, forcing the family to flee, and one of his sisters died in the mayhem. Paraded before a crowd as an enemy of the revolution and denounced by his own mother, the future president of China was on the edge of being thrown into a prison for delinquent children of the party elite.
> ...
> Unlike some youths from elite backgrounds, Mr. Xi did not turn against the party or Mao, but learned to revere strict order and abhor challenges to hierarchy, said Yongyi Song, a historian and librarian in Los Angeles who has long studied the Cultural Revolution.
> “He suffered much under Mao,” Mr. Song said, “but I think that actually increased his belief that those who are ‘born red,’ those children of the party elite, earned the right to inherit Mao’s place at the center.”
> 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.
Experts were saying that China was slowly but steadily marching on the path to liberalization, but now we have Xi and that that doesn't seem to be the case anymore. I fear those predictions, like yours, are fallacious and overoptimistic.
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).
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.
You raise an incredibly interesting point here. "The biggest threat is their own people." Scams are so prevalent here I often think that what looks like 1984 style policies and procedures is seen in their eyes as a form of protection. To the outside world it is draconian. To them they are trying to protect from internal marauders.
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.
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.
I understand that many people accuse Trump of being authoritarian. The American people have a very diverse range of viewpoints. Some group somewhere has always accused the sitting president of going out of bounds, being a fascist, going to take our guns away, etc.
I don't doubt that the social media mob is dangerous, but I perceive that it is mostly against the current US administration.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
Not sure if I would agree, given that estimates suggest that homo sapiens had evolved approx 400k years ago, and most of recorded history (with the somewhat stable hierarchies) lasts, at most, 20k years. So potentially much of recorded history, but certainly not proven to be necessary for evolution.
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.
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.
Chavez definitely dismantled democracy in Venezuela. (If you want to be technical, he started the project, and Maduro finished it.)
Specifically, vote count manipulation, the Supreme Court refusing to allow opposition legislatures to be seated, the constitutional committee stripping the legislature of its power... that's dismantling democracy.
Outside observers never saw or reported voting manipulation during Chavez's time. Your lie is easily disproved with a bit of research and I encourage readers to do so. I'm not familiar with the Court/Constitutional Committee issues that your raise but I assume they are post Chavez.
> Your lie is easily disproved with a bit of research and I encourage readers to do so.
When you call someone a liar, the onus is on you to do the research and present your case for others. Asking everyone else to do the research doesn’t cut it. Your position should include citations that provide evidence that what you say is correct. What you have achieved here is essentially name-calling.
An unsubstantiated claim doesn't require a well researched counter. The suggestion to do research is just that a suggestion. I find that when dealing with posts written by people who are uninformed or have the intention of misinformation that it is important to point out that the issue is contested. If someone is lying then a bit of research will prove that and we can all be in agreement. If the subject isn't worth bothering with then my accusation surely can't be bothered with either.
There is a rather large difference between "your claim is wrong" and "you are lying". Feel free to state that my claim is wrong. If I didn't supply evidence, feel free to state without evidence that my claim is wrong. (Evidence talks louder than non-evidence, though, so if you supply some, that's a better refutation than simply saying that I was wrong.)
Saying that someone is lying is different. That's an attack on their character. You should do that very rarely, and only where you are sure. (Even better, only where you can prove that they are deliberately lying. Yes, that's a very high bar. Yes, that's how rarely you should make that charge.)
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.
Economists believe that hyperinflations are caused by large persistent government deficits financed primarily by money creation (rather than by borrowing or by increasing taxation). --wikipedia.
Eli5
Their economy was mostly oil, they seized assets of oil companies extracting it. People left then oil crashed and they had too many promises to pay for
It was not simply that they "nationalized oil" in my example, as the resources we're already state owned. You seem to not be serious with your comments.
Sorry I'm just trying to understand the five year old's argument. "Their economy was mostly oil, they seized assets of oil companies extracting it." Who is "they" in this sentence and how was all this inevitable?
First ad hominem attacks don't help your point. Second, Google can help you out with some of your questions. Third, "they" is Chavez and his government. Chavez was socialist, socialism implies that the government takes over production from capitalists.
How was all this inevitable? When a government doesn't like that private companies are making money, and steal their property then replace skilled managers with party cronies, maybe things aren't going to work out so well. Maybe other companies will be afraid to invest in the country. So yea, the country gets a short-term boost from acquiring billions of dollars of assets, then all the profits that used to go to the company go to the state. But then it doesn't grow or handle problems properly because no one has the same incentive to work hard and innovate.
If the price of toilet paper is high in America, there are dozens of companies that are going to compete to get that profit, supply will rise and the price will drop. In Chavez's Venezuala, the toilet paper companies get nationalized, and government bureaucrats do their best to make and distribute enough toilet paper. Or maybe they don't and just report that they are doing a good job.
Here's a short list from 2012 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-election-nation... and you can be sure there were many companies that bent over backwards to comply with governmental demands to avoid being nationalized. It turns out the Venezuelan government, like most other governments, is not good at managing production and providing a prosperous economy without a free market. And when regulations mean a company (for example a toilet paper company) can't make a profit to create what they are selling, they can't make enough of it, and soon they won't be able to make any of it.
It's all about human nature and incentives, and yes most 5 year olds understand that.
Yes all socialist governments are doomed to fail. Every leftist thinker has the IQ of a five year old(starting to like this meme). Thank you for adding nothing to the conversation.
The Chávez administration used high oil prices in the 2000s on his populist policies and to gain support from voters. The social works initiated by Chávez's government relied on oil products, the keystone of the Venezuelan economy, with Chávez's administration suffering from Dutch disease as a result.
When prices collapsed they had all eggs in one basket.
Now what was seized and not discussed in the wiki was oil platforms from foreign companies. Sometimes instead of Chavez paying a debt, he would seize the platform and "nationalize it" so this caused foreign companies to be wary of investing.
We both can agree that the pdvsa is incredibly corrupt and post Chavez politics have been a shit show. Whether this is a necessary result from nationalization is not an easily answered question but I'm glad you actually voiced an opinion on the issue besides just nationalization is bad. Cheers.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
> 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.
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.
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.
> 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...
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.
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.
I don't think you can argue that any of those rulers weakened their societies--unless you completely disregard historical fact.
I was just questioning the dogma that having leaders in power for multiple terms is automatically bad. I'm open to the possibility that Xi is a bad leader--I'm no expert on China--but it seems that China today is a better place than when he came in to power. I guess people don't agree with me here.
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.
And
... Charlemagne's grandsons broke the Carolingian Empire in civil war.
Sounds weaker to me. It seems like you’re somewhat lazily working your way backwards from a foregoing conclusion. Is it really any wonder we don’t agree with you?
It seems like you're missing the forest for the trees here. I would recommend Durant's history of civilization if you would like a detailed account of what these people accomplished. I also encourage you to compare these leaders with the other rulers of the day.
Have you really lost sight of what this this thread is about? It’s not your view of historical figures in their time, it’s about your endorsement of autocracy in general and Xi in particular. If we’re at the point of judging the rulers you picked by only the standards of their day, I’d say you’ve ceded what point you had.
It is kind of pleasant to realize that you were just arguing for the sake of it though, rather than some bizarre conviction in autocratic stability.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
>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.
There is nothing different from the above what aboutisms to the ones the USSR used, they are actually almost verbatim. China throws around logical fallacies (what aboutism, red herrings, slippery slopes) all the time, it makes me wonder if chinese high schools teach their positive use in rhetoric/debate classes.
I’m one of the first ones to criticize the USA, there is plenty that is wrong to talk about! But open up a thread that is critical of the USA and you’ll rarely see Americans bringing up problems in China, yet discussions about China almost always lead back to discussions about the USA! When china is ready to talk about its problems without referring to the USA, well, it will be ready to become a superpower. Right now they just come off as insecure.
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?
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).
Consider it simply that you should endeavor to take good advice no matter the source, even if they seem hypocritical.
Bruce Lee was right in this regard, take what works from wherever you can. Worrying about the messenger being biased can ignore a really good tree in an overall forest.
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?
>You shouldn't try to help people in other countries, period
So when oppressed people inside an imperfect country are pleading for help from another imperfect country which is capable of helping,
The country being begged to help should go “sorry, we’re imperfect, can’t help. Besides, even though you’re asking for our help and we can certainly help, we’re not the global police, so we can’t help you.”
There's help and there's help. Are we talking help as in sending temporary emergency relief after a natural disaster or famine or help as in ousting a democratically elected leader and replacing him with a puppet dictator?
Ask the guy who said “You shouldn't try to help people in other countries, period” to clarify.
Side note, being democratically elected does not mean your country is a democracy. Hitler was democratically elected. Doesn’t change the fact that he consolidated power after the fact.
And interestingly enough China, the topic of this thread, is consolidating power. This week their administration has announced their plans to abolish presidential term limits, clearing way for their president to remain in power indefinitely.
>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.
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.
> 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.
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.
> 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)
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.
I assume, in the case of a payday lender, that that data was mostly used to determine how gullible a potential customer is, and how easy it will be to fuck them over entirely.
Pretty much. One of the metrics optimized for was profitability of repeat business. You want that inflection point where you get as much as possible from the customer while still leaving them solvent and up to date on payments. This is where having all that data was essential - you can build models and determine what the inflection point would be, in terms of payment terms for a specific customer. Traditional payday lenders do not have this data - they would just try to impose the biggest APR and penalties on a customer and rely on collections to recover as much of the "fictitious" (fictitious in that their business plan presupposes they will not be able to collect the majority of it) debt as they could. Collections is expensive and eats into your margins.
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 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.
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.
>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 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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
> 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.”
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.
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.
249 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 107 ms ] threadAnyone have the backstory for this?
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?
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-18/winnie-the-pooh-fal...
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=36939
Wait, so you can't say "I don't agree with term limits" in China on Weibo?
Edit: Removed comment about Google.
Google Translate of the site: https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=zh-CN&tl=en&...
>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.
http://gking.harvard.edu/files/gking/files/50c.pdf
Can you explain which values you're referring to and why you don't agree with them?
I can imagine that personal property rights and freedom of speech are not included in that list of disagreeable values.
Sure, a revolution that ends in democracy would be extremely dangerous right now (the aftermath of Arab Spring comes to mind).
But if Xi's CCP keeps repeating that the Chinese should feel deeply humiliated by the West, and that conquering Taiwan (and the South China Sea, etc...) is the only way out, then the situation will become increasingly dangerous no matter the form of government.
It's fine if Chinese culture values stability, the problem is that ignoring politics leads to anything but.
NPC has thousands of members, and I'd expect them to be much more educated and rational than general public overall (again, if the system actually works). They could be elected for various reasons and do not need majority vote of the entire population to become a member of NPC. Their opinions would be a lot more diverse.
However, if that actually work as designed, it's not entirely non-democratic, and it's a form I think would be a better fit for China at least in foreseeable future.
The vulnerability of a democracy to a demagogue who would do things like run on a platform of "elect me and we'll take Taiwan back by force", has been known since the Ancient Greeks. At least in the American system, the solution has been to "separate" those powers so no one individual or small group can exercise them, forcing a consensus. You see this still working even today, with Trump, whose the most demagogue-like president in memory. He's mostly foolish talk, since most of his actions have been held in check by the courts or his inability to get legislation passed.
A tendency towards deadlock has been the major failing and problem of American democracy (at least in recent memory), as I see it. I don't really see a good democratic solution to it either, besides reversing course back towards a more decentralized republic with a weaker central government.
We also don't want anything like the deadlocks in American government for sure.
I think the real problem in America is too much centralization. If more policy was made locally, it could be adapted to match diverse local conditions and attitudes, and the preferences of other regions wouldn't be as threatening. Unfortunately the winner-take-all aspect of centralized politics makes the sides more entrenched.
Do you think the current Chinese government is helping or hurting with the attitudes that lead to the appeal of "elect me and we'll take Taiwan back by force"? Seems to me there's some danger of things going badly if they don't prep the ground for democracy and lose control somehow.
This is definitely the way things are moving towards in the US. We had gotten accustomed to a strong federal government during the 20th century as it had necessarily become extremely built up from world wars, massive infrastructure works, the cold war, etc. But as that whole world has faded away in the 21st century, we are seeing states assert their rights again. I'm talking specifically of California, where elected officials are openly defying federal authorities on certain issues like immigration and drug enforcement. The feds seem powerless to do anything since their is such overwhelming local support for these policies, and California is an economic powerhouse.
I'm curious, do you literally get 50 cents for each of these posts, or are you salaried?
I'm surprised it hasn't happened yet, when I think about it.
Also, there are actual Chinese people (a lot of them) that are pretty supportive of their government. And many that aren't. But unfortunately you can't assume trolling behavior based on this.
There is no people or culture on Earth that stands to gain from oligarchy.
Though it's probably also true that tons of people are shocked by the news
In the off chance that you are a real person, I'm sorry to say but you have the gullibility and critical thinking of a child and I mean that in the most non-ofensive way. It's troubling that propaganda could be so effective.
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.
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.
No, he did not "participate" as a Red Guard, he and his family were persecuted by them.
Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/26/world/asia/xi-jinping-car...
It's interesting that to note that Xi Jinping is from that exact same generation, and both he and his family were persecuted during the Cultural Revolution:
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/25/world/asia/xi-jinping-chi...:
> When the pandemonium of the Cultural Revolution erupted, he was a slight, softly spoken 13-year-old who loved classical Chinese poetry. Two years later, adrift in a city torn apart by warring Red Guards, Xi Jinping had hardened into a combative street survivor.
> His father, a senior Communist Party official who had been purged a few years earlier, was seized and repeatedly beaten. Student militants ransacked his family’s home, forcing the family to flee, and one of his sisters died in the mayhem. Paraded before a crowd as an enemy of the revolution and denounced by his own mother, the future president of China was on the edge of being thrown into a prison for delinquent children of the party elite.
> ...
> Unlike some youths from elite backgrounds, Mr. Xi did not turn against the party or Mao, but learned to revere strict order and abhor challenges to hierarchy, said Yongyi Song, a historian and librarian in Los Angeles who has long studied the Cultural Revolution.
> “He suffered much under Mao,” Mr. Song said, “but I think that actually increased his belief that those who are ‘born red,’ those children of the party elite, earned the right to inherit Mao’s place at the center.”
Here's a short biography of Xi by the NYT:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/26/world/asia/xi-jinping-car...
> 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.
Experts were saying that China was slowly but steadily marching on the path to liberalization, but now we have Xi and that that doesn't seem to be the case anymore. I fear those predictions, like yours, are fallacious and overoptimistic.
People immigrated out before 90s tends to be more pro-democracy. (At least from my impression)
"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.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
"Why I even cannot speak" https://www.reddit.com/r/China/comments/80hc82/why_i_even_ca...
"I JUST WANNA CRY" https://www.reddit.com/r/China/comments/80ashy/i_just_wanna_...
"听着国际歌，泪停不下来 Cant stop crying while listening to the Internationale" https://www.reddit.com/r/China/comments/80c7mo/%E5%90%AC%E7%...
https://phys.org/news/2017-10-china-xi-zuckerberg-cook-beiji...
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/brad-parscale-trump-2020-campag...
China's touchiness on these matters reveals the Communist Party's insecurity.
Even the most powerful emperors in Chinese history (who would have nothing to be afraid of) still executes those who talked ill of them
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.
> 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.
I don't doubt that the social media mob is dangerous, but I perceive that it is mostly against the current US administration.
Civil disagreement on matters of politics and philosophy seems to be waning in the West.
Unfortunately I don't see big American companies doing anything but continuing to court China and their growing class of wealthy consumers.
as much as it pains me to see China regressing on the freedom front, I hope we will sort things out in a less violent manner.
You will not have a revolution without spilling blood.
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.
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.
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.
citation needed
Didn't stop him from dismantling democratic institutions, eliminating all political rivals, invading his neighbors, and murdering millions of people.
Specifically, vote count manipulation, the Supreme Court refusing to allow opposition legislatures to be seated, the constitutional committee stripping the legislature of its power... that's dismantling democracy.
When you call someone a liar, the onus is on you to do the research and present your case for others. Asking everyone else to do the research doesn’t cut it. Your position should include citations that provide evidence that what you say is correct. What you have achieved here is essentially name-calling.
Saying that someone is lying is different. That's an attack on their character. You should do that very rarely, and only where you are sure. (Even better, only where you can prove that they are deliberately lying. Yes, that's a very high bar. Yes, that's how rarely you should make that charge.)
Eli5 Their economy was mostly oil, they seized assets of oil companies extracting it. People left then oil crashed and they had too many promises to pay for
How was all this inevitable? When a government doesn't like that private companies are making money, and steal their property then replace skilled managers with party cronies, maybe things aren't going to work out so well. Maybe other companies will be afraid to invest in the country. So yea, the country gets a short-term boost from acquiring billions of dollars of assets, then all the profits that used to go to the company go to the state. But then it doesn't grow or handle problems properly because no one has the same incentive to work hard and innovate.
If the price of toilet paper is high in America, there are dozens of companies that are going to compete to get that profit, supply will rise and the price will drop. In Chavez's Venezuala, the toilet paper companies get nationalized, and government bureaucrats do their best to make and distribute enough toilet paper. Or maybe they don't and just report that they are doing a good job.
Here's a short list from 2012 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-election-nation... and you can be sure there were many companies that bent over backwards to comply with governmental demands to avoid being nationalized. It turns out the Venezuelan government, like most other governments, is not good at managing production and providing a prosperous economy without a free market. And when regulations mean a company (for example a toilet paper company) can't make a profit to create what they are selling, they can't make enough of it, and soon they won't be able to make any of it.
It's all about human nature and incentives, and yes most 5 year olds understand that.
A question would be eli5 lambda calculus. Actually if there is an eli5 for that it would be fun to read.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Venezuelan_oi...
The Chávez administration used high oil prices in the 2000s on his populist policies and to gain support from voters. The social works initiated by Chávez's government relied on oil products, the keystone of the Venezuelan economy, with Chávez's administration suffering from Dutch disease as a result.
When prices collapsed they had all eggs in one basket.
Now what was seized and not discussed in the wiki was oil platforms from foreign companies. Sometimes instead of Chavez paying a debt, he would seize the platform and "nationalize it" so this caused foreign companies to be wary of investing.
https://books.google.com/books?id=TFY_DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA116&lpg=...
On to hyperinflation
To assuage the oil price decline which began back in June 2014 and continues through to today, President Maduro printed more currency,
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.
Chavez was the previous ruler and hasn't been gone so long that the systems he set up have been washed away by time
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.
[1] https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/4553024/alesina_...
[2] https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdf/10.1257/jep.7.3.51
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.
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.)
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_nuclear_weapon_progra...
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2016/06/24/national/politi...
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
...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.
I was just questioning the dogma that having leaders in power for multiple terms is automatically bad. I'm open to the possibility that Xi is a bad leader--I'm no expert on China--but it seems that China today is a better place than when he came in to power. I guess people don't agree with me here.
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.
And
... Charlemagne's grandsons broke the Carolingian Empire in civil war.
Sounds weaker to me. It seems like you’re somewhat lazily working your way backwards from a foregoing conclusion. Is it really any wonder we don’t agree with you?
It is kind of pleasant to realize that you were just arguing for the sake of it though, rather than some bizarre conviction in autocratic stability.
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
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.
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.
[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-corruption-xi-insig...
[2] https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/02/china... - There's a better video report of surveillance on Bloomberg I think (I remember it was on a business news site)? but I can't find the link right now.
Pretty scary.
It will be interesting to see how the Chinese government reacts to globally available, unfiltered internet via satellite, like the one SpaceX is making https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starlink_(satellite_constellat...
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B01J24C0TI
This is a telescreen.
China’s 2015 GDP Was Exaggerated By Fake Data, Analysis Shows (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-01/china-s-2...)
Another Chinese city admits 'fake' economic data (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-economy-data/anothe...)
This Is How China's Regions Fare in the Fake GDP Data Stakes (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-19/this-is-h...)
They fake data to move gdp fractions of a percent.
Outright lying doesn't help further your argument. There's some excellent independent estimates of Chinas gdp out there.
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.
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.
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.
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"?
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.
Someone hasn't learned from history. The impulse you're feeling is tempting, but it never ends will.
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.
The Wired article is a little more exaggerating (https://www.wired.com/story/age-of-social-credit/) but here is the rough breakdown of your score according to https://www.zhihu.com/question/27844479
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 ...
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.
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.
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 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.
I’m one of the first ones to criticize the USA, there is plenty that is wrong to talk about! But open up a thread that is critical of the USA and you’ll rarely see Americans bringing up problems in China, yet discussions about China almost always lead back to discussions about the USA! When china is ready to talk about its problems without referring to the USA, well, it will be ready to become a superpower. Right now they just come off as insecure.
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?
Yes, they would be the ideal person to give that advice.
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).
Bruce Lee was right in this regard, take what works from wherever you can. Worrying about the messenger being biased can ignore a really good tree in an overall forest.
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.
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?
Internally, not. Globally, surely yes.
So when oppressed people inside an imperfect country are pleading for help from another imperfect country which is capable of helping,
The country being begged to help should go “sorry, we’re imperfect, can’t help. Besides, even though you’re asking for our help and we can certainly help, we’re not the global police, so we can’t help you.”
Side note, being democratically elected does not mean your country is a democracy. Hitler was democratically elected. Doesn’t change the fact that he consolidated power after the fact.
And interestingly enough China, the topic of this thread, is consolidating power. This week their administration has announced their plans to abolish presidential term limits, clearing way for their president to remain in power indefinitely.
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.
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.
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)
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.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Credit_Reporting_Act
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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."
11/10/2017: "We must protest this injustice!"
2/27/2018: "10-22-2017 + 9-15-2017 + 11-10-2017 + 8/15/2017"
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.