11 ms·

Of course it does. I wouldn't bet that it will last though. I often tell people how I was born under communism and that what happened before 1989 in Romania and

Of course it does. I wouldn't bet that it will last though. I often tell people how I was born under communism and that what happened before 1989 in Romania and maybe in other Easter European countries makes the 1984 novel seem unrealistic and boring. We had far worst forms of censorship and propaganda, paranoia about being caught with doublethink by nosy neighbors was at al times high, yet everything looked normal, roses red, sky blue, etc. But the social dissent was there, buried within all layers of society, because you cannot stop thought or even word of mouth. And it didn't happen overnight, it took more than 40 years, but in the end we shot our dictators on Christmas day. Not a smart thing to do, not real justice, but you know, when the revolution came people feared for their lives and in the end the many trump the few, a fact that governments tend to forget. I don't care much about what the Chinese do within their borders. The far more aggravating thing is that we tolerate China, choose to do business with Chinese companies and buy Chinese products. Now that's fucked up, because we are trading our values, for which people freaking died to win, for short term convenience, also sending the message that it's OK as a country to violate basic human rights, as long as you're powerful enough. Money trumps everything, great thing to teach our kinds, kudos folks.

studentrob 10y ago
> The far more aggravating thing is that we tolerate China, choose to do business with Chinese companies and buy Chinese products. A lot of people view trade, tourism and internet communications as a means of fostering diplomacy and preventing war. I wouldn't say we have traded our values. Companies with bad work environments overseas aren't immune to negative perceptions from home.
Kristine1975 10y ago
>because we are trading our values Just leaving this here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_Uni...
justsaysmthng 10y ago
> The far more aggravating thing is that we tolerate China, choose to do business with Chinese companies and buy Chinese products. A trade embargo (aka cold war) would be a lot worse for everyone involved.. Leads to arms race and threats of war, even less freedom and more injustice for the people (eg North Korea). > we are trading our values, for which people freaking died to win, for short term convenience .. Yeah, we do that with Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iraq and many more. That's the essence of business - trade one thing for another. We trade our "freedom to do whatever we want" for a salary. We trade our "freedom to party" for the happiness of raising a child... It's one of those laws of life which we might not entirely like, but cannot escape. > people freaking died to win People die - that's the only absolute we can rely on. Don't get carried away with "dying for .. something", most often this is not true - most died because delusional leaders sent them into battle ... only after the fact their death got dressed into "honorable cause".. In the end, the higher morals are dictated by whoever managed to seize power.. Which, by the way brings us back to the censorship thing..
- bad_user 10y ago
  I don't think we have the same definition for freedom. Here's one freedom that we do have: I have the freedom to denounce China's attitude towards censorship and you're free to counteract with other arguments, leading us to dialog, on a public forum. And on people dying, that's just another way of saying that great sacrifice has been made for us to enjoy the lifestyle and freedoms that we do have, so we can't trade those so easily, because then our children will have to repay that price.
  - PavlovsCat 10y ago
    > I have the freedom to denounce China's attitude towards censorship Just like the Chinese have the freedom to denounce US imperalism. Now, try something more serious, like calling for actual Western war criminals, and those of Western allies, to be brought to court. You won't go to jail; because nobody (who matters) will listen to you. And what would happen if you managed to actually start something that had a real chance at getting people in front of a judge and behind bars, that we can just guess at, since nobody has done it before.
notbingo 10y ago
What about North Korea? Why does it last there? Why don't they revolt? But actually, a more relevant question would be, why haven't they already? How much suffering can they take? I'm Romanian too. The censorship, oppression, and whatever other bad thing you might want to refer to, will last as long as the powers that be want it to last. When our "revolution" happened, people didn't even know what to think of it when they heard the news and really many thought it was a joke, and that's because they could not believe it was possible. There was no buildup that "took more than 40 years", a lot of people were satisfied with their lives, the ones that were not were quieted, and the rest were ignorant and didn't really care just like people now under pretty much any regime around the world. Hell, some older people that I have met even say they liked it better back then. Real population driven revolutions can't really happen anymore, if they ever could.
- bad_user 10y ago
  Dude, you're too pessimistic, much like all of our Romanian brethren :) Not to glorify our own revolution, because there isn't much to glorify about it, but the spark triggering a revolution is never conscious and it's by definition a violent process, so of course people do not want revolutions. It's not like they were speaking about it on forums, it's not like they woke up one day and decided to have it. And yes, you'll always have people satisfied with their lives, or ignorant. Doesn't matter though and you know as well as I do that Radio Free Europe was the most popular radio station, as a form of civil unrest, in spite of people actually fearing the secret service for listening to it. What happened in Bucharest wasn't an isolated event. It started earlier with Brașov in 1986. It was bound to happen, trying to hide the events from Timișoara being just what broke the camel's back. > some older people that I have met even say they liked it better back then Old people always say that. It's an inherent bias in how our memory works. We tend to forget the bad and our attention deficit only grows as we get older. Did you know that in the past years we've had the lowest levels of sickness and that global poverty is at an all times low? We are probably living the best years in history and when I'll be old I'll be able to say that as well and regret year 2016 and say to youngsters that "in my days not that many people died of hunger".
  - 10y ago
Shivetya 10y ago
We kind of have to keep China engaged economically to keep the threat of war down and reduce the desire of their leadership to look for conflict to deflect internal criticism. Its a bit much for them to close pandora's box but if the rest of the world jumps on the lid it can be done and the Chia vs World scenario is more saleable at home
coldtea 10y ago
>Now that's fucked up, because we are trading our values From the slave trade and colonialism, to the holocaust and 100s of periphery proxy wars, what would those be? The almighty dollar?
PavlovsCat 10y ago
> as a country to violate basic human rights, as long as you're powerful enough This hardly just applies to China though. I listened to a great talk by Tony Judt yesterday, this bit seems particularly relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNE83HXfGXo&t=28m28s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNE83HXfGXo&t=28m28s What you experienced were people who know they were oppressed by other people who know they are oppressing. Which is bad, but it's still a visible prison you can break out of, or you can at least hate it while you're stuck in it (don't think there are no unbreakable prisons). The free fall that follows the death of critical thought is much more sinister IMHO. It feels like there is nothing happening, because there is no friction worth mentioning, but it's still free fall. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for standing up for principles and not taking crap from any nation over it. I just am not of aware of a major nation that could do it credibly, they would have to clean their own house first.
kristopolous 10y ago
If a country has labor laws out of ostensible humanitarianism but then permits the sale of competing products made where no such laws exist, then it really isn't principled.
- Hondor 10y ago
  You're assuming that people everywhere value their working conditions equally. They don't. If you already have plenty of money for food, shelter and health care, then you can start worrying about workplace safety and comfort. Otherwise, you'll probably tolerate longer work hours if it's the only way to feed your family or care for your sick grandparents. Boycotting those countries is only going to make their population's more serious problems even worse. If you really care about people, let them move into your comfortable safe country and share it with you. I mean all of them, not just the few highly educated and wealthy.
  - kristopolous 10y ago
    Human rights are rights for humans - not just a luxury of those with free time and money. If people can be coerced to waiving their rights, then the mechanism of oppression changes - not the oppression itself. Second, boycotting isn't as effective as demands. When consumer bases set labor, environmental and other standards on imports, historically speaking, compliance follows. Lastly, I'd welcome lots of immigrants. No problem. I want more of them.
    - xixi77 10y ago
      I am not sure why you are conflating labor & environmental laws and human rights.
      - kristopolous 10y ago
        Because I think their the same thing and you do not - and that's a fascinating thing. It's an interesting discussion about taxonomy, membership, identification, and language. Broadly speaking if we are to define "human rights" as a "floor" of respectability that should be respected - different political leanings (e.g., neoliberalism, collectivist anarchism, libertarianism etc) paint their picture differently while at the first blush level, are all advocating for the same principles. When rights becomes a question of membership and dynamics, the linear two-dimensional political narrative of left-right break down into a multi-dimensional set-membership identity. I'd love to go into more details with you about it if you'd like to have an ongoing intellectual discussion. You can hit me up on google chat at my username @ gmail or just email me if you want.
bovermyer 10y ago
The moment we stop talking to people we want to change, then we lose all hope of doing so.
- gbog 10y ago
  Why would you want them to change? And change to become what? To become more like you? To me Western civilisation has this recurring feature to want other people to be like them. It was the case with proselytism, colonialism, etc. I understand a will to change a threatening country, or to get rid of a really evil tyran like Pol Pot. But a country having a different level of censorship of the media is not, to me, a casus belli. We can be proud of many parts of Western values and culture and even whish more people adopted them, but then it should be like with a friend with some weaknesses, you'll be more friendly and show by example how to handle things differently, instead of taking distances or lecturing constantly. So either you use brute force, against a major threat against your people or a tyran, or you try to promote the soft way your best parts, by showing their good effect on your own society. In this case, with all the very worrying problems we have, I would understand other countries like China to be sceptical. And by the way, China has already embrassed many of the good (hear: useful) parts of Western culture, like science and law. But it takes a lot of time to implement and get the positive results, around 50 years.
  - bovermyer 10y ago
    I don't even know how to respond to this. I was speaking generally of the desire to get along with others and work together towards a common positive relationship, not specifically of making China like the West. The bit about China "embrassing" (I assume you mean embracing) the "useful" parts of Western culture is neither relevant to this discussion, nor particularly constructive; it comes off sounding defensive more than anything else.
    - gbog 10y ago
      You were right in tell GP that if you want to change a country you should continue talking. But what I was reacting to is the idea that other countries should be "improved", which always mean to follow Western's value and culture. I've been living in China for over ten years, and I hope this admirable continent-sized country will never become like the USA or Europe. My wish for these people is that they continue to find their unique way to be happy.
tvanantwerp 10y ago
I've got family in China. They're just regular people trying to make in the world, same as me and most everyone else reading this. I'm no fan of the government there, but that's no reason to not work with the people who have little choice but to live under it.
- kpil 10y ago
  True. I had this totally naïve idea that EU could introduce higher tariffs and trade restrictions using a score based on political freedom, social security, etc, and the goal would be to tax but not remove too much of the cost incentive for trading. Part (or most, or even all) of the money should then be used to fund education and healthcare back in the country the money came from, while avoiding too much political campaigning. Maybe it's totally unrealistic, but I can't really see any other way of protecting the rights that we have fought for. Interestingly, this would be virtually impossible in Russia as they more or less have legislated against "foreign agents" to minimise the opportunity for the west to meddle with their affairs. It could work in China, and most likely in India and countries with large groups of poor people. It would also be virtually unacceptable for USA, unless the social component was removed. As it is now, EU would have to increase the tariffs to compensate for the poor social security in US...
- sho 10y ago
  I want to upvote this a hundred times. I've got family in China too and for fuck's sake they are just normal people. Sure, their government is a control freak, but tell me, how much do you like your government? At least theirs manages to build things! And who's about to elect Trump president? The scary truth is that humans can't handle proper free speech, just like they can't handle guns. They should be able to but they can't. It would be nice if they could but they can't. Unless and until we embrace actual eugenics, and can weed out that crazy segment who always ruins everything, we can't have nice things. But we can't face that possibility, so we either get censorship and gun control or the good ol' USA massacre of the week and Trump. I am not against democracy, but I think the current western liberalism, where it is perfectly OK to spread outright lies and counter-social messages on mass media in the name of "free speech", is doomed. I've mentioned Trump twice and for good reason. I think Americans underestimate just how bad their political situation looks from the outside. Not only the gridlock in congress, but the United States, supposedly and self-appointedly the shining light of democracy for the entire world, is about to elect this idiotic, unqualified populist blowhard. It is really hard to make any kind of defense of that. The USA is currently and enthusiastically proving every bad thing the CPC said about it, free speech, and democracy in general, absolutely right.
kingkawn 10y ago
I think after the collapse of any social system the hindsight would appear to show nothing but discontent. If the U.S. underwent the same social reordering that the former USSR did there would be a cultural tsunami of prescient signs that went tragically undiscussed due to the obviously blind and limiting social order.
- jerf 10y ago
  Like, say, massive debt spikes both personal and federal, near-decade-long economic malaise, massive discontent with the political class resulting in the nomination of a total outsider by one party and the other party having a massive fight between the outsider and the establishment candidate that still isn't settled, massive discontent with the press, social unrest about race and inequality issues, significant rises in drug abuse and suicide in certain groups, and a wildly whiplashing set of social norms changing so fast even those who nominally agree with them can have a hard time keeping up with the official social norms for this week (which is very nearly not an exaggeration)?
flatM 10y ago
I know communism left a big scar on you, which is totally understandable. The Romanian Communist government was a puppet one imposed by Stalin's Red Army, which has no legitimacy anyway. That is not the case for China. The Chinese Communist Party has led the Chinese people to resist the Japanese invaders in World War II for eight years, which gave them the legitimacy back then. The economical progress they led in China for the past thirty years gave them the legitimacy now. Maybe it's nowadays politically correct in the West to bash China. Though I do think you're being overly zealous here by promoting boycotting China economically. China has been making huge progresses for the past three decades both financially and socially. Hundreds of millions of Chinese peasants got out of poverty and started enjoy more freedom in education, living, migration and social upwardness. On that fact alone, China should be praised instead of being scolded on.
- criley2 10y ago
  >Hundreds of millions of Chinese peasants got out of poverty and started enjoy more freedom in education, living, migration and social upwardness. On that fact alone, China should be praised instead of being scolded on. In the west you'll find it common to think that Chinese Communism caused the famines and decades of failure and it was their integration of Western Capitalism and reduction of communism that led to their massive increase in industry and wealth. Which is the same narrative you'll find for the falling of the USSR and Putin's magical rebuilding of Russia. So many Westerners instead of praising Chinese communists for the success they have, they scold them for waiting so long and killing so many millions before _finally_ listening to what the westerners were saying a hundred years prior: private markets and private control of capital is the only way to build a modern industrious economy and lift subsistence farmers out of abject poverty at efficient scale. I'm not here to bash China, I just want to express the common views and opinions that I hear on the subject.
  - flatM 10y ago
    Appreciated for your comments. Though statistically that is not very convincing: the ingredients of capitalism, i.e., market economy and democracy would lead to prosperity. We have more than two hundreds of countries on this globe, the most advanced ones are still the powers from the colonization era. In my humble opinion, those factors seem to be more of correlation than causation.
diogenescynic 10y ago
>I don't care much about what the Chinese do within their borders. The far more aggravating thing is that we tolerate China, choose to do business with Chinese companies and buy Chinese products. >Now that's fucked up, because we are trading our values, for which people freaking died to win, for short term convenience, also sending the message that it's OK as a country to violate basic human rights, as long as you're powerful enough. Money trumps everything, great thing to teach our kinds, kudos folks. Well said. It's ridiculous we enforce labor and environmental laws in the US, then buy products from countries using slaves, sweatshops, and polluting without any regard. We sell out our ideals to save a few bucks.
- ultramancool 10y ago
  To be fair the issue is a lot more nuanced than that. For example, because of that trade we live in a quite peaceful period. This income in China has been used to bring hundreds of millions of people out of absolute poverty and into a middle class - where people have some luxury money and aren't engaged only in sustenance farming. I think this is an extremely valuable and positive thing, would you really want to stop this trade and put hundreds of millions back into poverty in order to feel a little more morally correct? Sure, it's not perfect, but it's a lot more complicated than you might think at first glance. https://ourworldindata.org/world-poverty/#declining-global-poverty-share-of-people-living-in-extreme-poverty-1820-2015-max-roserref https://ourworldindata.org/world-poverty/#declining-global-p... - look at the second graph here, trade with China and other developing countries has simultaneously brought more people out of poverty than ever before.
  - poof131 10y ago
    Sure. A good thing. Or possibly a bad thing if we strengthen a tyranny that can’t find a path to freedom for its people. History will tell. What I find most upsetting though is that much of this comes at the expense of the american middle class while the american upper class benefits. So less unrest in one country leads to more in another. Personally, I wish values drove foreign policy more than business. And trade doesn’t equal peace. Connections lead to conflict. The USSR and US never fought despite the tensions of the cold war, while Europe, with all it’s interconnections and trade has blown apart in a world war twice in the last century.
Artistry121 10y ago
In my time in Saudi Arabia it seemed like propaganda worked well and people were generally happy - even those who were poorer - and saw western society as hyper competitive and immoral. (They were very kind to us Westerners, however)
- Chris2048 10y ago
  What made you think anyone unhappy about the system would open up to you?
exelius 10y ago
> Now that's fucked up, because we are trading our values, for which people freaking died to win, for short term convenience, also sending the message that it's OK as a country to violate basic human rights, as long as you're powerful enough. It's... more complicated than that. China has a rich cultural history of collectivism that extends back several millennia. Eastern values are not the same as western values -- something Americans especially struggle to grasp. For better or for worse, eastern cultures (and China especially) emphasize the collective (company/family/country) over the individual. So I wouldn't bank on that social dissent being as strong as it was in the former Soviet bloc. The wild card here is what happens when an entire generation has to suffer because of the mistakes of their parents. That's the situation that is quickly looming in China -- they've had many years of strong growth on the back of a rapidly urbanizing population, but they have an aging population and have been below zero population growth for decades. They may very well come to see their former leaders as corrupt and self-serving -- but any revolution will likely be slow and happen through established channels. That's the Chinese way; it's impossible to change direction quickly in a nation of 1.3 billion people. The harmony of the collective is valued over the needs of any individual, so while change may need to happen, it will happen in an orderly and controlled manner. Chinese leaders would privately admit that their country is not perfect, but that change in China happens more slowly than in the west. But ultimately I think they also believe that a society with more freedom and creativity is the only way to effectively compete with the western powers. > Money trumps everything, great thing to teach our kinds, kudos folks. Name a time in history when this has not been the case. The US won the cold war not because our democratic ideals were better or more just, but because capitalist competition is the only self-equilizing solution to the tragedy of the commons. Which is basically the same as saying "money trumps ideals". In fact, human rights issues in the US only get solved when they become a threat to our economic interests. See desegregation, women's suffrage, the LGBT movement, etc. They only get addressed when American economic interests realized that being more inclusive leads to economic growth by creating more members of the consumer class. Unjust discrimination creates market space from which a potential competitor could gain a foothold, so it's a strategic advantage to not divide your customer base on any dimension other than market segments that align with your product portfolio.

studentrob 10y ago

> The far more aggravating thing is that we tolerate China, choose to do business with Chinese companies and buy Chinese products. A lot of people view trade, tourism and internet communications as a means of fostering diplomacy and preventing war. I wouldn't say we have traded our values. Companies with bad work environments overseas aren't immune to negative perceptions from home.

Kristine1975 10y ago

>because we are trading our values Just leaving this here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_Uni...

justsaysmthng 10y ago

> The far more aggravating thing is that we tolerate China, choose to do business with Chinese companies and buy Chinese products. A trade embargo (aka cold war) would be a lot worse for everyone involved.. Leads to arms race and threats of war, even less freedom and more injustice for the people (eg North Korea). > we are trading our values, for which people freaking died to win, for short term convenience .. Yeah, we do that with Russia, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iraq and many more. That's the essence of business - trade one thing for another. We trade our "freedom to do whatever we want" for a salary. We trade our "freedom to party" for the happiness of raising a child... It's one of those laws of life which we might not entirely like, but cannot escape. > people freaking died to win People die - that's the only absolute we can rely on. Don't get carried away with "dying for .. something", most often this is not true - most died because delusional leaders sent them into battle ... only after the fact their death got dressed into "honorable cause".. In the end, the higher morals are dictated by whoever managed to seize power.. Which, by the way brings us back to the censorship thing..

bad_user 10y ago
I don't think we have the same definition for freedom. Here's one freedom that we do have: I have the freedom to denounce China's attitude towards censorship and you're free to counteract with other arguments, leading us to dialog, on a public forum. And on people dying, that's just another way of saying that great sacrifice has been made for us to enjoy the lifestyle and freedoms that we do have, so we can't trade those so easily, because then our children will have to repay that price.
- PavlovsCat 10y ago
  > I have the freedom to denounce China's attitude towards censorship Just like the Chinese have the freedom to denounce US imperalism. Now, try something more serious, like calling for actual Western war criminals, and those of Western allies, to be brought to court. You won't go to jail; because nobody (who matters) will listen to you. And what would happen if you managed to actually start something that had a real chance at getting people in front of a judge and behind bars, that we can just guess at, since nobody has done it before.

notbingo 10y ago

What about North Korea? Why does it last there? Why don't they revolt? But actually, a more relevant question would be, why haven't they already? How much suffering can they take? I'm Romanian too. The censorship, oppression, and whatever other bad thing you might want to refer to, will last as long as the powers that be want it to last. When our "revolution" happened, people didn't even know what to think of it when they heard the news and really many thought it was a joke, and that's because they could not believe it was possible. There was no buildup that "took more than 40 years", a lot of people were satisfied with their lives, the ones that were not were quieted, and the rest were ignorant and didn't really care just like people now under pretty much any regime around the world. Hell, some older people that I have met even say they liked it better back then. Real population driven revolutions can't really happen anymore, if they ever could.

bad_user 10y ago
Dude, you're too pessimistic, much like all of our Romanian brethren :) Not to glorify our own revolution, because there isn't much to glorify about it, but the spark triggering a revolution is never conscious and it's by definition a violent process, so of course people do not want revolutions. It's not like they were speaking about it on forums, it's not like they woke up one day and decided to have it. And yes, you'll always have people satisfied with their lives, or ignorant. Doesn't matter though and you know as well as I do that Radio Free Europe was the most popular radio station, as a form of civil unrest, in spite of people actually fearing the secret service for listening to it. What happened in Bucharest wasn't an isolated event. It started earlier with Brașov in 1986. It was bound to happen, trying to hide the events from Timișoara being just what broke the camel's back. > some older people that I have met even say they liked it better back then Old people always say that. It's an inherent bias in how our memory works. We tend to forget the bad and our attention deficit only grows as we get older. Did you know that in the past years we've had the lowest levels of sickness and that global poverty is at an all times low? We are probably living the best years in history and when I'll be old I'll be able to say that as well and regret year 2016 and say to youngsters that "in my days not that many people died of hunger".
- 10y ago

Shivetya 10y ago

We kind of have to keep China engaged economically to keep the threat of war down and reduce the desire of their leadership to look for conflict to deflect internal criticism. Its a bit much for them to close pandora's box but if the rest of the world jumps on the lid it can be done and the Chia vs World scenario is more saleable at home

coldtea 10y ago

>Now that's fucked up, because we are trading our values From the slave trade and colonialism, to the holocaust and 100s of periphery proxy wars, what would those be? The almighty dollar?

PavlovsCat 10y ago

> as a country to violate basic human rights, as long as you're powerful enough This hardly just applies to China though. I listened to a great talk by Tony Judt yesterday, this bit seems particularly relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNE83HXfGXo&t=28m28s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNE83HXfGXo&t=28m28s What you experienced were people who know they were oppressed by other people who know they are oppressing. Which is bad, but it's still a visible prison you can break out of, or you can at least hate it while you're stuck in it (don't think there are no unbreakable prisons). The free fall that follows the death of critical thought is much more sinister IMHO. It feels like there is nothing happening, because there is no friction worth mentioning, but it's still free fall. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for standing up for principles and not taking crap from any nation over it. I just am not of aware of a major nation that could do it credibly, they would have to clean their own house first.

kristopolous 10y ago

If a country has labor laws out of ostensible humanitarianism but then permits the sale of competing products made where no such laws exist, then it really isn't principled.

Hondor 10y ago
You're assuming that people everywhere value their working conditions equally. They don't. If you already have plenty of money for food, shelter and health care, then you can start worrying about workplace safety and comfort. Otherwise, you'll probably tolerate longer work hours if it's the only way to feed your family or care for your sick grandparents. Boycotting those countries is only going to make their population's more serious problems even worse. If you really care about people, let them move into your comfortable safe country and share it with you. I mean all of them, not just the few highly educated and wealthy.
- kristopolous 10y ago
  Human rights are rights for humans - not just a luxury of those with free time and money. If people can be coerced to waiving their rights, then the mechanism of oppression changes - not the oppression itself. Second, boycotting isn't as effective as demands. When consumer bases set labor, environmental and other standards on imports, historically speaking, compliance follows. Lastly, I'd welcome lots of immigrants. No problem. I want more of them.
  - xixi77 10y ago
    I am not sure why you are conflating labor & environmental laws and human rights.
    - kristopolous 10y ago
      Because I think their the same thing and you do not - and that's a fascinating thing. It's an interesting discussion about taxonomy, membership, identification, and language. Broadly speaking if we are to define "human rights" as a "floor" of respectability that should be respected - different political leanings (e.g., neoliberalism, collectivist anarchism, libertarianism etc) paint their picture differently while at the first blush level, are all advocating for the same principles. When rights becomes a question of membership and dynamics, the linear two-dimensional political narrative of left-right break down into a multi-dimensional set-membership identity. I'd love to go into more details with you about it if you'd like to have an ongoing intellectual discussion. You can hit me up on google chat at my username @ gmail or just email me if you want.

bovermyer 10y ago

The moment we stop talking to people we want to change, then we lose all hope of doing so.

gbog 10y ago
Why would you want them to change? And change to become what? To become more like you? To me Western civilisation has this recurring feature to want other people to be like them. It was the case with proselytism, colonialism, etc. I understand a will to change a threatening country, or to get rid of a really evil tyran like Pol Pot. But a country having a different level of censorship of the media is not, to me, a casus belli. We can be proud of many parts of Western values and culture and even whish more people adopted them, but then it should be like with a friend with some weaknesses, you'll be more friendly and show by example how to handle things differently, instead of taking distances or lecturing constantly. So either you use brute force, against a major threat against your people or a tyran, or you try to promote the soft way your best parts, by showing their good effect on your own society. In this case, with all the very worrying problems we have, I would understand other countries like China to be sceptical. And by the way, China has already embrassed many of the good (hear: useful) parts of Western culture, like science and law. But it takes a lot of time to implement and get the positive results, around 50 years.
- bovermyer 10y ago
  I don't even know how to respond to this. I was speaking generally of the desire to get along with others and work together towards a common positive relationship, not specifically of making China like the West. The bit about China "embrassing" (I assume you mean embracing) the "useful" parts of Western culture is neither relevant to this discussion, nor particularly constructive; it comes off sounding defensive more than anything else.
  - gbog 10y ago
    You were right in tell GP that if you want to change a country you should continue talking. But what I was reacting to is the idea that other countries should be "improved", which always mean to follow Western's value and culture. I've been living in China for over ten years, and I hope this admirable continent-sized country will never become like the USA or Europe. My wish for these people is that they continue to find their unique way to be happy.

tvanantwerp 10y ago

I've got family in China. They're just regular people trying to make in the world, same as me and most everyone else reading this. I'm no fan of the government there, but that's no reason to not work with the people who have little choice but to live under it.

kpil 10y ago
True. I had this totally naïve idea that EU could introduce higher tariffs and trade restrictions using a score based on political freedom, social security, etc, and the goal would be to tax but not remove too much of the cost incentive for trading. Part (or most, or even all) of the money should then be used to fund education and healthcare back in the country the money came from, while avoiding too much political campaigning. Maybe it's totally unrealistic, but I can't really see any other way of protecting the rights that we have fought for. Interestingly, this would be virtually impossible in Russia as they more or less have legislated against "foreign agents" to minimise the opportunity for the west to meddle with their affairs. It could work in China, and most likely in India and countries with large groups of poor people. It would also be virtually unacceptable for USA, unless the social component was removed. As it is now, EU would have to increase the tariffs to compensate for the poor social security in US...
sho 10y ago
I want to upvote this a hundred times. I've got family in China too and for fuck's sake they are just normal people. Sure, their government is a control freak, but tell me, how much do you like your government? At least theirs manages to build things! And who's about to elect Trump president? The scary truth is that humans can't handle proper free speech, just like they can't handle guns. They should be able to but they can't. It would be nice if they could but they can't. Unless and until we embrace actual eugenics, and can weed out that crazy segment who always ruins everything, we can't have nice things. But we can't face that possibility, so we either get censorship and gun control or the good ol' USA massacre of the week and Trump. I am not against democracy, but I think the current western liberalism, where it is perfectly OK to spread outright lies and counter-social messages on mass media in the name of "free speech", is doomed. I've mentioned Trump twice and for good reason. I think Americans underestimate just how bad their political situation looks from the outside. Not only the gridlock in congress, but the United States, supposedly and self-appointedly the shining light of democracy for the entire world, is about to elect this idiotic, unqualified populist blowhard. It is really hard to make any kind of defense of that. The USA is currently and enthusiastically proving every bad thing the CPC said about it, free speech, and democracy in general, absolutely right.

kingkawn 10y ago

I think after the collapse of any social system the hindsight would appear to show nothing but discontent. If the U.S. underwent the same social reordering that the former USSR did there would be a cultural tsunami of prescient signs that went tragically undiscussed due to the obviously blind and limiting social order.

jerf 10y ago
Like, say, massive debt spikes both personal and federal, near-decade-long economic malaise, massive discontent with the political class resulting in the nomination of a total outsider by one party and the other party having a massive fight between the outsider and the establishment candidate that still isn't settled, massive discontent with the press, social unrest about race and inequality issues, significant rises in drug abuse and suicide in certain groups, and a wildly whiplashing set of social norms changing so fast even those who nominally agree with them can have a hard time keeping up with the official social norms for this week (which is very nearly not an exaggeration)?

flatM 10y ago

I know communism left a big scar on you, which is totally understandable. The Romanian Communist government was a puppet one imposed by Stalin's Red Army, which has no legitimacy anyway. That is not the case for China. The Chinese Communist Party has led the Chinese people to resist the Japanese invaders in World War II for eight years, which gave them the legitimacy back then. The economical progress they led in China for the past thirty years gave them the legitimacy now. Maybe it's nowadays politically correct in the West to bash China. Though I do think you're being overly zealous here by promoting boycotting China economically. China has been making huge progresses for the past three decades both financially and socially. Hundreds of millions of Chinese peasants got out of poverty and started enjoy more freedom in education, living, migration and social upwardness. On that fact alone, China should be praised instead of being scolded on.

criley2 10y ago
>Hundreds of millions of Chinese peasants got out of poverty and started enjoy more freedom in education, living, migration and social upwardness. On that fact alone, China should be praised instead of being scolded on. In the west you'll find it common to think that Chinese Communism caused the famines and decades of failure and it was their integration of Western Capitalism and reduction of communism that led to their massive increase in industry and wealth. Which is the same narrative you'll find for the falling of the USSR and Putin's magical rebuilding of Russia. So many Westerners instead of praising Chinese communists for the success they have, they scold them for waiting so long and killing so many millions before _finally_ listening to what the westerners were saying a hundred years prior: private markets and private control of capital is the only way to build a modern industrious economy and lift subsistence farmers out of abject poverty at efficient scale. I'm not here to bash China, I just want to express the common views and opinions that I hear on the subject.
- flatM 10y ago
  Appreciated for your comments. Though statistically that is not very convincing: the ingredients of capitalism, i.e., market economy and democracy would lead to prosperity. We have more than two hundreds of countries on this globe, the most advanced ones are still the powers from the colonization era. In my humble opinion, those factors seem to be more of correlation than causation.

diogenescynic 10y ago

>I don't care much about what the Chinese do within their borders. The far more aggravating thing is that we tolerate China, choose to do business with Chinese companies and buy Chinese products. >Now that's fucked up, because we are trading our values, for which people freaking died to win, for short term convenience, also sending the message that it's OK as a country to violate basic human rights, as long as you're powerful enough. Money trumps everything, great thing to teach our kinds, kudos folks. Well said. It's ridiculous we enforce labor and environmental laws in the US, then buy products from countries using slaves, sweatshops, and polluting without any regard. We sell out our ideals to save a few bucks.

ultramancool 10y ago
To be fair the issue is a lot more nuanced than that. For example, because of that trade we live in a quite peaceful period. This income in China has been used to bring hundreds of millions of people out of absolute poverty and into a middle class - where people have some luxury money and aren't engaged only in sustenance farming. I think this is an extremely valuable and positive thing, would you really want to stop this trade and put hundreds of millions back into poverty in order to feel a little more morally correct? Sure, it's not perfect, but it's a lot more complicated than you might think at first glance. https://ourworldindata.org/world-poverty/#declining-global-poverty-share-of-people-living-in-extreme-poverty-1820-2015-max-roserref https://ourworldindata.org/world-poverty/#declining-global-p... - look at the second graph here, trade with China and other developing countries has simultaneously brought more people out of poverty than ever before.
- poof131 10y ago
  Sure. A good thing. Or possibly a bad thing if we strengthen a tyranny that can’t find a path to freedom for its people. History will tell. What I find most upsetting though is that much of this comes at the expense of the american middle class while the american upper class benefits. So less unrest in one country leads to more in another. Personally, I wish values drove foreign policy more than business. And trade doesn’t equal peace. Connections lead to conflict. The USSR and US never fought despite the tensions of the cold war, while Europe, with all it’s interconnections and trade has blown apart in a world war twice in the last century.

Artistry121 10y ago

In my time in Saudi Arabia it seemed like propaganda worked well and people were generally happy - even those who were poorer - and saw western society as hyper competitive and immoral. (They were very kind to us Westerners, however)

Chris2048 10y ago
What made you think anyone unhappy about the system would open up to you?

exelius 10y ago

> Now that's fucked up, because we are trading our values, for which people freaking died to win, for short term convenience, also sending the message that it's OK as a country to violate basic human rights, as long as you're powerful enough. It's... more complicated than that. China has a rich cultural history of collectivism that extends back several millennia. Eastern values are not the same as western values -- something Americans especially struggle to grasp. For better or for worse, eastern cultures (and China especially) emphasize the collective (company/family/country) over the individual. So I wouldn't bank on that social dissent being as strong as it was in the former Soviet bloc. The wild card here is what happens when an entire generation has to suffer because of the mistakes of their parents. That's the situation that is quickly looming in China -- they've had many years of strong growth on the back of a rapidly urbanizing population, but they have an aging population and have been below zero population growth for decades. They may very well come to see their former leaders as corrupt and self-serving -- but any revolution will likely be slow and happen through established channels. That's the Chinese way; it's impossible to change direction quickly in a nation of 1.3 billion people. The harmony of the collective is valued over the needs of any individual, so while change may need to happen, it will happen in an orderly and controlled manner. Chinese leaders would privately admit that their country is not perfect, but that change in China happens more slowly than in the west. But ultimately I think they also believe that a society with more freedom and creativity is the only way to effectively compete with the western powers. > Money trumps everything, great thing to teach our kinds, kudos folks. Name a time in history when this has not been the case. The US won the cold war not because our democratic ideals were better or more just, but because capitalist competition is the only self-equilizing solution to the tragedy of the commons. Which is basically the same as saying "money trumps ideals". In fact, human rights issues in the US only get solved when they become a threat to our economic interests. See desegregation, women's suffrage, the LGBT movement, etc. They only get addressed when American economic interests realized that being more inclusive leads to economic growth by creating more members of the consumer class. Unjust discrimination creates market space from which a potential competitor could gain a foothold, so it's a strategic advantage to not divide your customer base on any dimension other than market segments that align with your product portfolio.