4 ms·

This event is an amazing lesson in what China's rulers see as their interests and how they pursue those interests. Over the last several decades, these rulers

This event is an amazing lesson in what China's rulers see as their interests and how they pursue those interests. Over the last several decades, these rulers have done a lot to open China to the world and lift the totalitarian restrictions of Maoism. This process has been the greatest poverty reduction program of all time, and thus it would be easy to mistake it for altruism, or at least a belief in governing in the common interest. This theory, however, fails to explain much of the Chinese leadership's behavior, and I submit that self-interest is a superior theory. The wealthier and stronger China becomes, the wealthier and stronger its rulers become. Thus it is generally in the rulers' interest to make China wealthier and stronger. But if something would make China wealthier and stronger, but could loosen the ruling clique's grip on that wealth and strength, then it is against the rulers' interest and they will act to prevent it. This is why China often acts as though it values technological leadership, but continually takes measures such as these, which undermine that leadership. The result, as several in this thread have pointed out, is that China will not soon be the world's leader in cutting-edge technology. But China will still be rich. And China will still be strong. And China's rulers will still be in power.

tonyedgecombe 9y ago
And China's rulers will still be in power. I wonder. When the inevitable downturn comes the population won't have the option of voting out the current government. They may well turn to other means.
- splintercell 9y ago
  This almost always happens. Because in order to achieve what they have achieved, they had to give their citizens a certain amount of freedom. Generally when the new generation becomes old enough , it would have never seen why people are afraid of the rulers so much, then it becomes a situation of a showdown. Though it doesn't always have to end with a bloody outcome, for instance Spain went from dictatorship to democracy quite peacefully after it's dictator died in 1975.
dv_dt 9y ago
China is still in the range of development where it's pretty easy to make the case that raising the wealth of its people aligns with increasing the power and wealth of its rulers. An interesting question is how long those interests stay merged. I suspect it isn't ultimately driven from a political power calculation, but on what areas of open growth are available. Cutting off WhatsApp keeps open growth available in that area internal to the nation. But as areas close off and get filled, economies have to start making harder choices about where to put effort. It's easy to commit to long-term society wide efforts when it's easy to forsee improvements _and_ personal profits. But as choices get harder to forecast and make good on, will China start looking shorter term and with a more narrowly focused self service scope as many western economic leaders have done.

tonyedgecombe 9y ago

And China's rulers will still be in power. I wonder. When the inevitable downturn comes the population won't have the option of voting out the current government. They may well turn to other means.

splintercell 9y ago
This almost always happens. Because in order to achieve what they have achieved, they had to give their citizens a certain amount of freedom. Generally when the new generation becomes old enough , it would have never seen why people are afraid of the rulers so much, then it becomes a situation of a showdown. Though it doesn't always have to end with a bloody outcome, for instance Spain went from dictatorship to democracy quite peacefully after it's dictator died in 1975.

dv_dt 9y ago

China is still in the range of development where it's pretty easy to make the case that raising the wealth of its people aligns with increasing the power and wealth of its rulers. An interesting question is how long those interests stay merged. I suspect it isn't ultimately driven from a political power calculation, but on what areas of open growth are available. Cutting off WhatsApp keeps open growth available in that area internal to the nation. But as areas close off and get filled, economies have to start making harder choices about where to put effort. It's easy to commit to long-term society wide efforts when it's easy to forsee improvements _and_ personal profits. But as choices get harder to forecast and make good on, will China start looking shorter term and with a more narrowly focused self service scope as many western economic leaders have done.