6 ms·

Seems to me there is a large public relations push to normalize their authoritarianism in the view of Westerners. Then you hear about bloggers being imprisoned

Seems to me there is a large public relations push to normalize their authoritarianism in the view of Westerners. Then you hear about bloggers being imprisoned for pointing out corruption according to the government’s own definitions. China’s authoritarianism looks attractive when it’s about infrastructure and efficiency, but the underside of it, the collective silencing and destruction of debate, the “blank spots” it introduces into its citizens understanding of history and the world, are truly disturbing. China’s existential threat is an opportunity or technology which enhances its ability to control citizens but leads, in the long term, to destabilization of the regime. Could be AI, could be something else. But at some point one of these forbidden fruits will poison and what appears to be a manageable, technical problem will become a societal one that no one can control or censor.

brokenmachine 9y ago
> China’s existential threat is an opportunity or technology which enhances its ability to control citizens but leads, in the long term, to destabilization of the regime. Could be AI, could be something else. But at some point one of these forbidden fruits will poison and what appears to be a manageable, technical problem will become a societal one that no one can control or censor. I don't understand. Can you explain that more? How does AI or other tech create something that cannot be controlled or censored? I can only see, say, facial recognition, being bad for freedom of the Chinese citizens.
- ordinaryradical 9y ago
  Probably the law of unintended consequences. Imagine now that this makes the surveillance of the bureaucracy itself more or less infallible. Someone, or many people, now know which party officials are meeting with which, know who their mistresses are, know the places they are going to hide assets or crimes, know the people bribing them. Now you have a roadmap for corruption of the state. If that data leaks, is hacked by a state actor and released, or becomes the tool by which bureaucrats seek to manipulate and blackmail each other, it could destabilize the party itself.
  - brokenmachine 9y ago
    Nice example. Interesting, thanks for that.
coldtea 9y ago
>Seems to me there is a large public relations push to normalize their authoritarianism in the view of Westerners. So, bigger than the push to make it appear worse than it is? Because that has been a tactic with any competing nation/enemy du jour of the west for over a century... Not to mention that everything is judged with US-norms and interpreted through US-preferences in all those articles (aside and above the interpretation through their national interests) -- as if, e.g. rugged individualism and puritanism -derived principles is some universal law and e.g. a collectivist spirit, or some religious-derived norms, or other such cultural ways, are by default bad.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- narag 9y ago
  Human rights are not US-norms, there are many pitfalls that have been detected in last couple of centuries in the US and in representative democracies all over the world. Supressing freedom of speach, basic economic freedoms, due process... lead invariably to disaster, being it dictatorships, coups, generalized corruption, etc. There is nothing special with Chinese people that makes dictatorship good for them while it's bad for us.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    >Human rights are not US-norms In the main, they are not. But they are general platitudes, whose interpretation is left to the individual countries, and is subject to the power relations between them. A country, then, might be seen accusing or even bombing another (supposedly) in defense of those rights, when itself doesn't follow them. >There is nothing special with Chinese people that makes dictatorship good for them while it's bad for us. If only it was so simple. First, there are different concepts of what's OK and what's not. A crude example: US people don't like kings. English people are OK with their (but they don't have much power there). Thailand people love them. Then, there's selective judgement. E.g. the US can have the largest prison population (25% of the world for 5% of it's population), and the most death sentences, mass surveillance programs, arbitrary cop killings, or even torture camps off-site, but it's OK because it has "free elections" (where two parties alternate in power for 50+ years and vote for more of the same -- never mind gerrymandering). Whereas another country is portrayed as some nightmare regime for not having elections, whereas life there might be better in those other terms. Sure, there are people that complaint for all of the above, but they still happen (and have happened for decades), and few judge the government/country in whole for that or say that it must be overthrown/invaded whatever (whereas for other countries, they do). There's also selective enforcement, e.g. in how Saudi Arabia can be a worse regime for its citizens in all of those aspects, but as an ally it's not scolded for that, nor does it face sanctions/retribution that non-favorable (i.e. competing) countries that face. Then there's people who have no idea of world history, little understanding of diplomacy, and how fragile states can be, and what local antagonisms and powers are held back even by some "bad" at first analysis regime, that play god, intervene (to bring "democracy") and, even assuming they do that in earnest, they end up causing civil war and chaos (see Libya, Iraq, and so on). So while "There is nothing special with Chinese people that makes dictatorship good for them while it's bad for us", there could very well something special with China as a country, and it's constitution of people's, history, antagonisms, etc, that a change would unleash hell.
lambdadmitry 9y ago
I wonder if that kind of authoritarianism can already be qualified as fascism. Declared total unity of state, people and industry? Check. Militarism? Check. Indifference to violence? Check. Concentration camps, mass political persecutions, expansionism? All there. When does it cross the line from bad to Hitler?
- eponeponepon 9y ago
  There's no line between bad and Hitler - the Nazis were bad because (in naïve, coarse terms) they crossed the line between bad and good.
  - Nomentatus 9y ago
    So the NSA was bad - violated the laws and constitution according to the U.S. Courts, therefore we're already at Hitler? What they did was bad. On the road to Hitler, maybe, but not there yet, surely.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > When does it cross the line from bad to Hitler? There's no line; fascism is a subset of bad, not a separate category.
- Nomentatus 9y ago
  Marx called it "Bonapartism" (after Napoleon), certainly if the authority truly centered upon one leader. He wasn't for it, to say the least.

brokenmachine 9y ago

> China’s existential threat is an opportunity or technology which enhances its ability to control citizens but leads, in the long term, to destabilization of the regime. Could be AI, could be something else. But at some point one of these forbidden fruits will poison and what appears to be a manageable, technical problem will become a societal one that no one can control or censor. I don't understand. Can you explain that more? How does AI or other tech create something that cannot be controlled or censored? I can only see, say, facial recognition, being bad for freedom of the Chinese citizens.

ordinaryradical 9y ago
Probably the law of unintended consequences. Imagine now that this makes the surveillance of the bureaucracy itself more or less infallible. Someone, or many people, now know which party officials are meeting with which, know who their mistresses are, know the places they are going to hide assets or crimes, know the people bribing them. Now you have a roadmap for corruption of the state. If that data leaks, is hacked by a state actor and released, or becomes the tool by which bureaucrats seek to manipulate and blackmail each other, it could destabilize the party itself.
- brokenmachine 9y ago
  Nice example. Interesting, thanks for that.

coldtea 9y ago

>Seems to me there is a large public relations push to normalize their authoritarianism in the view of Westerners. So, bigger than the push to make it appear worse than it is? Because that has been a tactic with any competing nation/enemy du jour of the west for over a century... Not to mention that everything is judged with US-norms and interpreted through US-preferences in all those articles (aside and above the interpretation through their national interests) -- as if, e.g. rugged individualism and puritanism -derived principles is some universal law and e.g. a collectivist spirit, or some religious-derived norms, or other such cultural ways, are by default bad.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
narag 9y ago
Human rights are not US-norms, there are many pitfalls that have been detected in last couple of centuries in the US and in representative democracies all over the world. Supressing freedom of speach, basic economic freedoms, due process... lead invariably to disaster, being it dictatorships, coups, generalized corruption, etc. There is nothing special with Chinese people that makes dictatorship good for them while it's bad for us.
- coldtea 9y ago
  >Human rights are not US-norms In the main, they are not. But they are general platitudes, whose interpretation is left to the individual countries, and is subject to the power relations between them. A country, then, might be seen accusing or even bombing another (supposedly) in defense of those rights, when itself doesn't follow them. >There is nothing special with Chinese people that makes dictatorship good for them while it's bad for us. If only it was so simple. First, there are different concepts of what's OK and what's not. A crude example: US people don't like kings. English people are OK with their (but they don't have much power there). Thailand people love them. Then, there's selective judgement. E.g. the US can have the largest prison population (25% of the world for 5% of it's population), and the most death sentences, mass surveillance programs, arbitrary cop killings, or even torture camps off-site, but it's OK because it has "free elections" (where two parties alternate in power for 50+ years and vote for more of the same -- never mind gerrymandering). Whereas another country is portrayed as some nightmare regime for not having elections, whereas life there might be better in those other terms. Sure, there are people that complaint for all of the above, but they still happen (and have happened for decades), and few judge the government/country in whole for that or say that it must be overthrown/invaded whatever (whereas for other countries, they do). There's also selective enforcement, e.g. in how Saudi Arabia can be a worse regime for its citizens in all of those aspects, but as an ally it's not scolded for that, nor does it face sanctions/retribution that non-favorable (i.e. competing) countries that face. Then there's people who have no idea of world history, little understanding of diplomacy, and how fragile states can be, and what local antagonisms and powers are held back even by some "bad" at first analysis regime, that play god, intervene (to bring "democracy") and, even assuming they do that in earnest, they end up causing civil war and chaos (see Libya, Iraq, and so on). So while "There is nothing special with Chinese people that makes dictatorship good for them while it's bad for us", there could very well something special with China as a country, and it's constitution of people's, history, antagonisms, etc, that a change would unleash hell.

lambdadmitry 9y ago

I wonder if that kind of authoritarianism can already be qualified as fascism. Declared total unity of state, people and industry? Check. Militarism? Check. Indifference to violence? Check. Concentration camps, mass political persecutions, expansionism? All there. When does it cross the line from bad to Hitler?

eponeponepon 9y ago
There's no line between bad and Hitler - the Nazis were bad because (in naïve, coarse terms) they crossed the line between bad and good.
- Nomentatus 9y ago
  So the NSA was bad - violated the laws and constitution according to the U.S. Courts, therefore we're already at Hitler? What they did was bad. On the road to Hitler, maybe, but not there yet, surely.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> When does it cross the line from bad to Hitler? There's no line; fascism is a subset of bad, not a separate category.
Nomentatus 9y ago
Marx called it "Bonapartism" (after Napoleon), certainly if the authority truly centered upon one leader. He wasn't for it, to say the least.