4 ms·

Another sign (among many) that China is preparing for significant social unrest and probably global instability. I suspect the CCP has concluded that a rebalanc

by rrggrr 9y ago

Another sign (among many) that China is preparing for significant social unrest and probably global instability. I suspect the CCP has concluded that a rebalancing of its economy is inevitable, close at hand, and will be painful for most Chinese. The scale of China's challenge, maintaining order in a nation of its size, guarantees there will be overreach. I thought we might see mesh-networking emerge in Iran as a means for protestors to organize and communicate. Didn't happen. Now I think there's a pretty good chance China's restrictive communications networks are going to result in some real innovation in ad-hoc networking and covert communication as the months and years progress. The next Twitter may be found among USB keys embedded in brick walls, or rogue routers covertly attached to outlets in public bathrooms. Ironically, the outcome would be better for all concerned if China allowed the debate and unrest to play itself out and impact policy. History proves bottoms-up accountability delivers much better outcomes than top-down oversight.

lainga 9y ago
For the nation, yes, but not for Nicolae Ceausescu or Xi Jinping.
hangonhn 9y ago
"History proves bottoms-up accountability delivers much better outcomes than top-down oversight." Oh I'm not so sure about that. At least for results people can see within a short amount of time, a strong, competent authoritarian government can deliver results much faster and people like that. Democracies are messy and difficult. I'm not saying this because I am pro-authoritarianism but rather as an admonishment against the notion that democracy will somehow win as if it is a law of nature and things will just flow that way ("end of history" stuff and all that). Democracy requires work and faith that it is better in the long run. Authoritarianism arises when people lose faith and patience and the demagogue promises quick results through the application of unbridled power. If we want democracy, we have to be vigilant and participate and have a good dose of patience. It requires more from the individuals than authoritarianism.
- candiodari 9y ago
  I get the impression this is much more likely to happen when one group of elites gets the country into an economic situation that will make them lose their power. In a way, they fucked up, but of course they don't see things that way. (I have never read in the history books about an elite that saw their actions justified by economic results. No their actions are "from God", "noble", "good for the planet", "socially just", "for the plebs", ... and so on. None of them accept the judgement that comes from the real world in terms of economic performance, in fact usually right before they lose power they attempt to falsify economic indicators on a very large scale, because at least some of them do realize that their justifications are bullshit and the result in the real world is all that matters. Those results are usually less than perfect) Then the old elites and the powerless masses have something in common : they need the government to repress things with a heavy hand. The elites need the government to repress people, because otherwise their power is under threat, or even their persons. The powerless masses want the government to be heavy-handed because they want all the shenanigans and "gentlemen's agreements" that exist with the elites blown up, and they want their newly elected people to have the power to blow those up. You see a sort of mini version happening currently. Both the middle Americans that elected him and the Bay Area progressives that hate him want Trump to have more power. Obviously things like legislating solutions to "fake news" are very, very bad for both of them, yet they both want it. I even understand how the reasoning works, and where they're both very very wrong. The progressives want heavy handed government because "they're right" (they mostly are, of course, but) and the population just doesn't see that. So we must legislate and put rules for what the population sees, hears, and so on. Otherwise climate change action, future democratic/progressive politics, open borders, ... and so on are all in great danger. ... except of course with Donald Trump in charge of enforcement actions for this ... things are not going to go well for these causes regardless of the heavy hand. And the rights and powers that the executive power acquires as a result of this legislation ... will be aimed straight at them. The middle Americans are tired of being marginalized and not listened to. They want their jobs (their industries) protected and left alone. They want limits on imports. Imports of people that complete on the job market, and imports of goods that put their employers out of business. ... except of course automation means this is useless. Furthermore, economically speaking these limits will lead to inflation, and they'll be the last ones to get wage increases. So if this indeed happens (as it appears it will) it will make their situation that much worse, not better. And of course that heavy hand will lead to more government bureaucrats interference in their lives and companies, not less.
girzel 9y ago
I think that's a very compelling argument: that China's swerve towards totalitarianism in the past few years is motivated by the fact that the government sees an economic depression coming. This isn't about Bibles, the Bibles are just one aspect of a tightening grasp on society that's been going on for a while now. You could just as easily focus on their attacks on feminism or homosexuality, with a completely different attendant set of armchair socio-historical theories. The economic explanation is the only one I've heard that makes sense to me: at present, civic peace is largely predicated on continuing economic growth. The main reason the populace tolerates the current regime is that it has provided steadily-increasing prosperity. If the government anticipates a bump in that process, it makes a lot of sense that they would now be battening down the hatches.
pasbesoin 9y ago
China grew tremendously by using domestic controls to suppress wages WRT the foreign markets with which it was competing. What makes anyone think the approach will be any different, in transitioning the current structural changes? Big pressures, but they've also had a couple of decades to greatly increase the tools they have with which to control and navigate this. Plus, the "leader of democracy" -- the U.S. -- has a leadership that is demonstrating its moral bankruptcy with respect to practicing what it preaches.
- woodandsteel 9y ago
  The Chinese government tells us that its people support it 100%, but it continually acts like it is scared to death they are going to revolt.

by rrggrr 9y ago

lainga 9y ago

For the nation, yes, but not for Nicolae Ceausescu or Xi Jinping.

hangonhn 9y ago

"History proves bottoms-up accountability delivers much better outcomes than top-down oversight." Oh I'm not so sure about that. At least for results people can see within a short amount of time, a strong, competent authoritarian government can deliver results much faster and people like that. Democracies are messy and difficult. I'm not saying this because I am pro-authoritarianism but rather as an admonishment against the notion that democracy will somehow win as if it is a law of nature and things will just flow that way ("end of history" stuff and all that). Democracy requires work and faith that it is better in the long run. Authoritarianism arises when people lose faith and patience and the demagogue promises quick results through the application of unbridled power. If we want democracy, we have to be vigilant and participate and have a good dose of patience. It requires more from the individuals than authoritarianism.

candiodari 9y ago
I get the impression this is much more likely to happen when one group of elites gets the country into an economic situation that will make them lose their power. In a way, they fucked up, but of course they don't see things that way. (I have never read in the history books about an elite that saw their actions justified by economic results. No their actions are "from God", "noble", "good for the planet", "socially just", "for the plebs", ... and so on. None of them accept the judgement that comes from the real world in terms of economic performance, in fact usually right before they lose power they attempt to falsify economic indicators on a very large scale, because at least some of them do realize that their justifications are bullshit and the result in the real world is all that matters. Those results are usually less than perfect) Then the old elites and the powerless masses have something in common : they need the government to repress things with a heavy hand. The elites need the government to repress people, because otherwise their power is under threat, or even their persons. The powerless masses want the government to be heavy-handed because they want all the shenanigans and "gentlemen's agreements" that exist with the elites blown up, and they want their newly elected people to have the power to blow those up. You see a sort of mini version happening currently. Both the middle Americans that elected him and the Bay Area progressives that hate him want Trump to have more power. Obviously things like legislating solutions to "fake news" are very, very bad for both of them, yet they both want it. I even understand how the reasoning works, and where they're both very very wrong. The progressives want heavy handed government because "they're right" (they mostly are, of course, but) and the population just doesn't see that. So we must legislate and put rules for what the population sees, hears, and so on. Otherwise climate change action, future democratic/progressive politics, open borders, ... and so on are all in great danger. ... except of course with Donald Trump in charge of enforcement actions for this ... things are not going to go well for these causes regardless of the heavy hand. And the rights and powers that the executive power acquires as a result of this legislation ... will be aimed straight at them. The middle Americans are tired of being marginalized and not listened to. They want their jobs (their industries) protected and left alone. They want limits on imports. Imports of people that complete on the job market, and imports of goods that put their employers out of business. ... except of course automation means this is useless. Furthermore, economically speaking these limits will lead to inflation, and they'll be the last ones to get wage increases. So if this indeed happens (as it appears it will) it will make their situation that much worse, not better. And of course that heavy hand will lead to more government bureaucrats interference in their lives and companies, not less.

girzel 9y ago

I think that's a very compelling argument: that China's swerve towards totalitarianism in the past few years is motivated by the fact that the government sees an economic depression coming. This isn't about Bibles, the Bibles are just one aspect of a tightening grasp on society that's been going on for a while now. You could just as easily focus on their attacks on feminism or homosexuality, with a completely different attendant set of armchair socio-historical theories. The economic explanation is the only one I've heard that makes sense to me: at present, civic peace is largely predicated on continuing economic growth. The main reason the populace tolerates the current regime is that it has provided steadily-increasing prosperity. If the government anticipates a bump in that process, it makes a lot of sense that they would now be battening down the hatches.

pasbesoin 9y ago

China grew tremendously by using domestic controls to suppress wages WRT the foreign markets with which it was competing. What makes anyone think the approach will be any different, in transitioning the current structural changes? Big pressures, but they've also had a couple of decades to greatly increase the tools they have with which to control and navigate this. Plus, the "leader of democracy" -- the U.S. -- has a leadership that is demonstrating its moral bankruptcy with respect to practicing what it preaches.

woodandsteel 9y ago
The Chinese government tells us that its people support it 100%, but it continually acts like it is scared to death they are going to revolt.