5 ms·

> Defending China, Fuck the Chinese govt. > I hope the Chinese people rise up one day and figure out a better form of governance for themselves. Besides the i

> Defending China, Fuck the Chinese govt. > I hope the Chinese people rise up one day and figure out a better form of governance for themselves. Besides the immature, flippant impulse to challenge authority that seems quite prevalent in the West, why should the Chinese feel compelled to pursue the path of destruction you're advocating for? The CCP, for all its imperfections, has lifted 850 million illiterate peasants out of extreme poverty in a mere few decades [1]. Their upward mobility, health and education outcomes have arguably not been better in over 150 years. It's an economic miracle never before seen in history. The trade-off was made between an authoritarian but stable and prosperous society vs balkanization and endless wars that pre-mature democracies tend to produce. Hopefully you’ll excuse them if they don’t join in your shallow diatribe. You can insult Xi all day and say "fuck the Chinese govt" all you want but at the end of the day, it's not your opinion that matters. In general, the people of China are very happy with the progress that's being made (particularly true of the rural population who have witnessed in real-time, continuous improvements to their standard of living). One more thing. It would be convenient if the Chinese government were some monolithic, dark and evil entity that you could shake your pitchfork at, but it’s not [2]. It is an extremely complex, dynamic, and heterogenous entity full of internal power struggles, much like every other non-trivial human organization in history. There is evidence hinting at the existence of reformist and hardline members, factions and sub-factions at every part of the ideological spectrum [3][4]. The GP’s assertion that “China's system is so complicated and so far from a heavy-handed police state.” is factually correct. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_China https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_China [2] http://faculty.arts.ubc.ca/ftrebbi/research/ftx.pdf http://faculty.arts.ubc.ca/ftrebbi/research/ftx.pdf [3] https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/research/docs/clm46am-2.pdf https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/research/docs/clm... [4] https://www.mironline.ca/factionalism-china-eve-19th-party-congress/ https://www.mironline.ca/factionalism-china-eve-19th-party-c...

Avamander 7y ago
> In general, the people of China are very happy with the progress that's being made (particularly true of the rural population who have witnessed in real-time, continuous improvements to their standard of living). "All for the common good." Didn't even realize that movie was a documentary about China. I find it appalling that you find the Chinese government even remotely okay, the Chinese government violates people's basic human rights for just simply being a part of a minority. The assertion that it's not a free country and horrific the worst way possible when you're a minority is absolutely true. Also, FYI, you can rise out of poverty without continuously slaughtering people ;)
- tepidandroid 7y ago
  > I find it appalling that you find the Chinese government even remotely okay, the Chinese government violates people's basic human rights for just simply being a part of a minority. > The assertion that it's not a free country and horrific the worst way possible when you're a minority is absolutely true. It’s not absolutely true. I suggest you consult some independent sources for a more nuanced perspective other than that promulgated by mainstream media. There are dozens of ethnic minorities (yes, even Muslim minorities) that are prospering just fine along with the rest of China. There are even remote places where the CCP actively funnels tourists to help them bolster incomes. It’s in their best interest to do so because poverty and unemployment leads to instability. It’s most definitely not in their best interest to “violates people's basic human rights for just simply being a part of a minority”. What possible good would that do? I find the Chinese government more than okay from a purely utilitarian standpoint. Is it perfect? No, far from it. Has it been a net good for its people? Undeniably.
  - Avamander 7y ago
    > There are dozens of ethnic minorities (yes, even Muslim minorities) that are prospering just fine along with the rest of China. There are dozens that are fine and dozens that absolutely aren't. Don't try to reduce how serious putting thousands of people into a f* concentration camp in 2019 is.
    - tepidandroid 7y ago
      I’m not reducing anything. I’m simply pointing out facts that often get thrown under the bus for the sake of pushing a particular narrative - facts that contradict overly simplistic characterizations of their actions such as “they hate Muslims!” or “they hate freedom!”. The fact is, the reality is much more nuanced than that. Painting the picture as black and white and then getting emotional over it helps nobody.
      - Avamander 7y ago
        You can't be pro-freedom and put people in concentration camps. You can't be pro-Muslims and put them into concentration camps. It is that black and white, the things are mutually exclusive.
swordsmith 7y ago
> The CCP, for all its imperfections, has lifted 850 million illiterate peasants out of extreme poverty in a mere few decades This is one of the most frequent arguments by Chinese excusing the actions of CCP. Keep in mind that this is the party that started the cultural revolution, which resulted in 5-10 million deaths due to famine and state-sanctioned purge, destruction of cultural heritage, and forcible seizure of land (all land in China is owned by the state). Yet to this day the details of this history are rarely discussed in school and subjective to censor. A wealthy person who has no affiliation with the Chinese government is vulnerable to predatory action by local government [1] -- a big reason why there are so many wealthy Chinese buying and moving property in foreign countries, and part of why government officials tend to be among the richest in the country. The massive wealth created as a result of private enterprises that end up in the hands of government officials through various methods, is often siphoned out of the country. Imagine if KMT stayed in power, the cultural revolution didn't happen, and private business owners weren't paranoid of the government meddling -- 850 million illiterate peasants were lifted out of extreme poverty despite CCP. Since Xi's rise to power, the anti-corruption campaign has served both to root out some corruption, and at the same time removing his opposition in the party, leading to his limitless term as the party leader. While some speculate Xi may use this as an opportunity to move China toward a more democratic model, there is nothing preventing him and his faction from siphoning more wealth from the country. > The trade-off was made between an authoritarian but stable and prosperous society vs balkanization and endless wars that pre-mature democracies tend to produce. Your whole thesis seems to be based on the economic growth of the country justifies the oppression and corruption. But as the economic growth slows down, at what point is it not enough as a justification? With the tight media country, how would the Chinese people EVEN know what the true state of the economy is? And even if they decided they've had enough, with the growing control of information, communication, and movements, what can they even do at that point? So yeah, fuck CCP [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/01/business/china-parliament-billionaires.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/01/business/china-parliament...
- tepidandroid 7y ago
  > This is one of the most frequent arguments by Chinese excusing the actions of CCP. Keep in mind that this is the party that started the cultural revolution, which resulted in 5-10 million deaths due to famine and state-sanctioned purge, destruction of cultural heritage, and forcible seizure of land (all land in China is owned by the state). Yet to this day the details of this history are rarely discussed in school and subjective to censor. I don't think it excuses the actions of the CCP, it just contextualizes it. Anyway, I agree with most of these points. I'd just like to comment that many members of the politburo responsible for the terrible policies you've mentioned are no longer alive. It may be the same party in name, but as mentioned in the parent post, the CCP is by all measures quite factional in nature. Right now the hardliners are in charge under Xi's leadership (as you've also pointed out), but the younger reformist factions probably do still have some influence in shaping party policy. The CCP's justification for censoring would probably be that they need to preserve their legitimacy while the country is still in its formative phase. China is often perceived as a superpower (and it likes to promote this view), but the reality is that its nominal per capita GDP is still 1/6th that of the U.S. > A wealthy person who has no affiliation with the Chinese government is vulnerable to predatory action by local government [1] -- a big reason why there are so many wealthy Chinese buying and moving property in foreign countries, and part of why government officials tend to be among the richest in the country. >The massive wealth created as a result of private enterprises that end up in the hands of government officials through various methods, is often siphoned out of the country. I agree with this point also, and it's a very important point to make. One factor that exacerbates this is the sheer wealth creation that has taken place in China, especially in the last 10 years since the great financial crisis. Due to various central bank policies around the world, global credit has never been cheaper nor more plentiful. I'd argue that a lot of Chinese FDI has been a result of wealth spillover from people who have run out of places to park it. > Imagine if KMT stayed in power, the cultural revolution didn't happen, and private business owners weren't paranoid of the government meddling -- 850 million illiterate peasants were lifted out of extreme poverty despite CCP. That could have been one possible future. Another possible future (and more realistic IMO) could have been the disintegration of China as one cohesive nation (basically, another century of humiliation which had only just ended, where China was chopped up and claimed by western powers). The largest driver of CCP policy was probably the collapse of the Soviet Union which was arguably the end result of perestroika and glastnost. CCP members at the time probably saw what happened next (fragmentized nations engaged in endless civil wars) and balked at the thought of reform. Lifting 850 million people out of poverty is no easy feat and is a fact that bears repeating over and over again. > Since Xi's rise to power, the anti-corruption campaign has served both to root out some corruption, and at the same time removing his opposition in the party, leading to his limitless term as the party leader. Agreed. I’d say it’s a trade-off of risks. I personally believe that benevolent dictatorships work the best for developing nations. Leaders like Lee Kuan Yew come to mind. Others, like Suharto, were unbelievably corrupt, but are remembered fondly for creating decades of stability and prosperity. You can move fast and implement policies that need to be implemented without being mired in endless deadlock and debate like in parliamentary systems which tend to yo-yo, with one party undoing all the work of the previous. The risk is that the dictatorship turns sour and policy mistakes are made, resulting in power grabs and instability. This is not to say I’m against parliamentary systems - they work very well for highly educated, wealthy and developed nations. > While some speculate Xi may use this as an opportunity to move China toward a more democratic model, there is nothing preventing him and his faction from siphoning more wealth from the country. Yup. > Your whole thesis seems to be based on the economic growth of the country justifies the oppression and corruption. But as the economic growth slows down, at what point is it not enough as a justification? With the tight media country, how would the Chinese people EVEN know what the true state of the economy is? And even if they decided they've had enough, with the growing control of information, communication, and movements, what can they even do at that point? I don’t think anything can justify oppression and corruption. In an ideal world, there would be none of that. Unfortunately, we live in a very unideal world full of compromises and decisions between lesser evils. We’ll have to see what happens, but my personal belief is that China will move more and more towards glasnost-like policies as time goes on but at its own pace, not at the pace dictated by western powers. Personal freedoms in China in the present day bear no resemblance to the personal freedoms 30, 20, even 10 years ago. The vast majority of Chinese people are able to travel abroad, wear what they want and work where they want. They are able to enjoy the prosperity of the nation with only one caveat: do not do anything that can lead to instability - hence the rise in technological surveillance. There are many nation-state actors that would greatly prefer if the global world order were not disrupted by the rise of China. > So yeah, fuck CCP Surely you mean “fuck the hardline members of the CCP, but hopefully the reformers win out”?

Avamander 7y ago

> In general, the people of China are very happy with the progress that's being made (particularly true of the rural population who have witnessed in real-time, continuous improvements to their standard of living). "All for the common good." Didn't even realize that movie was a documentary about China. I find it appalling that you find the Chinese government even remotely okay, the Chinese government violates people's basic human rights for just simply being a part of a minority. The assertion that it's not a free country and horrific the worst way possible when you're a minority is absolutely true. Also, FYI, you can rise out of poverty without continuously slaughtering people ;)

tepidandroid 7y ago
> I find it appalling that you find the Chinese government even remotely okay, the Chinese government violates people's basic human rights for just simply being a part of a minority. > The assertion that it's not a free country and horrific the worst way possible when you're a minority is absolutely true. It’s not absolutely true. I suggest you consult some independent sources for a more nuanced perspective other than that promulgated by mainstream media. There are dozens of ethnic minorities (yes, even Muslim minorities) that are prospering just fine along with the rest of China. There are even remote places where the CCP actively funnels tourists to help them bolster incomes. It’s in their best interest to do so because poverty and unemployment leads to instability. It’s most definitely not in their best interest to “violates people's basic human rights for just simply being a part of a minority”. What possible good would that do? I find the Chinese government more than okay from a purely utilitarian standpoint. Is it perfect? No, far from it. Has it been a net good for its people? Undeniably.
- Avamander 7y ago
  > There are dozens of ethnic minorities (yes, even Muslim minorities) that are prospering just fine along with the rest of China. There are dozens that are fine and dozens that absolutely aren't. Don't try to reduce how serious putting thousands of people into a f* concentration camp in 2019 is.
  - tepidandroid 7y ago
    I’m not reducing anything. I’m simply pointing out facts that often get thrown under the bus for the sake of pushing a particular narrative - facts that contradict overly simplistic characterizations of their actions such as “they hate Muslims!” or “they hate freedom!”. The fact is, the reality is much more nuanced than that. Painting the picture as black and white and then getting emotional over it helps nobody.
    - Avamander 7y ago
      You can't be pro-freedom and put people in concentration camps. You can't be pro-Muslims and put them into concentration camps. It is that black and white, the things are mutually exclusive.

swordsmith 7y ago

> The CCP, for all its imperfections, has lifted 850 million illiterate peasants out of extreme poverty in a mere few decades This is one of the most frequent arguments by Chinese excusing the actions of CCP. Keep in mind that this is the party that started the cultural revolution, which resulted in 5-10 million deaths due to famine and state-sanctioned purge, destruction of cultural heritage, and forcible seizure of land (all land in China is owned by the state). Yet to this day the details of this history are rarely discussed in school and subjective to censor. A wealthy person who has no affiliation with the Chinese government is vulnerable to predatory action by local government [1] -- a big reason why there are so many wealthy Chinese buying and moving property in foreign countries, and part of why government officials tend to be among the richest in the country. The massive wealth created as a result of private enterprises that end up in the hands of government officials through various methods, is often siphoned out of the country. Imagine if KMT stayed in power, the cultural revolution didn't happen, and private business owners weren't paranoid of the government meddling -- 850 million illiterate peasants were lifted out of extreme poverty despite CCP. Since Xi's rise to power, the anti-corruption campaign has served both to root out some corruption, and at the same time removing his opposition in the party, leading to his limitless term as the party leader. While some speculate Xi may use this as an opportunity to move China toward a more democratic model, there is nothing preventing him and his faction from siphoning more wealth from the country. > The trade-off was made between an authoritarian but stable and prosperous society vs balkanization and endless wars that pre-mature democracies tend to produce. Your whole thesis seems to be based on the economic growth of the country justifies the oppression and corruption. But as the economic growth slows down, at what point is it not enough as a justification? With the tight media country, how would the Chinese people EVEN know what the true state of the economy is? And even if they decided they've had enough, with the growing control of information, communication, and movements, what can they even do at that point? So yeah, fuck CCP [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/01/business/china-parliament-billionaires.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/01/business/china-parliament...

tepidandroid 7y ago
> This is one of the most frequent arguments by Chinese excusing the actions of CCP. Keep in mind that this is the party that started the cultural revolution, which resulted in 5-10 million deaths due to famine and state-sanctioned purge, destruction of cultural heritage, and forcible seizure of land (all land in China is owned by the state). Yet to this day the details of this history are rarely discussed in school and subjective to censor. I don't think it excuses the actions of the CCP, it just contextualizes it. Anyway, I agree with most of these points. I'd just like to comment that many members of the politburo responsible for the terrible policies you've mentioned are no longer alive. It may be the same party in name, but as mentioned in the parent post, the CCP is by all measures quite factional in nature. Right now the hardliners are in charge under Xi's leadership (as you've also pointed out), but the younger reformist factions probably do still have some influence in shaping party policy. The CCP's justification for censoring would probably be that they need to preserve their legitimacy while the country is still in its formative phase. China is often perceived as a superpower (and it likes to promote this view), but the reality is that its nominal per capita GDP is still 1/6th that of the U.S. > A wealthy person who has no affiliation with the Chinese government is vulnerable to predatory action by local government [1] -- a big reason why there are so many wealthy Chinese buying and moving property in foreign countries, and part of why government officials tend to be among the richest in the country. >The massive wealth created as a result of private enterprises that end up in the hands of government officials through various methods, is often siphoned out of the country. I agree with this point also, and it's a very important point to make. One factor that exacerbates this is the sheer wealth creation that has taken place in China, especially in the last 10 years since the great financial crisis. Due to various central bank policies around the world, global credit has never been cheaper nor more plentiful. I'd argue that a lot of Chinese FDI has been a result of wealth spillover from people who have run out of places to park it. > Imagine if KMT stayed in power, the cultural revolution didn't happen, and private business owners weren't paranoid of the government meddling -- 850 million illiterate peasants were lifted out of extreme poverty despite CCP. That could have been one possible future. Another possible future (and more realistic IMO) could have been the disintegration of China as one cohesive nation (basically, another century of humiliation which had only just ended, where China was chopped up and claimed by western powers). The largest driver of CCP policy was probably the collapse of the Soviet Union which was arguably the end result of perestroika and glastnost. CCP members at the time probably saw what happened next (fragmentized nations engaged in endless civil wars) and balked at the thought of reform. Lifting 850 million people out of poverty is no easy feat and is a fact that bears repeating over and over again. > Since Xi's rise to power, the anti-corruption campaign has served both to root out some corruption, and at the same time removing his opposition in the party, leading to his limitless term as the party leader. Agreed. I’d say it’s a trade-off of risks. I personally believe that benevolent dictatorships work the best for developing nations. Leaders like Lee Kuan Yew come to mind. Others, like Suharto, were unbelievably corrupt, but are remembered fondly for creating decades of stability and prosperity. You can move fast and implement policies that need to be implemented without being mired in endless deadlock and debate like in parliamentary systems which tend to yo-yo, with one party undoing all the work of the previous. The risk is that the dictatorship turns sour and policy mistakes are made, resulting in power grabs and instability. This is not to say I’m against parliamentary systems - they work very well for highly educated, wealthy and developed nations. > While some speculate Xi may use this as an opportunity to move China toward a more democratic model, there is nothing preventing him and his faction from siphoning more wealth from the country. Yup. > Your whole thesis seems to be based on the economic growth of the country justifies the oppression and corruption. But as the economic growth slows down, at what point is it not enough as a justification? With the tight media country, how would the Chinese people EVEN know what the true state of the economy is? And even if they decided they've had enough, with the growing control of information, communication, and movements, what can they even do at that point? I don’t think anything can justify oppression and corruption. In an ideal world, there would be none of that. Unfortunately, we live in a very unideal world full of compromises and decisions between lesser evils. We’ll have to see what happens, but my personal belief is that China will move more and more towards glasnost-like policies as time goes on but at its own pace, not at the pace dictated by western powers. Personal freedoms in China in the present day bear no resemblance to the personal freedoms 30, 20, even 10 years ago. The vast majority of Chinese people are able to travel abroad, wear what they want and work where they want. They are able to enjoy the prosperity of the nation with only one caveat: do not do anything that can lead to instability - hence the rise in technological surveillance. There are many nation-state actors that would greatly prefer if the global world order were not disrupted by the rise of China. > So yeah, fuck CCP Surely you mean “fuck the hardline members of the CCP, but hopefully the reformers win out”?