6 ms·

Native Chinese here. Hacker news have been a great place to learn new things to me for 5 years. But the political views on Hacker news are somewhat naive to me.

Native Chinese here. Hacker news have been a great place to learn new things to me for 5 years. But the political views on Hacker news are somewhat naive to me. It seems that the Chinese Government is always evil and wrong, but why haven't the government collapsed after so many years if there were no people supporting them? People in China, at least those millions people who are able to cross the Great Firewall, know that democracy is generally good, but they also know that a strong central government can also be useful for certain circumstances. Most westerners and HongKongers on Hacker news have a very extreme political view, you just believe "democracy is good"(TM), protesting against the evil Chinese government is good. But can you take a closer look at what is really happening in HK and then decide what you believe? BTW, I'm neither pro-protester nor pro-police, I think the protest is a result of economic regression in HK. You could also check my comment and posting history to see that I'm not a 五毛党.

chrischen 7y ago
I'm generally anti-Communist party of China, but mostly because I believe their bureaucracy is completely inept. But I have to agree with you, the vast majority of Western-based HN commenters are politically naïve, as if they just stepped out of a high school US government class. The reason is that US education, while it acknowledges the flaws of democracy, also proclaims that it is the only acceptable form of government.
- LilBytes 7y ago
  I dispute this. Democracy is not advertised as the only acceptable form of Government, but it is the fairest and best model we've got. You're creating a straw-man with this argument.
  - chrischen 7y ago
    Firstly, I'm not arguing anything, so there is no straw man. Obviously it's not the only form of government, but we are told that it's the only one that's acceptable. There's no objective evaluation and consideration of any alternative political systems. You prove my point. The idea that it's the fairest and best is also subjective. A government gets its authority from the people, and if the Chinese grant authority to its leaders, even absolute authority, (and you can grant authority by simply being pacifist), then who's to say the Chinese government is illegitimate? You? To them your opinions are illegitimate. Even our government is not a perfect democracy. We do not direct vote the president (Trump lost the popular election), and we are not equally represented in these elections (through gerrymandering, electoral college, etc). So to claim that a democracy, any democracy, or even our own democracy, is somehow the "fairest and best" is extremely disingenuous. These things are justified as a way to prevent "tyranny by the majority", but really it's just another 3/5ths law (black peoples' votes only counted as 3/5ths of a vote)—a way to prevent the redistribution of power. We don't have a perfect government system, which means it's arguable if we have the best system because that would imply there is no room for improvement. Our education system espouses propoganda that our democratic system is the best in the world, as exemplified by LilByte's statement and views. That being said, in my experience, the Chinese system is much worse, but due to incompetent bureaucracy, rather than a fundamental issue with a 1-party system. I'm sure Europeans think their multi-party system is also the "fairest and best" too, at least compared to America's 2 party system. I don't believe the Chinese have a better system, but it's fundamentally flawed to walk around with the assumption that our democracy is the best way out there. One of the big misconceptions of the Chinese political system is that it's something akin to a dictatorship, but it's not. While it has 1-party, internally there are still votes, discourse, and factions. The main difference is that once a decision is made on something, the factions are not allowed to act in their own interest against the unified goals that were already decided on. In the US system, if, say the President has decided something, the opposing party can work to counter his progress in implementing whatever agenda he has decided on. This makes sense to keep one party in check, because if the President is in a different party, he probably has an agenda to ignore the agenda of the opposing party. Civic engagement is also not forced upon people, especially uneducated or ill-informed people. But this doesn't mean that people cannot participate in government.
    - LilBytes 7y ago
      I'm not an advocate for the US Political system. Having grown up in Europe and moved to Australia. Therefore your assumptions that I'd use the US as the benchmark I set for my democratic wishes is misguided and the majority of your argument falls flat as a consequence. Democracy allows the very thing your discouraging, _choice_. Your democracy or rather the US democracy is not my own. And for the arguments you've made, I agree. Fortunately I don't live in the US and never have. Likely never will. Your criticisms of the US version of Democracy are valid, fortunately Democracy allows that recourse and discussion if not out right encourages it. The Chinese political system I cannot imagine would be so welcoming of this type of discourse. That you defend and disguise the Chinese Dictatorship as a potential alternative to Democracy, this argument leaves me flabbergasted.
      - Aeolun 7y ago
        Clearly it is an alternative to democracy. It’s existed more or less successfully for some 80 years now. The question is if it’s really a place any of us (who grew up in a democracy) would want to live. The ethos of the CCP is just fundamentally incompatible with my own worldview, even though I can admit to their effectiveness so far. I’m not really willing to accept the existence of such a country in my world either.
        LilBytes 7y ago
        Yes, totalitarian dictatorships are a literal alternative to Democracy, though I feel we're nitpicking on the semantics of my words here. When I say I don't see Totalitarian Dictatorships as an alternative, I don't mean in the literal sense, I mean in the viable sense. In the literal sense, yes, it's an alternative to Democracy. As is building a house on sand is a literal but not viable alternative to building a house on concrete. I don't think many would want to live under a Chinese authoritarian rule given the Democratic alternatives. Or perhaps they would until they're rounded up in Xinjiang camps, shot in the face with rubber bullets for wanting to protect their current way of life or ran over by Tanks by asking for change to better their way of life. But if we've seen what the conversations that are occurring in China about these violent acts taken by the CCP, it's clear the populace think it's in their best interests at this time. Though it's worth adding that the message we receive about the CCP's actions is very different to those living in China. I recommend anyone to watch the documentary created by Vice below about the atrocities that are occurring in Xinjiang and the first hand opinions of those that live there. I would guess the opinions of those being interviewed are honest with a side of oppression. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7AYyUqrMuQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7AYyUqrMuQ
adammenges 7y ago
This doesn’t make sense. The slaving government in ancient Egypt was supported for a long time. Just because a form of government exists doesn’t mean it isn’t abusive to some of it’s people or to other countries.
- Leary 7y ago
  Just because a government is abusive to some of its people doesn't mean it has no value. Just look at the US
  - 0xdeadb00f 7y ago
    The US is in an awful state. But they don't treat their own people as bad as China has. Is there an equivalent instance of the Tiananmen Square massacre in the US? (I'm asking, I don't know). The US has their fair share of issues but freedom to speak against the government has always been a big thing.
  - egdod 7y ago
    The US government isn't abusive to its people though.
    - girvo 7y ago
      You can make a decent argument that it has been, and definitely is sometimes, for certain definitions of "government" and subsections of people. Whataboutism is lazy though, and I do find it telling that the go-to argument a lot of pro-China commenters across platforms use is exactly that...
      - egdod 7y ago
        When slavery was legal, sure. But in the last, say, 50 years (e.g., since the 64 Civil Rights Act)? I don't see it. Also, I'm not aware of multiple definitions for the US government.
        7y ago
ryacko 7y ago
People generally are naive. Many things can be said about that, I recommend reading Leary’s eight-circuit model of consciousness. Why do people support bad governments? I recommend reading about Havel's greengrocer. Obviously the Chinese government is capable of doing some things right or it would, as you say, collapse.
- ospider 7y ago
  Thanks, books added to my reading list.
Hello71 7y ago
> Most westerners and HongKongers on Hacker news have a very extreme political view, you just believe "democracy is good"(TM) this is itself a very extreme statement. can you provide sources of such claims? I would agree there is a general sentiment of "CCP is bad", but there are similar consternations about many governments, usually the US government.
CameronNemo 7y ago
I cannot speak for the general US populous, but if California were protesting a decision by the US federal government, I would want your support. It is exactly because of their power that large institutions should be treated with caution. They can be tools for progress or oppression.
Arn_Thor 7y ago
IMO the CCP gets its legitimacy to govern from its performance in some key areas: economic development and stability/security. That plays to the party's strengths, so the state-controlled media has actively promoted the view that these factors are the most important. Note how issues like the environment and health care were very much put on the back burner until public awareness and criticism reached a critical threshold, after which the party acknowledged the issues. So it's no surprise that the CCP enjoys a broad level of support on the mainland—it has performed well in the key areas it has convinced people matters most. In a liberal democracy, on the other hand, people expect much more responsiveness to their concerns. And people tend to value freedom of expression and freedom from suppression. Those values are treasured in Hong Kong. So no wonder mainlanders and HKers have different outlooks on this issue.
- luckylion 7y ago
  > the state-controlled media has actively promoted the view that these factors are the most important Or those are the most important factors and that's why they are optimizing for them first. Carville's slogan for Bill Clinton was "It's the economy, stupid", and it's plausible at least. What good does a healthy environment if you don't have food to eat? What good does economic progress if you don't have security? The West has operated very similarly imho, we're just further along. Environmentalism is still fairly young, and so are today's social safety nets (well, in Europe anyway). I don't see a reason why the Chinese wouldn't follow on that route (and indeed they are starting to care for the environment more). > In a liberal democracy, on the other hand, people expect much more responsiveness to their concerns. And people tend to value freedom of expression and freedom from suppression. But that's only because the basic needs are generally taken care of. I don't see any liberal democracy valuing freedom over food security (en masse, certainly some happily value their freedom over the food security of others in society).
  - Arn_Thor 7y ago
    > I don't see a reason why the Chinese wouldn't follow on that route That was the hope and belief behind Nixon's trip to China, and the inclusion of China into the WTO. But with Xi taking power, arguably the most totalitarian leader in China since Mao, there is no sign that civil liberties are anywhere on the horizon. > But that's only because the basic needs are generally taken care of. History does not agree with you, I think. People were fighting for democracy as a response to totalitarian systems which did not provide them with the resources and security they wanted—even before the age of plenty brought about by industrialization. And when the west was democratized, a lot of those countries were ravaged by two world wars, and far behind where China is today. And when it all got underway, were not the ideals of the enlightenment in large part a counter to monarchies and feudalism which failed to provide what the people needed? If one sets aside the notion that without freedom, a plentiful existence loses its meaning (which is another, philosophical argument), I think the fight for representation in government is precisely a fight to achieve one's economic and social goals.
noelsusman 7y ago
I don't think anyone who has thought about government for more than a few minutes believes that democracy is a form of government without significant downsides. Authoritarian governments have many advantages over democracies. An easy example is the current trade war. Authoritarian governments have a much easier time weathering pain for a long term benefit than democracies who change leaders every four years. The Chinese government survives for the same reason every authoritarian government has survived throughout history. Overthrowing governments is really hard and requires truly extreme circumstances. That's the core problem that democracy solves. Overthrowing a democratic government is as easy as checking a box on a form. Overthrowing an authoritarian government requires violence.
- luckylion 7y ago
  > Overthrowing a democratic government is as easy as checking a box on a form. Yes and no. You're changing the representatives of the government, but the general circumstances are largely continuing. You don't see a large turn when a new government is elected in a democracy, which you would if it was "overthrown", imho. Similarly, you won't see a large turn in an authoritarian society if the president changes, because in both cases, "the system" remains the same, and changing the face of the system doesn't fundamentally change anything.
  - Riverheart 7y ago
    Well you might if Congress was overhauled but most of them get re-elected without term limits. People often mistake the President for some kind of autocrat who can make arbitrary decisions when the real power is in the legislature.
shawndrost 7y ago
Really interesting to read about your perspective. Thank you for sharing. Quick follow-up question. Do you believe this [1] is a legitimate transmission from the CCP? What are your thoughts about it? [1] https://pincong.rocks/article/3572 https://pincong.rocks/article/3572
- ospider 7y ago
  It could be true. The Publicity Department of CCP or its branches did issue files like this one in the past. However, posts on this site are all blindly anti-CCP, which make me doubt the legitimacy of this file. Also, there is a mistake in this file, 三(three) was used twice.
adamsea 7y ago
Don’t worry we criticize the U.S. government too ;-)
BucketSort 7y ago
> but why haven't the government collapsed after so many years if there were no people supporting them? Totalitarianism?
actuator 7y ago
Maybe people(Han Chinese) are not protesting because they know what happens if you protest, look at what happened in Tianamen square. Also, the people who are protesting are crushed like what happens in Tibet or Xinjiang. A strong central government might be good for the majority but surely when it suppresses the minorities to just get them in line with the rest, you can't overlook that.
- mnming 7y ago
  This is unfortunately wrong. Most people in China don't protest because: 1. they don't get enough benefit from protesting 2. they are happy Most fellows on HN, respectfully, barely has any understanding on how CCP works internally. Do they imagine that a bunch of Chinese officials form a party just to think about how to enslave/suppress people and inhale money everyday? It's all about national interest, people are just pawn. On the HK matter: CCP brainwashes Chinese by amplifying the violent aspect of the protest. Western media brainwashes westerners by understating the damage caused by protest and glorifying their actions. At the end of day, none of this matters. Power is power. Someone will figure out how to "fix" HK's education system. Leaders of protest go to good US uni on scholarship and have a good life. Fugitives will still need to be handled somehow. Game of monopoly will continue. Life will go on.
ksec 7y ago
>Most westerners and HongKongers on Hacker news have a very extreme political view, you just believe "democracy is good"(TM), That is not true. I used to dislike Democracy, and some what Pro Authoritarianism when I was young. It is how you get things done. Until you grow old and have a much wider view to balance. Democracy is the worst form of government. It is not like we don't know what crap and shit democracy brings us. Constant arguing and struggle against one and other, but it is also the only one that works. It brings Order within Chaos. Democracy is the only system that can contain two ( or more ) opposing force, and anyone will always have the Option to choose. Being able to choose is important. Freedom isn't about doing what you what, it is about having the option of saying No to things you don't want to. The need for Democracy wan't obvious until you have been on the oppressed side. Right now the option of saying No is slowly and gradually being taken away in Hong Kong. >I think the protest is a result of economic regression in HK Yes and No. First there isn't any economic regression in HK. Second it is the wealth inequality that is the highest in any developed nation, and the 2nd part cant be solved without having a government that work with Hong Kong people, not against it.
socrates1998 7y ago
It's almost impossible for westerners to conceive of living in a society without a strong and independent judicial system and without being able to vote for their political leaders. Westerners in general deeply value their political voice and freedoms. And since the Chinese government doesn't value these at all, then you can't blame us for thinking that the Chinese government does very few things right.

chrischen 7y ago

I'm generally anti-Communist party of China, but mostly because I believe their bureaucracy is completely inept. But I have to agree with you, the vast majority of Western-based HN commenters are politically naïve, as if they just stepped out of a high school US government class. The reason is that US education, while it acknowledges the flaws of democracy, also proclaims that it is the only acceptable form of government.

LilBytes 7y ago
I dispute this. Democracy is not advertised as the only acceptable form of Government, but it is the fairest and best model we've got. You're creating a straw-man with this argument.
- chrischen 7y ago
  Firstly, I'm not arguing anything, so there is no straw man. Obviously it's not the only form of government, but we are told that it's the only one that's acceptable. There's no objective evaluation and consideration of any alternative political systems. You prove my point. The idea that it's the fairest and best is also subjective. A government gets its authority from the people, and if the Chinese grant authority to its leaders, even absolute authority, (and you can grant authority by simply being pacifist), then who's to say the Chinese government is illegitimate? You? To them your opinions are illegitimate. Even our government is not a perfect democracy. We do not direct vote the president (Trump lost the popular election), and we are not equally represented in these elections (through gerrymandering, electoral college, etc). So to claim that a democracy, any democracy, or even our own democracy, is somehow the "fairest and best" is extremely disingenuous. These things are justified as a way to prevent "tyranny by the majority", but really it's just another 3/5ths law (black peoples' votes only counted as 3/5ths of a vote)—a way to prevent the redistribution of power. We don't have a perfect government system, which means it's arguable if we have the best system because that would imply there is no room for improvement. Our education system espouses propoganda that our democratic system is the best in the world, as exemplified by LilByte's statement and views. That being said, in my experience, the Chinese system is much worse, but due to incompetent bureaucracy, rather than a fundamental issue with a 1-party system. I'm sure Europeans think their multi-party system is also the "fairest and best" too, at least compared to America's 2 party system. I don't believe the Chinese have a better system, but it's fundamentally flawed to walk around with the assumption that our democracy is the best way out there. One of the big misconceptions of the Chinese political system is that it's something akin to a dictatorship, but it's not. While it has 1-party, internally there are still votes, discourse, and factions. The main difference is that once a decision is made on something, the factions are not allowed to act in their own interest against the unified goals that were already decided on. In the US system, if, say the President has decided something, the opposing party can work to counter his progress in implementing whatever agenda he has decided on. This makes sense to keep one party in check, because if the President is in a different party, he probably has an agenda to ignore the agenda of the opposing party. Civic engagement is also not forced upon people, especially uneducated or ill-informed people. But this doesn't mean that people cannot participate in government.
  - LilBytes 7y ago
    I'm not an advocate for the US Political system. Having grown up in Europe and moved to Australia. Therefore your assumptions that I'd use the US as the benchmark I set for my democratic wishes is misguided and the majority of your argument falls flat as a consequence. Democracy allows the very thing your discouraging, _choice_. Your democracy or rather the US democracy is not my own. And for the arguments you've made, I agree. Fortunately I don't live in the US and never have. Likely never will. Your criticisms of the US version of Democracy are valid, fortunately Democracy allows that recourse and discussion if not out right encourages it. The Chinese political system I cannot imagine would be so welcoming of this type of discourse. That you defend and disguise the Chinese Dictatorship as a potential alternative to Democracy, this argument leaves me flabbergasted.
    - Aeolun 7y ago
      Clearly it is an alternative to democracy. It’s existed more or less successfully for some 80 years now. The question is if it’s really a place any of us (who grew up in a democracy) would want to live. The ethos of the CCP is just fundamentally incompatible with my own worldview, even though I can admit to their effectiveness so far. I’m not really willing to accept the existence of such a country in my world either.
      - LilBytes 7y ago
        Yes, totalitarian dictatorships are a literal alternative to Democracy, though I feel we're nitpicking on the semantics of my words here. When I say I don't see Totalitarian Dictatorships as an alternative, I don't mean in the literal sense, I mean in the viable sense. In the literal sense, yes, it's an alternative to Democracy. As is building a house on sand is a literal but not viable alternative to building a house on concrete. I don't think many would want to live under a Chinese authoritarian rule given the Democratic alternatives. Or perhaps they would until they're rounded up in Xinjiang camps, shot in the face with rubber bullets for wanting to protect their current way of life or ran over by Tanks by asking for change to better their way of life. But if we've seen what the conversations that are occurring in China about these violent acts taken by the CCP, it's clear the populace think it's in their best interests at this time. Though it's worth adding that the message we receive about the CCP's actions is very different to those living in China. I recommend anyone to watch the documentary created by Vice below about the atrocities that are occurring in Xinjiang and the first hand opinions of those that live there. I would guess the opinions of those being interviewed are honest with a side of oppression. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7AYyUqrMuQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7AYyUqrMuQ

adammenges 7y ago

This doesn’t make sense. The slaving government in ancient Egypt was supported for a long time. Just because a form of government exists doesn’t mean it isn’t abusive to some of it’s people or to other countries.

Leary 7y ago
Just because a government is abusive to some of its people doesn't mean it has no value. Just look at the US
- 0xdeadb00f 7y ago
  The US is in an awful state. But they don't treat their own people as bad as China has. Is there an equivalent instance of the Tiananmen Square massacre in the US? (I'm asking, I don't know). The US has their fair share of issues but freedom to speak against the government has always been a big thing.
- egdod 7y ago
  The US government isn't abusive to its people though.
  - girvo 7y ago
    You can make a decent argument that it has been, and definitely is sometimes, for certain definitions of "government" and subsections of people. Whataboutism is lazy though, and I do find it telling that the go-to argument a lot of pro-China commenters across platforms use is exactly that...
    - egdod 7y ago
      When slavery was legal, sure. But in the last, say, 50 years (e.g., since the 64 Civil Rights Act)? I don't see it. Also, I'm not aware of multiple definitions for the US government.
      - 7y ago

ryacko 7y ago

People generally are naive. Many things can be said about that, I recommend reading Leary’s eight-circuit model of consciousness. Why do people support bad governments? I recommend reading about Havel's greengrocer. Obviously the Chinese government is capable of doing some things right or it would, as you say, collapse.

ospider 7y ago
Thanks, books added to my reading list.

Hello71 7y ago

> Most westerners and HongKongers on Hacker news have a very extreme political view, you just believe "democracy is good"(TM) this is itself a very extreme statement. can you provide sources of such claims? I would agree there is a general sentiment of "CCP is bad", but there are similar consternations about many governments, usually the US government.

CameronNemo 7y ago

I cannot speak for the general US populous, but if California were protesting a decision by the US federal government, I would want your support. It is exactly because of their power that large institutions should be treated with caution. They can be tools for progress or oppression.

Arn_Thor 7y ago

IMO the CCP gets its legitimacy to govern from its performance in some key areas: economic development and stability/security. That plays to the party's strengths, so the state-controlled media has actively promoted the view that these factors are the most important. Note how issues like the environment and health care were very much put on the back burner until public awareness and criticism reached a critical threshold, after which the party acknowledged the issues. So it's no surprise that the CCP enjoys a broad level of support on the mainland—it has performed well in the key areas it has convinced people matters most. In a liberal democracy, on the other hand, people expect much more responsiveness to their concerns. And people tend to value freedom of expression and freedom from suppression. Those values are treasured in Hong Kong. So no wonder mainlanders and HKers have different outlooks on this issue.

luckylion 7y ago
> the state-controlled media has actively promoted the view that these factors are the most important Or those are the most important factors and that's why they are optimizing for them first. Carville's slogan for Bill Clinton was "It's the economy, stupid", and it's plausible at least. What good does a healthy environment if you don't have food to eat? What good does economic progress if you don't have security? The West has operated very similarly imho, we're just further along. Environmentalism is still fairly young, and so are today's social safety nets (well, in Europe anyway). I don't see a reason why the Chinese wouldn't follow on that route (and indeed they are starting to care for the environment more). > In a liberal democracy, on the other hand, people expect much more responsiveness to their concerns. And people tend to value freedom of expression and freedom from suppression. But that's only because the basic needs are generally taken care of. I don't see any liberal democracy valuing freedom over food security (en masse, certainly some happily value their freedom over the food security of others in society).
- Arn_Thor 7y ago
  > I don't see a reason why the Chinese wouldn't follow on that route That was the hope and belief behind Nixon's trip to China, and the inclusion of China into the WTO. But with Xi taking power, arguably the most totalitarian leader in China since Mao, there is no sign that civil liberties are anywhere on the horizon. > But that's only because the basic needs are generally taken care of. History does not agree with you, I think. People were fighting for democracy as a response to totalitarian systems which did not provide them with the resources and security they wanted—even before the age of plenty brought about by industrialization. And when the west was democratized, a lot of those countries were ravaged by two world wars, and far behind where China is today. And when it all got underway, were not the ideals of the enlightenment in large part a counter to monarchies and feudalism which failed to provide what the people needed? If one sets aside the notion that without freedom, a plentiful existence loses its meaning (which is another, philosophical argument), I think the fight for representation in government is precisely a fight to achieve one's economic and social goals.

noelsusman 7y ago

I don't think anyone who has thought about government for more than a few minutes believes that democracy is a form of government without significant downsides. Authoritarian governments have many advantages over democracies. An easy example is the current trade war. Authoritarian governments have a much easier time weathering pain for a long term benefit than democracies who change leaders every four years. The Chinese government survives for the same reason every authoritarian government has survived throughout history. Overthrowing governments is really hard and requires truly extreme circumstances. That's the core problem that democracy solves. Overthrowing a democratic government is as easy as checking a box on a form. Overthrowing an authoritarian government requires violence.

luckylion 7y ago
> Overthrowing a democratic government is as easy as checking a box on a form. Yes and no. You're changing the representatives of the government, but the general circumstances are largely continuing. You don't see a large turn when a new government is elected in a democracy, which you would if it was "overthrown", imho. Similarly, you won't see a large turn in an authoritarian society if the president changes, because in both cases, "the system" remains the same, and changing the face of the system doesn't fundamentally change anything.
- Riverheart 7y ago
  Well you might if Congress was overhauled but most of them get re-elected without term limits. People often mistake the President for some kind of autocrat who can make arbitrary decisions when the real power is in the legislature.

shawndrost 7y ago

Really interesting to read about your perspective. Thank you for sharing. Quick follow-up question. Do you believe this [1] is a legitimate transmission from the CCP? What are your thoughts about it? [1] https://pincong.rocks/article/3572 https://pincong.rocks/article/3572

ospider 7y ago
It could be true. The Publicity Department of CCP or its branches did issue files like this one in the past. However, posts on this site are all blindly anti-CCP, which make me doubt the legitimacy of this file. Also, there is a mistake in this file, 三(three) was used twice.

adamsea 7y ago

Don’t worry we criticize the U.S. government too ;-)

BucketSort 7y ago

> but why haven't the government collapsed after so many years if there were no people supporting them? Totalitarianism?

actuator 7y ago

Maybe people(Han Chinese) are not protesting because they know what happens if you protest, look at what happened in Tianamen square. Also, the people who are protesting are crushed like what happens in Tibet or Xinjiang. A strong central government might be good for the majority but surely when it suppresses the minorities to just get them in line with the rest, you can't overlook that.

mnming 7y ago
This is unfortunately wrong. Most people in China don't protest because: 1. they don't get enough benefit from protesting 2. they are happy Most fellows on HN, respectfully, barely has any understanding on how CCP works internally. Do they imagine that a bunch of Chinese officials form a party just to think about how to enslave/suppress people and inhale money everyday? It's all about national interest, people are just pawn. On the HK matter: CCP brainwashes Chinese by amplifying the violent aspect of the protest. Western media brainwashes westerners by understating the damage caused by protest and glorifying their actions. At the end of day, none of this matters. Power is power. Someone will figure out how to "fix" HK's education system. Leaders of protest go to good US uni on scholarship and have a good life. Fugitives will still need to be handled somehow. Game of monopoly will continue. Life will go on.

ksec 7y ago

>Most westerners and HongKongers on Hacker news have a very extreme political view, you just believe "democracy is good"(TM), That is not true. I used to dislike Democracy, and some what Pro Authoritarianism when I was young. It is how you get things done. Until you grow old and have a much wider view to balance. Democracy is the worst form of government. It is not like we don't know what crap and shit democracy brings us. Constant arguing and struggle against one and other, but it is also the only one that works. It brings Order within Chaos. Democracy is the only system that can contain two ( or more ) opposing force, and anyone will always have the Option to choose. Being able to choose is important. Freedom isn't about doing what you what, it is about having the option of saying No to things you don't want to. The need for Democracy wan't obvious until you have been on the oppressed side. Right now the option of saying No is slowly and gradually being taken away in Hong Kong. >I think the protest is a result of economic regression in HK Yes and No. First there isn't any economic regression in HK. Second it is the wealth inequality that is the highest in any developed nation, and the 2nd part cant be solved without having a government that work with Hong Kong people, not against it.

socrates1998 7y ago

It's almost impossible for westerners to conceive of living in a society without a strong and independent judicial system and without being able to vote for their political leaders. Westerners in general deeply value their political voice and freedoms. And since the Chinese government doesn't value these at all, then you can't blame us for thinking that the Chinese government does very few things right.