3 ms·

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 strengt

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.
  - luckylion 7y ago
    > there is no sign that civil liberties are anywhere on the horizon The main question is probably what time frame that horizon is. It's hard to predict the future, very, very few people in 1985 (or even in '88) believed the SU would collapse, and yet it did a short time later. "The Chinese are destroying their environment" was a meme, now they are somewhere at the top regarding new sustainable energy installed, and they are fighting pollution (Beijing is in the situation Los Angeles was a few decades ago). > People were fighting for democracy as a response to totalitarian systems which did not provide them with the resources and security they wanted That's what I'm trying to say. People want stuff, and a mostly capitalist, mostly democratic society is good at providing stuff for a large majority of the population. If it wasn't, people would care very little for democracy. Throw us into a hard and long recession and offer a (to the majority of the population) plausible way out via authoritarian measures and, so I believe, you'll be surprised how quickly they'll agree to abandon democracy. Democracy is to most (or to all? a different argument is mostly made by the affluent, and they never need to choose) a means to an end, not an end in itself. The CCP is currently still ranking very favorably compared to "before CCP" with regards to providing stuff. If that changes, or people believe that democracy could provide significantly more with few trade-offs, I expect the general sentiment to change. (Pro tip: want to fuel desire for democracies around the world? Make sure all/most citizens in Western democracies massively profit continuously from the democratic system, not just a minority at the top) Given that civil liberties often follow wealth (it's easy to be generous when you're rich), I don't see why that wouldn't happen in China. They're not at a Western level of wealth yet, and for a significant part of the population, poverty is still the primary concern, not civil liberties. When that has changed, so will demands of the population (though it's unlikely they will too closely follow Western values, given their culture is very different in many regards).
stevens32 7y ago
In a poor country, how are economic development and stability/security not pragmatically the most important values?
- Arn_Thor 7y ago
  There are many, many countries with GDPs per capita lower than China's which have democracy and freedom of speech. It's not an either/or proposition

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.
- luckylion 7y ago
  > there is no sign that civil liberties are anywhere on the horizon The main question is probably what time frame that horizon is. It's hard to predict the future, very, very few people in 1985 (or even in '88) believed the SU would collapse, and yet it did a short time later. "The Chinese are destroying their environment" was a meme, now they are somewhere at the top regarding new sustainable energy installed, and they are fighting pollution (Beijing is in the situation Los Angeles was a few decades ago). > People were fighting for democracy as a response to totalitarian systems which did not provide them with the resources and security they wanted That's what I'm trying to say. People want stuff, and a mostly capitalist, mostly democratic society is good at providing stuff for a large majority of the population. If it wasn't, people would care very little for democracy. Throw us into a hard and long recession and offer a (to the majority of the population) plausible way out via authoritarian measures and, so I believe, you'll be surprised how quickly they'll agree to abandon democracy. Democracy is to most (or to all? a different argument is mostly made by the affluent, and they never need to choose) a means to an end, not an end in itself. The CCP is currently still ranking very favorably compared to "before CCP" with regards to providing stuff. If that changes, or people believe that democracy could provide significantly more with few trade-offs, I expect the general sentiment to change. (Pro tip: want to fuel desire for democracies around the world? Make sure all/most citizens in Western democracies massively profit continuously from the democratic system, not just a minority at the top) Given that civil liberties often follow wealth (it's easy to be generous when you're rich), I don't see why that wouldn't happen in China. They're not at a Western level of wealth yet, and for a significant part of the population, poverty is still the primary concern, not civil liberties. When that has changed, so will demands of the population (though it's unlikely they will too closely follow Western values, given their culture is very different in many regards).

stevens32 7y ago

In a poor country, how are economic development and stability/security not pragmatically the most important values?

Arn_Thor 7y ago
There are many, many countries with GDPs per capita lower than China's which have democracy and freedom of speech. It's not an either/or proposition