3 ms·

> Everyone thought that as new countries got richer, they would follow in the steps of western values (democracy, free markets, etc.). This is the key idea tha

by api 6y ago

> Everyone thought that as new countries got richer, they would follow in the steps of western values (democracy, free markets, etc.). This is the key idea that has failed: the idea that prosperity equals or leads to social liberalism and human rights, or that the two are interdependent. This idea appears to be wrong, having been disproven by China. Totalitarianism and prosperity can co-exist just fine. Totalitarianism and capitalism can even co-exist to a degree, with the totalitarian tendency to kneecap the extremely wealthy being outweighed by the totalitarian ability to forcibly suppress workers' rights movements and pushes for higher wages. Totalitarians can also backstop the economy, stepping in in the event of a crash and forcing number to go up by edict. That benefits the investor class at the expense of the working class by effectively writing down wages and inflating assets. This means utilitarian arguments for freedom and human rights fail. That's a big deal and undermines at least a half century of libertarian and neoliberal talking points. It means human rights must be argued for on purely spiritual, moral/ethical, or hedonic grounds, not utilitarian grounds. I think the collapse of this key idea is as much a driver of the global push-back against globalism as working class economic concerns and cultural xenophobia, if not more. Human beings are philosophical beings and coherent narratives and ideas matter to us. When China showed that you could have totalitarianism and prosperity, the bottom fell out of the argument for the whole project.

gfiorav 6y ago
Yes, pretty much agree. I'll say that in the end people want their freedom. I didn't believe this until the lockdown. Being told what to do is something that makes you instantly appreciate freedom. There will always be revolt, given enough time. CCP have outdone themselves in that department though. They've learnt from USSR and Cuba. In USSR/Cuba people know. They talk to outsiders and realize the don't live like they're better. China has learnt and told their citizens that they're bullied everywhere so the CCP was made to protect them. Genius really.
- api 6y ago
  The CCP is also building a surveillance state that may allow them to preemptively shut down any dissent before it gains any traction and do so in real time. Unlike most Western states there isn't even a pretense of legal or constitutional restraint. They can surveil with total impunity and more importantly use that data with total impunity. Western governments are at least constrained on the second part if not the first. That is fucking scary. We have invented a set of technologies that could be used to create an un-overthrowable dictatorship and permanently enslave the human race... to get people to click ads.
  - gfiorav 6y ago
    CCP are a bunch of ignorant mediocres. Don’t give them more merit than they deserve
    - orestarod 6y ago
      Why do you think that? Do you think those at the top who set the national strategy are mediocre? China's present position could not have been achieved by mediocre members.
      - gfiorav 6y ago
        It has been achieved thanks to the heaps of cash that the entire world has thrown at China. Part of what made it work was some good ideas "some" people at the very top had, but they've reverted those decisions and the effects are starting to show (you now need contacts in the government to start new stuff, didn't use to be the case). Of course, with time, any approach expires. The new approach is lacking. Not surprising considering the finger-picked positions.
- tjs8rj 6y ago
  Do people want their freedom? For many people even today there’s a strong desire for comfort, familiarity, duty, etc over freedom. We aren’t allowed to urinate in public, even if we are careful to avoid making a mess, a health hazard, or to flash anyone - because we’ve deemed that freedom not worth the costs to comfort in walking your streets without people peeing in public. You can’t own military grade artillery anymore, you can’t curse on the radio, you can’t work as a child, you can’t purchase cigarettes under 18, you can’t even legally drive or even prove your capable of driving safely before 16 (much less vote). There’s plenty of freedoms we forgo for some degree of security and comfort, and we wanted a different balance of freedom, security, and comfort just a few years ago, or decades ago, and we’ll likely want a different balance in 10 more years. Plenty of people in 2020 were totally fine with fines and enforced curfews in light of protests, riots, and pandemic. Freedom doesn’t seem like a true north for humans
  - api 6y ago
    That's why I said freedom and human rights. Certain extreme expressions of subjective human freedom can harm people more broadly. Someone building an atomic bomb in their basement is a threat to my human rights, as is a company blowing unfiltered coal smoke all over my town. Enough people emitting enough fossil CO2 globally might threaten the rights (and damage the property) of a vast number of people. Enough people refusing to vaccinate might even be a threat (though this has to be evaluated carefully), since they're increasing my odds of contracting a disease. Balancing absolute freedom with human rights and the broader experience of liberty and prosperity is as we would say an "AI hard problem." There exists no simple set of rules that when followed will always yield a positive result. It requires a continuous input of fully engaged intelligence and a continuous deliberative political process. What we can say is that certain things do not do this. One-party totalitarian surveillance states, grievance-based populism, fascism, or Russia-style mafia-theocracy do not do this.
  - gfiorav 6y ago
    It’s a layered problem: If the economy is good, then yes. If the circumstances are daring enough, then yes. Otherwise no
garfieldnate 6y ago
I don't think it's correct to say that the idea of prosperity and liberalism being linked has been disproven. China is very concerned generally with appearing prosperous, but they're generally not very forthcoming about the wellbeing of their citizens. If you're a Uighur right now, for example, things might not seem so rosy to you.
- orestarod 6y ago
  Uighurs are not in a rosy situation because they have not chosen submission to the rulers and their directives. If they had, do you think they would have it hard?

by api 6y ago

gfiorav 6y ago

Yes, pretty much agree. I'll say that in the end people want their freedom. I didn't believe this until the lockdown. Being told what to do is something that makes you instantly appreciate freedom. There will always be revolt, given enough time. CCP have outdone themselves in that department though. They've learnt from USSR and Cuba. In USSR/Cuba people know. They talk to outsiders and realize the don't live like they're better. China has learnt and told their citizens that they're bullied everywhere so the CCP was made to protect them. Genius really.

api 6y ago
The CCP is also building a surveillance state that may allow them to preemptively shut down any dissent before it gains any traction and do so in real time. Unlike most Western states there isn't even a pretense of legal or constitutional restraint. They can surveil with total impunity and more importantly use that data with total impunity. Western governments are at least constrained on the second part if not the first. That is fucking scary. We have invented a set of technologies that could be used to create an un-overthrowable dictatorship and permanently enslave the human race... to get people to click ads.
- gfiorav 6y ago
  CCP are a bunch of ignorant mediocres. Don’t give them more merit than they deserve
  - orestarod 6y ago
    Why do you think that? Do you think those at the top who set the national strategy are mediocre? China's present position could not have been achieved by mediocre members.
    - gfiorav 6y ago
      It has been achieved thanks to the heaps of cash that the entire world has thrown at China. Part of what made it work was some good ideas "some" people at the very top had, but they've reverted those decisions and the effects are starting to show (you now need contacts in the government to start new stuff, didn't use to be the case). Of course, with time, any approach expires. The new approach is lacking. Not surprising considering the finger-picked positions.
tjs8rj 6y ago
Do people want their freedom? For many people even today there’s a strong desire for comfort, familiarity, duty, etc over freedom. We aren’t allowed to urinate in public, even if we are careful to avoid making a mess, a health hazard, or to flash anyone - because we’ve deemed that freedom not worth the costs to comfort in walking your streets without people peeing in public. You can’t own military grade artillery anymore, you can’t curse on the radio, you can’t work as a child, you can’t purchase cigarettes under 18, you can’t even legally drive or even prove your capable of driving safely before 16 (much less vote). There’s plenty of freedoms we forgo for some degree of security and comfort, and we wanted a different balance of freedom, security, and comfort just a few years ago, or decades ago, and we’ll likely want a different balance in 10 more years. Plenty of people in 2020 were totally fine with fines and enforced curfews in light of protests, riots, and pandemic. Freedom doesn’t seem like a true north for humans
- api 6y ago
  That's why I said freedom and human rights. Certain extreme expressions of subjective human freedom can harm people more broadly. Someone building an atomic bomb in their basement is a threat to my human rights, as is a company blowing unfiltered coal smoke all over my town. Enough people emitting enough fossil CO2 globally might threaten the rights (and damage the property) of a vast number of people. Enough people refusing to vaccinate might even be a threat (though this has to be evaluated carefully), since they're increasing my odds of contracting a disease. Balancing absolute freedom with human rights and the broader experience of liberty and prosperity is as we would say an "AI hard problem." There exists no simple set of rules that when followed will always yield a positive result. It requires a continuous input of fully engaged intelligence and a continuous deliberative political process. What we can say is that certain things do not do this. One-party totalitarian surveillance states, grievance-based populism, fascism, or Russia-style mafia-theocracy do not do this.
- gfiorav 6y ago
  It’s a layered problem: If the economy is good, then yes. If the circumstances are daring enough, then yes. Otherwise no

garfieldnate 6y ago

I don't think it's correct to say that the idea of prosperity and liberalism being linked has been disproven. China is very concerned generally with appearing prosperous, but they're generally not very forthcoming about the wellbeing of their citizens. If you're a Uighur right now, for example, things might not seem so rosy to you.

orestarod 6y ago
Uighurs are not in a rosy situation because they have not chosen submission to the rulers and their directives. If they had, do you think they would have it hard?