2 ms·

Individuals are not the collective. Not only is it inaccurate as a generalization, but it personifies the collective. A nation state is an abstract concept. Pol

Individuals are not the collective. Not only is it inaccurate as a generalization, but it personifies the collective. A nation state is an abstract concept. Politicians and leaders act. Individuals may agree or disagree. Abstractions have no agency. This is most apparent for me in the false narrative of, "China lifted a billion people out of poverty". Unpack that one. This advancement is relative to a largely agrarian society which was then subjected to the Great Leap Forward. Loosening your grip on the victim's neck isn't the same as performing the Heimlich maneuver. China, the nation advanced economically. Business people worked together to develop an economy. These individuals are the real heroes, not the state. They prevailed despite government regulations, corruption and central planning. Going back to the propaganda narrative, how much better off would the people of China be if they were not under the yoke of the CCP? From there it is not only easy to see how this narrative is inaccurate, but a toxic mistruth in service of authoritarians. The distinction is important. https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2012-mapping-chinas-red-nobility/ https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2012-mapping-chinas-red-n...

Supermancho 5y ago
> Individuals are not the collective. Not only is it inaccurate as a generalization, but it personifies the collective. A nation state is an abstract concept. A nation state (which is a political organization) is the way that populations interact on the political stage. A nation state presents representatives which uniformly have a manner of control over the population and the forces (eg economic and/or social and/or military) that population can wield. So this "abstract concept" is not relevant in any way to the discussion. China is whatever the CCP says it is, because they can do all the things a nation state might want to do (imprison, slaughter, wage war, nationalize industry, etc). > This is most apparent for me in the false narrative of, "China lifted a billion people out of poverty". It's a misrepresentation of history by omission, but it's not false by any stretch. I don't think it's impressive given the historical context, but all sorts of governments use information without context as slogans. I'm not surprised the slogan is so limited. It lifted multiple billions out of poverty by putting them in the ground. > China, the nation advanced economically. Business people worked together to develop an economy. These individuals are the real heroes, not the state. They aren't China. They operate there at the CCPs whims. I am confident these individuals operate there because the CCP allows it and doesn't want what they have (yet). > Going back to the propaganda narrative, how much better off would the people of China be if they were not under the yoke of the CCP? We are talking about the China of today. Telling someone to make a distinction because you want to discuss about China's future or even alternate past is a derail. GL with whatever.
- int_19h 5y ago
  A nation-state is not the way that populations interact on the political stage, but rather the way the elites that rule those populations do. You're correct in that the elites are who defines what the "nation-state of China" is, but that doesn't mean that they speak for the "people of China". (It should be noted that this also goes for the vast majority of nation-states.)
  - bordercases 5y ago
    This will be false to whatever extent the nation-state can directly influence the behaviour of the population, making the population an apparatus of the state. And this will be true as long as the government can simultaneously be seen as just or powerful, while additionally having the government expand their influence to punish people who don't believe in its justice or power. Both these conditions are true in China. The perception of legitimacy in the government is the only variable that can vary freely enough to contradict the claim that individuals are distinguishable from the state. However, this perception can be controlled if you can manipulate the livelihood of the individuals to stay in line, by e.g. monopolizing payment, communication, and reputation. So guess what. China's influence on its population directly has only been growing and the way it yields the influence of its citizens to grow power in the West (without resorting to kinetic violence, leaving lawfare/financial warfare/demographic warfare/tech-transfer/propaganda/cabinet stacking) has only become more apparent.
bordercases 5y ago
Most of the "nuance" here is screened off by the questions, "do individuals in China act in China's interests as articulated by the CCP or not?", and "would they ever do otherwise if not located in China or under the influence of China's laws?" For the former, I don't think the numbers overall add up to the relevance of the distinction you're making here, even if it's just the CCP being strict and wielding a lot of domestic power. For the latter, it's a big hypothetical but Chinese influence overseas through NGOs and banking and students doing tech-transfer/brain drain etc also works in disfavour of it being true in the large, except for maybe Hong Kongers and Taiwanese with no strong mainland connections.

Supermancho 5y ago

> Individuals are not the collective. Not only is it inaccurate as a generalization, but it personifies the collective. A nation state is an abstract concept. A nation state (which is a political organization) is the way that populations interact on the political stage. A nation state presents representatives which uniformly have a manner of control over the population and the forces (eg economic and/or social and/or military) that population can wield. So this "abstract concept" is not relevant in any way to the discussion. China is whatever the CCP says it is, because they can do all the things a nation state might want to do (imprison, slaughter, wage war, nationalize industry, etc). > This is most apparent for me in the false narrative of, "China lifted a billion people out of poverty". It's a misrepresentation of history by omission, but it's not false by any stretch. I don't think it's impressive given the historical context, but all sorts of governments use information without context as slogans. I'm not surprised the slogan is so limited. It lifted multiple billions out of poverty by putting them in the ground. > China, the nation advanced economically. Business people worked together to develop an economy. These individuals are the real heroes, not the state. They aren't China. They operate there at the CCPs whims. I am confident these individuals operate there because the CCP allows it and doesn't want what they have (yet). > Going back to the propaganda narrative, how much better off would the people of China be if they were not under the yoke of the CCP? We are talking about the China of today. Telling someone to make a distinction because you want to discuss about China's future or even alternate past is a derail. GL with whatever.

int_19h 5y ago
A nation-state is not the way that populations interact on the political stage, but rather the way the elites that rule those populations do. You're correct in that the elites are who defines what the "nation-state of China" is, but that doesn't mean that they speak for the "people of China". (It should be noted that this also goes for the vast majority of nation-states.)
- bordercases 5y ago
  This will be false to whatever extent the nation-state can directly influence the behaviour of the population, making the population an apparatus of the state. And this will be true as long as the government can simultaneously be seen as just or powerful, while additionally having the government expand their influence to punish people who don't believe in its justice or power. Both these conditions are true in China. The perception of legitimacy in the government is the only variable that can vary freely enough to contradict the claim that individuals are distinguishable from the state. However, this perception can be controlled if you can manipulate the livelihood of the individuals to stay in line, by e.g. monopolizing payment, communication, and reputation. So guess what. China's influence on its population directly has only been growing and the way it yields the influence of its citizens to grow power in the West (without resorting to kinetic violence, leaving lawfare/financial warfare/demographic warfare/tech-transfer/propaganda/cabinet stacking) has only become more apparent.

bordercases 5y ago

Most of the "nuance" here is screened off by the questions, "do individuals in China act in China's interests as articulated by the CCP or not?", and "would they ever do otherwise if not located in China or under the influence of China's laws?" For the former, I don't think the numbers overall add up to the relevance of the distinction you're making here, even if it's just the CCP being strict and wielding a lot of domestic power. For the latter, it's a big hypothetical but Chinese influence overseas through NGOs and banking and students doing tech-transfer/brain drain etc also works in disfavour of it being true in the large, except for maybe Hong Kongers and Taiwanese with no strong mainland connections.