6 ms·

And your comment isn't "one dimensional" and "unnuanced"? As a fellow Chinese person, it's pretty accurate. Deng Xiaoping deserves the credit for modern China'

And your comment isn't "one dimensional" and "unnuanced"? As a fellow Chinese person, it's pretty accurate. Deng Xiaoping deserves the credit for modern China's economy. China was slowly but surely opening up and slowing becoming decentralized for efficiency, and it was a moderate rule by committee with term limits vs a one man dictatorship for life that's veering into a centralized economic planning disaster reminiscent of Mao. He is destroying China, one industry at a time. I can understand your "patriotism" if you're commenting from the mainland. Not so much if you're writing from elsewhere.

FooBarWidget 5y ago
I am in fact not writing from the mainland. The insinuation that the only way I can have a different opinion, is because I am forced, is part of my critique: that western views of China are entirely unrealistic and overly warped by biases and preconceived notions that people are unwilling to let go. If you want elaborate, nuanced comments from me, check my commenting history, such as this lengthy thread I wrote 2 weeks ago. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28632820 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28632820 I am sorry if I don't turn every one of my comment into an essay. As for Deng Xiao Ping, I am in agreement with dirtyid's comment.
- chaostheory 5y ago
  > The insinuation that the only way I can have a different opinion, is because I am forced, is part of my critique China doesn't have freedom of speech. Chinese citizens can be punished for posting innocuous things such as a cartoon bear who loves honey, so it's not a stretch to assume that you will write differently when inside the mainland vs outside of the mainland.
  - FooBarWidget 5y ago
    Censorship exists, but that is not at all the same thing as forcing people to have a certain opinion. This Harvard paper explains that, instead, censorship's role is to silence movements. Pro-government posts are censored when they have the potential to go viral. Anti-government posts that don't go viral, aren't censored. "How Censorship in China Allows Government Criticism but Silences Collective Expression" https://gking.harvard.edu/publications/how-censorship-china-allows-government-criticism-silences-collective-expression https://gking.harvard.edu/publications/how-censorship-china-... Furthermore, censorship exists simultaneously with government responsiveness. That is, they actively monitor social media for grievances and they actively address these grievances (as in actually addressing, not arresting people for arresting). Nowadays social media is one of the major channels for government feedback. New law proposals are regularly formed based on mass complaints on social media (which may or may not also end up getting censored). This is a relatively new thing, developed in the past 15 years or so. Punishments are not that common. You'd have to reach Julian Assange level for that to happen. Censoring without any further consequences is the norm.
    - chaostheory 5y ago
      > Censorship exists, but that is not at all the same thing as forcing people to have a certain opinion. I agree, but it's a moot point. When you censor all opinions that you don't like, it's only natural that if you limit available data, people will form very specific, limited opinions based on that data. > That is, they actively monitor social media for grievances and they actively address these grievances I kind of agree with you. In some cases, Beijing fixes problems that local provincial governments either cannot or will not, but that is not always the case, and due to lack of overall transparency; we don't know the ratio of fixing problems vs punishing people for reporting grievances. > Punishments are not that common. You'd have to reach Julian Assange level for that to happen. Censoring without any further consequences is the norm. Honestly, I do not feel that people broadcasting the events in Wuhan were Julian Assange level. Neither are the people who were speaking about Xinjiang. Yet they were still punished. Tax evasion imo is also not Assange level enough for a rendition and a resource intense redaction of media credits. Of course, you can argue that it's better than not punishing tax evaders at all like how virtually no one in Wall Street went to jail for the 2008 financial crisis. I know the social credit system is still currently a mess implementation wise, but if it ever gets standardized and fixed nationally, we can revisit this subject.
dirtyid 5y ago
> it's pretty accurate. Not remotely. Xi was selected to fix Deng's unequal growth phase strategy. Hence all the regulations and crack down because Deng's model ran it's course. And Deng's policies only worked due to the base Mao built. Cultural revolution secularized and mobilized human capital, even great leap forward was massively successful in building industrial base - PRC in the 70s was less urbanized but considerably more industrialized than other low income peers. Which facilitated Deng's transition, which wouldn't have worked in India trapped in multiculturalism, historic power structures and rural economy. It only worked because Mao made sure everyone spoke mandarin, society had no strong attachments to history etc. >He is destroying China, one industry at a time. He's regulating previously underregulated industries. He's doing what the west talks about doing in policy papers for years but systemically can't. Sino-US ideological competition is battle of political systems, and so far PRC's has demonstrated to be more nimble and focsing on correct priorities. It's why US and others are trying to copy PRC's industrial policy, which PRC once copied from west. Also the fact that Xi managed to build SCS islands and modernize military sufficiently that US now discusses greater power competition in miiltary terms handly justifies his leadership. BoXiLai wasn't up to that task. The amount of comprehensive national power Xi built is insane. He's PRC's 3rd and maybe 4th term FDR in time of remarkable opportunity and crisis. He may sound and look dopey as hell, but his results have been remarkable.
- chaostheory 5y ago
  > Xi was selected to fix Deng's unequal growth phase strategy. Xi outmaneuvered his rivals. I highly doubt that the others wanted to forfeit their own power for his. Deng's policy was also already proven to work. Expanding it and not destroying it would have been more logical and responsible. > And Deng's policies only worked due to the base Mao built. Cultural revolution secularized and mobilized human capital, even great leap forward was massively successful in building industrial base That sounds delusional. Mao's policies were a complete disaster that killed millions of Chinese people. It didn't prepare China for the future. The only things it accomplished were massive suffering and international embarrassment. It was a complete mess. That isn't to say that Mao didn't achieve anything good, but the Great Leap forward and the Cultural Revolution are not good examples. If anything, that greatly hindered both Zhoe Enlai and Deng's reforms, and that's putting it lightly. > He's regulating previously underregulated industries. He is centralizing control and power. In his new order, there's no room anyone exceptional in private industry, or really anyone else. There's only room for his cult of personality. He is slowly regressing China into a Mao style of rule which completely throws out most of the lessons from the past: decentralization is more efficient and yields more production vs a centrally planned economy (relics of 20th century Communism) > PRC's has demonstrated to be more nimble and focsing on correct priorities. How can you be nimble when you're re-centralizing everything? > It's why US and others are trying to copy PRC's industrial policy, which PRC once copied from west. I don't know what you're trying to convey here. > Also the fact that Xi managed to build SCS islands and modernize military sufficiently that US now discusses greater power competition in miiltary terms handly justifies his leadership In a world with global ballistic nuclear missiles, it looks like Xi just copied a bad US habit, which is a source of massive corruption and waste. > He may sound and look dopey as hell, but his results have been remarkable. If it walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck; it's a duck. > his results have been remarkable This is still up in the air and highly debatable. For example, Xi is extremely impatient. One China Two Systems was working until he decided to completely trash it. We can assign the mess in HK and Taiwan's new calls for independence on him. If he didn't interfere in Deng's policy, China would have quietly completely swallowed both in a decade or two.

FooBarWidget 5y ago

I am in fact not writing from the mainland. The insinuation that the only way I can have a different opinion, is because I am forced, is part of my critique: that western views of China are entirely unrealistic and overly warped by biases and preconceived notions that people are unwilling to let go. If you want elaborate, nuanced comments from me, check my commenting history, such as this lengthy thread I wrote 2 weeks ago. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28632820 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28632820 I am sorry if I don't turn every one of my comment into an essay. As for Deng Xiao Ping, I am in agreement with dirtyid's comment.

chaostheory 5y ago
> The insinuation that the only way I can have a different opinion, is because I am forced, is part of my critique China doesn't have freedom of speech. Chinese citizens can be punished for posting innocuous things such as a cartoon bear who loves honey, so it's not a stretch to assume that you will write differently when inside the mainland vs outside of the mainland.
- FooBarWidget 5y ago
  Censorship exists, but that is not at all the same thing as forcing people to have a certain opinion. This Harvard paper explains that, instead, censorship's role is to silence movements. Pro-government posts are censored when they have the potential to go viral. Anti-government posts that don't go viral, aren't censored. "How Censorship in China Allows Government Criticism but Silences Collective Expression" https://gking.harvard.edu/publications/how-censorship-china-allows-government-criticism-silences-collective-expression https://gking.harvard.edu/publications/how-censorship-china-... Furthermore, censorship exists simultaneously with government responsiveness. That is, they actively monitor social media for grievances and they actively address these grievances (as in actually addressing, not arresting people for arresting). Nowadays social media is one of the major channels for government feedback. New law proposals are regularly formed based on mass complaints on social media (which may or may not also end up getting censored). This is a relatively new thing, developed in the past 15 years or so. Punishments are not that common. You'd have to reach Julian Assange level for that to happen. Censoring without any further consequences is the norm.
  - chaostheory 5y ago
    > Censorship exists, but that is not at all the same thing as forcing people to have a certain opinion. I agree, but it's a moot point. When you censor all opinions that you don't like, it's only natural that if you limit available data, people will form very specific, limited opinions based on that data. > That is, they actively monitor social media for grievances and they actively address these grievances I kind of agree with you. In some cases, Beijing fixes problems that local provincial governments either cannot or will not, but that is not always the case, and due to lack of overall transparency; we don't know the ratio of fixing problems vs punishing people for reporting grievances. > Punishments are not that common. You'd have to reach Julian Assange level for that to happen. Censoring without any further consequences is the norm. Honestly, I do not feel that people broadcasting the events in Wuhan were Julian Assange level. Neither are the people who were speaking about Xinjiang. Yet they were still punished. Tax evasion imo is also not Assange level enough for a rendition and a resource intense redaction of media credits. Of course, you can argue that it's better than not punishing tax evaders at all like how virtually no one in Wall Street went to jail for the 2008 financial crisis. I know the social credit system is still currently a mess implementation wise, but if it ever gets standardized and fixed nationally, we can revisit this subject.

dirtyid 5y ago

> it's pretty accurate. Not remotely. Xi was selected to fix Deng's unequal growth phase strategy. Hence all the regulations and crack down because Deng's model ran it's course. And Deng's policies only worked due to the base Mao built. Cultural revolution secularized and mobilized human capital, even great leap forward was massively successful in building industrial base - PRC in the 70s was less urbanized but considerably more industrialized than other low income peers. Which facilitated Deng's transition, which wouldn't have worked in India trapped in multiculturalism, historic power structures and rural economy. It only worked because Mao made sure everyone spoke mandarin, society had no strong attachments to history etc. >He is destroying China, one industry at a time. He's regulating previously underregulated industries. He's doing what the west talks about doing in policy papers for years but systemically can't. Sino-US ideological competition is battle of political systems, and so far PRC's has demonstrated to be more nimble and focsing on correct priorities. It's why US and others are trying to copy PRC's industrial policy, which PRC once copied from west. Also the fact that Xi managed to build SCS islands and modernize military sufficiently that US now discusses greater power competition in miiltary terms handly justifies his leadership. BoXiLai wasn't up to that task. The amount of comprehensive national power Xi built is insane. He's PRC's 3rd and maybe 4th term FDR in time of remarkable opportunity and crisis. He may sound and look dopey as hell, but his results have been remarkable.

chaostheory 5y ago
> Xi was selected to fix Deng's unequal growth phase strategy. Xi outmaneuvered his rivals. I highly doubt that the others wanted to forfeit their own power for his. Deng's policy was also already proven to work. Expanding it and not destroying it would have been more logical and responsible. > And Deng's policies only worked due to the base Mao built. Cultural revolution secularized and mobilized human capital, even great leap forward was massively successful in building industrial base That sounds delusional. Mao's policies were a complete disaster that killed millions of Chinese people. It didn't prepare China for the future. The only things it accomplished were massive suffering and international embarrassment. It was a complete mess. That isn't to say that Mao didn't achieve anything good, but the Great Leap forward and the Cultural Revolution are not good examples. If anything, that greatly hindered both Zhoe Enlai and Deng's reforms, and that's putting it lightly. > He's regulating previously underregulated industries. He is centralizing control and power. In his new order, there's no room anyone exceptional in private industry, or really anyone else. There's only room for his cult of personality. He is slowly regressing China into a Mao style of rule which completely throws out most of the lessons from the past: decentralization is more efficient and yields more production vs a centrally planned economy (relics of 20th century Communism) > PRC's has demonstrated to be more nimble and focsing on correct priorities. How can you be nimble when you're re-centralizing everything? > It's why US and others are trying to copy PRC's industrial policy, which PRC once copied from west. I don't know what you're trying to convey here. > Also the fact that Xi managed to build SCS islands and modernize military sufficiently that US now discusses greater power competition in miiltary terms handly justifies his leadership In a world with global ballistic nuclear missiles, it looks like Xi just copied a bad US habit, which is a source of massive corruption and waste. > He may sound and look dopey as hell, but his results have been remarkable. If it walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck; it's a duck. > his results have been remarkable This is still up in the air and highly debatable. For example, Xi is extremely impatient. One China Two Systems was working until he decided to completely trash it. We can assign the mess in HK and Taiwan's new calls for independence on him. If he didn't interfere in Deng's policy, China would have quietly completely swallowed both in a decade or two.