4 ms·

This is a western perspective that I think is a bad fit for China. Valuing freedom and privacy etc as the ultimate goal is a western value, not a Chinese one. T

This is a western perspective that I think is a bad fit for China. Valuing freedom and privacy etc as the ultimate goal is a western value, not a Chinese one. To most Chinese, those are merely nice to have, ranking below many other things such as unification, safety, order, health, etc. Chinese "forgive" govt privacy violations in the same way westerners "forgive" the govt for not introducing filial piety laws. People don't "forgive" policy failures, they just tend to have a more nuanced understanding of the whole than the west does. For example Mao is considered good in some ways, bad in others, whereas we in the west are fixated with painting a figure as wholly good or wholly bad, nuance be damned. On top of it all, the west has an implicit assumption that China will automatically become great if only we kick out all the bad guys (= CCP). No, things aren't that simple, just look at Chinese history.

strogonoff 4y ago
> ranking below many other things such as unification, safety, order, health, etc. I got a similar vibe from talking to some Russians. Freedom is not important, it’s warranted that it’s limited, we’re not the West, we value it less. I suspect it’s Stockholm syndrome, a consequence of a self-preservation instinct. Many Westerners don’t approve of their governments—their countries have comparatively prospered for a while, and now it feels like the growth has stopped. By contrast, in some other countries the generational memory of significant hardship and poverty is very fresh, and quality of life is still on an upward trend from historical lows. Of course people in these countries value things like safety, order, health very highly. Unfortunately, in some of these countries—this includes both Russia and China—the upward trend coincided with oppressive governments. This led to citizens rejecting values like freedom of action, thought and speech (which is a requirement for individual moral growth—if people live under strict rules imposed by someone else, they don’t have to form any rules of their own), considering such values “foreign” and “not suited to their culture”. > China will automatically become great if only we kick out all the bad guys (= CCP) I would never say it’s so simple. There would be a downturn due to uncertainty, and the unfamiliar degree of individual freedom combined with suffering moral values/inexperience in making choices (an outcome of oppression and surveillance) would certainly cause a dip in quality of life. However, I believe a society where everyone has access to information, a country that treats its own citizens as adults and trusts them, a country where policies are not set by a few self-selected humans with the first-order goal to maintain own power (humans are fallible, and power corrupts), would after growing pains prosper much more.
- FooBarWidget 4y ago
  I don't know much about Russia so I won't comment on it. However I would strongly caution against comparing Russia with China. The two countries are very different. Comparisons based on superficial knowledge (e.g. "both countries are 'authoritarian police states' so property A of Russia probably applies to China") tends to be wrong more often than right. Anyway, my answer to your post has two components: a philosophical one and a practical one. --- Philosophical: To call it Stockholm Syndrome is an overly simplistic reading which ignores thousands of years of Chinese philosophy, tradition and history, which have had a profound impact on today's attitude. Chinese philosophy and paradigms are very different from western ones and they do not easily map to each other. A couple of things I forgot to mention in the list are sovereignty and responsibility. Sovereignty is valued not only by China, but by many global south countries because of experience with imperialism. For many, sovereignty ranks higher than "freedom": yes maybe there are freedom problems, but in the end they're our problems, and we'd rather own these problems than having outsiders interfere, supposedly for our own good. This actually ties a lot into the practical component, so I'll get back to this point later. Responsibility is a huge philosophical component that's nearly absent in western philosophy. The basic ethical concept of Chinese social political relations is the fulfilment of the duty to one’s neighbour, rather than the claiming of rights. It has been this way for thousands of years. This does not mean rights haven't existed: they have existed in a more philosophical form rather than legal form. For example you keep calling the Chinese govt "oppressive", but traditional Chinese thought says that it's the ruler's responsibility to care for the well-being of its people, and that the people have the right to revolt if the ruler fails to do so. This is in fact exactly what have happened time and again in thousands of years. The modern ruling class understands this as well: they are incentivized to do a good job because ultimately the stability of the nation depends on it, even though it is not codified in formal texts and legal systems as westerners would approach it. Responsibility is also considered a two-way street. Rulers work in the interest of people, but people also have obligations towards rulers (beyond basic things such as paying taxes). Western societies focus on rights, on what the state isn't allowed to do to individuals, but classical Chinese philosophy focuses on obligations that people have towards each other, including the rulers but also towards neighbors, family, etc. For a more in-depth discussion about this, see this writeup by philosopher Lo Chung Shu: https://en.unesco.org/courier/2018-4/confucian-approach-human-rights https://en.unesco.org/courier/2018-4/confucian-approach-huma... Furthermore, China is a collectivist society. China emphasizes collective rights more than individual rights. This means that individual rights are sometimes violated if that's what's necessary for the greater good, a practice that western societies would frown upon. TLDR: China is a society built more on responsibility rather than freedom. One must not underestimate how different Chinese paradigms are from western ones. I suspect I'm further along the Dunning-Kruger effect line than you. It's easy for people to draw early (and wrong) conclusions about China based on superficial knowledge about China. But the more I learn about China and the impact of classical Chinese thought, the more I think "western understanding of China is even more wrong than I thought" and "we know absolutely nothing" (https://fourweekmba.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/dunning-kruger-effect-1.png https://fourweekmba.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/dunning-k...) --- Practical: Having western ideals of freedom etc is fine. Unfortunately, in the context of foreign relations, such ideals deviate so far from practice that they can even be actively harmful. The west has preached freedom and democracy for more than a century. But in the 19th and 20th century they invaded China while preaching these values. The birth of the CCP was directly triggered by the fact that the "free" US gave Tsingdao — a German colony — to the Japanese rather than back to China, in direct violation to earlier promises. These sort of scandals taught China that sovereignty matters more than anything: foreigners don't have our best interest at heart no matter what they say; and there is no freedom, no equality, no prosperity, until we have sovereignty. These sorts of things aren't just relics of the past. The west still likes to sanction or invade all sorts of countries based on flimsy evidence: Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and more. Many European countries gave dirty looks to the US for its invasion of Iraq, but none of them sanctioned the US for it, while happily joining Syria and Afghanistan a few years later. All while preaching to value democracy and freedom. Nobody seems to care about Yemen. Only when the war gets too close to home, do people suddenly care. This does not mean the ideal of freedom is wrong. But how can one expect other societies to take these ideals seriously when the teachers violate them all the time? In an ideal world, the west practices what they preach. In the past, I've often looked at western reports about China taking "authoritarian measures" on this and that, not being free enough, not allowing western activists in to promote freedom, etc. I used to think: "why does it look like the Chinese govt is wary of foreign activism? We don't live in the imperialist 19th century anymore, the world is at peace and the west has good intentions nowadays". Then I learned about CIA color revolutions, how the US bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, what the US did to China in the aftermath of WW2, NATO's recent involvements in wars, etc. And then I think "aw crap, the Chinese govt was right all along". Until recently, I thought the EU was more sincere about human rights than the US (NATO involvement in wars notwithstanding). And then I read this tweet by Ursula von der Leyden, who calls Abe Shinzo a "great democrat". https://twitter.com/vonderleyen/status/1545339439458750464 https://twitter.com/vonderleyen/status/1545339439458750464 Uh, what? Abe Shinzo has a history of denying Imperial Japan war crimes, and is directly mentored by his grandfather Nobusuke Kishi, the "butcher of Manchuria". That's a bit like Merkel having Henrich Himmler as mentor, and Merkel visiting Hitler's grave every year while calling him a war hero. I don't personally care that much about Imperial Japan war crimes (though my grandmother would, because she fled Japanese butchers while she was a child), and I get that Japan is an ally, and I get that dead people deserve some level of respect. But still: EU, you don't have to pretend that a man with such a problematic past is an entirely wholesome person with no stains. Chinese and Korean social media are on fire for the past few days because they both think "good riddance". With the EU apparently only having "values" when it suits them geopolitically, happily looking the other way when confronted with allies' crimes, how can one take these values seriously?

strogonoff 4y ago

> ranking below many other things such as unification, safety, order, health, etc. I got a similar vibe from talking to some Russians. Freedom is not important, it’s warranted that it’s limited, we’re not the West, we value it less. I suspect it’s Stockholm syndrome, a consequence of a self-preservation instinct. Many Westerners don’t approve of their governments—their countries have comparatively prospered for a while, and now it feels like the growth has stopped. By contrast, in some other countries the generational memory of significant hardship and poverty is very fresh, and quality of life is still on an upward trend from historical lows. Of course people in these countries value things like safety, order, health very highly. Unfortunately, in some of these countries—this includes both Russia and China—the upward trend coincided with oppressive governments. This led to citizens rejecting values like freedom of action, thought and speech (which is a requirement for individual moral growth—if people live under strict rules imposed by someone else, they don’t have to form any rules of their own), considering such values “foreign” and “not suited to their culture”. > China will automatically become great if only we kick out all the bad guys (= CCP) I would never say it’s so simple. There would be a downturn due to uncertainty, and the unfamiliar degree of individual freedom combined with suffering moral values/inexperience in making choices (an outcome of oppression and surveillance) would certainly cause a dip in quality of life. However, I believe a society where everyone has access to information, a country that treats its own citizens as adults and trusts them, a country where policies are not set by a few self-selected humans with the first-order goal to maintain own power (humans are fallible, and power corrupts), would after growing pains prosper much more.

FooBarWidget 4y ago
I don't know much about Russia so I won't comment on it. However I would strongly caution against comparing Russia with China. The two countries are very different. Comparisons based on superficial knowledge (e.g. "both countries are 'authoritarian police states' so property A of Russia probably applies to China") tends to be wrong more often than right. Anyway, my answer to your post has two components: a philosophical one and a practical one. --- Philosophical: To call it Stockholm Syndrome is an overly simplistic reading which ignores thousands of years of Chinese philosophy, tradition and history, which have had a profound impact on today's attitude. Chinese philosophy and paradigms are very different from western ones and they do not easily map to each other. A couple of things I forgot to mention in the list are sovereignty and responsibility. Sovereignty is valued not only by China, but by many global south countries because of experience with imperialism. For many, sovereignty ranks higher than "freedom": yes maybe there are freedom problems, but in the end they're our problems, and we'd rather own these problems than having outsiders interfere, supposedly for our own good. This actually ties a lot into the practical component, so I'll get back to this point later. Responsibility is a huge philosophical component that's nearly absent in western philosophy. The basic ethical concept of Chinese social political relations is the fulfilment of the duty to one’s neighbour, rather than the claiming of rights. It has been this way for thousands of years. This does not mean rights haven't existed: they have existed in a more philosophical form rather than legal form. For example you keep calling the Chinese govt "oppressive", but traditional Chinese thought says that it's the ruler's responsibility to care for the well-being of its people, and that the people have the right to revolt if the ruler fails to do so. This is in fact exactly what have happened time and again in thousands of years. The modern ruling class understands this as well: they are incentivized to do a good job because ultimately the stability of the nation depends on it, even though it is not codified in formal texts and legal systems as westerners would approach it. Responsibility is also considered a two-way street. Rulers work in the interest of people, but people also have obligations towards rulers (beyond basic things such as paying taxes). Western societies focus on rights, on what the state isn't allowed to do to individuals, but classical Chinese philosophy focuses on obligations that people have towards each other, including the rulers but also towards neighbors, family, etc. For a more in-depth discussion about this, see this writeup by philosopher Lo Chung Shu: https://en.unesco.org/courier/2018-4/confucian-approach-human-rights https://en.unesco.org/courier/2018-4/confucian-approach-huma... Furthermore, China is a collectivist society. China emphasizes collective rights more than individual rights. This means that individual rights are sometimes violated if that's what's necessary for the greater good, a practice that western societies would frown upon. TLDR: China is a society built more on responsibility rather than freedom. One must not underestimate how different Chinese paradigms are from western ones. I suspect I'm further along the Dunning-Kruger effect line than you. It's easy for people to draw early (and wrong) conclusions about China based on superficial knowledge about China. But the more I learn about China and the impact of classical Chinese thought, the more I think "western understanding of China is even more wrong than I thought" and "we know absolutely nothing" (https://fourweekmba.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/dunning-kruger-effect-1.png https://fourweekmba.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/dunning-k...) --- Practical: Having western ideals of freedom etc is fine. Unfortunately, in the context of foreign relations, such ideals deviate so far from practice that they can even be actively harmful. The west has preached freedom and democracy for more than a century. But in the 19th and 20th century they invaded China while preaching these values. The birth of the CCP was directly triggered by the fact that the "free" US gave Tsingdao — a German colony — to the Japanese rather than back to China, in direct violation to earlier promises. These sort of scandals taught China that sovereignty matters more than anything: foreigners don't have our best interest at heart no matter what they say; and there is no freedom, no equality, no prosperity, until we have sovereignty. These sorts of things aren't just relics of the past. The west still likes to sanction or invade all sorts of countries based on flimsy evidence: Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and more. Many European countries gave dirty looks to the US for its invasion of Iraq, but none of them sanctioned the US for it, while happily joining Syria and Afghanistan a few years later. All while preaching to value democracy and freedom. Nobody seems to care about Yemen. Only when the war gets too close to home, do people suddenly care. This does not mean the ideal of freedom is wrong. But how can one expect other societies to take these ideals seriously when the teachers violate them all the time? In an ideal world, the west practices what they preach. In the past, I've often looked at western reports about China taking "authoritarian measures" on this and that, not being free enough, not allowing western activists in to promote freedom, etc. I used to think: "why does it look like the Chinese govt is wary of foreign activism? We don't live in the imperialist 19th century anymore, the world is at peace and the west has good intentions nowadays". Then I learned about CIA color revolutions, how the US bombed the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, what the US did to China in the aftermath of WW2, NATO's recent involvements in wars, etc. And then I think "aw crap, the Chinese govt was right all along". Until recently, I thought the EU was more sincere about human rights than the US (NATO involvement in wars notwithstanding). And then I read this tweet by Ursula von der Leyden, who calls Abe Shinzo a "great democrat". https://twitter.com/vonderleyen/status/1545339439458750464 https://twitter.com/vonderleyen/status/1545339439458750464 Uh, what? Abe Shinzo has a history of denying Imperial Japan war crimes, and is directly mentored by his grandfather Nobusuke Kishi, the "butcher of Manchuria". That's a bit like Merkel having Henrich Himmler as mentor, and Merkel visiting Hitler's grave every year while calling him a war hero. I don't personally care that much about Imperial Japan war crimes (though my grandmother would, because she fled Japanese butchers while she was a child), and I get that Japan is an ally, and I get that dead people deserve some level of respect. But still: EU, you don't have to pretend that a man with such a problematic past is an entirely wholesome person with no stains. Chinese and Korean social media are on fire for the past few days because they both think "good riddance". With the EU apparently only having "values" when it suits them geopolitically, happily looking the other way when confronted with allies' crimes, how can one take these values seriously?