4 ms·

> You're misinterpreting the nature of control. I don't think so. I am just taking the other angle, from the people's perspective, and want to debunk the clich

by gbog 12y ago

> You're misinterpreting the nature of control. I don't think so. I am just taking the other angle, from the people's perspective, and want to debunk the cliche that Chinese people are easy to control. They've had much more revolutions than any other country in their long history. They're all but easy to control. In French we say "like boiling milk", which means they can easily and suddenly get out of control and wash out anything on their way. Just blocking a few topics on social network is certainly not enough. As for things that are allowed or forbidden, it seems more cultural than anything else: In China direct verbal confrontation is very rare, while it is very common in the West, and this holds in families, in companies and also at the country's level. Not very surprisingly, in France insulting the head of state is not forbidden, and even something like a national entertainment. However, in France we have laws telling people if they are allowed to work on Sundays, which seems extremely weird and borderline "totalitarian" to the Chinese, which believe people should be allowed to work whenever they need to or want to. Also, when talking about China, it needs to be reminded that in fact the core Western values (i.e. Enlightment values) and the core Chinese values (i.e. Confucean values) are very similar, and quite compatible. (See how fast Chinese immigrants adapt to and adopt Western values.) For instance, secularism and religious tolerance, equality of rights and before the law, meritocracy, etc. I think the world is going very badly these days, and a big chunk of it is in the hands of people whose values are really opposed to the core of modern humanist values, and this chunk is not China. We'd better team up and fight (with ideas, not with guns) what really threatens humanity as a whole. Just my thoughts.

westiseast 12y ago
Hey, I didn't see it was you! Still at Douban? I know what you mean in terms of "boiling milk" - in that respect I agree. I keep thinking these days of that old saying of China as a sleeping elephant; instead I think the people are the sleeping elephant. I think the government's strategy relies a lot on ignorance and apathy, but if even half of these stories we read as standard on NYTimes etc made it into the public consciousness, there would be huge issues. About the laws - I guess it's not the actual content of the laws or relatively different values that illustrates control. Eg in your example about working on Sunday's - if you decided to fight one of those laws, you could do it openly and publicly and in principle it would be a fair fight. You might even embarrass the government or a political leader, but here there's so little chance of that - that's the different nature of the Communist Party control. The government/party has taken away avenues to legitimately discuss/debate/fight, so the options are either total apathy or explosive revolution. That's scary!
- gbog 12y ago
  (Yes, still working for Douban) > if you decided to fight one of those laws, you could do it openly and publicly and in principle it would be a fair fight. Yes, but here you may have assumed that "openly and publicly" is a precondition for fairness. I do not think openness and publicity of fights is the only way to get fairness. Or at least this can be discussed and we should allow that, on one side openness is often faked, on the other that private and closed tractations may to some extent result in a decision or in a law that is efficient and corresponds to the long term better good of the concerned people (i.e. what they would really choose if given all the elements, and not disturbed by red herrings) For instance, if the governing elite is composed of ("extracted from") people from all parts of society, attracting the best of them with some good rewards (e.g. not money, but something like "good fame") and they collegially discuss important issues using the powers of associations, it could very well be a sane way to distillate the will of the people. Maybe even a saner way than ours (where representatives are elected from their good-looking face, this has been proven).
  - westiseast 12y ago
    I don't know, I'm kind of skeptical of the ability of closed elites from anywhere doing things that are fair. We've seen the last few years how tightly linked elites in European/US societies have been evading tax responsibilities, trampling on constitutions or laws to spy on citizens, protecting those responsible for the 2008 crisis, fabricating evidence for various invasions etc. I just mean to say that temptation is too great - openness is too often a toothless tool, but it helps check those elites when their interests veer wildy away from the common good. China is weird because it's so closed, and it's often tempting to say that the elites here are doing a pretty good job of doing what's best for the people. Until you read about how much money they are making personally from abusing their positions.

by gbog 12y ago

westiseast 12y ago

Hey, I didn't see it was you! Still at Douban? I know what you mean in terms of "boiling milk" - in that respect I agree. I keep thinking these days of that old saying of China as a sleeping elephant; instead I think the people are the sleeping elephant. I think the government's strategy relies a lot on ignorance and apathy, but if even half of these stories we read as standard on NYTimes etc made it into the public consciousness, there would be huge issues. About the laws - I guess it's not the actual content of the laws or relatively different values that illustrates control. Eg in your example about working on Sunday's - if you decided to fight one of those laws, you could do it openly and publicly and in principle it would be a fair fight. You might even embarrass the government or a political leader, but here there's so little chance of that - that's the different nature of the Communist Party control. The government/party has taken away avenues to legitimately discuss/debate/fight, so the options are either total apathy or explosive revolution. That's scary!

gbog 12y ago
(Yes, still working for Douban) > if you decided to fight one of those laws, you could do it openly and publicly and in principle it would be a fair fight. Yes, but here you may have assumed that "openly and publicly" is a precondition for fairness. I do not think openness and publicity of fights is the only way to get fairness. Or at least this can be discussed and we should allow that, on one side openness is often faked, on the other that private and closed tractations may to some extent result in a decision or in a law that is efficient and corresponds to the long term better good of the concerned people (i.e. what they would really choose if given all the elements, and not disturbed by red herrings) For instance, if the governing elite is composed of ("extracted from") people from all parts of society, attracting the best of them with some good rewards (e.g. not money, but something like "good fame") and they collegially discuss important issues using the powers of associations, it could very well be a sane way to distillate the will of the people. Maybe even a saner way than ours (where representatives are elected from their good-looking face, this has been proven).
- westiseast 12y ago
  I don't know, I'm kind of skeptical of the ability of closed elites from anywhere doing things that are fair. We've seen the last few years how tightly linked elites in European/US societies have been evading tax responsibilities, trampling on constitutions or laws to spy on citizens, protecting those responsible for the 2008 crisis, fabricating evidence for various invasions etc. I just mean to say that temptation is too great - openness is too often a toothless tool, but it helps check those elites when their interests veer wildy away from the common good. China is weird because it's so closed, and it's often tempting to say that the elites here are doing a pretty good job of doing what's best for the people. Until you read about how much money they are making personally from abusing their positions.