Hacker News Reader

I'm afraid you are really wrong.

The dictatorships in Latin America had economic progress, but a lot of problems were simply ignored and ended up been tackled in the 80s with a lot of pain.

Corruption was rampant but people didn't know about it because it simply didn't show up in the press. People seem to think it magically appeared overnight when the military left power.

A lot of money was ill-spent and huge debts were made which aren't well explained.

There were megaprojects, just as China has now, but simple things like sanitation, housing, and education were ignored. Urban centres grew with little or no planning, resulting in the chaos we now have.

So I'm afraid you can't simply take away accountability and hope for the best.

I am not advocating dictatorship or one-man rule. I am advocating a planned economy and a burocratic system at the top, where a cadre of leaders plan and decide how progress should happen. Be clear on that - single leader dictatorships are the worst form of government. China does not have that anymore and has not had it for a long time.

China has an elite class. Do you know how hard it is to get into the communist party? Do you know you have to be REALLY good to be invited in. The party selects intelligent and competent people to enter the leadership class a.k.a, the party.

"Do you know how hard it is to get into the communist party? "

It doesn't matter. You still get killed or tortured and imprisoned if you think the "elite leadership" is wrong and express your opinion. An "elite" gang of thugs is still a gang of thugs, only more dangerous than your usual garden variety hoodlum.

I suspect the Mafia is also "Invite Only" as is Al Quaeda. That doesn't make them desirable arbiters of your life and happiness.

There are no one-man dictatorships. Dictators always have the support of a lot of people.

When the military took power in Brazil in 1964, there was celebration in the streets. In the rich part of town, of course.

Your vision of an 'enlightened elite' is bit scary.

And you don't think that the United States has a similar elite? Successful societies have a leadership class that is based of some type of non-hereditary merit : for example wealth, education or intelligence. A lot of unsuccessful societies happen when power is seized by someone who does not come from this leadership class.

America has its leadership colleges and power families, same as france and a lot of western countries. You don't call it a political party, but it is.

Look at singapore, malaysia, botswana - what do they have in common in terms of leadership? What has been the result?

It's easy to accept what they tell you about democracy without really thinking about it. But actually consider the REAL systems of successful societies. They are not democratic.

"America has its leadership colleges and power families, same as france and a lot of western countries. You don't call it a political party, but it is."

You have strange definitions of "political party" ;-).

"Look at singapore, malaysia, botswana - what do they have in common in terms of leadership? "

Are you trolling? All of these leaders are elected in democratic elections. Singapore is a somewhat borderline case and comes closest to a dictatorship in terms of restrictions on citizens, but it is still a long way away from the Communist dictatorship of China. I doubt Singaporeans are regularly killed for political dissent.

No one argues against having good leaders (educated, visionary etc) as long as the governed people can decide what exactly is "good leadership", hold their leaders accountable and remove them from power peacefully if they think the leadership is corrupt/inefffective etc. For this you need the ability for a citizen to express an opinion without fear of being killed or imprisoned.

I dare you to remove Obama. I dare you and a thousand of your friends to remove Obama. You can't. Your voice is useless. In the elite system, let's say there are 1000 people who belong to this elite class. If 10 of them start agitating against the leader, then their problem will immediately be heard. Each of those 1000 people has a circle of people around then, the second class of elites, who can get a message to them. In this system, if you want to lead, you only need to get into the upper circle, you don't need to do the completely impossible step of being elected.

If chinese leadership were corrupt, then they will be immediately removed by the large number of intelligent people who are in the upper part of the party.

Those countries I listed all have a similar system, and power is handed from one member of this elite ruling class to the next - strangers or opposition don't jump in and take over power. Yes, there is democracy, but there is no chance of someone not in the system getting into the class.

Yes, what I'm advocating here is the complete opposite of everything you have been brought up to believe - but the difference between me and you is that I think about even the things you are supposed to accept. Democracy is good - whoever would think to question that? You should. Question everything, even the things you think are obvious.

To truly understand, you need to believe in what is wrong for a while. Only then can you understand both extremes of force and see where the truth lies.

"To truly understand, you need to believe in what is wrong for a while."

Ahh Belief preceeds understanding. First believe then understand. Sounds like some religious cult. I have nothing more to say to you sir. Good Day!

This is the problem with modern thinking. You don't realise that in order to know your enemy, you have to be your enemy.

I could see your point of view for the most part until this post. You think there are some people fated to be in the "leading" class and we need to just let them lead?

Personally, I question the need for government at all, but above all I find one must be practical. What works... works. I think a real, advanced anarchist system has never been allowed to be tried (for obvious reasons) but without testing it I'm not convinced it couldn't work.

I certainly don't approve of a people who have, frankly, produced a pretty awful system condemning someone else who also has an awful system (which has a different set of plus and minus points).

You make the Communist party sound as if it's some super-elite club. It's not. My girlfriend's a member and, while she's intelligent and well-educated, she didn't have to do a whole lot to get in. I suspect a decent education is enough.

Nor does being a member of the party suddenly make you a member of the "leadership class". For her, it's like a club membership, she pays some small dues every year and in return she can put it on her resume when she wants to. It also helped her avoid some prereqs in college. I guess if she wanted to dig further and start attending meetings regularly she could use it for networking.

In short, being in the party != being a member of the ruling oligarchy which calls the shots here. If you want to do that, marry into the family of someone who has a good government post.

Obviously being in the party does not mean you are in the ruling class. But to be in the ruling class, you have to be part of the party, and the criteria to get in the party will already filter out a lot of the idiots that have destroyed so many countries.

The Chinese planned economy is a giant bubble waiting to burst and I assure you, when it does, it won't be pretty :-(

"I may be wrong, but I support the chinese system of enforced social harmony."

Easy to say when others are the ones being forced into "harmony" and you are the citizen of a democratic Western country,and it is not your rights that are sacrificed "for the greater good".

Fair point but don't forget that the US, while being known as one of the most free countries is also one of the most violent in the world. It's a tricky question to be sure.

"Fair point but don't forget that the US, while being known as one of the most free countries is also one of the most violent in the world. It's a tricky question to be sure."

What's tricky? The easy way is to conduct a thought experiment - given a choice, would you live in a violent democracy like the USA or a "peaceful" dictatorship like China? And guess what, you do have a choice (modulo some paperwork) to live where you want. Let's see you go live in the rising superpower :-).

More seriously, the argument is not that there aren't good points about every society/ country/political system. Of course there are, if you look hard enough.

A system's goodness should be judged by the people who live under it and the Chinese don't have the luxury of choosing what system they live under. Till they do, and voluntarily choose "harmony" over the right of free speech (say), any "goodness" of the dictatorship is purely hypothetical.

Anyhow, I didn't (and don't, any further,) intend to argue politics on this thread. It is just that I am a bit sensitive to people advocating that others suffer "for the greater good", while avoiding any sacrifice themselves.

I personally have been to the U.S and to China, and I am going back to live in china for a few years. I enjoyed china a lot more than the U.S.

"I am going back to live in china for a few years. I enjoyed china a lot more than the U.S."

Sure, why not?

I am not talking of visiting China (I'd love to. I am sure the people are great, as is the food). I am not talking of living there a few years either (I wouldn't that either mind as long as I can hack my way through the firewall to access the Internet and read and post what I choose and run back home if things get too tough).

I am talking of (as a thought experiment) you giving up your US (or whatever) citizenship and applying for Chinese citizenship. Not quite the same eh? Very few people crossed the Berlin Wall from West to East. Many died trying to go the other way.

The point is, citizens of other countries can enjoy living in China(or North Korea) if their tastes runs to "social harmony" precisely because they have an ever present escape hatch. Without it things look very different.

Given the choice between Chinese or Indian or Phillipino citizenshup, I would take chinese. I would not give up my current citizenship simply because of travel opportunity: western countries don't want people from poorer countries entering their countries. If the world were truly open and I could live and work where I please, I would not care. I'd take the citizenship of whatever country I was in for convenience sake.

China is not as developed as the west. East Berlin was not as developed as West Berlin. People make the move not for freedom, but for economic opportunity.

When china is richer than the U.S and people can earn more money there and live better, you will see huge migration into china.

If you have not been to a place, and only hear propoganda against it, it is very hard to judge.

In many ways I think the Chinese are more free than other societies. There are also many different types of people there, and even different cultures.

Like in all countries, elements are corrupt. They do a lot of bad, but also a lot of good.

If you don't mind living in a certain way, and you are mentally sane, then it is an ok place to be I think. They just don't tollerate people going against their way.

Living in china as a foreigner is much more difficult than other countries. You have issues like getting visas where you can not leave the country for years at a time. Also it can be hard to get your money out of the country. Basically they want people who will fit in, and really love china enough to stay there for a long time. You also have to register, or stay at foriegn licenced hotels. However, I guess every country has tough immigration rules.

cya.

>And guess what, you do have a choice (modulo some paperwork) to live where you want.

Actually, not so much. For most countries you can't just go there, you would have to either marry in or get a job there. Getting a job can be harder because most countries have rules in place to force their companies to hire their own citizens.

I do wish it could be a lot easier to move between countries so that countries would be forced to compete with each other. Of course the countries would do what they could (as they do now) to make people think they are better off than they are now.

"There are two ways to progress : by letting everyone say everything they want, which has so far led to huge wars and a LOT of failed states"

I don't agree with almost anything you said here, but the above statement can easily be contradicted by taking India's experiences since Independence into account.

See my comment below on the state of India. The lower classes of india have it much much worse than the lower classes of China.

I think Robin_message does a good job refuting your comments there.

Let me just add, that whatever else the lower classes in India might lack compared to the lower classes in China, the one thing they don't lack, is the voice (and opportunity) to descent. I experienced this first hand during my recent trip to India where a highway I was traveling on was blocked by about 50 subsistence farmers protesting the lack of water in their fields. Whether these kinds of protests are constructive or not, I do not imagine any subsistence farmers in China have the opportunity to block a heavily used highway for a whole day without facing severe punishments.

While I disagree with some of what you say here, I really get sick of this mentality that we know best and places that aren't like us are wrong and should change. Let china do what they want (so long as it isn't something horrific like genocide, etc.) and we'll see how it goes. If everyone does what we do, they'll just get what we have. Maybe we could be better.

They kill 1700 people a year. At what point does that become "horrific". They throw people in jail for 11 years for the crime of threatening stability (ie. suggesting that public officials should be held accountable to the public they serve).

India has almost as many people as China (some day it will have more) and arguably more diversity and it still manages reasonably well as a democracy.

India has low classes, untouchables and terrible Ghettos. China does not. India has war, border clashes and terrorism, china does not. India has people publicly saying that all muslims should be killed, china does not. India has people being burnt alive for being witches, or for stealing. China does not.

It's easy for you to say that the indian system is better - but I think when the tire is thrown around your neck and petrol doused on you, you will gladly exchange not being able to open flickr for that.

>China does not. India has war, border clashes and terrorism, china does not.

Thats funny (and inaccurate). Because a lot of Indian border clashes are against the Chinese. India and China have a long standing border dispute.

Also - I've never been to China so can't comment. But news sources say that India has a better human rights record than China. So the probability of throwing tire around the neck and petrol dousing is higher in China than in India. That stuff doesn't happen in India without consequences.

(Disclosure: I'm an Indian.)

China has the great leap forward, suppressing of the Uighurs, destruction of Tibet's culture and a ban on religion. India does not. China has war with Vietnam and Taiwan. Its main border clash is with Indian. I've heard it said that free speech is important, even when people use it for hateful things. How can you possibly know that no-one has been summarily killed in any Chinese village? I'd say the fact that people know such things happen in India is a strength, not a weakness. It is an embarrassment for India so they have a incentive to solve it. In China, no-one will hear of it and no-one will be embarrassed, so it will never be solved.

Ultimately, when your child dies because a bridge falls down, or the water is dirty, or you are forced to move out of your home for a dam to be built, and then the state imprisons you for having the cheek to complain, you will wish you are not in China.

Wikipedia: "The Great Leap Forward of the People's Republic of China (PRC) was an economic and social plan used from 1958 to 1961 which aimed to use China's vast population to rapidly transform China from a primarily agrarian economy by peasant farmers into a modern communist society through the process of agriculturalization and industrialization. Mao Zedong based this program on the Theory of Productive Forces. It ended in catastrophe as it triggered a widespread famine that resulted in tens of millions of deaths."

Count any lynchings against that.

If you want to start bringing in an old and discredited system into the argument, then I can start bringing in slavery and so on. We're talking about modern china, not Mao Zedong china.

Are you going to go on next about the illegal wall against the mongolians?

Go look at how many people US government accidentally kills (e.g. stun gun mishaps, shooting unarmed even innocent people, innocent people receiving the death penalty, etc.) every year and multiply that by 5 (they have 5 times more people). I would be shocked if the number is less than 1700.

I don't think China is a fantastic country, but if what we do produces even worse results and even more misery (I don't know that we are, but it could obviously be argued) then how can we say we know better?

The fact I can give you the link: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=19 more or less is the difference, and American is on the right side of the difference.

Note that the 1700 refers to death penalty killings, which American is unique amongst developed countries to still have, and is as bad as China is this. The fact it puts them on a list with, for example, China, Iran, Yemen, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia should be a reason enough to get rid of it.

I'm not a fan of China's government either (though I hate the US' about equally), but I really think this argument is vastly more complex than you're presenting.

For example, you think it's clear cut that US citizens being able to get some link on the Internet puts them above China citizens. There are many problems with this line of reason:

1) People in China can get on the web as well. Due to how the firewalling work, most probably don't even realize it happens. Just sometimes they try a link that times out. Happens all the time. Are you sure it isn't already happening to you?

2) Are you sure the information you're seeing is true? In some cases you wont have any way of completely proving one way or another.

3) For some countries, seeing the info doesn't affect anything because of the level of indoctrination the people go through. For example, you can point out what ever you like to a Scientologist, you wont change their mind because their indoctrination will prevent them from believing you or your source. Are you sure you or the citizens of your country don't also have this problem?

Okay, this is getting a little convoluted now, so I apologise if these points lack clarity or are poorly made.

> I'm not a fan of China's government either (though I hate the US' about equally), but I really think this argument is vastly more complex than you're presenting.

I don't think America is without problems, and I think the direction it is going, especially w.r.t corporations is alarming, but it cannot be compared to China.

> 1) People in China can get on the web as well. Due to how the firewalling work, most probably don't even realize it happens. Just sometimes they try a link that times out. Happens all the time. Are you sure it isn't already happening to you?

The link is not "some link", it was a link to an organisation that reports on deaths in police custody. They probably do dead trees and libraries as well. Yes, I'm sure the US government is firewalling the internet. Some of it we have already heard about, some of it we'll hear about in the future. For that reason, it doesn't bother me.

> 2) Are you sure the information you're seeing is true? In some cases you wont have any way of completely proving one way or another.

Well, for example, the USA confess around 1000 deaths in custody between 2003 and 2005. That sounds pretty bad, but I suppose they could have rounded it down. The point is you have to trust systems, and the only systems you can trust are ones that are self-correcting, with independent actors and oversight.

3) For some countries, seeing the info doesn't affect anything because of the level of indoctrination the people go through. For example, you can point out what ever you like to a Scientologist, you wont change their mind because their indoctrination will prevent them from believing you or your source. Are you sure you or the citizens of your country don't also have this problem?

No, that would be impossible to prove. I can claim that I currently believe that I believe very little, but that doesn't really help. I mean, I don't actually know China exists at all.

Look at is like this: From China's perspective, the problems we are talking about here are not problems, they are features of a system designed to control the population in every way. Whereas from America's perspective, if these things are happening, they are a big problem that needs fixing. That doesn't mean they aren't happening in American, but they aren't the aim. You need a pretty big conspiracy to make American as bad as China.

Can I also suggest reference to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_society Obviously there is a trade-off with levels of crime, poverty and so on, but I'd rather live in an albeit imperfect western open society, or even India, than China.

>I don't think America is without problems, and I think the direction it is going, especially w.r.t corporations is alarming, but it cannot be compared to China.

Can't it? Bush was basically a criminal who used a convenient (for him) tragedy to make billions for his pals. Then "change" came and now Obama is making billions for his buddies on Wall Street. The corruption is open and obvious. It's not the same kinds of corruption as China, but it's hard for me to call one evil and the other a beacon of hope.

>The point is you have to trust systems, and the only systems you can trust are ones that are self-correcting, with independent actors and oversight.

True, but my point was that most people simply trust someone somewhere is doing this due diligence. Some of us may even bother reading up on it enough to satisfy ourselves that it's happening. But without actually being involved you can't be certain. Maybe people in China and North Korea think their government also has these kind of due diligence mechanisms.

>Some of it we have already heard about, some of it we'll hear about in the future. For that reason, it doesn't bother me.

This is actually something scary that's happening world wide. Gradually locking down the Internet so you wont hear about these anymore. I hope someone comes up with some good peer-to-peer technology to combat this soon.

>No, that would be impossible to prove. I can claim that I currently believe that I believe very little, but that doesn't really help. I mean, I don't actually know China exists at all.

But you can easily prove China exists by going there and spending some time there. But as long as people aren't willing to look for themselves, what I describe will be very possible.

I used to believe the US was the greatest nation on earth. Then I came to Europe and found it to be much better in so many things.

>Can I also suggest reference to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_society Obviously there is a trade-off with levels of crime, poverty and so on, but I'd rather live in an albeit imperfect western open society, or even India, than China.

Agreed, but what one has to keep in mind is: what is the end state? How do you want the world to be? Personally I want to live in a world where people only have to work on what they find interesting. Everyone knows that people who love something produce better work in that area than people who don't. This whole site is (or used to be) based around the idea of making a start up and getting rich from it some how. But why? So we can work on what we're interested in, of course. Wouldn't it be nice to just skip that middle part and start working on what you like from the start, without having to worry about financial independence?

Now, which government is getting me closer to that? The US? No, they seem to be rapidly going the opposite direction. China doesn't look good, but they are still in development. Who knows what kind of society they will end up with. Given the track record of humanity, probably not with a very good one, but no other country has anything to offer them.

If you're going to compare state sanctioned killings in China with accidental killings in the US you're going to have to make it fair by comparing all the accidental killings in both countries. And don't get me started on Tianamen Square and the more recent "disturbances" in Tibet and the Uighur regions.

" Let [Country X] achieve a certain status, then we can talk about relaxing the system."

Who is to say that any country has reached such an enlightened state. Your argument stands against any instance of democracy.

Disagree does not equal downvote people.