Hacker News Reader

>Neither did South America

What are you talking about? South America was colonized by the Portuguese and Spanish, which most definitely come from the western liberal tradition.

It's fine to take a position against "Chinese culture", but it should be an honest one.

I'm basing that off a book I read which described how the original liberators of South America (who were mainly locals, not from the Spanish or Portuguese elite who ruled) were heavily influenced by these (mainly French and English) liberal European thinkers - which is why they wanted a revolution in the first placed. It didn't come from local culture.

The Spanish did not create liberal "western" democracies when they ruled. They were replacing a monarchical, heavily centralized system and the liberators had a choice in how they modelled their country. They certainly considered many different options including heavily centralized systems but the influences of European thinkers as mentioned above played a big role in their decision to build republics and federalized states.

My point is that many cultures (including Japan and South Korea) came from a legacy of centralized control and were still capable of being inspired by foreign thinkers and adopting liberal systems.

This idea that China is unique because they didn't have their own bastion of local liberal thinkers is heavily flawed because that pattern exists elsewhere with different outcomes. Especially considering how close Chiang-kai Shek was to moving China towards a more western economic system. It wasn't the 'Chinese way' that won out, it was a series of politically fortunate events in Mao's favour.

The Chinese culture is a product of a self-protecting centralized system, not (merely) a product of the historical culture.

The political and social culture of South America, at the time of their wars of independence, was undeniably based on European culture and values, at least among the educated classes that actively participated in all that. Their blood descent is not particularly relevant - what matters is the kind of books they grew up with, roughly speaking.

I don't think that japan and south korea fits too well in here japan was ruled by america in the years after the second world war, which is where a lot of the modern thinking is coming from. And I belive that similar thing have been happening in south korea, but I am not too sure of that.

If you look a bit further into Chinese history, it makes sense why they're so hesitant of the west - China was literally screwed over by the West for almost a century (see Century of Humiliation, the Opium Wars, Unequal Treaties, having British military in their capital, etc.). They went from being a leader of the world to being treated like crap by the West in a fairly short time period. This idea of "Chinese Exceptionalism" came from this innate desire for China to be unique again (the original "Make X Great Again").

Mao's success I think reinforced some the idea that the only way for China to stand on its own was to be united and strongly controlled and maintained. The hundreds of years of having different clans pre-Mao (or weak dynasties like Qing) just didn't work.

While I might not completely agree with their arguments, it's worth understanding Chinese criticism and their skepticism of the West. China is literally 4x the size of the US with a very rich and complicated history and thinking, so we can't just assume you can put in Western democracy/thinking just like that. Sure a lot of it may be encouraged by the party, but I think a lot of is much deeper than that.

Keep in mind that Hong Kong was a British colony for 150+ years (contiguous minus the Japanese occupation during WWII). The fact that Hong Kong represents liberal Western values should surprise nobody. While the PRC represents much of Chinese philosophy and has mandated it be taught to its citizens, the leaders of Hong Kong were never in this mindset. The British Crown was above China, and thus people learned more about Western ideals. Even today, Hong Kong is mostly autonomous and it makes sense that its people would continue supporting the ideas that they have been taught or have lived under in the past.

As for Taiwan, I think it is important to remember that, while Chiang Kai-Shek was seemingly "less Chinese" than Mao, the two had many similarities. Like Mao, Chiang Kai-Shek was a believer in socialism and nationalism, with his own cult of personality. He also was responsible for his own purges early on and was very much a dictator. While he had support from many international countries, he was only slightly more liberal than Mao (which probably had to do with a number of factors, but I think it's important to note that he was educated in Japan at one point). It was not until after his death that Taiwan became democratic, and I think one of the reasons for this was because Taiwan had aligned itself with Western countries when it was driven out of mainland China. Had the ROC won and the PRC lost, I don't think much would be different here. It's possible to say that the fact that the ROC was anti-communism contributed to these changes, but Chiang Kai-Shek was by no means a supporter of democracy. To me it seems like the deciding factor for Taiwan becoming less authoritarian was almost certainly due to their defeat, and that the PRC would very likely follow in those same footsteps had the roles been reversed.

That all is to say that, despite the differences between Hong Kong/Taiwan and mainland China, the PRC is extremely representative of Chinese culture. The modern values of Taiwan and Hong Kong are obviously very different, but had different circumstances played out (Taiwan winning/Hong Kong becoming an independent Chinese state rather than becoming a colony) I do believe that these countries would end up nearly identical to modern China.

The last paragraph also happens to perfectly describe how Russia works. All exactly the same.

Serious question: what would happen if China abolished the Communist Party or whatever they call and chose democracy. Chaos? Breakdown of the country into separate states /provinces? Civil war? Military rule?

I would not want to the one in charge the day after. Obviously (moderated) rule by the people is best but not sure how China and say countries in the mold of Saudi Arabia will handle it.

India with its 1.3 billion people is capable of operating via a Democratic system (with its various issues and flaws not detracting from that fact), and they're even poorer than China and with fewer resources. There's no reason China can't manage a successful (even if messy) transition away from authoritarianism to a variation of representative government.

They could do it, but the current leadership doesn't seem interested.

Corruption is worse in India than China, and that's problem one. Not coincidentally, growth in India has generally been slower (until recently) and just dropped. And India may be devolving into a theocracy. Not the most attractive example.

Are you nuts?

Not sure that's an informative answer. Can't always trust what the MSM says. Not sure from where you got such a notion.

It always surprises me what surprises people.

Peeps, how about a little bibliography if you're going to downvote? A downvote isn't supposed to mean "I wish that weren't true, so it can't be."

Too close to call on corruption https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/interactive/2011/d...

Theocracy, read about the BJP, and restriction of freedom of the press around religion. This might be a start: Censoring Indian History By Audrey Truschke Posted 27th July 2017, 11:50 Laws against religious offence in India have altered the writing and understanding of the nation’s past.

In the end, I made numerous wording changes to both books and, most dramatically, in Aurangzeb I cut several sentences that outlined Shivaji’s caste background and relations with Brahmins, the priestly caste, topics which are especially sensitive to those who subscribe to the modern mythology of Shivaji. In addition, the publisher declined to publish a map in the Indian edition of Aurangzeb showing the extent of the Mughal Empire, noting that a prison term can now await those who publish maps of India without first gaining government approval. Religious (and nationalist) sentiments are increasingly trumping historical truth in modern India.

Audrey Truschke is the author of Aurangzeb: The Life and Legacy of India’s Most Controversial King (Stanford University Press, 2017) and Culture of Encounters: Sanskrit at the Mughal Court (Columbia University Press, 2016).

http://www.historytoday.com/audrey-truschke/censoring-indian...

What is "China" in this case? Its government is the Communist Party. It's not going to abolish itself!

The question to ask, if you want China to change, is to ask how would the Chinese Communist Party lose its grip on power. That would probably need to happen following an economic crisis. However, looking at how badly the Chavistas are driving Venezuela into the ground these days, and how much they're able to hold onto power, you can see that it's not easy to get rid of a government with a lot of resources. The boiling frog theorem applies here. A sudden shock, sudden famine, sudden economic turmoil is what's most likely to create the conditions of regime change.

> What is "China" in this case? Its government is the Communist Party. It's not going to abolish itself!

I've read that something close to 1/3rd of the Chinese population is a member of the party or whose livelihood directly depends on it in some fashion where they are essentially a member.

So this is a very good question.

If such a large proportion of the country is in the party, then... what's the problem? As I understand it, essentially any high performing college student can join the party, and then there's deal making and voting within the party. I wouldn't be surprised if there's different "factions" within the party, each fighting for control, or each who have a different vision for the future.

Isn't that just a different framing of the same basic setup in the U.S. where say 1/3 of the population is in the mid/upper class and debate about and set policy and direction for the country? We call our factions "parties" but other than naming things at different levels I'm not really sure I see much of a difference.

> As I understand it, essentially any high performing college student can join the party

Not necessarily. I understand that it also takes personal connections and/or a little bribery to get in.

> and then there's deal making and voting within the party. I wouldn't be surprised if there's different "factions" within the party, each fighting for control, or each who have a different vision for the future.

My understanding is that this is absolutely true at the higher levels of the party, but not so much at the regular levels. Party membership itself doesn't confer much privilege or power.

When I was studying in China I happened to find myself sitting next to a group of Chinese my age (college age) studying intently in the common area of the University building I was in. I asked them what they were studying, and they told me they were studying for the exam they had to take in order to join the Communist party.

I was a bit taken aback, because these students didn't seem like 'communists', whatever that connoted in my mind at the time. They were about 6 of them, mix of men and women. They showed me what they were studying, some Marxist political philosophy, and told me that they wanted to join in order to improve their career opportunities.

Now, if that isn't the most hilarious irony in history I'm not sure what is. Studying Marxist political philosophy to join the Communist Party to unlock lucrative career opportunities. Priceless.

To take the analogy a bit further with the boiling frogs, the frogs jumped out of the water, until Goltz removed the brains from the frogs.

So, how does that relate to China? Well, if they still have brains, they will reach a tipping point as the water warms. More closely, so long as they have access to information (I think) they will eventually decide that enough is enough.

So, then the question is do they have enough information? Do they have enough freedom to communicate with each other?

It's hard to say. I've been to China and I think the answer is actually an affirmative. They have plenty of information. They all know about the GFW, the censorship, and how it is different than the West. They don't appear to be under any illusions.

I've spoken, in person, with multiple people in China and they all know those things, as well as being up to date with their current local and national politics. It's hard to describe, but they just seem to accept it. I don't want to say they see it as a good thing, but they all pretty much say that it is for the national harmony.

They know about Tianamen square. They even have a special word for censorship - river crab, though I forget the reason. They know about the death penalties. They know about the corruption of local and national politicians. They seem to be as aware of their politics as much as we are aware of our own, maybe even more so.

It's a different mentality, I guess? They accept it and think it helps promote social harmony. It wasn't easy, and still isn't, for me to get my head around.

"River crab" is homophone with "harmony", an euphemism for censorship.

As for why people accept the situation, one can probably start with "Nash equilibrium" (I chose not to use the term "prisoners' dilemma" as that could project uneeded connotation in this context).

Near, thanks. I'd had it explained to me, but had long since forgotten.

It was very different to go there in person. I expected an undercurrent of political unrest and dismay with the things like censorship. It really didn't seem like I met anyone willing to vocalize serious displeasure.

There are different strong claims based on ideologies while none can be falsified. Let's look at the history: 1.The revolution of 1911 that overthrown the Qing dynasty was based on the idea that a democratic and prosperous new China will be established. It didn't happen. Instead there was tens of years of bloody civil war. 2.In the Culture Revolution between 1966-1976, the grass root democracy was encouraged by Chairman Mao at the beginning for his political purpose. There was a chaos all over the country that every cities/towns/factories/schools there would be (almost) exactly two parties fighting with each other while both claimed to loyal to Chairman Mao.

The Chinese elite already know what's the consequence CCP is gone. Most normal Chinese as well as all Westerners don't know.