Hacker News Reader

Comment by nukeop | Hacker News Reader

The Chinese don't care about "dictatorship". Their lives are largely unaffected. Sure, sometimes a political rant gets deleted from the Internet, but it has little bearing on actual daily life.

They openly mock western liberal values, they have their own slang for it. It seems so natural for the westerners that all countries will naturally drift towards democratic governments and more freedom, but it seems that some regions of the world just don't work that way. Just like Middle Eastern countries work best (as in, remain relatively stable) under military dictatorships, China seems to prefer authoritarian rule that at the same time doesn't really get in the way of them living their lives the way they're used to. It's a tough pill to swallow, but some nations just don't like democracy and don't want to implement it in any form.

View on HN

Count me among those who consider that to be a stepping stone on the way to liberal democracy.

Authoritarianism is easy to support when the economy is booming and living standards are increasing. When this falters, which it inevitably will, then discontent will spread from a relatively small group of political discontents to the population at large, who will start to demand change. And that demand can be the pressure that tips the balance in favour of democratic rule.

It goes the other way as well. In recent history, right-wing fascist authoritarianism has risen when the economy turns bad. e.g. Nazi Germany, 1930s Italy. The Greek right wing groups are currently a non-negligible presence.

>Authoritarianism is easy to support when the economy is booming and living standards are increasing. When this falters, which it inevitably will, then discontent will spread from a relatively small group of political discontents to the population at large, who will start to demand change. And that demand can be the pressure that tips the balance in favour of democratic rule.

If anything, history has taught us the reverse. Nazi Germany became that way exactly because "living standards" were decreasing in the Weimar republic. And all those Latin American countries with low living standards had (and some have) mostly dictatorships and compromised "democracies".

That's definitely true too, so always a risk. At least we could conclude that economic pressure can be a driver for change.

> Just like Middle Eastern countries work best (as in, remain relatively stable) under military dictatorships

Such a ridiculous claim which shows your lack of understanding of the Middle East. The Middle East is not composed of countries, all the borders on the map were artificially created by colonial powers and the only political structure that existed before was simply a tribal one. So you don't go from nomad tribes to democratic regimes in one step.

>So you don't go from nomad tribes to democratic regimes in one step.

That doesn't exactly contradict what the parent said. If anything it supports it.

Precisely because "you don't go from nomad tribes to democratic regimes in one step" modern "Middle Eastern countries work best (as in, remain relatively stable)" as non-democracies.

>The Middle East is not composed of countries, all the borders on the map were artificially created by colonial powers

That's true, but those artificially created countries are still all we have, and are still countries (states) in all senses of the world, and those are the parent was talking about.

> and are still countries (states) in all senses of the world, and those are the parent was talking about.

What is true? If you ask locals they don't have any feeling of belonging to any larger-than-them nation, they clearly describe themselves by the community/tribe they come from. This is the only reality that matters.

>If you ask locals they don't have any feeling of belonging to any larger-than-them nation, they clearly describe themselves by the community/tribe they come from.
Rural locals? Because city locals, and increasingly rural locals as well, will feel like belonging to a larger-than-them nation.

>This is the only reality that matters.*

Obviously not. This might be the only reality they know, but in the outside world, the state they belong to, their government and the general national identity the have to live under matters as well. When such a state is at war with another state, it's not a tribal matter anymore.

You're not even replying to the OP's arguments. Such a ridiculous reply. If anything, this history precisely says why their former form of governance works somehow while the current form of "democracy" (forced upon them by the west again), doesn't.

> Just like Middle Eastern countries work best (as in, remain relatively stable) under military dictatorships

This is extremely easy to say after any attempts at democracy in the middle east(Nasser and the Nasserites, Mossadegh, and now Rojava) are crushed by foreign powers and military dictatorships are actively supported since they are easier to control.

I concur - nation states under constant attack from imperial aggressors survive better under military dictatorships, precisely because that is what is required to survive during times of war.

If the West would leave the Middle East alone for a decade, it is highly likely that we'd see a much different picture. Its very difficult to develop free, social, democratic society when the institutions which support that development are perpetually bombed into oblivion: universities, hospitals, infrastructure.

Under times of intense duress, all humans survive better under military dictatorships. Its not just the Middle East. Not having had their infrastructure destroyed by outside forces, there isn't a single modern western democracy that we can use as a model to demonstrate this fact. If we stop bombing the Middle East, they'll have a chance to develop institutions which allow for their progress. Its just we, in the West, don't want to ever allow that to occur; it would interrupt our own development as Military-Industrial oligarchies.

> it is highly likely that we'd see a much different picture

Highly unlikely since the Middle East is composed of hundred of tribes and other populations like the Kurds who want nothing to do with each others and will enter conflict whenever appropriate.

You are implying that their attempts at defense and self-preservation against violent tyranny and genocide is a conscious collective choice of the people for more conflict rather than a reaction to their inhumane circumstances under such conditions. Everyone is capable of resisting arrest if you bend their arm back at a certain angle.

Kurds have been continuously in that existential conflict long before the gulf wars. Their identity has been systemically under attack by brutal military dictatorships and nationalism for over a century now. Self-determination, survival and freedom from tyranny has always been their motivation. One does not have the option to choose when homicide knocks on one's front door.

Kurds, most people of the Middle East and humanity in general want peaceful coexistence, progress, freedom and live productive lives. However, inorganic oscillations due to oppressive force and might wreak havoc in reaching any sustainable equilibrium.

We leave Saudi Arabia alone and that has hardly turned into a democratic beacon.

I really don't understand all this self flagellation in the West about the Middle East, we got drawn into these places because they are basket cases.

You do realize that Saudi is the biggest ally of the US in the region and it starts all the wars/carries on its domestic affairs however it pleases, with US backing, right?

> Not having had their infrastructure destroyed by outside forces,

Different Islamic sects don't get along so well either.

> The Chinese don't care about "dictatorship".

Not true for every Chinese person. They can't do anything about it, or in a more accurate account, they FEEL they can't do anything about it, is more universally agreed.

Cynicism is deeply rooted in the young Chinese today, maybe the fear facing a gigantic state machine alone is too real, and the fact their have more options than their parents' generation is also real, thus rather than confronting the problem, they embrace escapism and showing compliance on the surface.

Cynicism is one thing but this ideological matter is another. Many (I'd say even the majority of the youth) do believe that any radical change right now is likely to do more harm than good. Of course they also have a lot of dissatisfaction about the society but that doesn't automatically mean they want western democracy imposed upon the country. i.e. they also don't believe that "western democracy" would be a solution. Those two things have very little to do with each other.

The same argument could have been made about Europe not so long ago. I think one difference is that back then the playing field was more equal. Military power was roughly equal to the number of people you had fighting on your side.

Fighter Jets, Aircraft Carriers, Tanks, Drones, Nukes changes that to military power being equal to your economic power. Meaning that authoritarian governments are much harder to displace if they have enough economic power.

> Their lives are largely unaffected.

This might be true for a large portion of the population. That does not justify treating the rest as enemies of the state. Not allowing people the freedom to speak their mind is never moral.

How would life improve for "minorities" in a democracy? Imagine China PR became a democracy. Would they keep the promises they made to Hong Kong?

UK is democratic. The current prime minister TM is from the same political party as her predecessor DC but nobody even talks about the promises made at the vote for creating an independent Wales.

There were no promises made for Welsh Independence. What are you talking about?

Sorry. I was thinking Scotland. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/22/david-... https://archive.fo/ekq26

Not true. SNP talk about it all the time. "The Vow" is highly contentious. What you believe was promised largely depends on what side of the nationalist divide you sit on.

> SNP talk about it all the time.

Sorry, I think I failed to be clear. I meant to signal the lack of the Tories talking about keeping their promise. SNP wants more devolution. It is silly for the English to say why Scotland should have a say in English affairs if the English should not have a say in Scotland.

> "The Vow" is highly contentious.

Well, of course it is.

> What you believe was promised largely depends on what side of the nationalist divide you sit on.

Isn't that very convenient? The way I understand it, Labour expects to win a lot of seats in Scotland so it is against their interest as well for Scotland to be independent?

In any case, the point is not how England screws over Scotland but rather use it as an example that a fully democratic government to replace China PR will still screw over Hong Kong and Tibet.

The argument was not that freedom of speech follows from democracy. You could theoretically have an authoritarian rule that allowed unfiltered criticism against it. The argument was: not allowing freedom of speech is always wrong, independent of the type of governance.

I agree that democracy in itself does not guarantee rights for minorities. It depends on the majority adhering to a moral system that enshrines human equality. We know that this system can break down, a population can agree to subjugate some of its members. I would still rather put my trust in the majority over in one person and especially in a system that allows me to replace the government after some period of time.

I would argue that China is just becoming like another US, which is depressing. The US is just a plutocracy and is hardly much more democratic than China. Some European countries do have better democracies. I can only hope that they are able to last for a while still.

All of them? There is a billion+ of them and they all agree?

With 1.5 billion people you could find some who disagree with literally anything you could say about the situation in their country or about the world in general, I'm talking about the general sentiment.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com