People in China, at least those millions people who are able to cross the Great Firewall, know that democracy is generally good, but they also know that a strong central government can also be useful for certain circumstances. Most westerners and HongKongers on Hacker news have a very extreme political view, you just believe "democracy is good"(TM), protesting against the evil Chinese government is good. But can you take a closer look at what is really happening in HK and then decide what you believe?
BTW, I'm neither pro-protester nor pro-police, I think the protest is a result of economic regression in HK. You could also check my comment and posting history to see that I'm not a 五毛党.
In a liberal democracy, on the other hand, people expect much more responsiveness to their concerns. And people tend to value freedom of expression and freedom from suppression. Those values are treasured in Hong Kong.
So no wonder mainlanders and HKers have different outlooks on this issue.
Or those are the most important factors and that's why they are optimizing for them first. Carville's slogan for Bill Clinton was "It's the economy, stupid", and it's plausible at least. What good does a healthy environment if you don't have food to eat? What good does economic progress if you don't have security? The West has operated very similarly imho, we're just further along. Environmentalism is still fairly young, and so are today's social safety nets (well, in Europe anyway). I don't see a reason why the Chinese wouldn't follow on that route (and indeed they are starting to care for the environment more).
> In a liberal democracy, on the other hand, people expect much more responsiveness to their concerns. And people tend to value freedom of expression and freedom from suppression.
But that's only because the basic needs are generally taken care of. I don't see any liberal democracy valuing freedom over food security (en masse, certainly some happily value their freedom over the food security of others in society).
That was the hope and belief behind Nixon's trip to China, and the inclusion of China into the WTO. But with Xi taking power, arguably the most totalitarian leader in China since Mao, there is no sign that civil liberties are anywhere on the horizon.
> But that's only because the basic needs are generally taken care of.
History does not agree with you, I think. People were fighting for democracy as a response to totalitarian systems which did not provide them with the resources and security they wanted—even before the age of plenty brought about by industrialization. And when the west was democratized, a lot of those countries were ravaged by two world wars, and far behind where China is today.
And when it all got underway, were not the ideals of the enlightenment in large part a counter to monarchies and feudalism which failed to provide what the people needed? If one sets aside the notion that without freedom, a plentiful existence loses its meaning (which is another, philosophical argument), I think the fight for representation in government is precisely a fight to achieve one's economic and social goals.
The main question is probably what time frame that horizon is. It's hard to predict the future, very, very few people in 1985 (or even in '88) believed the SU would collapse, and yet it did a short time later. "The Chinese are destroying their environment" was a meme, now they are somewhere at the top regarding new sustainable energy installed, and they are fighting pollution (Beijing is in the situation Los Angeles was a few decades ago).
> People were fighting for democracy as a response to totalitarian systems which did not provide them with the resources and security they wanted
That's what I'm trying to say. People want stuff, and a mostly capitalist, mostly democratic society is good at providing stuff for a large majority of the population. If it wasn't, people would care very little for democracy. Throw us into a hard and long recession and offer a (to the majority of the population) plausible way out via authoritarian measures and, so I believe, you'll be surprised how quickly they'll agree to abandon democracy. Democracy is to most (or to all? a different argument is mostly made by the affluent, and they never need to choose) a means to an end, not an end in itself. The CCP is currently still ranking very favorably compared to "before CCP" with regards to providing stuff. If that changes, or people believe that democracy could provide significantly more with few trade-offs, I expect the general sentiment to change. (Pro tip: want to fuel desire for democracies around the world? Make sure all/most citizens in Western democracies massively profit continuously from the democratic system, not just a minority at the top)
Given that civil liberties often follow wealth (it's easy to be generous when you're rich), I don't see why that wouldn't happen in China. They're not at a Western level of wealth yet, and for a significant part of the population, poverty is still the primary concern, not civil liberties. When that has changed, so will demands of the population (though it's unlikely they will too closely follow Western values, given their culture is very different in many regards).
That is not true. I used to dislike Democracy, and some what Pro Authoritarianism when I was young. It is how you get things done. Until you grow old and have a much wider view to balance. Democracy is the worst form of government. It is not like we don't know what crap and shit democracy brings us. Constant arguing and struggle against one and other, but it is also the only one that works. It brings Order within Chaos.
Democracy is the only system that can contain two ( or more ) opposing force, and anyone will always have the Option to choose. Being able to choose is important. Freedom isn't about doing what you what, it is about having the option of saying No to things you don't want to.
The need for Democracy wan't obvious until you have been on the oppressed side.
Right now the option of saying No is slowly and gradually being taken away in Hong Kong.
>I think the protest is a result of economic regression in HK
Yes and No. First there isn't any economic regression in HK. Second it is the wealth inequality that is the highest in any developed nation, and the 2nd part cant be solved without having a government that work with Hong Kong people, not against it.
If we were to overthrow the Chinese government, can we get a better tomorrow for the Chinese people? The west have show us what happened in Middle East. Clearly, wars are not what we want.
I'm saying that we want democracy, we do want that, but blaming it all to "the evil communist party" is not a good way show us how to get a democracy, please provide some practical guidance. Thanks.
hong kong has demonstrated, with some of the largest protests in global history, that they do not want the chinese government to interfere with the autonomy that they currently have. the chinese government has responded with misinformation to sway their population so that they can continue to constrain hong kong in ways that they don’t want
the point isn’t really that the chinese government isn’t better than an alternative, it’s that it’s going in a direction further away from what it’s citizens would generally agree they want, and not allowing people the knowledge to even know it’s happening, let alone the freedom to have a discussion about alternatives
Like "being raised out of poverty"? For large parts of the Chinese population, the biggest concern isn't 4G coverage or cultural appropriation at some college party.
Is there an equivalent instance of the Tiananmen Square massacre in the US? (I'm asking, I don't know).
The US has their fair share of issues but freedom to speak against the government has always been a big thing.
Whataboutism is lazy though, and I do find it telling that the go-to argument a lot of pro-China commenters across platforms use is exactly that...
Also, I'm not aware of multiple definitions for the US government.
While private government isn't US government, they are very much interlaced, pair-evolving and authoritarian being governments.
Actions taken by individuals who are employed by the government--especially when such actions are explicitly illegal--hardly count as an abusive government.
> racially targeted drug operations by the CIA/FBI
Got a link?
> ignoring of the AIDS crisis
Allocation of scarce resources in a way that you personally disagree with is not the same as an abusive government.
When the justice department does not enact the punishments for the laws they set, it is absolutely government abuse. Authority is authority, and people rarely use it uniformly. All are government action unless actual steps are taken to punish it.
> Got a link?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_involvement_in_Contra_coca... https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/sites/default/files/hear...
And then combine that with the sentencing differences between crack cocaine and cocaine (same drug, vastly different punishments). You can also look at the legal treatment of opioids and the origins of marijuana laws (originally targeting mexicans)
http://www.drugpolicy.org/issues/race-and-drug-war
> Research shows that prosecutors are twice as likely to pursue a mandatory minimum sentence for black people as for white people charged with the same offense. Among people who received a mandatory minimum sentence in 2011, 38% were Latino and 31% were black.
Again, the justice department's actions are government actions. Absolutely abuse of citizens.
> Allocation of scarce resources in a way that you personally disagree with is not the same as an abusive government.
Not that scare really, first of all. Secondly, resource allocation is a powerful tool that's literally used to strongarm other countries and across world politics. The action does not define abuse, the effect of the action does (in my book at least). Letting thousands die because it is affecting a minority population is an abusive policy. To take this to an extreme, food is a scarce resource, so if the US made a law saying X people don't get food, that would 100% be abuse. Now that's nowhere near the same thing, but it shows that again, the effect defines abuse, not the action.
--------------------------------------
I think the latter two come down to a fundamental difference in the definition of abuse. If you use a literal model of an army physically hurting people then sure. And it's not the exact same thing - nowhere did I say HK = USA. But your first comment got the reaction it did because it appeared to sweep a lot of the US's less than ideal history under the rug for the revisionist "Well post slavery/civil rights everything was great!".
No, it isn't.
> the American Revolution had some type of value even though slavery was still a part of America's history. Therefore, America still provided some value
I never suggested otherwise.
Also, the people who are protesting are crushed like what happens in Tibet or Xinjiang.
A strong central government might be good for the majority but surely when it suppresses the minorities to just get them in line with the rest, you can't overlook that.
Most people in China don't protest because: 1. they don't get enough benefit from protesting 2. they are happy
Most fellows on HN, respectfully, barely has any understanding on how CCP works internally.
Do they imagine that a bunch of Chinese officials form a party just to think about how to enslave/suppress people and inhale money everyday?
It's all about national interest, people are just pawn. On the HK matter: CCP brainwashes Chinese by amplifying the violent aspect of the protest. Western media brainwashes westerners by understating the damage caused by protest and glorifying their actions.
At the end of day, none of this matters. Power is power. Someone will figure out how to "fix" HK's education system. Leaders of protest go to good US uni on scholarship and have a good life. Fugitives will still need to be handled somehow. Game of monopoly will continue.
Life will go on.
Why do people support bad governments? I recommend reading about Havel's greengrocer.
Obviously the Chinese government is capable of doing some things right or it would, as you say, collapse.
this is itself a very extreme statement. can you provide sources of such claims? I would agree there is a general sentiment of "CCP is bad", but there are similar consternations about many governments, usually the US government.
It is exactly because of their power that large institutions should be treated with caution. They can be tools for progress or oppression.
Quick follow-up question. Do you believe this [1] is a legitimate transmission from the CCP? What are your thoughts about it?
The Publicity Department of CCP or its branches did issue files like this one in the past. However, posts on this site are all blindly anti-CCP, which make me doubt the legitimacy of this file. Also, there is a mistake in this file, 三(three) was used twice.
The Chinese government survives for the same reason every authoritarian government has survived throughout history. Overthrowing governments is really hard and requires truly extreme circumstances. That's the core problem that democracy solves. Overthrowing a democratic government is as easy as checking a box on a form. Overthrowing an authoritarian government requires violence.
Yes and no. You're changing the representatives of the government, but the general circumstances are largely continuing. You don't see a large turn when a new government is elected in a democracy, which you would if it was "overthrown", imho. Similarly, you won't see a large turn in an authoritarian society if the president changes, because in both cases, "the system" remains the same, and changing the face of the system doesn't fundamentally change anything.
Westerners in general deeply value their political voice and freedoms.
And since the Chinese government doesn't value these at all, then you can't blame us for thinking that the Chinese government does very few things right.
Totalitarianism?
Obviously it's not the only form of government, but we are told that it's the only one that's acceptable. There's no objective evaluation and consideration of any alternative political systems. You prove my point. The idea that it's the fairest and best is also subjective. A government gets its authority from the people, and if the Chinese grant authority to its leaders, even absolute authority, (and you can grant authority by simply being pacifist), then who's to say the Chinese government is illegitimate? You? To them your opinions are illegitimate.
Even our government is not a perfect democracy. We do not direct vote the president (Trump lost the popular election), and we are not equally represented in these elections (through gerrymandering, electoral college, etc). So to claim that a democracy, any democracy, or even our own democracy, is somehow the "fairest and best" is extremely disingenuous. These things are justified as a way to prevent "tyranny by the majority", but really it's just another 3/5ths law (black peoples' votes only counted as 3/5ths of a vote)—a way to prevent the redistribution of power.
We don't have a perfect government system, which means it's arguable if we have the best system because that would imply there is no room for improvement. Our education system espouses propoganda that our democratic system is the best in the world, as exemplified by LilByte's statement and views.
That being said, in my experience, the Chinese system is much worse, but due to incompetent bureaucracy, rather than a fundamental issue with a 1-party system. I'm sure Europeans think their multi-party system is also the "fairest and best" too, at least compared to America's 2 party system. I don't believe the Chinese have a better system, but it's fundamentally flawed to walk around with the assumption that our democracy is the best way out there.
One of the big misconceptions of the Chinese political system is that it's something akin to a dictatorship, but it's not. While it has 1-party, internally there are still votes, discourse, and factions. The main difference is that once a decision is made on something, the factions are not allowed to act in their own interest against the unified goals that were already decided on. In the US system, if, say the President has decided something, the opposing party can work to counter his progress in implementing whatever agenda he has decided on. This makes sense to keep one party in check, because if the President is in a different party, he probably has an agenda to ignore the agenda of the opposing party. Civic engagement is also not forced upon people, especially uneducated or ill-informed people. But this doesn't mean that people cannot participate in government.
Your democracy or rather the US democracy is not my own. And for the arguments you've made, I agree. Fortunately I don't live in the US and never have. Likely never will.
Your criticisms of the US version of Democracy are valid, fortunately Democracy allows that recourse and discussion if not out right encourages it. The Chinese political system I cannot imagine would be so welcoming of this type of discourse.
That you defend and disguise the Chinese Dictatorship as a potential alternative to Democracy, this argument leaves me flabbergasted.
The question is if it’s really a place any of us (who grew up in a democracy) would want to live.
The ethos of the CCP is just fundamentally incompatible with my own worldview, even though I can admit to their effectiveness so far.
I’m not really willing to accept the existence of such a country in my world either.
When I say I don't see Totalitarian Dictatorships as an alternative, I don't mean in the literal sense, I mean in the viable sense. In the literal sense, yes, it's an alternative to Democracy. As is building a house on sand is a literal but not viable alternative to building a house on concrete.
I don't think many would want to live under a Chinese authoritarian rule given the Democratic alternatives. Or perhaps they would until they're rounded up in Xinjiang camps, shot in the face with rubber bullets for wanting to protect their current way of life or ran over by Tanks by asking for change to better their way of life.
But if we've seen what the conversations that are occurring in China about these violent acts taken by the CCP, it's clear the populace think it's in their best interests at this time. Though it's worth adding that the message we receive about the CCP's actions is very different to those living in China. I recommend anyone to watch the documentary created by Vice below about the atrocities that are occurring in Xinjiang and the first hand opinions of those that live there.
I would guess the opinions of those being interviewed are honest with a side of oppression.
There's an easy way to find out. Go poll the Chinese people. To be honest many Chinese do want to leave, but only because the country has been poor and most western countries are wealthy. This has been lessening over time.
Definition:
Totalitarianism is a political concept of a mode of government that prohibits opposition parties, restricts individual opposition to the state and its claims, and exercises an extremely high degree of control over public and private life.
Musk selling electric cars can also fall under both categories. People with electric cars are more likely to support policies that make it easier to own electric cars and less likely to care about fossil fuels.
"Century of Self"
https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-century-of-the-self/
---
"Human Resources"
https://topdocumentaryfilms.com/human-resources/
---
I have to say this selection bias exist on the other end as well, perhaps not as blatant as mainland, where the girl gotten her eye shot or the triad beating people wasn't shown at all.
There is selection bias on both sides.
A small nitpick, the news about the girl gotten her eye shot is not hidden from Chinese news, but was presented as being shot by a slingshot of a marble by the protestors (in Chinese [1], Google translate [2]). According to reporters who were at the scene, the girl was definitely shot by the police, because only the police could fire the bean bag round which was stuck in the goggles of the girl and caused such injuries. Put differently, CCP is spreading fake news via state media instead of hiding it from the public view.
Similar story for the triad beating people: it was presented as the triad was trying to protect their homes from the protestors (in Chinese [3], Google translation failed). The news was not hidden from public view.
[1]: https://news.163.com/19/0819/17/EMV7LC0V0001899O.html
[2]: https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=zh-CN&u=http...
What if Netflix (or some other production company) produced a compelling show with an incredibly critical narrative about the PRC and its leadership? Would citizens in mainland China be able to access it through roundabout means? Would you be able to sow the seeds of democracy? Would they even be interested?
The last time I was on campus in Shanghai and Beijing, half of those I spoke to were critical of the party and did not believe China would catch up to the West. The other half were total ideological zealots and made me know that my government was inferior.
Given my vantage point, I believe the citizenry is at a precipice, but there is no inciting moment to tip the scale. Life in China is comfortable for the burgeoning middle class, and nobody would want to rock that boat.
In any case, I think an unfettered political drama about the PRC would be fascinating to watch.
In a way, they've already done this. See "Joshua: Teenager versus Superpower". It's a documentary from the precursor to these protests, the Umbrella Revolution of 2014. They definitely don't take a pro-PRC stance on the issue.
>Would citizens in mainland China be able to access it through roundabout means?
Yes, VPNs are very common (especially among younger and more educated populations)
>Would you be able to sow the seeds of democracy? Would they even be interested?
This is more complicated. It's important to realize that there's a rational reason that many people have for supporting the CCP. On the whole, their lives have gotten significantly better over the last couple of decades. They're optimistic about the future. Attacks on the Party are attacks on the mechanism that has ushered in economic growth. To this extent, I wouldn't expect democracy to be welcomed by the average person any time soon; it's simply not a national value for them in the way that it is for the United States.
(Huge caveat: remember it's a country of over a billion people and making generalizations is necessarily going to gloss over large sub-populations that may have an entirely different world view)
People believe in what they choose to believe.
The same thing can be said about what you are believing about Chinese governments.
How would you be sure that you are not biased because of all the western media you consumed?
Have you been to China and seen what happened there?
Your friend may have access to information on both sides and made the judgement. I would think twice before you ignore this.
Chinese people generally value stability and harmony over individual rights. So, why would mainland Chinese people support violent protesters who protest for Hong Kong having more individual rights than the mainland does?
Not sure though.
But since 996, I think most of them are pretty aware what is happening abroad ( sometimes)
the obvious fake content on youtube and facebook was reported and removed, but all it did was hide the traces of the content that flooded private whatsapp groups.
Yes. Some protesters destroyed property. But the Hong Kong protests have been overwhelmingly peaceful.
Almost shockingly peaceful. Millions of people are mobilizing in cramped quarters. Very few cultures have the restraint to coördinate so massively with barely any mistakes.
Contrast this with the counter-protesters, in Hong Kong [1] and overseas [2]. Pro-Xi protesters are violent at about the same frequency as (if not higher than) Hong Kong's protesters. This despite there being far fewer pro-Xi protesters on the ground.
[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-49066982
[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/30/world/australia/hong-kong...
You're asking questions of concern without taking a side by the way, suggesting that maybe the mainlanders are right to see the protesters as violent and deserving of violent repression by a dictatorship. I would urge you to be a little less willing to take the dictator's side on this.
The mainstream media were all, in orchestrated unison, arguing loudly for the war. And the government provided lots of allusions to evidence and appeals to authority, demanding support for it. And this was a conflict with the 'good guys' versus a literal dictator who was undoubtedly a horrible person. Yet the consequences of that war far dwarfed the atrocities of that man. And it was all based on lies. There was no WMD, the secret high level insider source was a taxi driver who had no connection to the government, the 'mobile weapon labs' were helium generating stations for use in conventional artillery, etc.
Throughout history it's not infrequent that such things happen. We'd like to imagine that when the 'good guys' win good things happen, but reality is often not so kind.
---
Attaching this as an addendum since I've now been throttled for getting downvoted:
I am referring to things such as the single word title piece ran by the Washington Post, "Irrefutable." [1] On the same day the New York Times published this [2] piece entitled "Irrefutable and Undeniable". And there were many other such pieces being run as well. It's just a tad tedious to dig up these articles now from 16 years ago. It was bad. Note in these articles the complete and absolute lack of any sort of critique or even consideration of the possibility that evidence might not hold up to scrutiny. Instead the media condemned and proclaimed with absolute certainty. That was not, is not, journalism - it is propaganda.
Consequently I find it important to always remain critical of anything that has substantial political undertones. And so I prefer to take information that both sides agree to and judge it for myself while giving the arguments a distant secondary interest. And while it may ultimately leave me drawing the wrong conclusion, I'd rather be able to justify my logic based on evidence I personally felt compelling beyond any doubt, rather than on parroting others' analysis.
I don't really understand why more people don't think this way.
[1] - https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/2003/02/06/i...
[2] - https://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/06/opinion/irrefutable-and-u...
It was one of, if not THE most divisive and unpopular decision(s) the Blair government made, even at the time.
Eventually this sort of media analysis becomes a sort of clairvoyance. Intelligent news consumers responded to June's "Gulf of Oman" incident with questions about the "Gulf of Tonkin". Earlier, we had also questioned the official narrative about gas attacks in Syria. Now it's clear that was all bullshit too. [0] Unkillable zombie authoritarian organizations who have lied in specific ways for specific reasons before, will lie in those same ways for those same reasons again and again.
[0] https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-06-04/eminent-american-s...
This is plainly false.
The New York Times featured e.g. then-Senator John Kerry arguing against war in Iraq: https://www.nytimes.com/2002/09/06/opinion/we-still-have-a-c...
They also had e.g. news pieces about the UN chief chemical and biological weapons inspector contradicting the US government's claims of WMDs: https://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/31/world/threats-and-respons...
This Atlantic cover story opposed war in Iraq: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2002/11/the-fif...
In the UK, only The Sun unequivocally supported the war, and The Daily Mirror and The Independent both strongly opposed the war: https://www.theguardian.com/media/2002/sep/25/pressandpublis...
Washington Post columnist Katrina vanden Heuvel always opposed war in Iraq, although she's a weekly columnist so I don't have the time to scroll through her archives to find a Post article, but to prove she's not like Trump (who claims to have been against the war, but actually publicly supported it before it started and didn't publicly oppose it until after it started): https://www.thenation.com/article/powell-fails-make-case/
Sure, the US mainstream media broadly supported the war and failed to challenge the government's claims, when they should have been much more skeptical. I've seen estimates that, for example, the opinion section of the Washington Post was 91% in favor of going to war. But being duped or foolish is a world apart from being coerced, as the media is in China. Can you find even a single word in a single mainstream Chinese outlet in favor of Hong Kong democratic demands? 9% is completely different from zero. It's not even comparable.
In checking out USA Today their coverage of Hong Kong [1] today also seems remarkably level-headed in contrast again to the New York Times, Washington Post, et al - which are presenting the situation in a sensationalized and single-sided fashion. Unfortunately more tempered coverage seems to gain little to no traction, then and now.
[1] - https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2019/07/02/hong-ko...
The US mainstream media and the Chinese state media both engage in propaganda, but they're completely, fundamentally different.
I have my quibbles with that USA Today article (which I actually found quite biased, presenting the views of 3 different Hong Kong or Chinese government offices but just one single protestor viewpoint). I have quibbles with NYT and WP coverage of Hong Kong too. But fundamentally, they're written with good-faith intent to inform. Though I perceived a bias in USA Today's coverage, they still did report on the woman shot in the eye by Hong Kong police with a less-lethal round. Chinese state media, by contrast, is reporting that she was hit in the eye by a fellow protestor, and even claims that "Internet sources" say she's in charge of paying protestors to demonstrate: http://m.news.cctv.com/2019/08/12/ARTIZFDwhpv8u9PFBzzWbYhP19...
That's not good-faith intent to inform. That's bad-faith intent to deceive. That's completely, fundamentally different the kind of "propaganda" that US media engages in.
February 23rd - truck set on fire. western media runs nonstop articles blaming Maduro. politicians use it as effort to try to justify war.
February 24th - RT publishes refutation clearly showing it was a protester who set the vehicle on fire [1]
February 25th - March 9th - US media and politicians continue shoving the Maduro did it fabrication.
March 10th - NYTimes acknowledges it was a protester who set the convoy on fire and very briefly runs a story as if its breaking news. [2]
Even getting back to the Iraq reporting. Our media did not just passively present what was said. They actively evangelized and argued in favor of the evidence which was always, at best, dubious. Fundamentally I think one of the major differences in our propaganda is that we're simply much better at it. Propaganda should not make most people suspect it's propaganda. Ours doesn't - theirs does.
[1] - https://www.rt.com/news/452326-venezuela-us-aid-truck-protes...
[2] - https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/10/world/americas/venezuela-...
Please try harder next time.