Hacker News Reader

Comment by ospider | Hacker News Reader

Native Chinese here. Hacker news have been a great place to learn new things to me for 5 years. But the political views on Hacker news are somewhat naive to me. It seems that the Chinese Government is always evil and wrong, but why haven't the government collapsed after so many years if there were no people supporting them?

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.

View on HN

IMO the CCP gets its legitimacy to govern from its performance in some key areas: economic development and stability/security. That plays to the party's strengths, so the state-controlled media has actively promoted the view that these factors are the most important. Note how issues like the environment and health care were very much put on the back burner until public awareness and criticism reached a critical threshold, after which the party acknowledged the issues. So it's no surprise that the CCP enjoys a broad level of support on the mainland—it has performed well in the key areas it has convinced people matters most.

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.

> the state-controlled media has actively promoted the view that these factors are the most important

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).

> I don't see a reason why the Chinese wouldn't follow on that route

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.

> there is no sign that civil liberties are anywhere on the horizon

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).

In a poor country, how are economic development and stability/security not pragmatically the most important values?

There are many, many countries with GDPs per capita lower than China's which have democracy and freedom of speech. It's not an either/or proposition

>Most westerners and HongKongers on Hacker news have a very extreme political view, you just believe "democracy is good"(TM),

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.

This doesn’t make sense. The slaving government in ancient Egypt was supported for a long time. Just because a form of government exists doesn’t mean it isn’t abusive to some of it’s people or to other countries.

Just because a government is abusive to some of its people doesn't mean it has no value. Just look at the US

The US government isn't abusive to its people though.

You can make a decent argument that it has been, and definitely is sometimes, for certain definitions of "government" and subsections of people.

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...

When slavery was legal, sure. But in the last, say, 50 years (e.g., since the 64 Civil Rights Act)? I don't see it.

Also, I'm not aware of multiple definitions for the US government.

Firstly, gay marriage has only been legal since 2015 federally — that's a type of abuse. But even if you don't think it is, 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 even though it was abusing its citizens.

> gay marriage has only been legal since 2015 federally — that's a type of abuse

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.

Police brutality, racially targeted drug operations by the CIA/FBI, and the ignoring of the AIDS crisis come to mind in the past 50 years. The civil rights act didn't magically solve everything. Those are just a few major things, plenty of others to go around.

> Police brutality

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.

> Actions taken by individuals who are employed by the government--especially when such actions are explicitly illegal--hardly count 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!".

https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/private-government-how-employers-ru...

While private government isn't US government, they are very much interlaced, pair-evolving and authoritarian being governments.

That’s an interesting theory. But you’re right—it isn’t the US government, so it’s not really germane.

How do you define abusive?

Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar.

The US is in an awful state. But they don't treat their own people as bad as China has.

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.

I'm not saying that the Chinese government is a good government. But a slaving government IS better than warlords. And historically speaking, the current government did unify China in 1949, which is a very important thing in Chinese culture.

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.

i think the problem is that the current chinese government is going further and further away from what average chinese citizens would probably want, and them using misinformation to keep order

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

> further and further away from what average chinese citizens would probably want

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.

it’s not either or

I don’t think that, practically, countries have often gone from authoritarian to democratic without violence.

Ahem. South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan. They were authoritarian before they were democratic.

All the examples you gave are of small countries with largely the same ethnic group. China also is largely Han Chinese but the region is pretty big so it would have differences. Also, areas like Tibet or where Uighurs live will want out.

Maybe people(Han Chinese) are not protesting because they know what happens if you protest, look at what happened in Tianamen square.

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.

This is unfortunately wrong.

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.

People generally are naive. Many things can be said about that, I recommend reading Leary’s eight-circuit model of consciousness.

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.

Thanks, books added to my reading list.

> Most westerners and HongKongers on Hacker news have a very extreme political view, you just believe "democracy is good"(TM)

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.

I cannot speak for the general US populous, but if California were protesting a decision by the US federal government, I would want your support.

It is exactly because of their power that large institutions should be treated with caution. They can be tools for progress or oppression.

Really interesting to read about your perspective. Thank you for sharing.

Quick follow-up question. Do you believe this [1] is a legitimate transmission from the CCP? What are your thoughts about it?

[1] https://pincong.rocks/article/3572

It could be true.

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.

I don't think anyone who has thought about government for more than a few minutes believes that democracy is a form of government without significant downsides. Authoritarian governments have many advantages over democracies. An easy example is the current trade war. Authoritarian governments have a much easier time weathering pain for a long term benefit than democracies who change leaders every four years.

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.

> Overthrowing a democratic government is as easy as checking a box on a form.

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.

Well you might if Congress was overhauled but most of them get re-elected without term limits. People often mistake the President for some kind of autocrat who can make arbitrary decisions when the real power is in the legislature.

Don’t worry we criticize the U.S. government too ;-)

It's almost impossible for westerners to conceive of living in a society without a strong and independent judicial system and without being able to vote for their political leaders.

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.

> but why haven't the government collapsed after so many years if there were no people supporting them?

Totalitarianism?

I'm generally anti-Communist party of China, but mostly because I believe their bureaucracy is completely inept. But I have to agree with you, the vast majority of Western-based HN commenters are politically naïve, as if they just stepped out of a high school US government class. The reason is that US education, while it acknowledges the flaws of democracy, also proclaims that it is the only acceptable form of government.

I dispute this. Democracy is not advertised as the only acceptable form of Government, but it is the fairest and best model we've got. You're creating a straw-man with this argument.

Firstly, I'm not arguing anything, so there is no straw man.

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.

I'm not an advocate for the US Political system. Having grown up in Europe and moved to Australia. Therefore your assumptions that I'd use the US as the benchmark I set for my democratic wishes is misguided and the majority of your argument falls flat as a consequence. Democracy allows the very thing your discouraging, _choice_.

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.

Clearly it is an alternative to democracy. It’s existed more or less successfully for some 80 years now.

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.

Yes, totalitarian dictatorships are a literal alternative to Democracy, though I feel we're nitpicking on the semantics of my words here.

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.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7AYyUqrMuQ

China is not a totalitarian dictatorship.

No?

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.

Speaking of documentaries, I would recommend BBC's The People's Republic of Capitalism [1].

[1]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mtf2H4YrYVw

> 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.

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.

I'm not defending Chinese dictatorship. And since you did not grow up educated in the US system like I was, I hardly see how you can claim I'm incorrect in stating that the US education system teaches us how democracy (particularly US democracy) is the best (if still flawed) system. That was my original point in my original post. I'm not sure why you are derailing it and turning this into a "me supporting China" thing. I do not support their regime (though I admit I"m also not subject to their regime so I'd have no reason to support them), but that doesn't mean that I also got brainwashed by the US education system.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com