Hacker News Reader

Adopting a democracy in the internet age is non-sensical. There's a long list of philosphers/politicians who have not agreed with democracy, mainly because if you control the public opinion, you control the vote. That is easier to do with mass media, and much easier with the internet.

But maybe this is precisely why China would adopt democracy. They already control the media so it would be easy to control the masses, just like in the united states.

> It is entirely possible that the CCP is not keen on democracy exactly because of democracy's weaknesses. Weaknesses that traditionally kept China weak.

It is amusing that you attribute such selflessness to a political faction; the CCP no less

For all its faults, I don't think the evil caricature is an accurate description of the CCP (or most other entities that westerners consider 'evil', with the exception of some WW2 figures). I believe the truth is more nuanced than that. (Edit: please don’t misinterpret this as me saying that the CCP is virtuous. I hereby specifically assert that I am not saying that. We need to stop the black and white thinking)

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, elegant and wrong. As long as you stick to simple black and white views of the world, you stand no chance to actually solve problems.

Also, what does selflessness have to do with this? If the CCP's goal is a strong, prosperous, unified China then it is rational to avoid decisions that don't lead to that goal. Unless you think the CCP is not interested in that, and is only interested in enslaving people for their own amusement. Then we go back to my opinion about the evil caricature.

The CCP’s goal, much like the vast majority of political factions out there, is to maintain / grow political power.

You’re setting up a very unreasonable straw man in suggesting that the CCP is either cartoonishly evil, or virtuous

No. I never presented a binary option. I specifically said that the situation is nuanced, and that I reject black and white thinking.

I said that CCP is not caricature evil, and that many westerners have a hard time believing that. However, “not caricature evil” does not equal virtuous. Not being at the desert does not mean that you are at the north pole.

As for your notion that the goal of the CCP, as well as all other governments, is to maintain/grow power: I agree that that plays a part. I do not agree that that is the only part. I believe there is a mix between maintaining/growing power, legitimate national concerns, and personal advanced. Just like with everything else in life, human motivation is complex and multi-faceted.

But all this talk about “how much evil they are” is, in itself, a diversion from more productive endeavors. I see way more value in addressing weaknesses in our democracies first, and then ‘selling’ this, than continuing to argue how much evil various governments are.

except the incompetencies of democracy don’t really have anything to do with the blatant faults of the Chinese government. The censorship, aggressive propaganda campaigns, re-education camps for ethnic and religious minorities, probable organ extraction from unwilling political prisoners, high levels of corruption at every level, deceitful business arrangements with government sponsored theft of IP, aggressive expansion into areas that don’t want Chinese interference, etc. the situations aren’t comparable. We don’t need to care what government ideology brought China to its current position. It is sufficient to say that a world where China has more geo political power is probably a worse one

Look through that list of injustices. If you're a mainstream Chinese person, most of it doesn't strongly affect you. And additionally, if you're a mainstream Chinese person, your life is very positively affected by the surge in power, wealth, and order that has come to China in recent decades.

That power and wealth was not fated to come by divine right, it's something that the CCP has achieved through strong—often unethical—but usually (not always) effective leadership, whether it be in setting industrial strategy to produce tons of jobs for formerly starving rural Chinese (while the US has lost jobs for its working class consistently); developing cities to have best-in-world subway systems and high-speed rail on the base of villages that didn't have reliable water or electricity decades ago (while the US hasn't improved its infrastructure in decades); and paving the way for many of the worlds' foremost scientists, to be Chinese-born (while the share of Americans doing the same thing has been in decline).

You cannot say the same for many, if any, other developing countries in the world. And I think most mainstream Chinese people you'd ask (if you can), would say that they do believe the CCP does represent and work for the benefit of the Chinese people.

(Note, I didn't say its minorities, I said its people—those mainstream Chinese who comprise the vast majority of its population).

Whether or not you think it's "good" for this government to have more power or represent the world, is largely irrelevant. If you want that system to look more like yours, you have to make the alternative materially better _for those who benefit from it_ (or beat that system into the ground). Calling it evil or listing out human rights violations does not achieve that goal, and represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the values that underpin it.

> I don't think the evil caricature is an accurate description of the CCP

Have a read of a summary of John Garnaut's talk to the Australian Parliament on "Engineers of the Human Soul":

https://sinocism.com/p/engineers-of-the-soul-ideology-in

He posits that Stalin -> Mao -> Xi consider that everything must serve the State: culture, the arts, etc. Obviously that would include people. So Xi Jinping Thought (recently written into the constitution) has people serving the state. In fact, not only their bodies, but their artistic expression belongs not to them but to the state. The CCP doesn't physically enslave people, it enslaves them through fear. People are theoretically free to choose not serve, but they risk bad things for themselves and their family. On top of this, they claim to serve the people (but instead the people serve them), so they are living out a lie. To maintain the deception they have to control what people know about the world, hence the Great Firewall. If you value liberty, honesty, or free expression, I think being nearly forcibly deprived of them could qualify as evil.

Now imagine a society where no one is truly free to think for themselves, where your neighbors can potentially turn you in (= can't trust people close to you), where the arts are limited to the party line. It kind of deprives society of the best of humanity (trust/community, wealth of ideas, innovative arts). That could qualify as evil.

But hey, China is strong, prosperous (in terms of money), and seemingly unified. I do believe that the CCP is doing what it thinks is best for China, but creating a cultural dystopia in exchange for outward wealth and strength seems like a bad bargain. If they created cultural wealth I bet outward wealth and strength would show up naturally.

> I don't see the emergence of divisiveness as a good thing. When people vote because they long to belong to a group, not because it is sensible policy, it will undermine the long term prosperity of said democracy.

Well, it probably isn't when compared to an utopia. But if everyone is united in that we should walk into some abyss, maybe you'll want some divisiveness, no? Churchill was a divisive figure in the appeasement years, yet would it have been better if he had been silenced?

> Don't more people worry about this?

It's been a major topic for years.

> Why do I get the feeling that too many people stick to the notion that democracy is automatically good, without considering possible reforms to address its current weaknesses?

The Democratic Peace Theory[1], if true, is a damn good reason to see democracies as the best option, despite its weaknesses. The authors' point is that they believe China's current system will lead them to bloody battles instead of peaceful integration. It's not absurd to prefer the ugly divisiveness of current western democracies to war.

> If we want China to accept democracy we can't just keep labeling them as 'evil' and call it a day, we should actually come up with a better sell.

Is there any reason to think we can convince the CCP any way or the other?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace_theory

> Well, it probably isn't when compared to an utopia. But if everyone is united in that we should walk into some abyss, maybe you'll want some divisiveness, no?

We can be united in the wrong thing, true. But we can also head into an abyss because of divisiveness, which is equally dangerous (see Game of Thrones). I get the feeling that far too little attention is paid to this perspective.

I see unity-divisiveness is a spectrum. There's the contemporary divisiveness where people become more and more polarized and people don't listen to each other, nor try to work with each other, but merely try to shutdown the other. There's also a more constructive kind of divisiveness (which is closer to the unity side) where people acknowledge that they have different opinions but try to work with each other nevertheless.

There's no reason why we can't (or shouldn't) move the needle more towards "unified" even though there's no way we can (or should) reach it all the way. I don't see enough effort being put into promoting unity more, and that's worrying me.

> But if everyone is united in that we should walk into some abyss, maybe you'll want some divisiveness, no? Churchill was a divisive figure in the appeasement years, yet would it have been better if he had been silenced?

I have no answer to that. Perhaps people downvote me because they think I'm suggesting that he should be silenced (i.e. that I'm strongly in favor of CCP's way of doing things), but I'm not.

> The Democratic Peace Theory[1], if true

That is a big if, considering that the Wikipedia page lists pre-WW1 and pre-WW2 Germany (which were considered democracies) as examples of criticism on this idea.

I personally do not believe China is interested in war (at least, not in the way WW2 Germany was), but I also admit that I know far too little about geopolitics to back up this opinion.

> Is there any reason to think we can convince the CCP any way or the other?

I don't think this is a productive question to ask, because you can ask it about any other entity too. I'd rather turn it around: is there any reason to think that convincing will fail 100% of the time? If the chance isn't 0%, and we are interested in the wellbeing of the Chinese people, then shouldn't we at least give a try no matter how small the chance is?

Let's look at it another way: what are the alternatives? Can you go war to overthrow the CCP? Can you "enlighten" Chinese tourists so that when they go back home they'll overthrow the CCP? Can you overthrow the CCP with a trade war or economic sanctions? No. Convincing the CCP is literally the only option we get.

The big crisis for western democracy is mass disinformation. Democracy only works if we all agree on what the facts on the ground are. In the US we used to have the FCC Fairness Doctrine which prevented broadcasters from becoming straight propaganda outlets. Reagan's killing of the Fairness Doctrine led directly to the rise of Rush Limbaugh, AM talk radio, Fox News, Sinclair Broadcasting, etc. They have been able to create an alternate universe where the facts on the ground are completely different then the so-called mainstream (which is misnamed since the alternate universe is now as big as the "mainstream" one).

We need some form of Fairness Doctrine updated for the internet age. Otherwise things will only get worse and the democracy experiment will fail in probably catastrophic ways.

While disinformation is one issue, I don't think it is the only one. I don't even know whether it is the biggest one.

I worry about bubbles and echo chambers. Nowadays people don't watch much tv anymore. The media that they do consume, suggest content that align with their exiisting views. Unlike tv where you get a range of different views. Whats more, people actually like this! This is why those media are so successful.

I worry about the fact that nobody is interested in actually listening to opposing views. People just shout at each other and reaffirm their existing beliefs.

All this are separate issues from fake news.

Unfortunately, you've got it backwards. The propaganda has exacerbated the division, almost in direct alignment with the removal of the fairness doctrine. All of the things you're describing are a consequence of growing up thinking that 'opposing views' are somehow validated and the problem is that people aren't listening.

It's true, they aren't listening to each other; But few people are saying anything worth listening to ( for example, having critical thoughts about ANY subject that isn't a regurgitation of talking points they heard/read/saw from their bubble ).

The propaganda has been successful enough that it's created a cultural viewpoint that starts with the premise that there ARE sides and that the other side won't listen so they're hopeless.

So let me get this straight. Things like Twitter flame wars and Reddit echo chambers, are the result of media companies creating divisiveness, because that generates anger and controversy and thus higher engagement. This is the ‘cultural viewpoint that there IS a side and that the other side won’t listen’ that you speak of?

You're being purposely obsequious, I think.

Let's try this:

If you take a LONG view ( more than the last 15 years ) you would see that prior to the fairness doctrine being removed, we generally weren't 'entertained' by media. That removal, rise of cable news and radio "shows" and the one issue wedge strategy of the Neo-con/Conservative movements created a socialization atmosphere for the last 30 years which advocates for a growing anger towards "mainstream" media. This first obvious signs of this were the obstructionists of the mid-90s, with Newt Gingrich leading the charge... This gave rise to the Tea Party, where obstructionism and venomous anger becomes the party line, not just an also ran belief. Simultaneous, the liberals are getting soundly beaten by not only a more directed and better orchestrated ground game but by tactics that aren't 'fair' by conventional standards. These events give rise to the seeds of 'falternative facts propaganda', which reframes everything as a personal attack and creates the 'drain the swamp narratives'. However, there's still a communication gap as traditional print media won't engage, and radio programming is notoriously hard to propagate. In comes the mainstream internet, starts connecting like minded folks from disparate areas who start grouping together. Twitter, Facebook, et. al start gaining in popularity, basing their entire business model on fueling the divisiveness playbook ( outrage engagement ), originated WAY WAY back when the fairness doctrine was eliminated. Media companies were also starting to getting in on the action, first by way of 'conservative' talking heads using shock-jock techniques pandering to their audience, creating a feedback loop. Liberals, after a few years of this, start seeing that they're 'losing' the culture war and fight back, emulating the tactics of their perceived opposition. Sprinkle some foreign involvement to amplify, season liberally with money and boom: 2019.

Anyway, I could go on, but I think you're not actually interested in any of this, but instead are trying to Trojan horse some nonsensical ideas about causation under the guise of intellectual exchange ( see: "China gets a bad wrap" as an example ).

Thanks for the chat though, I wish you the best.

The fairness doctrine was part of a propaganda apparatus that greatly narrowed the Overton Window of acceptable discourse. Once people who remembered before the New Deal died people forgot this and it was dismantled, returning the US to normal politics where often the opposing sides genuinely hate each other, see Burr and Hamilton’s duel, the caning of Charles Sumner or the thousands of acts of domestic terrorism, including murder and bombing the US dealt with in the 1960’s.