China Has Navalnys, Hidden from the Public | Hacker News Reader

China Has Navalnys, Hidden from the Public

nytimes.com

30 pointsreaperducer24 comments

I find it facinating how liberal mainstream media (MSM), such as The New York Times (NYT), positions itself as an opponent to xenophobia and corporate dominance in America domestically. However, when it comes to international affairs, it seems to shift its stance. It does not hesitate to support individuals abroad who may be racist, xenophobic, and corrupt businessmen or politicians, as long as they appear to challenge countries the US views as adversaries. Here, Alexei Navalny, whom the NYT has elevated, was known for his far-right ultra-nationalist and Islamophobic views [1]. Similarly, Apple Daily, a Hong Kong tabloid whose owner, Jimmy Lai (Lai Chee-ying), was praised by the NYT as a democracy fighter, published a front-page ad that derogatorily called Chinese mainlanders locusts [2], among countless articles that incited hatred toward Chinese mainlanders. In 2019, there were numerous incidents where mainlanders were attacked because they don't speaking Cantonese, including a Japanese individual mistaken for a Chinese mainlander [3]. In context of this, the showing of symbol Pepe the Frog in Hong Kong is a dog whistle for the alt-right (acompany calls like "President trump please save us"). However NYT believes in this case, pepe the frog, means love somehow. [4] Last, but the most glaring example of this would be the Ukrainian neo-nazi problem, which I think everyone knows how this topic is treated differently after Russia was designated as one of the main advasary of US. It is not journalism but propaganda (maybe even a good one) if you choose to only present one side, and conveniently avoid the other instead of striving for a more nuanced and balanced view.

[1]: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/08/amnesty-intern...

[2]: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-16828134

[3]: https://mothership.sg/2019/11/news-hong-kong-japanese-man-pr...

[4]: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/19/world/asia/hong-kong-prot...

It's fascinating because its also expected in a way.

MSM defends capitalist interests because they are owned by capitalists.

The said capitalists just wish China would also go through the same violent balkanisation that cursed the Federal Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia because it would significantly weaken a successful socialist experiment.

It's a straightforward case of "my enemy's enemy is my friend" isn't it? The values of NYT are so opposed to those of Putin's Russia or Xi's China that they support those standing against those views uncritically. It's a fairly rational thing to do, even if it is hypocritical. Any port in a storm, to use yet another metaphor.

In the US I think you'd say that prevailing views are more closely aligned to the NYT and this affords them some ability to be more critical.

The NYT isn't consistently anti-Chinese (by which I mean anti-PRC). They refuse, for example, to refer to the ROC as a country even though the NYC could of course do so (and which it obviously is). They play games and refer to it as an "island Democracy" or use other terminology to avoid stating the truth. I've always presumed this is a purposeful policy to make the PRC happy (or at least avoid its wrath when it comes to preserving advertising dollars and access). I've left many short comments on NYT's articles asking why they refuse to refer to the ROC as a country given, but they simply never publish it.

That said, sure in broad strokes I think the NYT tends to promote fairly mainstream American imperial interests.

That stance is simply in line with the U.S. State Department, which also does not consider ROC (Taiwan) a country, which just reinforces the point that you're replying to: the NYT, like the rest of the MSM, is just carrying water for the capitalist American hegemonic status quo.

Good point. Yeah I think you're right and I just didn't see the big picture. Seems totally consistent with the NYT's general support of American foreign policy in general.

It's not really that complicated.

People are complex. If you think the only people fighting for democratic rights should be the ultra-pure in contemporary political views ("let he who is without sin cast the first stone"), well, you're going to quickly run out of people to talk about or support.

Look at the human beings who were great leaders - Martin Luther King Jr was an adulterer, Churchill held racist ideas, Gandi loved to test his will by sleeping next to prepubescent girls.

It's possible to support a person because they are doing great things, without automatically agreeing to everything they believe or do.

Definitely, should a reputable media (at least ten years ago NYT was reputable) report this complexity and nuances about these people or about the situations so that readers can get a complete view?

I agree with you there. Media today (not exclusive to NYT) does a terrible job of actually reporting on things. As you said, everything is viewed through a preordained set of assumptions that are unspoken and changing and often contain contradictions.

I'm not saying anything new, but most news today are opinion pieces disguised as news. But then again, it always has been.

What exactly is the "Ukrainian neo-nazi problem"?

Putin uses this term to refer an amalgamation of history concerning Russian territory, with an axis roughly going through a 1654 peace treaty, and capped by the 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. The latter was signed only a week before Nazi Germany invaded Poland. Russians harbor their own type of bitterness about the 1920s-1940s National Socialists which is not well-reflected in the Western/American/Jewish perspective. If you move past the embarassment of Tucker Carlson's "Why is history relevant?", Putin makes a certain case, if propagandized, from a long-term Russian perspective. It is worthwhile to look up all the events he cites.

https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/tucker-carlson-intervie...

Putin conveniently forgets that the USSR was the other side of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. The USSR invaded Poland two weeks after the Germans did.

Google the Ukraine Nazi problem and there are good sources debunking this nonsense.

And by the way, Putin lies through his teeth anyway. He said before the invasion of Ukraine that it is not going to happen. Google that too.

A mild annoyance within Ukrainian politics. But in reality, bearing no connection to the problem that Putin makes it out to be. A bogeyman basically.

Per the Wikipedia definition:

The bogeyman (/ˈboʊɡimæn/; also spelled or known as bogyman, bogy, bogey, and, in North American English, also boogeyman)[1] is a mythical creature used by adults to frighten children into good behaviour.

The blatant white-washing of corrupt oligarchs by the usual suspects is truly off the charts.

China is ruled by a communist party. Of course the party will seek to curb political powers of the capitalist class while it is still allowed to exist.

The existence of the State is only a symptom of class conflicts that need to be tamed, and in all cases, the State is a partial arbitrator; it will necessarily defend the interests of a class over an another. In China's case, the State sides with the workers, so that's a good thing those "Navalnys" get thrown in jail.

I think a more correct analysis is to see the party as its own class, whose primary allegience is to itself, and whose secondary goal is to balance the power of the workers and capitalists, trying to ensure neither becomes too strong.

The supposedly communist party has gone after trade unionists and grassroots workers movements after all.

Chinese way of practising democratic centralism has its perks, and its cons. It's very different from western democratic systems for sure, because it doesn't allow for the active contestation of decisions taken after democratic debates, but they still happen! So basically, if a majority of Parliament choses to act like X, but a minority of Parliement still keeps on fighting for Y, this minority will quickly get in trouble.

Right now chinese workers are very much satisfied by whats been accomplished by their Republic, but they will easily admit its certainly not without flaws.

Any specific event that comes to your mind when you think of suppressing workers movements?

I'm not myself a chinese citizen, but my ex was, and from one thing to another I got very interested in their political system.

What you describe is populism. It's not so much you'll get in trouble if you keep pushing for Y. You'll get in trouble if you push anything that is to the detriment of all those in parliament, these days even more so if to the detriment of the leader.

> You'll get in trouble if you push anything that is to the detriment of all those in parliament, these days even more so if to the detriment of the leader.

Yes and no, for many reasons: 1) There are regular protests being held a lil bit everywhere in china every day, and most go fine for the protesters. 2) You cannot advocate for everything during those protests. If you advocate for the transition to a western-style liberal democracry, so a democracy for bourgeois but a dictatorship for the workers, then yes you will have fine gentlemen forcing you into their vehicle for interrogation. 3) If you are referring to the current president of the PRC, you have to realise he is merely executing what parliement wants him to execute. Even if you see him as a tyran, you also probably realise that no leader rules alone; its a system that enables their power.

Those protests are not a threat to the party that is why they are tolerated.

In China's case, the State sides with the workers

But that's not true. It sides with a very narrow view of the role workers play in a communist society.

Try and go to China and start a workers union. You'll quickly find yourself in prison. Why? Because there is only one union ACFTU and it's controlled by the state.

So clearly China doesn't side with the workers.

The problem with China's system is that in order to maintain this rigid system it must bring the power of the state to bear against those who challenge it. It's rationale is that the state are the people. The ACFTU represents all workers, so how could anyone be opposed to it except someone opposed to the system itself?

After a while, it's just the state using it's monopoly on violence not to maintain a fair system, but rather the system itself.

It's a characteristic of all authoritarian systems.

Here is an interesting article about China's regulations regarding trade unions: <https://www.china-briefing.com/news/china-trade-unions-consi...>

tl;dr anyone can form unions in China, its just that they have to be under the supervisory authority of the ACFTU. Pretty much like the US where trade unions can get formed through the NLRB :)

> Pretty much like the US where trade unions can get formed through the NLRB :)

It's nothing of the same. The NLRB is the regulatory body that exacts the law and arbitrates.

It would be "pretty much like" if the US required all unions to be formed under the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) and jailed anyone who didn't.

Navalny was a reactionary who the US saw as an easy propaganda tool. Does the metaphor still work in the context of this article?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com