[flagged]
there's been, in 2025, 983 000 people receiving disciplinary sanctions[0]. then:
1. either there's no corruption, and people are getting sanctioned for no reason
2. there's corruption
> Less incompetency
one thing they seem to do correctly in China, is to select their leaders not based on pure political skills, but on actual thinking skills: many of them come from technical backgrounds, and have been trained to think rationally.
furthermore, in my experience, Asian people, and Chinese in particular, also have better working habits − stronger wills − than most Westerners.
I'd still be careful about assuming they're really _that_ more competent. intellectual theft, propaganda, rushed work, all could contribute to a temporary illusion of superiority.
> Less freedom for stuff like protesting
this is a watered-down description of the actual situation.
you can get jailed, beaten up, tortured, killed, etc. religious groups seem to be the main target of the most violent treatments[1]. there's really no reason to target peaceful people, via such extreme means.
[0]: https://www.brasildefato.com.br/2026/01/30/investigations-in...
Is that true?
You're just compressing reality so the logic becomes simple. But your analysis loses the nuance. First of all no one said there's no corruption in China. Corruption is everywhere... saying there's none is a practical impossibility.
Second. In 2025 983,000 people received disciplinary sanctions.... If what China claims is true or even partially true it means corruption was reduced on a scale that cannot be replicated in the US.
You analysis is valid, but inconclusive.
>furthermore, in my experience, Asian people, and Chinese in particular, also have better working habits − stronger wills − than most Westerners. >I'd still be careful about assuming they're really _that_ more competent. intellectual theft, propaganda, rushed work, all could contribute to a temporary illusion of superiority.
First of all let me be frank. I am asian. I am genetically Chinese and culturally western. My comment was purely about centralized systems of government and how THAT effects competency and not at all about the competency of the population seperate from that.
That being said, average IQ in China is higher than the US, that is a statistical fact. I did not comment on how that translates into this argument or what IQ even means in reality. I'm going to avoid that argument because I have no opinion on it.
>this is a watered-down description of the actual situation. >you can get jailed, beaten up, tortured, killed, etc. religious groups seem to be the main target of the most violent treatments[1]. there's really no reason to target peaceful people, via such extreme means.
You're right. I did water it down. But I still stand by my point. I won't in actuality participate in activities that will lead to these types of consequences so restricting me of these freedoms is something I practically don't care about.
The religious argument is valid. But what do you think of scientology? Cults. Basically the religions that China cracks down on are religions it considers to be similar to scientology. Ultimately these things are bullshit. I'm not religious so, again practically speaking it doesn't affect me. I think most HNers are also atheist or agnostic.
Yup, it's a bit quick, I'll give you that. The numbers in 2025 were higher than in 2024, and in 2023, which could indicate that "it's not very effective" in actually reducing corruption.
I would guess that corruption is probably tolerated as long as it's not too visible, nor undermine people responsible for holding you accountable.
But it's really difficult to understand what's happening in China, because of the difficulty to get factual data.
> My comment was purely about centralized systems of government and how THAT effects competency
I would agree then than centralized government are likely to be more efficient. We've had kingdoms and empires all around the world for millennia, probably not by chance. In my opinion, they can be quite beneficial, as long as there's a substantial amount of morality driving the leading forces. For otherwise, they're efficient in the opposite direction.
China's leader banned Winnie the Pooh from the Chinese Internet because someone said they look alike. That's − dare I say − quite a red flag on many levels.
> I won't in actuality participate in activities that will lead to these types of consequences so restricting me of these freedoms is something I practically don't care about.
Well, it's fair enough, but it is − no offense − a rather self-centered view. It might not affect you today, directly. But it may affect you later, or affect close friends, your children, etc. Genuinely upholding morality within society has a bunch of benefits for everyone.
> But what do you think of scientology? Cults
Agreed.
> Basically the religions that China cracks down on are religions it considers to be similar to scientology.
People in genuine cults are suffering and being abused. Why on Earth would it be justifiable to impose upon them something far worth? If one decides to take down some cults, one may suppose that it's to actually help their members, not to beat the hell out of them; it doesn't make much sense.
There are many, way healthier and efficient alternatives than vicious crackdowns, especially if your intent is to protect the people.
> Ultimately these things are bullshit
I don't know; the most beautiful architecture, all forms of arts, etc. all were rooted in religions. All great men in the past were quite spiritual.
Also, you know, there are things like [0] which really raises eyebrows.
> I'm not religious so, again practically speaking it doesn't affect me. I think most HNers are also atheist or agnostic.
Perhaps it doesn't affect you directly again. But indirectly, or in the long run it might.
Religions are often caricaturally understood nowadays, which I believe is a cause for the increase of their rejection. Don't get me wrong, the caricatures are there for good reasons. But the caricatured things can't be reduced to their caricature − if one attempts to understand them thoroughly and accurately.
A caricature is but an indication of some issues.
[0]: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/cia-rdp96-00788r0019007...
Not true at all. The only difference between a cult and a religion is popular acceptance. That's it. Some people suffer in christianity, just like how some people suffer in scientology. Many people in both religions don't suffer at all.
Tibet is a country with a religion that believes in serfdom and slavery. That's why China doesn't like them.
>There are many, way healthier and efficient alternatives than vicious crackdowns, especially if your intent is to protect the people.
It's called a tradeoff. You can eliminate the disease now by excising it with some collateral damage or you can try to slowly excise it which can basically be completely ineffective. For example the US in order to avoid collateral damage of trampling on peoples freedsoms allows bullshit religions like scientology to exist.
>I don't know; the most beautiful architecture, all forms of arts, etc. all were rooted in religions. All great men in the past were quite spiritual.
Does beautiful architecture equate with truth? Does being great equate with reality? Scientology is bullshit as much as christianity. It's just you PREFER the christianity bullshit.
Additionally all of the things you mentioned are not rational or logical. Being a great man is orthoganol to religion, beautiful architecture is orthoganol to religion. Think critically.
>Well, it's fair enough, but it is − no offense − a rather self-centered view.
How is how or where I choose to live my life self centered? I am simply saying I prefer China's way. If you don't prefer it, then don't live there.
I think the problem with you, is that you think I'm self centered, but I'm not. You are. Think about what you're asking for. You're saying that my OPINION on China is wrong and self centered and that my thinking needs to be adjusted and you imply all of China and it's government must adjust themselves to the same style of governance as the west. You are imposing your view on others and declaring that if one doesn't hold YOUR view, they are self centered. Ironic.
>Perhaps it doesn't affect you directly again. But indirectly, or in the long run it might.
Well it depends. Cults are responsible for mass genocide in the US, so one positive way the crack down on religous bullshit will affect me is that there is less mass genocide from cults. Scientology just won't exist in China. But it does in the US and it's the long term consequence of many freedoms.
>Yup, it's a bit quick, I'll give you that. The numbers in 2025 were higher than in 2024, and in 2023, which could indicate that "it's not very effective" in actually reducing corruption.
Or it can indicate corruption is massive and pervasive and that the clean up will need to be equally massive and pervasive.
That's typically caricature. I encourage you to study things more thoroughly before allowing yourself to form an opinion. One simply can't know a subject before having thoroughly studied it.
> It's just you PREFER the christianity bullshit.
I'm not Christian.
Regardless, Christian teachings are freely available. Anyone can practice on their own. You'd be right to critic the church − the institution: people have done it for a while, hence in particular the fair amount of subsects.
Scientology's "highest teachings" are kept private. Its primary purpose seems to be raising money by abusing people's naivety. Compare that to the Christ's « love thy neighbor as thyself. » Very distinct essences.
Which one promotes social stability?
> How is how or where I choose to live my life self centered? I am simply saying I prefer China's way. If you don't prefer it, then don't live there.
I think you've essentially said « I don't care whether people around me get slaughtered, because I'm not the target audience. » Allow me to find this self-centered. And still to find it okay-ish.
> Does beautiful architecture equate with truth?
Not what I was hinting at.
> Additionally all of the things you mentioned are not rational or logical
They actually are, but I haven't articulated the reasoning fully. Nor do I feel encouraged to articulate it. If you're truly in good faith, enough has been already said for you to do your own research
Apologies, I assumed such from the way you described architecture. Few western religions have influence on architecture as much as Christianity.
>Scientology's "highest teachings" are kept private. Its primary purpose seems to be raising money by abusing people's naivety. Compare that to the Christ's « love thy neighbor as thyself. » Very distinct essences.
That's your assumption. I can easily assume that Catholicism primary purpose is to hide a ring of people who engage in rape and pedophilia. There are different angles to every religion, you're just indoctrinated with the most populist angle. In the same way much of the west doesn't realize the religions of tibet and falun gong have cult like aspects FAR worse then scientology.
>Which one promotes social stability?
Both. Morality is not required for stability.
>I think you've essentially said « I don't care whether people around me get slaughtered, because I'm not the target audience. » Allow me to find this self-centered. And still to find it okay-ish.
You're just twisting and manipulating the logic so you can maintain the moral high ground when in actuality you're twisting everything.
The first problem is I'm not talking about mass slaughter. When the fuck did that become the topic? Are you saying I promote mass slaughter because China promotes mass slaughter? You're under this western propaganda where you seem to think China is some futuristic cyberpunk city on top but underneath the system is bathed in blood, torture slaughter and evisceration. Nothing is further from the truth.
When China tortures, when china executes someone, it is for crimes that fit punishment. They won't execute you if you're in a cult. They will execute you if you stole millions of dollars. The debate is about degree but the overall severity is reasonable.
I'm sick of talking to people with a misguided view of China. It's like talking to a clown. Somehow people like you are convinced that it's just blood and evil underneath.
>Not what I was hinting at.
Speak in english please, don't speak in hints. I said religions were not true, you countered with architecture. Now you claim it was a hint. Hint: don't speak with hints.
>They actually are, but I haven't articulated the reasoning fully. Nor do I feel encouraged to articulate it. If you're truly in good faith, enough has been already said for you to do your own research
No they aren't. I don't need to do research for a country I'm highly familiar with and even lived there for quite some time. I'm going to be utterly clear: You are ignorant and you are illogical and you need to do research. I'm Chinese. And I was born in the states. I know both cultures intimately, you only know one through the lens of US propaganda.
Good faith my ass. If you were talking to me in good faith you'd concede your lack of knowledge.
I directly know people who lived in China, have been jailed and beaten there, and have literal scars to prove it. Hard to brush this away easily from my mind.
Not all people who express negative views on China are alike.
I don't mind you expressing your (ignorant) opinion, and I wouldn't stoop so low as to call it rude. It's just you're not knowledgeable.
>I directly know people who lived in China, have been jailed and beaten there, and have literal scars to prove it. Hard to brush this away easily from my mind.
I directly know people from prison in the US who have similar if not worse injuries and scars. They have also told me of people who have died due to prison violence. I understand how it's easy to selectively brush away the atrocities done in the US while only focusing on the Chinese. If I were like you, I would label it as "self centered" because you don't give a shit about prisoners in the US, you only care about your Chinese friends because they serve as evidence for your biased views against China. I'm so sorry but there's no other way to look at it.
>Not all people who express negative views on China are alike.
No, I never claimed this. But I did claim that you're wrong and ignorant. That being said... You do fit a typical trope that does often come from people who have negative views against China and it's selective focusing on certain things without looking at the big picture.
You have to know that I know people in the US who were in prisons where the prison guards allowed rape and violence to occur and turned a blind eye to it because it served their ulterior objectives. Does that action characterize the entire US? No. It doesn't.
Take California’s high speed rail. Every individual has the right to object. No one wants an eyesore in their backyard. Everyone gets a hearing. Everyone gets a lawsuit. Everyone gets a veto in practice, if not in theory.
The result is predictable. I will never see a functioning high speed rail system in California in my lifetime. Neither will anyone alive today. Not because we lack money or engineering talent, but because the accumulation of individual rights makes collective action nearly impossible.
Now look at China. They decide to build it, and it gets built. If you are in the way, you move. If persuasion fails, coercion follows. Freedoms are not part of the equation.
That contrast is uncomfortable, but it is real. Freedom buys dignity and protection from abuse. It also buys paralysis. China sacrifices individual rights and gets infrastructure. California preserves individual rights and gets endless meetings, delays, and nothing on the ground.
You can argue which system is morally superior. You cannot argue that they produce the same outcomes.
That has absolutely nothing to do with civil liberties and everything to do with the adversarial legalism of the Common Law code and with property rights, which are quite a different matter. There are any number of Western countries in which individual or household property rights are not taken to constitute an arbitrary veto on otherwise legal state action: if a train is scheduled to get built, it gets built, and compensation is paid but vetoes cannot be exercised.
I agree there's things like eminent domain. I'm just saying China leans more in the direction of less rights overall which in turn leads to a more productive society.
Suppose there is one city where everyone has the right to build new housing on any piece of land they own and another city where everyone has the right to prevent anyone else from building new housing. These things are the opposite of one another, so they can't both be increasing the "freedom" of the public at large.
Now which city actually has more freedom?
Extreme individual freedom is often called anarchy.
The question is, in a "free country", does the government limit itself to punishing compelling violations with near-universal consensus like murder, or does it seize control over the micromanagement of dubious and petty violations like hypothetically marginally increasing traffic by carrying out a construction project?
It seems like the thing you're objecting to is the latter.
This isn’t about what feels compelling to you or me, nor is it a clean split between “near-universal moral prohibitions” and “petty micromanagement.” There’s a massive middle ground you’re flattening. Scale matters. Irreversibility matters. Civilization-level consequences matter.
Banning murder preserves a baseline condition for freedom. Large infrastructure projects don’t just “nudge” behavior or marginally increase traffic. They reshape cities, labor markets, land values, energy use, migration patterns, and political power for decades or centuries. They bind future generations who never consented and cannot meaningfully opt out. Calling that “petty” is just wrong descriptively, regardless of whether you support the project.
Once you acknowledge that, the question stops being “should the state only prevent violence?” and becomes “what kinds of collective decisions are legitimate when their effects are vast, asymmetric, and effectively permanent?” That’s not micromanagement. That’s the core problem of modern governance.
So no, the objection isn’t to the government punishing murder instead of being anarchic. It’s to pretending that civilization-shaping actions belong in the same moral bucket as minor regulatory nuisances. You can argue that such projects are worth the tradeoff. You can argue they should override individual objections. But dismissing them as trivial violations is an easy rhetorical move that avoids grappling with why people resist them in the first place.
Has there been any autocracy in the last century that has had better outcomes when compared to liberal democracy? (other than China)
If there was actually freedom and you wanted to build high speed rail, you would solicit investors, go negotiate for some land -- the power company has a bunch of transmission lines up the coast that run approximately parallel to the highways, maybe get that land, your trains were going to need power anyway -- and then you hire some people and start laying tracks.
"Everyone gets a veto" is the thing where you can't do it because the government won't let you even when you have the wherewithal and inclination to do it. That's the opposite of freedom.
Every time I visit SZ now it feels like the scooters are misrouted neurons firing in any which direction, with no respect for pedestrians, parking, or the rest of the city.
Look up "Nail Houses". The USA used eminent domain heavily in the same situation back when they were still building new infrastructure.
>Take California’s high speed rail. Every individual has the right to object.
It's not the result of many individuals objecting. It's the largely the result of a few wealthy individuals objecting. Elon Musk has admitted to publicizing hyperloop largely to take the wind out of the sails of the proposed high speed rail. American democracy is for the rich.
Yeah. China is not THAT strict. But still building the rode around the nail house is something that wouldn't happen in the US. Eminent domain for other people is something I believe in for a better society.
>It's not the result of many individuals objecting. It's the largely the result of a few wealthy individuals objecting. Elon Musk has admitted to publicizing hyperloop largely to take the wind out of the sails of the proposed high speed rail. American democracy is for the rich.
Still it is freedoms + capitalism that enables this. Rich people objecting can get silenced. Jack Ma for example.
I think that comment about guns threw everyone off. People are very liberal on HN and at the same time very patriotic. They support gun control and ironically more freedoms at the same time so I think you and the other guy didn't realize that you both support China's lack of freedom in the aspect of owning guns.
As an example, Texas is a state that prides itself on freedom but is incredibly privatized. There's hardly any public land. The entire electricity grid is privately owned. Toll roads abound in every major city. Over 20% of homes have an HOA, so those Texans have people (basically a small corporation) telling them how to cut their lawn. Women can't get medically suggested abortions. Universities are told what to teach by donors and politicans. For a while, the Texas DMV was collecting fingerprints just to get a license. Is that really freedom?
I don't have the freedom to own a gun in China, but it's safer in China to the point where you don't need a gun. Practically speaking I prefer to have less freedoms simply because you need less freedoms for society to function better AND most of these freedoms that are taken away by China are freedoms most people never exercise.
Right?
But morality alone does not explain how the world actually unfolds. And using morality as a trump card to end the discussion only works if we pretend the world is clean, fair, and reversible. It is not.
The uncomfortable reality is that history does not grade outcomes on intentions. It grades them on stability, continuity, and what comes after. The question is not whether Tiananmen Square was morally wrong. It was. The harder question is whether allowing that movement to succeed would have produced a better long term outcome for China, or whether it would have fractured the country into something far worse.
At that moment, China was not a mature liberal democracy waiting to be unlocked. It was a fragile state emerging from famine, revolution, and internal collapse. Power vacuums do not fill themselves with enlightenment. They fill with chaos, factionalism, and often bloodshed on a scale that makes a single atrocity look small in hindsight.
The leadership chose order over moral legitimacy. They chose continuity over uncertainty. They decided that dissent, even righteous dissent, was a risk they could not allow. The cost was horrific. The result was a state that remained intact, centralized, and capable of executing long term plans.
And execution matters. A lot.
Today, you can live in China and experience a society that functions at scale. Infrastructure appears where it is planned. Cities are built. Systems work. The future arrives on schedule. For many ordinary people, daily life feels stable, predictable, and materially improved compared to what came before.
Now contrast that with San Francisco. A city that prides itself on moral clarity, individual rights, and moral signaling. A city that debates endlessly and acts reluctantly. A city where compassion has become so fragmented across competing claims that enforcing basic order is treated as cruelty. The result is visible on the streets. Not theoretical. Not symbolic. Real decay, real suffering, real dysfunction.
This does not mean repression is good. It means the world forces tradeoffs whether we consent to them or not. There is no system that gets everything. There is no button you press that yields justice, freedom, stability, and progress simultaneously.
China accepted moral debt to buy coherence and speed. The West often accepts paralysis to preserve moral self image. Both choices carry costs. One is just easier to condemn from a distance. The other is easier to live with emotionally while things quietly fall apart.
If you want to argue morality, you will win the rhetorical point immediately. Tiananmen Square ends the conversation. But if you want to understand how nations actually become what they are, you have to step into the grey zone where history operates, where choices are made under uncertainty, and where the alternative paths are not clean, heroic, or guaranteed to be better.
The world is imperfect. Every society is built on compromises it would rather not examine too closely. The honest discussion is not about pretending one side is pure. It is about acknowledging that values shape outcomes, and that no outcome is free.
There’s more to disagree with in the second half, but I’ll stick to my biggest gripe: America’s founding is steeped in moral principles, from its very founding document. In fact it is a two and a half century experiment on building a society around transparency, with the question of what is Right and what is Just at its core, and how does a society follow from that. And compared to where the world was when it was conceived, the experiment has certainly yielded vastly more results than your comment gives it credit for, by only looking at San Francisco today. It is evidence that the dichotomy between morality and building a society is a false one.
Meanwhile, tian an men square was in 1989, and the tension of “moral debt” is ever present, evidenced by its persistent censoring. When will it be paid off? And will the Chinese then say, “ok, we get it, that’s the price we had to pay”? Because if the ball suddenly drops and they rebel after all, as soon as censorship is lifted, you didn’t buy anything for that debt. So what then—keep taking out more moral debt? Forever?
China’s moral debt feels much like America’s national debt :)
Anyway like I said I loved the opening half of your comment though.
The same founding documents that insisted that all men were created equal, and that America was for, of, and by those men
but not THOSE men?
The same document that spent a significant quantity of it's rather short length handing out provisions to literal slaveowners?
Those same founders thought it would be better to split off the whole list of inalienable rights to a separate document that possibly could have failed to be adopted?
Nothing is more American than ignoring the history of what actually happened in favor of some totally rose tinted propaganda.
Have you read the federalist papers?
IMO mistake to frame censorship as a debt, when it's domestic investment in stability, just like policing or infra, or epidemiologic pathogen control. You don't stop investing in essential nation building. Simply part of domestic infosphere management against unwanted influence, which essentially all countries have recognized PRC is prescient. As for 6/4 specifically, future gens will look back and realize 3-4 digit deaths less than rounding error in terms of Chinese history, having 1000s yrs of events/context sharpens evaluation. Like how Mao 70% good, 30% bad evaluation will turn to 90% good, 10% bad, because what's a few 10s of millions starved to death when his engineering projects and industrialization efforts actually ended 1000s of years of reoccurring famine / Malthusian traps. It will be recognize as "price of future", i.e. retrospectives tend to evaluate empires less on carnage (which is assumed) but on the frameworks they leave behind.
>“The West” is more than just America.
The west is generally built on the same template as America, extractive exploitation of not only itself but others, aka, built off surplus blood and treasure from colonialism, except society indoctrinated to believe such is natural order and just. Generations pass, surplus snowballs to buy more rights and freedom and enable more introspection, where colonialism can be acknowledged as stain, but on the margins. West rarely acknowledge that often the fine line between able to experiment vs subsist is funded by foreign extractive surplus. Skewing global balance sheet of energy and resources enable building and experimenting and bribing peripheries, liberalism = luxury experiments derivative product of colonial surplus. We see how fast it erodes when physical resources contracts.
Regardless, when looting from another, the geopolitical balance sheet no longer remains domestic, like America, it starts geopolitical debts that likely can't be default without eventual consequence. Mistreated countries have long memories, and being mistreated, humiliated if you will (and we're not talking bout only PRC), those memories do not tend to soften with time, and can really only repaid in catharsis. AKA there maybe a day when global south develops/catches up and coerce the west pay their debts. It could be 100s of years from now or current events could hint interregnum where power shifts and debts are soon collected.
The assertion that being able to summarily execute people you accuse of corruption somehow reduces corruption is absurd. If that were true, places like Russia would have no corruption. Being a dictator just ensures that corruption flows your way as the leader.
You are also arguing against a claim that was not made. No one is saying that executions somehow purify human nature or permanently eliminate corruption. The claim is narrower, colder, and more uncomfortable: extreme enforcement can sharply reduce certain forms of corruption for long periods of time, and that reduction can produce real, measurable benefits that save lives at scale.
This is not theoretical. Take food safety. In China, officials and executives have been executed for large scale food adulteration scandals. Morally, that is horrifying. Practically, it created an environment where cutting corners suddenly carried catastrophic personal risk. The result was a rapid tightening of compliance in industries where negligence or fraud can poison millions. Fewer tainted products means fewer dead children. That tradeoff does not become imaginary just because it makes us uneasy.
The same logic applies to infrastructure. When corruption in construction is treated as a capital crime, bridges do not collapse as often. Buildings are less likely to be built with fraudulent materials. Rail systems are less likely to be sabotaged by kickbacks and subcontracting fraud. One execution looks monstrous in isolation. The thousands of lives not lost to structural failure rarely make headlines because they never happened.
Singapore offers a milder but still illustrative example. It did not rely on executions, but it imposed severe, credible punishment and relentless enforcement for corruption. The outcome is one of the least corrupt governments on the planet and a state that functions with extraordinary efficiency. The lesson is not that brutality is good. The lesson is that consequences matter, and when they are weak, delayed, or politically negotiable, corruption flourishes.
Russia is not the counterexample you think it is. Corruption there thrives precisely because enforcement is selective and loyalty based. Power protects insiders rather than disciplines them. That is not what happens in systems where even high ranking officials can be credibly destroyed for crossing certain lines. Treating all authoritarian systems as identical collapses meaningful distinctions into a slogan.
You are framing this as a moral debate because morality is the easiest place to win rhetorically. Summary execution is evil. Everyone agrees. End of discussion. But that does not answer the structural question of why some societies manage to enforce standards at scale while others drown in fraud, decay, and institutional rot.
The world does not offer clean choices. Every system kills people, just in different ways. One system kills visibly, deliberately, and brutally. Another kills slowly through negligence, corruption, drug tainted streets, collapsing infrastructure, and the quiet abandonment of public order. One death looks shocking. Ten thousand avoided deaths look like nothing at all.
If you refuse to engage with that reality, you are not taking the moral high ground. You are opting out of the analysis entirely. And calling that insanity does not make it go away. It just signals an unwillingness to sit in the grey zone where cause, effect, and moral cost actually live.