Hacker News Reader

Comment by rob74 | Hacker News Reader

> China's pretty corrupt politically but the social trust is quite high, the highest outside of northern europe as far as I can tell

There are a few reasons for that that I can imagine:

- China is one of very few autocracies that has managed to significantly improve the standard of living of most of its population.

- The public trials and (sometimes) executions of allegedly corrupt individuals might help improve the perception of corruption.

- The same harsh penalties mentioned above might influence people to declare a higher level of social trust than they actually have, even if the poll is supposedly "confidential" and "only for scientific purposes".

View on HN

>The same harsh penalties mentioned above might influence people to declare a higher level of social trust than they actually have.

This 100%.

Political imprisonment and reeducation camps are antithetical to any definition of a high trust society that I would subscribe to.

Doesn't matter too much what you subscribe to.

Eg Nazi Germany still benefited from a high-ish level of social trust, despite numerous atrocities.

That’s actually the example I was thinking of.

You can’t honestly say that a country where citizens inform on each other and put each other in forced labor camps based on rumor is a society where trust is high.

> The Deutscherblick ("German Look") was a tense, habitual glance over the shoulder used by citizens in Nazi-era Germany before speaking about sensitive topics like food rations, Hitler jokes, or the war’s progress

Not just labor camps. People would regularly get beheaded for anti-regime remarks. Nazi justice was keen on capital punishment for relatively minor crimes.

Nazi Germany was full of dedicated informers who would even earn money or other privileges for denouncing someone. It had about as much trust between strangers as Iran under the Revolutionary Guards might have today.

What's the benefit of social trust when a society can commit such atrocities? The entire point of a society is to care for its members.

Be careful not to mix up description and prescription.

Now define "members". It's both possible and common for an in-group to experience a high degree of trust and care, while those outside that group to... Not. From the point of view of the beneficiaries the social contract is working beautifully!

I found Singapore somewhat bracing in how honestly they acknowledge the two tiers (natives + wealthy foreigners vs poor "guest" workers) in their society. The same division functionally exists in many "western" countries, but is broadly ignored. (To be clear, I do not endorse this - and, in fact, think it appalling - but appreciate straightforwardness more than I do obfuscation by empty rhetoric.)

But that's my point. You can define "society" in any way you like to say there's "high social trust". It's a meaningless, hollow boast.

No, it's not. Eg Soviet Russia never had high social trust, no matter how you slice it.

And it never boasted of having high social trust either.

> You can define "society" in any way you like to say there's "high social trust".

It's not like atrocities started with Nazis. Child prostitution, high unemployment, corruption, poverty, moral devastation, drug addiction, injustice, inequality ... all that existed before Nazis so many people ignored the warnings that came with the Nazi party since they were the only ones promising to act.

Nazi apologia.

> Nazi apologia.

Care to elaborate, Mr. Godwin?

“They were the ones promising to act”

Something about this doesn’t sit right with me. I’m not a historian but something tells me not everyone else was a-ok with atrocities that existed before nazis.

Also, again I’m not a historian, but I believe their promise to act was also tied up in blaming others and hate.

“At least they got things done” is very often the seed around which a belief in fascism crystallizes. They don’t deserve any recognition for what they promised or what they accomplished.

This is a thread about my definition of a high trust society.

So far the only argument in support of nazi germany being high trust is that they got shit done.

I don’t see how anyone could argue that imprisoning your own population in forced labor camps based on rumor is something that can happen in a high trust society.

There is no trust in such a society, only fear.

Arguing about this any more is making me feel sick.

My only claim was that things were far from perfect (profoundly broken) before Nazis came to power. They made many terrible things, but they also fixed some of the issues they promised to fix. That's why they were able to grab power.

You can read more about the Weimar Republic. If it weren't so fundamentally broken, Nazis would never come to power. Stating this is not Nazi apologia but a warning of what happens if governments and the ruling class ignore the will of their own people and actively work against it for a long time.

The original context of this thread is the validity of china’s data in this trust survey. Interjecting with positive example of nazi germany is not even correct. There’s no way anyone can argue in good faith that nazi germany was high trust.

The nazis don’t need you to come to their defense.

Nazism is basically ignoring the will of their own people and actively working against them.

Can you please point out where I said Nazi regime was high trust? Its trust level was even lower than of its predecessor.

> Its trust level was even lower than of its predecessor.

Yes? How does that preclude Germany still having absolutely high trust (by global standards), even if it was lower than the even higher levels before?

You didn’t but in the context of the comments immediately above yours,

>Eg Nazi Germany still benefited from a high-ish level of social trust, despite numerous atrocities.

>What's the benefit of social trust when a society can commit such atrocities?

Then you come in with

> It's not like atrocities started with Nazis

Your comment pretty much directly says the nazis weren’t that bad and in context looks like you’re agreeing with previous poster they are high trust.

Ok, let me clarify.

Nazis were one of the worst regimes we had in Europe, but the German regime before them was also bad. Bad enough that many saw Nazis as a viable alternative. In desperate times, people make desperate choices.

This is more or less a historical consensus, which I pointed out. If we want to prevent a Nazi-like regime from coming to power again, we need to avoid mistakes made by the Weimar Republic. Unfortunately, I see a global trend of governments making the same mistakes again, and I fear it will end in the same way.

I don't think Nazi society was high-trust. But I also don't think Nazis destroyed trust, because it already eroded before them.

> Unfortunately, I see a global trend of governments making the same mistakes again

What are those?

Ignoring the wishes of the majority. Forcing own ideology upon everyone. Neglecting the well-being of the productively working people.

You are letting voters off too easily here.

China was getting better for a long time. XI is changing that. Change is slow though and he is not rushing corruption though it seems to be increasing. He has purged some corrupt people as well making things slightly better in the short term - but he values loyalty over competence and so his short term changes are for less corruption but long term increase it.

That is China is a complex country and books (which are not written and many cannot be for decades yet) are needed to understand this, not a short comment box. [This applies to every other country anyone here mentions]

Social trust is high because there are pretty heavy handed control measures over the population with havy costs. Thats more of a fear based society than trust. Government can giveth and government can taketh.

1. Fear of a capricious state can cause survival-motivated compliance which can appear as "trust" in coarse measurements. Meaning, you simply do fewer of those things that would provide opportunities for distrust in contexts where that could happen.

2. In a relatively severe, but consistent regime, the high penalties for violating trust in everyday cases (crime) act as a deterrent.

3. Fear may cause people to be selective and mindful about their social associations based on stronger proofs of trustworthiness. You might tell a Hitler joke to someone you have used more energy/caution to "vet", but avoid being too casual in environments of undetermined trustworthiness.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com