Anti-Xi protest spreads in China, worldwide as Chinese leader begins third term(lite.cnn.com)
lite.cnn.com
Anti-Xi protest spreads in China, worldwide as Chinese leader begins third term
https://lite.cnn.com/en/article/h_0e8345c361c017054fefa34b79a7e120
63 comments
I am trying to take this comment at face value. Do you really think other governments are that much better in terms of values you described? There are differences and not small ones between major nation states, but, well, factors listed are not unique not China.
Ah, the inevitable whataboutism whenever China is discussed.
Other countries are not the topic here. But I'll engage: other countries and governments have similar issues, but the combination of factors I mentioned are unique to China.
Other countries are not the topic here. But I'll engage: other countries and governments have similar issues, but the combination of factors I mentioned are unique to China.
I personally find that line of defense amusing. In order to discuss trend, one should be able to establish a baseline. In this case, other countries ( and respective factors mentioned by parent including corruption ) must be compared in order to draw a conclusion as to whether that statement is even true. Otherwise, it is just a claim.
Still, I am not here to defend China. Tell me how China is that much more unique than say.. Russia ( which one could argue has similar problems with factors listed )?
Still, I am not here to defend China. Tell me how China is that much more unique than say.. Russia ( which one could argue has similar problems with factors listed )?
> In this case, other countries ( and respective factors mentioned by parent including corruption ) must be compared in order to draw a conclusion as to whether that statement is even true.
I disagree. Mentioning other countries is only relevant as a comparison, but the statement itself is standalone as far as determining whether it's true or not. Sure, we can argue about the degrees of corruption, and some of the subjective claims in my statement such as "deeply" and "any", but I think anyone would be hard pressed to argue that these issues are _not_ true.
> Tell me how China is that much more unique than say.. Russia
Like I said, the combination of these factors is unique to China. By comparison, Russia is not experiencing the economic growth that China has seen in recent decades, and is not set to become the next biggest superpower. Its culture is also far less xenophobic, and there's more regard for the environment and human life.
Again, we can argue about the subjectiveness of "more" or "less" here, link to articles and studies that "prove" each side, but since the topic isn't about Russia, mentioning other countries simply muddles the discussion. This is a common tactic used by Chinese apologists, and is hardly ever productive, but serves their goal of taking the focus away from China, and minimizing the issues that should be discussed.
I disagree. Mentioning other countries is only relevant as a comparison, but the statement itself is standalone as far as determining whether it's true or not. Sure, we can argue about the degrees of corruption, and some of the subjective claims in my statement such as "deeply" and "any", but I think anyone would be hard pressed to argue that these issues are _not_ true.
> Tell me how China is that much more unique than say.. Russia
Like I said, the combination of these factors is unique to China. By comparison, Russia is not experiencing the economic growth that China has seen in recent decades, and is not set to become the next biggest superpower. Its culture is also far less xenophobic, and there's more regard for the environment and human life.
Again, we can argue about the subjectiveness of "more" or "less" here, link to articles and studies that "prove" each side, but since the topic isn't about Russia, mentioning other countries simply muddles the discussion. This is a common tactic used by Chinese apologists, and is hardly ever productive, but serves their goal of taking the focus away from China, and minimizing the issues that should be discussed.
<<I disagree. Mentioning other countries is only relevant as a comparison, but the statement itself is standalone as far as determining whether it's true or not. Sure, we can argue about the degrees of corruption, and some of the subjective claims in my statement such as "deeply" and "any", but I think anyone would be hard pressed to argue that these issues are _not_ true.
Hah. Good counter. Even with Xi, who effectively rose to power on very public anti-corruption measures, it is virtually impossible to point to any country that has no corruption. I am certain corruption exists. Some habits die hard. And I base it more on my understanding of human nature than anything else.
<< Like I said, the combination of these factors is unique to China.
I accept the ascendancy to 1st world power status as the differentiating factor, which would make it unique enough. With regards to xenophobia and 'regard for human life', I am pretty sure I could point to counters ( including Ukraine, Chechnya, Russian famine, or xenophobia embedded in nationalism[1].. ).
<< This is a common tactic used by Chinese apologists
I agree that whataboutism is a thing and it is being used by troll farms across the globe. I still think that it is difficult to discuss anything without understanding how that something compares to other comparable things. If anything, I posit that not discussing the entirety of the issue including context is a disservice to the reader.
***
Thank you for this conversation. This is basically why I come to HN.
[1]https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/R...
Hah. Good counter. Even with Xi, who effectively rose to power on very public anti-corruption measures, it is virtually impossible to point to any country that has no corruption. I am certain corruption exists. Some habits die hard. And I base it more on my understanding of human nature than anything else.
<< Like I said, the combination of these factors is unique to China.
I accept the ascendancy to 1st world power status as the differentiating factor, which would make it unique enough. With regards to xenophobia and 'regard for human life', I am pretty sure I could point to counters ( including Ukraine, Chechnya, Russian famine, or xenophobia embedded in nationalism[1].. ).
<< This is a common tactic used by Chinese apologists
I agree that whataboutism is a thing and it is being used by troll farms across the globe. I still think that it is difficult to discuss anything without understanding how that something compares to other comparable things. If anything, I posit that not discussing the entirety of the issue including context is a disservice to the reader.
***
Thank you for this conversation. This is basically why I come to HN.
[1]https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Issues/R...
Im afraid not, revolt has to come from within to change something like that unless you like the war option..
No. Though I would note their abysmal population pyramid and lack of immigration is a recipe for failure.
Sure. Marxism doesn't compel their current behavior, and neither does any sane nationalism - however a shame culture (as China is) and nationalism can make for a volatile mix, as we've seen of late. But the CCP won't change it's current mix of stripes any time soon. Vietnam has gone through similar spasms, back and forth. They're assuming an existential threat from democracies that just isn't there. Internal division (which is a feature) prevents it, even if an elite class wanted an all out war of conquest, which they don't.
They will experiment with their society; they might find a useful course. But I vote with Walter Kerr, that no society can be both very well ordered and very creative/innovative. Which really limits China on its current course even if they somehow avoid all the traps that human leaders' unconscious selfishness has set for them.
How Not to Write a Play by former New York Times Drama Critic Walter Kerr came out in 1955 and is the best history of innovation I've ever read. It make it quite clear that periods of true innovation are quite rare, don't happen everywhere, and require disordered societies (to tolerate a writer who isn't going to pander to the prejudices and powers of the day, whatever they are.) Highly recommended.
He was also the husband of the person who wrote "Please Don't Eat the Daisies."
My guess is that the best-of-both-worlds society, and therefore the most likely society of the far future will be both Yin and Yang at the same time: having a large disordered creative enclave within a much larger well-ordered society that is isolated from the creatives (free speech within the enclave, only.)
They will experiment with their society; they might find a useful course. But I vote with Walter Kerr, that no society can be both very well ordered and very creative/innovative. Which really limits China on its current course even if they somehow avoid all the traps that human leaders' unconscious selfishness has set for them.
How Not to Write a Play by former New York Times Drama Critic Walter Kerr came out in 1955 and is the best history of innovation I've ever read. It make it quite clear that periods of true innovation are quite rare, don't happen everywhere, and require disordered societies (to tolerate a writer who isn't going to pander to the prejudices and powers of the day, whatever they are.) Highly recommended.
He was also the husband of the person who wrote "Please Don't Eat the Daisies."
My guess is that the best-of-both-worlds society, and therefore the most likely society of the far future will be both Yin and Yang at the same time: having a large disordered creative enclave within a much larger well-ordered society that is isolated from the creatives (free speech within the enclave, only.)
Two comments.
First, democracies are an existential threat, just not in the way you're thinking. If western democracy is obviously more functional than Chinese authoritarianism, that's an existential threat, not to China, but to the CCP. Also to Putin, which is why he's so insane about not allowing culturally-adjacent Ukraine to have a successful democratic government.
Second, someone here on HN (too lazy to try to dig up who) said that Xi has the usual dictator-for-life's problem - people succeed by having Xi's approval, not by being better at their jobs than Xi is at his. This means that Xi hears more and more what he wants to hear, and less and less actual truth. The result is big decisions get made that don't - can't work, because they are not based on reality.
First, democracies are an existential threat, just not in the way you're thinking. If western democracy is obviously more functional than Chinese authoritarianism, that's an existential threat, not to China, but to the CCP. Also to Putin, which is why he's so insane about not allowing culturally-adjacent Ukraine to have a successful democratic government.
Second, someone here on HN (too lazy to try to dig up who) said that Xi has the usual dictator-for-life's problem - people succeed by having Xi's approval, not by being better at their jobs than Xi is at his. This means that Xi hears more and more what he wants to hear, and less and less actual truth. The result is big decisions get made that don't - can't work, because they are not based on reality.
Good first point, although the CCP is very full of their progress, and don't believe democracy has anything going for them by comparison for a moment, right now.
Good second point, too; he's definitely far removed from the masses now. So he isn't likely to be the change.
Innovation by democracies - eminently disorganized societies for better and worse - could indeed be an existential threat to China's system (not the people) if China loves "harmony" just a little too much. (Harmony being their term, and not an entirely bad one.)
Good second point, too; he's definitely far removed from the masses now. So he isn't likely to be the change.
Innovation by democracies - eminently disorganized societies for better and worse - could indeed be an existential threat to China's system (not the people) if China loves "harmony" just a little too much. (Harmony being their term, and not an entirely bad one.)
Iran looks like its becoming a good test of the first point, although the Soviet Union was as well. Such systems can last decades, but no doubt, not forever without serious reform.
What’s the point of protesting when they don’t even have elections? Why can’t the government just ignore the protesters with no consequences?
Even authoritarian regimes have to think about civil unrest. The people under them still have some power: they have the power to revolt. Dictators are terrified of this possibility. And a protest is a way of signaling "hey, the temperature is rising buddy".
A democracy by comparison functions as a gradual release valve: smaller amounts of unrest can affect smaller changes, without overthrowing the entire system.
A democracy by comparison functions as a gradual release valve: smaller amounts of unrest can affect smaller changes, without overthrowing the entire system.
The feedback loop is slightly more complex. Dictators are also afraid of betrayal. And rising temperature creates opportunities for underlings to decide betrayal is profitable.
what’s the smallest protest in china that would actually stand any kind of chance of successful revolt/revolution?
AIUI, and i'm no expert, it would have to be absolutely massive. When someone put up a banner and burned some tires in Beijing the other day the CCP was blocking the word "beijing" itself on social media for a time. Their level of control is unrivaled.
Is that evidence of awesome control or lack of it? Seems like blocking a word like Beijing because of a single event is over-blocking on a staggering scale; it communicates absolute terror of the populace that results in astonishingly over the top decisions.
You really have to define successful. Get Xi to change a single policy? Get someone else to take over as Chairman of the CCP and Secretary General of the Politburo? Put a democracy in place?
Those are all different goals. Similarly, and as an analog, concerning Russia some people talk about Russia pulling out of Ukraine, some people talk about a coup deposing Putin and some people talk about new, real, elections.
Those are all different goals. Similarly, and as an analog, concerning Russia some people talk about Russia pulling out of Ukraine, some people talk about a coup deposing Putin and some people talk about new, real, elections.
Also, "revolt" doesn't have to mean "completely overthrowing the government". Social unrest can eg. make for a less-cohesive society, harder-to-govern citizens, less-effective economy, etc. These things are valuable to those in charge; a leader would have to be really dumb to not factor them in at all in their calculations. So it's all about tradeoffs: what it would take to appease people vs what would be the social costs if you don't. Finally- protests signal to fellow citizens too, not just the people in charge. They can be contagious.
All of which is just to say their impact is never zero, even if it's small
All of which is just to say their impact is never zero, even if it's small
>Why can’t the government just ignore the protesters with no consequences?
Worked for Macron in France.
Worked for Macron in France.
<< What’s the point of protesting when they don’t even have elections?
Huh? Elections just happened. They were not direct elections, but within the party system they were elections.
If I were to compare Chinese elections, I would maybe compare them to UK House of Lords.
As to your general point, "why do anything when you have no right to do it"?
Well, we are humans. Not all of us just roll over when we are told to.
Huh? Elections just happened. They were not direct elections, but within the party system they were elections.
If I were to compare Chinese elections, I would maybe compare them to UK House of Lords.
As to your general point, "why do anything when you have no right to do it"?
Well, we are humans. Not all of us just roll over when we are told to.
If I were to compare Chinese elections, I would maybe compare them to UK House of Lords.
… the UK House of Lords which is famously unelected?
… the UK House of Lords which is famously unelected?
I think we are arguing over semantics here[1]: colloquial elected vs appointed.
define - assign a job or role to (someone). elect - choose (someone) to hold public office or some other position by voting
I chuckle at the very notion that any power circle would allow election of a power to a position as influential as HoL without some sort of quiet approval vote taking place by 'appropriate decision makers'[2].
You say it is not elected. I am saying it is elected by a very small group of people.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords [2]https://www.parliament.uk/business/lords/whos-in-the-house-o...
define - assign a job or role to (someone). elect - choose (someone) to hold public office or some other position by voting
I chuckle at the very notion that any power circle would allow election of a power to a position as influential as HoL without some sort of quiet approval vote taking place by 'appropriate decision makers'[2].
You say it is not elected. I am saying it is elected by a very small group of people.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords [2]https://www.parliament.uk/business/lords/whos-in-the-house-o...
It is not semantics. The House of Lords is not elected - there is no voting process, which is a necessary prerequisite for an “election”. It is not “elected by a very small group of people” - it is explicitly appointed, with terrible appointees frequently being rewarded for personally closeness to the prime minister. Several of the positions are literally hereditary.
<< It is not semantics.
Oh, it is absolutely semantics. Allow me to elaborate.
<<there is no voting process, which is a necessary prerequisite for an “election”.
We might be approaching an interesting philosophical territory here. North Korea had elections[4]. There is a voting process. Kim Jong Un won 100% of the votes. Has an election, philosophically speaking, taken place? Is Kim the elected representative of the masses? Is the existence of a voting process truly a prerequisite for an election to take place?
To put it more subtly, who do you think voted in NK ( apart from the 100% that is )? Whose vote truly did put Kim in? Who was the true electorate? Now ask yourself the same question when it comes to HoL. Who has the power to make that decision ( to elect/to choose/to appoint/to crown -- whatever verb you want to throw in there )? Who has the power to actually vote here? Is it one person? Is it more than one? Do they have to agree? Using your framework, the power to influence this event is the actual election. The vote, as it were, if it truly is a prerequisite, happens behind the eyes.
<< It is not “elected by a very small group of people”
I would encourage you to visit some of the links in my previous post:
"Members of the House of Lords are appointed by the King on the advice of the prime minister."
Note that this is not me making this stuff up, it is British gov website saying just that[1]. Now, I understand that it is upsetting, because you are ( possibly I am only guessing for dramatic effect ) not the one doing the electing or voting, but understand that even that appointment is, in fact, an election. It would not happen if someone sufficiently powerful would consider it sufficiently beneficial to throw a wrench in the cog.
Now, do you know why it is rarely worth the effort? It is because HoL has now 758 members. You are saying some are hereditary and that is true, but even that number was lowered after 1999[3] to 92 ( how many would you wager are encouraged one way or another to participate or not participate for that matter? )
<<with terrible appointees frequently being rewarded for personally closeness
This is exactly my point! The election happens. You just personally do not like the factors that influence that election process.
<<there is no voting process, which is a necessary prerequisite for an “election”
I am simplifying, but when King says "It shall be so" on advice of the prime minister ( he effectively votes with PM's 'advice'; naturally, by advising, so does the PM ) that is the election. I think you are trying to attach structure that has been sold to most people as a voting process, but it is clearly at odds with simple political reality.
It might help if we look at the etymology of election and selection(appointment).
Elect:
Borrowed from Latin ēlēctus, past participle of ēligō (“to pick out, choose, elect”), from ē- (“out”) + legō (“to pick out, pick, gather, collect, etc.”);
Select:
Etymology. From Latin sēlēctus, perfect passive participle of sēligō (“choose out, select”), from sē- (“without; apart”) + legō (“gather, select”).
As you can see from the stem, they are effectively the same word. Now, a lot of people have been convinced they are different ( you mentioned votes as a differentiating factor ), but they are, in fact, the same process.
You could, naturally, to an extent, reasonably argue that selection is not the same as appointment, but if you you look at etymology of appointment you will see the following using your favorite search engine:
'The etymological sense is "to come to a point" (about some matter), therefore "agree, settle.'
Would you not agree that the agreement or settlement would automatically necessitate at least two parties to agree ( and therefore vote their opinions ) on a given decision?
Like I said. Semantics.
[1]www.lordsappointments.gov.uk [2]https://lordsappointments.independent.gov.uk/ [3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords#Hereditary_peer... [4]https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/kim-jong-un-wins-100-vote...
Oh, it is absolutely semantics. Allow me to elaborate.
<<there is no voting process, which is a necessary prerequisite for an “election”.
We might be approaching an interesting philosophical territory here. North Korea had elections[4]. There is a voting process. Kim Jong Un won 100% of the votes. Has an election, philosophically speaking, taken place? Is Kim the elected representative of the masses? Is the existence of a voting process truly a prerequisite for an election to take place?
To put it more subtly, who do you think voted in NK ( apart from the 100% that is )? Whose vote truly did put Kim in? Who was the true electorate? Now ask yourself the same question when it comes to HoL. Who has the power to make that decision ( to elect/to choose/to appoint/to crown -- whatever verb you want to throw in there )? Who has the power to actually vote here? Is it one person? Is it more than one? Do they have to agree? Using your framework, the power to influence this event is the actual election. The vote, as it were, if it truly is a prerequisite, happens behind the eyes.
<< It is not “elected by a very small group of people”
I would encourage you to visit some of the links in my previous post:
"Members of the House of Lords are appointed by the King on the advice of the prime minister."
Note that this is not me making this stuff up, it is British gov website saying just that[1]. Now, I understand that it is upsetting, because you are ( possibly I am only guessing for dramatic effect ) not the one doing the electing or voting, but understand that even that appointment is, in fact, an election. It would not happen if someone sufficiently powerful would consider it sufficiently beneficial to throw a wrench in the cog.
Now, do you know why it is rarely worth the effort? It is because HoL has now 758 members. You are saying some are hereditary and that is true, but even that number was lowered after 1999[3] to 92 ( how many would you wager are encouraged one way or another to participate or not participate for that matter? )
<<with terrible appointees frequently being rewarded for personally closeness
This is exactly my point! The election happens. You just personally do not like the factors that influence that election process.
<<there is no voting process, which is a necessary prerequisite for an “election”
I am simplifying, but when King says "It shall be so" on advice of the prime minister ( he effectively votes with PM's 'advice'; naturally, by advising, so does the PM ) that is the election. I think you are trying to attach structure that has been sold to most people as a voting process, but it is clearly at odds with simple political reality.
It might help if we look at the etymology of election and selection(appointment).
Elect:
Borrowed from Latin ēlēctus, past participle of ēligō (“to pick out, choose, elect”), from ē- (“out”) + legō (“to pick out, pick, gather, collect, etc.”);
Select:
Etymology. From Latin sēlēctus, perfect passive participle of sēligō (“choose out, select”), from sē- (“without; apart”) + legō (“gather, select”).
As you can see from the stem, they are effectively the same word. Now, a lot of people have been convinced they are different ( you mentioned votes as a differentiating factor ), but they are, in fact, the same process.
You could, naturally, to an extent, reasonably argue that selection is not the same as appointment, but if you you look at etymology of appointment you will see the following using your favorite search engine:
'The etymological sense is "to come to a point" (about some matter), therefore "agree, settle.'
Would you not agree that the agreement or settlement would automatically necessitate at least two parties to agree ( and therefore vote their opinions ) on a given decision?
Like I said. Semantics.
[1]www.lordsappointments.gov.uk [2]https://lordsappointments.independent.gov.uk/ [3]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Lords#Hereditary_peer... [4]https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/kim-jong-un-wins-100-vote...
>What’s the point of protesting when they don’t even have elections?
Because people who aren't sociopaths experience psychic distress at the idea of violence. (That's absolutely an Always Sunny reference, BTW.)
Because people who aren't sociopaths experience psychic distress at the idea of violence. (That's absolutely an Always Sunny reference, BTW.)
vagrantJin(11)
chatterhead(1)
It's deeply unsettling that the most populated nation on Earth is ruled by one of the most corrupt governments on Earth, and that its culture is deeply xenophobic, irreverent of the environment, and any living organism other than their own.
As China becomes more powerful, is there anything other nations can do to make this transition more positive for everyone? I don't mean economically, but on an existential level.