Hacker News Reader

Comment by quadcore | Hacker News Reader

I realised recently China has a population of 1 billion and 400 million. That's more than a billion more people than the U.S.

And they dont have democracy. They cant french revolution on their CCP thing. Im no expert but this is mostly due to surveillance right? Dont say culture please, nobody prefer autocracy to democracy but the autocrate.

This convinced me surveillance is bad.

Edit: some of you disagree. Id like the opportunity to convince you. I get it that many chinese are just happy with the regime. And actually, I dont judge that. Its certainly a cool regime in some ways. But democracy grows like weed, there is no stopping it. But with surveillance. Remove surveillance, there is democracy in China tomorrow.

View on HN

> And they dont have democracy. They cant french revolution on their CCP thing. Im no expert but this is mostly due to surveillance right? Dont say culture please, nobody prefer autocracy to democracy but the autocrate.

Of course culture has a part in it. Believe it or not, most people have never experienced democracy, and a sizeable amount do not believe that it is a superior society model. Some cultures will never be democratic in their current form, starting with the ones where religion is deeply intertwined with politics.

https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/02/27/democratic-rig...

I believe the Greeks had democracy in a number of their city states, but some also had war, slavery, and a fairly pervasive misogyny.

There's an old saying I remember: "The best form of government is an absolute monarchy. The worst form of government is an absolute monarchy."

It all depends who's on top of the heap. Democracy tends to dilute the damage done by bad actors, but also hobbles really good ones.

No system is perfect.

> There's an old saying I remember: "The best form of government is an absolute monarchy. The worst form of government is an absolute monarchy."

Constitutional monarchy seems to rank highly:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index#By_country

Remember that this list is from the PoV of the anglo world. Them classifying France, Italy, Belgium or Spain as a flawed democracy while the UK would be "full" is hilarious. Strange, they're all latin countries. The Economist has been dunking on France with absurd claims for decades, for whatever reasons that is, so I am not really surprised.

> Believe it or not, most people have never experienced democracy, and a sizeable amount do not believe that it is a superior society model.

Ask them if they'd like to get rid of corruption though: I would guess that most people would like to get rid of that from where they live, and you're more likely to remove it under democratic regimes.

> Some cultures will never be democratic in their current form, starting with the ones where religion is deeply intertwined with politics.

Religion or tribalism/clans? You'll find places that are democratic are less likely to be tribal/clanish (which often leads to less corruption), and there's a high level of modern secularism as well. You'll also find that these traits also tend to correlate highly with (historically) Christian cultures:

* https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/10/joseph-...

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_WEIRDest_People_in_the_Wor...

* https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/nov/21/dominion-makin...

> Ask them if they'd like to get rid of corruption though: I would guess that most people would like to get rid of that from where they live, and you're more likely to remove it under democratic regimes.

Yes. In the above poll, pretty much every culture was advocating for a "fair justice system". But what justice? You'll find that the definition of justice varies wildly between places like, say, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, and Iceland. The kind of justice the people want in some places has nothing to do with democracy. What constitutes "corruption" also varies wildly. If you ask someone from Uganda what sort of corruption he refers to, you might be surprised of the answer.

> Religion or tribalism/clans? You'll find places that are democratic are less likely to be tribal/clanish (which often leads to less corruption), and there's a high level of modern secularism as well. You'll also find that these traits also tend to correlate highly with (historically) Christian cultures:

You are taking the problem from the wrong end. Tribalist/clanic cultures cannot easily move towards democracy, it is not democratics states that are less likely to be tribal/clanic.

Chinese people are happy to trade their privacy and freedoms if it means guaranteed prosperity and security. As long as they and their children are certain to get a job that pays for basic life and a few amenities for them and their family they don't care. One of the problems the CCP is facing is that the moment a regression comes and this security is not guaranteed the people supposedly will stop accepting the compromise

> Chinese people are happy to trade their privacy and freedoms if it means guaranteed prosperity and security.

One historical observation that was published a few years ago:

> It must be understood that liberalism and nationalism developed in China in lockstep, with one, in a sense, serving as means to the other. That is, liberalism was a means to serve national ends — the wealth and power of the country. And so when means and end came into conflict, as they inevitably did, the end won out. Nationalism trumped liberalism. Unity, sovereignty, and the means to preserve both were ultimately more important even to those who espoused republicanism and the franchise.

> China’s betrayal at Versailles did not help the cause of liberalism in China. After all, it was the standard bearers of liberalism — the U.K., France, and the United States — that had negotiated secret treaties to give Shandong to the Japanese.

> Former liberals gravitated toward two main camps, both overtly Leninist in organization, both unapologetically authoritarian: the Nationalists and the Communists. By the mid-1920s, the overwhelming majority of Chinese intellectuals believed that an authoritarian solution was China’s only recourse.

* https://supchina.com/2019/07/22/why-do-chinese-people-like-t...

* https://kottke.org/19/08/why-do-chinese-people-like-their-go... (via)

> I realised recently China has a population of 1 billion and 400 million. That's more than a billion more people than the U.S.

That's funny because India has also over a billion more people than the U.S., but the U.S is ranked 3rd by population. This means that even if US got 1 billion more people, they would still be the ranked 3rd by population

> And they dont have democracy. They cant french revolution on their CCP thing. [...] Dont say culture please, nobody prefer autocracy to democracy but the autocrate

But it is mostly cultural. Individualism isn't nearly as important in China (and most of Asia) as it is in the West. And of course that translates to preferences and level of (un)happiness with the government and forms of governance. The west often operates under the false assumption that our way is the only right way and we easily dismiss these essential cultural differences.

> Im no expert but this is mostly due to surveillance right?

I don't think this is a logical conclusion. It certainly helps them in a way, but there was also no French revolution in China before modern surveillance was a thing. From a Chinese perspective many might be happy with their rise in importance and economic strength and the population grows wealthier each year.

> nobody prefer autocracy to democracy but the autocrate

they've been a unified entity for over 3 thousand years, of course culture has a big part in it.

Besides, I'm not sure US (specifically) democracy is much better than Chinese system.

It's simply a different way of exercising power.

The average Chinese citizen is probably as content as the average American citizen.

They like to tell all these stories, none of it is true. I propose that burden of proof is on the parent poster. Also don't forget Tibetans and Ouigours

> Besides, I'm not sure US (specifically) democracy is much better than Chinese system.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_in_the_World#Country_r...

> The average Chinese citizen is probably as content as the average American citizen.

Ask the minorities how they're treated in each (or in any country really).

> The Democracy Index is an index compiled by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), the research division of the Economist Group, a UK-based private company which publishes the weekly newspaper The Economist

> Freedom in the World is a yearly survey and report by the U.S.-based[2] non-governmental organization Freedom House

I'm not saying their data is wrong, but as always when it comes to data, it'd be great to have resources/data to read/interpret coming from "the other side" as well.

What do Asia-based/China-based organizations say about "democracy" and "freedom" in the US and Europe? Would they agree with the assessment from their US/Europe-based equivalents?

> What do Asia-based/China-based organizations say about "democracy" and "freedom" in the US and Europe? Would they agree with the assessment from their US/Europe-based equivalents?

Of course the score depends on the what is measured and the metrics.

But an interesting yet simple 'practical metric' is/could be: from which countries are people emigrating from, and to which are they immigrating to (or wish to immigrate to, if there were fewer restrictions).

Where do people see that they can 'have a future' for themselves and possibly for their children?

The Democracy Index is an index compiled by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU), the research division of the Economist Group, a UK-based private company which publishes the weekly newspaper The Economist.

not the best of sources.

Anyway the minority issues aren't worse in China than on US in my opinion.

If we think of women rights and children rights, they are worse in US than China, kids get shot in school over the right to own arms, women are stripped of the right to control their bodies over political vengeance from a former, bitter, undemocratic president.

> If we think of women rights and children rights, they are worse in US than China, kids get shot in school over the right to own arms […]

Which seems to be why the US ranks so low in the 'Freedom Index': if you look at the "Safety and Security" metric is is ridiculously bad.

> they've been a unified entity for over 3 thousand years

If you look at China's history a little bit deeply, you will notice a rhythmic pattern of unification and fragmentation.

I know this because I was told a by friend who is a History PhD, and gave me several resources to read.

China has not been politically unified, or even culturally similar for the past three thousand years.

There is a homogenous "Chinese culture" to westerners, because, honestly, westerners do not know much about China.

that's the issue: people make assumptions based on data that do not account for what does it mean to be cultural homogeneous.

For example USA are much less homogeneous than China.

And they actually do not exist outside of the political entity we call the United States of America.

But let's be clear, the fact that Italy - my country - has been fragmented more than it was unified doesn't justify the argument that Italians haven't existed for more than 2 thousand years.

> But let's be clear, the fact that Italy - my country - has been fragmented more than it was unified doesn't justify the argument that Italians haven't existed for more than 2 thousand years.

Totally agree with that.

My focus is on the earlier part of your comment. People from the West see China, a single color, India, a single color, Vietnam, a single color- and think all the thoughts of the people (not even on a micro scale), all the philosophies and ways of life, are similar.

That is very very far from the truth.

So wrong.

One of the most popular Chinese movies is “San Guo” or “3 Kingdoms”. This is historical fiction. There was a battle then just as there is still a battle now…in Taiwan.

From 1920 or so, a few groups, but mainly the CCP and the KMT (KuoMingTan) were battling for control of the mainland. The KMT lost, and so they fled to Taiwan. This battle is alive and well today.

In fact, rumor has it that Xi Jingping’s father whom served as the head of Canton wanted to secede in disagreement with Beijing and because there is still a history of Canton standing on its own.

China is fragmented still today.

> China is fragmented still today.

Yeah but 92% of Chinese are Han.

Saying that a country of 1.5 billion people has inner conflicts is like saying that water is wet.

It doesn't mean anything actually other than they have a lot of history means a lot of conflicts. It happened everywhere.

Also if they can disagree, it means that there is some space for disagreement.

In Catalunya some believe they should be independent from Spain, in Italy some people in Sicily and other northern regions say they should be independent from Italy.

That doesn't make them any less culturally similar to the people around them.

Who is "they"? The Mongolians? Sogdians (Persians)? Uyghurs (Turks)? Shu? Yue?

Unified for three thousand years is a ridiculous claim. I find it amazing that this Communist Party propaganda idea (they claim 5000 years actually) of a millennia old continuous "Chinese" state gets repeated by so many people abroad as well. Just spending a few minutes on Wikipedia reading up on East Asian history would would help.

Btw something that few people know even among those who read before commenting and among Chinese themselves: The idea of a Han people didn't exist before Qing Dynasty, not to speak of thousands of years earlier. It's a modern invention by Qing intellectuals, mirroring similar developments in Western countries. There was no concept of nation states prior to our modern times, there were many large states covering similar territories in the past of course, but they weren't necessarily "Chinese". The same way English people aren't Romans and just because Vietnam uses the Latin alphabet, it doesn't make them Latin.

> Im no expert but this is mostly due to surveillance right? Dont say culture please, nobody prefer autocracy to democracy but the autocrate.

I know it's hard to believe but ask people who have lived in China. Most Chinese people do have a favorable view of the CCP and don't seem to mind the surveillance that much (or they welcome it).

Source: lived in China for ~10 years.

I've lived in China longer than you and disagree.

As a general rule: Anyone who speaks for hundreds of millions of people is either a demagogue or simply stereotyping. With the way things are at this point, you can't even know what Chinese people really think without being very close friends with them. Under Hu when the internet still wasn't as insanely censored, public opinion online was largely negative of the party and in the general population including older folks I'd guesstimate somewhere around 50/50.

Keep in mind that was right at the height of the economic boom, so finance wise people couldn't have been more happy. But like OP says, no one wants to be unfree. The assumption that people in certain parts of the world are more predisposed to support totalitarianism strikes me as (unconsciously) racist.

I'm not speaking for anyone. I'm just relating my own experience from talking with hundreds of Chinese people over the years including my wife, her family members, my friends, etc. A pretty large sample overall.

This research seems to mirror my experience: https://ash.harvard.edu/files/ash/files/final_policy_brief_7...

> The assumption that people in certain parts of the world are more predisposed to support totalitarianism strikes me as (unconsciously) racist.

Oh boy...

Xi's China is a totalitarian state. Your anecdotal evidence of "speaking to hundreds of people" means nothing. I've been to North Korea and everyone told me they lover their dear leader. That clearly proves North Koreans are happy with their leadership by your logic. In fact, I don't think you'll find any totalitarian state where people aren't satisfied. Ergo totalitarianism is great.

I've linked to serious research that matches my anecdotal evidence. I disagree that level of support or satisfaction indicates that a political system is superior to another. It's possible to be satisfied for many reasons including not knowing better, apathy, brainwashing, etc. As a fellow "anti-authoritarian", I believe you are doing yourself a disservice by dismissing those facts. For change to become more likely, you first have to win the hearts and minds of the people.

Just think about this logically. Why does CCP run the largest censorship operation in the world? Why does a student get arrest and torutured for splashing ink on a Xi poster? Why do people get visited by the police for sharing a meme on Wechat? In the US we know that most people do not agree with the government and even there they don't resort to such extreme measures.

I have a hard time believing someone has lived in China for 10 years, has a Chinese wife and is still that naive when it comes to dictatorships. Not even the party member I know believe this.

And generally PRC citizens don't believe they're living under totalitarianism either. Most drank the koolaid that CCP is whole process democracy that kind of works, and democratic perception index or other surveys consistently reinforce this notion. Sometimes groups of people simply don't see the virtue or recognize charade of multi party indirect elections that allows any incompetent candidate to run. Expanding on "real thoughts", reoccuring theme is PRC diasphora in "democractic" countries with "free elections" are not particularly impressed by what they see in terms of state capcity versus PRC system. Nor the millions of PRC citizens that travel abroad to these countries and returns to China freely.

Sure, no one wants to be unfree, but majority prioritize things like wealth or security while actual freedoms have also dramatically increased since the 90s - even accounting for Xi's rollbacks. People bitching about politics online is like par for the course for any system, the very fact that people can bitch including IRL about politics is sign of how free PRC has gotten vs pre 90s. Granted it's lowkey like it's always been, including under Hu. Reality is for most people from develping countries, which PRC still straddles, "freedom" is fine, but other things are finer and worth putting up with autocracy for.

"nobody prefer autocracy to democracy but the autocrate."

But most people prefer stability and prosperity over chaos and civil war, of which china had plenty of. And economically china is quite good, this is the main reason, the CCP is still in power.

>they dont have democracy

Whatever system PRC is, rigourous surveys have consistently shown they overwhelmingly approve of it. And according to democracy perception index, significantly more Chinese view their system as democratic and democracy was important vs democratic decline in west. Democracy in this case being full process democracy - CCPs Democracy with Chinese characteristics. Regardless, flip side of whatever role of surveilliance in mediating speech is made up in improving security and enforcing laws that has vastly improved QoL. Pre mass survelliance PRC cities were chaotic as fuck, it's fun wild west if you're an expat, but most people prefer order.

>But democracy grows like weed

I would say most of human history demonstrates power aggregates towards some for of authoritarianism, especially in risky geopolitical enviroments.

no freedom of speech. no freedom of press. no right to assemble. and most importantly - no guns

it could happen here

Reply on news.ycombinator.com