The China Thread (Threat)

[Gunz]

.

 

[Gunz]

Serious Question how many Chinese actually hate the CCP? Why haven’t they tried to remove it or change it?

Serious answer. They don’t own the tanks.

 

[SpitfireV]

No worries here at all.

Consider other's perception. It's entirely possible to admire the people and culture but still be critical of the regime. Most of the posts criticizing China, that you get defensive over; are not criticizing the people or culture.

You're confusing asking for evidence for big claims with being defensive.

 

[SaintKP]

It's not capitalism, it's money and power. It's no different, any where in the world.

That would be a negligible difference wouldn't it? I guess when I said capitalism I was thinking in the purest form (Ancap maybe?), that every decision is influenced solely by furthering their respective company/technology. They aren't driven by political ideals but who can help them further their own goals.

 

[Board and Seize]

That would be a negligible difference wouldn't it? I guess when I said capitalism I was thinking in the purest form (Ancap maybe?), that every decision is influenced solely by furthering their respective company/technology. They aren't driven by political ideals but who can help them further their own goals.

Without (I hope) fully cracking this can of worms...

We don't have (free market) Capitalism. The closest label that describes the economic-political system we have in the US (and, I'd suggest, at large in the world today) is fascism - today commonly called crony capitalism or corporatism. ( holding breath...)

And I don't know if you spend time with FANG-style corporate companies, their discussions, and efforts, but they are definitely driven (partially) by ideology. Everything they do is steeped in it, though a cynic would suggest that it's just a marketing ploy.

With a pure, free-market kind of capitalism, the world would be so wildly different that it's not very comparable. We can't look at an isolated issue and examine it from a free-market lens without first addressing all of the myriad interacting restrictions on and perversions of the free market. There are so many subsidies, tax cut outs, regulations and exemptions, and laws that we don't even resemble a free market. Many of our current problems are the (I'd argue) direct result of these non-free-market government interventions into human association that they wouldn't (?) exist otherwise.

@RackMaster's distinction is far from negligible. Capitalism != money&power. Every social/political/human system has power structures (suck it tankies) and money is just a way to measure wealth. There is money&power in communist China, there was in Eastern Germany, the Khmer Rouge, under Stalin, etc., etc., etc.

/rant

 

[frostyred]

@R.Caerbannog @frostyred

Playing devil's advocate here, but it seems like big tech is more influenced directly by capitalism than anything regardless of political alignment. That's not to say they are actively plotting or helping the U.S., but instead are looking to give their respective companies the leading edge across the board whether that be profits, technology or overhead. Would that be misreading it or?

Apologies if it's hard to understand what I'm trying to say, was trying to come up with a way to type out what I was thinking.

That's more or less the important take away; they are heavily money-driven at this point, with a sprinkle of genuine desire to improve the world.

But yes, agree with @RackMaster .

Serious Question how many Chinese actually hate the CCP? Why haven’t they tried to remove it or change it?

It's hard to say without going around and asking people in the mainland, which will DEFINITELY get you watched and probably snatched. I mean, the Central Gov probably are why Jack Ma is missing right now.

Some dislike it, most can't say whether or not they do because certain things are either directly censored at the site level, the ISP level, or manually by the CCP's large censorship force. A lot are ignorant to what's happening, which is easy given the amount of control levied over information. Some are supportive because they were on the "right side" during the Cultural Revolution. Most can't express it anywhere or it's not worth their life to do so, since even VPNs are mostly illegal.

 

[SaintKP]

Finishing up work but definitely ear marking this for later, thanks for the clarification et al.

 

[Board and Seize]

my own rant

Holy shit. So I was diving deeper into the fascism definitions wikipedia page, when the name Umberto Eco caught my eye. He's one of my favorite authors and philosophers (semiotician, and Italian, so presumably knows what he's talking about), and wrote The Name of the Rose, which I image a fair few of you have encountered through the movie version starring Sean Connery.

These are, according to him, the general properties of fascism:

1. "The Cult of Tradition", characterized by cultural syncretism, even at the risk of internal contradiction. When all truth has already been revealed by Tradition, no new learning can occur, only further interpretation and refinement.
2. "The Rejection of modernism", which views the rationalistic development of Western culture since the Enlightenment as a descent into depravity. Eco distinguishes this from a rejection of superficial technological advancement, as many fascist regimes cite their industrial potency as proof of the vitality of their system.
3. "The Cult of Action for Action's Sake", which dictates that action is of value in itself, and should be taken without intellectual reflection. This, says Eco, is connected with anti-intellectualism and irrationalism, and often manifests in attacks on modern culture and science.
4. "Disagreement Is Treason" – Fascism devalues intellectual discourse and critical reasoning as barriers to action, as well as out of fear that such analysis will expose the contradictions embodied in a syncretistic faith.
5. "Fear of Difference", which fascism seeks to exploit and exacerbate, often in the form of racism or an appeal against foreigners and immigrants.
6. "Appeal to a Frustrated Middle Class", fearing economic pressure from the demands and aspirations of lower social groups.
7. "Obsession with a Plot" and the hyping-up of an enemy threat. This often combines an appeal to xenophobia with a fear of disloyalty and sabotage from marginalized groups living within the society (such as the German elite's 'fear' of the 1930s Jewish populace's businesses and well-doings; see also anti-Semitism). Eco also cites Pat Robertson's book The New World Order as a prominent example of a plot obsession.
8. Fascist societies rhetorically cast their enemies as "at the same time too strong and too weak." On the one hand, fascists play up the power of certain disfavored elites to encourage in their followers a sense of grievance and humiliation. On the other hand, fascist leaders point to the decadence of those elites as proof of their ultimate feebleness in the face of an overwhelming popular will.
9. "Pacifism is Trafficking with the Enemy" because "Life is Permanent Warfare" – there must always be an enemy to fight. Both fascist Germany under Hitler and Italy under Mussolini worked first to organize and clean up their respective countries and then build the war machines that they later intended to and did use, despite Germany being under restrictions of the Versailles treaty to not build a military force. This principle leads to a fundamental contradiction within fascism: the incompatibility of ultimate triumph with perpetual war.
10. "Contempt for the Weak", which is uncomfortably married to a chauvinistic popular elitism, in which every member of society is superior to outsiders by virtue of belonging to the in-group. Eco sees in these attitudes the root of a deep tension in the fundamentally hierarchical structure of fascist polities, as they encourage leaders to despise their underlings, up to the ultimate Leader who holds the whole country in contempt for having allowed him to overtake it by force.
11. "Everybody is Educated to Become a Hero", which leads to the embrace of a cult of death. As Eco observes, "[t]he Ur-Fascist hero is impatient to die. In his impatience, he more frequently sends other people to death."
12. "Machismo", which sublimates the difficult work of permanent war and heroism into the sexual sphere. Fascists thus hold "both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality."
13. "Selective Populism" – The People, conceived monolithically, have a Common Will, distinct from and superior to the viewpoint of any individual. As no mass of people can ever be truly unanimous, the Leader holds himself out as the interpreter of the popular will (though truly he dictates it). Fascists use this concept to delegitimize democratic institutions they accuse of "no longer represent[ing] the Voice of the People."
14. "Newspeak" – Fascism employs and promotes an impoverished vocabulary in order to limit critical reasoning.

Yikes!

 

[R.Caerbannog]

Mmm yes, the issue definitely is private businesses and NOT individuals/organizations in our branches of government and leadership that are allowing the erosion of personal privacy, data ownership, and disallowing us from closing our vectors of attack/vulnerability via legislation that forces the effective end of such things as end-to-end encryption, net-neutrality (which ensures that our data and information is not controlled by private companies but is more under open and public control)... all for money and power. Defffffinitely not those people.

Tech very rarely "handed" those things over. The 90's and 00's were wrought with blatant copy/paste of tech (both hardware and software) and outright, open air theft, which caught China up a good deal. This is all thanks to the introduction of and subsequent warping of capitalism after the 改革开放 (Opening and Reforms) instituted by Deng Xiaoping, with the CCP controlling and manipulating the system and its normal operating procedure of running a planned market economy.'

There have been some missteps, such as Project Dragonfly (which stoked the ire of a HUGE number of the workers at Google), and the tech companies VERY much have to be held very accountable for the privacy violations, misuse of personal data, and overall disgusting science experiment they've put the American people through for the sake of advertising money (given that there is some genuine, true desire to improve everyday life via data analysis that exists at a good deal of the companies in and around the Bay Area); but to categorically state that they've all not only knowingly caused the techno-autocratic nightmare that is life in 90% of the populated cities in Mainland China but also actively still support it, is actively ignoring both statistical information we have on hand, and multiple credible accounts from defectors and/or those that have studied this most of their life.

From what I've seen, big tech is pretty much immune to govt. Between their mock hearings on Capitol Hill, censoring a sitting President, and getting their puppets to shoot down the repeal of section 230, they're a force of their own. They ain't helpless babes.

Tech got in bed with a commie regime that murdered millions of their own people. Insinuating that big tech was taken advantage of is akin to Joe wondering why his junk burns after raw dogging a stripper. To simplify, big tech indirectly gave the world an Orwellian nightmare while Joe got the clap.

Lastly, calling big techs actions over the past few decades ain't "some missteps". Again... Orwellian nightmare and god knows what other misdeeds. I wouldn't be surprised if those big tech idiots helped topple govts... oh wait. I forgot we're currently living that last part, while the Chicoms laugh their asses off.

 

[R.Caerbannog]

@R.Caerbannog @frostyred

Playing devil's advocate here, but it seems like big tech is more influenced directly by capitalism than anything regardless of political alignment. That's not to say they are actively plotting or helping the U.S., but instead are looking to give their respective companies the leading edge across the board whether that be profits, technology or overhead. Would that be misreading it or?

Apologies if it's hard to understand what I'm trying to say, was trying to come up with a way to type out what I was thinking.

@RackMaster and @Board and Seize have pretty good takes on this. Power, ideology, and to a lesser extent money.

I think big tech is focused on accruing power. They've essentially enthralled a large chunk of the global population without their knowledge. Given the moves they've been making in disseminating their technology and 'experiments' on end user's, I think they're perfecting the projection of soft power via a phone or tablet.

China used this tech to foist an Orwellian nightmare on their people. Big tech on the other hand, has used this power to tap into minds and resources of the world. All without having to conquer territory or fund standing armies. Think East India Trade Company but with information, soylent chugging, and brainwashed progressives.

Serious Question how many Chinese actually hate the CCP? Why haven’t they tried to remove it or change it?

@Gunz and @frostyred made good summations.

I'm not an expert on the mindset of the average Chinese, but I have some ideas. If you get a chance, check out some of the Manhua's on the net they're great fodder. I'll send you a PM, so as to not potentially get any authors or creators in trouble.

But to echo @Gunz, anyone who is dissatisfied has no way to access arms or training, they have no way of organizing, and comms are useless. If anyone steps outta line, they end up getting their organs cut out while they're still alive.

Not to mention, a huge chunk of China's military forces are primarily committed to keeping the population docile and in check. At the moment, Chian's military is currently faced inwards.

 

[Jaknight]

@RackMaster and @Board and Seize have pretty good takes on this. Power, ideology, and to a lesser extent money.

I think big tech is focused on accruing power. They've essentially enthralled a large chunk of the global population without their knowledge. Given the moves they've been making in disseminating their technology and 'experiments' on end user's, I think they're perfecting the projection of soft power via a phone or tablet.

China used this tech to foist an Orwellian nightmare on their people. Big tech on the other hand, has used this power to tap into minds and resources of the world. All without having to conquer territory or fund standing armies. Think East India Trade Company but with information, soylent chugging, and brainwashed progressives.


@Gunz and @frostyred made good summations.

I'm not an expert on the mindset of the average Chinese, but I have some ideas. If you get a chance, check out some of the Manhua's on the net they're great fodder. I'll send you a PM, so as to not potentially get any authors or creators in trouble.

But to echo @Gunz, anyone who is dissatisfied has no way to access arms or training, they have no way of organizing, and comms are useless. If anyone steps outta line, they end up getting their organs cut out while they're still alive.

Not to mention, a huge chunk of China's military forces are primarily committed to keeping the population docile and in check. At the moment, Chian's military is currently faced inwards.

Thanks

 

[RackMaster]

Good to see the Liberal's waking up to reality.

Public safety minister details China’s foreign interference efforts in letter to MPs

 

[BloodStripe]

Can someone explain to me how relaxing anything to due with Chinese tech companies is a good thing?

What Will the U.S.-China Relationship Look Like in the Biden Era?

 

[R.Caerbannog]

Can someone explain to me how relaxing anything to due with Chinese tech companies is a good thing?

What Will the U.S.-China Relationship Look Like in the Biden Era?

I gotchu fam. Straight from my internet jackalope source, our nations 2021 plan for economic peace with China.

 

[CQB]

Today the US is ending restrictions on government contact with their counterparts in Taiwan which sees the end of an arrangement in place since 1979. The prior arrangement extended diplomatic recognition to mainland China & ignored Taiwan.

 

[SpitfireV]

Today the US is ending restrictions on government contact with their counterparts in Taiwan which sees the end of an arrangement in place since 1979. The prior arrangement extended diplomatic recognition to mainland China & ignored Taiwan.

That's good. It'll wind the PRC up something chronic which is always funny to watch.

 

[DA SWO]

Today the US is ending restrictions on government contact with their counterparts in Taiwan which sees the end of an arrangement in place since 1979. The prior arrangement extended diplomatic recognition to mainland China & ignored Taiwan.

1979, Jimmy Carter.
Doofus.

 

[CQB]

That's good. It'll wind the PRC up something chronic which is always funny to watch.

The US UN Ambassador Kelly Craft with be in Taiwan in a couple of days, that should add to the fun.

 

[ThunderHorse]

Well now:

Huawei patent mentions use of Uighur-spotting tech

 

[CQB]

Well now:

Huawei patent mentions use of Uighur-spotting tech

Mentioned in the Pompeo interview with the VoA in another thread, is the duplicity of the PRC, where they say they will not do something (such as militarise the South China Sea) & then go ahead & do it. SNAFU!