9 ms·

You’re giving a lot of benefit of the doubt to the dictatorship. Establishing complete control over emerging power structures (tech industry) is more likely to

You’re giving a lot of benefit of the doubt to the dictatorship. Establishing complete control over emerging power structures (tech industry) is more likely to be their goal.

andy_ppp 5y ago
We don’t actually know why anyone in power does anything. One thing I do know is we as the West need to figure out how to come together and defend democratic and liberal values, as without them we are seriously lost. We should start by not giving any more money and technology to a Chinese state that clearly do not have our best interests at heart. I think the west is in real danger of just falling apart over the next 50 years if we lose our reasons for existing and instead spend our time arguing about cultural issues. We spend so much time right now looking inward at our small differences we can’t see the reason why our nations became worthwhile in the first place.
- throwaway4good 5y ago
  "We don’t actually know why anyone in power does anything." This is a not true. Dictators do long speeches. Often quite explicitly stating why they do what they do. Funnily sometimes in democracies there is a bigger space betweeen what is done and what is communicated.
  - simiones 5y ago
    Those speeches usually contain about as much actual information as a corporate PR statement: they, at best, tell you why the dictator wants others to think they are doing something. The only logical way to interpret the intentions of political leaders is to look at their effects. Anything else, even personal diaries, are likely full of interested reasoning and outright lies.
    - throwaway4good 5y ago
      If we are talking about the stuff here (regulation of internet companies) there plenty of speeches, 5-year plans, writings in party newspapers that explains the thinking behind the actions.
      - andy_ppp 5y ago
        Okay so is the article right? It’s not about smashing innovation but saying popularity is the wrong metric and (CCP) power should be the driving force behind technology development? Do the powerful really always state there objectives obviously like some dastardly Bond villain?
- papito 5y ago
  What I do notice is that the Chinese "rulers" seem to be more concerned about long-term well-being of its people, rather than trolling and performative assholery on Twitter. You might describe it as a dictatorship, but it's more data-driven than you might suspect. The Chinese keep the pulse on decisions they make, and if it's unpopular - it's gone. Of course there is a line - you can't go head-on against the Party and call them out directly. Compare this situation here, where we are trying to patch up our infrastructure and instead have to deal with a collection of spectacular douches in Congress, propagandizing against science to such an extent that our top epidemiologist has to get a security detail. Who would you bet on in this movie?
  - andy_ppp 5y ago
    Pithy response: Tell that to the Uyghur Muslims? Are they not Chinese people? More serious response: I don’t want to live under a dictatorship where a generational change could lead to corruption and suffering on a much bigger scale. I think America as a project might also be lost and we should consider if this crazy idea (democracy, freedom of religion, free speech etc.) is worth fighting for. I think it is and I believe in the values that the US has, despite some very obvious mistakes America isn’t ethnic cleansing Muslims or having a press that can’t criticise the government. I will bet on America not because China won’t win but because I still believe the (relative) peace and prosperity of the post war period isn’t worth throwing away as easily as some want. We need someone focused on this in a clear way and to get Americans stop arguing amongst themselves and look at the bigger picture.
    - papito 5y ago
      I by no means suggest that the Chinese system is superior. It's a sort of system that can descend into runaway corruption pretty easily. What I am saying is, given the decay of the western society, which is our fault entirely, our chances of staying ahead are slim. The problem is, the Chinese have a team. They do not easily sell out. We, however, have an entire layer of high-level government that will readily go to the highest bidder. This is not sustainable. The only way to fix this is a crisis that unites us, but if a global pandemic did not do it, what will?
88840-8855 5y ago
In my eyes China is a technocratic autocracy, not a dictatorship. This would explain the hypothesis why they want their brains to work on rockets rather than ad tech, as OP assumed.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  It's an authoritarian oligarchy currently trending towards more autocracy. I think people often have an unfortunate lack of political vocabulary, and therefor loosely use terms like "dictatorship" for any system with a large amount of political repression.
  - refenestrator 5y ago
    I know this is just semantics but I actually like 'technocratic autocracy' better than any sort of oligopoly to describe China. There are no other poles of power, the army even reports directly to the party rather than the government. And, so far, they've been quite dynamic on the technocratic front, people get fired for incompetence despite having a political base.
    - tablespoon 5y ago
      > There are no other poles of power, the army even reports directly to the party rather than the government. I think you have a point with your use of "technocratic," but it is an oligarchy. The party is the olígos. Autocracy implies stuff like the army reports to the leader, not the party. I think things are trending that way, but I don't think it's historically accurate (at least for the last several decades).
      - refenestrator 5y ago
        You're right, I was thinking of oligopoly more in the terms where it's usually applied to Russia and the ruling 'set' all have different, separate power bases.
- mensetmanusman 5y ago
deltasixeight 5y ago
This is a one sided view and also represents classic bias of the western viewpoint. Sure a "dictator" (more accurately "central power" for China) wants to consolidate power but to think the dictator is a one dimensional being and that all actions a dictator takes only serves that single minded motivation of power solidification is really not reasonable. Consolidating power is only one aspect of their motivation that much is true. However the article is not about this aspect of the CCP. The actions taken by the regime here represent broad views about what constitutes economic health. The OPs comment is spot on, and captures the main point of the article.

You’re giving a lot of benefit of the doubt to the dictatorship. Establishing complete control over emerging power structures (tech industry) is more likely to be their goal.

andy_ppp 5y ago

We don’t actually know why anyone in power does anything. One thing I do know is we as the West need to figure out how to come together and defend democratic and liberal values, as without them we are seriously lost. We should start by not giving any more money and technology to a Chinese state that clearly do not have our best interests at heart. I think the west is in real danger of just falling apart over the next 50 years if we lose our reasons for existing and instead spend our time arguing about cultural issues. We spend so much time right now looking inward at our small differences we can’t see the reason why our nations became worthwhile in the first place.

throwaway4good 5y ago
"We don’t actually know why anyone in power does anything." This is a not true. Dictators do long speeches. Often quite explicitly stating why they do what they do. Funnily sometimes in democracies there is a bigger space betweeen what is done and what is communicated.
- simiones 5y ago
  Those speeches usually contain about as much actual information as a corporate PR statement: they, at best, tell you why the dictator wants others to think they are doing something. The only logical way to interpret the intentions of political leaders is to look at their effects. Anything else, even personal diaries, are likely full of interested reasoning and outright lies.
  - throwaway4good 5y ago
    If we are talking about the stuff here (regulation of internet companies) there plenty of speeches, 5-year plans, writings in party newspapers that explains the thinking behind the actions.
    - andy_ppp 5y ago
      Okay so is the article right? It’s not about smashing innovation but saying popularity is the wrong metric and (CCP) power should be the driving force behind technology development? Do the powerful really always state there objectives obviously like some dastardly Bond villain?
papito 5y ago
What I do notice is that the Chinese "rulers" seem to be more concerned about long-term well-being of its people, rather than trolling and performative assholery on Twitter. You might describe it as a dictatorship, but it's more data-driven than you might suspect. The Chinese keep the pulse on decisions they make, and if it's unpopular - it's gone. Of course there is a line - you can't go head-on against the Party and call them out directly. Compare this situation here, where we are trying to patch up our infrastructure and instead have to deal with a collection of spectacular douches in Congress, propagandizing against science to such an extent that our top epidemiologist has to get a security detail. Who would you bet on in this movie?
- andy_ppp 5y ago
  Pithy response: Tell that to the Uyghur Muslims? Are they not Chinese people? More serious response: I don’t want to live under a dictatorship where a generational change could lead to corruption and suffering on a much bigger scale. I think America as a project might also be lost and we should consider if this crazy idea (democracy, freedom of religion, free speech etc.) is worth fighting for. I think it is and I believe in the values that the US has, despite some very obvious mistakes America isn’t ethnic cleansing Muslims or having a press that can’t criticise the government. I will bet on America not because China won’t win but because I still believe the (relative) peace and prosperity of the post war period isn’t worth throwing away as easily as some want. We need someone focused on this in a clear way and to get Americans stop arguing amongst themselves and look at the bigger picture.
  - papito 5y ago
    I by no means suggest that the Chinese system is superior. It's a sort of system that can descend into runaway corruption pretty easily. What I am saying is, given the decay of the western society, which is our fault entirely, our chances of staying ahead are slim. The problem is, the Chinese have a team. They do not easily sell out. We, however, have an entire layer of high-level government that will readily go to the highest bidder. This is not sustainable. The only way to fix this is a crisis that unites us, but if a global pandemic did not do it, what will?

88840-8855 5y ago

In my eyes China is a technocratic autocracy, not a dictatorship. This would explain the hypothesis why they want their brains to work on rockets rather than ad tech, as OP assumed.

tablespoon 5y ago
It's an authoritarian oligarchy currently trending towards more autocracy. I think people often have an unfortunate lack of political vocabulary, and therefor loosely use terms like "dictatorship" for any system with a large amount of political repression.
- refenestrator 5y ago
  I know this is just semantics but I actually like 'technocratic autocracy' better than any sort of oligopoly to describe China. There are no other poles of power, the army even reports directly to the party rather than the government. And, so far, they've been quite dynamic on the technocratic front, people get fired for incompetence despite having a political base.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > There are no other poles of power, the army even reports directly to the party rather than the government. I think you have a point with your use of "technocratic," but it is an oligarchy. The party is the olígos. Autocracy implies stuff like the army reports to the leader, not the party. I think things are trending that way, but I don't think it's historically accurate (at least for the last several decades).
    - refenestrator 5y ago
      You're right, I was thinking of oligopoly more in the terms where it's usually applied to Russia and the ruling 'set' all have different, separate power bases.
mensetmanusman 5y ago

deltasixeight 5y ago

This is a one sided view and also represents classic bias of the western viewpoint. Sure a "dictator" (more accurately "central power" for China) wants to consolidate power but to think the dictator is a one dimensional being and that all actions a dictator takes only serves that single minded motivation of power solidification is really not reasonable. Consolidating power is only one aspect of their motivation that much is true. However the article is not about this aspect of the CCP. The actions taken by the regime here represent broad views about what constitutes economic health. The OPs comment is spot on, and captures the main point of the article.