Americans And Chinese Internet Censorship 718
chowbok writes: "The Weekly Standard writes that despite expectations, the Chinese Government has been very successful in suppressing free internet access for their citizens. Key to this success was the assistance of Cisco, who built a giant firewall tailored to the state's needs, Yahoo (who helpfully censors search results and monitors online chats), and other Western companies."
Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
The Ovens of Corporate America (Score:4, Insightful)
"We don't care about the [Chinese government's] rules. It's none of Cisco's business."
Similar to how Mercedes or BMW didn't care much for what those giant ovens were used for in NAZI Germany, because it was none of their business. Oh how the ashes fall.
Disgusting. I can say I will never think of Cisco the same way again. What if the US decided they needed to "monitor" citizen Internet communications? Would Cisco step up with one of their enterprise level solutions?
Right next to Oracle with bids for a national ID card...
Re:Go Capitalism! Rah! Rah! (Score:2, Insightful)
Something to think about: Would we all feel better if they used a mainframe or cluster running Linux and ipchains?
The problem is what they are doing, not how they go about it.
Ironic.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Odd..
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Lets see, WWI, its illegal to hinder the war effort. One man was arrested for distrubiting flyers to draftees. Freedom of speech, apparently not. And now you say but that was then.
we have so many laws in the US that effectively controls most forms of speech. These laws have legit purposes, but they have been and will continue to control unpopular speech.
Want to get on a soap box downtown in a peaceful, way (ie not shouting at the top of your lungs). Well thats loitering, disturbing the peace.
Free speech seems to be one of those values in the US that is only really protected, as long as its what your saying is popular.
atleast written and digital censorship is a little less existant. but its amazing what laws are out there.
I find it funny and disturbing that there are NO LOITERING signs at out public parks.
Please... (Score:5, Insightful)
I may have grown up in a foreign culture, but I can spot someone with an axe to grind when I see one. Your disgust at "Big Business" and "Big Government" has nothing to do with the rights or attitudes of the Chinese people, but rather with you wanting to blame the what's wrong with the world on those that you don't agree with.
The Chinese nation will sort themselves out over a long time, and probably peacefully, too - that's the Chinese way, to take the long, nonconfrontational view. The best thing that Clinton and Bush have done, and what you seem so opposed to, is to allow US businesses to continue to invest in China, further stimulating the economy and slowly raising living standards for the Chinese people. With increased living standards, more power to the middle class and greater education, the people of China will ask for more freedom and representation incrementally, and the government of China will grant the inevitable.
The average Chinese citizen does not want your revolution. They want orderly, nonviolent change. The US companies are just doing business, no more and no less, and that business helps along that change.
Unfortunately, the blocks are not the problem. (Score:4, Insightful)
Sure, CNN.com is blocked & so is BBC.co.uk. No, NYT.com & BBCWORLD.com aren't blocked. So yes, I also don't understand the logic behind the specific blocks themselves. What I do understand, however, is that the blocks unfortunately are not the real issue.
The real issue is that the majority of people (in this case, internet users) themselves are not interested to actually access this information. If you have a peek into one of the many internet cafes around, the majority of users are merely playing games.
If they are on the internet, they are always either on Chinese news sites or chatting with each other. If I talk to my colleagues in the office, and ask them why they're not interested in information from a different perspective, they tell me that they simply don't care too much about international opinions. If they do visit international sites they'd rather visit other kinds of sites, mostly of expensive brands like BMW, Gucci & Rolf Benz, just to check out the latest styles. They are also interested in international universities, how to get their MBA & required visas.
Please remember that this applies to the *majority* of users in China. Obviously there is a group of users that is interested in the information, but I believe people on Slashdot are realistic enough to know that if you want to access the information, there is *always* a way.
For those of you in China who want to access CNN, simply go to http://robots.cnn.com
Not Censored Enough (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, lets be honest. (Score:4, Insightful)
China could have done this without outside help, China should have free speech. They don't. Not building firewalls for them isn't going to open their society.
Since Mao died, the living standards of the average Chinese person has skyrocketed. Deng Xiao Peng created a lot of reforms, economically (saying "It's not bad, to be rich"), and even in terms of free speech and political expression. After Tiananmen they clamped back down. I don't really know if you can blame them either, if you just lived through the cultural revolution, you would probably be very afraid as well. Mid-century China was a veritable case study in how 'harmless' politics and mass youth movements can cause huge problems.
Maybe Tiananmen was do soon, and the students really blew it. They should have stuck with Op-Ed pages, and built support that way, protesting only set them back, a lot. China today doesn't allow anywhere near the political expression that existed in the 1980s.
But that said, people who's lives are getting better and better every year are not going to really want to revolt.
And keep in mind that democracy and freedom of speech is an exception in all of human history. Maybe someday, but don't think it will happen anytime soon. Happy citizens don't revolt.
Re:China is still reaching critical mass (Score:3, Insightful)
Balls. The U.S. was more or less a third world country when it got started, and it succeeded.
A country that believes it must have a controlled society and few freedoms until it can "afford them," will never NEVER be able to "afford" them.
Once they have economic development, if they ever do on a wide scale, they will point to their success under a repressive regime and say, "see, it works!" I don't think it will work.
I guess I gotta play devil's advocate on this one (Score:4, Insightful)
I cringe when I read these posts that say "how the hell can they do this?" and "this is just another example of big business...".
Frankly that is the result of allowing all people to act as they wish. This is not a thought socialist state: you cannot command someone to act a certain way with their freedoms. Cisco and Yahoo seem to think there is nothing wrong with the People's govt of China.
And what is wrong with this? I saw someone comparing these companies to BMW et al during the Nazi years in Germany. Um, as far as I know Cisco isn't using "subhumans" as slavelabor here.
Personally there are many things about the Chinese government that I don't like and I'm kind of sad that these companies helped them out. But with or without their help the same paranoia state regime will still be in charge.
Heck probably the "revolution" that everyone asks for will happen without any one of us knowing. The Chinese middle class will expand, they will wish for a) more leisure and b) more freedom to spend their money. And the government will comply to them because they are the sweet tax center. Hell, that's how all of the US Terrorism law got passed.
Re:China is still reaching critical mass (Score:2, Insightful)
The U.S. was nothing of the sort. First of all, the U.S. got its independence before the Industrial Revolution, which is what made the modern world's economic divisions. (In fact, the U.S. was a full participant in the Industrial Revolution when it happened.) Also, we were a solid part of the transatlantic trade, not as producers of raw materials (although we did that too -- cotton), but as traders. We had much more in common with small trading nations of Europe (like Holland) than we did with other European colonies, which became the modern third world.
Re:Why? (Score:2, Insightful)
You want to have a rally in a park? It's really simple. Go down to the city parks department, tell them when and where, pay them the $25 or whatever, and if you're not going to destroy the park in the process, they'll give you a little perimt, and you can go to town. If you don't have the $25, skip McDonalds for a couple weeks and save it. Or collect a buck from each of your friends. There's nothing great stopping you.
And yes, we do have censorship during war time. But that doesn't happen very often, and when it does, it always gets lifted. That's the difference. We don't live under the onerous restrictions every day. And for that matter, censorship during wartime has a very legitimate purpose. Do you seriously think the world would be a better place if Stalin or Hitler had conquered Europe? We all agreed people should keep their mouths shut for a few years, and it turned out much better than it would have otherwise.
Is China a "Beta Test" Market? (Score:1, Insightful)
Is the PRC a giant test market (in effect) for some things that will come home to roost back home?
I don't mean this in the most literal paranoid sense, more that "jee we developed all this for them. Maybe we can sell it into other markets"
Re:The Ovens of Corporate America (Score:5, Insightful)
That is such an ethical non-starter. The fact that someone else -- over whom you have no control -- will do something awful never justifies doing it yourself. You are responsible for your own actions.
It is not always -- perhaps not even often -- possible to stop evil from being done. But at all times, you have the power to say, "I, at least, will not do evil." You aren't responsible if someone else does what you have renounced
We'll pass only briefly over the idea that, if everyone conducted themselves ethically and no one took this moral short-cut, then in fact the Great Firewall of China is a far from inevitable fact. In other words, the poster did not offer a justification, only a rationalization -- an excuse for doing something known (by the doer) to be wrong.
Re:Please... (Score:2, Insightful)
Um, what about the extended civil war and the eventual Communist revolution? Were those "peaceful"? How about Tianamen Square? How about three thousand years of emperors and warlords?
It doesn't help for us to view China as backward. It also doesn't help for us to view China as forward, as somehow mystically enlightened and benign. The fact of the matter is, the Chinese are human and have the same drives and desires as other humans. The Communists want to cling to power. The ordinary citizen probably wants a decent living and some peace. Some high muckety-mucks want wealth and power.
The evidence of human history -- including Chinese history -- is exactly that the revolution, when it comes, will not come peacefully. Government that try to control thought end up tightening their grip so much that the entire system cracks under the pressure. What will most likely result is a sucession crisis (though perhaps not in this iteration) and chaos. Maybe, on the other side, the Chinese people will be free. Maybe not.
Re:Regulated shmegulated (Score:2, Insightful)
No it isn't. You don't have the freedom to do a lot of things. Sure we're freer than a lot of other countries but that's changing.
I recently read a great essay called "The Rise of the Fourth Reich" which compares G.W Bush to Hitler.
Read it for yourself here [whatreallyhappened.com]
Anyway I fear a country where people are given the constitutional right to own a firearm at the age of 12 but if you're caught smoking a harmless joint you'll go to jail.
Or where a gang of white police offers can be caught red handed on video tape beating a black man with billy clubs but they're set free to go.
Or where a forieng programmer can be thrown in jail for 5 months without a trial for writing a program that may cost a rich company a few dollars.
That's not freedom and I won't pretend that it is. I refuse to be ignorant and complacent. In fact, what I fear even more than the country itself is it's ignorant and complacent citizens that let it be that way.
--
Garett
Re:The Ovens of Corporate America (Score:3, Insightful)
You are absolutely correct that all of the downright evil acts by corporations that you sited do really occur. They occur, though, because the people in charge of those corporations have low ethical standards. Not every airplane manufacturer, though, manufactures and sells weapons to the third world. Not every insurance company seeks to eliminate personal privacy. Not every clothing manufacturer employs kids in deplorable conditions. Not every oil corporation supports corrupt regimes.
I'm not sure exactly what you are calling for when you say that corporations should be regulated, so I won't directly accuse you of any particular beliefs. However, I will say (based on what is commonly meant when regulation is refered to) that I don't think regulation per se is the answer. The answer is instead (as I see it) to criminalize unethical behavior and punish those responsible.
Re:Go Capitalism! Rah! Rah! (Score:3, Insightful)
Refuse to buy products "Made in China" and refuse to patronize any company that makes or sells products to China.
By the way, about all you'll have left a cardboard box and some fresh veggies.
The Chinese have been under the thumb of a supreme ruler of one sort or another since before some carpenter went around saying "Hey! Can't we all get along?" A little protesting is not going to stop them - it's in the national psyche.
I don't think there is a solution that we can impose from the outside. It's going to take a major philosophical change from inside the country.
Re:Reminds us that Capitalism is not Democracy (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, obviously. In this case it's to order equipment and services to be used for oppressing their citizens.
The market (i.e. the Chinese people) is what will liberate China.
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Permits have often been used as a method of denying legit rallies. Its quite easy to "lose the paperwork" etc.
Censorship of free speech has no purpose at any time. This is distinct from say not allowing the media to broadcast the plans of invasion before it happens.
Basically you have to ask the govt, why is a war needed if a speech can shake people's belief in the purpose of that war.
in response to the carnivore comment. The weight is now put on me to hide what i am saying so the govt cant read it? yes what a free society we live in. There shouldnt be ways around it, simply because there should be no NEED for it.
How would someone questioning the govt's involvement in the war (specifically WWI and II) allow the conquest of Europe?
Every action the Govt and leaders take need to be questioned for motive. Trust must also be present. Sounds like a contradiction? maybe, but i cannot trust a leader/govt if i do not look at their motives.
You know how many of those restrictions get lifted? they are declared unconstitutional. as in they shouldnt be laws in the first place.
Dont get me wrong, I do believe the US is a more free society than many other countries in the world. (not all etc). But just because its good, doesnt mean it cant be improved, and that it cant slide down to bad.
Re:Please... (Score:2, Insightful)
"The US companies are just doing business, no more and no less, and that business helps along that change."
This is true up to a point: Foreign investment tends to raise living standards by creating jobs and economic growth. Some estimates suggest that, by 2015-2020, per capita GDP will reach the critical level where populations tend to "demand democracy". i.e. Their workforces start to demand rights and privileges commensurate with their wealth and education.
But the point was that the specific actions of Cisco and others, by aiding the information-squelching of Beijing, are clearly counterproductive to China's modernization.
Re:China is still reaching critical mass (Score:4, Insightful)
Keep this in mind, when reading about Uyghur history, especially in the Xinjiang province: The history is very politically charged. There are Uyghurs who wish to see an East Turkestan established, the Chinese, and the Russians both have interests in not seeing an independent nation established. The history of both sides is tailored to meet these needs. China maintains that Xinjiang was, and always has been, a part of China. The Uyghurs maintains that this is false. I tend to fall on the side of the Uyghurs, but I also believe that they are little better than the communists in manipulating historical record. Thus, the history has become, I think, permanently distorted, at least until archeologists can get into the region and do some serious excavating.
A couple of points to your otherwise insightful post. 1) The Uyghurs are poorer, but they have a very interesting history and, at least in the Northwestern Xinjiang-Uyghur Autonomous Region, actually managed to establish a kingdom that was at relative peace for 1000 years, aside from a brief 200 year voluntary stint under the Mongul empire. China was attempting an annexation of Xinjiang since 104BC, and each time was expelled until 1867 when the Manchurians finally firmly implanted themselves. Even at this juncture, they were expelled in 1933 and Xinjiang was never really taken over until 1949. I most certainly doubt that the Uyghurs were an exceptionally poor people during this time, considering the Silk Road runs right through their land. I am not sure about this last statement, that is speculation on my part. 2) The Uyghurs are the majority ethnic group in Xinjiang. Just to make sure people realize that they aren't a minority with dense pockets here and there.
3) China will never willingly give up Xinjiang. The region is far too rich in natural gas and oil. Look up the gas pipeline. It's the second largest infrastructure project next to the three gorges dam project. China has sunk an amazing amount of capital in terms of utilizing it's vast stores there, and is set to recieve a tremendous amount of foreign investment into the region because of this. A split in China? Don't hold your breath.
Cisco and Yahoo etc. are *good guys* here (Score:4, Insightful)
Cisco and Yahoo etc. are doing a good thing here!
If every related company would tell the chinese govt. "No, we will not do such blocking system. It's impossible/immoral/bad/[insert your favourite reason here].", what do you think chinese govt. would do? It would decide that they cannot control the internet, so they won't allow any internet traffic in/out of the country. They are control freaks, so they need to have the warm and fuzzy feeling of 'controlling' the net.
Cisco & friends are providing them (at an immense cost, mind ya) a 'filtering system' that gives them that warm & fuzzy feeling that they are 'controlling' their citizen's internet access. It's an illusion at best, but they seem to want it, and are willing to pay for it. You know - the saying about fool and their money... :)
We all know that there are ways around such blocks. This is nothing but your average broken censorware application with goverment approved blocklist, built into bunch of high end routers. Having somewhat crippled internet connection to the world is by far a better option than no internet at all. You can always work around the blocks, and get what you need, if you really want it.
Longer those chinese leaders are happily smiling in their ivory towers and thinking 'the citizens have their internet, but only those parts we want - we are in control', the better.
Re:You can always depend on Cisco (Score:2, Insightful)
An explanation - this is VERY important to everyon (Score:4, Insightful)
I used to live in a commie country. In such a regime, the government uses propaganda to spread some positive.. and beatiful message. This is invariably a sophism. In the Chinese case, the message is, "we are all for peaceful change." Killing and persecuting dissidents is NOT peaceful (as some earlier post pointed out). This message is an outright lie; it is easy to believe though..
Many Chinese believe it. What's even more dangerous is that people in the Western world believe it too. They are often idealists and really like to hear declarations of peaceful change and gradual way to freedom. And that they can help those poor people in China by helping with that change.
An example of similar such behaviour is how scientists on the Manhattan project during WWII helped the Russians obtain info on how to make the bomb. They believed no single country shoud have the bomb. They gave this secret to Stalin on account of his "socialism"... That was a mistake - as history now tells us, Stalin was a worse murderer than Hitler - if they gave the bomb to Hitler, fewer innocent people would have died (maybe I'm exaggerating, but my point is that it is possible).
Further, these intelligent people who like the "Chinese way" are placed very high in Western businesses. The guy from Cisco in the article no doubt wants the good of the Chinese people, but this is a fatal mistake on his part. On a large scale (as it is, unfortunately, happening) this behaviour will lead to a China ready to go to war with the west and win.
Few want to believe this. It is easy to put it out of your mind too. This is not the Chinese way.. right? Wrong. We are talking about China with a legacy of imperialism here - just look at the way they deal with internal problems.
Forget national ID card, most free countries in the world have them; forget about big evil Microsoft, their crimes are petty. The real threat is collecting its billion people strength on the other side of the globe. This is not too far to consider.
It is every free person's duty to help the Chinese people and NOT the Chinese government. By supplying the country (and thereby the ruling government) with money, the West is not helping the people. This way, the Chinese government has more and more reasources to continue being the way it is... And this is definitely not good, because as much as they talk about it, these guys do not want to change the balance of power over there.
So wake the @#$% up!
Damn, I never thought I would sound like a doomsayer or be one, but with stuff like this goig on, it's difficult not to be.
Re:Why? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The Pentagon Papers (Score:3, Insightful)
I like to point out to my friends that any government --- democratic, republican, socialist, communist, etc --- is run by people. Made out of the same flesh and blood as the average citizen; and subject to the same idiosyncracies, greed, and lust for power that seems to be a part of every human. To expect that government be good automagically is folly because people get corrupted. The entire POINT of the United States system is some sort of attempt to mitigate these basic truths of human nature by having a system that checks itself. Sure it aint perfect, but it's alot better than in other places.
My $.02
American Cultural Imperialism (Score:2, Insightful)
Now, I value my right to free speach as much as you, but I don't feel I have the right to critisize the Chinese way of doing things. After all, China is the oldest state in the world -- they must have been doing something right.
Re:This is disgusting... (Score:2, Insightful)
I disagree. Speech and information are fundamental. They are so fundamental that The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution is Freedom of Expression. Not the second, not the tenth.
If you don't have freedom of speech and of the press, how can you spread information about corruption and violence that is taking place under the auspices of the government? Preventing that information from getting out is just a shelter for other human rights violations to continue. Speech is a fundamental and important human right that people must have in order to protect themselves from the tyranny of evil governments.
-Kevin
Re:Please... (Score:2, Insightful)
Frankly, I've heard chinese political protesters, tibetan exiles, people who went to the local ghulag kind of shit, and they didn't really seem to share your mellow view of the current situation.
Support (Score:5, Insightful)
And as for the chinese people who posted to say "it's not so bad", it would be alot worse if you had any un-popular thoughts. The government of any country is formed by the people of said country. And all those peoples are responsible for the actions of the government. I don't know, I've never studied Chinese politics (I've got enough problems with my government), but when I read that, I've got to wonder "how many people were killed or imprisoned because they held un-popular beliefs? IIRC, I've read about at least one incident of a Chinese person being imprisoned for disagreeing with the governemt. One is far too many. But you don't care. You think it's "not that bad"?! That's a real person. Going through REAL SUFFERING! Sitting in a real jail, with bars and shitty food and not enough warmth. Dealing with real boredom and real loneliness. And you sit in your nice office with a hot cup of coffee saying "it's not that bad"!? It is that bad. I believe that compassion and empathy are a part of humanity. For you to sit there and not even care degrades us all. You can be apathetic, that's your opinion, here's mine: Not giving a damn about anothers suffering, and in fact helping it along, makes you scum. You are the lowest of the low. I hope you choose to disagree one day and rot in a cell for it.
Well, you might not care, but I damn well do.So I will now refrain from using cisco products, because I will not help them limit freedom. If I thought that I had in helped them find one more dissident to put in jail, I wouldn't be able to live with myself. If I bought a cisco catalyst, I would have problems sleeping. I'd be kept awake thinking "they spent my money to build a jail". They are capitalists, and I expect them to act in the interest of profit, But anyone who expects me not to act in the interest of freedom is insane. To that end, I will try and make their interest in profit and my interest in freedom coincide. By never using their products (and I was gonna be a CCNA).
We live in a capitalist society, and in a capitalist society money controls everything. That's good, because money doesn't discriminate, and if we want to make a change, all we have to do is with-hold our money. Fuck Cisco. Fuck their products. Let _them_ do it. I won't help. I'll boycott cisco. Will my change help anything? Maybe not, but it's a start. And 20 years from now, when we're all presenting our national ID's for minimal access to _our_ national cisco firewall, I'll look back and think " I tried". You can look back and think "I helped them do it."
"The system doesn't care because the system is you. Nothing ever changes because that's what _you_ choose." -- A//Political
it's called a 'market' (Score:4, Insightful)
In reality they are very much seperate. Capitalism is a system in which the purpose of business is wealth creation. Businesses make decisions necessary to make cash for their owners, and we hope that a side-effect of this is innovation, employment and general welfare.
Democracy, on the other hand, is a system for managing society and government. At it's heart, democracy is the principle that all the people of a state should have a meaningful contribution to how it is governed. No more and no less.
It is quite possible to have a non-capitalist democracy and a capitalist dictatorship.
You cannot expect western businesses to defend democracy, when it is completely outside their purview. Very few of Cisco's customers are democracies, the vast majority are other corporations - about as undemocractic as you can get.
They have no reason to care, and that is how it should be. If you want China to become a democracy, then go tell the Chinese. Ultimately, it is up to them.
Re:This is disgusting... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:China is still reaching critical mass (Score:2, Insightful)
Socialistic and communistic systems seem to work well in a small group, no larger than a large family and assumes many of the same rules as a family. The second you get "Joe Schmo(ski)" to realize he doesnt have to work as hard as everyone else, hes still going to get paid the same anyways is the second communism fails.
even more dangerous to the system is when the general person realizes no matter how hard they work at a meanial job they are not going to advance over their peers for a long long time. thats the buety of a capitalistic system which tends to go hand in hand with a democratic system.
Re:American Cultural Imperialism (Score:2, Insightful)
companies want to do business with China, it will of course be done on the Chinese's terms -- critizising the companies for this is counter-productive.
Because it's the right thing to do, troll! Some things ought to be more important than the almighty dollar. We might not be able to stop China from oppressing its people, but we damn sure don't have to help them do it.
Western companies whoring themselves to the Chinese government should question whether this blood money is worth it. While I still enjoy my freedom of speech, I will be happy to let them know what I think.
Re:China is still reaching critical mass (Score:2, Insightful)
I must take issue with this staement, on several grounds. Taking them in order:
The 13 States of western America were definitely *not* a Third World Nation when they started down what I believe you think of as the road to Democracy in 1789. There are two issues with that contention. The first is that the concept of 'third world' didn't exist at the time. If you mean 'medieval economy', then you are wrong: certainly the northern four states (aka. the place where the Revolutionary War started: the Boston "Massacre" is not a co-incidence) were not medieval at all at this stage in their history. They compared well with a lot of the states of Europe; technological and social process structures in the US were as well developed if not better developed than in the UK. Secondly, the 'road to democracy' followed by the United States began neither in 1789 nor in the United States. It began with the Restoration in 1688 of the monarchy of the United Kingdom to a constitution under which Parliament proposed and the King disposed. The precepts which developed into the Constitution, frequently touted as the First Democratic Document of the modern era, were proposed by an Englishman, and based on his analysis of the previous 80 years of British constitutional history.
Thus, your first contention is not supportable by the facts at hand. Now to your second contention.
America succeeded in becoming deomcaratic? Only for a very limited use of the word democratic. It is no more democratic than, at random, the United Kingdom or New Zealand. All three states operate effective two-party systems, where the voters are offered little or no choice in policy packages; right and left, or more usually far right and centre right.
To return to the point you were contesting, that 'economic development and a strong middle class' are necessary pre-requisites for democracy: first, lets define democracy. The word was coined for a Greek state of 300 citizens, where every voting citizen sat in the governmental body. Clearly, we aren't discussing that.
So-callled 'modern' democracy, typified by the slogan 'One man, One vote', developed from a number of roots and social pressures in Britain, France and the United States. At a local governmental level it existed de facto if not de jure in the United States prior to the Revolutionary War. As a system, that style of democracy absolutely requires two conditions to operate successfully. First, the economy must support craft labour and/or cottage industry on a commercial rather than local scale. This was true of the States prior to the War. Secondly, the 'caste system' (a medieval concept based on feudal land distribution, in which ones caste is predetermined by birth and is virtually impossible to alter) must have eroded into a 'class system', the modern concept that ones class is means-based and anyone who accumulates the means can travel either up or down the classes. This system had devloped in the United Kingdom over the previous two hundred years and was exported to the United States along with the pilgrims. It was much easier to get ahead in the New World, as there was no remaining immediate aristocracy.
Examining China under these criterion: the first is quite clearly true. China has an industrial system. The second, however, is not true. China has a numerous but not a strong middle class, and it does not have a sufficiently coherent internal social structure for such a class to develop peacefully. There are too many internal conflicts and tensions in Chinese society. Thus, free market democracy would, were it introduced to China today, be running a race with the altering social system. If the social system didn't win, democracy would lose.
Thus, there is certainly reason in the contention made by the original poster. I personally wouldn't like to argue it: I have no particular stake in the 'Democracy good/Communism evil' debate, I just couldn't let pass such an arrantly inaccurate historical statement.
~cHrisRe:American Cultural Imperialism (Score:2, Insightful)
Because it is BETTER. I realize such an unqualified "simplistic" culturaly arrogant view is politically incorrect but regardless it is true. I am unashamed to say that I think imprisoning and torturing dissidents, show trials, etc. are morally wrong no matter what culture you are in.
That being said I have to say I am not "hell-bent" on imposing (which implies force) our "value system" on the chinese, or anybody else. Not because I think their "value system" is equally valid, or that if they adopted some of our values they and their people wouldn't be better off. But because attempting to impose or force our values on them is A) impossible and B) the attempt would be counterproductive. We can't force them to respect human rights but there is still plenty we can do to attempt to persuade and encourage them to do so. And we can certainly refuse to participate ourselves in their abuse of human rights.
Now, I value my right to free speach as much as you...
Undoubtedly (everyone upholds their own rights.), What is sad is that you don't value other peoples right to free speech.
After all, China is the oldest state in the world -- they must have been doing something right.
Gee, And I thought Chinese revolution occured in 1949. I'm sure you meant culture rather than state, and you would be right that Chinese culture under any regime has never had the strong commitment to individual rights that we have developed in the west. Then again that concept was pretty weak in the West through most of our history as well. But we believe we have made "progress" that our culture is BETTER now than during slavery, the inquisition and the divine right of kings. Such value judgements if they have any validity at all can be made not only across history but across geography.
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a bit naive. Political canvassing outside polling places, for example, is censored speech in the U.S., an abridgement of civil liberties for the distinct purpose of supporting democracy through fair elections. As another example, one who has access to national security information (take nuclear weapons information, for example) cannot share this information without going to jail. This has the distinct purpose (we may quibble about the validity of the purpose, but it is a purpose nonetheless) of preserving U.S. sovereignty and the safety of its citizens and allies. However, it entails an abridgement of civil liberties for those "in the know." One cannot stand up in synagogue and scream "Death to kikes!" without some expectation of legal recourse.
Freedom of speech is a lofty goal, and indeed it is treated with more reverence in the U.S. than in most other countries, but it is not and cannot be considered an absolute. Even now, with the "War on Terror," this freedom is being curtailed in the name of "national security" in ways we may well have considered impossible just one year ago. China, for reasons of its own national security, has even more severe restrictions on speech.
Personally, the most alarming aspect of this is that these companies were able to produce technology which satisfies, to a large degree, the rather tight-fisted control of information required by the PRC government. This bodes badly for those who hoped that the practical, technical difficulties of censorship would effectively block attempts to censor speech in the U.S.
Corporations are amoral (Score:2, Insightful)
anyway china is changing (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:China is still reaching critical mass (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, if people living under a democracy want to do things for the common good, they would. Manifestly they dont - they want to look out for themselves. Imposing a dictatorship on such people will hardly make them happier.
Re:it's called a 'market' (Score:3, Insightful)
A capitalist dictatorship is also a self-contradiction. A dictatorship means rule of man instead of rule of law. This means the invisible hand of the market cannot operate.
Just because you don't 'buy' it doesn't mean it isn't there. A brief excursion into actual history of the past century rather than whatever subset you find convenient will show numerous cases of tyrrany combined with some people getting rich and many others allowed to compete vigorously as long as they don't rock the boat. The fascist states come to mind immediately: not just Nazi Germany but fascist Italy and Franco's Spain.
Similarly, for non-capitalist democracies, look at Sweden, France, and Kerala, places where there is freedom of expression and information, and tremendous and enthusiastic support for an economy that is predominantly and closely state-controlled. (Of course, such places are at something of a competitive disadvantage with less regulated competitors, but they freely choose to pay that price.)
Of course, you need not "buy" the evidence. Based on the subset of facts one is able and willing to be exposed to, one can believe just about anything. That's the whole problem here. At least you have a choice which inconvenient information to ignore, such as this report that the most unregulated democracy is exactly the one which is providing the expertise to enforce Chinese suppression of free expression.
The Chinese don't have such a choice except outside their legal system.
If this quite plausible story turns out to be true, we see that the unregulated US marketplace treats the repressive Chinese legal system as a customer to the extent that the system can afford services. In other words, this amounts to a collaboration of the most and the least regulated systems to suppress freedom, whether that fits your preconceived notions or not.
I love the use of the expression 'I don't buy it' in expressing market libertarian preconceptions about the world. Facts are among the things that are not commodities for sale in real life.
Re:China is still reaching critical mass (Score:3, Insightful)
1) The United States is still on course for Marx's communisum. Witness the anti-globalisation protests, and the prospect if increased worker protections because of better communication. The Soviet Union did not follow Marx's theory, and Lenin was rebuked by Marx.
2) Socialism can (and I believe should) be defined in a manner that has nothing to do with communism: socialism is a system which places society above the individual, i.e. the good of the many versus the good of one. There are many socialist systems of various sizes (including nations whose town populations rival our state populations) surviving quite well. Socialism is a statement about priorities, not a blueprint for an economy. Americans (like myself) have a tough time separating society and economy, because in the United States they are joined at the hip.
3) Greed and sloth (laziness) occur in every culture. Capitialism in the US is fairly robust to sloth, but suffers hugely because of greed. Socialist systems are more likely to resist greed (which depends on individualism), but less likely to resist sloth.
4) Capitalism does not guarantee, or even make stipulations, that a hard worker will advance over his peers. Fairness is not built-in to capitalist economies. "The American Dream is only a dream," to quote Gordon Gano.
5) The asshole factor is clearly at work in both the US capitalist economy, as well as the US Federal Republic governmental system.
In short, the parent post doesn't hold water, and is libelous to Socialist and Communist systems. Furthermore, it similarly propogates ridiculous stereotypes about Capitialist economies.
-Paul Komarek