Gulags in China?

The Chinese response to the Uyghurs and other minority groups are good examples of how Mao's Cultural Revolution lives on today.

Hmm, not so sure about that. It's more like half the governments in the world. Some do it more overtly than others.

I think they are using a handful of instances of extremism to try and wipe out a culture, the spirit of a people, so they can establish state control. The Xinjiang conflict actually goes back to the resistance against Mao's revolution, which was pretty understandable. In the larger scope, China is very much a collectivist assimilator. Seems to me they want to contain a region that has both a bit of human spirit and pathological elements that react to overt controls.

But there you could be describing many other places, cultures and governments like, say, what the Guardia Civil did to basque "dissidents" (and not just the violent ones). And that's in Spain, a "democratic" country. But nobody is shocked by it in the Western media.

I guess the question is what's happening at the reeducation camps. Are people being forced to go into those camps? Are there human rights abuses occurring there? No one knows because the Chinese keep such a tight lid on information.

Sure. But that's a bit of a double standard, isn't it? Franco's government, the French, the Dutch, the Brits, all South American dictatorships and, basically, every dictatorship that exists and ever existed (even when called "democracies").... they were/are far from revealing their actual actions. And for that matter, it's not like the US is open about Guantanamo and such. And they don't even have the problem of "outside interventions". So, I fail to see how the Chinese case is so different or worse. Just because of the name they give to these "camps"? There are many cases of double-speak in the Western world too. It's just what is done. If you think about it, you have been given more "information" about these Chinese "gulags" than you have about 90% of other VERY covert activities. That doesn't make them holy, of course. But also not something out of the ordinary in our world. OSIT.
 
Franco's government, the French, the Dutch, the Brits, all South American dictatorships and, basically, every dictatorship that exists and ever existed (even when called "democracies").... they were/are far from revealing their actual actions. And for that matter, it's not like the US is open about Guantanamo and such. And they don't even have the problem of "outside interventions". So, I fail to see how the Chinese case is so different or worse.
It's not different to me and I don't think I would be treating China differently by calling them out for evil deeds if they were guilty of them. I'll criticize the Spanish for how they treated the Basques, and the same with every government around the world if necessary. It's just that the Uighur issue is happening right now, so it's of interest. I don't think what's happening in Xinjiang is anywhere near what the Western media is making it out to be nor does it seem much different than what happens elsewhere around the world. That's not the way I felt. I'm just curious about what's going on.
There are many cases of double-speak in the Western world too. It's just what is done.
Of course, and I have been critical of that. If I'm going to be critical of the West using Orwellian speak, I'm going to do it everywhere I see it. China is no exception to that.
 
I don't think China should get a pass on their 'reeducation' camps that imprison an entire population just because the US and Western forces see China as a threat to their hegemony.

"entire population"? There are 12 million Uyghurs in Xinjiang region.

Also, the Western threat to China's national interests isn't the only reason for the Chinese govt's clampdown. It's also a local homegrown threat to Chinese territorial integrity. There is no govt. on the planet who would not, and has not, taken extreme measures to prevent such separative movements from succeeding.
 
If the West was not keen on using minorities as geopolitical chess pieces in countries that do not bow down to them we would never have seen these situations.

After Syria it is clear that Salafist fighters pose a real threat. And these can stir and thrive more easily among Islamic populations.

China is not taking any chances because it doesn't want to become a second Syria.

I'd rather see how Putin handles it. Who is able to bring the whole country together as one front against any form of extremism. (Russia is the most multicultural country in the world.) Unfortunately China has no Putin.

OSIT.
 
Is this meant to be unusual or something, given the context in which this is happening? In a lot of comments on this topic there seems to be more than a liberal dash of Western naivety and lack of awareness of how the world actually works and has worked for a long time, and by 'world' I mean ALL of it. I could use an analogy that might at first glance appear facetious, but is, IMO, pretty close to the core issue here. The analogy is: "I saw a nature documentary recently where a lion attacked and ate an impala that was silly enough to walk into the pride's territory. I think that's immoral."

Fair enough, you can call it immoral, but it's a bit naive to think that it's something unusual or stands out from normal affairs.

I probably do have a dose of overemphasizing morality or something to that effect, but what I find bizarre isn't that it is happening but that there are plenty of people who assign some type of benevolence to the situation just because it's China. It's like a group of people watch the lion attack and some see the lion as giving decent enough treatment to the impala.
 
Hmm, not so sure about that. It's more like half the governments in the world. Some do it more overtly than others.

Yes, this is quite a theme, especially in current times. I wasn't excluding other countries, just trying to point out that it is also happening in China and I think its history is a relevant influence in how things are playing out there.
 
It's like a group of people watch the lion attack and some see the lion as giving decent enough treatment to the impala.

I know what you mean, and I think that perspective is the 'realist' one, where "decent enough" = the 'law of the jungle', and it's hard to argue against such a 'law', or call it 'unfair', because there's an equally valid perspective that the lion has every right, born of necessity, to keep itself alive by eating the only food that can sustain it. The alternative is death. Likewise, China assesses that it has every right to do what it deems necessary for its 'survival' in a 'dog eat dog' or 'lion eat impala' world.

The discussion here is about whether or not China is going beyond what is necessary to ensure its survival and has strayed into pathocracy. I don't think that claim has been substantiated so far.
 
"entire population"? There are 12 million Uyghurs in Xinjiang region.

I realized the error after I posted.
Also, the Western threat to China's national interests isn't the only reoason for the Chinese govt's clampdown. It's also a local homegrown threat to Chinese territorial integrity. There is no govt. on the planet who would not, and has not, taken extreme measures to prevent such separative movements from succeeding.

True. So, we can agree that it's an extreme measure?
 
I think the subject invites so much criticism in the West in a similar way the North Koreans do. It's easy to see and it's caricaturesque in the form of an Asian culture with essentially a different temperament. In the case of North Korea, their poverty and past makes them quite peculiar indeed.

By psychological make up, people can see others, but they can't see themselves. As above so below. Similar analogies can be made with Western cultures and their ways, it's just different taking account past, cultural temperament, geopolitical dynamics and so forth.

In the past the Russians dealt with the Korean problem by burning their books, forbidding them to talk in their language and practice their religion. As decades went by, Koreans were allowed to attend Russian Universities, and now they're essentially Russian. To Spain's credit, they protected Basque, Catalonian and other languages in the Spanish Constitution. When I'm asked why I didn't learn Russian when I was growing up, I always think to myself that my mom just did what she was taught to do: when in Rome like the Romans. If was born in a Spanish-speaking country, then that is my mother language whether my ancestors like it or not. She learned that lesson in the Soviet Union, and it's okay.

In general, people in impoverished countries ruled by a strict pathocratic rule (or consequences of a strict pathocratic hand) emigrate by necessity, not because they really want to. There are millions of Ukrainians abroad. My family in Uzbekistan never wanted to leave the Soviet Union or Uzbekistan itself when its economy was trashed during the breakdown of the Soviet Union. The only one that took active initiative was my mom. And then, she goes back practically every year. Alas, my mom financed those left behind in Uzbekistan. Same with the Ukrainians, I know some of them don't want to leave Ukraine if a family member abroad can finance their living in their broken country.

I see people in countries that one would never imagine being happy, happy.

We're in 3D STS, so I'm not surprised of crazy stories coming out of the exotic and mysterious Orient. The world within the devil and all that.

There are good people everywhere susceptible to propaganda and division by pathological people. The biggest difference is not necessarily a racial or a country one, but a psychological one. Still, despite the stories that are coming out of China, I don't see them as the main problem, or as them being infested by psychopaths, or as the pathocracy in the world today. I keep coming back to something Putin said:

Lionel Barber: Mr President, I would like to go back to President Xi and China. As you know, he has pursued a rigorous anticorruption campaign in order to clean up the party, maintain the legitimacy and strengthen the party. He has also read the history of the Soviet Union, where Mr Gorbachev essentially abandoned the party and helped to destroy the country - the Soviet Union. Do you think that Mr Xi is right in his approach that the party is absolutely crucial? And what lessons do you draw for Russia? If I can just add, you said something interesting a few years ago about the breakup of the Soviet Union being the greatest geopolitical tragedy of the 20th century.

Vladimir Putin: These two issues are not connected. As for the tragedy related to the dissolution of the Soviet Union, this is something obvious. I meant, first of all, the humanitarian aspect of it. It appears that 25 million ethnic Russians were living abroad when they learned from the television and radio that the Soviet Union had ceased to exist. Nobody asked their opinion. The decision was simply made.

You know, these are issues of democracy. Was there an opinion poll, a referendum? Most (over 70 percent) of the citizens of the USSR spoke in favour of retaining it. Then the decision was made to dissolve the USSR, but nobody asked the people, and 25 million ethnic Russians found themselves living outside the Russian Federation. Listen, is this not a tragedy? A huge one! And family relations? Jobs? Travel? It was nothing but a disaster.

I was surprised to see the later comments on what I said, in particular, in the Western media. They should try to live through seeing their father, brother or any other close relative finding themselves living in a different country, where a whole new life has started. I assure you.

As for the party and the party state building in China, this is for the Chinese people to decide; we do not interfere. Today's Russia has its own principles and rules of life, and China with its 1.35 billion people has its own. You try to rule a country with such a population. This is not Luxembourg, with all due respect to this wonderful country. Therefore, it is necessary to give the Chinese people the opportunity to decide how to organise their lives."

Just some thoughts brought by this discussion.
 
Maybe I don't really understand but the way the arguments can be summarized IMHO like this:
- Yes, western countries are evil but China is evil too.
- Yes, China is evil but western countries are evil too.
On the human level, there is competition among psychopaths. There might be competition between totalitarian regimes as well, until they converge or clash. We can remove ourselves from the actual context to another, let's say WWII. The USSR fought the 3rd reich. The 3rd Reich was evil but does that make the USSR good, or less evil, or equally evil, or more evil?
Many in the west establishment, while outwardly critisizing China for "human rights violations", seem to be envious and admirative. After all, when China locked down Wuhan, it was inhumane and reprehensible. When the West did the same, lockdowns became virtuous and benevolent. Covid vaccine passeports are a westernized version of the Chinese social credit system as if there was a sort of a convergence of methods in the management of human resources. While we don't know for sure about the allegations of mass rapes and torture in these concentration centers, the Chinese government doesn't dispute their existance as mind reconditionning centers, or what we would cynically qualify as brainwashing centers. The West, with all the talk of wokeness reeducation, will eventually goes there in some form or another, or at least, many wish to go there.
I don't know if determining who's the evilest is relevent. All that matter is what affects real people within and without borders, not only on the physical level but also on their souls. OSIT.
 
Maybe I don't really understand but the way the arguments can be summarized IMHO like this:
- Yes, western countries are evil but China is evil too.
- Yes, China is evil but western countries are evil too.
On the human level, there is competition among psychopaths. There might be competition between totalitarian regimes as well, until they converge or clash. We can remove ourselves from the actual context to another, let's say WWII. The USSR fought the 3rd reich. The 3rd Reich was evil but does that make the USSR good, or less evil, or equally evil, or more evil?
Many in the west establishment, while outwardly critisizing China for "human rights violations", seem to be envious and admirative. After all, when China locked down Wuhan, it was inhumane and reprehensible. When the West did the same, lockdowns became virtuous and benevolent. Covid vaccine passeports are a westernized version of the Chinese social credit system as if there was a sort of a convergence of methods in the management of human resources. While we don't know for sure about the allegations of mass rapes and torture in these concentration centers, the Chinese government doesn't dispute their existance as mind reconditionning centers, or what we would cynically qualify as brainwashing centers. The West, with all the talk of wokeness reeducation, will eventually goes there in some form or another, or at least, many wish to go there.
I don't know if determining who's the evilest is relevent. All that matter is what affects real people within and without borders, not only on the physical level but also on their souls. OSIT.
That's pretty much exactly what I've been thinking, but you summed it up better than I would have. Thanks, mkrnhr!

That said, here are a few points I was working on before you posted your reply.
Is this meant to be unusual or something, given the context in which this is happening? In a lot of comments on this topic there seems to be more than a liberal dash of Western naivety and lack of awareness of how the world actually works and has worked for a long time, and by 'world' I mean ALL of it. I could use an analogy that might at first glance appear facetious, but is, IMO, pretty close to the core issue here. The analogy is: "I saw a nature documentary recently where a lion attacked and ate an impala that was silly enough to walk into the pride's territory. I think that's immoral."

Fair enough, you can call it immoral, but it's a bit naive to think that it's something unusual or stands out from normal affairs.
To the degree humans do objectively evil things to each other all over the planet, fair enough - I agree. We've often used the analogy of the crocodile or some other predatory species in reference to psychopathy, that there's little point getting hung up on the "immorality" of the serial killer, or the Bernie Madoff, etc. Stepping outside the realm of psychopathy, a similar principle applies. In a war, regardless of who is the aggressor, you will get situations where two opposing soldiers or groups will be engaged in battle. Each one will be fighting for their lives. It's kill or be killed. It's easy to judge the overall morality of the governments involved, who started it, who's fighting for a 'just cause', but not so easy when you're on the ground.

In this case, though, I don't think the lion/impala analogy captures it. There's the law-of-the-jungle, kill-or-be-killed mentality, but to use the example of two opposing sides in battle, if one side surrenders, the other side may take them captive as prisoners of war. Or, they may line them all up, execute them, then proceed to their village, torture and kill the villagers, rape the women, etc. Maybe they've even received orders from the top to do so, because it is seen as a necessary extreme measure to teach a lesson to the opposing side, and losing the war is not an option. Such behaviors are common and unremarkable in warfare, but I think that's part of what makes them so tragic. It's not that the Xinjiang camps and mass surveillance are new or singularly horrifying - just that they're just one more in a long list of human failings that result in injustice. I don't think it's naive to be a bit outraged - just human nature. We get outraged over all kinds of 'normal' things in these parts of the interwebs!
I probably do have a dose of overemphasizing morality or something to that effect, but what I find bizarre isn't that it is happening but that there are plenty of people who assign some type of benevolence to the situation just because it's China. It's like a group of people watch the lion attack and some see the lion as giving decent enough treatment to the impala.
There are a few responses I tend to see online on this topic. For example (using the analogy): "The lion is not eating the impala." Or: "The impala deserves it." Or: "The tiger kills prey too." I've got nothing against those responses in principle. Sometimes the lion isn't eating the impala (the reports about systemic rape), sometimes the impala does deserve it (if they catch an actual jihadist), and yeah, the tiger kills too (Guantanamo, Donbass). But I rarely see responses just making points like that. The pro-China camp tends to either deny outright that the camps even exist, or justify the whole approach as a good thing. The anti-China camp says "the lions are killing all the impalas!" which is histrionic. A lot of them are gung-ho "America can do no wrong" types like Pompeo, to whom 'whataboutism' is an appropriate response, though some are anti-war and anti-deep state. But I haven't found anyone in the pro-China camp who will even consider that maybe China is going too far. It's entirely possible I haven't looked hard enough, though, so I'd be pleased to find some.
I know what you mean, and I think that perspective is the 'realist' one, where "decent enough" = the 'law of the jungle', and it's hard to argue against such a 'law', or call it 'unfair', because there's an equally valid perspective that the lion has every right, born of necessity, to keep itself alive by eating the only food that can sustain it. The alternative is death. Likewise, China assesses that it has every right to do what it deems necessary for its 'survival' in a 'dog eat dog' or 'lion eat impala' world.
At what point does a government's sovereign assessment go too far, to the point where it's worth taking a stand against it?
But there you could be describing many other places, cultures and governments like, say, what the Guardia Civil did to basque "dissidents" (and not just the violent ones). And that's in Spain, a "democratic" country. But nobody is shocked by it in the Western media.
Yeah, I completely agree on this. There's a huge double standard in the mainstream media and from Western governments, and a lot of anti-China commentators. One thing strikes me as odd though. When the Civil Guard beat up the Basque 'dissidents' and arrested their leaders, there was a lot of outrage and pointing out the injustice in the alt media. Pretty sure I participated in a bit of that on social media, as a lot of us did. On the forum here we also had a pretty big discussion about it, pointing out the Spanish government's perspective, but overall I think we came to the conclusion that whatever the government's motivation, and to whatever degree the protests were 'manufactured', it was still wrong for the Spanish government to come down on them the way they did. I don't think it was naive or a double standard to be outraged at what happened in Spain, even if it was a pretty government typical.
 
But I rarely see responses just making points like that. The pro-China camp tends to either deny outright that the camps even exist, or justify the whole approach as a good thing.
But why judge it good or bad? Have you tried governing China?! Theoretically even, by reading about governance there? Did you know, for example, that it's a myth that the CCP in Beijing controls the country in the way non-Chinese have been led to believe it does, and that subsidiarity and provincial-level decision-making rule most policy/geographical areas of Chinese life? I dipped a hand in that pool a couple of times, and it is one complex machinery!

You're implying that there are other options. By stating unequivocally that "it's wrong," it seems to me that you're implying, but for the fact that China is ruled by the wrong people or the wrong ideology, the 'gulags' would not have appeared.

There are some mighty big 'what if' assumptions behind that!

Renaissance too is making some bold claims, like this one:

China is basically a huge success when it comes to the stabilization of a pathological state, and specifically I mean in the social acceptance of full political control over its people and the integration of State ideology into life at the family level. We can see the movers and shakers working on implementing this model all over the world now in various forms.
What if what you term 'social acceptance of full political control' is experienced by (most) Chinese people as 'patriotism'? Or is that merely 'a social construct' in this case? As for "the integration of State ideology into life at the family level," is such a thing pathocratic by definition? Because if it is, then everywhere is pathocracy at all times and both the term and science of ponerology are meaningless.

At the heart of this issue is the inescapable fact that we, Westerners, have been encouraged to look at and form opinions about something that cannot be seen clearly by us, especially not through the filters it reaches us through:

 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom