Her story is that while the Communist Party leadership split into factions in a power struggle after Mao died, control slipped at the periphery. The changes happened because the leadership were too busy and too off balance to suppress them. Rather than initiating reforms, the leadership was trying to get things back under control while taking credit for good things. She tells a fairly classic tale of politicians running to get in front of a parade they had little to do with, and trying to steer it in a direction they were comfortable with.
Amazingly, most Americans still think China is socialist. Yes, "Communist" is in the *name* of the ruling party. And they're kind of authoritarian. Not real bad tho. In some ways Chinese are freer than Americans. Certainly far less red tape and permission-needing.
Not socialist, not communist, and not totalitarian.
I find it hard to understand why so many Americans are anti-China these days.
Part of the reason is that China is the obvious rival, the one country whose economy and military power are comparable to ours. Also the Chinese government does some ugly things. So do other governments, of course, but smaller states doing smaller things are less concerning. And the Taiwan situation is a problem.
My impression of Shanghai was that it was less free market than an American city in theory, probably more in practice.
That's about when I was there then, late 2015. I will say that the people seemed entrepreneurial in a way that most Americans would never appreciate. Everyone hustling, from hotel employees to street vendors down to the "lady massage" hawkers at every turn. It didn't seem like many people took their paycheck for granted. There was obviously a lot of money around, although I had the feeling that Shanghai wasn't the same as the rest of China.
2015 must have been a high-water mark for optimism in China, at least in terms of becoming an open society. I know the October unofficial announcement about the end of the one-child policy caused quite a buzz in the office among my Chinese colleagues. At the time everyone seemed to think that Xi was going to continue in the same way as his immediate predecessors. The tone seemed to change a year or two after.
“ I find it hard to understand why so many Americans are anti-China these days.”
Do you live in mainland China? I suspect not.
We Americans tend to value personal freedoms, not least being freedom of speech. Those freedoms do not exist in China the way they exist in the west.
Now it’s true there is less freedom of speech in the U.K. than there used to be.
Because China has done so well for its people economically, it is the one “hard” case amongst all the world’s repressive dictatorships, because it has done some good for its people to go along with its evils.
It’s quite fine for you to suggest that America is worse. The number of people seeking to live in America versus in China would indicate your view is less reflective of reality than you seem to think.
I've visited a few times and have a lot of Chinese friends from the mainland.
I'm not trying to argue that China is a paradise or "better" than the US. I don't think it is, and am not tempted to move there (nor would I be even if they spoke English).
I just think it's not nearly as bad as Americans perceive it to be.
--
Added: Let me put it this way. If forced to choose between living in China and living in France, I'd probably choose China. But it would not be an easy choice. I don't see why Americans should have more negative attitudes toward China than toward France.
Well I was perfectly good with the above until your “Added”.
While the gap between China and France is no doubt lower than the gap between China and the U.S., I find it hard to believe that - language and ethnicity aside - more people would prefer to live under Chinese totalitarian rule than under the soft-authoritarianism of the democratically elected French government.
A tech entrepreneur or software engineer I guess I could see that choice, but that’d be about it.
But hey, to each his own. It’s a free country! (Well, here, anyway… 😏)
Lacking all free speech rights and the right to choose ones rulers seems pretty fundamental to me.
Or the right to emigrate without permission from the government.
Or the right to one’s property if you are lucky enough to be allowed to emigrate. (Of course, France getting worse on this axis too, if not as extreme as China).
Claude, are there ways in which Chinese individuals are freer than Americans?
Yes, in several concrete dimensions. This isn't the usual answer people expect, but it holds up on examination.
Medical access and pharmaceuticals. You can walk into a Chinese hospital, see a specialist same-day without a referral or insurance pre-authorization, and pay out of pocket at prices that are low by American standards. Many drugs that require prescriptions in the US (antibiotics, some steroids, various medications) are available OTC or with minimal gatekeeping in China. The entire insurance-bureaucracy-referral chain that mediates American healthcare access barely exists.
Incarceration risk. The US incarcerates at roughly 5x China's reported rate per capita (~530 vs ~120 per 100k). Even adjusting for China likely undercounting political prisoners, the gap is enormous. An ordinary American committing ordinary offenses is far more likely to end up in a cage.
Informal economy and street-level commerce. Street vending, food carts, small-scale commerce operate in China with far less licensing, permitting, and zoning friction than in most US cities. The regulatory burden on a small American business (ADA compliance, health codes, labor law, licensing) is substantial. China's enforcement at that scale is much lighter.
Property taxation. China has no widespread recurring property tax. Americans face perpetual property taxes — you never truly own your home free of ongoing state claims. China has been trying to implement a property tax for years and keeps failing politically.
E-bikes and personal electric vehicles. Ubiquitous in China with minimal regulation. Many US jurisdictions restrict or complicate their use.
Zoning and land use (de facto). Despite the state technically owning all land, the practical regulatory burden on rural construction and informal building has historically been far lighter than American zoning, which dictates minimum lot sizes, setbacks, allowed uses, etc. in extraordinary detail. This is changing as China urbanizes and tightens enforcement, but American zoning is among the most restrictive property-use regimes in the world.
Drinking age. 18 and loosely enforced, vs. 21 in the US.
De facto IP freedom. Lax IP enforcement means Chinese individuals can freely repair, modify, copy, and reverse-engineer products with near-zero legal risk. Americans face DMCA, right-to-repair restrictions, and aggressive IP enforcement.
“Incarceration risk. The US incarcerates at roughly 5x China's reported rate per capita (~530 vs ~120 per 100k). Even adjusting for China likely undercounting political prisoners, the gap is enormous. An ordinary American committing ordinary offenses is far more likely to end up in a cage.”
There is no doubt some merit in what you had Claude spit out above, but “incarceration risk” is a particularly bad one.
Do you understand the percentage of Americans who speak ill of the government and government officials who would be incarcerated if they did same in China?
The Chinese populace has modified its behavior because most people prefer not to live in prison.
But to claim that “incarceration risk” is lower in China as in any way a positive re: being “freer” in China is kafkaesque.
Now by contrast if you want to argue that the average Chinese is freer from crime than the average American - especially the average city-dwelling lower income American - I’m quite open to the likelihood that is true. Repressive authoritarian regimes typically do have this advantage.
My impression is that the CCP doesn't care if people speak ill of the goverment privately - they care only if they do so publicly and try to organize against it. Even then the first reaction isn't incarceration, it's a visit and stern talking to from the police.
The total number of people imprisioned is a valid statisitic I think - being locked up is bad.
You're right, there's far less freedom of speech in China, and that's arguably a bad thing. But still, less people actually *in prison* is a good thing.
FWIW, I didn't try to bias Claude's output - my entire prompt is shown in the first line above.
“The total number of people imprisioned [sic] is a valid statisitic [sic] I think - being locked up is bad.”
“But still, less people actually *in prison* is a good thing.”
It’s fine that you think that the statistic is “valid”. We just disagree on values here.
I think it’s a *very* good thing that *most* of those people are imprisoned.
If you do the research - I did some again before writing this response - you’ll see that something like 63% in U.S. prisons are there for violent crimes.
Another ~13% are there for drug dealing (*not* using). The direct crime may not have been violent, but it’s part of a value chain which is very violent.
Throw in folks in prison for repeated DWI/DUI plus those in for parole violations whose OG offenses were violent crimes, and you get to somewhere between 80% and 90% of the prison population.
That leaves only 10%-20% in for property offenses and other lesser crimes where *for me* there is any sense where it might be better that there were fewer prisoners. (And I’m somewhat suspicious that most of those being out would be better for society, too - incentives matter - but I’ll at least concede your POV is quite *arguable* for those.)
Now if you are an anarcho-capitalist and think drug laws are awful, then I can see where you’d want some fraction of those people not to be imprisoned. Or if you are a 2nd Amendment total zealot who thinks felons should be free to have guns and associate with other known felons, etc., you could get to a somewhat higher number.
And again your comparison ignores that many would be violent felons in China are not in prison because they are deterred by the even harsher sentences, specifically including death, they would receive. You can say that’s “better”, too, sure - and for those innocents who weren’t affected by those crimes, you would surely be right - but now notice that you are literally arguing the opposite side of your argument re: ”better to have fewer prisoners from a compassionate, moral POV”.
So no, given the culture we have - rather than the one we might prefer - I strongly disagree with your normative claim that “less people actually *in prison* is a good thing.”
As, I suspect, you might too, if you lived in one of the high-crime neighborhoods from where the large majority of these prisoners come.
But even if we merely agree to disagree on this point, suggesting that fewer people in prison in China is evidence that people in China are “freer” still doesn’t follow.
P.S. I have little qualm with your other response to me in this thread, and in particular your claim that you “just think it's not nearly as bad as Americans perceive it to be.”
I understand where you're coming from. But (you knew there would be a 'but') (a) the victims of the crime that put those "bad people" in prision are better off if the crime didn't happen in the first place (even if deterred by harsh punishment), and (b) the "bad people" criminals are better off being deterred from actually doing crime and ending up in prision. A society that has less crime - all other things being equal (which of course they never are) - is better than one with more crime.
Oh - I have a story. About 12 years ago we hosted a Chinese (Beijing) exchange student for a year. Soon after he arrived I took him with me to the supermarket. He didn't find the supermarket particularly interesting.
As we were waiting in the checkout line, I explained the people in front of us were taking so long because they were using food stamps.
I had to explain what food stamps were.
He was amazed and disapproving. His words: "*That* would *never* happen in China!".
It's interesting that both the related history and the comments appear dated. When I was there in 2015 China certainly appeared to be opening up. But that was before it became fully apparent that Xi was bent on becoming Mao II. Even then the economy seemed closer to fascism than to either socialism or capitalism. Much in the Shanghai-Pudong area seemed to make no economic sense.
My last statement was vague, as it was based more on impressions than specifics. But thinking back, it was partly that the Pudong New District had a planned feel with everything seemingly built to 133 percent of normal scale (in contrast to the older parts of Shanghai). My office building was on the edge of the district, and I could see Mao-era apartment buildings being demolished to make room for expansion.
And there was the subway system with its $0.17 per-segment fare that probably just about paid for the fare collection apparatus. And a 30 km maglev line between Pudong and the airport that accelerated to 430 kph and maintained that speed for a few seconds before decelerating again (there was a sign suspended from the cabin ceiling that showed current speed, similar to a Concorde SST). All functional but obviously built for show.
I suppose the latter example makes more economic sense than California's high-speed rail. Non-functional but obviously built for show. But neither having anything to do with capitalism.
Anither similar account of the transition is How the Farmers Cahnged China by Kate Zhou. https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/cato-journal/1996/11/cj16n2-8.pdf
Her story is that while the Communist Party leadership split into factions in a power struggle after Mao died, control slipped at the periphery. The changes happened because the leadership were too busy and too off balance to suppress them. Rather than initiating reforms, the leadership was trying to get things back under control while taking credit for good things. She tells a fairly classic tale of politicians running to get in front of a parade they had little to do with, and trying to steer it in a direction they were comfortable with.
Amazingly, most Americans still think China is socialist. Yes, "Communist" is in the *name* of the ruling party. And they're kind of authoritarian. Not real bad tho. In some ways Chinese are freer than Americans. Certainly far less red tape and permission-needing.
Not socialist, not communist, and not totalitarian.
I find it hard to understand why so many Americans are anti-China these days.
Part of the reason is that China is the obvious rival, the one country whose economy and military power are comparable to ours. Also the Chinese government does some ugly things. So do other governments, of course, but smaller states doing smaller things are less concerning. And the Taiwan situation is a problem.
My impression of Shanghai was that it was less free market than an American city in theory, probably more in practice.
When were you in Shanghai? My impression is that it has changed somewhat over the past 10-12 years.
I visited twice, I think 2014 and 2015.
That's about when I was there then, late 2015. I will say that the people seemed entrepreneurial in a way that most Americans would never appreciate. Everyone hustling, from hotel employees to street vendors down to the "lady massage" hawkers at every turn. It didn't seem like many people took their paycheck for granted. There was obviously a lot of money around, although I had the feeling that Shanghai wasn't the same as the rest of China.
2015 must have been a high-water mark for optimism in China, at least in terms of becoming an open society. I know the October unofficial announcement about the end of the one-child policy caused quite a buzz in the office among my Chinese colleagues. At the time everyone seemed to think that Xi was going to continue in the same way as his immediate predecessors. The tone seemed to change a year or two after.
“ I find it hard to understand why so many Americans are anti-China these days.”
Do you live in mainland China? I suspect not.
We Americans tend to value personal freedoms, not least being freedom of speech. Those freedoms do not exist in China the way they exist in the west.
Now it’s true there is less freedom of speech in the U.K. than there used to be.
Because China has done so well for its people economically, it is the one “hard” case amongst all the world’s repressive dictatorships, because it has done some good for its people to go along with its evils.
It’s quite fine for you to suggest that America is worse. The number of people seeking to live in America versus in China would indicate your view is less reflective of reality than you seem to think.
I've visited a few times and have a lot of Chinese friends from the mainland.
I'm not trying to argue that China is a paradise or "better" than the US. I don't think it is, and am not tempted to move there (nor would I be even if they spoke English).
I just think it's not nearly as bad as Americans perceive it to be.
--
Added: Let me put it this way. If forced to choose between living in China and living in France, I'd probably choose China. But it would not be an easy choice. I don't see why Americans should have more negative attitudes toward China than toward France.
Well I was perfectly good with the above until your “Added”.
While the gap between China and France is no doubt lower than the gap between China and the U.S., I find it hard to believe that - language and ethnicity aside - more people would prefer to live under Chinese totalitarian rule than under the soft-authoritarianism of the democratically elected French government.
A tech entrepreneur or software engineer I guess I could see that choice, but that’d be about it.
But hey, to each his own. It’s a free country! (Well, here, anyway… 😏)
I think that's where we disagree. I think China is *also* authoritarian. Not totalitarian.
Fair enough.
Lacking all free speech rights and the right to choose ones rulers seems pretty fundamental to me.
Or the right to emigrate without permission from the government.
Or the right to one’s property if you are lucky enough to be allowed to emigrate. (Of course, France getting worse on this axis too, if not as extreme as China).
But to each his own.
Name one way China is freer than America.
Prostitution.
[You could have done this too]
Claude, are there ways in which Chinese individuals are freer than Americans?
Yes, in several concrete dimensions. This isn't the usual answer people expect, but it holds up on examination.
Medical access and pharmaceuticals. You can walk into a Chinese hospital, see a specialist same-day without a referral or insurance pre-authorization, and pay out of pocket at prices that are low by American standards. Many drugs that require prescriptions in the US (antibiotics, some steroids, various medications) are available OTC or with minimal gatekeeping in China. The entire insurance-bureaucracy-referral chain that mediates American healthcare access barely exists.
Incarceration risk. The US incarcerates at roughly 5x China's reported rate per capita (~530 vs ~120 per 100k). Even adjusting for China likely undercounting political prisoners, the gap is enormous. An ordinary American committing ordinary offenses is far more likely to end up in a cage.
Informal economy and street-level commerce. Street vending, food carts, small-scale commerce operate in China with far less licensing, permitting, and zoning friction than in most US cities. The regulatory burden on a small American business (ADA compliance, health codes, labor law, licensing) is substantial. China's enforcement at that scale is much lighter.
Property taxation. China has no widespread recurring property tax. Americans face perpetual property taxes — you never truly own your home free of ongoing state claims. China has been trying to implement a property tax for years and keeps failing politically.
E-bikes and personal electric vehicles. Ubiquitous in China with minimal regulation. Many US jurisdictions restrict or complicate their use.
Zoning and land use (de facto). Despite the state technically owning all land, the practical regulatory burden on rural construction and informal building has historically been far lighter than American zoning, which dictates minimum lot sizes, setbacks, allowed uses, etc. in extraordinary detail. This is changing as China urbanizes and tightens enforcement, but American zoning is among the most restrictive property-use regimes in the world.
Drinking age. 18 and loosely enforced, vs. 21 in the US.
De facto IP freedom. Lax IP enforcement means Chinese individuals can freely repair, modify, copy, and reverse-engineer products with near-zero legal risk. Americans face DMCA, right-to-repair restrictions, and aggressive IP enforcement.
“Incarceration risk. The US incarcerates at roughly 5x China's reported rate per capita (~530 vs ~120 per 100k). Even adjusting for China likely undercounting political prisoners, the gap is enormous. An ordinary American committing ordinary offenses is far more likely to end up in a cage.”
There is no doubt some merit in what you had Claude spit out above, but “incarceration risk” is a particularly bad one.
Do you understand the percentage of Americans who speak ill of the government and government officials who would be incarcerated if they did same in China?
The Chinese populace has modified its behavior because most people prefer not to live in prison.
But to claim that “incarceration risk” is lower in China as in any way a positive re: being “freer” in China is kafkaesque.
Now by contrast if you want to argue that the average Chinese is freer from crime than the average American - especially the average city-dwelling lower income American - I’m quite open to the likelihood that is true. Repressive authoritarian regimes typically do have this advantage.
My impression is that the CCP doesn't care if people speak ill of the goverment privately - they care only if they do so publicly and try to organize against it. Even then the first reaction isn't incarceration, it's a visit and stern talking to from the police.
The total number of people imprisioned is a valid statisitic I think - being locked up is bad.
You're right, there's far less freedom of speech in China, and that's arguably a bad thing. But still, less people actually *in prison* is a good thing.
FWIW, I didn't try to bias Claude's output - my entire prompt is shown in the first line above.
“The total number of people imprisioned [sic] is a valid statisitic [sic] I think - being locked up is bad.”
“But still, less people actually *in prison* is a good thing.”
It’s fine that you think that the statistic is “valid”. We just disagree on values here.
I think it’s a *very* good thing that *most* of those people are imprisoned.
If you do the research - I did some again before writing this response - you’ll see that something like 63% in U.S. prisons are there for violent crimes.
Another ~13% are there for drug dealing (*not* using). The direct crime may not have been violent, but it’s part of a value chain which is very violent.
Throw in folks in prison for repeated DWI/DUI plus those in for parole violations whose OG offenses were violent crimes, and you get to somewhere between 80% and 90% of the prison population.
That leaves only 10%-20% in for property offenses and other lesser crimes where *for me* there is any sense where it might be better that there were fewer prisoners. (And I’m somewhat suspicious that most of those being out would be better for society, too - incentives matter - but I’ll at least concede your POV is quite *arguable* for those.)
Now if you are an anarcho-capitalist and think drug laws are awful, then I can see where you’d want some fraction of those people not to be imprisoned. Or if you are a 2nd Amendment total zealot who thinks felons should be free to have guns and associate with other known felons, etc., you could get to a somewhat higher number.
And again your comparison ignores that many would be violent felons in China are not in prison because they are deterred by the even harsher sentences, specifically including death, they would receive. You can say that’s “better”, too, sure - and for those innocents who weren’t affected by those crimes, you would surely be right - but now notice that you are literally arguing the opposite side of your argument re: ”better to have fewer prisoners from a compassionate, moral POV”.
So no, given the culture we have - rather than the one we might prefer - I strongly disagree with your normative claim that “less people actually *in prison* is a good thing.”
As, I suspect, you might too, if you lived in one of the high-crime neighborhoods from where the large majority of these prisoners come.
But even if we merely agree to disagree on this point, suggesting that fewer people in prison in China is evidence that people in China are “freer” still doesn’t follow.
P.S. I have little qualm with your other response to me in this thread, and in particular your claim that you “just think it's not nearly as bad as Americans perceive it to be.”
I understand where you're coming from. But (you knew there would be a 'but') (a) the victims of the crime that put those "bad people" in prision are better off if the crime didn't happen in the first place (even if deterred by harsh punishment), and (b) the "bad people" criminals are better off being deterred from actually doing crime and ending up in prision. A society that has less crime - all other things being equal (which of course they never are) - is better than one with more crime.
Oh - I have a story. About 12 years ago we hosted a Chinese (Beijing) exchange student for a year. Soon after he arrived I took him with me to the supermarket. He didn't find the supermarket particularly interesting.
As we were waiting in the checkout line, I explained the people in front of us were taking so long because they were using food stamps.
I had to explain what food stamps were.
He was amazed and disapproving. His words: "*That* would *never* happen in China!".
12 years!
25 years ago there was a Chinese student in Germany with me and he was pretty blase about supermarkets and even houses and accommodation.
It's interesting that both the related history and the comments appear dated. When I was there in 2015 China certainly appeared to be opening up. But that was before it became fully apparent that Xi was bent on becoming Mao II. Even then the economy seemed closer to fascism than to either socialism or capitalism. Much in the Shanghai-Pudong area seemed to make no economic sense.
Much in the US and western Europe seems to make no sense too.
My last statement was vague, as it was based more on impressions than specifics. But thinking back, it was partly that the Pudong New District had a planned feel with everything seemingly built to 133 percent of normal scale (in contrast to the older parts of Shanghai). My office building was on the edge of the district, and I could see Mao-era apartment buildings being demolished to make room for expansion.
And there was the subway system with its $0.17 per-segment fare that probably just about paid for the fare collection apparatus. And a 30 km maglev line between Pudong and the airport that accelerated to 430 kph and maintained that speed for a few seconds before decelerating again (there was a sign suspended from the cabin ceiling that showed current speed, similar to a Concorde SST). All functional but obviously built for show.
I suppose the latter example makes more economic sense than California's high-speed rail. Non-functional but obviously built for show. But neither having anything to do with capitalism.
These are the best examples of what happened during the Chinese transition I've ever seen. Thank you.