Neither did South America but they were inspired by all of them when they formed their modern republics after the various revolutions, after kicking out the Spanish rulers in the 1800s the military generals had a choice to form democracies and they sought inspiration from Europe, just as America did a century earlier...

Almost every European country had a legacy of monarchy, Japan with their Empire, etc. There's a long history of centralized control in every culture. Why is China unique?

The problem is China went the authoritarian route, the party defines the culture, it's not a natural phenomenon of the people. It won't matter if there is a shift towards liberalism when people don't have a choice.

Not to mention Hong Kong and Taiwan aren't far from China's core culture yet they respect liberalism. Chiang-kai Shek could easily have won the war against Mao and it's entirely possible their culture would look a lot more like South Korea or Japan and less "Chinese".

People downplay the complete and total effectiveness of government controlled media and propaganda campaigns. This idea that Chinese culture is just different from the 'west' is exactly what is forced down the Chinese people's throats, it's the party line - not an original concept. The "chinese way" is what they constantly use to justify their repressive actions. While any time anything bad happens in the West they promote those acts widely in the media as examples of the flaws of the western worldview, while thoroughly suppressing their own flaws... so I'm highly suspicious when I hear this excuse.

What are you talking about? South America was colonized by the Portuguese and Spanish, which most definitely come from the western liberal tradition.

It's fine to take a position against "Chinese culture", but it should be an honest one.

The Spanish did not create liberal "western" democracies when they ruled. They were replacing a monarchical, heavily centralized system and the liberators had a choice in how they modelled their country. They certainly considered many different options including heavily centralized systems but the influences of European thinkers as mentioned above played a big role in their decision to build republics and federalized states.

My point is that many cultures (including Japan and South Korea) came from a legacy of centralized control and were still capable of being inspired by foreign thinkers and adopting liberal systems.

This idea that China is unique because they didn't have their own bastion of local liberal thinkers is heavily flawed because that pattern exists elsewhere with different outcomes. Especially considering how close Chiang-kai Shek was to moving China towards a more western economic system. It wasn't the 'Chinese way' that won out, it was a series of politically fortunate events in Mao's favour.

The Chinese culture is a product of a self-protecting centralized system, not (merely) a product of the historical culture.

Mao's success I think reinforced some the idea that the only way for China to stand on its own was to be united and strongly controlled and maintained. The hundreds of years of having different clans pre-Mao (or weak dynasties like Qing) just didn't work.

While I might not completely agree with their arguments, it's worth understanding Chinese criticism and their skepticism of the West. China is literally 4x the size of the US with a very rich and complicated history and thinking, so we can't just assume you can put in Western democracy/thinking just like that. Sure a lot of it may be encouraged by the party, but I think a lot of is much deeper than that.

As for Taiwan, I think it is important to remember that, while Chiang Kai-Shek was seemingly "less Chinese" than Mao, the two had many similarities. Like Mao, Chiang Kai-Shek was a believer in socialism and nationalism, with his own cult of personality. He also was responsible for his own purges early on and was very much a dictator. While he had support from many international countries, he was only slightly more liberal than Mao (which probably had to do with a number of factors, but I think it's important to note that he was educated in Japan at one point). It was not until after his death that Taiwan became democratic, and I think one of the reasons for this was because Taiwan had aligned itself with Western countries when it was driven out of mainland China. Had the ROC won and the PRC lost, I don't think much would be different here. It's possible to say that the fact that the ROC was anti-communism contributed to these changes, but Chiang Kai-Shek was by no means a supporter of democracy. To me it seems like the deciding factor for Taiwan becoming less authoritarian was almost certainly due to their defeat, and that the PRC would very likely follow in those same footsteps had the roles been reversed.

That all is to say that, despite the differences between Hong Kong/Taiwan and mainland China, the PRC is extremely representative of Chinese culture. The modern values of Taiwan and Hong Kong are obviously very different, but had different circumstances played out (Taiwan winning/Hong Kong becoming an independent Chinese state rather than becoming a colony) I do believe that these countries would end up nearly identical to modern China.

I would not want to the one in charge the day after. Obviously (moderated) rule by the people is best but not sure how China and say countries in the mold of Saudi Arabia will handle it.

The question to ask, if you want China to change, is to ask how would the Chinese Communist Party lose its grip on power. That would probably need to happen following an economic crisis. However, looking at how badly the Chavistas are driving Venezuela into the ground these days, and how much they're able to hold onto power, you can see that it's not easy to get rid of a government with a lot of resources. The boiling frog theorem applies here. A sudden shock, sudden famine, sudden economic turmoil is what's most likely to create the conditions of regime change.

So, how does that relate to China? Well, if they still have brains, they will reach a tipping point as the water warms. More closely, so long as they have access to information (I think) they will eventually decide that enough is enough.

So, then the question is do they have enough information? Do they have enough freedom to communicate with each other?

It's hard to say. I've been to China and I think the answer is actually an affirmative. They have plenty of information. They all know about the GFW, the censorship, and how it is different than the West. They don't appear to be under any illusions.

I've spoken, in person, with multiple people in China and they all know those things, as well as being up to date with their current local and national politics. It's hard to describe, but they just seem to accept it. I don't want to say they see it as a good thing, but they all pretty much say that it is for the national harmony.

They know about Tianamen square. They even have a special word for censorship - river crab, though I forget the reason. They know about the death penalties. They know about the corruption of local and national politicians. They seem to be as aware of their politics as much as we are aware of our own, maybe even more so.

It's a different mentality, I guess? They accept it and think it helps promote social harmony. It wasn't easy, and still isn't, for me to get my head around.

As for why people accept the situation, one can probably start with "Nash equilibrium" (I chose not to use the term "prisoners' dilemma" as that could project uneeded connotation in this context).

It was very different to go there in person. I expected an undercurrent of political unrest and dismay with the things like censorship. It really didn't seem like I met anyone willing to vocalize serious displeasure.

I've read that something close to 1/3rd of the Chinese population is a member of the party or whose livelihood directly depends on it in some fashion where they are essentially a member.

So this is a very good question.

Isn't that just a different framing of the same basic setup in the U.S. where say 1/3 of the population is in the mid/upper class and debate about and set policy and direction for the country? We call our factions "parties" but other than naming things at different levels I'm not really sure I see much of a difference.

I was a bit taken aback, because these students didn't seem like 'communists', whatever that connoted in my mind at the time. They were about 6 of them, mix of men and women. They showed me what they were studying, some Marxist political philosophy, and told me that they wanted to join in order to improve their career opportunities.

Now, if that isn't the most hilarious irony in history I'm not sure what is. Studying Marxist political philosophy to join the Communist Party to unlock lucrative career opportunities. Priceless.

Not necessarily. I understand that it also takes personal connections and/or a little bribery to get in.

> and then there's deal making and voting within the party. I wouldn't be surprised if there's different "factions" within the party, each fighting for control, or each who have a different vision for the future.

My understanding is that this is absolutely true at the higher levels of the party, but not so much at the regular levels. Party membership itself doesn't confer much privilege or power.

Peeps, how about a little bibliography if you're going to downvote? A downvote isn't supposed to mean "I wish that weren't true, so it can't be."

Too close to call on corruption https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/interactive/2011/d...

Theocracy, read about the BJP, and restriction of freedom of the press around religion. This might be a start: Censoring Indian History By Audrey Truschke Posted 27th July 2017, 11:50 Laws against religious offence in India have altered the writing and understanding of the nation’s past.

In the end, I made numerous wording changes to both books and, most dramatically, in Aurangzeb I cut several sentences that outlined Shivaji’s caste background and relations with Brahmins, the priestly caste, topics which are especially sensitive to those who subscribe to the modern mythology of Shivaji. In addition, the publisher declined to publish a map in the Indian edition of Aurangzeb showing the extent of the Mughal Empire, noting that a prison term can now await those who publish maps of India without first gaining government approval. Religious (and nationalist) sentiments are increasingly trumping historical truth in modern India.

Audrey Truschke is the author of Aurangzeb: The Life and Legacy of India’s Most Controversial King (Stanford University Press, 2017) and Culture of Encounters: Sanskrit at the Mughal Court (Columbia University Press, 2016).

http://www.historytoday.com/audrey-truschke/censoring-indian...

The Chinese elite already know what's the consequence CCP is gone. Most normal Chinese as well as all Westerners don't know.

People hiding behind each other and in hierarchies is no less dysfunctional than people plastering over the holes in their souls with material goods and what have you, and harmony is a complete stranger to both, at least as I understand it. When I speak with a human being who wears a saddle of some kind, has some kind of dirt on their lens, peace enters my mind after the conversation, after the fake, uptight, unhappy circus leaves town and me with my mind and the world around me as it is, not as overly fearful people inside it want me to describe it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_distance

> China Takes Aim at Western Ideas

> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/20/world/asia/chinas-new-lead...

> Communist Party cadres have filled meeting halls around China to hear a somber, secretive warning issued by senior leaders. Power could escape their grip, they have been told, unless the party eradicates seven subversive currents coursing through Chinese society.

> These seven perils were enumerated in a memo, referred to as Document No. 9, that bears the unmistakable imprimatur of Xi Jinping, China’s new top leader. The first was “Western constitutional democracy”; others included promoting “universal values” of human rights, Western-inspired notions of media independence and civic participation, ardently pro-market “neo-liberalism,” and “nihilist” criticisms of the party’s traumatic past.

Whose propaganda is the higher acceptance of authority of Americans compared to many European countries?

PDI (Power distance index):

    81   MEXICO
    80   CHINA
    68   HONG KONG
    58   TAIWAN
    54   JAPAN
    40   UNITED STATES
    31   SWEDEN
    18   DENMARK

*Edit Never mind they're different indicators: Power Distance Index | Individualism | Masculinity | Uncertainty Avoidance Index | Long-Term Orientation

Taoism is anti-authoritarian in the extreme. Buddhism is significantly more neutral on the subject but is definitely aligned closely with personal liberation and at minimum it does not make special exceptions for authorities. There are many famous incidents involving Bodhidharma trying to disillusion authority figures about their own authority.

So I disagree with you that there are no Chinese philosophical traditions that are anti-authoritarian or that promote individual liberty. There are, but they are losing right now.

Would you count Mozi/Mohism among them?

And what about after the Han synthesis? Confucianism and legalism seem to have tempered the anti-authoritarian Taoist ideas.

Tradition Tibetan society, for example, seems very hierarchical to me.

I was quite young around the time of Tienanmen Square, but I seem to recall a Statue of Liberty and a lot of talk about democracy, before the protests were crushed. I wonder how Locke, or a Rousseau, or a Hobbes would have fared in the face of the equivalent state suppression.

The thoughts of Locke, Rousseau, Hobbes are taught nearly in every university and there is no culture of conformity. People seem to simply not care, or are afraid to speak their minds.

When was the last time the Chinese elected their leaders? the fact that they are "used" to this doesn't mean they approve. If there is a consensus, then let the Chinese people sanctify it with a democratic vote.

How about Lao-Tzu? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laozi

What are you talking about? The west has completely accepted surveillance by it's governments. The ideas by Locke, Rousseau, or Hobbes have 0 effect on western society. If you think western society is an 'freer', it's only because it's the perfect illusion created by your echo chamber.

It has nothing to do with an echo chamber. The laws are objectively very different.

Comparing surveillance by the NSA to information accessibility in general is disingenuous at best.

Or even close, really.

Any country that requires and authorizes gun ownership is broken to start with. That you think this is somehow superior and better is.. I don't know what to say.

> Comparing surveillance by the NSA to access to information in general is disingenuous at best.

What's the difference?

In short: If you do not have the right to defend a thing, you do not truly own it. If I give you an apple, but say “you’re not allowed to stop me if I try to take it back”, then you do not truly own the apple. Even if I continue to let you have the apple, ultimately I remain the sole owner of the apple (despite any illusions of the contrary) because I have the exclusive power over it. This applies to the self as well; if you do not have the right to effectively defend yourself, you are effectively owned by your government.

If only your government has the authority to physical force towards defense of your property and yourself, then it is your government that truly owns you and ‘your’ property. All notions of ownership you may have are illusory, in the absence of such rights to defense.

Now in China, at least there is no illusion of freedom. Everyone knows they are owned by the government.

>What's the difference?

One is access, one is privacy. Very different things. Why conflate them.

In short, history explains, it doesn't justify. And this can be explained even better by a closed oligarchy wanting to stay in power.

Edited to add: Modern Western countries have had experiences with autocracy as well. Do you think there's some deep cultural reason Germany went Nazi which sets it apart from France or the UK? How about Spain and Portugal?

Thank you for showing me a new word: essentialism. It sounds philosophical, which is a kind start... to then calling the bs.

Really? We do. Everyone here seemed okay with censorship on twitter, facebook, etc.

> It is an explanation of why the Chinese public may be more willing to accept strict government controls than the West.

Where in the "west" are you? We have censorship and controls in the US. And last I checked, europe is even worse with their controls.

> It's important for Westerners to realize that the Chinese never had a Locke, or a Rousseau, or a Hobbes.

Britain did and britain is at the forefront of censorship, control and monitoring of its population.

> The foundational political philosophy taken for granted in the West has no parallel in China.

It's empty words we used to pretend we are "superior".

Asia is about a lot more than social harmony and the mandate of heaven. There is an incredible diversity of opinion on almost any subject there, just as in the West.

[1] Citation needed.

In the context of today, it's important to remember who the teachers and adults in China are: people who grew up under the Communist government. And with more respect towards the older generation, historically China has had a hard time rebelling against social norms ingrained in their culture. Trying to do away with Confucianism isn't a question of how many people are involved when the elders were all indoctrinated in those ideas by a Communist regime. Even if half the young population of China had independently stumbled upon papers describing these Western cultural values, spreading the idea is impossible when it goes against the CPC's core values, defies the ideas of the older generation, and is completely foreign from what was taught in school.

The fundamental difference between the West and China here is that China has always been under a strong, conservative leadership that these ideas have not been able to permeate. To think that China could simply pick up ideas from Western philosophy misses the point.

Younger red guards denouncing their elders, the attempt to get rid of the four 'olds' doesn't seem like a particularly conservative or Confucian agenda to me.

If it were impossible for this kind of thought to take root in China, I doubt that this movement could have gotten off the ground.

The right time to judge whether the Chinese people really value social harmony more than the west does is when economic growth stalls or even reverses for a decade or so.

Interestingly this also partly explains why totalitarian Communism spread easily in China... Chinese culture was conducive to that philosophy.