China CCP to Nationalize Alibaba operator of Sesame Credit

stroopwafel

Elite Member
Apr 29, 2020
666
215
48
I can't speak for Den Xiaoping's policies as I do not know enough about him but Xi's policies far extend beyond pragmatism. Culturally and/or ethnically cleansing non-Han minorities isn't going to help poor Chinese citizens from rural areas in any way. Neither is the final annexation of Hong Kong and the continuous threats over Taiwan. This is purely driven by a Nationalistic agenda. Xi also strongly tightened the party's grip on the rule of law and the media, which again doesn't bring food on the table of the millions of still extremely poor Chinese citizens.

And yes it is easy to condemn them, especially from a European perspective. Because we have seen what Nationalistic bullshit can do with a desperate nation (Nazi Germany anyone?). Xi has emulated Fascist regimes almost the entire way, perhaps with a bit more pragmatism. But to be clear, what people dislike about Fascists isn't their lack of pragmatism...
The thing is their policies come from a place of perpetual insecurity. That the country will fall apart the moment they don't keep a tight lid on things. It is the reason why Tianenmen is such a taboo subject to this day since that crystalizes all of the regime's fears. They think giving up on territorial claims would spark internal unrest as well because it could undermine the regime's authority. It is not a completely unfounded belief if you consider what damage social divisions and unrest causes in prosperous, democratic countries because of loss of homogeny. It is a stress test for any country let alone a poor, divided and unstable one. It could end all decades long progress over night. This is what the regime tries to prevent at all cost and why economic growth is such an almost religious pursuit, sometimes indeed ehm..overenthusiastically so. Not everything is a Nazi Germany parallel.

That store should be banned as well tbh!
No disagreement there. Espescially for the environment and the plastic soup.
 

Agema

Ph'nglui mglw'nafn Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
2,921
2,076
118
The thing is their policies come from a place of perpetual insecurity. That the country will fall apart the moment they don't keep a tight lid on things.
I think you mean their grip on the country might fall apart if they don't keep a tight lid on things. Let's not pretend that the upper echelons of the CCP don't enjoy a phenomenal amount of power and privilege that they might not have with an alternative governance system, and they like that power and privilege.
 

Generals

Elite Member
May 19, 2020
112
76
33
The thing is their policies come from a place of perpetual insecurity. That the country will fall apart the moment they don't keep a tight lid on things. It is the reason why Tianenmen is such a taboo subject to this day since that crystalizes all of the regime's fears. They think giving up on territorial claims would spark internal unrest as well because it could undermine the regime's authority. It is not a completely unfounded belief if you consider what damage social divisions and unrest causes in prosperous, democratic countries because of loss of homogeny. It is a stress test for any country let alone a poor, divided and unstable one. It could end all decades long progress over night. This is what the regime tries to prevent at all cost and why economic growth is such an almost religious pursuit, sometimes indeed ehm..overenthusiastically so. Not everything is a Nazi Germany parallel.
I don't necessarily see how the source/motivations of the policies actually matter. All dictatorships fear things will fall apart if they don't keep a tight lid on things. That feeling may be reinforced in a country as large and populous as China but it is not unique to China. Mussolini tried to emulate Nazi policy more and more when we he saw Hitler surpassed him in the hopes he'd achieve the same results as the Nazi regime. Clearly the motivations behind his policies were different but they remain Nazi policies regardless.

One could also wonder why this "unity" is so important to China? Why not let go of Tibet and Xinjiang? Wouldn't it be more pragmatic than having to push for policies which try to culturally cleanse the natives from their identity and populate the regions with Han Chinese who are treated more favorably? Is it a desire to keep the "Lebensraum" or "past glory"? You say not everything is a Nazi Germany Parallel and you're right. But Xi's China is a pretty obvious one. And from what I've read Deng Xiaoping reformed China in positive ways (far from perfect) and Xi has taken a very strong turn towards Fascistic policies.
 
Last edited:

stroopwafel

Elite Member
Apr 29, 2020
666
215
48
I don't necessarily see how the source/motivations of the policies actually matter. All dictatorships fear things will fall apart if they don't keep a tight lid on things. That feeling may be reinforced in a country as large and populous as China but it is not unique to China. Mussolini tried to emulate Nazi policy more and more when we he saw Hitler surpassed him in the hopes he'd achieve the same results as the Nazi regime. Clearly the motivations behind his policies were different but they remain Nazi policies regardless.

One could also wonder why this "unity" is so important to China? Why not let go of Tibet and Xinjiang? Wouldn't it be more pragmatic than having to push for policies which try to culturally cleanse the natives from their identity and populate the regions with Han Chinese who are treated more favorably? Is it a desire to keep the "Lebensraum" or "past glory"? You say not everything is a Nazi Germany Parallel and you're right. But Xi's China is a pretty obvious one. And from what I've read Deng Xiaoping reformed China in a positive way (likely not perfect) and Xi has taken a very strong turn towards Fascistic policies.
I'm not saying there aren't human rights violations but comparing China to Hitler Germany I mean c'mon. Intent and severity does matter. Xi tries to preserve the integrity of the entire country and it's historic territorial claims, perhaps dogmatically so, but the intent was never a mass genocide or aggressive expansion policy to provoke war. China has treated Honk Kong with comparitive silk gloves despite open provocations. The U.S.(or rather Trump) provokes China by sending delegations to Taiwan but China keeps it's restraint. Even with the trade war and Trump completely letting himself go Xi kept his composure. The country is also arguably one of the most important players in the global supply chain and has absolutely nothing to gain from letting it's relationship with (primarily western) countries sour.
 

Generals

Elite Member
May 19, 2020
112
76
33
I'm not saying there aren't human rights violations but comparing China to Hitler Germany I mean c'mon. Intent and severity does matter. Xi tries to preserve the integrity of the entire country and it's historic territorial claims, perhaps dogmatically so, but the intent was never a mass genocide or aggressive expansion policy to provoke war. China has treated Honk Kong with comparitive silk gloves despite open provocations. The U.S.(or rather Trump) provokes China by sending delegations to Taiwan but China keeps it's restraint. Even with the trade war and Trump completely letting himself go Xi kept his composure. The country is also arguably one of the most important players in the global supply chain and has absolutely nothing to gain from letting it's relationship with (primarily western) countries sour.
I think context matters. China couldn't emulate what happened in the 1930's-1940's even if it wanted to. While it's easy for hypocritical western rulers to turn a blind eye on "re-education camps" and "dropping fertility rates" it would be much harder if it were full blown extermination camps. The economic consequences would be huge for China. But in the end the results and goals are similar: creating a monolithic nation where only one identity and potentially ethnicity is allowed. The Xi method just takes more time.

And to be fair to Trump, what China considers "provocation" is just plain acceptance of reality. Taiwan is an independent country just like Congo is no longer part of Belgium, deal with it. It is the world that indulged with Chinese nonsense for too long. Acknowledging reality and helping Taiwan keep that a reality by selling weapons to it is not a provocation, China is the provocateur on all aspects here. They annexed Tibet against the will of the native population, they claim Taiwan is theirs against the will of the population and they now claim parts of the South China Sea is theirs against the will of the rightful owners of some of those parts.

EDIT: I would just like to add this little remark. While I personally don't like it when words like "fascist" or "Nazi" are being thrown very lightly (as it is often nowadays) I do believe that you don't require a 100% fit either. Even if you'd take 100 Nazi officials from Nazi germany you'd probably find different opinions and ideals but they'd all be Nazis nonetheless. It's all about how much the parallel fits and especially so on key aspects of the system. And with China right now the parallel fits pretty damn well and does so on key Nazi and/or Fascist characteristics.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Agema

stroopwafel

Elite Member
Apr 29, 2020
666
215
48
I think context matters. China couldn't emulate what happened in the 1930's-1940's even if it wanted to. While it's easy for hypocritical western rulers to turn a blind eye on "re-education camps" and "dropping fertility rates" it would be much harder if it were full blown extermination camps. The economic consequences would be huge for China. But in the end the results and goals are similar: creating a monolithic nation where only one identity and potentially ethnicity is allowed. The Xi method just takes more time.

And to be fair to Trump, what China considers "provocation" is just plain acceptance of reality. Taiwan is an independent country just like Congo is no longer part of Belgium, deal with it. It is the world that indulged with Chinese nonsense for too long. Acknowledging reality and helping Taiwan keep that a reality by selling weapons to it is not a provocation, China is the provocateur on all aspects here. They annexed Tibet against the will of the native population, they claim Taiwan is theirs against the will of the population and they now claim parts of the South China Sea is theirs against the will of the rightful owners of some of those parts.

EDIT: I would just like to add this little remark. While I personally don't like it when words like "fascist" or "Nazi" are being thrown very lightly (as it is often nowadays) I do believe that you don't require a 100% fit either. Even if you'd take 100 Nazi officials from Nazi germany you'd probably find different opinions and ideals but they'd all be Nazis nonetheless. It's all about how much the parallel fits and especially so on key aspects of the system. And with China right now the parallel fits pretty damn well and does so on key Nazi and/or Fascist characteristics.
Are you talking about the Uighurs here? No disagreement that these are reprehensible policies but are they really so different from the immigration policies in U.S. ICE camps? Every state fears that multiple ethnicities leads to destabilization, chaos and disorder when these ethnicities start to oppose eachother. This is why in western countries they try to discourage it so much because they see the segregation and unrest. I don't think the end justifies the means but when you have forced sterilization in the epicenter of 'the free world' then wouldn't it be more hypocrytical if western leaders condemned China for it's ''re-education camps''?

'Acceptance of reality' when the rival superpower arms a country which autonomy is historically disputed by the other superpower? When that same superpower is openly provocative with trade wars and trying to strong arm the other into submission? Yeah, that's a great way to light a fuse. It's almost an open declaration for war. But again it demonstrates Beijing's restraint by not falling for the bait.

With Nazis you had followers and leaders. Most just feared for their lives and did as they were told. Like 98% of people would do. Exceptionally gifted people like Werner Von Braun for example who just had the misfortune of being born in the wrong time and place.
 

Generals

Elite Member
May 19, 2020
112
76
33
Are you talking about the Uighurs here? No disagreement that these are reprehensible policies but are they really so different from the immigration policies in U.S. ICE camps? Every state fears that multiple ethnicities leads to destabilization, chaos and disorder when these ethnicities start to oppose eachother. This is why in western countries they try to discourage it so much because they see the segregation and unrest. I don't think the end justifies the means but when you have forced sterilization in the epicenter of 'the free world' then wouldn't it be more hypocrytical if western leaders condemned China for it's ''re-education camps''?
Well, as far as I know the reported cases in the US are rare and it doesn't appear to be standard policy. If it is than that's extremely reprehensible. But to be honest I never considered the USA as "the epicenter of the free world".

'Acceptance of reality' when the rival superpower arms a country which autonomy is historically disputed by the other superpower? When that same superpower is openly provocative with trade wars and trying to strong arm the other into submission? Yeah, that's a great way to light a fuse. It's almost an open declaration for war. But again it demonstrates Beijing's restraint by not falling for the bait.
Disputing autonomy is so colonial era. China doesn't have any right to dispute Taiwan's self governance. Trying to preserve Taiwan's right should not be considered a provocation. The US may have been running a provocative trade war but it was long overdue. China has long had an asymmetrical trading policy with foreign nations to the detriment of those nations. They have long provoked their trading "partners" and the payback was long overdue. And while we're at it it's also long overdue for the US which has abused the dominance of the dollar long enough.

If protecting a nation's independence and pressure to render a trade relationship more symmetrical is a declaration of war for Beijing than the regime truly deserves to fall quickly.
 

stroopwafel

Elite Member
Apr 29, 2020
666
215
48
Well, as far as I know the reported cases in the US are rare and it doesn't appear to be standard policy. If it is than that's extremely reprehensible. But to be honest I never considered the USA as "the epicenter of the free world".
Let's see. Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, immigration detention camps. These are just some of the things we know of. It happens with greater regularity than can be considered 'rare'.



Disputing autonomy is so colonial era. China doesn't have any right to dispute Taiwan's self governance. Trying to preserve Taiwan's right should not be considered a provocation. The US may have been running a provocative trade war but it was long overdue. China has long had an asymmetrical trading policy with foreign nations to the detriment of those nations. They have long provoked their trading "partners" and the payback was long overdue. And while we're at it it's also long overdue for the US which has abused the dominance of the dollar long enough.

If protecting a nation's independence and pressure to render a trade relationship more symmetrical is a declaration of war for Beijing than the regime truly deserves to fall quickly.
Wasn't Taiwan established by Chinese exiles on Formossa? It isn't the indigenous population clamoring for independence so the comparison with European colonialism is a weak one. It is impossible to determine Taiwanese independence outside it's historic context with mainlaind China and the current strategic environment. Same as with the Cold War when the U.S. shifted allegiances between Russia and Taiwan(ie the 'real' Chinese leadership) to put pressure on China similarly is it is now arming Taiwan to strongarm China into Taiwanese independence. It is not about Taiwan it's about provoking China.

What ''detriment'' of China's trading policy? The detriment that American consumers can buy huge TVs, clothes, shoes, phones etc for chump change? It is not China's fault that the developed world's insatiable appetite for Chinese consumer goods and industrial exports have given them pretty much ownership over the dollar and caused a lopsided trade balance.
 

Generals

Elite Member
May 19, 2020
112
76
33
Let's see. Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, immigration detention camps. These are just some of the things we know of. It happens with greater regularity than can be considered 'rare'.
While all wrong for different reasons none come close to the scale at which things are happening in China and also serve a totally different purpose.

Wasn't Taiwan established by Chinese exiles on Formossa? It isn't the indigenous population clamoring for independence so the comparison with European colonialism is a weak one. It is impossible to determine Taiwanese independence outside it's historic context with mainlaind China and the current strategic environment. Same as with the Cold War when the U.S. shifted allegiances between Russia and Taiwan(ie the 'real' Chinese leadership) to put pressure on China similarly is it is now arming Taiwan to strongarm China into Taiwanese independence. It is not about Taiwan it's about provoking China.
None of that matters. What matters is: Taiwan is de-facto independant and Taiwan doesn't want to be annexed, ergo China holds no claim on it. I don't really care about the US's intentions, if the CCP wasn't a Fascist regime wanting to restore "past glory" it would abandon its claims on Taiwan for the aforementioned reasons.

What ''detriment'' of China's trading policy? The detriment that American consumers can buy huge TVs, clothes, shoes, phones etc for chump change? It is not China's fault that the developed world's insatiable appetite for Chinese consumer goods and industrial exports have given them pretty much ownership over the dollar and caused a lopsided trade balance.
Foreign nations have pressured China for years (decades?) to have more symmetrical trading relationships and stop stealing intellectual property en masse. Having a leader who finally says "well if you don't stop it we will somewhat close our market for you using tariffs" sounds very reasonable. The fact other nations do not have the political courage to do the same doesn't make Trumps policy provocative. He may have added his usual dose of theatre to it but if in your eyes not declaring war over that and the fact the US helps an independent nation remain independent is showing "restraint" than you are quite a warmonger... Bolton style?