Yangliping

Forums

China Announces ‘National Campaign to Clean Up’ In

tigertiger (4592 posts) • +2

In addition to @Janjals' points, look at how the news has impacted on the stock markets. This highlights those risky markets, that at different times of our lives, may affect where people with pensions opt to spread their portfolio.

A few years ago when tensions were rising in some parts of the world, people on here were talking about the need for a Plan B or migration plan for a return home, if 'the balloon goes up'. This in turn affects the little things like, do we redecorate, buy a new sofa, new car, change the amount of money we wire home each month (can always switch back later), or do we wait until things settle down again, etc. etc.

rejected_goods (314 posts) • 0

I often wonder what triggers a need for social stability call? implying the 'glue' being applied is not the right one? the structure itself is faulty in the first place hence needs more 'glue' to patch?

I guess, the Reichstag Fire and Lebensraum that led to 'social stability' in the not too distant German past could be deemed to be a YES? :-)

alienew (360 posts) • 0

@rejected: note that the structure is always faulty, and that the present patching is part of the way in which it is presently changing. However, it's impossible to hold a monopoly on change.

JanJal (533 posts) • 0

Personally I think that there is certain way the world would function if there was nothing to control it. This goes from physics to geography to biology to social behaviour of humans.

Humans try to control all of that, because the world by default is not "peaceful" or in many parts even habitable to humans.

In many ways, humans try to pursue systems that go against the default structures of this world.

It is originally about survival, because humans as race are as insignificant to this world as any other species.

In some other parts of the world, the political system itself is more dynamic and can to a degree adapt to changes in political climate, but not so in China.

Such system goes a lot "against the wind", and hence the call for social stability.

It is indeed a faulty system, but so are most systems.

alienew (360 posts) • 0

People construct systems.
They're not perfect.
Right.
There are no nonhuman control systems for the Internet - WHAT world default structure for the internet?
And how might all this verbiage apply to the recently-announced Chinese governmental attempt to control the Internet? You don't think the Chinese political system adapts to the (supposedly global?) political climate? The state's attempt to control the Internet runs against some 'wind' that has something to do with somebody's call from somewhere for social stability?
I love the DaoDeJing, perhaps you can apply it to running the Internet (you know: put it in harmony with 'Nature') for us.

JanJal (533 posts) • 0

@alienew: "There are no nonhuman control systems for the Internet - WHAT world default structure for the internet?"

I think that in this case the internet should not be considered an object to be governed per se, but a platform on which normal interactions between humans take place, and that interaction is what most societies want to govern. Some more than others.

Without such control, those human interactions (on internet like everywhere else) would go to direction that is default for our race or life at large.

Everything from greed and manipulation of others to sexual conducts would go in ways that modern societies consider somehow bad.

"You don't think the Chinese political system adapts to the (supposedly global?) political climate?"

What I meant, is that Chinese system does not bend left, right, liberal or conservative as easily as some western countries through freely elected governments with small revolution (or at least chance of such) every 4 or so years.

Chinese leaders call for stability separately, because the political system itself cannot provide that. Unstability here risks moving toward another real revolution.

rejected_goods (314 posts) • 0

DaoDeJing has it, 民可使由之 不可使知之. In essence, that it advocates: good gernverance can only be achievable when the obligation of the ruled is to follow what is told and understanding why is forbidden. The Dao world view is against modernisation. Thoughts of using labour saving devices are discouraged. That’s the major fault of Daoism. Seem like using such world view to regulate the internet is going to be troublesome. :-)

alienew (360 posts) • 0

@JanJal: So you think Chinese citizens should not be allowed, by their government, to access news & information, and to communicate privately, in the same manner as citizens of many other countries, is that right? Or do you think that 'normal human interactions' on the internet should be more controlled by governments everywhere?

Dazzer (2625 posts) • 0

couple a things spring to mind. who defines good governance? that will depend on policy priorities. what are normal interactions on the internet? looking at all of the traffic in the run up to last years elections from alt right/left, is that healthy for individs, society or a country???? probably not

JanJal (533 posts) • +1

@alienew: "you think Chinese citizens should not be allowed, by their government, to access news"

In my previous comment I didn't say what should or shouldn't be allowed. Someone (rejected goods) asked "what triggers a need for social stability call", and I tried to explain my answer to that.

It was my explanation to why things are the way they are, but it doesn't imply that I agree with that.

But I do think that internet is just a platform for human interactions, and those interactions on the internet should be controlled the same way the society controls their interactions off the internet.

The question to me is not whether (for example) Chinese public should have free access to foreign media on the internet, but whether they should have free access to foreign media overall. To that I think yes, they should have.

Similarly in western countries, if (for example) pornography or tobacco advertising is banned in traditional media, it should also be banned in internet.

What I refer to by "normal" (or default) human interactions, include all kind things that modern societies (globally) consider illegal, primitive or questionable.

My point in this context is essentially that nature, if left on it's own, is very dangerous. The strong eat the weak. This is true both in the jungle and on the internet, if not controlled in any way.

Login to post Register to post