cross-posted from: https://lemmy.sdf.org/post/59066615
China has imposed a range of sweeping new rules restricting travel in and out of the country in a move that observers say will give the government even more control over its citizens.
Citizens deemed to have “harmed” China’s national security or interests while overseas can also be barred from leaving China for up to three years.
But the law also says that it will apply to anyone considered a threat to the country’s industrial or technological security.
[…]
Under the new rules, border officials are now also required to advise Chinese nationals against travelling to countries and regions deemed “high-risk”.
[…]
But even prior to the rules being announced, some people were already restricted from going to certain countries. Civil servants were among the earliest groups subjected to these controls, which later expanded to include state-owned enterprise employees and ordinary citizens.
A retired grassroots civil servant in Anhui told BBC Chinese that around 2018, his workplace made employees surrender their passports. His passport remains in the custody of his former employer even though he retired last year.
According to the ex-civil servant, employees had to apply and explain their reasons for overseas travel, and not all requests were approved.
For example, trips to visit relatives were more likely to be approved than tourism trips, he said.
“It is mainly to prevent corrupt officials from fleeing or transferring assets abroad,” he said. “For more senior officials, it may also be intended to prevent the disclosure of state secrets.”
[…]
A man identified by his pseudonym, Xiao Wang, who works at a state-owned financial institution in Beijing, told BBC Chinese that his fellow employees have long been required to surrender their passports and get approval for overseas travel.
The 32-year-old said managers have verbally reminded staff that “sensitive countries such as Japan are definitely off-limits”.
[…]
The rules could also affect citizens who work in areas such as human rights, say analysts.
“This is another tool designed to control what Chinese citizens do and say overseas,” said Professor Tom Kellogg, Executive Director of the Center for Asian Law at Georgetown University.
“In some cases, in order to prevent individuals from criticising the Chinese government overseas or to punish their rights advocacy activities, state security authorities directly refuse to issue passports.”
One 26-year-old Chinese citizen, who wished to be identified only as Pipi, told BBC Chinese that his passport application in 2023 was rejected and he believes it was because he attended the massive pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong in 2019.
According to Pipi, he was interviewed by Hong Kong media outlets during the protests. When he returned to mainland China, he was questioned by state security police.
He said one immigration official told him that he could not get a passport “because of the Hong Kong issue” – but this was not confirmed in writing to him.
“I don’t know whether I’ll ever be able to leave [China],” he said.
[…]
The Chinese police overseas service stations are there to watch Chinese citizens and report violations back to the government, they are not there to help tourists that is what consulates are for.
I’m surprised this news even made it beyond the voluptuous borders of the great firewall…
China’s firewall doesn’t prevent information from leaving China. Whether it gets reported or not in the west is mostly a question of whether or not a news agency decides to do so, assuming it isn’t covered by CGTN or SCMP.
I have friends in China, of whom I talk to.
So yeah, it’s a shitty wall.
I don’t see how any of that points to information being difficult to see from the outside. At most there’s a translation barrier.
Information is lost in translation. For instance, my sense of humour I attempted to instill in an honest observation.
*I was gonna also include a joke about Mongolians breaching said wall, which I am now doing in an edit.
Is the information loss in translation an aspect of the firewall, or language itself?
Both. The purpose of different languages is to be obscure. The purpose of a wall is to protect.
Language differences emerge as indigenous societies begin communicating with each other. The fact that China largely speaks Mandarin does not mean they are doing so to hide anything. The firewall does protect the Chinese domestic internet infrastructure from domination by more well-developed western alternatives similar to how trade protectionism works to protect US automotive industries from Chinese EVs. Neither of these points to it being a deliberate consequence of the firewall that information on China is scarcer in the west.
China’s definitely having a moment in the sun right now because of their diverse manufacturing base but I wonder if their government will be able to transition to a democratic one.
Peering into the near future will they be able to solve their youth unemployment issue or will they just crack down on dissent? Having an educated, disaffected generation doesn’t bode well.
China’s already democratic, it just has a different democratic model than capitalist countries. Policy in China comes from the bottom-up, and is interpreted through Marxism-Leninism at the top, resulting in policy connected with what’s important for the working people. It certainly isn’t a perfect system, but it works for China, resulting in some of the higher and more balanced perceptions of democratic health in the world:
While this can be confusing for people who associate democracy with western-style pluralism and representative candidate elections, this form of democracy is more well-suited to socialist economies. Socialist societies are built on the supremacy of the working class, and as such any administration must be connected with the people. That being said, China is also a large and diverse country, so having different administrative divisions helps answer to local needs. This is really the secret behind China’s success. China doesn’t have a “disaffected generation,” no matter how much western media loves magnifying smaller issues.
Tell that to the Uyghurs
Ask them yourself, or better yet, listen to what thousands of them came together to say.
Everyone knows you heffalump for the CCP Cowbee
I’ve not heard the term before, but either way, I’m not affiliated with the CPC in any way. I do support them, as well as China’s socialist project, but I do so as a communist outside of China trying to organize for socialism where I live.
I hope one day you find yourself in a re-education camp and when you do, think of me and all the shit you shilled 🫶
They think they’ll be the ones re-educating. It’s why they support their flavor of fascism, they’re just upset they didn’t get to shoot the victims.
Do you have an actual rebuttal to anything I’ve said, or is it all snark with you?
Whilst i’m open to different perspectives, broadening the definition of democracy diminishes what it is at its core.
You’ve also linked an image that has no source with a bunch of red and green squares which means very little to me.
I find it very strange that people exist that need to shill for China when the country can defend itself.
We can have a balanced discussion but if it’s one-dimensional (eg. spruiking Leninism) then I don’t really want to hear it. Honestly because it’s just boring.
Democracy means rule by the majority. I didn’t really broaden the definition of democracy, I stated that democracy has many different forms. Western pluralistic representative democracy in practice is less democratic, as it creates competing blocs of capitalist parties. The ruling class continues to rule, while the majority only experience democratic participation to the extent of participating in the theater of it all. Socialist democracy comprehensively integrates the people into the governing process, blurring the lines between those in and outside of government.
Regarding the source, it’s from the latest Democracy Perception Index, gathered by NIRA data. It’s a western organization that seeks to track perceptions of democracy. What’s illuminating is that Chinese people feel pretty good about their system and are working to improve it.
As for me “shilling for China,” it’s more that I’m a communist and I want socialism in the country I reside. Part of growing the movement for socialism is showing that alternatives to capitalism are both viable and work well, which can take the form of defending China from misconceptions or outright disinformation campaigns. I’m also just a massive nerd, and Marxism-Leninism is a bit of a hyperfixation of mine.
Not sure what you’re getting at with the “one-dimensional” comment.
honestly mate not going to yuck someone’s yum but you’re taking me back to the days I would skip the lecture and go to the uni bar instead.
I guarantee that the Chinese citizens working as slaves on fishing trawlers off the coast of Peru who haven’t seen land for months (possibly years) aren’t thinking that China is all too democratic.
my advice - take it or leave it - books are great, reading is great but experience life rather than expressing just pure definitions. No matter was ‘ism’ you align with there’s always a trade-off.
Maybe you’ll understand this and maybe you won’t, that’s up to you.
Chinese fishermen/women aren’t slaves. Of course experience is tremendously useful, it’s the only way we can actually internalize what we learn through study. Theory and practice are mutually reinforcing, and through application in my own life Marxism has been tremendously useful for understanding the world and moving through it. I can see how and why applying Marxism at a society level would be tremendously beneficial because I can relate to it on an individual level.
my dude you have a lot to learn about life.
and yes they’re slaves. maybe you should find out what china’s been doing off the coast of south america for years at the edge of international waters.
I have very good feeling that if you’re not a bot you’re an extremely robotic individual.
Karl Marx is dead bro. Find your own life,
No, they aren’t slaves, and this is deeply chauvanist of you to claim that without any evidence whatsoever. Further, you begin to dehumanize me just because I happen to take socialist theory and organizing seriously. I do have my own life and family, I am an active member in my community, and part of that action is socialist organizing because I believe a better world is possible. Stop dehumanizing people that you disagree with, it’s incredibly rude and childish.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
[…] but I wonder if their government will be able to transition to a democratic one.
Why would they do so? The current oligarchy is profiting from the way the government is now (central control, cronyism from top to bottom):
[…] whatever Xi Jinping and CPC propaganda teams may say about “common prosperity,” “Marxism,” “socialism”, “communism”, blah blah blah … the fact is that communist China is an oligarchy and a plutocracy like the U.S. or most capitalist countries.
https://worldaffairs.blog/2021/10/08/how-corruption-and-oligarchy-work-in-china/
[…] will they be able to solve their youth unemployment issue or will they just crack down on dissent?
Let’s ask the people of Hong Kong:
There have been numerous instances where officers have been accused of abusing protesters after they had been subdued, and the police have either denied or been provocative in their responses.[3][72] Riot police officers have been seen in online videos surrounding subdued protesters, kicking, punching, or clubbing them, to be stopped only by residents or by colleagues.[73][74] Another common technique is kneeling on the necks of protesters to subdue them;[75] or banging demonstrator’s heads to the ground, causing further injury;[76][77] stomping on the heads of subdued protesters during arrests are commonplace.[78] Police also often dragged already subdued protesters along the ground – a tactic defended by the claim that they had been “uncooperative”.[79]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_misconduct_allegations_during_the_2019–2020_Hong_Kong_protests
I think it’s quite easy to simply say that “China is an oligarchy like the US,” but actually backing that up is a different manner entirely. China does put its money where its mouth is, when it comes to talk of common prosperity. For example, real wages for working people have skyrocketed year over year in a manner far outpacing capitalist countries:
The same applies to Marxism, socialism, and communism. Not only is it abundantly clear when reading the speeches of CPC leaders like Xi Jinping that Marxism-Leninism plays a central role in how the CPC operates, but this also continues to the educational and scientific sectors. The Chinese Academy of Social Sciences regularly produces compelling geopolitical analysis from a Marxist frame, it also can effectively explain the process of developing socialism:
As for the people of Hong Kong, most are happy to be further integrated into the rest of China after many years of colonization. Right-wing elements tried to protest a law that would allow a murderer who fled to Hong Kong to be tried in the mainland, couching it as “pro-democracy,” but China is already democratic. It has a different form of democracy than western countries (for more on that, see Socialism in Power), but it’s a robust system that integrates policy from the bottom-up and then reinterprets it through a Marxist-Leninist frame. What was actually being protested in Hong Kong was the advance of socialism and the retreat of capitalism, which is why even western-friendly media admits that the protests were billionaires backed. Of course police brutality is tragic, but at such a wide scale it’s doubtless that Wikipedia could find some evidence to help stack the narrative in the billionaire’s favor.
Overall, understanding China requires more than just listening to professional “China watchers.” It’s important to actually gain a basic understanding both of the social landscape of China as it actually exists, and Marxism-Leninism to understand why it functions the way it does, and why it works so well while the western world seems to be in freefall.
Not only is it abundantly clear when reading the speeches of CPC leaders like Xi Jinping that Marxism-Leninism plays a central role in how the CPC operates
True. No billionaire or dictator has ever lied. Not just never most of the time, but never every time. Never in the history of the universe.
My point isn’t that Xi Jinping is “telling the truth” (nor is he a dictator or billionaire), my point is that for those with an understanding of Marxism, it’s abundantly clear that he knows what he is talking about. He is correctly demonstrating a coherent understanding of dialectical materialism, and explaining the application of Marxism-Leninism to China’s conditions. You cannot really “lie” about that like you can a campaign promise (though the CPC is enormously popular for consistently delivering on its ambitious promises), just like a physicist watching a sci-fi movie can tell when the director consulted scientists or not.
If you have a basic understanding of Marxism, I recommend reading the article and seeing if it lines up with your understanding. What doesn’t line up? Bring it up here!
Chinese billionaires working for the state good! Marx said so!! The state will wither away after another billionaire!
Do you have an actual rebuttal to my points? Here’s Engels describing the eradication of private property as a gradual process in The Principles of Communism:
Q. Will it be possible for private property to be abolished at one stroke?
No, no more than existing forces of production can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society.
In all probability, the proletarian revolution will transform existing society gradually and will be able to abolish private property only when the means of production are available in sufficient quantity.
China’s present path of development facilitates the rapid development of the productive forces. This is why marketization is deployed in secondary and developing industries, not in highly developed or critical industries, as private ownership has nothing to offer. At low levels of development, markets are tremendously effective. Here’s Marx and Engels in Manifesto of the Communist Party:
The bourgeoisie cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole relations of society. Conservation of the old modes of production in unaltered form, was, on the contrary, the first condition of existence for all earlier industrial classes. Constant revolutionising of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones. All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.
The point Marx and Engels bring up here is that marketization is a rapidly developing force. The bourgeoisie in China cannot help but play a part in this role. However, this is a moribund role, one destined to eliminate its own basis:
The bourgeoisie keeps more and more doing away with the scattered state of the population, of the means of production, and of property. It has agglomerated population, centralised the means of production, and has concentrated property in a few hands. The necessary consequence of this was political centralisation. Independent, or but loosely connected provinces, with separate interests, laws, governments, and systems of taxation, became lumped together into one nation, with one government, one code of laws, one national class-interest, one frontier, and one customs-tariff.
This right here is the connection between capitalism and socialism. It’s why capitalism produces the own means to extinguish itself. When capitalists in China participate in this marketized sector, they facilitate the end of their own basis. They stitch together production into a new socialized base, one that the socialist state relentlessly and mercilessly appropriates with respect to the degree that it develops:
The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible.
Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.
As this process continues, the basis of the state withers away. The basis of the state is class struggle, and when all property has been collectivized into one unified system, it ceases to have a base from which the state emerges. This is the economic case for the withering of the state, elaborated by Engels in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific:
The state was the official representative of the whole of society, its concentration in a visible body, but it was so only in so far as it was the state of that class which in its time represented the whole of society: in antiquity, the state of the slave-owning citizens, in the Middle Ages of the feudal nobility, in our time, of the bourgeoisie. When ultimately it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself superfluous. As soon as there is no social class to be held in subjection any longer, as soon as class domination and the struggle for individual existence based on the anarchy of production existing up to now are eliminated together with the collisions and excesses arising from them, there is nothing more to repress, nothing necessitating a special repressive force, a state. The first act in which the state really comes forward as the representative of the whole of society – the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society – is at the same time its last independent act as a state. The interference of the state power in social relations becomes superfluous in one sphere after another, and then dies away of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things and the direction of the processes of production. The state is not “abolished”, it withers away. It is by this that one must evaluate the phrase “a free people’s state” with respect both to its temporary agitational justification and to its ultimate scientific inadequacy, and it is by this that we must also evaluate the demand of the so-called anarchists that the state should be abolished overnight.
This is why it is important to have a Marxist understanding, and not simply phrasemonger. China’s socialist path is fully in line with Marxist economics and theory.
Have you now found a fabricated data pretending that “wages for working people have skyrocketed” in China? The most important thing in your comment is that you share an image, but not the link.
To help you out:
Between the 1980s and to the mid-2020s,
- the bottom-50%'s share of China’s wealth has decreased from 16% to 6%
- the bottom-50%'s share of China’s income has decreased from 25% to 13%
In the same period,
- the top-1%'s share of China’s wealth has increased from 15% to more than 30%
- the top-1% share of China’s income has increased from 6% to 16%
China’s richest 10% now own almost 70% of the countries wealth, and they earn 44% of the income.
Inequality levels in China are equal to those in the United States in the meantime.
In European countries and other democracies like Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, the inequality is much lower.
You can look up the data here.
The situation in China gets worse, as the county’s gig economy nears half the workforce while worker protections lag behind. There is ample evidence for that.
You are confusing a chart of real wage growth with share of overall wealth. The data I provided is easily backed up by the World Inequality Report in 2018. China’s capitalist class has risen in terms of total wealth more rapidly, thus a rising inequality since 1980, but this has come alongside the single most rapid improvement in the lives of the working classes in history thanks to China’s absolute rise, alongside successful poverty eradication campaigns.
The growth of wealth inequality is the tradeoff for this rapid development. Had China not adopted marketization in secondary and developing industries, growth likely would have remained high but unstable, as it was until Reform & Opening Up:
Rather than the slightly more accelerated and far more stable growth afterwards:
Comparing wealth inequality of a developing socialist country to developed imperialist powers like European states, and genocidal settler-colonial projects like Canada, New Zealand, and Australia is dishonest. All of those countries depend on the exploitation of the global south, as well as the displacement and genocide of native peoples in the settler-colonies. Internally, wealth inequality in imperialist countries is lower, but when we actually view the totality of the imperialist system we can see the actual immiseration of the global south that keeps western economies flowing. China does not run on imperialism, finance capital is thoroughly state controlled and kept out of the hands of the capitalist class.
It is intensely dishonest to frame me as a liar for demonstrating the actual rapid development in living conditions and real wages of the Chinese working classes, and pretend I was talking about wealth inequality decreasing. These are entirely separate phenomena, yet your conclusion that China is getting worse relies on you substituting my point on wage growth with your point on inequality. Even if inequality is increasing temporarily, it is only increasing in the context of rapidly improving conditions for the working classes, which is the actual point I was bringing to the table.
Terrible propaganda on your part that anyone can see through.
