Family planning as political control

This article in the FT caught my eye:

Outside investigations have suggested Uighurs are being forcibly sterilised and children are being separated from their communities. Leaked documents, revealed by the Financial Times, show that the most common reason for detention in the camps was a violation of family planning policies; the second most common reason was being a practising Muslim.

A few years back, China changed it’s birth control policy from “one child” to two. At the time, I wondered why they maintained any limit at all. After all, China’s birthrate is far below 2 per family and China’s population is set to fall dramatically during the 21st century. (India’s population will exceed China’s later in this decade.)

This FT story provides one rationale. China is a very authoritarian society, but not completely lawless. The real problem is that their laws are too repressive. Having this law on the books provides a legal pretext, a sort of fig leaf, for the crackdown on Uighurs.

Many commentators like to call China “communist”, or “Marxist”. This is nonsense. I’ve been there, and I can assure you that there is absolutely nothing communist about modern China. Instead, China has basically become a fascist nation:

1. Authoritarian
2. Nationalistic
3. Bullying
4. Han-supremacist
5. Mixed economy
6. Intolerant
7. Misogynist
8. Teaches a fake history that ignores the CCP’s crimes while emphasizing how China was victimized by others.

That’s almost a textbook definition of fascism.

In recent months, the new national security law in Hong Kong has garnered a lot of criticism, and deservedly so. But it’s important not to lose sight of the fact that even today Hong Kong remains much freer than the rest of China (except Taiwan), while Xinjiang is far less free than the rest of China.

Did I mention that America’s president encouraged Xi Jinping to put the Uighurs into concentration camps? Perhaps I need to, as you won’t hear that fact from GOP Congressmen demanding that America get tough with China.

PS. Sad to see that political correctness has come to Taiwan. They plan to rename their national airline, which is currently called “China Airlines”:

“The ministry should make China Airlines more identifiable internationally with Taiwanese images to protect Taiwan’s national interests,” said legislative president Yu Shyi-kun of the independence-leaning party DPP. “Overseas it is mistaken for a Chinese airline.”

Gee, I wonder what would make outsiders assume that an airline that was specifically named “China Airlines” is a . . . you know . . . a Chinese airline. Names can be so confusing.

PS. Here’s a very good article on conservative cancel culture.


Tags:

 
 
 

26 Responses to “Family planning as political control”

  1. Gravatar of Brian Brian
    23. July 2020 at 11:55

    May be if they call it “Republic of China Airlines” that would solve their problem. ROC and PRC should be easy enough for people to distinguish.

  2. Gravatar of Alan Goldhammer Alan Goldhammer
    23. July 2020 at 12:08

    Scott – right on target about the classification of the current Chinese government. I sometimes wonder what Deng Xiaoping would make of all this.

  3. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    23. July 2020 at 13:29

    Brian, Or “The Real China Airlines”. The China that claims Mongolia is a part of China.

    Alan, Hard to know–people are a product of their time.

  4. Gravatar of John Hall John Hall
    23. July 2020 at 13:45

    On cancel culture, I think a better comparison is the McCarthy era or getting homosexual people fired. That was conservatives going after people outside of government and making them lose their jobs.

    My take on that article is that political parties or organizations whose primary purpose is to communicate said political opinions try to impose ideological discipline. Moreover, what is described in that article is largely efforts within these (political or pseudo-political) organizations, rather than outside of them. Conservatives trying to get their ideological opponents fired from non-political jobs seems to be uncommon nowadays, especially in contrast to the left. They started out attempting to cancel people largely on the right, but have steadily moved their sights leftward. Hence, the Harper’s letter.

    Nevertheless, it’s important to emphasize that cancel culture is not unique to the left-wing. It is a tool of illiberal people everywhere.

  5. Gravatar of Benjamin Cole Benjamin Cole
    23. July 2020 at 15:12

    Good post.

    I would like to see more blogs on monetary economics.

    The Bank of Indonesia is directly financing the government of Indonesia. Will this lead to inflation, or will it work due to use in moderation?

    In April, the financial times reported the bank of England would directly Finance government outlays there. This is an interesting topic.

    In the US, some analysts say that when unemployment benefits are reduced, we will see a sharp reduction in consumer spending and then a reduction in GDP. Can monetary policy be revved up quickly enough and with enough results to offset such a reduction in fiscal outlays?

    China not communist? Xi says China practices “Marxism with Chinese characteristics.” Perhaps it is possible to run a communist fascist state.

  6. Gravatar of Jg Jg
    23. July 2020 at 15:19

    Surprised at Scott’s reaction to forced abortions. Usually, the libs love abortion. I think scott would say it is very utilitarian. So why not? And jeepers creepers who cares other than from a theoretical perspective if suffering from totalitarian evil is more right or more left. At the end of the day it is all mafia.

  7. Gravatar of Michael Sandifer Michael Sandifer
    23. July 2020 at 17:00

    Yes, I’ve long considered Xi to be another example of fascist leadership that’s come to power in recent years.

  8. Gravatar of Benjamin Cole Benjamin Cole
    23. July 2020 at 18:03

    We can count on Disney and the NBA (the No Balls Association) to stand up to fascist dictatorships.

  9. Gravatar of Can Sar Can Sar
    23. July 2020 at 20:16

    Jg, Independently of how you feel about abortion the difference between giving people the right to do something and forcing them do it should be rather obvious. Also Scott is not a “lib” in the US political sense in which you seem to be using it.

  10. Gravatar of Skeptical Skeptical
    23. July 2020 at 23:02

    This is a generational thing. Boomers consider Taiwan as (the real!) China. With all of the fanciful theoretical claims on land that it entails.

    The younger generation considers themselves Taiwanese, an independent identity that is culturally Chinese yet distinct from the mainland, and entertains zero fanciful claims on land.

    As Boomers retire from positions of power this identity transition will become more apparent to non-Taiwanese.

  11. Gravatar of Tacticus Tacticus
    24. July 2020 at 00:08

    ‘Many commentators like to call China “communist”, or “Marxist”. This is nonsense. I’ve been there, and I can assure you that there is absolutely nothing communist about modern China. Instead, China has basically become a fascist nation.’

    Why are you always so soft on China??

  12. Gravatar of J.V. Dubouis J.V. Dubouis
    24. July 2020 at 00:57

    @Scott: “That’s almost a textbook definition of fascism.”

    You can also add “Cult Personality” to the list with Xi Jinping scraping the whole concept of collective leadership established under Deng Xiapning and accumulating the most power in hands of single person since Mao.

  13. Gravatar of Cartesian Theatrics Cartesian Theatrics
    24. July 2020 at 01:28

    I struggle a little with the nationalist thing. The risks/negatives are extraordinary, but the starbuckisification of the globe is pretty dark. The very real loss of cultural identity is clearly driving fascist movements. Yes it’s “far mode”, but it’s already really sad driving the US and seeing cities essentially repeated one after another. There needs to be some kind of an artistic revolution, or nationalism will win. The more the “globalist agenda” poisons art–a trend I suspect is accelerating–the more it will ultimately fail.

  14. Gravatar of Mark Z Mark Z
    24. July 2020 at 01:30

    It seems difficult to motivate people toward totalitarianism in the name of humanity, so most communist regimes seem to careen toward nationalism. The Soviets, Titoism, most of the third world socialist movements, even those started by sincere Marxists, seem to end up, essentially, with national socialism.

    Speaking of demographics, if current population projections are to be believed, China won’t even likely be gaining on the US in terms of GDP for much longer, as its declining population (the US is expected to continue growing for a while longer) will offset its faster per capital GDP growth rate. If total GDP is a reasonable proxy for influence, China isn’t as far away from its zenith relative to the US as most people seem to think. I expect the ‘China is taking over the world’ sentiment will, in the next 20 years, turn out much like ‘Japan is taking over the world’ from the late 1980s.

  15. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    24. July 2020 at 09:44

    Tacticus, You said:

    “Why are you always so soft on China??”

    You’ll have to ask Christian List. 🙂

  16. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    24. July 2020 at 09:53

    John Hall, You said:

    “Conservatives trying to get their ideological opponents fired from non-political jobs seems to be uncommon nowadays, especially in contrast to the left.”

    I recall Trump saying that the NFL should fire athletes who protested during the National Anthem. Kaepernick basically lost his job for that. Conservatives have tried to cancel anti-Israeli academics. Having said that, the differences you describe are partly real–each side focuses on different form of repression. Because intellectual industries are controlled by the left, most of the cancelling in those industries comes from the left. The NFL is a right-wing industry.

    Jg, You are a very sick person.

    Skeptical, I agree.

    JV, Good point—I should have mentioned that.

    Cartesian, I’m fine with local cultures, and even patriotism. I just don’t like nationalism.

    Mark, Yes, we will look back on this madness the way we now look back on US hysteria over Japan during the 1980s.

  17. Gravatar of Christian List Christian List
    24. July 2020 at 09:57

    Scott,

    a good blog entry, but I would disagree on some points, especially regarding the fascism thesis.

    “Fascist” is used too inflationary, often as a synonym for “totalitarian”, but it’s not exactly the same. Fascism is only one subgroup of totalitarianism, the other subgroup would be communism.

    China is a totalitarian system, that is for sure, whether communist or fascist could be argued about forever, mostly because the final stages of fascism and communism are very similar.

    I would keep it rather simple, all totalitarians in history so far have labeled themselves (including the CCP), so it’s actually that simple: if the totalitarians call themselves fascists, then they are most likely fascists, and if the totalitarians call themselves communists, then they are most likely communists. So far there isn’t even one exception to this rule.

    What would a totalitarian communist system look like in your opinion, if not like CCP China? CCP China fulfils almost perfectly most characteristics of a totalitarian communist system in its final stage:

    One-party system, the elimination of the political opposition, the superior position of a leader (dictator), an ideology considered binding for all, manipulation of the masses through propaganda (and terror), the exercise of terror against dissenters, and the tendency to subjugate all areas of life to ideology and political and social rule.

    I think there is almost only one main difference between totalitarian communist and totalitarian fascist systems:

    Fascism so far always formed a surprisingly close symbiosis with old (conservative) elites, whereas communism so far always waged a war of annihilation against the old elite and almost completely replaces the old elite with a new elite.

  18. Gravatar of Christian List Christian List
    24. July 2020 at 10:32

    You’ll have to ask Christian List. 🙂

    Sad to see that political correctness has come to Taiwan.

    Scott,

    if you ask for it, I have to pick up the ball. 🙂

    The main part of the blog entry is good, the part about Taiwan not so much.

    You have a tendency to give a new meaning to established terms, in this case “political correctness”. At least you try, but it’s so weird and usually not understandable; it’s more like helpless attempts to establish a new propagandistic narrative.

    A change of name has nothing to do with political correctness.

    Close to nobody in the West refers to Taiwan as China. Moreover, the reputation of CCP China has suffered since the corona crisis, while Taiwan’s reputation has improved considerably. It makes sense on many levels to further acknowledge the reality that Taiwan is better off remaining independent, and to reflect that reality they need to use the term Taiwan and Taiwanese as much as possible.

    If Taiwan does not consistently rename itself, they will lose partners and clients who are critical of CCP China.

    Furthermore, continuing to call yourself “China” provides CCP China with an excuse to invade every time. CCP China would claim that it is not an invasion at all, but a “field excursion” to a “renegade” province.

  19. Gravatar of John Hall John Hall
    24. July 2020 at 10:34

    “I recall Trump saying that the NFL should fire athletes who protested during the National Anthem. Kaepernick basically lost his job for that.”

    Honestly, I don’t pay too much attention to the NFL outside the Superbowl. My recollection from the time was that Kaepernick was in the later half of his career and started to underperform compared to other QBs (and at least the NFL has quantitative metrics where we can measure QBs). There are strong competitive forces in the NFL that give teams an incentive to sign players who are quantitatively better than others. However, things start getting a little tricky when there are several candidates to choose from of similar overall ability (though perhaps along different dimensions).

    I wouldn’t dispute that the impact of hiring Kaepernick on profits through reduced merchandise sales was a factor in decision-making. At the end of the day though, I’m not entirely satisfied with that as a justification. For instance, so-and-so said something political that is construed negatively in the media or on social media, then if that has a negative impact on profits, then I should fire them and hire someone else. I don’t know if I support that line of thinking.

    A better argument might be distinguish private speech, public speech, and on-the-job speech. Kaepernick was basically involved in political speech in a work environment (particularly a non-political work environment). That gives your employer a lot more leeway to restrict it, in my opinion, than private speech. I would have a bigger issue if the NFL was unofficially black balling him if he only advocated for issues privately, or even if he did it publicly with the disclaimer that the 49ers did not necessarily endorse his comments.

    “Conservatives have tried to cancel anti-Israeli academics.”

    I’ll take you at your word here as it’s not an issue I pay too much attention to. This would be in the same camp as McCarthyism, though I don’t think being pro-Israel is necessarily a Republican or Democratic position per se.

  20. Gravatar of cbu cbu
    24. July 2020 at 13:08

    1. Authoritarian – Who cares if Chinese people do not mind?
    https://ash.harvard.edu/news/ash-center-researchers-release-landmark-chinese-public-opinion-study
    2. Nationalistic – Patriotism is a sign of Fascism?
    3. Bullying – How many countries did the U.S. invade in its short 250 years of history? So the U.S. is a Fascist country?
    4. Han-supremacist – White supremacist
    5. Mixed economy – mixed economy is socialism with capitalist characters
    6. Intolerant – The West is as intolerant as China. But they are doing a much better job to conceal their intolerance with political correctness and public relations.
    7. Misogynist – What?
    8. Teaches a fake history that ignores the CCP’s crimes while emphasizing how China was victimized by others. – How do you know they are teaching fake history? Exactly what Crimes did CPC commit? Why is it a lie that China was victimized by others?

    China is a socialist country with capitalist characters for the following 3 reasons:

    1. Politics controls capital.
    2. Public and national ownership of land and natural resources
    3. The wide-spread existence of State Owned Enterprises.

    China is not a fascist country because of 2 and 3.

    If you drink too much Kool-Aid from the Western MSM-Intelligence-Think Tank complex, then you are poisoned to the extent of being unable to spot even the most blatant lies.

    For example, how do you explain the fact that Xingjiang’s Uyghur population doubled over the past 40 years?
    https://twitter.com/SpokespersonCHN/status/1277993782508576768

    How do you explain that the proportion of Uyghur population in Xingjiang has also increased?
    https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1277660796525465607

    The Xingjiang sterilization story is just some recycled old fairy tales of the “Tibetan Sterilization” from a few years ago.

    https://twitter.com/Tom_Fowdy/status/1277665013034082311

    https://thegrayzone.com/2019/12/21/china-detaining-millions-uyghurs-problems-claims-us-ngo-researcher/

    https://www.weirdworldwire.com/who-is-adrian-zenz/

    https://medium.com/@RobertArlan/a-reddit-ama-claiming-to-be-a-uiyghur-quickly-exposes-a-cia-asset-slandering-china-1d667c098b77

  21. Gravatar of msgkings msgkings
    24. July 2020 at 13:48

    @Christian:

    The only truly totalitarian communist system on Earth is of course North Korea. Communism is what is going on in China, with massive actual wealth and profits flowing to millions (billions?) of people. The government is of course heavily involved, it’s not pure capitalism, or even mixed capitalism like in the US and moreso Europe.

    It’s state capitalism. Not communism.

  22. Gravatar of msgkings msgkings
    24. July 2020 at 13:48

    Correction, communism is NOT what is going on in China

  23. Gravatar of Christian List Christian List
    24. July 2020 at 15:12

    @msgkings

    I was currently trying to compare totalitarian fascist to totalitarian communist systems.

    It may sound counterintuitive, but I deliberately left out economic aspects, because the economic views of both communism and fascism are contradictory in itself and do not make sense.

    The CCP has recognized this problem of communism after the collapse of the USSR and carried out some market economy reforms.

    But in my opinion this does not make it a fascist system, because then one would follow, for example, the radical left propaganda that capitalism and fascism are closely connected, for example that fascism is the authoritarian final form of capitalism. It is not. Most fascist systems, if not all, were little to not capitalistic at all.

    CCP China is, for historical reasons as well, a totalitarian communist system that has implemented some market economy reforms. Before 1989 one did probably not imagine that this was possible, but the CCP proved us all wrong.

    But they still control most (other) relevant aspects of daily life. As I said they subjugate most, if not all, areas of life to ideology and political and social rule. And they can take your property at any time, it is not really a state of law, if the party decides so, your property is lost immediately.

  24. Gravatar of ssumner ssumner
    24. July 2020 at 19:53

    Christian, You said:

    “I would keep it rather simple, all totalitarians in history so far have labeled themselves (including the CCP), so it’s actually that simple: if the totalitarians call themselves fascists, then they are most likely fascists, and if the totalitarians call themselves communists, then they are most likely communists.”

    And North Korea claims to be democratic, so . . .

    You said:

    “Close to nobody in the West refers to Taiwan as China.”

    Actually, the US government considers Taiwan a part of China, as does the Taiwan constitution.

    But seriously, you don’t think it’s funny that a place that named its national airline “China Airlines” is sometimes mistaken for a part of China?

    I’m totally opposed to a Chinese invasion, which is why I don’t want Taiwan to declare independence.

    On your silly final comment, I’ve spent a lot of time in China, and it’s clear you know NOTHING about the country. You are describing life under Mao. China today is far more like America today than it like China under Mao.

    cbu, You don’t know the difference between nationalism and patriotism? Really?

    You asked:

    “For example, how do you explain the fact that Xingjiang’s Uyghur population doubled over the past 40 years?”

    Easy, they have a high birth rate.

  25. Gravatar of Scott Scott
    25. July 2020 at 00:14

    Great Post.
    Although you don’t have to visit China to understand they are not communist. All you have to do is look at the number of billionaires. A mode of production that creates billionaires is clearly not communist.
    But they are fascist!

  26. Gravatar of Christian List Christian List
    25. July 2020 at 13:33

    On your silly final comment, I’ve spent a lot of time in China, and it’s clear you know NOTHING about the country. You are describing life under Mao. China today is far more like America today than it like China under Mao.

    Scott,

    I, once again, don’t understand what you’re so upset about. You described CCP China as fascist, authoritarian, nationalistic, bullying, Han-supremacist, intolerant, misogynist, and a fake teacher of history.

    Somehow you seem to think I said something worse or beyond “fascist” for instance. It’s hard to tell what’s that supposed to be. Worse or beyond fascist? Are you sure?

    And North Korea claims to be democratic, so . . .

    That was not my point at all. My point was that the two subgroups of totalitarianism, communism and fascism, have an extremely bad reputation and low status. So if totalitarians call themselves communists, one must have very good reasons for rejecting their low-status self-discription. Not to mention that you labelled them as their arch-enemies.

    And by the way, your example proves my thesis. Communists love to call themselves democratic, but a fascist has a very strong aversion of calling himself democratic. You also completely forgot the strong anti-communism of fascism. A fascist would never call himself a communist, and vice versa. NEVER.

    I think I have given more than enough reasons why it is unnecessarily complicated and ahistorical to call the communists in CCP China fascists, even if it seems tempting at first glance.

Leave a Reply