README.adoc

= China Dictatorship 中国独裁统治
:idprefix:
:idseparator: -
:sectanchors:
:sectlinks:
:sectnumlevels: 6
:sectnums:
:toc: macro
:toclevels: 6
:toc-title:

Chinese "Communist" <<dictatorship,"Dictatorship">> "facts". 中国《共产主义》<<dictatorship,《独裁统治》>>的《事实》。<<faq,FAQ>>, <<news,news compilation>> and <<restaurants,restaurant>> and <<music,music>> recommendations. <<faq,常见问答集>>，<<news,新闻集>>和<<restaurants,饭店>>和<<music,音乐>>建议。<<xi-abolishes-term-limits-2018-03,Heil Xi 卐>>. <<xi-abolishes-term-limits-2018-03,习万岁>>。

image:https://raw.githubusercontent.com/cirosantilli/media/master/Chrysanthemum_Xi_Jinping_with_black_red_liusi_added_by_Ciro_Santilli.jpg[height=300]
image:https://web.archive.org/web/20191013080128if_/https://i.redd.it/c9q6vdybr7i31.jpg[height=300]

toc::[]

[[faq]]
== FAQ 常见问答集

[[why-keyword-attack]]
=== Why attack websites with censored keywords?

<<keyword-attack, The attack>>.

To <<effective,destroy the firewall>>.

This would then end <<censorship>>.

And then <<dictator-needs-gfw,I believe>> that this would also <<why-end-dictatorship,end the dictatorship>>.

The keyword attacks increase the cost of censorship.

If commies censor things, they will get worse IT technology, and thus become less <<richer,less rich>> and militarily powerful.

Since all they care about, like any other politicians, is power, the only way to make them stop censorship is to make the cost of censorship higher than not censoring.

Without the threat that China will be less technologically, and therefore militarily advanced, there is no incentive for the CCP to destroy the firewall.

The goal is to put them in a position where they have to choose between either:

* having military power
* remaining a <<dictatorship,dictatorship>>

but not both, since having both means that they will <<war,start WW3 and destroy humanity>>

Related attack: <<photobombing-like-attacks>>.

[[harm-programmers]]
==== Do you want to harm the Chinese programmers?

No.

This is not a revenge of any kind.

I know I am harming you on the short term, and I don't like myself for it.

But I believe that this harm is a necessary means to reach my real goal, which is to destroy the firewall, and the dictatorship.

Don't you think it is worth a try? Destroying the firewall, would <<why-end-dictatorship,enormously benefit>> not only Chinese programmers, but every single other Chinese person too.

Once the firewall is destroyed, which <<dictator-needs-gfw,may destroy the dictatorship>>, I want China to develop the best science and technology in the world, and <<would-you-like-to-live-in-china>>.

And by the way, by contributing to open source, I am already helping China, and all underdeveloped countries become stronger.

See also: <<disturbs>>.

[[meant-to-be-used]]
=== Politics should not be posted in technical websites such as GitHub or Stack Overflow

Is the Chinese government using the Internet the way it was meant to be used, by investing billions in <<censorship>>?

What about <<nine-nine-six-icu>>? Did you also complain about it, or did you just star it like 250k of your fellow programmers?

Any act of protest will use things in ways that it was not meant to be used.

For example, the street is not meant to showcase protest banners, it is meant to be a passageway for cars.

As engineers, we have a moral responsibility towards society. We should not blindly follow orders of those in power if it violates our principles, e.g. build weapons or censorship mechanisms. And we should freely express our principles and violation concerns.

Making a statement where no one will ever see it, like a personal website, is <<effective,sure to have no effect>>.

Much of the best art and technology is about using something in a way that it wasn't meant to be used.

Finally, the political powers of each website decide what is allowed or not on their website, and what is not allowed gets blocked. So far, Stack Overflow and GitHub's ToS have said go ahead.

Stack Overflow threads: <<do-stack-overflow-policies-allow-for-keyword-attacks>>.

Duplicate pool:

* https://github.com/caffeine-overload/bandinchina/issues/89
* https://github.com/cirosantilli/china-dictatorship/issues/57
* https://github.com/cirosantilli/china-dictatorship/issues/66#issuecomment-528165637 (https://web.archive.org/web/20190911212149/https://github.com/cirosantilli/china-dictatorship/issues/66[archive])
* https://github.com/cirosantilli/china-dictatorship/issues/75
* https://github.com/cirosantilli/china-dictatorship/issues/78

[[why-end-dictatorship]]
=== Why would China be better without its Dictatorship?

Because it would make China, and the world:

* <<richer,richer>>
* less likely to get into <<war,WW3>>
* <<intolerance,safer for its own citizens>>

[[richer]]
==== Why would democracy and freedom of speech make China richer?

There is infinite debate about this out there, some examples:

* http://www.becker-posner-blog.com/2011/05/can-poor-countries-afford-democracy-becker.html (https://web.archive.org/web/20180923192824/https://www.becker-posner-blog.com/2011/05/can-poor-countries-afford-democracy-becker.html[archive])
* https://www.quora.com/Is-democracy-or-authoritarianism-better-for-developing-countries

For:

* dictatorships are more likely to start <<war>> or other crazy policies like the Great Leap Forward, which completely destroy the economy in one go
* society becomes richer when people know that they can do their startups, get rich, and stay in the country without fear of being persecuted unfairly and losing everything instead of migrating to Canada.
+
Any criticism of the government, even if constructive, is taken as menace to power, and more likely to be shut down, which makes the government and just becomes less efficient since there is less feedback.
* governments are monopolies, and the more powerful they are, the worst it is for competition an efficiency in general. E.g.: the startup with better government ties wins, instead of the most efficient one.
* dictatorships need <<censorship>> to survive, and they must control all information to make themselves always look good.
+
As a result, knowledge of problems flows more slowly, and therefore they also take longer to solve.
+
Maybe this hurts my argument, but Hillary agrees: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccGzOJHE1rw&feature=youtu.be&t=2110 "Secretary Clinton Speaks on Internet Freedom", U.S. Department of State, 2010-01-22 :-)
+
____
But countries that restrict free access to information or violate the basic rights of internet users risk walling themselves off from the progress of the next century
____
+
Also mentioned at: link:https://youtu.be/d3dE_LDz_9E?t=1681[Google versus China - VPRO documentary - 2011]
+
This is also well illustrated in the link:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_(miniseries)[HBO 2019 miniseries "Chernobyl"], which suggests that part of the reason why Chernobyl happened is because of the Soviet Union's obsession to save face.
+
Or https://quoteinvestigator.com/2010/05/21/death-statistic/[if you prefer]:
+
____
The death of one man is a tragedy, the death of millions is a statistic.
____

Against:

* presidents only care about the 4-8 year horizon, while dictators can make longer term decisions to maintain power forever, their power being limited only by "the people are happy enough to not start a revolution"
* dictatorships can make changes faster without the same amount of discussion that happens in democracies, where power is more spread out.
+
Killing a million people will make us richer? No problem, let's do it.
+
That is great when they make good decisions, but it sucks when they make <<war,bad ones>> more likely.

I really like https://web.archive.org/web/20180923192824/https://www.becker-posner-blog.com/2011/05/can-poor-countries-afford-democracy-becker.html[Posner's] way of putting it:

____
While average rate of growth do not appear to differ much between democracies and authoritarian regimes, the variability in performance does differ more among authoritarian governments. China has had remarkable growth since the 1980s, but the prolonged devastation and hardship produced by China's “great leap forward” (when millions of farmers starved to death) and its Cultural Revolution would unlikely have occurred in a democratic country like say India. Nor is it likely that say Cuba and many African nations would have suffered so long with such terrible economic policies if they had reasonably democratic institutions.
____

Maybe China was poor because of Mao's crazy communist regime. Similar regimes also made <<russia>> poor. And yes, before that exploitation by the West may have been a factor.

Definitely, the current regime is better than Mao's, but just imagine how rich China could be if it had more freedom and justice.

Imperial China lost the race for the Industrial Revolution. Will another dictatorship be able to stay on top of the next technological revolution?

[[war]]
==== Why would democracy and freedom of speech make China less likely to start a war?

This has been discussed to death:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_peace_theory
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_Peace:_A_Philosophical_Sketch

Some arguments include:

* the people who will actually fight and die on the front can't vote against it
* dictators have huge power, so if they put it in their heads that they want to start a war, it is much harder for sensible people to stop them
* dictators need <<fear-of-west,to keep the people in fear all the time to keep their power>>, and a war is a great way to achieve that

[[fear-of-west]]
==== The commies exaggerate the threat of the West to keep in power

This is a common strategy, but the West is not as evil as they say:

____
Once upon a time, there was a farmer with a farm.

One day, the animals in the farm started feeling a bit trapped, and started bumping against the fence to get out.

The farmer, however, was smart, and told the animals:

_____
Careful! There is a wolf outside! If you go out, you will be eaten by the wolf!
_____

The animals, were not that smart, and listened to the farmer, they were afraid!

From time to time, one of the animals would disappear (and without their knowledge, reappear on the farmer's dinner table).

But the farmer kept giving the animals delicious food without them doing any effort, so they decided to believe the farmer's explanation that that animal had escaped and been eaten by the wolf.

Maybe, there was actually a wolf outside. But if they had escaped, only some of the animals would have been eaten by that wolf.