
Public Opinion in Authoritarian States - barry-cotter
http://scholars-stage.blogspot.com/2019/09/public-opinion-in-authoritarian-states.html?m=1
======
guai888
It feels kind of surreal to read an academic discussion on a subject that I
have personally lived through my whole life. I was born in Taiwan in 1970. I
emigrated to US around 1983. Before I came to the US I was thoroughly
indoctrinated by KMT propaganda(KMT version of the history). I felt patriotic
to the KMT regime and totally believed KMT narrative until the time I started
my study in US university where I was able to read books and magazines which
talked by history and issues that were banned by KMT. I was deeply angered and
felt betrayed by the KMT government. The emotion that I experienced was a
strong motivation for me to seek "Taiwanese identity". I wanted to point out
that CCP(Chinese Communist Party) do have strong control over the Chinese
students who studied oversea just like what KMT has done in the past. All
major universities with sizable Chinese students have "Chinese Student
Association" which keep track of the students on campus. There are Chinese
students who got paid by CCP to file regular reports on their fellow students.
These are a powerful tool for CCP to control what Chinese students can say or
do while they study oversea.

~~~
rstuart4133
A few interviews with Chinese students in Australia caused a cognitive
dissidence in me I still can't throw off.

The meat of the story was the students who came to Australia had been fed a
steady diet of propaganda, just like you, but after having been in Australia
for a few years with no limitations on what they could read or see, they still
thought (or at least said they thought on TV) the propaganda they were fed
better reflected reality than the "fake news" they saw in Australia.

They can't all be that dumb, surely?

I'm guessing the real reason is they expect to go back to China one day and
are over here to further their careers in China. One of the reasons for this
belief is when a Chinese minority stage a protest in the capital outside of an
embassy, these overseas students turn up like clockwork and stage an anti-
protest.

This organised paid-for like protest is fairly rare in Australia, so it's
caught a lot critical attention. The only time I recall it happening is Labour
Union protests stages by workers for the Union itself, however even in that
case the people doing the protesting were true Union believers.

~~~
chibg10
I think a big part of it is that most (recent) mainland expats still mostly
consume mainland (i.e. censored) news media and social media, and their
friends in their destination country are almost exclusively other mainland
expats. Reading and writing Chinese is significantly more comfortable for most
expats and mainland Chinese media has cultural appeal for them as well for
obvious reasons.

It takes an unusual and frankly relatively rare amount of independent thought
and personal research to believe something at odds with a reality that your
entire social network accepts as obvious fact. Especially when you start from
the same manufactured reality that they did. And I would guess, even among
expats, speaking about such doubts of the official CCP line probably is met
with significant resistance among other mainlanders as mainlanders tend to be
relatively nationalistic (as a product of their censored media and “patriotic
education“). Why bother with it then? Which is also a part of contemporary
Chinese cultural (no doubt nurtured by the CCP) — politics are is the business
of the government, not the governed anyway.

So, in short, there’s a lot of political inertia for mainland expats, not a
lot of incentive to consider other views, disincentive to adopt other views,
and a lot of work to learn about other views anyway (must be in English in
non-work hours, learning a whole alternate history and political philosophy
takes a ton of time, your network of Western friends with sufficient knowledge
to discuss these topics with is probably amounts to zero). So really, it would
almost be more surprising if they were flipping views — even though,
personally, I’ve spent significant time learning the CCP canon and find it
rather obviously holey.

~~~
js2
> It takes an unusual and frankly relatively rare amount of independent
> thought and personal research to believe something at odds with a reality
> that your entire social network accepts as obvious fact.

Let that be a lesson to us all.

~~~
guai888
I would like to point out that, Taiwanese people paid a heavy price to break
KMT's stranglehold on Taiwan. The price that we paid is the blood of the
innocent. Let me give you an example: One of the democrative movement leader
Lin Yi-hsiung's mother and daughter were killed under suspicious circumstance
while he was imprisoned. The KMT authority said it was a robbery went wrong
and the killer was never caught. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lin_Yi-
hsiung](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lin_Yi-hsiung). There were many cases
like that under KMT's martial law rule. People in China will also has to pay
blood price in order to break free of CCP. We have already hearing story that
CCP is assassinating people in Hong Kong right now to put down current unrest
in Hong Kong. Please remember, authoritarian regimes kill. The lucky one like
Jamal Khashoggi got killed without torture. The unlucky one like Lin Yi-hsiung
has to live with the pain that his mother and daughters died because of him.

~~~
60325throw
> Please remember, authoritarian regimes kill.

Exactly. Heck, even non authoritarian regimes will drone strike people if they
get in their way.

------
chippy
A really good read. Fascinating stuff.

A key bit was:

"Almost no one changes their mind because of one day' argument. Instead, we
slowly start to see ideas we once would have rejected out of hand as
"reasonable" only after we have been exposed to other people whom we respect
or identify with who believe them."

This is something that is important with today's political climate in the west
(UK and USA) as the right have as their leader someone who almost everyone on
all sides agree doesn't command respect or behave as a statesman should. (and
the left have lost touch with the lower classes, choosing instead to identify
with the middle classes and their identities.)

~~~
charliesharding
> the left have lost touch with the lower classes

How do you define "lower classes"? If you mean household income then quite the
opposite is true: [https://www.people-press.org/2016/09/13/2016-party-
identific...](https://www.people-press.org/2016/09/13/2016-party-
identification-detailed-tables/)

~~~
chippy
I'll try to describe it. The stats are correct in that the working classes
have shrunk. In the UK, Labour was the champion of the working class, now they
look upon the same people as "vulnerable people". Losing touch in that way and
instead adopting a more paternalist role towards them due to a much larger
middle class. The left used to work with the poor, now they work for the poor,
if that makes sense? Socialism now is no longer about the working class but
about the middle class looking after the working class.

~~~
tossAfterUsing
If any of you think you're not working class, I would suggest a thought
experiment:

Could you stop working permanently today, continue to thrive & not experience
a change in lifestyle?

if the answer is 'no', you're still working class.

'class consciousness' includes these three categories:

\- Working \- Managing \- Ruling

The managing class is there between the ruling & working classes, doing it's
job to tell you what to think & tell the ruling class how you're responding to
leadership.

~~~
zjaffee
There is absolutely a difference between middle and working class people. To
suggest there isn't is a complete lack of understanding with regards to what
it means to be working class.

By definition middle class people work, it's in the middle between people who
have to work to survive and the independently wealthy. However, the middle
class has the capability to build wealth, own a home, retire someday, leave a
little over for their kids to get their lives started. Working class people
are often life long renters, would go bankrupt if they got cancer or any other
serious medical illness, would be in significant financial strain if their car
broke down, they very likely do not have the means to save up 6 months worth
of expenses as a safety net.

Yes, these terms are rather antiquated, but with each and every passing year,
there is an increasing distinction between the professional & managerial class
(often referred to as the middle and upper middle class), and the precariat
class (the working class). Also note that the former makes up ~34% of the
population, and the later makes up 45% of the population, with the 1% on the
upper end and the truly poor on the other end.

~~~
vraivroo
Your so-called "middle class" is merely a subgroup of the working class.
Trying to differentiate between an upper working class and lower working class
is simply snobbery.

~~~
bryanrasmussen
or it may be economics or sociology or any type of trying to build a rational
model of how things work.

~~~
CriticalCathed
No. If you have to work for a living, you ARE working class whether you have
pretensions of being upper or not.

------
chongli
Tanner’s blog (Scholar’s Stage) has been mentioned a few times on HN over the
years but this is the first time I’ve noticed one of the postings. I’ve become
a big fan of Tanner’s writing and I encourage anyone interested in geopolitics
in general and China’s relationship with the West in particular to read this
blog!

------
adolph
A similar idea called "preference falsification" is put forth by Timur Kuran.
See Episode 4 of the postcast "The Portal"

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzjqjU2FOwA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xzjqjU2FOwA)

------
ausbah
So social divisions in authoritarian countries with a seemingly homogeneous
populace are a facade. It is simply because there is no dissident political
avenues from which social divisions can attach themselves to and make
themselves manifest. Return freedom of expression and the whole charade
crumbles.

------
tareqak
I really liked reading this post. The most profound part for me was this:

> "Normal" is another way of saying, "What is considered acceptable within my
> in-group."

I very frequently tell people that I have trouble understanding what “normal”
is in the context of things like issues of health or other people’s behaviour
because I only really know how how I feel. In addition, I find survey
questions that try to bucket frequencies of some event into an unrelated
numeric scale in order to quantify or qualify said event similarly
bewildering. I never could explain why any better than using something like
“you’re not me”, or “I only have one life”. I guess another possible way to
describe “normal” would be something like “most common anecdote”.

------
FooBarWidget
The author concludes with the idea that it is good if China becomes democratic
in the way the west is, but I don't feel so comfortable with that idea. Lately
I have come to realize many flaws of the democratic system, at least as
currently implemented by many western countries. I don't see the emergence of
divisiveness as a good thing. When people vote because they long to belong to
a group, not because it is sensible policy, it will undermine the long term
prosperity of said democracy.

Don't more people worry about this? Why do I get the feeling that too many
people stick to the notion that democracy is automatically good, without
considering possible reforms to address its current weaknesses?

Another thought: It is entirely possible that the CCP is not keen on democracy
exactly because of democracy's weaknesses. Weaknesses that traditionally kept
China weak. If we want China to accept democracy we can't just keep labeling
them as 'evil' and call it a day, we should _actually_ come up with a better
sell.

~~~
throwaway66920
> It is entirely possible that the CCP is not keen on democracy exactly
> because of democracy's weaknesses. Weaknesses that traditionally kept China
> weak.

It is amusing that you attribute such selflessness to a political faction; the
CCP no less

~~~
FooBarWidget
For all its faults, I don't think the evil caricature is an accurate
description of the CCP (or most other entities that westerners consider
'evil', with the exception of some WW2 figures). I believe the truth is more
nuanced than that. (Edit: please don’t misinterpret this as me saying that the
CCP is virtuous. I hereby specifically assert that I am _not_ saying that. We
need to stop the black and white thinking)

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, elegant and
wrong. As long as you stick to simple black and white views of the world, you
stand no chance to actually solve problems.

Also, what does selflessness have to do with this? If the CCP's goal is a
strong, prosperous, unified China then it is rational to avoid decisions that
don't lead to that goal. Unless you think the CCP is not interested in that,
and is only interested in enslaving people for their own amusement. Then we go
back to my opinion about the evil caricature.

~~~
throwaway66920
The CCP’s goal, much like the vast majority of political factions out there,
is to maintain / grow political power.

You’re setting up a very unreasonable straw man in suggesting that the CCP is
either cartoonishly evil, or virtuous

~~~
FooBarWidget
No. I never presented a binary option. I specifically said that the situation
is nuanced, and that I reject black and white thinking.

I said that CCP is not caricature evil, and that many westerners have a hard
time believing that. However, “not caricature evil” does not equal virtuous.
Not being at the desert does not mean that you are at the north pole.

As for your notion that the goal of the CCP, as well as all other governments,
is to maintain/grow power: I agree that that plays a part. I do not agree that
that is the _only_ part. I believe there is a mix between maintaining/growing
power, legitimate national concerns, and personal advanced. Just like with
everything else in life, human motivation is complex and multi-faceted.

But all this talk about “ _how much_ evil they are” is, in itself, a diversion
from more productive endeavors. I see way more value in addressing weaknesses
in our democracies first, and then ‘selling’ this, than continuing to argue
how much evil various governments are.

~~~
throwaway66920
except the incompetencies of democracy don’t really have anything to do with
the blatant faults of the Chinese government. The censorship, aggressive
propaganda campaigns, re-education camps for ethnic and religious minorities,
probable organ extraction from unwilling political prisoners, high levels of
corruption at every level, deceitful business arrangements with government
sponsored theft of IP, aggressive expansion into areas that don’t want Chinese
interference, etc. the situations aren’t comparable. We don’t need to care
what government ideology brought China to its current position. It is
sufficient to say that a world where China has more geo political power is
probably a worse one

~~~
osdiab
Look through that list of injustices. If you're a mainstream Chinese person,
most of it doesn't strongly affect you. And additionally, if you're a
mainstream Chinese person, your life is very positively affected by the surge
in power, wealth, and order that has come to China in recent decades.

That power and wealth was not fated to come by divine right, it's something
that the CCP has achieved through strong—often unethical—but usually (not
always) effective leadership, whether it be in setting industrial strategy to
produce tons of jobs for formerly starving rural Chinese (while the US has
lost jobs for its working class consistently); developing cities to have best-
in-world subway systems and high-speed rail on the base of villages that
didn't have reliable water or electricity decades ago (while the US hasn't
improved its infrastructure in decades); and paving the way for many of the
worlds' foremost scientists, to be Chinese-born (while the share of Americans
doing the same thing has been in decline).

You cannot say the same for many, if any, other developing countries in the
world. And I think most mainstream Chinese people you'd ask (if you can),
would say that they do believe the CCP does represent and work for the benefit
of the Chinese people.

(Note, I didn't say its minorities, I said its people—those mainstream Chinese
who comprise the vast majority of its population).

Whether or not you think it's "good" for this government to have more power or
represent the world, is largely irrelevant. If you want that system to look
more like yours, you have to make the alternative materially better _for those
who benefit from it_ (or beat that system into the ground). Calling it evil or
listing out human rights violations does not achieve that goal, and represents
a fundamental misunderstanding of the values that underpin it.

------
baybal2
The sentiment towards power is very fluid.

The Manchurian empire of Qing was swept by the anti-British uprising, not
anti-Manchu one.

People _indeed do_ somehow gravitate towards successful totalitarian states,
but are extremely negative towards totalitarian states not doing well.

~~~
smacktoward
The one big argument for a totalitarian state is that it can at least make the
trains run on time. If your totalitarian state can't even manage to make the
trains run on time, it's just a bunch of downsides (stifling
disciplinarianism, reduced opportunity, pervasive fear, etc.) with no obvious
upside to compensate for them.

~~~
goodcanadian
The totalitarian state is much less likely to actually make the trains run on
time than to create an environment where you wouldn't dare to complain about
the fact that they aren't.

~~~
mrkstu
Small geography/city states seem to be able to pull this off with more
frequency. Singapore/Dubai both seem to function extremely smoothly despite
the less than stellar political freedom.

------
aj7
40% of Americans would accept an authoritarian state, if their ethnic and
other prejudices were catered to. It would be more interesting if the article
had approached this, too.

~~~
devmunchies
> if their ethnic and other prejudices were catered to

being with people like you who share the same culture is the natural
inclination. its the opposite that needs to nurtured and "catered to".

Nothing wrong with wanting to live with other Somalians, other Japanese, or
Northern Europeans, as long as the different communities collaborate and get
along.

>40% of Americans

probably more like 80%. people just want peace, the current climate is chaos.

~~~
lotyrin
Can you explain this more because I really can't wrap my head around this
concept of some kind of natural state of a homogenous group of humans.

Even if we were to simulate a preternatural perfectly uniform society of
clones, wouldn't they need to have different ages, genders and vocations and
wouldn't they as a consequence of living their lives arrive in a variety of
economic and health circumstances? Wouldn't even this artificial society
therefore find a benefit in having the capacity to value and include each
other despite their differences?

~~~
_iyig
I assume that by “share the same culture” the author meant things like
language, value systems, religion, inherited biases, and views on the scope
and purpose of government.

Within these categories, there’s a range of tolerance levels from “I love my
neighbors and would sacrifice my well being for theirs” to “I’m OK with my
neighbors but don’t feel any sense of group attachment,” all the way down to
mass riots and civil war.

------
mlevental
"They are rarely grounded in an ideology cannily crafted from first
principles. Like most of our beliefs, the reasons for political convictions
are constructed after we have settled on them.[5] Attempts to make the tangle
of positions endorsed by Republicans or Democrats congeal into one coherent
ideology are post-hoc justifications. Ideological coherence ultimately matters
less than commitment to a coalition."

is `values` synonymous with `beliefs` here? if so, isn't coalitionism a first
principle itself? and therefore really what's happening is there's a hierarchy
of beliefs and primary beliefs (such as loyalty, faith, etc.) inform secondary
(more fungible) beliefs/political interests.

personally i have throughout my life heard people say things to that effect
("god, family, country"). it has stood in stark contrast to how i've felt
(because i didn't grow up religious, don't have close family ties, am an
immigrant - so not patriotic) and as a consequence (i hypothesize) affects the
way in which i approach politics, in that i try to reason things out from
first principles.

~~~
nine_k
Staying in power is the first principle. Most of the rest is post hoc
rationalization.

Look at it from a game-theoretic angle.

Your moves may increase your chance to stay in power, increase your chance to
get to the power, or symmetrically decrease either chance.

You can choose to always act to increase the chance to be in power, or
sometimes decrease it willingly because of your values.

At every turn, some players leave (e.g. due to age), and some new players with
either strategy join the game.

I posit that the concentration of players in power with the "anything for
power" strategy will be higher on average than of players in power with
"sometimes risk power for values" strategy. With a low enough rate of losing
power due to external causes (not the strategy), the concentration of
"anything for power" players staying in power may become very high, up to 100%
sometimes.

