
The Global Implications of “Re-education” Technologies in Northwest China - bryanrasmussen
https://cgpolicy.org/articles/the-global-implications-of-re-education-technologies-in-northwest-china/
======
dforrestwilson
I am amazed that this isn't a bigger political issue for discussion leading
into the U.S. election.

This is truly horrifying stuff. Anyone who tries to equivocate this with what
is happening in the United States is not only wrong but morally bankrupt. This
isn't even in the same ballpark as GITMO or illegal immigrant detention. This
is orders of magnitude bigger and far more disturbingly intrusive and
arbitrary.

We have to do more to show China that this is not OK.

~~~
jhpriestley
Gitmo was part of a larger war on terror, including the invasion of Iraq and
Afghanistan, which is estimated to have caused millions of deaths. Torture and
arbitrary detainment have been widespread. One of the very few flagrant
criminals to face prosecution in these war crimes was recently pardoned.

~~~
lotsofpulp
“War on terror” was the marketing term the government used. “war for enhanced
funding for military contractors” would be a better name.

~~~
SpicyLemonZest
Naming things in insulting ways to make them look worse generally isn't
better, even if the insults are true.

~~~
lotsofpulp
Naming things with false claims to make them look better is worse.

------
roenxi
Between cheap GPS and facial recognition tracking people is basically free
now. The technology will come to the rest of the world by virtue of simple
economics.

It raises an interesting question of what types of political dissent will even
be possible in this century. The incumbent advantage to the police is huge.

Something I've noticed is that since around the turn of the century is it is
now technically possible for governments to enforce all laws. That wasn't the
case even as recently as the 90s.

~~~
magicsmoke
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit,_Voice,_and_Loyalty](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exit,_Voice,_and_Loyalty)

I remember taking a class where the professor claimed the framework above as
the basis for understanding interactions between people and their governments.
People ultimately have two actions they can take, to use their voice/dissent,
or leave the country.

In a world where dissent isn't possible, leaving will be the only response to
poor governance. How seriously a government takes emigration will also depend
on the people emigrating as a highly skilled engineer is far more valuable to
the national economy and military than a fast food cashier, and this would
skew political influence away from one person one voice towards one dollar one
voice even more. In the event even leaving isn't possible due to an emigration
ban, the only response may be to refuse to work on new technologies and let
the country stagnate economically until the government is weak enough where
dissent/rebellion is possible again.

At the end of the day, power games form the foundation for most large-scale
human interactions, and you only have power over someone if you can give them
something they want, or do something to them they don't want. Governments want
their people to not rebel and overthrow them, and to be economically and
technologically productive so they don't fall behind and get conquered. In a
world where rebellion isn't possible, not giving governments the economic
production they want is the only way to exercise power.

~~~
inetsee
"In a world where rebellion isn't possible, not giving governments the
economic production they want is the only way to exercise power."

Made me think of "Atlas Shrugged"
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrugged](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrugged)

------
jonahbenton
Important piece, every American/western HN reader should read.

The relationship between the policies and practices described here and those
created by the US post 9/11 is alluded to but not sufficiently explored.

Also insufficiently explored, and I say this with trepidation, having no
knowledge or background in the actual conflict in these territories, is the
extent to which the practices described here, enabled by tech, are framed by
authorities with power as "more humane" than the alternative without
technology, which would likely be extermination.

~~~
john-shaffer
I don't think the alternative would be extermination, as the CCP has been very
consistent at using the politically incorrect for slave labor.

The reasoning is given at [1]:

> Mao Zedong's order given in 1957 in one of his speeches, in which Mao
> explained why political prisoners must not be executed:

> 1st: If one was executed, then more would have to be executed for the same
> crime later on for equality, and it would difficult to spare the lives of
> future prisoners who committed the same crime, because justice system would
> be criticized as unequal, giving preferential treatments

> 2nd: Wrong people and even innocent people might be executed by mistake

> 3rd: Executing prisoners could mean the vanishing of evidence

> 4th: When prisoners were executed, it could not increase production output,
> could not improve scientific research, could not strengthen national
> defense, and could not liberate Taiwan

> 5th: You (the Communist regime) would be accused of excessive killings

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qincheng_Prison#Labour](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qincheng_Prison#Labour)

Tracking down the source hit a dead end because I can't justify spending $44
for a speech from 1957. So this quote may not be accurate, but it is pretty
consistent with the CCP's behavior.

~~~
homeless_engi
Much of "The Selected Work of Mao Zedong" is freely available online at [1].
Looking through the speeches readily available, I can't find any 1957 speech
containing the content quoted above.

It looks the the only English language reference to the texted quoted above
originates from a single Wikipedia edit from 2007 [2]. Neither the articles on
"Re-education through labor" nor "Laogai" reference this quote.

It is my belief that this is likely a specious quotation. Mao likely did not
say the text quoted.

[1] [https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-
work...](https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/date-
index.htm#1950) [2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Qincheng_Prison&o...](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Qincheng_Prison&oldid=156815119)

~~~
john-shaffer
Thank you for the references and the analysis! That's very helpful.

------
overtonwhy
What's the best way to support the fight against this? Boycott the companies
linked to the labor from these camps? Boycott all Made in China goods?

------
tomohawk
The disturbing thing is how these technologies which could be used to benefit
all of us are being used by the CCP (China Communist Party) to perfect the
vision of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and others to completely crush individuality.
All aspects of an individual's life can now be monitored, controlled, and
punished.

~~~
kiba
I wonder how that impact the structure of society going forward. It's one to
use the technology, it's another to lead to the collapse of society.

------
thoughtstheseus
This is genocide happening in real time. Systematic reduction and elimination
of a people and culture. Technology can really be a Pandora’s box of sorts.

------
bzb3
"center for global policy" sounds like some globalist lobby.

~~~
conception
I’m not sure if you’re aware but globalist is an anti Semite dog whistle for
“the Jews trying to control the world” and has been for decades.

Some background -

[https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/03/the-
ori...](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/03/the-origins-of-
the-globalist-slur/555479/)

~~~
john-shaffer
That reasoning is absurd. Obama talked about being "on the right side of
history." Does that make him a Stalinist, just because Stalinists used that
phrase 75 years earlier? I don't think so.

"Globalism" is a legitimate term used by proponents, critics, and neutral
parties. It is not a dog whistle.

