I somehow fear I will be downvoted for this, but the article highlights how it's very easy for these goods to end up in our supply chains without our knowledge:
>The Huafu Textile Company is located on the edge of a grey industrial estate in the city of Huaibei, in China's eastern province of Anhui.
> It was to this factory that Buzaynap, featured in the state-TV report, was sent
> [...my own rather selective cut...]
> Amazon told the BBC that it does not tolerate the use of forced labour and that where it finds products that do not meet its supply chain standards, it removes them from sale.
I for one wish it were easier to not buy products from China as a whole. With some things -- food, for example -- it's very easy. With others -- electronics or consumer goods -- it is almost literally impossible. It's quite apparent that they've engaged in an ideologically driven purge of the Uighur culture (much like a concomitant "reforming" of Hong Kong's) -- there's just too much independent evidence to suppress that hypothesis.
If the coronavirus pandemic has shown us anything, it's that we need to be able to be a bit more self-sufficient and (for all nations!) having a national manufacturing base able to make certain goods is a sensible idea. I know that economics ultimately stopped the Soviet state machine from rolling over the civil rights of its populace to quite the extent that it once did; I don't know what that tells us here.
You'd need to speak to a proper historian, but in my reading of sources about it it seems we already have a much better understanding of what the Chinese are doing than contemporaries of the Terror did.
The Soviets were never in a position to overtake the world, and the idea that they were was a US misreading of the spread of communism and the influence of Soviet agitators - who showed up everywhere - as though they weren't doing exactly the same things the CIA were.
The Vietnam war, for instance, was prosecuted entirely on the faulty assumption that a communist Vietnam was just going to become a subsumed extension of the Chinese government, rather then what actually happened, which was it became communist Vietnam and continued to vigorously oppose Chinese influence, as well as ultimately becoming fairly integral to the eventual downfall of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia after the war.
The "domino effect" was American institutional panic that was encouraged because it led to policy decisions with favorable, easy domestic political consequences and huge handouts to business interests.
My thoughts. China will sell. Perhaps not in USA, Edit: EU (not UA), Japan, etc. But how about India, Pakistan, all African countries, all Arab countries?
They play the loooooooong game, and they are winning it. I believe that Russia's (and Russians) ideology is closed to Europe & USA's, while China is a full-on dictatorship.
There's no reference to forced labor anywhere in the article. It's just typical Chinese migrant labor, going from absolute 3rd world subsistence farming to a crappy, dangerous tenement factory job because that's actually an improvement.
So I'm not sure boycotting their work product is necessarily the right moral call here, even if it were possible.
Let's just ignore the copious evidence of rape, false imprisonment, enslavement, organ harvesting, mass sterilization, forcing young girls to live with abusive Han families, etc. because this one single article doesn't directly reference forced labor.
Do you wish to make the claim that the BBC's investigations which have reported on that activity are reporting false information? Or do you have some evidence of your own to provide? Do you have anything to add other than cheap denials of established facts?
That article disputes the validity of one of the BBC's sources. (I'll note that it seems to take state propaganda at face value, which is pretty questionable). What about all the other sources and findings of the BBC investigations? Is it all just one big conspiracy?
> China's policy of transferring hundreds of thousands of Uighurs and other ethnic minorities in Xinjiang to new jobs often far from home is leading to a thinning out of their populations, according to a high-level Chinese study seen by the BBC.
Funny story, this has been going on for decades as a pro-Uighur economic development campaign. Lots of migrant labor in China in general, and it's not always easy to get permission to move to where the jobs are under the hukou system. It's actually a great economic opportunity.
Notice that there's no actual reference to anyone being forced to do anything. They just imply it by working in statements that are against the general concept of forced labor.
China really is more like fascism than Marxism in my opinion. I occasionally follow some communists on Twitter, and they are surprisingly pro-China even though China is a far cry from their Marxist ideals.
It really is. I was just recently reading that the Chinese government is actually having a big problem with young people taking communism seriously and starting to ask questions about the massive sweatshops and inequality in the country, which are not things that are supposed to happen with the communist party in charge.
It’s very interesting to me how often communism ends up looking like fascism, and yet many people are very open and tolerant of the former while absolutely petrified of the latter. Violent authoritarians concern me in general, and I take little comfort in them being left-wing, rather than right-wing, authoritarians.
EDIT: Lots of downvotes and no rebuttals. Looks like I inadvertently struck a nerve.
You don't understand, Bernie is the one saying health care is socialism. Obviously medicare for all isn't socialism, but Bernie is selling it as socialism and now the youths want actual socialism because they think Socialism is just free healthcare
See how that makes the word "socialist" which should cause a liberal to recoil similarly to "Nazi" sound safer? And don't forget Bernie supported Chavez, so it's not like he doesn't know what he's doing.
He's intentionally revitalizing the brand of socialism with stuff like healthcare (as many communist revolutionaries like Castro have done historically, they always promise free healthcare) to pave the way for the Chavez style Socialism he has always expressed admiration for
Reading some speeches by Mao helped me to understand the meaning of "socialism" better. Communism is just the end goal that can only be achieved once humanity is "perfected". Socialism is the means of perfecting humanity in order to eventually achieve communism. We call it Communist China, but it never achieved communism in this sense and was always merely socialist, even under Mao. This article is similar to how Mao described communism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_society
If it helps anyone, communism is an eschatological state similar to the "New Heaven and New Earth" of Christianity, while socialism is the prelude to it, the "Thousand-Year Reign" of Christ.
I've heard some devout communists echo this, but I wonder if this is the political science definition or if someone created a new definition in order to move the goalposts. With respect to the standard PoliSci definition, I recall being taught that Communism is "the public owns everything" and Socialism is "the state owns everything", and I'm still not super clear on what the difference is. Assuming what I was taught was actually correct, what does it mean for the public to own something in a way that is distinct from state ownership?
Not my beliefs, but trying to accurately represent the ideas: Having a state is only necessary during the socialist phase. When society is perfected and true communism is achieved, the state is unnecessary. What Mao refers to as socialism seems to be equivalent to Marx's "dictatorship of the proletariat" phase, which involves the gradual abolishment of the capitalist elements of society (including people). When capitalism and class have been fully abolished, the state is supposed to wither away on its own.
Thus, the public "owns" the means of production but there is no state to own anything. The idea of common ownership has a long history and I think that it's a valid concept here, even if it's awkward considering that what we normally mean by "own" is more or less the opposite of what it means in common ownership.
This StackOverflow answer has more detail:
> Communists who agree with what Lenin wrote in "The State and Revolution" and what Marx and Engels wrote, believe that the state will "wither away" when what Lenin calls "class antagonisms" vanish. The state emerged as a tool for class control, and they believe it will fade away as there is no class to dominate or be dominated by another.
It seems obvious to me that people will oppress one another quite readily whether there are class differences are not. I can't make any sense of how Marxism is supposed to actually work—it sounds like a religion where supernatural help is needed to achieve godliness, but without any god that could actually provide that help. Perhaps the ideas themselves are supposed to be powerful enough to overcome human nature.
> When society is perfected and true communism is achieved, the state is unnecessary.
I mean, "the public" still has to make decisions on the allocation of resources, goods, etc. Is the idea that every little decision is put before the whole community to vote on? Everyone spends all day voting on everything? Even assuming the Magic Wand of Communism absolves us of our selfish tendencies, is it also going to make us all experts in medicine, energy, engineering, etc? Or do we regress to agrarianism or worse? If the answer is "we elect people to manage our medicine, energy, engineering, etc", how does that differ from a state?
I understand this isn't your idea to defend, but I think there are problems with the idea of "statelessness" even if people are cured of all selfishness.
> In social relations between people certain voluntary social norms will have to be accepted, namely, the obligation to fulfill a freely accepted agreement. Anarchism is not no government. Anarchism is self-government (or its equivalent, self-administration). Self-government means self-discipline. The alternative to self-discipline is enforced obedience imposed by rulers over their subjects. To avoid this, the members of every association freely make the rules of their association and agree to abide by the rules they themselves make. Those who refuse to live up to their responsibility to honor a voluntary agreement shall be deprived of its benefits.
> Punishment for violation of agreements is balanced by the inalienable right to secede. The right of groups and individuals to choose their own forms of association is, according to Bakunin, the most important of all political rights. The abrogation of this right leads to the reintroduction of tyranny. You cannot secede from a jail. Secession will not paralyze the association. People with strong, overriding common interests will cooperate. Those who stand more to lose by seceding will compromise their differences. Those who have little or nothing in common with the collectivity will not hurt the association by seceding, but will, on the contrary, eliminate a source of friction, thereby promoting general harmony.
You have a very valid point in the first paragraph, and the second by mixing communism with socialism actually underlines the first one even better. I think US and not only (hello France or Italy) are constantly failing to properly educate people by identifying and naming all those currents. Clumping them together to better vilify them only makes them more attractive for the inevitable rebels.
I don't think people are that open to communism. Rather, they are open to that utopia the communism-by-the-book is trying to sell. In the end this nuance is irrelevant because all the real-world communisms we ever had are (and were) rather dystopian, yet somehow still managing to sell themselves to the utopists. Maybe because people believe what they want to believe?
I think the narrative that fascism and communism are "opposite ends" of some relevant spectrum are flawed. I also disagree that historically "communist" countries are truly communist/socialist, when they often maintained they lived up to certain ideals that they didn't - where does Marx promote purges, for example? Those nations are no more left/liberal than the Nazi party is socialist.
Yeah they're the same ruling structure, the only difference is that Communism enforces a Marx-like or Marx-derived ideology as the only allowed belief system and fascism doesn't have a well defined ideology, it's just used as another word for authoritarian. Fascism honestly doesn't even have a great definition outside of historical fascism
Let’s be balanced; China is not as bad as Nazi Germany. Not even close. But it is true that this soft cultural erasure that they are attempting is very evil.
Lol me: let’s be balanced
You: DIE APOSTATE
Usually I’m the one going all nonlinear! That’s my job guys!
So they're not putting people into ovens yet, but besides that... China has concentration camps, is committing genocide, harvesting organs from ethnic minorities and dissidents, has an elected dictator, performs ethically questionable scientific research, encourages its citizens to rat on each other, uses an oppressive surveillance system, has the desire to rapidly expand its territory, and has basically no concept of human rights. If they're not one-to-one comparable to Nazi Germany, they're pretty much as bad, if not worse in some areas(though I'm sure the Nazis would have been as bad if they had today's surveillance tech).
Nationalistic and ideological flamebait and flamewar are not welcome on HN. This was well over the line. No more of this please, regardless of which nations or ideologies you have a problem with.
Dang, if you think my comment is out of place here, that's fine, but don't mischaracterize what I wrote. Nothing I said was nationalistic or ideological; it's objectively true and reported upon by mainstream media around the world. In the context of my comment, I don't have a "problem" with China. I'm pointing out that China's human rights violations, which are recognized by the international community, are very similar to a certain historical regime cited by the person I was replying to. If this is off limits, then fine, but this sort of overreaction on your part only makes this community less interesting.
By the way, what do you define as "flamebait"? Nothing I said was "flaming" the other person. There wasn't even a flamewar. The closet to that was my comment getting downvoted, which I don't even care about. I'm not going to argue with you, but anyone reading this should at least know how you interpret it.
Maybe it'd be helpful if you were more specific: Should we not comment on a country's human rights violations? No argument from me either way.
It's much shallower than that. You posted over-the-top language about a country, complete with Nazi references. Please don't. It makes internet threads really shitty.
If you don't think "So they're not putting people into ovens yet, but besides that" is flamebait I'm not sure what else to tell you.
China is not innocent by any means, but I sense some hypocrisy from those that arrogantly think they have a higher moral ground here. Pretty much every country has their own "Trail of Tears", even the progressive and almighty Canada only closed their oppressive Indian Residence school systems recently.
Are we supposed to boycott everyone then, and go back to hunting and gathering?
This is such a bad take. Just because something bad happened in a countries history doesn’t mean it excludes them from speaking up about human rights atrocities for the remainder of their existence.
This is a tired argument. It’s not hypocritical or unreasonable to expect better behavior out of governments around the world. And certainly in the case of China, it’s an old enough civilization that we should be able to expect its barbaric Trail of Tears days to be long past.
Why 'China is not innocent'? Yes, China is not Europe, and it is not US. So is its per capital GDP. so is its business. so is it brands. so is its industry. I wouldn't trust BBC at all on these reports. Journalists could use facts but they choose to lie again and again.
At the same time, the British government is playing their game. Coincidence?
> The Huafu Textile Company is located on the edge of a grey industrial estate in the city of Huaibei, in China's eastern province of Anhui.
I more or less grew up in the states, but this is the exact town I was born in, and grey couldn't be a better description for it. It was a mining town when I was little, and I recall trainloads of coal being taken out of tunnels in the mountains, very West Virginia feel to it.
> "a far-right Christian fundamentalist who has said he is “led by God” against China’s government, deplores homosexuality and gender equality, and has taught exclusively in evangelical theological institutions."
I really feel like we’re not getting objective information from either side right now. We shouldn’t have people quoting idealogues like Zenz, or taking the government’s word on things either.
Every single negative BBC articles about China these days reference him, it's actually rather funny considering his track record and background. I don't know why they treat him as some sort of authoritative source about China when he can't even read Chinese and has never been to China.
Is this article one of those super contentious things where people just downvote every comment even if you’re just saying innocuous things like “I wish we had objective facts”? Because I want objective facts, and the truth, in every situation including this one, is that really such a controversial take? What is going on here?
Edit: yep, it’s a flame war with crazy idealogues on both sides saying things that don’t really belong on HN, I flagged it, everyone else should too.
Edit 2: I learned a valuable lesson today: don’t participate in a conversation where flamewars are happening, even if you are trying to advocate some reasonable middle ground. You’re just giving oxygen to the crazies. Flag and move on. Thank you everyone for helping me learn this.
What specifically about this BBC report do you feel is not substantiated enough? You did not get downvoted for calling for moderation, but for making unsupported assertions that contradict the available evidence.
You complained about the quoting of Zenz. Perhaps you are one of those who feel that his Christian faith disqualifies him, or perhaps it's something else. In any case, the BBC does not consider him disqualified, but they also performed many investigations of their own and have corroborated the reports of many people who are not named Zenz. The BBC has provided abundant evidence. They are widely considered to be a reliable source. If you think the BBC is lying, then say so. Otherwise, it seems like you are just throwing stones.
The only way I can see your position making sense and seeming moderate to you is if you take the CCP's official propaganda as of equal weight with the BBC's reports. This seems absurd to me, but I will grant that you can choose to take this view and I do think that you make your arguments in good faith.
Edit: It appears that you got downvoted for calling the ongoing genocide "soft cultural erasure". It would have been okay if you've said "cultural erasure", but the "soft" part is just wrong. There's nothing soft about concentration camps and rape.
Disclosure: I am a Chinese (Han) and live in China for 40 years.
> A 2017 TV report from China's state broadcaster illustrates how the policy works in practice
This report's major source comes from a video broadcasted by CCTV (China's stated own central TV broadcaster), which means this video could not be a video describing any bad state policy logically. And I feel it is more about how you would like to explain what you see and it is highly subjective.
> The video has not featured in international reporting until now
CCTV is broadcasted nation wide and it is likely many foreigners living in China watched this as well, and it is very easy to obtain such a video, so no international reporting doesn't mean anything to hide.
I don't know exactly what happened there at that time but the article is far from convincing from my point of view.
They say it was intended for senior officials and accidentally posted online, which makes it sound exciting, but it looks to be full of dry descriptions and government slogans, so I wouldn't blame you for not reading it. (Personally, I added it to the pile of stuff to read later.)
> which means this video could not be a video describing any bad state policy logically. And I feel it is more about how you would like to explain what you see and it is highly subjective.
It only means that whoever was responsible for approving the video at CCTV didn't think it showed a bad policy. And as you say, that is a highly subjective assessment. It's not surprising that someone at the BBC might see things differently. Even when there's agreement over which outcomes are good and bad, most policies have multiple effects, and depending on how important someone thinks each effect is, they'll come to a different conclusion on the overall impact of the policy.
For example:
- the goal of poverty alleviation is something that both BBC and CCTV can probably agree is a good thing
- the goal of assimilation is something the BBC is going to see much more critically as a loss of culture, partially as a result of backlash to Britain's own history of assimilationist policies, which led to the extinction of languages like Cornish and Manx, not to mention the colonies.
- the article describes Uighurs being separated from their Han colleagues, which both contradicts the goal of assimilation and unlikely to find the BBC's approval anyway, because segregation is frowned upon as well.
- ...but they might change their mind on that if they learn it's to ensure they can eat halal food. On the other hand, they'll never swallow the idea of assigning which food someone gets to eat based on their ethnicity, rather than offering multiple options and letting them choose.
- pressurizing people who don't voluntarily sign up for the labor transfer program is something both BBC and CCTV would see critically, but I feel like CCTV would put the blame on the people who don't know what's good for themselves and don't sign up enthusiastically, while the BBC sees it as a sign that the policy really is bad and needs to be improved until people are willing to participate, otherwise forcing them is another point against it.
> CCTV is broadcasted nation wide and it is likely many foreigners living in China watched this as well
Did you watch it when it was broadcast back then? If not, you might be overestimating the audience it got. I doubt there are very many foreigners constantly watching CCTV. When I was in China, the only time I watched actual TV instead of video-on-demand was when I wanted to learn some of the local dialect, so I tuned into a local TV station. (That didn't really work, because the Mandarin subtitles frequently only loosely matched what was being said, so I barely learned a handful of words.)
> it is very easy to obtain such a video, so no international reporting doesn't mean anything to hide.
I don't think they're trying to imply that this was somehow hidden, but I think they're proud anyway to be the first English-speaking journalists to have paid attention while watching old CCTV recordings. (Okay, most likely they got a tip from someone else, making their job easier.)
> I don't know exactly what happened there at that time but the article is far from convincing from my point of view.
Well, there are many possible things here to be convinced of or not: That the government is bad, that the government's way of dealing with minorities is bad, that this specific policy is bad, that some aspects of the policy are bad, that this is worth paying attention to at all...
Personally I think it's worth paying attention to, because these poverty alleviation and labor transfer programs aren't limited to Uighurs but target the rural poor more generally, which is testimony to China's reliance on the supply of cheap migrant labor to maintain growth. If those migrants feel coerced, exploited or even just treated like outsiders without hukou, who knows how they'll show their anger?
Finally, if you don't mind me asking: how did you find this article? Was it linked on another site or have you been reading HN for a while and simply didn't have a reason to make an account until now?
>The Huafu Textile Company is located on the edge of a grey industrial estate in the city of Huaibei, in China's eastern province of Anhui.
> It was to this factory that Buzaynap, featured in the state-TV report, was sent
> [...my own rather selective cut...]
> Amazon told the BBC that it does not tolerate the use of forced labour and that where it finds products that do not meet its supply chain standards, it removes them from sale.
I for one wish it were easier to not buy products from China as a whole. With some things -- food, for example -- it's very easy. With others -- electronics or consumer goods -- it is almost literally impossible. It's quite apparent that they've engaged in an ideologically driven purge of the Uighur culture (much like a concomitant "reforming" of Hong Kong's) -- there's just too much independent evidence to suppress that hypothesis.
If the coronavirus pandemic has shown us anything, it's that we need to be able to be a bit more self-sufficient and (for all nations!) having a national manufacturing base able to make certain goods is a sensible idea. I know that economics ultimately stopped the Soviet state machine from rolling over the civil rights of its populace to quite the extent that it once did; I don't know what that tells us here.
reply