Google leaves China in protest of censorship

Yay or nay?

  • Yay

    Votes: 8 88.9%

  • Nay

    Votes: 1 11.1%
  • Total voters
    9
Yax

Yax

Ancient Mariner
Discuss here. China is the new rising super power, but one where its citizens are sverely oppressed. The internet is under a massive censorship where words such as "democracy" are removed from the search engines. Now that China's become a major player in global politics very few of importance speak of it anymore, in fear of repercussions. I wonder how much longer they can keep this up. China is growing ever more capitalistic yet they maintain their censorship. I don't think it's going to work in the long run, since the foundation of capitalism is a free market. To have a free market it's essential to have freedom of speech where you can operate - freely. Hooever, a lot, if not a majority of China's people support this way of doing business - They believe it is inevitable in order to make its country run and they are hesitant to change it. This isn't just the conservatives outside of the big cities speaking, but citizens everywhere.

Anyways. Google, the massive enterprise which motto is "do no evil" finally had enough of having to censor their search engine in China. They threatned to leave China and has since been in negotiations with the Chinese government . Acting like an actual country - which they can since they are one of the most powerful companies in the world. In the end, the negotions failed and Google is now preparing to leave China - With big loss in profit as a result.

Yay or nay?

Edit: This was my 666th post. Coincidence? I think not.
 
Hurray for Google. Enough is enough.

Of course they took a big risk, China could take action and block its services.

At the moment: when someone in China searches on Google he'll be directed to Hong Kong's Google.

What's interesting is that China can't hide their actions anymore. They'll openly have to show whether or not they'll filter a site, being legal in Hong Kong.
 
Well, it doesn't surprise me that this has happened. Google is a benevolent technology dictator in a world full of evil ones, and they made the right call, basically telling China it's time to shape up or ship out. I bet there's a lot of ex-pat Chinese who work at Google who support this call as well. And it will remind the Chinese people who relied on Google exactly what their government has been up to.
 
Bah. China doesn't give a fuck about Google.
The only thing why Google wants to bail out of China comes to Chinese contract-granted capability to monitor inner workings of Google's search engine, and basically copy them to Baidu.

But it's nice too see how many naive people around think it's about democracy and freedom of speech.

Ahahaha.
 
Oh, are you talking about the competition with Baidu? Google haven't won anything here, except maybe abit of sympathy. They have lost a lot of money.

Edit: Ah.
 
I'll cast the contrarian vote and ask, is this likely to hurt or help the people in China in the long run?  Not at all clear to me. 
 
hockeyguy666 said:
good for google. China just gets worse and worse
Click to expand...

Hmm, considering China has been around for oooooh.... thousands of years  I'll say the same than China's first Premier Zhou Enlai when asked in the mid-20th century for his opinion on the historical significance of the 1789 French Revolution, he is said to have replied: "It's too soon to tell."

While Zare may like to shit on rainbows and sacrifice unicorns, he has a point in that it is rather insignificant when talking about ideas like "democracy" and "freedom", words seldom understood even in "western" "free" states. It was business. Google simply wasn't happy with it's business in China. Good for them? Of course, regardless of money lost, that is what happens in bad business deals.

As for:

Yax said:
China is growing ever more capitalistic yet they maintain their censorship. I don't think it's going to work in the long run, since the foundation of capitalism is a free market. To have a free market it's essential to have freedom of speech where you can operate - freely.
Click to expand...

China has proven that no, you don't need a free market to make profits. Capitalism and Communism are ECONOMIC systems, DEMOCRACY and SOCIALISM are governmental models. China is simply a socialist capitalist nation and making it work... for now. Will it implode? Collapse perhaps? EXTREMELY likely. so-called free market economies crash... China will not fair any better and when they do THAT will bring the world to its knees. It will make the current crisis look like a paper cut.
 
Onhell said:
Capitalism and Communism are ECONOMIC systems, DEMOCRACY and SOCIALISM are governmental models.
Click to expand...
Not true, I think you misunderstand. Democracy and socialism are not two different governmental models. They are not separate from eachother. Socialism is more of an ideology stretching from extreme left (think Soviet) to Social Democracy which in its current state is capitalism with welfare and some market regulations and countries whoich practises Social Democracy in the western world are very much so democratic. Socialism does not equal dictatorship - Because Socialism is a spectrum and there are different nuances and degrees.

Onhell said:
China has proven that no, you don't need a free market to make profits.
Click to expand...
Yes well. China has one of the most extreme capitalistic systems in the world, but come on, how can that coexist with monitoring its citizens in the long run when you always have to assume your cell is bugged and you get your hotel room searched (quoted from swedish reporter on visit in China)? Short term sure, but if China is to expand further they need to open up. Not to do so will reduce their growth.
 
Yax said:
Yes well. China has one of the most extreme capitalistic systems in the world, but come on, how can that coexist with monitoring its citizens in the long run when you always have to assume your cell is bugged and you get your hotel room searched (quoted from swedish reporter on visit in China)? Short term sure, but if China is to expand further they need to open up. Not to do so will reduce their growth.
Click to expand...

Theoretically, yes. Practically, we won't see that happen in quite some time. Dictatorial governments come in the way when a free market is threatening to hit the limits of its growth. The problem is that China still has an immense growth potential, and that's why it is being so successful in the first place. I know that when we think of China, we think of boom towns like Shanghai, Hong Kong or Chongqing. And yes, the growth has been going on for many years now... but China is an enormous country with a ridiculous population, and even now most of the people do not benefit from China's economic miracle. As long as the Chinese government can promise its people a change for the better and can keep that promise, things are not going to change. When growth stalls, the majority of the population remains unaccounted for and realise they are waiting for their better times in vain, that's when the Chinese tyranny is going to become it's own mortal enemy.
 
Yax said:
Not true, I think you misunderstand. Democracy and socialism are not two different governmental models. They are not separate from eachother.
Click to expand...

I never said they were mutually exclusive, just a look around the world shows every country operating under some degree of a mixed model, governmental and economic, but theoretically, ideally... they are different. Democracy comes from the ground (people) up, when socialism is from the top (government) down. And don't give me that crap that in a democracy the government is the people, because that is not even the argument.

As for the growth, Perun answered that.
 
Onhell said:
Democracy comes from the ground (people) up, when socialism is from the top (government) down.
Click to expand...
What you are talking about is a dictatorship, which is not remotely the same as Socialism. It's understandable though that you associate Socialism with dictatorship because that's how it has been in the extreme left Socialistic countries. Like Soviet or Cuba.

Socialism itself is an ideology and not a governmental model which is divided into several wings. That is not even debatable. That's just how it is.

However, as I said, there are governmental models as a result of Socialism or Capitalism etc but that's another story. Socalism is not more of a governmental model than Capitalism (they are pretty much each other's opposites). They are ideologies on which governmental models are founded. Democracy or dictatorship - Now there's two governmental models. Socialism and Capitalism are not governmental models. Period.

Which we talked about from the beginning of course, we're (or I?) are kinda drifting from the subject. I'm just think that Socialism is a pretty stupid word because it is so nuanced, which is why I argue about it (not trying to be an elitist here or a know it all, I just sincerely think the term Socialism, at least today, is misguiding when it is applied to a very broad spectrum).
 
Yax, I don't need schooling on what socialism "actually" is. You're right, I'm talking about dictatorships, because that is as actual as socialism will ever get. I've read my Marx and Engels, trust me.

I never said Capitalism was a governmental model.. what thread are you reading? I said it was an ECONOMIC system.

Now, what I think you are trying to say is that Socialism is not a governmental model, the actual name is Authoritarian... correct? there is Tyranny (dictatorships), Authoritarian, (China, Mexico... Russia) and *sigh* "Democracy"... Is this what you are driving at? because you keep saying what it is not, but not what it is.
 
I think what Yax is going at is the adoption of socialist principles in democratic governments. This is something that exists and is very common in Europe, even though the name varies in individual countries. The French know it as Socialism, the Germans call it Social Democracy, the Brits, I believe, refer to it as Democratic Socialism. I assume the Swedes call it Socialism, judging by the confusion we have here. It has very little to do with Communism.
 
Exactly what I'm trying to say, Per.

Nah, we call it Social Democracy too, but this is fresh from a discussion I had a few days back with a Libertarian who thought Communism = Western Social Democracy.

And the whole comparison with Capitalism: Socialism and Capitalism are basically each others' opposites so if Socialism is a governmental model so is Capitalism which it is not (as you agreed with). That's why I brought Capitalism in.

Also I have already said what Socialism is: An ideology. That's what I want to say. It is an ideology on which governmental models are built upon. It can be a democratic structure or say dictatorship.
 
A lot of people who were oppressed by Communism also think Socialism = Communism.
It's almost impossible to get that out of their minds. Some of them even say Obama is a Communist.

Thankfully younger people (the future) feel different about it and are able to see the differences.
 
The problem is that many Communist governments used the term "Socialism" themselves. For instance, the full name of the Soviet Union was "Union of Socialist Soviet Republic". The East German government also hardly ever spoke of Communism (In fact, I can't think of a single time they did). Their ruling party was called the "Socialist Unity Party of Germany", and the system was referred to as "Real existing Socialism". So naturally, people here are wary when somebody calls for "Socialism". In fact, some people even start to think of "National Socialism", even though they are two entirely different things. That's why the term "Social Democracy" has been coined. I prefer that myself, because "Socialism" does have the ring of an ideology to it. If somebody tries to sell me an -ism, chances are I'll give it back to them straight away.
 
Ok, now I get it. However, we are not talking about France, England or Germany, we are talking about China. Communist/socialist/tyranny/dictatorship/howeverthefuckyouwanttocallit going "capitalist"
 
Perun said:
Theoretically, yes. Practically, we won't see that happen in quite some time. Dictatorial governments come in the way when a free market is threatening to hit the limits of its growth. The problem is that China still has an immense growth potential, and that's why it is being so successful in the first place. I know that when we think of China, we think of boom towns like Shanghai, Hong Kong or Chongqing. And yes, the growth has been going on for many years now... but China is an enormous country with a ridiculous population, and even now most of the people do not benefit from China's economic miracle. As long as the Chinese government can promise its people a change for the better and can keep that promise, things are not going to change. When growth stalls, the majority of the population remains unaccounted for and realise they are waiting for their better times in vain, that's when the Chinese tyranny is going to become it's own mortal enemy.
Click to expand...

True.  

There is a lot more mercantilist elements in Chinese economy than free-market.  The current system won't last; it is just a question of when.  Sooner or later to maintain improvements, the Chinese will have to produce for the Chinese market.  If you recall, I linked an article of a Chinese mall, the largest in the world and empty.  Entirely planned cities exist as well, just waiting for the middle class to arise.  That middle class will not come under the current system.

Anyway, Google made the right move.  Their motive is maintaining their property rights.  
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top