Is China's Control of the Internet Slipping?

Garp writes "According to the BBC news site the Chinese governments grip on the internet is slipping. Ever since they allowed use of the internet, the Chinese have been monitoring the information that has been flowing (jokingly referred to as the great fire-wall of china), in an attempt to ensure 'bad' philosophies don't infect their people. However, the internet is having a much more profound affect, out of the control of the government ..."

Comments

Prolly for the better.

[bleckywelcky]

I would say that is prolly for the better for everyone, since we will be able to reach more people with more information. Perhaps this will help in the human rights debates that have been rampant in China over the past years.

Re:Prolly for the better.

[Zeinfeld]

Perhaps this will help in the human rights debates that have been rampant in China over the past years.

The point which is missed in 90% of the posts on this board is that the information most damaging to the communist party comes from inside china, not from outside. External events have a much lesser effect on a country the size of China than internal.

The Soviet Union did not fall because of Reagan, or any policy of the West. It fell because its own people rejected it, first in the satelite states, finally in Moscow. Solidarity, the Polish trade union brought down the USSR in the end. The Berlin wall fell when a bunch of students attacket it en masse and the guards in the watch towers disobeyed orders and refused to shoot.

The issues in China are complex, they are no longer a Stalinist communist regime, they are not democratic, they have adopted a 19th century model of capitalism in which the actual role of the state is to protect the oligarchs and exploiters. The gerantocracy that runs the country is largely in its 80s and their principle driving principle is fear. In particular fear of a return to the days of the cultural revolution of Mao and fear of partition into separate states that are dominated by foreign powers as happened at the turn of the century when the US, Germany, France, Britain and Japan each carved out spheres of influence.

China is rapidly industrializing and output is rising fast. Economically China will be one of the maor powers within ten years. Already the Chineese middle class is larger than the US middle class. As with India, China is a first world power whose strength is obscured by a vast third world hinterland.

Change is comming, but it isn't going to be driven by external forces. In fact external forces are more likely to be counterproductive. The critical mistake made by the Tiannanen Square protesters was building the statue of liberty. Up to that point the communist party was affraid to crush the protests, in particular they were affraid that the soldiers would refuse to fire. However the statue of liberty was a symbol of an alliance with a foreign power and the troops could be sent in to crush that.

Re:Prolly for the better.

[zulux]

The Soviet Union did not fall because of Reagan, or any policy of the West.

Hate to break it to you - but the ideas of the west provided a source of inspiration to the peoples of Iron Cutain.

It's not like they revolted to become more like Saudi Arabia or eastern Africa. The revolted to become more like the west - whom they thought had a better life.

Part of that was helped by communications - Radio Free Europe and the BBC shortwave probably helped more than we could imagine. These were funded by the west for exactly this reason - and after the revolution, afther they have served their call, both have had their funding curtailed.

So the policy of boradcast radio did help spread our ideas - so much so that the poor blockes spent vast resources to block their signals.

Re:Prolly for the better.

[Zeinfeld]

Hate to break it to you - but the ideas of the west provided a source of inspiration to the peoples of Iron Cutain.

If it is ideas that you want to measure then remember that Karl Marx wrote Das Capital in the Reading room of the British Library.

What you appear to be unable to grasp is that whatever was done from the outside had mush less effect than what went on on the inside. The attempt by the idiotic right to claim the credit for destroying the Soviet Union is pure self delusion. The people of Eastern Europe took their own freedom, whatever we did amounted to a small effect on the margins.

That is why there has been little change in the example you cite - Saudi Arabia and Eastern Africa. Those areas have been exposed to Western ideas for far longer than Russia ever was, including the experience of British colonial rule.

The BBC World Service is certainly an effective propaganda tool. I can't say the same for Voice of America which is all propaganda all the time and about as interesting to listen to as Radio Moscow was and for about the same reason.

If you want to effect change then there are much more effective ways to do so than by puffing yourself up with self importance. The US claim to be the torchbearer of human rights is not generally accepted in the rest of the world. The practice of seggragation was only recently abolished in the south, during the cold war the US regularly conived to replace democratically elected regimes with brutal murderers who would do Washington's bidding. It is a great pity that the current administration cheered on the attempted coup in Venezuela rather than condemning it instantly as the rest of the free world did.

Re:Prolly for the better.

[Zeinfeld]

Capitalism is the system where the state's ONLY function is to protect individual rights.

Actually the term Capitalism is Marxist in origin and originally refered to an economic system in which control of the means of production are controlled by means of control of capital.

In Das Kapital Marx wrote about capitalism almost all the time, the bits about the communist system to replace it are little more than an afterthought in comparison. What is somewhat hillarious for European readers is the way that many of Marx's arguments have since been adopted by the right as a defense of capitalism. This is not suprising since Marx was one of the first economists to really explain how capitalism worked and he was not completely against it. What he wanted was a means of harnessing the productivity of capitalism with a social settlement that did not mean that 95% of the population lived in dire poverty. However since Marx is not a politically correct figure to praise the good ideas that Marx had are usually ascribed to Adam Smith.

The political system we live in today is neither capitalist, nor socialist by 19th century definitions. This is something that should have really upset the Marxist idealogues since acording to the theory that is not meant to happen.

Capital is far more broadly distributed than ever before and access to capital is no longer restricted to a tiny class of plutocrats. The type of capitalism that Marx wrote about is practically dead.

Apart that is from in countries like China where control of capital and control of the state are both restricted to a tiny governing elite.

Re:Prolly for the better.

[zulux]

Uh oh. No, no, no. You are the one living in dreams now. What did inspire them was more the living standards; the ideals of democracy were important for rather few people. In many/most cases people in 3rd world countries are interested in getting better standards of living, and couldn't give rats ass about "higher" ideals.


The third world,possibly yes - but not Russia and the eastern bloc. They may have been stunted by the 'revolution' but they are smart and definatly in the first world. You demean them to think that their struggle for democracy was only a struggle for TV and Coke. I encourage you to visit - and you'll see that the quality of people there is capable of idealistic thought and not just consumerism.

Re:Prolly for the better.

[Zeinfeld]

so, yes... the Soviet Union may have crumbled as a result of internal pressure, this pressure existed within the global context of the cold war. I suppose this may be semantic to you, but it is significant enough not to disregard external influences.

Semantics means 'meaning', so debates about semantics are not trivial.

While the USSR spent a great deal on its military it never spent anywhere near as much as the US military claimed it did. Much of the Soviet war machine was badly maintained relics from WWII but for purposes of war games etc it was asserted that a USSR tank was equivalent to a NATO tank. Result lots of think tank studies that concluded that the US needed to arm itself more heavily.

A similar process was at work during the 19th century with Britain. Despite the fact that its navy outnumbered that of any two of the other great powers and moreover Britain controlled the six key strategic ports the press and polity regularly fell victim of invasion fever.

The cure for thinking that external pressures caused the USSR to collapse is to look at it. Whatever the USSR military machine consumed the beuracracy wasted five times as much.

The one significant external event was Afghanistan during which the USSR discovered that it was not a military superpower.

If the diversion of resources was the most significant factor the change would have happened first in the USSR itself where the diversion was greatest. In fact the change began in Chezekslovakia and Poland, countries that were not building nuclear missiles or anti-star wars shields. In fact the original Solidarity protests were sparked because the Gdansk shipyard was getting fewer orders for ships and wages were being cut.

Re:Prolly for the better.

[Zeinfeld]

You have to distinguish between true capitalism and the mongrel form we have in place today.

No we don't. Idealogues like yourself always start off with the line 'you have to distinguish...'. It was bunk when the Marxists tried to explain away the soviet union and it is equally bunk when republicans and libertarians try to explain away out current society.

The problem is not any particular ideology, it is ideology itself. Blinkered libertarians seeking Libertopia are every bit as dangerous as their ideological predecesors.

The idea for a national health figure did not come from Marx, it came from Nye Bevan, and was endorsed by Winston Churchill. The Labour manifesto that promised to establish the NHS was written by George Orwell, so before you try to conflate Socialism and Stalism go check your facts out.

As for Marx not being politically correct, political corectness has been used and is used by the right every bit as much as by the left. The McArthy hearings were a political corectness witchunt. When Bob Dole wagged his finger at Bill Clinton calling him a Liberal he was using the strategy of political correctness. When Bush and his stooges call critics 'unpatriotic' he is using the strategy of political corectness.

And of course when right wing pundits attempt to intimidate reporters with talk of 'the liberal media' they are using the strategy of political corectness.

What right wing comentators complain of as 'political corectness' is most often rejection of bigotry. The fact is that these days the media is not exclusively white male protestants. So if a comentator wants to publish a piece that is racist, homophobic, mysogenistic, anti-semitic or contains some other type of bigotry the chances are pretty good that doing so is going to be a career limiting move since blacks, hispanics, gays, lesbians, women, catholics, jews etc now have positions of power in the media industry and are unlikely to look favorably on a bigot of any kind and especially a reporter whose bigotry is aimed at them.

Some bigots do manage to survive in the mainstream media. Pat Buchanan and David Horowitz for example. But they are forced to disguise their hatred in code to retain access to the media. When Buchanan adopted an overtly racist platform in his second Presidential campaign it ended his CNN career.

Re:Prolly for the better.

[Beliskner]

Thank You, if you had a /. account I'd friend you. You might as well get one, even if you post as AC they still know exactly who you are.

I remember somebody on /. linking to a story between Spetmber-January about that guy that posted pro-WTC attack stuff on indymedia.org and got pulled off a plane and interrogated by some guy in a suit who didn't show ID. And 'cos his wife's Palestinan his kids start crying having to wait while him and her get searched all the time. Might have been a link from a comment on /. some time ago.

Re:Prolly for the better.

[Dyolf Knip]

Well, fascism includes a lot of the racial superiority complexes you find in Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan, and to a much lesser extent Musolini's Italy. A better example would be Pre-WW1 Germany, the Second Reich. A centralized monarchy but great control over the economy in the hands of independent industry magnates. And while it was not something I'd have liked to have lived under, it was nowhere near as repellent as the Third.

Re:Prolly for the better.

[Dyolf Knip]

This is not suprising since Marx was one of the first economists to really explain how capitalism worked and he was not completely against it.

Indeed. When compared to what preceded it, a fuedal economy, Marx observed that capitalism was superior in pretty much every way.

the bits about the communist system to replace it are little more than an afterthought in comparison

I read some of Marx's work and thought that exact same thing. He goes on and on about the pros and cons of capitalism, but the extent of his descriptions of how Communism would work were rather broad and vague. The Workers will do this and Society will do that. Very little about how exactly the whole thing is supposed to hang together, which I thought to be kinda important for a command economy. It's all well and good to say that we should "abolish competition and replace it with association" and have "communal ownership of goods", but you might as well say that the Golden Rule is the only law a country should have. Just how is this vague Society supposed to fairly and equally dole out scarse resources?

Compare that with capitalism, in which anyone with capital makes his own best decisions on how to use it. It not only works better when the 'rules' are vague, it pretty much requires it. Of course, so often you end up with monopolies and it's downhill from there...

Re:Prolly for the better.

[Dyolf Knip]

a fuedal economy
Seriously need to start spellchecking my work. A feudal economy. Dunno what a fuedal economy is...

Widespread changes...

[ramdac]

We all know that China's news institutions (government controlled) will soon be ignored. The Chinese government won't always be able to restrict their users from reading information from the BBC, CNN, and other institutions.

China's GOV has to face the music. They can't and won't control what their people see on the internet--at least not forever. As more and more people there use the internet, those people will find ways to express their views.

Re:Widespread changes...

[squaretorus]

A bit further than this. China probably CAN prevent the viewing of news.bbc.co.uk and cnn.com but they'll NEVER keep up to date the block list for NGOs and other more independent and direct news sources.

As long as there are search engines, email, and word of mouth, those who WANT to read the real story will be able to.

This leaves those majority of the population still sucking in the dross they are fed. At the moment in the UK you can't move for people sucking up to the royal family on the TV. The mass population couldn't give two shits about them and want them gone - but the BBC pays for a big concert, a million people go along to see bands for free, and we're told its a royalist revival!

Enough people just go along with this and decide 'hey - yeah - lets do that! royals! I love them!' because they don't form opinions, they consume them.

Re:Widespread changes...

[vidarh]

Despite wanting to see monarchy in the UK abolished, I must disagree with you. Countless polls have shown that the people in the UK in general support monarchy and supports the royal family. Large groups of the people may want them gone, but unfortunately not the majority.

Re:Widespread changes...

[RickHunter]

This is assuming that there are still independant and direct news sources on the Internet. The Powers that Be, including ICANN and the current crop of news companies, seem dead-set on trying to prevent that. Skyrocketing bandwidth costs, "cybersquatting" accusations, lack of affordable bandwidth for your ordinary citizen, gradual firewalling-off of non-corporate entities to prevent "copyright infringement"....

In case you haven't noticed, its getting harder and harder to run a small site of any sort without resorting to buying space from an established web host. Who can and will cut you off at the first sign of trouble, be it legal or simply "high" bandwidth use due to popularity. Yes, that's right. Do a good job of news reporting and get a lot of visitors, and you'll be slapped with huge fines for your troubles.

Its wonderful when the very companies who are most threatened by the power the Internet gives to the individual control its backbone, isn't it?

Re:Widespread changes...

[vidarh]

You're right. The point being?

Monarchy in the UK is just a silly show, but that doesn't stop the majority of the people from supporting it. I guess a lot of people support it because it gives them something to read about in the papers.

Re:Widespread changes...

[realdpk]

I dunno what market you're in but in the US market bandwidth prices are falling (thanks to Cogent, can't wait for that Chap. 11).

Many web hosts, large and small, will charge small sites by the GB, so you can use all you want.

I can't help but think this post came from 1999 or something. :)

Re:Widespread changes...

[junkgrep]

---A bit further than this. China probably CAN prevent the viewing of news.bbc.co.uk and cnn.com but they'll NEVER keep up to date the block list for NGOs and other more independent and direct news sources.---

You seem to be assuming that the Chinese will use an excluding system whereby they run around blocking objectionable content. But what if they used an including system, whereby they only allowed people to go to sites that they approve? So they don't need to worry about blocking new addresses: only things they've checked out and signed off on will get through.

Re:Widespread changes...

[nemesisj]

"We all know that China's news institutions (government controlled) will soon be ignored. The Chinese government won't always be able to restrict their users from reading information from the BBC, CNN, and other institutions."

Why do we all know this? If someone came up to you and told you that everything you had ever learned and been taught all your life was a lie (or at least a very highly distorted version of the truth) and that your primary sources of information were largely innacurate, would you believe them? Would you be willing to turn your whole outlook on life upside down? While you might if you were particularly independent, the average Chinese citizen won't. From living in China, I'd say that close to 90% of the young intellectuals, who have known about the Tiananmen Square incident and other debacles still trust the government news. They figure that the western news sources are just as biased, and while they are a definite curiosity, western news is just as unreliable as communist news. They have been taught all their lives that a free press is unreliable and prone to error, and they believe it.

Also, why can't they control the internet? They own all the infrastructure, the ISPs, the cable, everything. You're not very informed to think they just can't turn off whatever they want. They block all of geocities and angelfire, and often block cnn and other news sites when some issue that is sensitive to the government is happening. Don't underestimate what a determined dictatorship can accomplish, especially when they hold all of the cards.

The really funny thing is that most Chinese ISPs and websites self censor their content, out of fear that they'll be totally shut down. The flow of information in China is not out of control, and it won't be for a long time.

Re:Widespread changes...

[Cmdr Taco (luser)]

That can't do it now, unless they also block google.com.

A savvy Chinese citizen can simply view google's cached copy. They've got to know in general what they're looking for, but try this example:

A CNN story about Falun Gong here

Re:Widespread changes...

[RickHunter]

I'm mainly looking at all the popular sites that've had to shut down or severely cripple their services due to unannounced bandwidth caps or utterly ludicrous traffic fees. This may have changed recently, as you said, due to Cogent's financial troubles, but that doesn't help all the sites that've had to shut down in the past six months when their ISPs started springing these fees (and "backpayments" for their use in the past) on them.

Re:Widespread changes...

[vidarh]

Eh..? The government doesn't have to answer to the queen in any way. And even if they did have to, that would still not justify an unelected person.

I don't give a damn about the cost. But I do give a damn about the symbol of oppression that a monarch is.

Re:Widespread changes...

[elefantstn]

That and it keeps tourists showing up in London... Between tabloid sales and hotel rooms, the royals are probably a multibillion-dollar industry.

Re:Widespread changes...

[Martin Blank]

They don't answer directly, but if the King/Queen disapproves of something, it becomes a Very Bad Thing in the eyes of many people. The monarchy may not wield much in the way of real power, but it wields influence over the thoughts of large sections of the population, which is sometimes even better.

Re:Widespread changes...

[vidarh]

Exactly how are elected representatives symbols of oppression?

As for anti-monarchists turning their attention elsewhere, I don't see any large groups spending a lot of time or effort in fighting the monarchy beyond criticizing it. It's not worth it, exactly because there are other problems (and mosques and racial minorities are certainly not something I consider a problem) that are more important, so I certainly don't buy the claim that she functions as a scapegoat.

Re:Widespread changes...

[vidarh]

That's bullshit. If the queen started voicing even the most remotely controversial ideas about how the UK should be run there would immediately be support in parliament for reducing her importance. Remember the recent changes in the House of Lords? Why do you think that was? It was because the House of Lords didn't understand it's place as a relic, and meddled too much.

There's a long tradition in the remaining European monarchies for the monarch to keep their mouth shut about politics in return for keeping their privileges. It goes so far that much of media immediately start crying foul if the monarch even starts voicing opinions about how things should be run.

The queen is a figurehead, and nothing else. Which makes it even more ridiculous to keep the monarchy.

Re:Widespread changes...

[vidarh]

So you're saying that 30-40 percent of the UK population are racist willing to switch to the BNP? If so, why haven't they already done so?

Contrary to what you seem to believe, opposition to the monarchy has historically always gotten its strongest support from the left, particularly socialists, communist, trotskyist and anarchist groups, but also to some extend from social democrats, and strongly opposed by the right, including many groups on the far right who see a republic as stepping on national symbols (the monarchy being one of them).

Looking to France, for instance, this is exactly what you see. The royalist organizations draw their support almost exclusively from the right.

I think that if you believe abolishing the monarchy will change anything - for or against - the BNP, then you are deluded.

Re:Widespread changes...

[Beliskner]

So you're saying that 30-40 percent of the UK population are racist willing to switch to the BNP?

No. Hague was exposed and many people saw through him and so didn't vote for him, a lot of people didn't see through him because they couldn't be arsed (the indifferrent majority which is a far cry from hardcore BNP members).

...opposition to the monarchy has historically always gotten its strongest support from the left, particularly socialists, communist, trotskyist and anarchist groups, but also to some extend from social democrats, and strongly opposed by the right, including many groups on the far right who see a republic as stepping on national symbols (the monarchy being one of them

...Looking to France, for instance, this is exactly what you see. The royalist organizations draw their support almost exclusively from the right.

Ahhh you are correct, puritan anarchists wouldn't mind powerless figureheads like royalty, however among their ranks there's a significant number of jealous rogues who oppose all hierarchical social/military structures including the affluent elite (cavemen anarchists) and it's always these "anarchists" that get interviewed by the BBC. These hate-anarchists are the real threat, and I think they are a new phenomenon...

I believe this differrent phenomenon has been resurrected from ages past, it's not confined by idealogical generalisations: it's the disenchanted masses - people on the wrong side of the ever widening rich-poor divide, creating massive resentment at the ruling elite (including figureheads) ala French aristocracy during the French revolution. This revolution in the UK has ironically been postponed by the September 11th attacks by re-igniting (perhaps temporarily) a sense of national community due to a collecive disgust of this event.

Re:Widespread changes...

[Dyolf Knip]

even the North Korean state-run press [kcna.co.jp].

I've read that one on occasion. Most of the time it's utter bosh, but occasionally there's some gems. My all-time favorites are when they reflect on how the DPRK won the Korean War which was started by the evil United States in an unprovoked attack. Great stuff...

The chinese internet

[Hellkitten]

Well they let the cat out of the bag and now they can't get it back in. Politicians underestimate the possibilities of the internet, nothing new here.

The interesting idea is that AFAIK China has the largest population on earth, what will happen to the internet once the chinese politicians give up and let them roam free? Even if just a small part is on the net we will begin to see the influence of chinese culture. And what about language? Today english is de dominant language in the internet, but there is an awful lot of chinese speakin people that might get connected. Time for a new language class anyone?

Re:The chinese internet

[cybercuzco]

Today english is de dominant language in the internet, but there is an awful lot of chinese speakin people that might get connected.

Mesa say yousa not worry so much bout speakin chinese, worry more bout speakin english

-Jar Jar

Re:The chinese internet

[Silverhammer]

0.5% of a lot of people is still a lot of people!

Check your math -- 0.5% of a billion is only 5 million.

I know for a fact than china is considered one of the most interesting market for mobile communications, not because any large percent could actually afford a cellphone, but because there are so many chinese that you still would have a lot of potential customers.

No, China is an "interesting" market because the rest of the industrialized nations (North America, EU, Japan, etc) are already glutted.

Re:The chinese internet

[Dephex Twin]

I predict that in the short term, English will continue to be the dominant language until we have the same kind of internationalization support for web pages that we have now in operating systems.

I think it will remain the dominant language even with this, simply because it is the dominant language anyway, Internet or not. The fortunate thing about the Internet starting out initially in English is that a lot of people knew it as their second language already.

mark

Re:The chinese internet

[pmc]

I had a friend who went there a cupple years ago and he was traveling in a group. They werent suposed to go traveling alone, and they had a government official with them when the group went out.

Hmm - not at all what I experienced. I went to Beijing about 10 years ago - also as part of a group. There were no restictions at all placed on us - there was an official interpreter, but no compulsion to go on the organised tours. I spent a lot of time wandering about. Things were a little tense as I was over there near the anniversary of Tiannemen Square (which I visited on the actual anniversary - that place is huge: jokingly I said beforehand it would take 1/2 hour to walk across it. This was an underestimate.), and there were a fair number of police wandering about. I even saw some dissidents being arrested (outside of the official government residence near Tianemmen Square).

One evening (armed with my trusty phrase book) I wandered into one of the large blocks that form neighbourhoods (these are 3 by 3 smaller blocks, and there seems to be some sort of district zoning thing going on). These are definitely not tourist places. In these I found a small resturant and proffering my phrase book opened to the resturant page I pointed at "What do you recommend?" and got what was easily the best meal I had there - and the cheapest by a mile.

Interestingly there was absolutly no problems at all in getting into China - send passport details to tour operator. The provided a group visa and we - literally - formed a line in the order of the names on the visa and walked through immigration. The whole thing took about 5 minutes. No problem getting out. This was the only place on the whole trip that photography was forbidden - in common with almost ever other immigration hall I've ever been in.

Admittedly I didn't go outside Beijing except to the Great Wall (although some others did) so things may well be diferent elsewhere. The only other place where there was a bit of an atmosphere was on the upper floors of the English Language Bookshop where the pirated software is reputedly sold.

So, yes, China is in some ways a closed nation, but nowhere near as controlled as you are making out. It is also a very odd place - when you first arrive at the western hotel (which looks like a hilton anywhere else in the world) and get in the taxi (whose drivers are nutters) and see the McDonalds, and Coke, and bright, neon, shop signs, it all seems comfortably familiar. OK - they don't speak the language but I'm from Europe - I'm used to not speaking the language when I'm on holiday. After a few days, however, you'll notice something that makes you realise how different this place is - for me it was realising that there were no advertisments.

Re:The chinese internet

[Our Man In Redmond]

Well they let the cat out of the bag and now they can't get it back in.

My favorite metaphor for this comes from a book by Peter S. Beagle:

"You ever try to put birdshit back into the bird?"

Re:The chinese internet

[JWhitlock]

The interesting idea is that AFAIK China has the largest population on earth, what will happen to the internet once the chinese politicians give up and let them roam free? Even if just a small part is on the net we will begin to see the influence of chinese culture. And what about language? Today english is de dominant language in the internet, but there is an awful lot of chinese speakin people that might get connected. Time for a new language class anyone?

Just like India dominates the Internet, followed closely by Russia...

Remember, China has traditionally given intellectuals and artists a choice - bend your works to the party line, or supress them, or be imprisioned or killed. That kind of psycopathic natural selection will keep China from being a cultural leader for a long time after the party is gone...

The U.S. is much better - bend your works to the capitalist line, or have a hard time feeding yourself. Still, that's the best we'll get, outside of a college campus. And that depends on rich parents or mortaging future earnings...

Re:The chinese internet

[Alsee]

My favorite metaphor

Mine is:

Trying to take something off of the internet is like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
-Joe Garelli, News Radio.

That's why the MPAA/RIAA are trying to plug your analog hole.

-

Change from the inside

[seldolivaw]

I think it's really interesting that China has spent so much time and effort trying to protect its citizens from ideas from outside without realising that ideas that come from inside are just as dangerous. People who talk to each other cannot be fooled by propaganda, as the article mentions -- a mining disaster which killed 81 people was initially supressed, but when word about it spread on the 'net anyway the official newspapers ended up reporting on it.

The logical conclusion of this is that the much-protested firewall that China has put around itself will be of no help at all in supressing dissent, as long as chat rooms and even e-mail exist.

Re:Change from the inside

[4of12]

Exactly.

Presuming that "counter-revolutionary" thoughts always enter from the outside and could be theoretically controlled by a firewall neglects the basic fact that China is filled with enough people on the inside that can think for themselves.

When a rational idea or a truth is communicated, it will resonate all through the inside.

OTOH, China, like the U.S. and Russia, has a great deal of national pride. While the party in power has used that as tool for its own ends, there's nothing preventing a popular movement from incorporating "patriotism" in a way that might be unhealthy for everyone in the long term. Remember some of the causes of WWW 1!

Re:Change from the inside

[Pig Hogger]

I think it's really interesting that China has spent so much time and effort trying to protect its citizens from ideas from outside without realising that ideas that come from inside are just as dangerous.

This is the more funny given that Mao Tse-Tung's communism is ALSO an idea that came from outside China...

Re:Change from the inside

[Our Man In Redmond]

You'd think if their ideology really was superior they would welcome the challenge of putting it to the test against the rest of the world, wouldn't you?

You'd also think they'd recall something military commanders and radicals have known since there were military commanders and radicals: It's much easier to attack a fortress (or a movement, or a country, or pretty much anything) from the inside than from the outside.

In an odd turn of events, it may someday turn out that Internet was the biggest Trojan horse of all.

Re:Change from the inside

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Remember some of the causes of WWW 1!

I think we can hold Tim Berners-Lee completely responsible for that.

Re:Change from the inside

[danro]

I think we can hold Tim Berners-Lee completely responsible for that.

Yes, ol' Tim is definitly aiding the terrorists.
The W3C advocates open standards, and we all know that is Evil.
After all, if we have open standards the terrorists have already won.

A ceip.org document on the matter

[jukal]

Summary:
In this paper the authors illustrate how two authoritarian regimes, China and Cuba, are maintaining control over the Internet's political impact through different combinations of reactive and proactive strategies. These cases illustrate that, contrary to assumptions, different types of authoritarian regimes may be able to control and profit from the Internet. Examining the experiences of these two countries may help to shed light on other authoritarian regimes' strategies for Internet development, as well as help to develop generalizable conclusions about the impact of the Internet on authoritarian rule.

The whole document is here

Re:A ceip.org document on the matter

[junkgrep]

Hah: you Americans think the Chinese have it bad, and are missing all the best content on the net? If you only knew what YOUR country has been blocking off from YOU! And you don't even know it's being done!

Re:A ceip.org document on the matter

[junkgrep]

---I can tell you that I am not blocked from a damn thing.---

How would you know what you don't know? To you, these sites simply look like unregistered addresses...

---And where might you be from, oh free one?---

A place far away, where they have this thing called: "kidding." I understand that my cultural practices distress and frighten you, but I assure you that my "kidding" will cause you no ill effects. In time, you will learn to tell the "serious" from the "kid."

Just like mp3 trading...

[cperciva]

This reinforces a fundamental fact of human behaviour: People generally ignore laws. If there is a policeman standing at their elbow, they'll obey the law, but as soon as the policeman is not obviously present, they'll go back to doing whatever they feel is "right".

When it comes to mp3 trading, usage of illicit drugs, or discussing Chinese politics, there are three simple options in the hands of the government:
1. Allow them,
2. Put police everywhere (think 1984), or
3. Change how people think about such activities (public anti-drinking-and-driving campaigns are a good example of this).

The Great Firewall of China might help the government identify (and eliminate) any rebellious leaders, but it won't stop the spread of ideas and ideals.

Re:Just like mp3 trading...

[gclef]

I would modify that statement slightly: people generally ignore laws that they don't like or understand.

People don't generally ignore the laws against murder, for example. Most people agree that outlawing killing people is a good thing, and they understand why, so folks obey that law. Very few people understand why they must drive $value MPH/KPH, so they usually don't, unless there's a danger that they'll be caught.

Re:Just like mp3 trading...

[automandc]

Which demonstrates the vapid self-interest behind most people's moral philosophy.

More people are killed by reckless drivers who think they have the skill/technology/brains to drive at unsafe speeds, than by murder.

Nothing gets on my nerves more than some yahoo in a way-to-big SUV tailgating me at 80MPH simply because he has no f-ing clue about such concepts as reaction time or stopping distance.

Of course, when his unnecessary and reckless conduct causes my death it is an "accident," while a woman who shoots her abusive husband dead in his sleep is considered a "murderer"

Re:Just like mp3 trading...

[MadAhab]

These things are true, but China is a very big country full of people who seem to readily ignore rules if they think they aren't being enforced. And with China's size, that makes governing very difficult. These facts have historically been excuses by China's leaders for their heavy-handed rule.

Re:Just like mp3 trading...

[Tom]

When it comes to mp3 trading, usage of illicit drugs, or discussing Chinese politics, there are three simple options in the hands of the government:

You should also mention that ironically, governments do not differ very much in this, no matter whether they are communist, capitalist, democratic, republic, dictatorship or whatever.

Which is a funny thing since for some of these systems, the choice should be obvious. For example, in a democracy you'd think that if "the people" (who, according to the book, are the rulers) want something done one way, it's done that way.

You Can Never Truly Filter

[unformed]

If you have -any- way access an outside machine that is relatively in your control (ie: shell access, which can be bought for a few dollars a month) then you can get by any protection.

Here's an article I wrote not too long ago about how to do it:
- - - -
Breaking Through Any Firewall or Proxy

There's different reasons for breaking through firewalls/proxies.
1) Get completely unfiltered access to the internet.
2) Get unmonitored, or secure, access to the internet.
3) Access services normally disallowed by the firewall.

The article will demonstrate various ways to get by most implementations of firewalls/proxies. In absolutely no way am I responsible if you do anything you're not supposed to, or even supposed to, be doing. If you get caught and fired, tough shit. If you access illegal information, tough shit. If you open up a hole and somebody breaks into your computer, tough shit. I'm not responsible. (This is for the lawsuit-happy bastards out there.)

Anyways, lets begin:

For all methods, it is expected that you have access to a machine on the other side of the firewall, and that it has access to whatever you need.
Your machine will be the CLIENT, and the machine on the other side of the firewall will be the TUNNEL. The accessed machine will be the SERVER.

Furthermore, this article also assumes you a basic knowledge of your browser's configuration, installing software on your CLIENT and TUNNEL machines, and logging in via SSH.

A Linux/Unix box is preferable for the TUNNEL, but not required by any means. The software is freely available for any system.

1) HTTP Tunneling Through SSH
Often, only some ports will be firewalled (80, 21, etc) for caching, filtering, and monitoring purposes. However, they leave direct access available for other ports (25, 23, etc).

If your browser must use a proxy to access the web, but you don't require a proxy to get mail, this is probably the implementation.

If you have direct access to non-popular ports, you can access almost any service as long as you change the port. Generaly, the main purpose of bypassing this firewall is to have unfiltered and/or unmonitored web access. The method can of course be modified to meet your needs.

Install a proxy server (ie: tinyproxy) on the TUNNEL machine. For security purposes, set the listening port to an odd port (ie: 8999, REMOTE_PROXY_PORT) or set access rights to only localhost. Install an SSH (ie: sshd) server on the TUNNEL. For security purposes, set the listening port to an odd port. Do NOT set access rights to only localhost because you'll access the proxy through ssh.

Install an SSH client on the CLIENT machine. Select a random port (LOCAL_PORT) and then set the browser's proxy to localhost:LOCAL_PORT.

Run SSH with LOCAL_PORT forwarded to REMOTE_HOST:REMOTE_PROXY_PORT.
(CLI ssh: ssh -L LOCAL_PORT:REMOTE_HOST:REMOTE_PROXY_HOST -l USERNAME REMOTE_HOST)

Once connected and logged in, if the proxy and the tunnel are working correctly, you've got completely unfiltered web access.

(NB: Using a SOCKS5-compliant proxy would offer an almost completely unfiltered and unmonitored connection, as long as the application supported SOCKS proxies.)

2) SSH Tunneling Through HTTP
Some implementations allow only HTTP access, while blocking all other ports.
Check out Corkscrew at http://www.agroman.net/corkscrew/

Corkscrew is a tool to allow full SSH access through a strict HTTPS session. Then through the SSH access, you can create another tunnel to allow access to all other programs.

Conclusion)
Hopefully this allows some of the people out there to worry a little less about getting caught doing things they're not supposed to. The reason for using SSH in both cases is because it's encrypted. In the event you are caught, at least you're only caught for breaking teh rules, there's nothing additionally criminalizing.

SSH can also be used for a lot more interesting things. Using Windows, you can instal Cygwin, ssh into a *Nix box and tunnel over X connections, and end up working as if you were actually at the machine.

Anyways, that's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

--unformed

Re:You Can Never Truly Filter

[smnolde]

True, but see my tutorial on BSDVault here: http://bsdvault.net/sections.php?op=viewarticle&ar tid=83

Or Click Here

Re:You Can Never Truly Filter

[dattaway]

Its just a matter of time before someone goes one step further to package the ssh packets in .gif banner ads. No eavesdropping spook would be the wiser thinking the connection is business as usual as the stealth connection would appear to be a barrage of spam popups.

I see a great future for stenography.

Who was it who first said...

[Anonymous Coward]

"The Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it."

Re:Who was it who first said...

[Alsee]

Who was it who first said...
"The Internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it."

It must have been Al Gore, Right?
Something that fundamental and profound could only have come from the inventor of the internet.

-

Re:Who was it who first said...

[FattMattP]

It was John Gilmore, co-founder of the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Cypherpunks cryptography discussion list.

internet censorship

[Una]

Well, my guess as to why China is having a hard time censoring their citizens viewing, is simply that of manpower.
With how fast content is created and updated on the internet, even with active filtering software, would require a fulltime staff of tens of thousands of people just to find blockable content.

I imagine the Chinese goverment is slacking in their efforts to completely block "objectional" content, just by not throwing enough manpower at it.
Now, I in no way condone censoring any information, but lets get real...
If the chinese goverment wants to control what their citizens think, their going to.

Now, what needs to be done, is some of that new-fangled "electronic warfare". :)
What I mean by that, is for people who care about censorship to setup free speech propoganda websites wherever they can.
There going to have to be diffrent, so the automatic software doesnt automatically filter it.
And its going to need to have real information.

If you care about billions of people being censored, stand up, and do something about it.
If not, sit down, go back to whatever you were doing, and forget that anything ever happened.

Anyways, thats just my take on things.
-Una

Re:Intresting thought control method

[ekidder]

One of my favorite quotes, from GURPS Illuminati (unfortunately, a roommate borrowed the book, so no exact references) goes: "Sure, the government lies and the media lies, but in a democracy, they're /different/ lies."

Re:Intresting thought control method

[nam37]

I'm sure I'll get "flame-bait" for this, but... You are a complete idiot.

How is this different from corporate control?

[gelfling]

In the West, about 90% of all internet activity goes through 9 portals which are controlled by a tiny cadre of huge media conglomerates, each run nearly as the singular expression of one person's ego.

We will not be forced into oppression, but seduced by it and ultimately the internet will become a weapon of tyranny.

Re:How is this different from corporate control?

[Brian Stretch]

How is this different from corporate control?

Well, for starters, Ted Turner's Castro News Network can't have you thrown into the gulag for watching Rupert Murdoch's Fox News.

See laogai.org, etc.

Re:How is this different from corporate control?

[rhadamanthus]

Thank you for making this very important point. To put numbers to this argument, note that:

Of all the interesting statistics, the most important is that the number of TV stations, magazines, and media outlets over all has increased tremendously, all the while being more consolidated then ever before. This strikes me as surprising. The illusion of diversity in literature and media is rather frightening. In 1947, 80 percent of daily newspapers were independent; in 1989 that number had shrunk to 20 percent. In 1981, the 11,000 or so magazines were owned by 20 companies, but as of 1988 that number had fallen to three. Books are the same, being controlled by seven major firms. This is not to say that no other sources of information exist, just that the concentration shows no sign of slowing down. Which should strike you as disconcerting.

Likewise, music is controlled by 5 large groups, representing 84 percent of the US market. (yes, the RIAA) Radio has 60 percent of its content controlled by 3 broadcast groups. And again in movies: In 1985, the 12 largest theater owners had 25 percent of the screens, as of 1998, that figure was about 61 percent and rapidly increasing. The 6 top firms by this point accounted for 90 percent of overall theater revenue. Not surprisingly, 132 out of the 148 "widely distributed" movies in 1997 had deals with these 6 vendors. This also explains the drop in foreign films, from 10 percent in the mid 1970s to 0.5 percent in the 90s.

Again, in broadcasting, 6 firms control 80 percent of the nations TV and cable, and 75 percent of its content. To summarize, Professor Ben Bagdikian wrote, "despite more than 25,000 outles in the US, 23 corporations control most of the business in newspapers, magazines, books and movies." The top six, FYI, make more revenue than the next 20 combined.

One hardly needs evidence to notice that such heavy concentration of power, (in this case, information) results inherently in bias. Witness the pro-american rhetoric seething from current media and the "anti-terrorist" news reports that for all we know may be made up.

The most saddening thing is that the Internet was specifically designed to prevent concentration of information. It was built to promote the free-flow of any idea or voice. But its being swept away in a tidal wave of corporate lobbying and associated legislation, as well as patriotic/moralist/ideological campaigns to stomp out "opposing" viewpoints. Criticize china all you want for their "information suppresion". We are no better, we just don't see it. Apathy and hypocrisy go hand in hand....

-----------rhad

Re:How is this different from corporate control?

[rhadamanthus]

To quote Lawrence Lessig, "If the media companies are owned by a handful of companies, each basically holding the very same ideals, how much diversity can we expect in the production of media content? How critical can we believe these media will be? How committed to testing the status quo is this form of organization--itself so dependent on the status quo--likely to be?"

Or if you don't think this happens, even Newt Gingrich appealed to it in a 1997 address to the Georgia Chamber of Commerce, when he said that business leaders and advertisers "ought to take more direct command of the newsroom."

Scary.

-----rhad

Re:How is this different from corporate control?

[WolfWithoutAClause]

In the West, about 90% of all internet activity goes through 9 portals which are controlled by a tiny cadre of huge media conglomerates, each run nearly as the singular expression of one person's ego.

Let's see:

• Slashdot
• BBC
• CNN
• The Register

Who else do you need?

;-)

Re:How is this different from corporate control?

[gelfling]

Go MEMRI

One of the most important sites - see also debkafile

http://www.debka.com/

Re:How is this different from corporate control?

[rhadamanthus]

I would argue that the CBDPTA and the DMCA are unfortunate signs of old companies appealing to congress to stifle the decentralized aspect of the web. Case in point, the digital watermarking techniques desired by the MPAA and RIAA would associate a digital signature with playability for music, movies, etc. This in effect crushes the independent artist/film director. Why? Well, the ability to watermark would be a closely guarded secret as it "legalizes" a DRM-designed player to play the associated file. I think it would be way too optimistic to assume that the RIAA or MPAA would allow this "watermark" to be distributed to independent folks not under their wing, and therefore unassociated with their profit margins.

An example of ideological repression would be the PATRIOT act. The definitions implied are too broad. Non-mainstream ideals could be argued illegal strictly based on a politically motivated desire to appear to fight "terrorism". In the same vein, the numerous bills that attacked online pornography represent a dangerous trend in censorship. While not necessarily in the same line of thought as media outlets, it does highlight a thought process all too common. More information on censorship can be found here: http://www.eff.org/Censorship/. Another great resource is Lawrence Lessig's book, "The Future of Ideas", his whole book basically revolves around the current trend to consolidate the Internet much like physical news and media.

sorry, I cannot address this better right now, work is piling up.

-----rhad

Welcome to life 2.0

[peterdaly]

It will be interesting in the coming years to see how China evolves from their current state. The article talks about a man who was put in jail for a few years (a concrete cell as they describe it) for having a web site with a forum where people were talking about democracy and such. It is really very said, coming from a country which strongly supports people's rights to criticize, to see a person be put away for having a venue for free speech in the real true meaning of the term.

The section about the mine collapse was interesting as well. For those who didn't read the article, there was a mine collapse killing 81 people the "the government" did not want publicized, to the point of threatening journalists. It was released on a web site, and before long, mainstream journalists started picking the story up as well. This is really a revolutionary thing in a country where the press has historically been 100% controlled.

The public being informed is a major step in a country progressing into a "modern free government." Imagine the economic powerhouse they county may be able to transform itself into if more power and rights are given to the people.

-Pete

Ironically...

[cswiii]

...this BBC article was posted one day after the thirteenth anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre.

A Theory of Progression in Government

[gartogg]

A history teacher I once took some courses from in High School (Military History and US History) subscribed to an interesting theory; The fall of Russian Communism resulted from McDonalds.

The fact that there were McDonalds restaurants in Russia fed the public there the image of how Americans live, and with that as a model, it became increasingly obvious that Communism was failing to fulfill it's mission of Utopia. In 1984, Orwell realized that as long as the government asserted that everything was improving, people would not be too inquisitiveabout the subject. In Russia, this became impossible, and the people lost faith in their government.

In China, it seems as though a similar evolution is occuring; The alter-ego of Soviet Commuism, Chinese Communism, is being exposed to it's antithesis. Russian Communism focused, as I understand, mainly on supression and communitization of materialism, but was then faced with the holy grail of materialism, McDonalds. Chinese Communism, now that they have seen how materialism works, focuses on supression of intellectualism among their masses, and is now faced with intellectualism's holy grail, the internet, which allows the masses to see the intellectual side of Democracy.

Obviously, the Orwellian Prophecy has come partially true in this part of the world.

"Inside an imposing building in Beijing is the Ministry of Information Industry, where a hi-tech police force keeps watch over the internet 24 hours a day. Its job is to keep ordinary Chinese people from accessing unhealthy information. That could be anything from Playboy to the BBC." -BBC News, China Loses Grip on Internet.

"The Misistry of Truth -- Minitrue, in Newspeak -- was startlingly different form any other building in sight. It was an enormous Pyramidal structure of glittering white concrete, soaring up, terrace after terrace, three hundred meters into the air... [it] concerned itself with news, entertainment, education, and the fine arts, [anything from Playboy to the BBC]" -1984, by George Orwell.

The only difference between Oceania and China is an external one, and it is essential. China has no external enemy to pour material into to prevent it's citizen's rising standard of living. Instead, it has Europe, the United States, and many other regions of the world that have accepted democracy and capitalism.

Re:A Theory of Progression in Government

[pubjames]

A history teacher I once took some courses from in High School (Military History and US History) subscribed to an interesting theory; The fall of Russian Communism resulted from McDonalds.

If this theory is meant to be taken literally, then it is an insult to the Russian people. They aren't that stupid, nor ignorant, at least those that I know in Moscow and StPetersburg. Even many years before the fall of Russian Communism many Russians were well aware about the world outside Russia and the failings of their political system. To say that Russian Communism fell because of McDonalds is such as gross simplification of what happened that it is meaningless.

Re:A Theory of Progression in Government

[hype7]

A history teacher I once took some courses from in High School (Military History and US History) subscribed to an interesting theory; The fall of Russian Communism resulted from McDonalds.

The fact that there were McDonalds restaurants in Russia fed the public there the image of how Americans live, and with that as a model, it became increasingly obvious that Communism was failing to fulfill it's mission of Utopia. In 1984, Orwell realized that as long as the government asserted that everything was improving, people would not be too inquisitiveabout the subject. In Russia, this became impossible, and the people lost faith in their government.

In China, it seems as though a similar evolution is occuring; The alter-ego of Soviet Commuism, Chinese Communism, is being exposed to it's antithesis. Russian Communism focused, as I understand, mainly on supression and communitization of materialism, but was then faced with the holy grail of materialism, McDonalds. Chinese Communism, now that they have seen how materialism works, focuses on supression of intellectualism among their masses, and is now faced with intellectualism's holy grail, the internet, which allows the masses to see the intellectual side of Democracy.

The theory you refer to is otherwise known as The Golden Arches Theory of Conflict Prevention . And before you mod me +1 funny, I'm being serious - it was first espoused by Thomas Friedman in his book, The Lexus and the Olive Tree. It's an excellent read, a great perspective on globalisation and its differing effects on various parts of the world.

-- james

Re:A Theory of Progression in Government

[Gulthek]

In China, it seems as though a similar evolution is occuring; The alter-ego of Soviet Commuism, Chinese Communism, is being exposed to it's antithesis. Russian Communism focused, as I understand, mainly on supression and communitization of materialism, but was then faced with the holy grail of materialism, McDonalds.

First off you can't suppress something and spread it throughout the community at the same time.

Second, Chinese Communism split from what was Soviet Communism back in the 1950s as China pissed off the USSR by declaring that they were going to Do It Their Way.
Nowadays calling the Chinese government Communist is a joke. A joke perpetuated primarily for the benefit of the old party members who still wield control. They have even whipped up an excuse that allows self-proclaimed capitalists to join the Chinese Communist Party! The best explanation of China's current policy is this:

The CCP leaders are riding in a taxicab, ahead is a fork in the road with one path leading to Communism and one to Capitalism. The driver asks: Which way should I go? After a brief discussion, the leaders tell the driver to signal a turn to Communism, but to actually turn towards Capitalism.

The CCP wants to keep control over information, but the party isn't stupid. There is just an ongoing high level conflict on government policy, the Internet is just one of the controls being exploited by each side.

Re:A Theory of Progression in Government

[Zeinfeld]

Obviously, the Orwellian Prophecy has come partially true in this part of the world.

It wasn't a prophecy and the comparison to the West, in particular the relationship of the UK and the US was quite deliberate.

Orwell's objective was to make people realise that the USSR was a totalitarian regime and Stalin a tyrant. This was not something that many people wanted to hear in 1948 just after the Russians had done most of the fighting to stop Hitler. The Nazi-Soviet pact had been largely forgotten by this time.

1984 is full of ironic and sarcastic references to the BBC where Orwell (Eric Blair) worked during the war, manipulating truth in exactly the same way that Smith does. Two majot themes in the book are the erasure of history (suppression of the Nazi-Soviet pact) and the shifting aliances between the 3 great powers.

Incidentally Orwell was not anti-socialist, he was anti-communist. He was a member of the Labour party and wrote the 1945 Labour manifesto.

Re:A Theory of Progression in Government

[elflord]

If this theory is meant to be taken literally, then it is an insult to the Russian people. They aren't that stupid, nor ignorant, at least those that I know in Moscow and StPetersburg. Even many years before the fall of Russian Communism many Russians were well aware about the world outside Russia and the failings of their political system.

It seems fairly clear to me that this is more of a catchy slogan than something that is intended to be taken literally. It encapsulates an important concept though -- it's not enough for "many" Russians to be aware of the failings of the system to bring about change -- the average guy on the street has to see it, and preferably experience it first hand-- it's not really enough to read about it, because even if you're "aware", you will probably not get angry or otherwise excited about something that seems so distant. You feel it so much more if it's rubbed in your face. McDonalds symbolises a first-hand exposure to Western culture, and the relative failings of their own system, as experienced by the common man (as opposed to pontifications on the failings of the system by an academic elite)

Re:A Theory of Progression in Government

[PD]

Actually, I'd claim that the theory is really an insult to American kids, not Russians. High school history isn't designed to teach students anything, it's meant to give them a couple facts to learn, and to shovel the dogma of how the US is the greatest country in the Universe in all ways. If teachers tell their young students that one of the world's superpowers could defeat the other simply by sending over a few burger flippers, then that accomplishes the goal. Teaching that kind of crap to kids insults their intelligence and hinders their thinking process.

Re:A Theory of Progression in Government

[pubjames]

Teaching that kind of crap to kids insults their intelligence and hinders their thinking process.

Absolutely. It dismays me that in the USA people these days it seems that people cannot formulate an intelligent response to complex situations where there are multiple variables. Everything gets reduced to good and bad, goodies and baddies, black and white, left and right. Everything is dumbed down, even politics and history. That's why so many people on Slashdot were shocked to read stuff like the letter that Peruvian congress man wrote. Shocked by intelligent, eloquent, unbiased reasoning, because it's so uncommon these days.

Re:A Theory of Progression in Government

[ckedge]

I took a course in Russian (the language) at a mid-sized Canadian University in 1989. The professor described a visit by a bunch of Soviet academics a few years before (accompanied by political handlers of course). As he drove them around the city to show them the sights, the river, etc etc, they absolutely refused to believe that their visit and the car ride wasn't all being staged. They just couldn't believe that *every* single Canadian citizen had their own car.

As they drove along paved four lane street in the city core, full of rush-hour cars, in some little out-of-the-way Canadian city (200,000 people, Canadian Prairies), they were absolutely *CERTAIN* that the Canadian Government had gotten together a few hundred cars and were having them all circle around the block to put on a show for them. He had to repeatedly assure them that no, this was just like any other day in any modern Western city.

Re:A Theory of Progression in Government

[gartogg]

It's not niave, it's tounge-in-cheek, and your response shows that McDonalds is a subset of the full reason, proving my point.

Re:A Theory of Progression in Government

[gartogg]

I'm truly sorry that people don't understand this as a sarcastic quip that hints at the actual causes of collapse. When it was presented, it was presented as a 2-week lesson in a survey of modern history (as it effected the United States. It was culturally biased, but I already adknowledged that by referencing the title of the course.) I beleive that the history teacher you are belittling is mora a result of your personal expierence than any data given, since you obviously would rather push an agenda (that amercan schools are bad) than discuss the relevance and underlying truth to the quip that was obviously not all the teacher presented on the subject.

In fact, despite the insulting and personal way you phrased your response, I agree with your unstated overall assessment of the american educational system. However, coming from a school that is private, well run, and places a majority of it's students in the top 25 colleges in the states, I feel that your assessment is unfair, based on incomplete information, and ignores the context and overall message that I attempted to impart.

Obviously the fall of soviet russia did not stem from one simplistic cause (culture comparison and envy) and especially not from one restaurant that is a symptom of this cause. The point you seem to miss, however, is that my analysis was not intended to show the causes of the fall of Soviet russia, but rather to apply a small facet of what is already adknowledged as the cause to the situation in china. (I should also point out that the causese you mentioned also apply, included fragmented national identity, corruption, and also many other factors others in this thread pointed out.)

Thank you for your reply, and I will thank you further if your future comments are slightly less dogmatically stated and significantly less personally insulting, less insulting to a teacher I respect, and less insulting the school I attend.

Re:A Theory of Progression in Government

[Gulthek]

Ahh, I see now that I did indeed misinterpret your original post, and I did instead mis-understand communitization as to apply some concept throughout the community (e.g. communes in the 1950s and 60s and all of the conflicting policies that were handed down during that era).

But I'm afraid I must still disagree.

The Communist leaders weren't foiled by a changing world but by their own (hrm, rather Mao's) impatience. Starting with the Great Leap Forward, Mao pushed for a rapidness of revolution that simply could not be sustained by a large population, certainly not one the size of China's at the time, although they tried. This set a precedent for the rest of Mao's rule (influence would be a better word perhaps). That's why he was effectively ousted from the party in the early 1960s, so the CCP could proceed with their totalitarian vision that Mao's concept of constant struggle was interfering with.

I do not doubt that your conclusion would be correct if Mao had remained a "dead ancestor" in Shanghai in the early 1960s as the other party members hoped. Instead he used his cultural influence to create the red guards, and used his ties with the army to re-instate himself into power. Of course this led to the Cultural Revolution.

After the Cultural Revolution the people had simply become anti-political, they were tired of being micromanaged by the CCP. They no longer cared about some future perfection, they wanted stability -- and were willing to sacrifice political ideals to get it.

When Deng Xiaoping broke Hua Guofeng's holding pattern, he really had little choice but to introduce capitalism and give some controls back to the populace to revive China's production and economy.

During all of this there was little in the way of foreign, or "bad", influences affecting the people of China. Actually it was in one case the other way around, the Black Panthers smuggled thousands of copies of Mao's Little Red Book into the United States during the early 1970s. When people were punished for "going capitalist" during the Cultural Revolution, it was really for reverting to the ways of the past -- a very serious crime when your government is based on iconoclasm.

Re:A Theory of Progression in Government

[gartogg]

The fact that there was that "there was little in the way of foreign, or 'bad', influences" is simply not indicative of the importance of ANY outside influence. If no one knew that capitalism existed and that most of the 1st class countries in the world were happy with it, then there would have been no need to implement capitalist measures at all.

A writer (i think it was asimov) talked about how the way decrepit civilizations crumble is by barbarians invading from the outside (and in a galactic civilization there are no barbarian outsiders.) In this case, thoughm the outside pressure is my the more sophisticated form of government. Basically, with no outside influences, and stable, or only mildly unstable form of government will not collapse. Rome might still be the capital of the civilized word if there were no goths and vandals.

Sliipping...

[Kerg]

Yes, the Chinese administrators are sliipping on the Internet watch.

They maybe able to speell though.

Re:A matter of time

[gartogg]

And it would have worked too, if it hadn't been for those kids and their dratted technology, I mean dog.

scooby-dooby doooooooooooo!

Triangle Boy

[maxconfus]

Triangle Boy is one of the methods Chinese surfers are using to get around the 'Great Fire Wall' of China.
http://www.safeweb.com/tboy_whitepaper.html
Here is the gist of the free program.
Anybody who downloads triangle boy gives the ability to secretly lend his or her Internet address to users behind restricted firewalls. That, in turn, hands such users the electronic keys they need to receive unfettered access to the Web.

Re:Triangle Boy

[blair1q]

Triangle Boy was originally part of the old Safeweb secure-http proxy service.

That incarnation of Safeweb appears to be dead, replaced by a spook-box maker.

When Safeweb was starting to have problems--overload and outages--I offered them a dollar for their business model. I guess I should have known their real business model was intelligence collection.

--Blair

Re:Intresting thought control method

[JeanBaptiste]

yeah? what about the USS Cole? or yeah what was that... world trade centers? pentagon? are these all media hype also? I dont think most muslims hate us and I know the media does not portray it that way. I DO think most muslim led COUNTRIES hate us and that is why they fund suicide bombings and such. I couldn't agree more that the american media sucks, but you cant say that it is goverment controlled

just perspective

[tid242]

it's interesting to note that this story is entirely from the perspective of a capitalist & democratic society (oft accused (rightly so) of being run by 'elitest technocrats') on its own moral high-ground of assuming an 'information free' culture already exists in its native province (UK). however, with the case of America, perhaps the most blatantly in-your-face with claims of informational freedom, recent studies have shown that a vast majority of internet traffic is centered upon only a few news carriers (yahoo! MSN AOL), and it is well known that the vast majority of our other physical media is controlled solely by but a few companies (TW/AOL, Disney et al). is _this_ freedom? while individuals everywhere will always have oppertunity to express disfavor with whatever it is they feel like, the internet only provides an expanded environment in which to do so, nothing more. a group of individuals discussing politics in a chat-room are no less subordinate to a hostile government in the end, than are the same individuals sitting in a dining room discussion over supper. the globalisation of information is an inevidable progression the information age must allow, yet this in no way assures the integrity of said information, nor its effect on greater society. i live in a proclaimedly expression-embracing country (USA)but my sources of information are undoubtably shaped by the dearth of non-partial reporting in my media-monopoly. more importantly in either society we still engage in 'majority rule' whether the majority is in a republic or communism the sources of information available to *most* people will still dictate the whims of the country. While i _do_ think that it's absolutely wonderful that the Chinese people are recieving more online liberty it should be remembered that until an enormous percentage of people are online & engaging in news-gathering & discussion government-run news agencies will still have a firm control over public belief (56M out of 1.xxB is not a very large percentage).

sorry this got long (and scatterbrained)

-tid242

Re:just perspective

[dwm]

The fact that you were able to post this where hundreds of thousands of people could see it, and have zero chance of being arrested (or even frowned at, most likely) very nicely demolishes your argument.

Is corporatization of the internet a problem? Yes. Is it in any way comparable to the situation in repressive countries like China? No.

Just some perspective.

Re:Intresting thought control method

[brejc8]

I'm Polish and I've lived under communism most of my life. My girlfriend is Chinese I also work with several Chinese who are here in the UK for a few years studying
before going back.

I absolutely agree but the fact that the government stops the people from seeing the bad news makes people want it more. In the US no one wants to know what evil acts
are done on their behalf.

The worst thing of all is some other people in this thread who without thinking will state that the media always tells the trough. There is no point even trying to tell them
otherwise because its all loony talk to them. Lizard men and all that.

What China Doesn't Want Its People To Know...

[dbretton]

somewhere in China...

Mei Ling: Hey Wang, come here!

Wang: What is it?

Mei Ling: This web page says that our General Gao's chicken is made with MSG!

Wang: Those commie bastards!!

Re:A matter of time

[digital_freedom]

Despite how well their plan to monitor the internet has gone up until this point, did the Chinese governement really expect to keep certain parts of the internet from a billion people?

In a word, Yes. Why shouldn't they after they've had control over all other media. This is just another flow of information. For the Chinese government, this one is even easier to localize. It's a lot harder to have an illegal fiber optic cable network than an illegal anti-government paper distribution system.

Actually the most ironic thing is that a US software company will probably sell them some new whizbang software so they can better filter all that incoming traffic.

Re:China controls the internet?

[Seehund]

Now maybe we can return the internet mantle to its rightful owner:

The Swiss.

"The Swiss"? Is that Al Gore's Slashdot username?

Re:P2P news clients?

[mccalli]

Decentralized news content strikes me as an ideal way to circumvent government restrictions on the media... but is this implemented anywhere?

Err....yes. It's called Usenet, is implemented using NNTP, and has been going for long before the web has existed.

Cheers,
Ian

J-Curve Revolutionary theory

[BenHmm]

Read some of Hannah Arendt. She is one proponent of the, now classic, J-Curve Theory of Rising and Declining Satisfaction.

The idea, basically, is that all is well until the public's expectation for change becomes greater than the rate of change allowed by the government. When that happens, you get a revolution.

This is why Reform is so dangerous to totalitarian regimes - it's not the reform itself, but the rate of reform that does the 'damage'. Gorbachev wanted to reform the USSR's Communist Party - but he went too slowly, the people's expectations got too high, and the Berlin Wall fell.

The same is happening in China, and not just in the Internet-space. Economic reform almost caused a revolution - which manifested inself in the Tiananmen Square protests - because it was percievd as going too slowly, and NOT because the Chinese wanted the supposed end result of a Western-Style liberal democracy.

It's actually the process of change that people want, and not the end result. (which is good, as it means we have things like, you know, Progress).

Re:J-Curve Revolutionary theory

[Bearpaw]

It's actually the process of change that people want, and not the end result. (which is good, as it means we have things like, you know, Progress).

I'm not so sure that's good. People seem to (mostly) take it as a given that change = progress and progress is good, and they mostly don't think enough about the directions "progress" takes us.

Mine Disaster

[Dragoness Eclectic]

Pay close attention: it wasn't "the government" that didn't want it publicized, it was the local provinicial government that didn't want it publicized--to reporters from the official Party newspaper! Notice they stopped interfering when the news finally made it to Beijing. Reading between the lines, what happened here was the provincial governor/commissioner/party hacks didn't want the central government learning about their screw-ups and sending them to a "re-education" camp for a few years.

Re:Intresting thought control method

[JeanBaptiste]

one could argue the plight of the palistinians is the fault of arafat as well as the surrounding arab nations as much as anything israel has done.

Re:ha

[proj_2501]

This is a poor analogy.

Despite the grand amount of clout mainstream media has, there ARE competitors. In fact, you just mentioned a whole bunch in your post? Does that not strike you as a little odd?

The moral is...

[Gorbie]

"The more you tighten your grip, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."

- Princess Leah, a long time ago and far, far away...

There is always someone smarter than you...unless you are Jason Isaacs in Armageddon and get to be "pretty much the smartest man on the planet". Trying to lock down a civilization will only ever work for a short period.

Whatever causes us to complain about laws and/or rules in th U.S., we do have it pretty great in comparison.

Re:The moral is...

[junkgrep]

I dunno: I haven't seen any posts here, or anywhere, from people in China and Cuba. Granted, there's the language barrier, but you'd hope that there were at least some english speaking in-China Linux geeks surfing, or with translators, that would have something to say on such a germaine subject. Can we confirm that people in China can even READ this part of slashdot?

US Companies helping the Chinese Gov't

[guanxi]

Remember this story?

http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/02/19/ 01 22238&mode=thread&tid=153

Posted by timothy on Monday February 18, @11:02PM
from the can-you-read-this-in-beijing dept.

chowbok writes: "The Weekly Standard writes that despite expectations, the Chinese Government has been very successful in suppressing free internet access for their citizens. Key to this success was the assistance of Cisco, who built a giant firewall tailored to the state's needs, Yahoo (who helpfully censors search results and monitors online chats), and other Western companies."

Re:P2P news clients?

[dajt]

Err, it's currently implemented using NNTP. It used to be implemented with UUCP and analog modems. Remember the Telebit Trailblazer?

I would like a internet-free china, like

[Neck_of_the_Woods]

Radio-Free Europe. I think the USA should set up very high end wi-fi along the borders and broadcast DHCP into china. Smuggle in cards, and repeaters...it would be fun for the whole family!

America would be loved...err. hated because of porn, er loved because of porn..err..shit what was my point!

Re:I would like a internet-free china, like

[Dolly_Llama]

this might be nitpicking, but i think the hyphen would be more appropriate in the other position as in Radio Free-Europe (radio from the free portion of Europe) rather than Internet-Free China (being free of the internet is something the powers that be in China would love).

What the Chinese actually do

[Anonymous Coward]

You guys seem to be under the impression that the Chinese block news.bbc.co.uk and CNN.com.
They dont exactly do that. They block them occassionally - sometimes for months at a time.

Now I cant get to the BBC. Last week I could. Now I can get to CNN. (I am in China).

I think they do this to make the BBC and CNN a difficult to get to news source - while the peoples daily is always online...

Also most of the people here dont give a damn about democracy - go into one of the many internet bars round here - everyone is playing Counter Strike or using ICQ in Chinese...

I am in China (Shandong) and am posting as an AC as I forgot my username and password... Also it might be a bit unwise to post my name - tho I would if I hadnt forgot my username and password.

It's really easy

[Codex The Sloth]

Does anyone think that if china "loses control" of the Internet, they will just shut it down or (rather than filtering what you can't see) have extremely strict control on what you can?

Vin Cerf said it best

[alispguru]

At a talk he gave at Worldcon in 1998. I can't find an online citation, so I hope he'll forgive me if I mangle his words:

Intenet censorship for China is like the old "marching Chinese" idea (if everyone in China marched 10 abreast past a given point, the line would never end because it would take more than one generation for the population to pass that point). Only now the question is, can the Chinese government shoot people faster than they can get on the Internet?

Re:Intresting thought control method

[joss]

First off, it's not specific to US it's entirely universal human behaviour. You don't win friends and influence people by being critical. Poeple most like to hear stuff that is complementary. Even more so in a crisis. However, deny people access to something and it suddenly becomes hugely desirable.

Secondly, in UK one gets easy access to most US media. Eg, one can watch CNN, MSNBC, etc with basic cable. One can read washington post, NYTimes online or even buy them in larger newsagents if one cares too.

There is a vicious circle at work. The main reason that Americans are so patriotic is that throughout their lives almost everything they hear reinforces the notion that America is the best (richest, most free, most tolerant, etc)
country on earth, so why shouldn't they be proud of that. Moreover, since the majority believes this completely, it is unwise for a publication that wishes to be bought or even believed to say anything that reflects too badly on America. The media will happily complain about things like crime, drugs, morality - these are internal issues and there's no point denying they exist. There's nothing unpatriotic about discussing one's problems. However you'll never see a mainstream newspaper article saying: "if a foreign power maintained a large military presence in my country to prop up a corrupt, repressive and unpopular regime, to ensure a better deal for their corporations, I would be pretty pissed off too". That wouldn't go down well. No, the reason al-Quaida hate America is "they hate our freedom".

Foreign news is virtually never mentioned on US television unless it's in such a way as to reflect well upon America. For example, you'll get a story like - "American troops fly into East Timor to protect the natives from gangs of thugs." The earlier story: "US trained and funded death squads kill 1/3rd of population of East Timor to supress an independence movement that could damage the interests of US oil companies in nearby waters" is much less likely to make people feel good about themselves, happy with your publication, and likely to read you again. This phenomena is not unique to US by any means, but is more pronounced there than other places I've stayed.

Heh?

[mcrbids]

I don't get a couple of things. First, if the Chinese govt. is feeling threatened by the Internet, why don't they just change the default policy of the firewall to deny? Instead of keeping a "deny" list, keep an "accept" list?

But, it seems, the issue isn't even really the firewall - the reference in the news article is to an INTERNAL event that spread via email and a web posting.

The Internet is a can of worms, and the worms have been let loose. If China wants to keep control of the information, they are simply going to have to drop the 'net.

Good luck, guys!

Re:ha

[egomaniac]

Actually you could just flip the words "Communism" and "Democracy" throughout the whole article, and you have a story about the US!

Yes, because we frequently arrest people for having anti-government opinions. Happens all the time.

Dumbass.

How about controls the other direction

[scoove]

All this talk about China's attempt to control content coming in, but nothing about its traffic going out, is amusing.

China's AS's are great candidates for blocking given the hourly scans from chinanet.cn and other notorious abusers. Scans, relentless spam, and other ilk seems to be the primary product of China's information technology society (and we thought their manufacturing created garbage!).

Then there's last week's article about China launching attacks on US Internet networks in order to "balance the world order" or such. And I want AS connectivity to China for what again?

Snip the cables and let them spam themselves...

*scoove*

Re:You just can't even imagine another goverment

[joss]

Weird, I thought the Chinese government system changed slightly a few decades ago. Remind me, which dynasty are we they in now ?

Triangle Boy

[Artifice_Eternity]

The CIA's venture capital company, In-Q-Tel, has funded a project called Triangle Boy:

http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/internet/02/15/anonym ity.software.idg/

This CNN article from Feb. 2001 talks a little about it. But at that time it supposedly hadn't been deployed. Since then I've heard that Chinese Internet users are using Triangle Boy for secure connections to the outside world, bypassing the government firewalls.

Most Chineese don't live where they have internet

[leereyno]

The vast majority of Chineese people live in rural areas and are utterly uneducated. Only a relative few live in or near cities and have any sort of education or access to the internet in the first place. This may slowly change of course, but for the short term at least China's ability to overshadow the internet is basically non-existant.

Lee

Re:Intresting thought control method

[brejc8]

I live in the UK and I watch a lot of CNN etc. compared with BBC etc. I can tell you that the US media giants are deliberately trying to insight patriotism and bad racial
feelings so you would watch more of the news even go as far as to rise the public feelings to want war.

They are doing this quite well so that anyone who speaks out against this will be slapped for being unpatriotic.
No one dares to say things like "The army killed loads of innocent people on your behalf" because that is not what people want to hear. They want to hear how great
their nation is and what good things its doing for the world.

I don't want to hear how every pair of trainers is made by some 7 year old in a country in debt to the WTO. I wanna hear how my country is fighting for freedom and
justice.

freenet?

[bcrowell]

It's interesting that the stuff the article describes doesn't involve any technological maneuvering at all. What it seems to come down to is that there are some very brave people, who are willing to go to jail if they have to.

I tried out Freenet recently, and if there were any political dissidents using it, it wasn't apparent. The single biggest application of Freenet seems to be child pornography.

Re:Intresting thought control method

[brejc8]

By the way note these are BBC reports as they wouldn't apear on CNN, M$NBC ...

Re:Intresting thought control method

[brejc8]

Search for "Edward L. Bernays"
He did some fantastic PR work. Everything from getting women to smoke to convincing the anerican public that the banana republics were communist

Re:Most Chineese don't live where they have intern

[rsmah]

The vast majority of Chineese people live in rural areas and are utterly uneducated. Only a relative few live in or near cities and have any sort of education or access to the internet in the first place.

This statement is indicative of western ignorance of modern China.

The literacy rate in China is 81.5% [CIA WorldFactbook], which when you consider the difficulty of memorizing 10's of thousands of ideograms is pretty good. There are over 11 mil university students in China right now, which means roughly 15% of people go on to university.

Second, agriculture represents only 15% of the chinese economy (50% industry and 35% services) [CIA WorldFactbook]. While apx. 50% of the population is still rural (far higher than in the US) that's far from "the vast majority".

Third, in 1990, China had 102 cities with populations over 1 million [UN Statistics Division] and probably a lot more today given China's rapid urbanization (which creates a lot of problems). In fact, as many people (apx. 210 mil in 1990) live in China's "large" (1mil+) cities as in the entire United States.

China is, of course, still relatively poor compared to the US and Western Europe. And large regions of western China are still underdeveloped. Given income levels, it is no suprise that that only a small percentage use the Internet (it's not suprising that A/C's, TV's and other modern conveniences are purchased first). But we should try to update outdated views of China as we start the 21st century.

Re:Most Chineese don't live where they have intern

[Jonavin]

This is so true. I used to hold the ignorant view of China until I went there for a vacation earlier this year.

Mind you, I didn't ventured into the really small villages (pop less than 1000) and rural areas, but I could tell things are a lot different that what I used to perceive it as.

I was in a fishing village in souther China with no paved roads, but they had buses with VCD videos playing. And in the same area were more Internet cafe than I'd image people could use. Sure enough when I went in there were half a dozen kids, no more than 12 years old, playing network games.

I spent 2 hours in there checking email and reading news. I certainly didn't feel like anything was being blocked. They had 128bit I.E. browser so I was able to do my banking too.

I could go on forever. Bottom line is that people should stop making ignorant comments about China unless they've been there.

They can

[lanren]

I'm a Chinese, currently in the U.S. When some time ago slashdot posted a story about a Chinese linux company didn't publish their source code there are a lot of discussion in Chinese linux community so I know they can read slashdot. The reason you don't see many Chinese people here is probably because most slashdot stories and discussions are more about politics than technology, or technology that is too far away for average Chinese people. And the general air here is not very Chinese-friendly (my personal view, of course). If you really want to check out the linux community in China, here's a link:
http://www.linuxforum.net, it's in Chinese, good luck!

Re:They can

[Alsee]

And the general air here is not very Chinese-friendly

Hopefully any un-friendlyness is aimed at the Chinese government and not at the Chinese people.

In your experience, how often do people make the distinction and how often to people lump them together?

-

Re:re your sig...

[zulux]

Criminal prisioners vs. prisioners of stupid laws, or criminals that should be punished by other means than prision.

My reasioning is that we, as citizens, have to work hard for our food and housing - prisioners should be required to work as hard a we do. 60 hour weeks of hard labor would keep our taxes low and help the recitivism rate. Prisioners should not keep any of the proceeds of their labor, and if, they choose not to work, then they should starve.

This hard tratment should be reserved for prisioners of violent crime and abusive fraud, and not for the schmuk that gets caught with a joint in his pocket.

Re:Intresting thought control method

[Beliskner]

No person can have fun at a party, meeting or anything else when you realise somebody is lying to you about serious stuff that affects you, regardless of what country they come from. Like Total Recall 2070.

American news agencies perform self-censorship for conformity according to the wishes of the ancien regime of the day (industrial leaders, offensive military interests at this time). There are some that breach this such as the website that published Daniel Pearl's execution video - Ogrish (WARNING IF YOU CLICK THIS LINK AT WORK YOU'RE SCREWED, REGARD LINK AS PAEDOPHILE MATERIAL) but they were forced to take it down by the FBI. I never knew that putting an MPEG on your website was illegal. Interesting tactic of make everything illegal so that Feds and buddies can force you to do their dirty work by threatening to charge you with the 100 offences you committed just to wake up in the morning.

America created the extremists, probably deliberately so that they could invent "good colonialism" same as the British empire in their heyday claiming, "We are liberating these uncivilised people..." yada yada. The US media is amplifying the South Asian and Middle Eastern phenomenon of the "aggressive Mullah" which the US has its own equivalent of in its bible belt. If other countries were to judge the US by Utah then they'd blockade the US.

Re:Huh-- the US was involved here?

[Zeinfeld]

Could you elaborate on the "US" part? I don't remember that from my high-school history books

Could that be because they were US history books? Try reading 'Lies my teacher told me'..

During the Teddy Roosevelt administration the US adopted an 'open door' policy to China. What that meant was that China was going to accept goods from the US regardless of whether they wanted to or not.

The Chineese were at the time about 100 years behind the West in military technology. However in most other respects they were equally civilized. But as Belloc observed 'Whatever else we have got, the Maxim gun, and they have not'.

The US helped the other great powers to dismember China into a collection of 'spheres of influence' then later on helped Japan invade most of the country. Despite the fact that China had not been a beligerent power in WWI the US imposed peace conditions that gave Japan control of much of the country.

The US even continued to do so after WWII by recognising the anexation by Japan of islands that before US and Japanese meddling had been part of China for over 500 years.

Re:marx

[Zeinfeld]

Marx was convinced that the great masses would never have the resources to own captial. Thus he reasoned that the masses would rise up and over throw the extreamly wealthy.

I actually wonder if he really believed that. Although he tries very hard to persuade people that the revolution is at hand he also said that philosophers have analysed the world in many ways, the real task is to change it.

I think that Marx's prophecy of a revolution should be considered in the same light as 1984, not primarily prophecy but instead a means of effecting change. Victorian Britain was scared of revolution above all else, revolution meant the horrors of the French reign of terror and the Bonapartist attempt to establish dictatorship across Europe.

Victorian society did change, they may have changed in part because Marx's prophecy meant that liberal reformers were listened to and the elites accepted gradual change rather than risk revolution.

What he didnt count on was publicly held stock, wide spread education, and that the investment of the extremely wealthy would make the whole country more wealthy.

I think that Marx's ideas reached their sell by date long before we got to the point where the middle class was the majority of the population and most people owned stock. Certainly after WWI with the Bolshevick coup the forces of reactionism are doing their utmost to reform social conditions before the revolution sweeps them away.

Incidentally, the term 'Bolshevick revolution' is a misnomer, actually the Tzar was removed from power in a relatively peaceful revolution led by the Menchevicks who tried to establish a liberal democratic state. The mistake they made was not announcing an end to the war which is what gave Lenin and Stalin an opportunity. The proletariat cared more about ending the war than the promise of a democratic society.

Largest Chinese Daily Falls For Onion Gag

[jonerik]

Read story here.