Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

China is spending billions on soft power

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 135 posts

Re: China is spending billions on soft power

#81

Post by nacc »

I spent almost equal amount of my life in China / North America now, it's interesting to see and compare what one side think about the other.

In north America, what I get is China is controlled by dictators. Life sucks over there because there is no freedom, a lot of corruption, no respect to rules, and is generally a chaotic mess. While in north America, democracy and freedom is wonderful, and everyone has the power to make changes of society, and in the end the government has to care about people to stay in power.

In China, what I get is the US (Canada is usually less discussed) is controlled by a corrupt and impotent government. Life sucks over there because the majority of the people, who actually has the power, believes the doublespeak of the government and are easily manipulated by the wealth. While in China, people make jokes about the official media, and if the government decides to do something people don't like, people simply ignore it and with enough people (there is always enough people in China) doing this, the government has to care about people's opinion to do anything.

I'm a little worried about the situation of both sides now. They seem to go towards what the opposite believes: on one hand in China, the government starts to get better at propaganda and manipulating public opinion; on the other hand in the States ... there is enough happening in the past year.

Re: China is spending billions on soft power

#82

Post by kristianc »

throwayedidqo wrote: post #76
kristianc wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As it stands, this doesn't sound dissimilar to America (which also spends billions on making the world love it in the name of soft power)

The US is also still largely a transparent democracy. By soft-power do you mean the only modern country so defined by its achievements that it's culture is emulated across the world? In the former Soviet Union and even in modern China it's fashionable and a sign of wealth to have American technology and fashion. Among many trade barriers, China artificially limits the number of American movies allowed in theaters to…

And yet the US export of soft power to the Middle East largely ended in ignominious failure.

And there's plenty of intel out there in the open that the US funds propaganda abroad, such as Omidyar's co-funding of the Ukraine resistance (https://pando.com/2014/02/28/pierre-omidyar-co-funded-ukrain...).

Or in Chile, where the United States overthrew a democratically elected leader and installed a dictator who went on to commit over 300 human rights atrocities.

Indeed many of the technologies you cite as being invented by the US were invented within a military context! Atomic weapons were not, I'm sorry to say, America's wonderful altruistic gift to the world.

The US has certainly been successful projecting its power around the world - arguing that that has come from the sheer force of American global popularity is more of a stretch.

Re: China is spending billions on soft power

#83

Post by foldr »

foldr wrote: post #36
david-given wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've heard it's a pretty straightforward language --- every syllable is a word in its own right, and multisyllable words are compound words[ * ]; and that the grammar is supposed to be really straightforward, at least for English speakers, with no inflection, SVO sentence order, limited tenses, and sentences made from gluing words together. Unfortunately every written tutorial I've found seems heavily focused around…

>every syllable is a word in its own right, and multisyllable words are compound words[ This is an artifact of the writing system. Mandarin Chinese has multisyllabic words in exactly the same way that e.g. English does. http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=3330

I'm not sure why I'm being downvoted for this. It is a trivially verifiable fact that Mandarin Chinese has multi-syllabic words, and that these are not particularly uncommon. It's also trivially verifiable that the writing system is (to an extent) syllabic, which can give rise to the misperception that each character is a word and that each word is monosyllabic. This is all widely available, easy to verify information.

Re: China is spending billions on soft power

#84

Post by diego_moita »

gragas wrote: post #77
diego_moita wrote: post #3

Smart move, the path is wide open for China. The most remembered phrase of the orange demagogue inaugural address was "America first, always". As a non-American I'd argue that "me first" are words that a leader should never say, even when it is what he always believed. I might start learning Mandarin, someday.

>The most remembered phrase of the orange demagogue inaugural address was "America first, always" I feel very good putting America first. Countries that do not protect themselves are exploited and overrun. Always. It has always happened and it always will happen. Do you really think China has good intentions?

You didn't get my point. It isn't about countries caring or not for their interests, it is about how they sell their interest to others, how do you convince others to side with you. It is about your sales pitch as a country.

Every empire pretends to be more than imperialism. Soft power comes from being convincing at it. No, China doesn't have good intentions, as much as the U.S., the British, the Ottomans, Spaniards, French and Romans also didn't. But, still, you are more powerful when you convince others that you are also "good".

If America explicitly gives up on even pretending to be good, what is the point of respecting America?

Re: China is spending billions on soft power

#85

Post by sosborn »

imjustsaying wrote: post #75
sosborn wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> people die on waiting lists like in Canada People die on waiting lists in America too, so if you are going to make this argument, be specific. How many people, what are they on the waiting list for, and how is it worse than what we have in America?

The answer is in just one word to the left of that quote: "_more_ people die on waiting lists like in Canada." It's not that the free market provides a panacea utopia, it's that it's empirically better than everything else. The government system in Canada predictably and steadily broke down as efficiency left due to the lack of a free market. >The study, an annual survey of physicians from across Canada, reports a me…

Ok, but you still haven't shown any numbers regarding deaths and how they compare to America.

Re: China is spending billions on soft power

#86

Post by nneonneo »

foldr wrote: post #59
nneonneo wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Despite the article's enthusiasm for polysyllabic characters, these remain exceedingly rare in day-to-day use, whereas polysyllabic words in English are basically unavoidable. There's no equivalence here. The writing system remains very strongly monosyllabic, in that one character corresponds to one syllable >99% of the time.

The point I was referring to is that the words are not all monosyllabic. The existence or nonexistence of multisyllabic characters is irrelevant. Character != word. https://www.jstor.org/stable/595185?seq=1

Ah, I see. I was confused because you linked to a LanguageLog article specifically about polysyllabic characters. Yes, indeed, "compound words" as mentioned by the GP post are just plain words that are composed of multiple characters.

Re: China is spending billions on soft power

#87

Post by foldr »

nneonneo wrote: post #86
foldr wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point I was referring to is that the words are not all monosyllabic. The existence or nonexistence of multisyllabic characters is irrelevant. Character != word. https://www.jstor.org/stable/595185?seq=1

Ah, I see. I was confused because you linked to a LanguageLog article specifically about polysyllabic characters . Yes, indeed, "compound words" as mentioned by the GP post are just plain words that are composed of multiple characters.

Yes, I should have explained that I was just referring to the examples of multisyllabic words at the beginning of the post, sorry.

Re: China is spending billions on soft power

#88

Post by diego_moita »

vtange wrote: post #11
diego_moita wrote: post #3

Smart move, the path is wide open for China. The most remembered phrase of the orange demagogue inaugural address was "America first, always". As a non-American I'd argue that "me first" are words that a leader should never say, even when it is what he always believed. I might start learning Mandarin, someday.

As opposed to China? They don't say it, but they have basically ran a "China first" agenda for the last decade or two. Does China maintain a friendly policy toward refugees and minorities? Sure, they do enact policy for the environment, but it's heavily sold on cutting their own smog and air pollution. "Let other countries settle things bilaterally without interference" were China's words originally, not Trump's. One…

As a non-American I have a very different understanding of American role in the world. I don't buy the whole concept of "American exceptionalism". I don't believe that America's actions in the world are moved just by benevolent preoccupations.

> they have basically ran a "China first" agenda for the last decade or two

I totally agree, but that is what every country, tribe and empire has done for thousands of years. I don't expect anyone to be different. My issue is about how you sell it. Soft power (the theme of the article) comes from the empire sales pitch, from being able to convince others that you are being good when you are protecting your assets.

Again: my point is not what you are, is what you sell. And the "art of the deal" president is actually a very bad salesman. This is an overture for the Chinese. No, I don't "trust" China as much as I don't "trust" America.

Re: China is spending billions on soft power

#89

Post by throwayedidqo »

kristianc wrote: post #82
throwayedidqo wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US is also still largely a transparent democracy. By soft-power do you mean the only modern country so defined by its achievements that it's culture is emulated across the world? In the former Soviet Union and even in modern China it's fashionable and a sign of wealth to have American technology and fashion. Among many trade barriers, China artificially limits the number of American movies allowed in theaters to…

And yet the US export of soft power to the Middle East largely ended in ignominious failure. And there's plenty of intel out there in the open that the US funds propaganda abroad, such as Omidyar's co-funding of the Ukraine resistance ( https://pando.com/2014/02/28/pierre-omidyar-co-funded-ukrain... ). Or in Chile, where the United States overthrew a democratically elected leader and installed a dictator who went on…

And here we go, meandering farther and farther from the point at hand. That article is not from a respectable news source and your claims, which have nothing to do with China, are not verifiable.

However, my arguments are easily verifiable and widely known. Why do other countries feel the need to block things like US movies and sports stars? Are your seriously suggesting that such things are secretly US govt propaganda?

The most reasonable explanation is that US movies and sports stars are known for their high quality and allowing the US to compete in those countries would totally wipe out local movies and sports stars. This would obviously contribute to the spread of US culture and continue propagating the believe that the US model of society produces superior products.

Countries like Russia and China depend on their propaganda machines to keep the population complacent. Allowing foreign competition to overtake local firms and show their superiority to the local populace would result in questions those governments don't want these citizens asking.

Foreign companies find little trouble competing in the US, because the US govt by large is not concerned with the influence of foreign culture. The government is slight corrupt but not to the point that it makes widespread lies necessary to maintain order. Many foreign companies have the US as their primary market, something China and other countries that depend on propaganda for peace would never allow.

Re: China is spending billions on soft power

#90

Post by tinza123 »

tehabe wrote: post #28

It would be cheaper to open up the country, introduce a democratic system and actual human rights, and abolish the death penality. Make peace with Tibet, agree with Taiwan on a good neighborhood. Support a democratic change also in North Korea. These would actually make China a country I could support, but currently: no, thank you.

You don't know anything about the Chinese society, if a pure democratic system was introduced abruptly in China, do you honestly think the chaos it introduces among 1.3 billion people is a good thing? Regardless of if people actually like it. About Tibet, do you know anything other than several celebrities shouting out words they have no idea what so ever? Do you know they had slavery before the Chinese came in in the 50s? Do you know they had been part of the country for centuries? Agreeing with Taiwan ... Man why didn't the U.S. just chill and hangout with Cuba when the Russians carries their missiles over?

You guessed it, don't like China? Nobody gives a damn.

Post reply on HN