Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Velin

macrumors 68020
Jul 23, 2008
2,015
1,920
Hearst Castle
U

You lost me on your rant when you incorrectly called China a dictatorship. If you are going to say something, make it informed.
The Asia Society calls China a "dictatorship," because "China is ruled by a one-party authoritarian dictatorship. The state (i.e. the government) of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) is entirely under the monopolistic control of a single ruling political party, the CCP.... However, in reality, the party is completely intertwined with the state system, all important positions of government are held by CCP party members, and party leadership positions always take precedence over state leaders who are theoretically at the same level."

And, "While previously China's post-Mao CCP regime might have been described, in political science terms, as an authoritarian oligarchy – that is, ruled by a small collective leadership – since coming to power as General Secretary Xi Jinping has dismantled this system of collective leadership. In its place, he has implemented a system of, effectively, one-man rule — or dictatorship — by successfully purging factional rivals, concentrating power into new institutions directly under his control, and establishing a popular cult of personality. By doing so, Xi succeeded in reversing the project of former leader Deng Xiaoping, who sought to reform the Chinese political system explicitly to prevent the return of the one-man rule that had plagued China during the era of Mao Zedong."

Sounds as though the prior poster was entirely correct. Does the China Analysis Center of the Asia Society need to be "informed" too?
 
Last edited:

Mac Fly (film)

macrumors 68020
Feb 12, 2006
2,413
7,350
Ireland
They could also have done more to help customers who have needs which cannot be afforded normally. Apple could make such a difference to people like me who cannot work because of illness and I rely on a small amount of money from my fixed income. My life and those of thousands of others could be much improved dramatically.
Keep dreaming. Apple makes themselves out to be noble, but they are motivated by profit only. They could do whatever they wanted to achieve a profit (literally anything) and people would defend it. Their product lineup is a mess if you ask me. They make far too many things and are much too unfocused on product quality and product line clarity that it's a shame. I feel for you with your illness, I'm in a similar boat. The good news for me is I inherited a home and have no debt. Illness is life's pause button and in some ways it's a shame. We got to play the cards we are dealt, mate. I suffer immense pain the whole time, but rest assured there is always a bigger picture we do not see. The human perception is quite narrow and sees but a sliver.
 
Last edited:

nicho

macrumors 601
Feb 15, 2008
4,217
3,210
The Asia Society calls China a "dictatorship," because "China is ruled by a one-party authoritarian dictatorship. The state (i.e. the government) of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) is entirely under the monopolistic control of a single ruling political party, the CCP.... However, in reality, the party is completely intertwined with the state system, all important positions of government are held by CCP party members, and party leadership positions always take precedence over state leaders who are theoretically at the same level."

And, "While previously China's post-Mao CCP regime might have been described, in political science terms, as an authoritarian oligarchy – that is, ruled by a small collective leadership – since coming to power as General Secretary Xi Jinping has dismantled this system of collective leadership. In its place, he has implemented a system of, effectively, one-man rule — or dictatorship — by successfully purging factional rivals, concentrating power into new institutions directly under his control, and establishing a popular cult of personality. By doing so, Xi succeeded in reversing the project of former leader Deng Xiaoping, who sought to reform the Chinese political system explicitly to prevent the return of the one-man rule that had plagued China during the era of Mao Zedong."

Sounds as though the prior poster was entirely correct. Does the China Analysis Center of the Asia Society need to be "informed" too?

My Uncle Bob calls China “a lovely place, with some great fellas”, which is backed up by Father Ted Crilly who described them as a “grand bunch of lads”.

What qualifies the Asia Society to be an authority on this matter?
 
  • Like
Reactions: StoneJack

mazz0

macrumors 68040
Mar 23, 2011
3,143
3,585
Leeds, UK
My Uncle Bob calls China “a lovely place, with some great fellas”, which is backed up by Father Ted Crilly who described them as a “grand bunch of lads”.

What qualifies the Asia Society to be an authority on this matter?
I don't like to speak ill of the dead, especially such an august figure, but to be fair some of Father Crilly's examples weren't actually Chinese.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: nicho

star-affinity

macrumors 68000
Nov 14, 2007
1,937
1,224
Apple should get out of video content and focus on hardware and operating systems exclusively. And make less and make each one better.
Not sure I agree. I think they do a prettty good job with their video content, overall.
Agree they could do a better job when it comes to gaming, but it seems they're working a bit on that as of late.
 

Velin

macrumors 68020
Jul 23, 2008
2,015
1,920
Hearst Castle
My Uncle Bob calls China “a lovely place, with some great fellas”, which is backed up by Father Ted Crilly who described them as a “grand bunch of lads”.

What qualifies the Asia Society to be an authority on this matter?

For starters, sixty-seven years of in-the-field experience. Stacked with talent, and has been for decades. Here are their contributors to their ChinaFile. Let me guess, some randos on MRumors know more than these contributors.

Also, identify what the Asia Society got wrong in their succinct analysis of China as a de facto dictatorship. Go ahead, blind us with your brilliance on President Xi. (This should be good.)
 
Last edited:

nicho

macrumors 601
Feb 15, 2008
4,217
3,210
For starters, nearly seventy-five years of in-the-field experience. Stacked with talent, and has been for decades. Here are their contributors to their ChinaFile. Let me guess, some randos on MRumors know more than these contributors.

Also, identify what they got wrong in their succinct analysis. Go ahead, blind us with your brilliance on President Xi. (This should be good.)

Anyone who rounds up the number 68 to "75" is on a path to having the whole debate deleted by moderators. I'm gonna leave this now a) for the good of anyone who comes along and adds constructively to the discussion, so that those poor saps don't end up having their contributions deleted and b) because I have better things to do than argue further.
 

StoneJack

macrumors 68020
Dec 19, 2009
2,460
1,551
For starters, nearly seventy-five years of in-the-field experience. Stacked with talent, and has been for decades. Here are their contributors to their ChinaFile. Let me guess, some randos on MRumors know more than these contributors.

Also, identify what the Asia Society got wrong in their succinct analysis of China as a de facto dictatorship. Go ahead, blind us with your brilliance on President Xi. (This should be good.)
Well, they are mostly right. China is a dictatorship. So is Russia. There is nothing to debate here. In Russia's case, the civil contract (contract between population and ruling class) was that Putin's gang (there are several of them) nationalized all resources and shared partly with population as wages and so on. Russia underwent very turbulent 90s, and almost was ruled by gangsters then, but then the largest gang (Putin's gang) won over and established its rule, returning to some kind of stability. For most Russians, stabilty and some share of oil money was enough to be satisfied. They don't have democracy either. In China's case the civil contract was the CCP rules, merchants make money, everybody happy. These are systems in those countries. It would be naive to expect both of them to tolerate even little signs of freedom. But for most folks, life has improved so they tolerate their dictators. When ruling classes fail to fulfil their part of the civil contract, that's when revolutions start. But so far both these countries are very far from that.
 

Velin

macrumors 68020
Jul 23, 2008
2,015
1,920
Hearst Castle
Anyone who rounds up the number 68 to "75" is on a path to having the whole debate deleted by moderators. I'm gonna leave this now a) for the good of anyone who comes along and adds constructively to the discussion, so that those poor saps don't end up having their contributions deleted and b) because I have better things to do than argue further.
Translation: “I cannot dispute the analysis China is a de facto dictatorship, under the authoritarian rule of President Xi. Nor can I dispute in any meaningful way the fact Xi has significantly rolled back anti-authoritarian reforms by his predecessors. The best I can do is criticize rounding up a number, and bizarrely claim this merits deletion and censorship.”

Anyway, edited it to say 67. As if that made any meaningful difference. Ridiculous.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: nicho

steve09090

macrumors 68020
Aug 12, 2008
2,179
4,166
The Asia Society calls China a "dictatorship," because "China is ruled by a one-party authoritarian dictatorship. The state (i.e. the government) of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) is entirely under the monopolistic control of a single ruling political party, the CCP.... However, in reality, the party is completely intertwined with the state system, all important positions of government are held by CCP party members, and party leadership positions always take precedence over state leaders who are theoretically at the same level."

And, "While previously China's post-Mao CCP regime might have been described, in political science terms, as an authoritarian oligarchy – that is, ruled by a small collective leadership – since coming to power as General Secretary Xi Jinping has dismantled this system of collective leadership. In its place, he has implemented a system of, effectively, one-man rule — or dictatorship — by successfully purging factional rivals, concentrating power into new institutions directly under his control, and establishing a popular cult of personality. By doing so, Xi succeeded in reversing the project of former leader Deng Xiaoping, who sought to reform the Chinese political system explicitly to prevent the return of the one-man rule that had plagued China during the era of Mao Zedong."

Sounds as though the prior poster was entirely correct. Does the China Analysis Center of the Asia Society need to be "informed" too?
Thats a good article. It is also far far more complicated than that. Ultimately, it’s an Authoritarian Democracy. Built on Marxism-Leninism at its core. It has capitalism as part of its economic growth and is controlled centrally. It has democratic companies within its borders and it has government departments who they are responding to as well, as all companies are to their respective governments. You cannot simply say it is this or that. Certainly a person, like Trump who wants to control, Xi has a lot more control of his government. But it is not simply a dictatorship. There are many moving parts to their political, social and economic arms.

More reading: Harvard Business Review - Understanding China unless you are happy with a limited perspective.
 

StoneJack

macrumors 68020
Dec 19, 2009
2,460
1,551
Thats a good article. It is also far far more complicated than that. Ultimately, it’s an Authoritarian Democracy. Built on Marxism-Leninism at its core. It has capitalism as part of its economic growth and is controlled centrally. It has democratic companies within its borders and it has government departments who they are responding to as well, as all companies are to their respective governments. You cannot simply say it is this or that. Certainly a person, like Trump who wants to control, Xi has a lot more control of his government. But it is not simply a dictatorship. There are many moving parts to their political, social and economic arms.

More reading: Harvard Business Review - Understanding China unless you are happy with a limited perspective.
what we call party, is not really a political party in a western sense in both Russia and China. They are more like mafia organizations (with all beautiful slogans) or a kind of military order with some crazy ideas. You really don't debate what party said. It is an order. There are fractions within the order which fight with each other and that gives the system a bit more dynamics. But after 3-4 generations all social lifts are already occupied by 2nd or 3rd generation revolutionaries so ordinary folks have really no future or career. China is more economy oriented due to traditions, and Russia is more war oriented, also due its traditions.
 

Velin

macrumors 68020
Jul 23, 2008
2,015
1,920
Hearst Castle
Thats a good article. It is also far far more complicated than that. Ultimately, it’s an Authoritarian Democracy. Built on Marxism-Leninism at its core. It has capitalism as part of its economic growth and is controlled centrally. It has democratic companies within its borders and it has government departments who they are responding to as well, as all companies are to their respective governments. You cannot simply say it is this or that. Certainly a person, like Trump who wants to control, Xi has a lot more control of his government. But it is not simply a dictatorship. There are many moving parts to their political, social and economic arms.

More reading: Harvard Business Review - Understanding China unless you are happy with a limited perspective.
Yes I read that a couple years ago. Given what has happened to certain executives and generals in China under Xi, I wonder what they would say now. We had this exact debate here on MRumors maybe six months ago, as China literally executed certain business executives, and dissapeared others (I’m not going to rehash that whole thing, people can look it up).
 
  • Haha
Reactions: nicho

Surf Monkey

macrumors 603
Oct 3, 2010
5,839
4,686
Portland, OR
What's not "obvious" is this: telling the truth doesn't mean one is not sympathetic. To the contrary, putting it in such stark terms highlights the depravity of the CCP machine. You think this pearl-clutching is helping Chinese citizens? It isn't.

Pearl clutching?

LOL
 

mazz0

macrumors 68040
Mar 23, 2011
3,143
3,585
Leeds, UK
Ultimately, it’s an Authoritarian Democracy. Built on Marxism-Leninism at its core. It has capitalism as part of its economic growth and is controlled centrally.
That might have been an argument under prior rulers (a stretch, but with some credible points), but not under Xi.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Velin

PowerMac5500

macrumors regular
Mar 14, 2021
235
584
Are they really so wrong?

I mean, not saying they *literally* think everyone is low IQ and dumb... But their entire business model makes the assumption that not only are there a significant number of people on the planet who you'd describe as "below average intelligence", but there are plenty of "high intelligence" people who still focus on a pretty narrow scope of interests. If "technology" isn't really part of that focus, they still benefit from "dumbing down" complex products so they take less effort to use or learn.
Yes. This, 100%. I knew the majority of people reading my comment would skip past "over simplification" and focus on "Apple thinks people are stupid."

Apple opened the door for the "everyone" regardless of technical ability. They made, and make, the best in the category. To over simplify again... there's so much they could do, but won't, because it would confuse some people.

And this includes "confusion" around things like performance issues a user might experience if given more control of batteries or fans. Or by having the freedom to turn on a resource-heavy iOS feature, or update to the next macOS that's just outside your spec, even if to test the waters.

It's not "holding it wrong"... but it also kind of is. Apple builds a beautiful thing to function perfectly a specific way. And that's fine. I'm surrounded by Apple products, they are the best. But more trust in their users would make them even better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Surf Monkey

Surf Monkey

macrumors 603
Oct 3, 2010
5,839
4,686
Portland, OR
They could also have done more to help customers who have needs which cannot be afforded normally. Apple could make such a difference to people like me who cannot work because of illness and I rely on a small amount of money from my fixed income. My life and those of thousands of others could be much improved dramatically.

Apple has the resources to do both.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: ThisIsMike

ninecows

macrumors 6502a
Apr 9, 2012
664
1,077
Well, they are mostly right. China is a dictatorship. So is Russia. There is nothing to debate here. In Russia's case, the civil contract (contract between population and ruling class) was that Putin's gang (there are several of them) nationalized all resources and shared partly with population as wages and so on. Russia underwent very turbulent 90s, and almost was ruled by gangsters then, but then the largest gang (Putin's gang) won over and established its rule, returning to some kind of stability. For most Russians, stabilty and some share of oil money was enough to be satisfied. They don't have democracy either. In China's case the civil contract was the CCP rules, merchants make money, everybody happy. These are systems in those countries. It would be naive to expect both of them to tolerate even little signs of freedom. But for most folks, life has improved so they tolerate their dictators. When ruling classes fail to fulfil their part of the civil contract, that's when revolutions start. But so far both these countries are very far from that.
If anything we have learned that democracy is a fragile thing.

Just one decade ago Russia was also pretty much a democracy. And so was Turkey. Now it’s hard for any opposition to get a foothold there. Even a country with a two century long democratic tradition was recently close to giving up on that whole democracy thing. Maybe it still will?

China was moving in the right direction (although slowly) until Xi decided that he was so good for the country that he needed to stay.

The good thing is that no dictator lives forever. We can only hope that the next one brought to power (in any of the countries above) has a more democratic mindset.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Morod and StoneJack

InvertedGoldfish

Suspended
Jun 28, 2023
468
405
1950’s called and they want their world view back. Should we also burn communists like witches

1950 was but a minute ago, and many of the millions killed by communism would still be alive today, but communism is still killing tons of people today, it’s what it produces, death and misery

20TH_C_MORTACRACIES.GIF


People still rightfully hate nazis. But Germany wouldn’t have even won a bronze medal compared to the communists when it comes to body count



I think burning communists is a bad idea, especially with how poor the air quality already is in communist areas, plus people would freak out about the “carbon foot print” even though communist countries pollute tons as well

Here is a “green” option


A 200lb communist will produce about 22 gallons of diesel which could be used for cars, heating homes, with extra treatment could even be used as jet fuel

So realistically communists can be good for the world, just not as a communist, ether evolve into a better human or as diesel :)
 

StoneJack

macrumors 68020
Dec 19, 2009
2,460
1,551
1950 was but a minute ago, and many of the millions killed by communism would still be alive today, but communism is still killing tons of people today, it’s what it produces, death and misery

20TH_C_MORTACRACIES.GIF


People still rightfully hate nazis. But Germany wouldn’t have even won a bronze medal compared to the communists when it comes to body count



I think burning communists is a bad idea, especially with how poor the air quality already is in communist areas, plus people would freak out about the “carbon foot print” even though communist countries pollute tons as well

Here is a “green” option


A 200lb communist will produce about 22 gallons of diesel which could be used for cars, heating homes, with extra treatment could even be used as jet fuel

So realistically communists can be good for the world, just not as a communist, ether evolve into a better human or as diesel :)
This is actually a great point. Somehow both Russia and China were among the victors in WW2, so allied nations never mentioned how these both regimes killed millions of their compatriots.
 
  • Like
Reactions: InvertedGoldfish
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.