But China is authoritarian.
It’s good for the working classes to wield state authority against capitalists and fascists. To not do so would be to allow capitalism to reform, and the alternative is capitalist authority used against the working classes.
But China is capitalist.
No, it isn’t. Public ownersip is the principle aspect of the economy and the working classes control the state, it’s socialist.
And all states are authoritarian, so it loses its explanatory value and is a useless term when used to isolate and describe individual states.
Shit. I thought that was Dennis Reynolds for a second.
I donno anything about China, but whoever made this meme certainly doesn’t know anything about the USA. The idea that “liberals” or anyone else (??) are high-fiving themselves over a credit score. lol
People like thay exist. In the same way that 40 year olds high five themselves for still fitting into the pants they wore in hs.
Removed by mod
No? I’m an ML and I live in a capitalist country. Further, liberals are absolutely worse than anarchists.
Where are progressives on that scale? Oh, and do fascists, I definitely want to know how a fascist stacks up against a liberal!
“Progressive” doesn’t really mean anything beyond “left of establishment democrats.” They range from liberal to socialist. Fascists are a twin of liberalism, worse but fundamentally connected.
If you’re not anti capitalist and anti bourgeois democracy even if you’re “progressive” you’re just a flavour of liberal. Fascists are obviously worse than liberals although they tend to agree on a surprising amount of things when push comes to shove unfortunately. Scratch a liberal and a fascist bleeds is a widespread phrase for a reason.
The formula for a fascist is liberal plus time, multiplied by war
I’ll stand corrected on the anarchist comment. But if one lives in a capitalist country, one inevitably supports capitalism, right? Even if it’s against their will.
This sounds more and more like Original Sin.
Existing within capitalism does not mean you cannot work to overthrow it and must ideologically support it by espousing liberal talking points.
Profoundly wrong statement.
First because that’s not how Marxist-Leninists use the word ‘liberal’, that’s a definition you just made up while ignoring decades of literature. Second, because it implies that is not what the word actually means to literally everyone, not just Leninists or even just socialists, everywhere on the planet with the exception of the US liberal duopoly.
Third, because it mistakenly assumes people are calling you a liberal because of your instance, and not because of your shit takes.
The ML usage of the term liberal comes from Classical Liberalism, right? Please correct me.
Also I hate how y’all think I’m personally evil because I haven’t Read Theory. Y’all are my first exposure to MLs and I don’t have any control over what my society has taught me. (I’m not defending what my society has taught me, I’ve been deconstructing for a long time and not stopping.)
Is naivete a sin?
Is naivete a sin?
No investigation no right to speak is a core part of MarxistLeninist thought as it has evolved. Naivete is not “a sin” but if you haven’t researched a topic you shouldn’t speak on it.
As Chairman Mao put it:
Unless you have investigated a problem, you will be deprived of the right to speak on it. Isn’t that too harsh? Not in the least. When you have not probed into a problem, into the present facts and its past history, and know nothing of its essentials, whatever you say about it will undoubtedly be nonsense. Talking nonsense solves no problems, as everyone knows, so why is it unjust to deprive you of the right to speak? Quite a few comrades always keep their eyes shut and talk nonsense, and for a Communist that is disgraceful. How can a Communist keep his eyes shut and talk nonsense?
It won’t do!
It won’t do!
You must investigate!
You must not talk nonsense!
“liberal” denotes adherence to bourgeois democracy and capitalist property relations, (pro bourgeois democracy and private property)
The critique of certain “anarchists” is that they guise reactionary politics in radical language, which aids capitalism.
Removed by mod
This is nonsense. Communism has not been achieved, but socialism absolutely has. Communism has not been achieved not for lack of trying, but because it is a post-socialist system. There’s no psyop.
First, let’s be precise about terms: capitalism is defined by private ownership of the means of production, profit-driven accumulation, and wage labor; socialism is defined by social ownership (state, collective, or cooperative), planning mechanisms, and the subordination of remaining market forces to developmental and social goals. They are distinct modes of production, not a binary where anything short of stateless communism “counts” as capitalism.
Second, “Western capitalism” isn’t a universal default, it specifically describes the Euro-Amerikan core and its integrated vassals (NATO, Five Eyes, dependent economies). That system is hegemonic, but it is not total. Russia, for instance, operates a distinct sovereign-capitalist model: not socialist, but explicitly de-linked from Western financial architecture and actively contesting unipolar dominance.
Third, China, Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam are explicitly in the early stages of the socialist transitionary period. Their frameworks (especially China’s “primary stage of socialism”) theorize that underdeveloped socialist states must develop productive forces, utilize regulated markets, and engage globally while maintaining proletarian state power and public ownership of commanding heights. This isn’t “capitalism with red flags”; it’s a materialist strategy to build the basis for higher-stage socialism. Dismissing these distinctions because communism hasn’t been “achieved” yet misunderstands dialectics: transition is a process, not an event. You don’t call a bridge under construction meaningless because it has yet to reach the other side.
Lmao Chinese can’t even move to the other cities of their own country.
“A central rationale of such policies, particularly in first tier-cities, has been to prevent severe overcrowding, infrastructure overload, and the emergence of large-scale slums during China’s rapid industrialization and urbanization phases. Shahid Yusuf, a Senior Adviser in the World Bank’s Development Research Group noted that the hukou system served as a “cornerstone of China’s urbanization strategy” by controlling migration and channeling migrants toward small or medium-sized cities rather than allowing unchecked inflows to the largest urban areas.”
this sounds…good?
how come other countries don’t need this insane oppression? Also did you finish the actual wiki page?
During the Great Chinese Famine from 1958 to 1962, having an urban versus a rural hukou could mean the difference between life and death.[33] During this period, nearly all of the approximately 600 million rural hukou residents were collectivized into village communal farms, where their agricultural output—after state taxes—would be their only source of food. With institutionalized exaggeration of output figures by local Communist leaders and massive declines in production, state taxes during those years confiscated nearly all food in many rural communes, leading to mass starvation and the deaths of more than 65 million Chinese people.[34]
The 100 million urban hukou residents, however, were fed by fixed food rations established by the central government, which declined to an average of 1500 calories per day at times but still allowed survival for almost all during the famine. An estimated 95% or higher of all deaths occurred among rural hukou holders. With the suppression of news internally, many city residents were not aware that mass deaths were occurring in the countryside at all. This was essential to preventing organized opposition to Mao’s policies.[35]
The bootlicking is crazy here.
how come other countries don’t need this insane oppression?
They do. e.g Moving in the United States is quite expensive. While it’s not restricted by law, it’s restricted by class.
Home ownership in socialist States like in China is way higher than in the capitalist ones as well
While it’s not restricted by law, it’s restricted by class.
what a ridiculous strawman. Do you even read what you type?
Removed by mod
When will Westerners realize that the common characture of the brainwashed, thought controlled, information controlled, constantly surveiled citizen that we attribute to China/The USSR/etc… IS US?! You clutch your pearls at people in other countries potentially being treated like that but are inclined to do nothing about OUR OWN countries treating US like that.
A Russian is on an airliner heading to the US, and the American in the seat next to him asks, “So what brings you to the US?” The Russian replies, “I’m studying the American approach to propaganda.” The American says, “What propaganda?” The Russian says, “That’s what I mean.”
You can be against US and Chinese fascism simultaneously.
Chinese fascism
Just say you don’t know what you’re talking about.
Nice argument.
You didn’t make one you just stated something wildly incorrect so why should I take the time to give you a well thought out response trying to explain how truly idiotic is?
I did make one, that you can oppose two things at the same time.
I could explain, but wait, you already said that authoritarianism was meaningless to you. If it doesn’t matter to you, well, seems pointless to try to convince that it is actually fascist.
You’re on lemmy.ml psst they really like chinese authoritarian oppression. (and I’m being honest given the current state and future of the US they’re probably better off indeed, but that doesn’t make them good)
I like it when the working classes in China wield the state against capitalists and fascists, and to ensure that social surplus is directed towards social ends above all else.
What do you actually know about China?
“authoritarian oppression” entirely meaningless when stripped of context.
You have to be a troll.
You can appose 2 things
Sure not what I took issue with. I took issue with you calling China fascist which is just an untrue statement.
Authoritarian is a pejorative. All countries and states in class society are “authoritarian” by necessity. Fascism is a specific thing arising from the tendency for the rate of profit to decline in capitalist society.
You can keep insisting I’m a troll if it helps you deal with not being able to engage with arguments.
China is authoritarian, but authoritarianism doesn’t matter to you, so that shouldn’t matter to you. Consistency, please.
And no, countries aren’t “authoritarian” by necessity. Even if some amount of policies etc that would be considered such exist everywhere, you have countries that are freer and countries that have more political suppression, censorship of media outlets, etc etc.
China does censor it’s media—political and entertainment— heavily. Just one small example.
In what way is China fascist? It’s a socialist country, public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy and the working classes control the state.
Authoritarianism, violent oppression of minorites and dissenting movements, deeply ingrained surveillance state with state censorship.
But enough about the US.
China does not violently oppress minorities, and wielding state authority, censorship, and surveilance against capitalists and fascists is necessary for a socialist state, and doesn’t make it fascist. Fascism is capitalism violently defending itself from decay and solidifying bourgeois control, not proletarian.
Surveillance and political suppression for one. Media, journalism, etc.
That’s not what fascism means, especially when these are used against capitalists most of all, and not against the working classes nearly as much. Fascism is capitalism violently entrenching itself when it finds itself in crisis, it isn’t when a socialist state uses state power to keep capitalists under control and expropriate their property.
That’s not what fascism is either lol
I wouldn’t call china fascist, though doubtlessly authoritarian. But I don’t have nearly as much info on china, it seems to me the persecution of minorities is less of a central political scapegoat and more some weird side thing. But without speaking chinese, I might be wrong. The US had plenty of fascist characteristics at this point and is rather open about the persecution.
The US is fascist because it’s in crisis. Imperialism is decaying and austerity is being brought inward.
I’m not trying to fuss over what to call something. My intended point stands.
It doesn’t, though. Socialism is not fascism, and all socialist states need to exert authority against capitalists and fascists to continue to exist. Class harmony is a lie.
My point is that the forms of oppression that occur in China aren’t exclusive to the capitalist class, and remain something I oppose.
Which stands.
Per Wikipedia:
The program first emerged in the early 2000s, inspired by the credit scoring systems in other countries.
It’s almost the same thing but a different name, and is nationalized to a state system instead of like 3 or 4 companies lmao
Right wingers fear the word “social” for some reason ig
It’s also not applied at a national level, but in some areas, from what I’ve read, and is used largely against companies that try to skirt the law.
I mean, that’s also pretty awesome that there’s decent regulations as part of it(at least nominally, I don’t live there so can’t say for certain), but it seems to be primarily a banking/lending thing similar to in the US which is what a lot of jingoistic fearmongering types either completely miss or purposely ignore.
It’s decidedly not a surveillance thing, which is the funny part.
The Misconceptions section of that page is really funny. It just keeps on going with the same thing over and over but with different people and dates, it feels like a bit
Some gringo in the comments: “Something something Uyghurs, something something mass surveillance, winnie poo”
Liberals and real actual gaza genocide: 🥱
Liberals and fake Uyghur genocide: Real shit
“fake” Uyghur genocide, wow.
It is? Their is no evidence. It’s a fabrication invented by a German evangelical on a self proclaimed “mission from god” to destroy communism.
No, it isnt. We have geographic evidence as well as countless testimonies of the Uyghur people.
For some reason when it comes to China/Uyghur muslims, people have no issue dismissing their genocide and thinking it’s okay.
I was in Urumqi recently enough and I can tell you this they are some of the most pro government people I have ever talked with lmao they love that ETIM was kicked out.
You have gusano testimony from the likes of Rushan Abbas (Guantanamo bay torturer) It’s not real.
Also tell me about this geographic evidence? Pictures of prisons that you decided are camps because we’re evil scary Chinese people?
I never said “you’re evil scary Chinese people”. The Chinese state however, is another story (authoritarian— but I know you’re apathetic towards authoritarianism). I realize now that this may be evoking some sort of nationalistic reaction out of you, though.
I didn’t “decide”— like I said, independent journalists and satellite imaging. And no, it’s not reducible to “Western evil scary propaganda” like you’re making it out to be.
The Chinese state that has 95+% support from the population and is made up of a representative of Chinese people.
White people decided we’re evil and you just go along with it without any investigation because you’re racist and it confirms your biases
There is no genocide of Uyghurs. Uyghur genocide atrocity propaganda akin to claiming that there’s “white genocide” in South Africa, Christian genocide in Nigeria, or that Hamas sexually assaulted babies in Operation Al-Aqsa Flood.
In the case of Xinjiang, the area is crucial in the Belt and Road Initiative, so the west backed sepratist groups in order to destabilize the region. China responded with vocational programs and de-radicalization efforts, which the west then twisted into claims of “genocide.” Nevermind that the west responds to seperatism with mass violence, and thus re-education programs focused on rehabilitation are far more humane, the tool was used both for outright violence by the west into a useful narrative to feed its own citizens.
The best and most comprehensive resource I have seen so far is Qiao Collective’s Xinjiang: A Resource and Report Compilation. Qiao Collective is explicitly pro-PRC, but this is an extremely comprehensive write-up of the entire background of the events, the timeline of reports, and real and fake claims.
I also recommend reading the UN report and China’s response to it. These are the most relevant accusations and responses without delving into straight up fantasy like Adrian Zenz, professional propagandist for the Victims of Communism Foundation, does.
Tourists do go to Xinjiang all the time as well. You can watch videos like this one on YouTube, though it obviously isn’t going to be a comprehensive view of a complex situation like this.
Removed by mod
So not accepting exaggerated narratives means China is a utopia? Why do people rarely offer ordinary, policy-level criticism? There is plenty of it, but discussion often defaults to cartoonish claims instead of routine institutional analysis.
Where is the discussion of the hukou household registration system and its trade-offs?
Where is the discussion of local government reliance on land-use financing?
Where is the discussion of provincial policy experimentation and uneven implementation?
Where is the discussion of state-owned enterprises and their structural advantages and drawbacks?
Where is the discussion of demographic policy after the one-child era?
Where is the discussion of regional inequality between coastal and interior provinces?
Where is the discussion of the property sector’s role in household wealth and local budgets?
Where is the discussion of debt accumulation among provincial financing vehicles?
Where is the discussion of administrative campaign-style governance and its policy side effects?
Where is the discussion of bureaucratic incentives within the cadre evaluation system?
Where is the discussion of industrial policy prioritization and capital allocation?
Where is the discussion of urban planning constraints produced by internal migration controls?
Where is the discussion of education access differences tied to household registration?
Where is the discussion of long-term pension sustainability in an aging population?
I know where they are, in China because none of you know enough about China to have a proper discussion on any of these. All you know is spouting ridiculous talking points.
China isn’t a utopia, and does have problems. China’s problems are real, though, not invented, so discussion of China’s issues requires drawing a line between fact and fiction.
False dichotomy. Both of these things suck.
Tankies loves their whataboutism. They seem incapable of realising that two things can both be bad.
Marxists understand nuance and that two things can be bad. The problem pointed out by this meme is that the “social credit score” system of China as you know it does not exist, while credit score in the west absolutely does and is far more wide-reaching.
The popular conception of China’s system doesn’t actually exist, though.
False equivalency, one of these things is fictional
All of the ID verification, posing as age verification, legislation is for better thought monitoring of social credit too.
Yea, China monitors a billion people in their country and assigns them a score if a citizen walks on the sidewalk correctly /s
assigns them a score if a citizen walks on the sidewalk correctly
Funny story about Jaywalking
The automobile lobby in the US took up the cause of labeling and scorning jaywalkers in the 1910s and early 1920s. In 1912, for instance, Popular Mechanics magazine reported that the term was current in Kansas City: “The city pedestrian who cares not for traffic regulations at street corners, but strays all over the street, crossing in the middle of the block, or attempting to save time by choosing a diagonal route across a street intersection instead of adhering to the regular crossing, is designated as a ‘jay walker,’ in Kansas City.”
In 1915, when New York City’s police commissioner Arthur Woods sought to apply the word “jaywalker” to anyone who crossed the street at mid-block, the New York Times protested, calling it “highly opprobrious” and “a truly shocking name.”
Originally in the US, the legal rule was that “all persons have an equal right in the highway, and that in exercising the right each shall take due care not to injure other users of the way”. In time, however, streets became the province of vehicular traffic, both practically and legally.
Anyway, enjoy your hyper-criminalized car culture hellscape while making spooky fingers about Evil Foreign Country.
Yea, China monitors a billion people in their country
Correct, and those abroad too.
I know this because a US government-funded “independent” think tank told me so.
You know the stories of secret overseas Chinese police stations were fake news, right?
Noone actually forces you to live in debt. It should be last resort, but people in US finance everything
Noone actually forces you to live in debt
Oh damn I didn’t know they made housing and healthcare free, that’s dope as fuck
No you don’t understand you can just become homeless and then let yourself die of preventable causes.
No you don’t understand you can just become homeless
Isn’t that illegal in the US
I wouldn’t be surprised but I am neither amerikkkan nor have I looked into that.
Only if you insist on sleeping.
Sleeping is authoritarian
Come on like half of car sales in US are financed.
You know that Healthcare and housing is the last resort I’m talking about - where you have no other option.
The US is reliant on cars, but many people cannot afford buying them outright or low-interest loans. This is by design, not choice.
Bullshit. Used car market exists since the invention of a car. If you need a vehicle that will drive your ass from point A to the point B you absolutely have no need to buy a brand new one.
The used car market is volitile, regional, and often close to new in price. Stop blaming systemic issues on actions of individuals. I’m not saying that it’s impossible for one to make poor financial decisions, but instead that the very system is designed around maximizing profits squeezed from the working classes.
but people in US finance everything
Damn I wonder why they do that. Must have nothing to do poverty. /s
Two kinds of people in the comments: those who think credit scores are bad, and those who think social credit systems are good
Here’s some comparison:
- In both USA and china you can’t buy a ticket to a fast train if you’re credit score is bad. In china there is direct ban, in USA there is no fast Train.
- In china, this also applies to flight tickets. Basically if you have bad social credit, you are kinda fucked in almost anything in china including apointment to government services. USA it’s mostly tied to taking new loans or getting a new house or renting an apartment (?). Does not have actual effect on your ability to purchase flight tickets.
- In China they can check your phone (for images) and your online activity is quite accessible to the government. The checks can happen not only in international borders but also in inter regional borders. In USA, i know it’s a thing for foreigners during entrance to USA, not sure how is it for the citizens.
- In China you have to give away all your data (as a company), regardless of where that data is stored, if the government or the communist party requests it. They are technically different entities but practically the same entity. Failure to do so will fuck up your social credit. In USA you also have to hand over all your data (as a company) if the government asks regardless of where it is stored (since the CLOUD act), but hey at least you’re not handing over to the commies and it will probably not have any effect on your credit score.
- In china there is an app that notifies people of other people with poor social credit so they can generally avoid them. USA hasn’t invented that YET, although people from other political party are usually considered subhuman and beneath themselves and someone is [probably] looking [to develop an app so they can actively avoid people supporting the other political party].
The consequences for what you’re calling “social credit score” in China is actually court orders issued on a case by case basis, not some automatic/bureaucrat-run all-encompassing system based on rating each citizen. I.e. it’s not a social score system.
Do you have sources for any of these claims?
I put some links in the comments below. But most of the ‘information’ I have is from news and documentaries about Xu Xiaodong. You can check the wikpeida article, but it’s just wikpedia.
I also know of someone who went to tibet as a tourist through Nepal. Their phone had to be surrendered for thorough checking, they apparently painstakingly checked all images. I don’t expect anybody to believe this as I can’t provide proof that it did happen.
Your main source is ASPI, a far right war-hawk australian defense industry think tank.
And your source is mintpressnews.
Also it’s not my main source. You just cherry picked one. Ok sure mybad on that, lets diregard that one. What about CIS, DHS, and NCSC?
Also BBC. Let’s also add wikipedia [1] [2] because why not.
And do we want to talk about censorship? Sounds like something an authoritarian regime does.
Let’s also add wikipedia
I am once again begging liberals to learn how sources work
You’ve got nothing and you know it
I concede. There is no social credit, people not being allowed to travel in trains, rent or buy property, get government appointment is a myth. The Chinese government cannot compel any company to handover data. There is no censorship on china, no websites are banned there. You can criticize the government as much as you want without repercussions. People from Tibet have equal rights and citizenship of China. Ughyurs are not being oppressed, neither are the fallongongs who are just a cult
If anybody believes otherwise, it’s a hoax by the west.
Cheap sarcasm won’t bolster your case.
The existence of this infamous app should be easy to prove. I have never seen anything but armchair reddit-tier experts making bold claims about.
I agree, and I would really want to know. The only “news” I found is the tests from Heinan province in 2019 but I couldn’t find anything after that. But testing of this system (introduced by the government), where you can see and report debtors itself feels quite scary and authoritarian to me.
This comparison mixes a few real policies with a lot of exaggeration. For example, the train and flight issue people always bring up is not about having a vague “bad social credit score.” What actually exists is a court enforcement measure. If someone refuses to comply with an effective court judgment (most commonly paying a debt or damages) the court can place them on the judgment-defaulter list (失信被执行人) and issue a high-consumption restriction (限制高消费). That mainly blocks luxury consumption like flights, first-class rail seats, and luxury hotels until the court order is fulfilled. The purpose is simply to pressure people to comply with the judgment and protect the creditor’s rights (why should sleazy business people who don’t pay their debts get to live lavishly).
Because of that, the claim that “if you have bad social credit you’re basically locked out of everything” is misleading. These restrictions target specific high-end consumption, not normal daily life. Even Chinese legal explanations make clear that they are meant to restrict non-essential spending such as flying, luxury hotels, expensive travel, etc., rather than basic living or ordinary transportation.
The surveillance point is also mixing separate issues. China does have strong state monitoring powers and extensive digital infrastructure, but that is not what the court enforcement blacklist system is. The travel restrictions and blacklists people talk about come from civil enforcement procedures in the courts, not from scanning someone’s phone or some universal personal “score.”
The same confusion shows up in the company data point. China has strict data and cybersecurity laws, but those are regulatory and national security frameworks. They are not the mechanism that puts someone on the judgment-defaulter list. That list exists specifically because someone ignored a legally binding court ruling, not because they refused to hand over corporate data.
And the idea that there is some nationwide app warning citizens about people with low “social credit” is another exaggeration. What actually exists are court databases of judgment defaulters, sometimes publicly searchable, similar to debtor registries in many legal systems. Again, the target is people who lost a case and then refused to comply with the ruling.
So the reality is much more mundane than the viral version. China absolutely has strong enforcement tools, but the famous travel bans people cite are mainly a judicial enforcement mechanism against people who refuse to comply with court judgments, not a universal social-credit score controlling everyone’s daily life.
Thanks for your post, your explanations are appreciated!
Don’t answer if annoying, sorry for rudeness, but do Chinese high-level officials openly live lavishly and flaunt their wealth like US leadership?
do Chinese high-level officials openly live lavishly and flaunt their wealth
How many Chinese high-level officials have you seen on yachts?
flaunt their wealth like US leadership?
The real leadership in the US isn’t the politicians; it’s the capitalists who own them.
Ahh I see. I read about and watched few documentaries about Xu Xiadong who criticized kungfu masters and lost social credit (among other things) and couldn’t rent, own property, stay in certain hotels, travel on high speed rail, or buy plane tickets. I guess that was not true then.
The bit about data handover. I guess the center for internet security is misinformed so is the australian strategic policy institute, department of homeland security, and NCSC.
About the app, BBC is probably where it comes from, it’s more for debtors and not with people with bad social credit but I suppose there is an overlap. So this didn’t make it pass the trial phase?
The Xu Xiaodong case actually illustrates the exact point I was making. He wasn’t punished for “criticizing kung fu masters” or for having the wrong opinions. What happened is that he lost a defamation lawsuit and the court ordered him to apologize and pay damages. He refused to comply with the ruling, and because of that he was placed on the judgment-defaulter list (失信被执行人). Chinese reporting describes the reason as “有履行能力而拒不履行生效法律文书确定义务”, having the ability to comply with a court judgment but refusing to do so. Once someone is on that list, courts can impose high-consumption restrictions (限制高消费), which include things like flights, certain high-speed rail tickets, and luxury hotels until the judgment is fulfilled. In other words, the trigger was refusing to carry out a court order, not some general punishment for speech.
On the data issue, you’re citing reports from Western government-linked think tanks and security NGOs, which obviously approach the topic from a national security perspective. China’s cybersecurity and data laws (like the Cybersecurity Law and Data Security Law) exist because the state wants control over critical data flows, infrastructure security, and cross-border data transfer. That approach isn’t unique in principle; governments everywhere are tightening control over data because it has become a strategic resource. But those laws are regulatory frameworks about data governance, not mechanisms that automatically “ruin someone’s social credit.” The think-tank papers you cited are describing geopolitical risk concerns, not explaining how the Chinese court enforcement system actually works.
On the app point, what the BBC article referred to were tools connected to the court defaulter database, sometimes nicknamed things like a “laolai map.” That’s basically a searchable database of people who have lost a case and then refused to comply with the judgment, which courts use to pressure them to comply. Many countries have debtor registries or public enforcement records; the difference here is mostly presentation. Western coverage often framed it as part of a sinister “social credit” ecosystem when in reality it was tied to a specific court enforcement list, not a universal citizen score. It’s good to have a database of those who have defrauded people. And to be honest, the BBC has a long history of framing Chinese policy in a particular narrative, so it’s not surprising that nuance tends to disappear.
The reality is that some of these mechanisms absolutely exist, but how they work, who they apply to, and what they actually do is often somewhere between heavy exaggeration and outright fantasy in viral discussions. What exists in practice is a mixture of court enforcement lists, regulatory blacklists, and sector-specific compliance systems. Turning that into a story about every citizen having a constantly changing “social credit score” controlling their life is a much simpler narrative, but it’s not how the underlying policies are actually structured.
I see, that was the result of not following court orders. So not complying with court orders will prevent you from these things (flights, high speed rail tickets, and luxury hotels?). Some institutes also report rent or purchase property, are those also restricted when you don’t comply with court order? What if you already own property? I am only asking to know.
I guess this questions are more about authoritarian rather than soical credits. How about xiaodong’s account being wiped 9 times was it (?) for having a viewpoint against the government. Is that somehow illegal and hence banned?
And about censorship. Wikipedia has a list of things that is banned from china including the marxist internet archive and Kanzhongguo, how much of that is true?
There is also one funny things that maybe you can shed some light on. There was this joke that if you get spam call from china, you can text them “Tiananmen Square and June 4, 1989 (1989年6月天安门广场屠杀)” or something about Taiwan being a country and their internet will be cut and they will be arrest or something x’D. I suppose it’s only a meme but is there some truth to it, memes do come from somewhere right?
On the property point, it’s the same principle as the other restrictions. When someone refuses to comply with a court judgment and is placed under high-consumption restrictions (限制高消费), the court can restrict certain forms of luxury spending, which can include purchasing additional real estate or carrying out non-essential renovations until the debt or judgment is fulfilled. The idea is that if someone owes money according to a court ruling, they should not be spending large amounts on luxury consumption before complying. Existing property is not automatically taken just because someone is on the list, although assets can be enforced as part of normal debt collection(just as in every other country).
As for Xu Xiaodong’s accounts being wiped, that situation was tied to the series of lawsuits and disputes he became involved in, along with platform moderation rules. That falls under content moderation and legal disputes on private platforms, not the court enforcement mechanism we were discussing earlier.
The blocked-website lists you see online are a very mixed bag. Some sites are inaccessible because of political or regulatory issues, but many cases come down to compliance requirements, such as rules around data protection, licensing, and the requirement for companies handling Chinese user data to host or manage that data within China’s regulatory framework. When companies choose not to comply with those requirements, their services often simply do not operate in the mainland market.
And that meme about texting someone “Tiananmen 1989” to get them arrested is honestly pretty ugly. It basically jokes about condemning random Chinese people to some vague punishment for the sake of a punchline, which is a pretty dehumanizing way to talk about an entire population. Fortunately it’s also just a meme, sending a phrase like that to someone does not magically cut their internet or get them arrested.
Thank you for taking time to answer.
One additional question; what do you mean by political or regulatory issue? You mean that is a grounds for something to be banned? Also who dictates that certain thing is ban-able from political or regulatory issue and what is the threshold?
I meant that internet content in China is governed by formal laws and regulations, mainly enforced by the Cyberspace Administration of China (国家网信办) and related regulators. Chinese rules such as the 《网络信息内容生态治理规定》 classify online information and require platforms to prohibit illegal content and prevent harmful content, including material that endangers national security, spreads rumors that disrupt social order, promotes extremism or violence, or infringes on others’ rights. Platforms are legally required to monitor and remove such content and regulators can order services restricted or removed if they violate these rules.
You do know that social credit shit has been proven to be a lie, right?
Not an American or a liberal, and yes, china is authoritarian. Is america better? No. The credit score system in the US is also bad.
Authoritarian is a meaningless pejorative.
The social credit score isn’t real.
Removed by mod
Go back to 4chan obergruppenfuhrer. Or provide some evidence/analysis but I doubt you have that capability.
Re: authoritarianism— your opinion.
Some of us aren’t in favour of oppressive regimes that aren’t transparent, surveil, and censor.
“Authoritarianism” is meaningless because all it means is “uses state power.” It doesn’t acknowledge which class controls the state and who it uses state power against. In China, the working classes control the state, and use state power against bad actors and capitalists more than anything else. China is oppressive to capitalists and liberating to workers.
Removed by mod
China is a socialist country, public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy and the working classes control the state. Child labor is illegal in China, you may be thinking of the US.
I’m using the term to refer to suppression of people (which isn’t restricted to workers) in politics, media, etc.
Except by “the people” you seem to mean capitalists and fascists, not the broad majority of society that are uplifted and support the system.
This!
Still better then the baby eating pedo elite
It is possible to oppose all three things. It is possible to simultaneously oppose the Social Credit System in China, the Credit Score system in the United States, and the elites connected to Jeffrey Epstein.
The social credit system that you know of doesn’t exist.
Interesting phrasing. A phrasing that assumes assumptions on my part. So … what social credit system DOES exist.
Is it? You need to think more pragmatically, you are a laborer. Your only bargaining chip is your labour, decide who gets it. Personally, I don’t want to be part of any helping them live their best life.
I am curious, who is “them” in your statement and how does opposing all three of those things inherently cause me to give up my bargaining power?
No don’t, you never will. You’ll always contribute what ever system you’re a part of. Just choose one and the chienese might do a lot of bad things but they aren’t the pedofile baby eating elites.
I am a Chinese minority living in China. You really don’t know what you’re talking about when it comes to China. You very clearly have done 0 research beyond maybe reading RFA. You should be quiet until you have done some proper research.
You can’t possibly be a minority in China, what with all those intact organs.
Ad hominem, ad hominem, and mmm, ad hominem. Yeah, nothing to see here.
Least insufferable redditer
It isn’t an ad hominem fallacy to point out that doing little research on a topic and repeating easily disproven talking points isn’t a sound basis of argument.
And I have, and my responses were given little in return from them.
You have not, considering everything you’ve said has been easily debunked, and when encountering hard numbers you reflect to dogmatism.
“Homnum Homnum”- Liberal chimps.
Not an adhominem. You’re not wrong because you’re stupid you just happen to be both wrong and stupid.
Well in the comment I said that you didn’t explain why I was wrong and simply resorted to making a string of ad hominems.
So I’ll reiterate: ad hominem, ad hominem, ad hominem.
Saying you should shut up if you haven’t researched a topic isn’t an adhominem.
