Apartheid and vulnerable communist countries in China
The Chinese Communist Party’s detention of about 2 million people in a minority group in Xinjiang Uighur Autonomous Region in western China is probably the largest human coercion group since the Soviet Union disbanded its Gulag prison system. It features torture, forced sterilization, and forced labor. The world is getting a lot of attention. Global companies and foreign leaders have expressed concern, and there is a surge in boycotting the Beijing Olympics next year. However, while the world recognizes the undeniable scale of this tragedy, it pays less attention to the alternative method of totalitarian rule in the 20th century that the CCP emulates. The People’s Republic of China (PRC) has institutionalized discrimination against others by the elite and relatively wealthy minority after extensive and to some extent deliberation since the apartheid era in South Africa. China’s apartheid system is based on the long-standing practice of the family register, a ruthless and permanent caste system that the party is vigorously maintaining. Hukou, in common with apartheid in South Africa, has provided social and economic control of the majority by a well-established minority (in this case the political economy class of the Chinese Communist Party city). Apartheid in South Africa has enabled the generation of white Afrikaner leaders in government and businesses to maintain both economic and social control over the majority (black) population. Similarly, in China, the Chinese Communist Party relies on family registries to manage 900 million rural poor, while relying on their cheap labor force to bring out so-called primary cities. The urban elite and middle class of Beijing, Shanghai, and other Tier 1 cities, like South African cities, accept the system without reservation or even much awareness. Apartheid in China relies on a domestic passport system that tracks the life of its owner. The system is simple. You are born in the city or in the country and carry it with you until you die. This designation is enforced through a complex system of assignments and restricted access to schools, jobs, health care, and social safety nets (such as those that exist in China). The government uses this restriction to control urban migration and curb it to secure sufficient labor in fast-growing cities. Hundreds of millions of rural migrants to the city form a permanent underclass and are only granted access to services such as health care, education and unemployment benefits at the level available in the rural family register status. .. Stanford University scholar Scott Rosell and researcher Natalie Hell write in their book Invisible China that the system created two Chinas. Rural Chinese citizens can travel to urban areas of China, but they write: .. .. They are not legally entitled to send their children to public schools in the city or to access public hospitals in the city. Approximately two-thirds of China’s rural family register status does not have sufficient access to urban jobs and services, so migration to cities often divides rural families. A father, mother, or older son can move to the city and leave his daughter or grandparents behind. Therefore, apartheid in China supports the large income gap between urban and rural areas. The World Bank estimates that hundreds of millions of people live for about $ 5 a day. U.S. wealth inequality has been criticized by progressive politicians, but a recent analysis of 24/7 Wall Street and USA Today OECD data shows South Africa and China (the leading apartheid leaders of today). ) Is No. No. 1 and No. 2 on the list of the top 15 countries with the largest disparities between the rich and the poor. Both systems rely on a systematic xenophobic policy by a favorable minority that is prospering against the poor majority. But what South Africa has abandoned, China continues. The family register works with another program known as dibao. The system, which started as a means-tested basic income for low-income city dwellers, is now being implemented nationwide. Dibao in the Chinese Communist Party of the hand of Xi Jinping is just another form of economic and social control to support the maintenance of the apartheid system. According to a recent analysis by Alexis Smith in Sup China, the government intrusively monitors each benefit recipient and neighbors in the community and report whether individuals live beyond their own means. I rely on other people. This affects the recipient’s ability to get a high-paying job, get an education, or look for other ways to improve their station in their lives. The system also contributes to the widespread practice of neighbors spying on their neighbors to show their favor to local government officials. Apartheid in China also helps the CCP predict China’s strength to the world. Beijing has created the recognition that it can manage economic and social mobility, manage growth in an orderly manner, and maintain prosperity. In fact, apartheid in China, like South Africa, is a sign of serious weakness and vulnerability. Constant oversight to manage most of the population in this way for the benefit of urban party officials and their vast network of acolytes, especially the entire business class and civil servants at all levels of government. Is necessary, and in return, certain lies and deception. Economic forecasts were determined to be a false network of information from local party officials to the top, with each layer not suggesting that part of the equipped system was not functioning. .. The dangers this poses come in many forms. For example, who is a bridge or railroad inspector who dares to admit that a project built in a hurry that relies on cheap migrant workers can fail? As a result, building collapses, railroad and bridge catastrophes, dam collapses, and other infrastructure tragedy are common in China. Given the strict control of CCPs on publicly available information, such disasters are often unreported. In a 2015 New York Times article, “Watch out for China’s safety records,” Chinese writer Muron Shuekung said in the event of such a disaster, “The government’s only ability is information management, hiding the facts. Ban media coverage and shut down social rapidly. Media accounts suspected of spreading “rumors.” Or consider the so-called Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). This is China-sponsored infrastructure diplomacy, and the Chinese Communist Party wants the world to see it as a sign of global soft power projections and Beijing’s global influence. However, a feature of this program is the export of family registers and their inherent corruption. Many BRI projects in partner countries require the use of cheap Chinese imported labor as a condition of trading. This suggests that BRI is not soft power, but a prediction of China’s weakness with potentially dangerous consequences. Reuters reported in 2019 that the BRI agreement requires Chinese state-owned enterprises to build about 30 nuclear power plants in dozens of countries around the world by 2030. But Murong told The New York Times, “From all we know about Chinese architectural and supervision practices, an accident at a nuclear power plant in China is just a matter of when and where.” Of course, the United States and its democratic allies and partners have challenges and imbalances. But transparency, accountability, and self-correction are the hallmarks of democratic capitalism. These corrective actions do not exist in China and the trend is in the opposite direction. Technology gives CCP more control over the daily lives of its citizens in all aspects. In contrast, in the United States and elsewhere, there are concerns that Facebook, Twitter, Google and other social media will adversely affect democratic norms. It is managed through a democratic process of trying to find equilibrium. As always, it involves legislative balancing. In the end, voters will hold leaders accountable. In China, all these platforms are banned and there is no voter voice, even though CCP relies on facial recognition, data capture, monitoring of digital banking activity, and other forms of techno-totalitarianism. It can’t happen. It may reflect the power of the nation, but it shows weakness and fear, not strength, fear of its own people. South African apartheid was destroyed by its own contradictions, courageous internal reformers, and the global consensus that apartheid was in the same class as slavery and piracy and had to end. In the end, it failed because it was a serious cause of true weakness in South Africa’s political and social affairs. The same applies to apartheid in China.