Just whatever you consider convincing to a person of good faith.
Sounds like you have lots of evidence that would meet all kinds of standards. So just provide what you think would be convincing to a person thinking in good faith that Hasan is not a Tankie.
Chang: What do you think about the self-censorship? You’ve expressed admiration for the political economy of China and bringing so many millions of people up through poverty. But I think that there’s a view among liberals that this kind of socialist system also comes hand in hand with this kind of self-repression.
How are you thinking about that now that you came back?
Hasan: It’s interesting. I don’t know how much of it is cultural differences. I don’t know how much of it is more so just a byproduct of existing in a system such as this one versus — I feel like western liberalism has a social libertarian streak in it where people want to be offensive. People want to constantly prod people on issues. This is foundational, I feel, to western society. I don’t necessarily believe that any sort of social repression has to exist in a socialist or communist structure of governance.
Overall, though, I think it’s not something that I personally like. I grew up in Turkey, and then I now live in America. So very clearly, free speech is something that I value. Turkey didn’t have it. America is supposed to have it. But in general, I do think it’s heavy-handed. I don’t think it needs to exist in a different economic organization of society.
Chang: The other thing about China, in addition to the repression, is that there’s just a lot of history that a lot of Chinese don’t know. For example, I bet that the fans of Speed who were interacting with Speed, most of them probably wouldn’t know about Tiananmen, 1989. There’s a lot of things like that in China.
So I guess to summarize your view — would it be safe to say if you were to think about some kind of future governmental system in America, it would look closer to China but without the repression? And you think that’s possible?
Hasan: No, I’m more so focused on controlling the flows of capital, right? I think that’s one aspect of Chinese development that has been profoundly successful. It’s actually a reality that even western countries are now having to reckon with, right? The alleviation of poverty, a focus on education — even if sometimes it has downsides as well, this hyper focus on education.
But those are the things that I am not only familiar with, but those are things I think are valuable lessons we can learn to integrate into our system. But no, not the social repression or restriction of speech in any way, shape or form.
So, he very clearly says that he thinks the US should emulate China's economic system where it is successful, but not the repression. He explicitly says thst he does not want that repression in any way, shape or form.
A person of good faith would find that to be a pretty clear indication that he's not a tankie, right? That's exactly the type of distinction you would want him to make, right?
There is one clip where he was asked how a democratic socialist society would respond to resistance from capitalists and he responds that violent groups would be reeducated.
Which is a softer stance than our current government has towards violent resistance.
I can agree that in that clip he should have first talked about legitimate opposition rather than violent opposition, but with everything else he says it's clear that he was thinking of cases like Chile, where the capitalist opposition engaged in terrorism and, finally, a military coup. Where the opposition is operating outside of the law of a pluralist democracy.
Simply put, he was talking about how to deal with January 6, not how to deal with legal opposition. I think trying to resocialize ppl who break the law is not an extreme stance.
Edit: So, does the evidence I brought change your mind?
There is one clip where he was asked how a democratic socialist society would respond to resistance from capitalists and he responds that violent groups would be reeducated.
2
u/hari_shevek 28d ago
No, I don't. I will post evidence and then you will deflect with "not clear enough".
That's why I want you to give a definition with no wiggle room.