2023 Hugo Awards Censorship???

[Chris Buckley]

https://www.polygon.com/24049021/hugo-awards-controversy-china-censorship-babel

I haven't seen any discussion of this previously! It sounds quite
intolerable - books being declared ineligible because of their Chinese
content. Is there confirmation that all of this actually occurred and
is being reported correctly?

Chris

[James Nicoll]

Post by Chris Buckley
https://www.polygon.com/24049021/hugo-awards-controversy-china-censorship-babel
I haven't seen any discussion of this previously! It sounds quite
intolerable - books being declared ineligible because of their Chinese
content. Is there confirmation that all of this actually occurred and
is being reported correctly?

Short version: the full voting data was released and it is full of
bizarreness, from books being listed twice, sums not adding up, and
people being declared ineligible for no clear reason. The admins
responsible are either mum or in the case of Dave McCarty respond
with obfuscation. The Chinese concom does not reply to email. To sum:

1: Some weird, arguably sketchy stuff happened.
2: Nobody involved will explain what happened or why.
3: People are now theorizing at high speed.

There are many competing models to explain what happened, ranging from
"Officials declared certain people and works persona non grata,"
"Hugo admins took it upon themselves to drop people and works they
thought might displease officials" to "there was a giant cockup running the
numbers (there were definitely cut and paste errors) and nobody
wants to admit it", and many more. The truth could be any of the
explanations or a combination or something nobody has thought of.

Since the admins won't talk, we may never know what happened.

Oh! And since each WorldCon is its own soveriegn entity, there is
no higher organization that believes it has the power to intervene
when a WorldCon goes rogue and eithr subverts or screws up the
process. There's no legal mechanism (or at least nobody at the WSFS
believes there is) to overrun a clearly broken, possibly completely
fraudulent Hugo process.

There are million articles on this but this is an OK starting point.

https://camestrosfelapton.wordpress.com/2024/01/22/hugo-stats-where-are-we-today/

This isn't on the voters or the finalists. This is a problem with the
people administrating the award.

I should add this is not like the Puppy grumbling that there had to
be cheating or thumbs on the scales for the people who won to win.
They had no evidence. In this case data Changdu released literally do
not add up. Clearly something went horribly wrong and that as as
consequence I do not trust the results of the Chengdu Hugo.

On a scale of one to ten, where one is the Clams trying to get L Ron
a Hugo and the Puppy slates are a nine, this is about one hundred.

[James Nicoll]

Post by James Nicoll
Short version: the full voting data was released and it is full of
bizarreness, from books being listed twice, sums not adding up, and
people being declared ineligible for no clear reason. The admins
responsible are either mum or in the case of Dave McCarty respond
with obfuscation.

Found the magic phrase McCarty used over and over:

"After reviewing the constitution and the rules we must follow, the
administration team determined those works/persons were not eligible."

But he refused to explain what rules those were.

[Chris Buckley]

Post by James Nicoll

Post by Chris Buckley
https://www.polygon.com/24049021/hugo-awards-controversy-china-censorship-babel
I haven't seen any discussion of this previously! It sounds quite
intolerable - books being declared ineligible because of their Chinese
content. Is there confirmation that all of this actually occurred and
is being reported correctly?

Short version: the full voting data was released and it is full of
bizarreness, from books being listed twice, sums not adding up, and
people being declared ineligible for no clear reason. The admins
responsible are either mum or in the case of Dave McCarty respond
1: Some weird, arguably sketchy stuff happened.
2: Nobody involved will explain what happened or why.
3: People are now theorizing at high speed.
There are many competing models to explain what happened, ranging from
"Officials declared certain people and works persona non grata,"
"Hugo admins took it upon themselves to drop people and works they
thought might displease officials" to "there was a giant cockup running the
numbers (there were definitely cut and paste errors) and nobody
wants to admit it", and many more. The truth could be any of the
explanations or a combination or something nobody has thought of.
Since the admins won't talk, we may never know what happened.
Oh! And since each WorldCon is its own soveriegn entity, there is
no higher organization that believes it has the power to intervene
when a WorldCon goes rogue and eithr subverts or screws up the
process. There's no legal mechanism (or at least nobody at the WSFS
believes there is) to overrun a clearly broken, possibly completely
fraudulent Hugo process.
There are million articles on this but this is an OK starting point.
https://camestrosfelapton.wordpress.com/2024/01/22/hugo-stats-where-are-we-today/
This isn't on the voters or the finalists. This is a problem with the
people administrating the award.
I should add this is not like the Puppy grumbling that there had to
be cheating or thumbs on the scales for the people who won to win.
They had no evidence. In this case data Changdu released literally do
not add up. Clearly something went horribly wrong and that as as
consequence I do not trust the results of the Chengdu Hugo.
On a scale of one to ten, where one is the Clams trying to get L Ron
a Hugo and the Puppy slates are a nine, this is about one hundred.

Thanks for the added link (which includes links to other discussion).

It looks like there are two distinct problems which are perhaps being
linked together too much in the discussions.

1. Works with (and without in the case of Gaiman) Chinese connections
were declared ineligible without explanation. This is intolerable and
things need to be done to correct this in the future; I don't know what
can be done about 2023, probably nothing other than asterisks given the
unlikelihood of getting proper data.

2. Data voting anomalies. I'm less worried about that. I don't see
any problem with the unchanging value for _Babel_. It was declared
ineligible (see point 1) and therefore *should* be ignored and not
updated in the elimination rounds. The fact that not updating it
happened to numerically end up with it being eliminated in the final
round is just a confusing coincidence; not evidence of data manipulation.
It perhaps shouldn't have been included in the table but there are
arguments on both sides.

The odd pattern of voting is definitely concerning, but may have
reasonably innocent explanations. For instance, if somebody
influential in Chinese fandom a year ago said
"Let's make this the most popular WorldCon in history to show
our Chinese spirit. Please nominate your favorite books. Some of the
most popular books of the past year were ... (8-9 suggestions) ...
<other categories>"
we could get the anomalous behavior pointed out by Jones of 8-9 novels
standing out above all others. Chinese students do remarkable things
in support of their passions (and would read all 8-9 books) but are
perhaps too easily influenced by authority. Unfortunate, but not
intentional ballot stuffing and I don't see how to stop it.

Chris

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Chris Buckley
The odd pattern of voting is definitely concerning, but may have
reasonably innocent explanations. For instance, if somebody
influential in Chinese fandom a year ago said
"Let's make this the most popular WorldCon in history to show
our Chinese spirit. Please nominate your favorite books. Some of the
most popular books of the past year were ... (8-9 suggestions) ...
<other categories>"
we could get the anomalous behavior pointed out by Jones of 8-9 novels
standing out above all others. Chinese students do remarkable things
in support of their passions (and would read all 8-9 books) but are
perhaps too easily influenced by authority. Unfortunate, but not
intentional ballot stuffing and I don't see how to stop it.

This is always to be expected, and it is why the final awards did not
surprise anyone. There will always be bloc voting and people campaigning
because in the end it is a popularity contest after all.

But disqualifications without explanation... that is really really bad news.
--scott

[Chris Buckley]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Chris Buckley
The odd pattern of voting is definitely concerning, but may have
reasonably innocent explanations. For instance, if somebody
influential in Chinese fandom a year ago said
"Let's make this the most popular WorldCon in history to show
our Chinese spirit. Please nominate your favorite books. Some of the
most popular books of the past year were ... (8-9 suggestions) ...
<other categories>"
we could get the anomalous behavior pointed out by Jones of 8-9 novels
standing out above all others. Chinese students do remarkable things
in support of their passions (and would read all 8-9 books) but are
perhaps too easily influenced by authority. Unfortunate, but not
intentional ballot stuffing and I don't see how to stop it.

This is always to be expected, and it is why the final awards did not
surprise anyone. There will always be bloc voting and people campaigning
because in the end it is a popularity contest after all.
But disqualifications without explanation... that is really really bad news.
--scott

I agree the disqualifications is the big worry/story.

Yes, there will always be bloc voting and I see at least two examples of
that in the novel nominations. One of them should be expected and
even desired. There was clearly a Chinese-original-language bloc of novels
that were highly correlated with each other. But I would want to see that
in these circumstances. There should be Chinese readers who don't read
foreign language SF!

However, the bloc of 7 English-original-language novels that dominated
is still unexplained. It clearly has a cause; you don't get that sort
of drop-off after the 7 naturally. One thought: I read a lot of
fan-translated (copyright illegal) Chinese-original-language
webnovels. Is there an corresponding reverse flow happening? Are
these 7 novels the ones that happened to be translated illegally
and China doesn't want it publicly admitted to?

While I'm thinking of far-out pro-Chinese conspiracy theories: is it possible
that the earliest nomination ballots showed the Chinese-original-language
bloc of novels and some Chinese with power realized how badly that would
appear to foreigners if those were the top novels, and then organized the
push to the 7 English novels? If so, they badly over-did it (which I would
actually expect.)

I really can't think of any likely nefarious reason for the 7 bloc. All 7
were affected and pure ballot stuffing for a single novel would
presumably only affect 5 to get the single novel into the finalists.

On a different note, one reason to include the _Babel_ line in the
nomination elimination-round table, would be to show that nomination
ballot counting was not affected by all the later disqualifications
and may be believable. _Babel_ was not discriminated against and would
clearly have been a finalist if it had not been disqualified.

Chris

[James Nicoll]

In article <***@mid.individual.net>,
Chris Buckley <***@sabir.com> wrote:

snip re The Pandamoanium

Post by Chris Buckley
Thanks for the added link (which includes links to other discussion).
It looks like there are two distinct problems which are perhaps being
linked together too much in the discussions.

Which reminds me: there may be no One True Explanation because maybe
more than one thing went wrong.

[Chris Buckley]

Post by James Nicoll
snip re The Pandamoanium

Post by Chris Buckley
Thanks for the added link (which includes links to other discussion).
It looks like there are two distinct problems which are perhaps being
linked together too much in the discussions.

Which reminds me: there may be no One True Explanation because maybe
more than one thing went wrong.

Yes, multiple things obviously went wrong. That's not surprising at
all; you get mistakes when responsibility gets spread out as much as
is was and you have one-time amateurs doing most of it. At the top
level you had:
1. The original World-Con bidders who probably had a reasonable understanding
of the associated Hugo Award procedures.
2. The commercially-connected Chinese sponsors who eventually mostly took
over. They may have understood conventions but they clearly did not
understand the Hugo responsibilities.
3. The English speaking experienced managers who came in late when it was
obvious there were massive problems. It's not clear how much authority
they eventually got.

At the lower levels they had nomination counting being done separately
in two languages, with undoubtedly multiple different Chinese
translations of English titles. They probably had the same "is this a
valid ballot" problems of ballots without full address identification
that they had when the Chinese bid was first voted on (people not being
willing to give all that info to the Chinese government.) So lots more
communication than normal was needed, with a changing top level that
couldn't establish the needed procedures and checking. All the
minor data inconsistencies are unfortunate but understandable.

The disqualifications are much more worrisome. That had to be
deliberate. It's possible it could have been a commercial manager
self-censoring an award they thought was just a local convention award
and then not admitting fault when they found out they were wrong. But
it could have been official Chinese party policy; we don't know.

Chris

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by James Nicoll
Oh! And since each WorldCon is its own soveriegn entity, there is
no higher organization that believes it has the power to intervene
when a WorldCon goes rogue and eithr subverts or screws up the
process. There's no legal mechanism (or at least nobody at the WSFS
believes there is) to overrun a clearly broken, possibly completely
fraudulent Hugo process.

The Hugos are supposed to remain independent of the Worldcon itself. I am
in no way surprised that there was massive government influence in the
Worldcon because that is how China is and that is what was expected going
into the game. But interference into the Hugos was not expected and not
acceptable.
--scott

Post by James Nicoll
There are million articles on this but this is an OK starting point.
https://camestrosfelapton.wordpress.com/2024/01/22/hugo-stats-where-are-we-today/
This isn't on the voters or the finalists. This is a problem with the
people administrating the award.
I should add this is not like the Puppy grumbling that there had to
be cheating or thumbs on the scales for the people who won to win.
They had no evidence. In this case data Changdu released literally do
not add up. Clearly something went horribly wrong and that as as
consequence I do not trust the results of the Chengdu Hugo.
On a scale of one to ten, where one is the Clams trying to get L Ron
a Hugo and the Puppy slates are a nine, this is about one hundred.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

[James Nicoll]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by James Nicoll
Oh! And since each WorldCon is its own soveriegn entity, there is
no higher organization that believes it has the power to intervene
when a WorldCon goes rogue and eithr subverts or screws up the
process. There's no legal mechanism (or at least nobody at the WSFS
believes there is) to overrun a clearly broken, possibly completely
fraudulent Hugo process.

The Hugos are supposed to remain independent of the Worldcon itself. I am
in no way surprised that there was massive government influence in the
Worldcon because that is how China is and that is what was expected going
into the game. But interference into the Hugos was not expected and not
acceptable.

Government interference is one explanation but there are a bunch of
possible explanations. It may be best to steal a page from Illuminatus
and assume they are all true: functionaries interfered, people self-
censored, there was a monumental error counting ballots, the IRA
put LSD in the tea, the entire membership was consumed and replaced
by the Thing, and this is a side effect of Fairie leaking into
Changdu.

[James Nicoll]

Over on bluesky, people report that Chinese fans are fuming about how the
Chengdu admins bungled the Hugos. The admin fuckups are seen as making
all of Chinese fandom look bad.

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by James Nicoll
Over on bluesky, people report that Chinese fans are fuming about how the
Chengdu admins bungled the Hugos. The admin fuckups are seen as making
all of Chinese fandom look bad.

Yes, but this is not surprising. There has been an interesting gap between
the Chinese management and the Chinese fans throughout this whole process.
--scott

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by James Nicoll
Over on bluesky, people report that Chinese fans are fuming about how the
Chengdu admins bungled the Hugos. The admin fuckups are seen as making
all of Chinese fandom look bad.

Yes, but this is not surprising. There has been an interesting gap between
the Chinese management and the Chinese fans throughout this whole process.

Well, that kind of describes all of Chinese history. A disconnect
between the rulers/management and the population.

[Paul S Person]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by James Nicoll
Oh! And since each WorldCon is its own soveriegn entity, there is
no higher organization that believes it has the power to intervene
when a WorldCon goes rogue and eithr subverts or screws up the
process. There's no legal mechanism (or at least nobody at the WSFS
believes there is) to overrun a clearly broken, possibly completely
fraudulent Hugo process.

The Hugos are supposed to remain independent of the Worldcon itself. I am
in no way surprised that there was massive government influence in the
Worldcon because that is how China is and that is what was expected going
into the game. But interference into the Hugos was not expected and not
acceptable.

I hate to sound like a bitter old man, but what else do you expect
from a commie gummint?

And what do you think a fascist Trump gummint will be doing if Trump
wins and installs one?

Democracy and freedom are about more than just politics!

[Jack Bohn]

Post by Paul S Person
Democracy and freedom are about more than just politics!

Ha! Thanks!

These totalitarians, why do they have to get into everything?!

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by Chris Buckley
https://www.polygon.com/24049021/hugo-awards-controversy-china-censorship-babel
I haven't seen any discussion of this previously! It sounds quite
intolerable - books being declared ineligible because of their Chinese
content. Is there confirmation that all of this actually occurred and
is being reported correctly?

I don't know why people are upset, it is just standard communism.
Surely they knew that would happen when they located the WorldCon in a
communist country.

Lynn

[Gary R. Schmidt]

Post by Chris Buckley
https://www.polygon.com/24049021/hugo-awards-controversy-china-censorship-babel
I haven't seen any discussion of this previously!  It sounds quite
intolerable - books being declared ineligible because of their Chinese
content.  Is there confirmation that all of this actually occurred and
is being reported correctly?

I don't know why people are upset, it is just standard communism. Surely
they knew that would happen when they located the WorldCon in a
communist country.

It's simple statism, whether the state is Communist, Fascist,
Capitalist, an Empire, or whatever.

The peons are afraid of annoying the tools of the
President/Emperor/Chairman/Dictator/...

Cheers,
Gary B-)

[James Nicoll]

Post by Chris Buckley
https://www.polygon.com/24049021/hugo-awards-controversy-china-censorship-babel

I haven't seen any discussion of this previously!  It sounds quite
intolerable - books being declared ineligible because of their Chinese
content.  Is there confirmation that all of this actually occurred and
is being reported correctly?

I don't know why people are upset, it is just standard communism. Surely
they knew that would happen when they located the WorldCon in a
communist country.

It's simple statism, whether the state is Communist, Fascist,
Capitalist, an Empire, or whatever.
The peons are afraid of annoying the tools of the
President/Emperor/Chairman/Dictator/...

There is a theory that it's actually a giant cockup. They comprehensively
fucked up running the algorithm for EPH and not only put people in
twice (which we know happened) but left people off as well. And then
didn't want to admit error so they just said anyone who was left off
was not eligible.

[Gary R. Schmidt]

Post by James Nicoll

Post by Chris Buckley
https://www.polygon.com/24049021/hugo-awards-controversy-china-censorship-babel

Post by Chris Buckley
I haven't seen any discussion of this previously!  It sounds quite
intolerable - books being declared ineligible because of their Chinese
content.  Is there confirmation that all of this actually occurred and
is being reported correctly?

I don't know why people are upset, it is just standard communism. Surely
they knew that would happen when they located the WorldCon in a
communist country.

It's simple statism, whether the state is Communist, Fascist,
Capitalist, an Empire, or whatever.
The peons are afraid of annoying the tools of the
President/Emperor/Chairman/Dictator/...

There is a theory that it's actually a giant cockup. They comprehensively
fucked up running the algorithm for EPH and not only put people in
twice (which we know happened) but left people off as well. And then
didn't want to admit error so they just said anyone who was left off
was not eligible.

That would make a lot of sense, incompetence combined with saving face,
I've seen it far too often when dealing with people from that geographic
area. (But the ones from the lesser east are worse.)

Cheers,
Gary B-)

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by James Nicoll
There is a theory that it's actually a giant cockup. They comprehensively
fucked up running the algorithm for EPH and not only put people in
twice (which we know happened) but left people off as well. And then
didn't want to admit error so they just said anyone who was left off
was not eligible.

This is a very reasonable explanation but also one that reflects even
more poorly on the committee than that of government interference.

In the post-Puppies world many are looking very carefully at the voting
process and it is that much more important that it be completely open and
available for inspection.
--scott

[James Nicoll]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by James Nicoll
There is a theory that it's actually a giant cockup. They comprehensively
fucked up running the algorithm for EPH and not only put people in
twice (which we know happened) but left people off as well. And then
didn't want to admit error so they just said anyone who was left off
was not eligible.

This is a very reasonable explanation but also one that reflects even
more poorly on the committee than that of government interference.
In the post-Puppies world many are looking very carefully at the voting
process and it is that much more important that it be completely open and
available for inspection.
--scott

At this point, Glasgow and Seattle would be well-advised to announce they
were going to steal a trick from the Academy Awards and have some trusted
neutral party vet the results.

[Andrew McDowell]

Post by James Nicoll

Post by Chris Buckley
https://www.polygon.com/24049021/hugo-awards-controversy-china-censorship-babel

Post by Chris Buckley
I haven't seen any discussion of this previously! It sounds quite
intolerable - books being declared ineligible because of their Chinese
content. Is there confirmation that all of this actually occurred and
is being reported correctly?

I don't know why people are upset, it is just standard communism. Surely
they knew that would happen when they located the WorldCon in a
communist country.

It's simple statism, whether the state is Communist, Fascist,
Capitalist, an Empire, or whatever.
The peons are afraid of annoying the tools of the
President/Emperor/Chairman/Dictator/...

There is a theory that it's actually a giant cockup. They comprehensively
fucked up running the algorithm for EPH and not only put people in
twice (which we know happened) but left people off as well. And then
didn't want to admit error so they just said anyone who was left off
was not eligible.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

Cockup and political interference are not mutually exclusive. The Chinese and other communist parties have long had experience of finding that political appointees didn't actually know how to do their jobs - see for example the phrase "Red and Expert" explained at https://www.strategictranslation.org/glossary/red-and-expert

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Chris Buckley
https://www.polygon.com/24049021/hugo-awards-controversy-china-censorship-babel
I haven't seen any discussion of this previously! It sounds quite
intolerable - books being declared ineligible because of their Chinese
content. Is there confirmation that all of this actually occurred and
is being reported correctly?

I don't know why people are upset, it is just standard communism.
Surely they knew that would happen when they located the WorldCon in a
communist country.

The Hugos are not the Worldcon. I expect government control over the
Worldcon if it is located in a place with an authoritarian government
like Uganda or China. But the Hugo process did not take place in China.
--scott

[Ahasuerus]

Post by Chris Buckley
https://www.polygon.com/24049021/hugo-awards-controversy-china-censorship-babel
I haven't seen any discussion of this previously!  It sounds quite
intolerable - books being declared ineligible because of their Chinese
content.  Is there confirmation that all of this actually occurred and
is being reported correctly?

I don't know why people are upset, it is just standard communism. Surely
they knew that would happen when they located the WorldCon in a
communist country.

Well, it depends on how we define "they".

To quote Kevin Standlee's ("current Chair of the legal entity that owns
the service marks of the World Science Fiction Society") summary
(https://kevin-standlee.dreamwidth.org/2296661.html) of the relevant
rules governing the World Science Fiction Society
(https://www.wsfs.org/rules-of-the-world-science-fiction-society/):

1. Worldcon is not really a single convention. It’s an ongoing series of
one-shot events, each of which is run by a separate legal entity with
extremely weak oversight that mainly amounts to hoping that the
organizers follow the rules that they agreed to follow.

2. The World Science Fiction Society is not a corporation with a Board
of Directors that makes all of the decisions, specifically about where
Worldcons are held.

3. The site of Worldcon is determined by a vote of the members of the
Worldcon two years earlier. That is, the members of the 2021 Worldcon in
DC voted to select Chengdu. There was another bid on the ballot
(Winnipeg). There is no entity that evaluates subjectively the
suitability of a site. That is, no one entity can say, “That site is bad
because [reasons], so it’s not eligible.” The requirements to file a
Worldcon bid are technical in nature and the people administering the
election simply check off that the technical documents meet those
requirements.

4. In order to be able to vote on the site of the Worldcon two years
from now, you have to join the current Worldcon as at least a WSFS
(formerly called supporting) member, which costs around US$50 these
days, and then you also have to cast a vote in the election, putting up
what’s called an Advance WSFS Membership (again, around US$50), which
makes you a member of that two-year hence convention.

5. Several thousand people joined the 2021 Worldcon, mostly from China,
and voted (probably for Chengdu, but the choices of individual voters
are in a secret ballot), in the last few days before the voting deadline
in 2021. I do not mean to imply that only people from China voted for
Chengdu. Other non-Chinese members have said they voted for Chengdu.
There also were people who said they wouldn't vote because they didn't
want there to be a chance that their personal details (name, address,
contact information) could end up in a Chinese database.

6. The administration of the Hugo Awards is entirely in the hands of the
current Worldcon committee for that year, as others have noted. There is
no entity that is superior to the individual Worldcon committee.

[dgold]

Post by Ahasuerus
To quote Kevin Standlee's ("current Chair of the legal entity that owns
the service marks of the World Science Fiction Society") summary
(https://kevin-standlee.dreamwidth.org/2296661.html) of the relevant
rules governing the World Science Fiction Society

<snip>

Post by Ahasuerus
There is no entity that is superior to the individual Worldcon committee.

Almost, but not quite accurate.

There's the WSFS' "Worldcon Intellectual Property Ltd", the commercial
entity which holds the service marks of the WSFS.

They've announced that they've censured McCarty, Standlee, Ben Yalow and
the head of the Chengdu Worldcon; McCarty and Standlee, in addition,
have now resigned from their official positions in the WIP.

McCarty seems to have gone entirely from the body, Standlee only appears
to have left the Chair.

https://file770.com/worldcon-intellectual-property-announces-censure-of-mccarty-chen-shi-and-yalow-mccarty-resigns-eastlake-is-new-chair/

[James Nicoll]

Post by dgold

Post by Ahasuerus
To quote Kevin Standlee's ("current Chair of the legal entity that owns
the service marks of the World Science Fiction Society") summary
(https://kevin-standlee.dreamwidth.org/2296661.html) of the relevant
rules governing the World Science Fiction Society

<snip>

Post by Ahasuerus
There is no entity that is superior to the individual Worldcon committee.

Almost, but not quite accurate.
There's the WSFS' "Worldcon Intellectual Property Ltd", the commercial
entity which holds the service marks of the WSFS.
They've announced that they've censured McCarty, Standlee, Ben Yalow and
the head of the Chengdu Worldcon; McCarty and Standlee, in addition,
have now resigned from their official positions in the WIP.
McCarty seems to have gone entirely from the body, Standlee only appears
to have left the Chair.
https://file770.com/worldcon-intellectual-property-announces-censure-of-mccarty-chen-shi-and-yalow-mccarty-resigns-eastlake-is-new-chair/

True. However, this won't affect the 2023 Hugo results.

[dgold]

Post by James Nicoll

Post by dgold

Post by Ahasuerus
To quote Kevin Standlee's ("current Chair of the legal entity that owns
the service marks of the World Science Fiction Society") summary
(https://kevin-standlee.dreamwidth.org/2296661.html) of the relevant
rules governing the World Science Fiction Society

<snip>

Post by Ahasuerus
There is no entity that is superior to the individual Worldcon committee.

There's the WSFS' "Worldcon Intellectual Property Ltd", the commercial
entity which holds the service marks of the WSFS.

True. However, this won't affect the 2023 Hugo results.

Oh no, that's (sadly) a given. These removals, hopefully soon to be
followed by Yalow and Chen's resignations, should mean that the same
people won't be around to do it again in 24 and onwards.

Silver linings where they can be found, James, silver linings.

[Quadibloc]

Post by James Nicoll
True. However, this won't affect the 2023 Hugo results.

It should; they should be considered invalid, due to political
interference by a dictatorial government. The decision to hold
the 2023 Worldcon in the PRC should be retroactively invalidated,
so that the _real_ 2023 Worldcon can be held in 2024 in the
United States, during which the _real_ 2023 Hugos can be
awarded.

Denying someone a shot at a Hugo because of the political
wishes of the evil Beijing regime is a thing that should not be
allowed to stand. Period. Ever.

John Savard

[Mad Hamish]

On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 19:38:19 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Chris Buckley
https://www.polygon.com/24049021/hugo-awards-controversy-china-censorship-babel
I haven't seen any discussion of this previously! It sounds quite
intolerable - books being declared ineligible because of their Chinese
content. Is there confirmation that all of this actually occurred and
is being reported correctly?

I don't know why people are upset, it is just standard communism.
Surely they knew that would happen when they located the WorldCon in a
communist country.

in what world is modern china a communist country?

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by Mad Hamish
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 19:38:19 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Chris Buckley
https://www.polygon.com/24049021/hugo-awards-controversy-china-censorship-babel
I haven't seen any discussion of this previously! It sounds quite
intolerable - books being declared ineligible because of their Chinese
content. Is there confirmation that all of this actually occurred and
is being reported correctly?

I don't know why people are upset, it is just standard communism.
Surely they knew that would happen when they located the WorldCon in a
communist country.

in what world is modern china a communist country?

This one where "communist" is another way of saying "authoritarian".

[Paul S Person]

On Sun, 4 Feb 2024 17:26:19 -0800, Dimensional Traveler

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Mad Hamish
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 19:38:19 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Chris Buckley
https://www.polygon.com/24049021/hugo-awards-controversy-china-censorship-babel
I haven't seen any discussion of this previously! It sounds quite
intolerable - books being declared ineligible because of their Chinese
content. Is there confirmation that all of this actually occurred and
is being reported correctly?

I don't know why people are upset, it is just standard communism.
Surely they knew that would happen when they located the WorldCon in a
communist country.

in what world is modern china a communist country?

This one where "communist" is another way of saying "authoritarian".

And "Fascist" or "Nazi" are other ways of saying "authoritarian".

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Paul S Person
On Sun, 4 Feb 2024 17:26:19 -0800, Dimensional Traveler

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Mad Hamish
in what world is modern china a communist country?

This one where "communist" is another way of saying "authoritarian".

And "Fascist" or "Nazi" are other ways of saying "authoritarian".

It's very confusing. I used to have a job where I would get interviewed
by security people on an annual basis. They would ask if I had been in
contact with anyone who held views contrary to American interests and
I would tell them my grandmother was a fascist and had a picture of the
Duce hanging on her wall (next to a picture of Jesus and one of John F.
Kennedy). And EVERY time I would have to explain to them what fascism
actually was because none of them had any idea.
--scott

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Paul S Person
On Sun, 4 Feb 2024 17:26:19 -0800, Dimensional Traveler

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Mad Hamish
in what world is modern china a communist country?

This one where "communist" is another way of saying "authoritarian".

And "Fascist" or "Nazi" are other ways of saying "authoritarian".

It's very confusing. I used to have a job where I would get interviewed
by security people on an annual basis. They would ask if I had been in
contact with anyone who held views contrary to American interests and
I would tell them my grandmother was a fascist and had a picture of the
Duce hanging on her wall (next to a picture of Jesus and one of John F.
Kennedy). And EVERY time I would have to explain to them what fascism
actually was because none of them had any idea.

You couldn't just say "The guy who inspired Hitler."?

[The Horny Goat]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Paul S Person
On Sun, 4 Feb 2024 17:26:19 -0800, Dimensional Traveler

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Mad Hamish
in what world is modern china a communist country?

This one where "communist" is another way of saying "authoritarian".

And "Fascist" or "Nazi" are other ways of saying "authoritarian".

It's very confusing. I used to have a job where I would get interviewed
by security people on an annual basis. They would ask if I had been in
contact with anyone who held views contrary to American interests and
I would tell them my grandmother was a fascist and had a picture of the
Duce hanging on her wall (next to a picture of Jesus and one of John F.
Kennedy). And EVERY time I would have to explain to them what fascism
actually was because none of them had any idea.
--scott

I suspect the powers that be in the Canadian parliament have a much
better idea now than before last September when (in the presence of
Zelenskii no less!) a "Ukrainian veteran" was saluted by the Speaker
of the House of Commons - the guy turned out to be a veteran of a
Ukrainian Nazi SS division who had come to Canada after the war and
was now in his late 80s.

(Needless to say the Canadian parliament had a new speaker in fairly
short order since saluting Nazi veterans is not something that's
acceptable even in 2023)

[Paul S Person]

Post by The Horny Goat

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Paul S Person
On Sun, 4 Feb 2024 17:26:19 -0800, Dimensional Traveler

Post by Dimensional Traveler

Post by Mad Hamish
in what world is modern china a communist country?

This one where "communist" is another way of saying "authoritarian".

And "Fascist" or "Nazi" are other ways of saying "authoritarian".

It's very confusing. I used to have a job where I would get interviewed
by security people on an annual basis. They would ask if I had been in
contact with anyone who held views contrary to American interests and
I would tell them my grandmother was a fascist and had a picture of the
Duce hanging on her wall (next to a picture of Jesus and one of John F.
Kennedy). And EVERY time I would have to explain to them what fascism
actually was because none of them had any idea.
--scott

I suspect the powers that be in the Canadian parliament have a much
better idea now than before last September when (in the presence of
Zelenskii no less!) a "Ukrainian veteran" was saluted by the Speaker
of the House of Commons - the guy turned out to be a veteran of a
Ukrainian Nazi SS division who had come to Canada after the war and
was now in his late 80s.
(Needless to say the Canadian parliament had a new speaker in fairly
short order since saluting Nazi veterans is not something that's
acceptable even in 2023)

Not in Canada, perhaps.

For Republicans, I'm not so sure.

[The Horny Goat]

On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 08:29:33 -0800, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person

Post by The Horny Goat
(Needless to say the Canadian parliament had a new speaker in fairly
short order since saluting Nazi veterans is not something that's
acceptable even in 2023)

Not in Canada, perhaps.

What are you suggesting? That giving a friendly intro to a Waffen SS
veteran would be acceptable in 2024 by a Speaker of either the US
Senate or House of Representatives? That would certainly be a surprise
to me - I would expect a Speaker who actually did that would be
swiftly removed from office just as the Canadian speaker was.

[James Nicoll]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 08:29:33 -0800, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person

Post by The Horny Goat
(Needless to say the Canadian parliament had a new speaker in fairly
short order since saluting Nazi veterans is not something that's
acceptable even in 2023)

Not in Canada, perhaps.

What are you suggesting? That giving a friendly intro to a Waffen SS
veteran would be acceptable in 2024 by a Speaker of either the US
Senate or House of Representatives? That would certainly be a surprise
to me - I would expect a Speaker who actually did that would be
swiftly removed from office just as the Canadian speaker was.

The GOP crazies might protest at an actual Nazi but only because they
think Hitler was too woke.

[Paul S Person]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 08:29:33 -0800, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person

Post by The Horny Goat
(Needless to say the Canadian parliament had a new speaker in fairly
short order since saluting Nazi veterans is not something that's
acceptable even in 2023)

Not in Canada, perhaps.

What are you suggesting? That giving a friendly intro to a Waffen SS
veteran would be acceptable in 2024 by a Speaker of either the US
Senate or House of Representatives? That would certainly be a surprise
to me - I would expect a Speaker who actually did that would be
swiftly removed from office just as the Canadian speaker was.

I'm suggesting that, in the present situation, /all bets are off/.
Anything might happen.

Exciting times indeed!

And the last Speaker was removed for ... what, trying to do his job?

Something that the current Speaker may well experience. It's going to
be a long hot summer for him.

[Dimensional Traveler]

Post by Paul S Person

Post by The Horny Goat
On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 08:29:33 -0800, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person

Post by The Horny Goat
(Needless to say the Canadian parliament had a new speaker in fairly
short order since saluting Nazi veterans is not something that's
acceptable even in 2023)

Not in Canada, perhaps.

What are you suggesting? That giving a friendly intro to a Waffen SS
veteran would be acceptable in 2024 by a Speaker of either the US
Senate or House of Representatives? That would certainly be a surprise
to me - I would expect a Speaker who actually did that would be
swiftly removed from office just as the Canadian speaker was.

I'm suggesting that, in the present situation, /all bets are off/.
Anything might happen.
Exciting times indeed!
And the last Speaker was removed for ... what, trying to do his job?

For consorting with the enemy in trying to prevent shutting the
government down.

[Paul S Person]

On Mon, 05 Feb 2024 12:04:10 +1100, Mad Hamish

Post by Mad Hamish
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 19:38:19 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Chris Buckley
https://www.polygon.com/24049021/hugo-awards-controversy-china-censorship-babel
I haven't seen any discussion of this previously! It sounds quite
intolerable - books being declared ineligible because of their Chinese
content. Is there confirmation that all of this actually occurred and
is being reported correctly?

I don't know why people are upset, it is just standard communism.
Surely they knew that would happen when they located the WorldCon in a
communist country.

in what world is modern china a communist country?

The real world.

Mainland China is communist because the /only/ political party allowed
is the Communist Party.

Or has that changed?

[Scott Lurndal]

Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 05 Feb 2024 12:04:10 +1100, Mad Hamish

Post by Mad Hamish
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 19:38:19 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Chris Buckley
=

https://www.polygon.com/24049021/hugo-awards-controversy-china-censorship=
-babel

Post by Mad Hamish

Post by Chris Buckley
=20
I haven't seen any discussion of this previously! It sounds quite
intolerable - books being declared ineligible because of their =

Chinese

Post by Mad Hamish

Post by Chris Buckley
content. Is there confirmation that all of this actually occurred =

and

Post by Mad Hamish

Post by Chris Buckley
is being reported correctly?

I don't know why people are upset, it is just standard communism.=20
Surely they knew that would happen when they located the WorldCon in a=20
communist country.

in what world is modern china a communist country?

The real world.
Mainland China is communist because the /only/ political party allowed
is the Communist Party.
Or has that changed?

IIRC, it was J.P. Hogan who wrote that Russia was communist only for six months
in 1917, thereafter just another dictatorship.

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Paul S Person
Mainland China is communist because the /only/ political party allowed
is the Communist Party.
Or has that changed?

"Every day, Chinese communism becomes less communist and more Chinese."
-- my asian studies teacher in 1980 or so.

Post by Scott Lurndal
IIRC, it was J.P. Hogan who wrote that Russia was communist only for six months
in 1917, thereafter just another dictatorship.

I'd give it longer than that. At least until 1921 when they got the NEP.
By the time the NEP was over in '28 or so, Stalin's collectivization was
the order of the day and one could argue that that was sort of a form of
communism even if it could not be argued to be effective or beneficial to
long-term socialism.
--scott

[Ahasuerus]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Scott Lurndal

Post by Paul S Person
Mainland China is communist because the /only/ political party allowed
is the Communist Party.
Or has that changed?

"Every day, Chinese communism becomes less communist and more Chinese."
-- my asian studies teacher in 1980 or so.

Post by Scott Lurndal
IIRC, it was J.P. Hogan who wrote that Russia was communist only for six months
in 1917, thereafter just another dictatorship.

I'd give it longer than that. At least until 1921 when they got the NEP.
By the time the NEP was over in '28 or so, Stalin's collectivization was
the order of the day and one could argue that that was sort of a form of
communism even if it could not be argued to be effective or beneficial to
long-term socialism.

OfSF:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it
means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many
different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master — that’s all."

--
Ahasuerus

[James Nicoll]

Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 05 Feb 2024 12:04:10 +1100, Mad Hamish

Post by Mad Hamish
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 19:38:19 -0600, Lynn McGuire

https://www.polygon.com/24049021/hugo-awards-controversy-china-censorship-babel

Post by Mad Hamish

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Chris Buckley
I haven't seen any discussion of this previously! It sounds quite
intolerable - books being declared ineligible because of their Chinese
content. Is there confirmation that all of this actually occurred and
is being reported correctly?

I don't know why people are upset, it is just standard communism.
Surely they knew that would happen when they located the WorldCon in a
communist country.

in what world is modern china a communist country?

The real world.
Mainland China is communist because the /only/ political party allowed
is the Communist Party.
Or has that changed?

It's communist in the same sense 20th Century Fox is a small canine
predator.

[Paul S Person]

Post by James Nicoll

Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 05 Feb 2024 12:04:10 +1100, Mad Hamish

Post by Mad Hamish
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 19:38:19 -0600, Lynn McGuire

https://www.polygon.com/24049021/hugo-awards-controversy-china-censorship-babel

Post by Mad Hamish

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Chris Buckley
I haven't seen any discussion of this previously! It sounds quite
intolerable - books being declared ineligible because of their Chinese
content. Is there confirmation that all of this actually occurred and
is being reported correctly?

I don't know why people are upset, it is just standard communism.
Surely they knew that would happen when they located the WorldCon in a
communist country.

in what world is modern china a communist country?

The real world.
Mainland China is communist because the /only/ political party allowed
is the Communist Party.
Or has that changed?

It's communist in the same sense 20th Century Fox is a small canine
predator.

So, it hasn't changed then.

And, no, it is communist in the sense that it has only one political
party, the Communist Party.

Which is the only sense that matters, politically.

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by Paul S Person

Post by James Nicoll

Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 05 Feb 2024 12:04:10 +1100, Mad Hamish

Post by Mad Hamish
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 19:38:19 -0600, Lynn McGuire

https://www.polygon.com/24049021/hugo-awards-controversy-china-censorship-babel

Post by Mad Hamish

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Chris Buckley
I haven't seen any discussion of this previously! It sounds quite
intolerable - books being declared ineligible because of their Chinese
content. Is there confirmation that all of this actually occurred and
is being reported correctly?

I don't know why people are upset, it is just standard communism.
Surely they knew that would happen when they located the WorldCon in a
communist country.

in what world is modern china a communist country?

The real world.
Mainland China is communist because the /only/ political party allowed
is the Communist Party.
Or has that changed?

It's communist in the same sense 20th Century Fox is a small canine
predator.

So, it hasn't changed then.
And, no, it is communist in the sense that it has only one political
party, the Communist Party.
Which is the only sense that matters, politically.

So Hitler was a communist?

[Titus G]

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Paul S Person

Post by James Nicoll

Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 05 Feb 2024 12:04:10 +1100, Mad Hamish

Post by Mad Hamish
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 19:38:19 -0600, Lynn McGuire

https://www.polygon.com/24049021/hugo-awards-controversy-china-censorship-babel

Post by Mad Hamish

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Chris Buckley
I haven't seen any discussion of this previously!  It sounds quite
intolerable - books being declared ineligible because of their Chinese
content.  Is there confirmation that all of this actually
occurred and
is being reported correctly?

I don't know why people are upset, it is just standard communism.
Surely they knew that would happen when they located the WorldCon in a
communist country.

in what world is modern china a communist country?

The real world.
Mainland China is communist because the /only/ political party allowed
is the Communist Party.
Or has that changed?

It's communist in the same sense 20th Century Fox is a small canine
predator.

So, it hasn't changed then.
And, no, it is communist in the sense that it has only one political
party, the Communist Party.
Which is the only sense that matters, politically.

So Hitler was a communist?

Of course. He escaped to Palestine and later on worked in a commune.
Netnyahoo is a direct descendant. This has been proved by DNA.
(Don't No Anything.)

[Paul S Person]

On Tue, 6 Feb 2024 19:43:41 +0000, Robert Carnegie

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Paul S Person

Post by James Nicoll

Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 05 Feb 2024 12:04:10 +1100, Mad Hamish

Post by Mad Hamish
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 19:38:19 -0600, Lynn McGuire

https://www.polygon.com/24049021/hugo-awards-controversy-china-censorship-babel

Post by Mad Hamish

Post by Lynn McGuire

Post by Chris Buckley
I haven't seen any discussion of this previously! It sounds quite
intolerable - books being declared ineligible because of their Chinese
content. Is there confirmation that all of this actually occurred and
is being reported correctly?

I don't know why people are upset, it is just standard communism.
Surely they knew that would happen when they located the WorldCon in a
communist country.

in what world is modern china a communist country?

The real world.
Mainland China is communist because the /only/ political party allowed
is the Communist Party.
Or has that changed?

It's communist in the same sense 20th Century Fox is a small canine
predator.

So, it hasn't changed then.
And, no, it is communist in the sense that it has only one political
party, the Communist Party.
Which is the only sense that matters, politically.

So Hitler was a communist?

Sorry, a Socialist party, however National it may be, is not a
Communist Party.

Hitler was what Mussolini could only dream of being, just as Mussolini
is what DeSantis can only dream of being.

Since the whole /point/ of Communism is that the State, all by itself,
without any assistance at all, will eventually wither away, it follows
that there can /never/ be a Communist State in the philosophical
sense, any more than there can ever be an Anarchist State in the
philosophical sense.

Which means that saying mainland China is [a] "Communist" [State] can
/only/ be a political statement, not a philosophical one

[The Horny Goat]

On Wed, 07 Feb 2024 08:13:31 -0800, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
Since the whole /point/ of Communism is that the State, all by itself,
without any assistance at all, will eventually wither away, it follows
that there can /never/ be a Communist State in the philosophical
sense, any more than there can ever be an Anarchist State in the
philosophical sense.

Whereas Hitler even if he had achieved his wildest fantasies of
conquest would never have allowed the state to "wither away" - but
then the same could be said of Stalin.

Thus I have no use at all for the type of people who argue Communism
has never been given a fair test since neither Russia or China are /
were Comunist.

By that "logic" we could argue that Naziism should get another try
since Hitler diverged so much from the vision espoused in Mein Kampf.

Yeah sure.....

[Paul S Person]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Wed, 07 Feb 2024 08:13:31 -0800, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
Since the whole /point/ of Communism is that the State, all by itself,
without any assistance at all, will eventually wither away, it follows
that there can /never/ be a Communist State in the philosophical
sense, any more than there can ever be an Anarchist State in the
philosophical sense.

Whereas Hitler even if he had achieved his wildest fantasies of
conquest would never have allowed the state to "wither away" - but
then the same could be said of Stalin.
Thus I have no use at all for the type of people who argue Communism
has never been given a fair test since neither Russia or China are /
were Comunist.
By that "logic" we could argue that Naziism should get another try
since Hitler diverged so much from the vision espoused in Mein Kampf.
Yeah sure.....

When I was much much younger, I read a "Communist" (in quotes because
it was some sort of infighting amongst the Party members) book which
included a critique of Capitalist publishers as being a bunch of
censors and asserted that, in /their/ State, the State would be the
only publisher and so no censorship would exist.

I recognized this as a fantasy. The reality, as I knew even then, was
and is that, in the USA, /anyone/ can acquire a printing press and
publish, if not actual bound books, then certainly pamphlets. The
various publishers can be as censorius as they like, they cannot
(individually or collectively) prevent books from being published if
the money and will to do so is there. Note that there are also "vanity
publishers", who will publish pretty much anything -- for a fee.

Now consider the Internet where, in theory, and (I suspect) for a lot
less money than a printing press and binding machine would cost,
anything you want can be published. Yes, Amazon may remove a book now
and then for content issues (and also spats with vendors), but other
web sites exist or can be created and services like PayPal can be used
to handle payments.

IOW, a wee bit of development along those lines and we will /have/ the
censorship-free publishing environment predicted in the book. Add a
just-in-time printer/binder and even hardcopy books can be provided.

[Kevrob]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Wed, 07 Feb 2024 08:13:31 -0800, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
Since the whole /point/ of Communism is that the State, all by itself,
without any assistance at all, will eventually wither away, it follows
that there can /never/ be a Communist State in the philosophical
sense, any more than there can ever be an Anarchist State in the
philosophical sense.

There's a reason it was called the Union of Soviet _Socialist_ Republics.

Acc to Marx, the proletarian revolution was supposed to happen in an
advanced, industrial state, that had progressed into a capitalist economic
system. Candidates for that were Germany, Britain and even the USA, once
it had rid itself of chattel slavery. The world revolution was to spread from
the advanced economies, which would progress further into socialist societies,
as the more primitive societies became capitalist, then socialist.

Russia hadn't shed itself of the hallmark of feudalism, serfdom, until 1861.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_reform_of_1861

It's middle class (bourgeoise) was tiny compared to that of the various
industrializing states of Europe and the Americas. Lenin's hope was
that a revolution in Russia would spark the predicted uprising in Germany.
Instead, there was anti-communist reaction that prevented such revolts
from succeeding.

Post by The Horny Goat
Whereas Hitler even if he had achieved his wildest fantasies of
conquest would never have allowed the state to "wither away" - but
then the same could be said of Stalin.

Stalin came up with "socialism in one country" to justify the USSR
existing without world revolution, which was supposed to happen,
any day now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_in_one_country

Post by The Horny Goat
Thus I have no use at all for the type of people who argue Communism
has never been given a fair test since neither Russia or China are /
were Comunist.
By that "logic" we could argue that Naziism should get another try
since Hitler diverged so much from the vision espoused in Mein Kampf.
Yeah sure.....

Hitler being the "Nazi pope," he could change his goals at any time.
My "favorite" of these diktats was designating the Japanese as
"honorary aryans."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honorary_Aryan

Nazi race theory was batshit crazy, but that really pushed things.

[Paul S Person]

Post by Kevrob

Post by The Horny Goat
On Wed, 07 Feb 2024 08:13:31 -0800, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
Since the whole /point/ of Communism is that the State, all by itself,
without any assistance at all, will eventually wither away, it follows
that there can /never/ be a Communist State in the philosophical
sense, any more than there can ever be an Anarchist State in the
philosophical sense.

There's a reason it was called the Union of Soviet _Socialist_ Republics.
Acc to Marx, the proletarian revolution was supposed to happen in an
advanced, industrial state, that had progressed into a capitalist economic
system. Candidates for that were Germany, Britain and even the USA, once
it had rid itself of chattel slavery. The world revolution was to spread from
the advanced economies, which would progress further into socialist societies,
as the more primitive societies became capitalist, then socialist.
Russia hadn't shed itself of the hallmark of feudalism, serfdom, until 1861.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emancipation_reform_of_1861
It's middle class (bourgeoise) was tiny compared to that of the various
industrializing states of Europe and the Americas. Lenin's hope was
that a revolution in Russia would spark the predicted uprising in Germany.
Instead, there was anti-communist reaction that prevented such revolts
from succeeding.

Post by The Horny Goat
Whereas Hitler even if he had achieved his wildest fantasies of
conquest would never have allowed the state to "wither away" - but
then the same could be said of Stalin.

Stalin came up with "socialism in one country" to justify the USSR
existing without world revolution, which was supposed to happen,
any day now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism_in_one_country

Post by The Horny Goat
Thus I have no use at all for the type of people who argue Communism
has never been given a fair test since neither Russia or China are /
were Comunist.
By that "logic" we could argue that Naziism should get another try
since Hitler diverged so much from the vision espoused in Mein Kampf.
Yeah sure.....

Hitler being the "Nazi pope," he could change his goals at any time.
My "favorite" of these diktats was designating the Japanese as
"honorary aryans."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honorary_Aryan
Nazi race theory was batshit crazy, but that really pushed things.

IIRC, in /When the Sleeper Wakes/, an Oriental explains to Our
Protagonist that the White man had long-since decided that Yellow men
were White.

If that sounds excessively racist, you have to remember that Our
Protaganist died at the end preventing imported African troops from
quelling the riots because "you can's use Black men against White
men". IOW, from the explicit racism viewpoint, it just gets worse and
worse.

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by The Horny Goat
On Wed, 07 Feb 2024 08:13:31 -0800, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
Since the whole /point/ of Communism is that the State, all by itself,
without any assistance at all, will eventually wither away, it follows
that there can /never/ be a Communist State in the philosophical
sense, any more than there can ever be an Anarchist State in the
philosophical sense.

Whereas Hitler even if he had achieved his wildest fantasies of
conquest would never have allowed the state to "wither away" - but
then the same could be said of Stalin.
Thus I have no use at all for the type of people who argue Communism
has never been given a fair test since neither Russia or China are /
were Comunist.
By that "logic" we could argue that Naziism should get another try
since Hitler diverged so much from the vision espoused in Mein Kampf.
Yeah sure.....

I do wonder whether Communism would have
run better if all the other countries of
the world hadn't been vigorously at war
against it from day zero. Huge effort
and a vast amount of money was invested
by us to nobble it. And still is.

[Quadibloc]

Post by Robert Carnegie
I do wonder whether Communism would have
run better if all the other countries of
the world hadn't been vigorously at war
against it from day zero. Huge effort
and a vast amount of money was invested
by us to nobble it. And still is.

Unlike Nazism, with its doctrine of racial supremacy, Communism
seems like it isn't obviously and/or inherently evil. One could think
of Karl Marx as being like Henry George, someone who proposed an
economic reform that would better the lot of the working class.

However, I think that Lenin, Kim Il Sung, and Fidel Castro all proved
that they were evil dictators seeking power first and foremost right
from day one, and this was not a consequence of those mean
capitalists picking on them.

None the less, the phenomenon of which you speak is very real.

Military action was taken against the nascent Soviet Russian state
in the 1920s.

After World War II was over, the U.S. stopped the advance of
Communism in Korea, and attempted to do so in Vietnam.

Contrast that with waiting until Pearl Harbor, instead of
confronting the Nazis in Spain and the Fascists in
Ethiopia. And Imperial Japan in China.

It is transparently obvious, at least to me, that this is a
consequence of a number of wealthy businessmen viewing
Communism as an _existential threat_ while other forms of
dictatorship were just business as usual.

And this is still a factor - it is what let Putin's regime in Russia
attack Georgia and then Ukraine "under the radar" until the
attack on Kyiv itself.

John Savard

[Cryptoengineer]

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by The Horny Goat
On Wed, 07 Feb 2024 08:13:31 -0800, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
Since the whole /point/ of Communism is that the State, all by itself,
without any assistance at all, will eventually wither away, it follows
that there can /never/ be a Communist State in the philosophical
sense, any more than there can ever be an Anarchist State in the
philosophical sense.

Whereas Hitler even if he had achieved his wildest fantasies of
conquest would never have allowed the state to "wither away" - but
then the same could be said of Stalin.
Thus I have no use at all for the type of people who argue Communism
has never been given a fair test since neither Russia or China are /
were Comunist.
By that "logic" we could argue that Naziism  should get another try
since Hitler diverged so much from the vision espoused in Mein Kampf.
Yeah sure.....

I do wonder whether Communism would have
run better if all the other countries of
the world hadn't been vigorously at war
against it from day zero.  Huge effort
and a vast amount of money was invested
by us to nobble it.  And still is.

The problem I've seen with Socialist regimes is that
even if they start out with the purist of intentions,
they are inevitably taken over by people more interested
in the retention and expansion of their own power, and
enriching themselves.

pt

[Tony Nance]

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by The Horny Goat
On Wed, 07 Feb 2024 08:13:31 -0800, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
Since the whole /point/ of Communism is that the State, all by itself,
without any assistance at all, will eventually wither away, it follows
that there can /never/ be a Communist State in the philosophical
sense, any more than there can ever be an Anarchist State in the
philosophical sense.

Whereas Hitler even if he had achieved his wildest fantasies of
conquest would never have allowed the state to "wither away" - but
then the same could be said of Stalin.
Thus I have no use at all for the type of people who argue Communism
has never been given a fair test since neither Russia or China are /
were Comunist.
By that "logic" we could argue that Naziism  should get another try
since Hitler diverged so much from the vision espoused in Mein Kampf.
Yeah sure.....

I do wonder whether Communism would have
run better if all the other countries of
the world hadn't been vigorously at war
against it from day zero.  Huge effort
and a vast amount of money was invested
by us to nobble it.  And still is.

The problem I've seen with Socialist regimes is that
even if they start out with the purist of intentions,
they are inevitably taken over by people more interested
in the retention and expansion of their own power, and
enriching themselves.

Sadly, that's kinda what most (all?) human systems/regimes *do* in the
long run, right? The people with the power inevitably rig things so that
they stay in power, and they benefit more than the ones who aren't in power.

Tony

[Cryptoengineer]

Post by Tony Nance

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by The Horny Goat
On Wed, 07 Feb 2024 08:13:31 -0800, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
Since the whole /point/ of Communism is that the State, all by itself,
without any assistance at all, will eventually wither away, it follows
that there can /never/ be a Communist State in the philosophical
sense, any more than there can ever be an Anarchist State in the
philosophical sense.

Whereas Hitler even if he had achieved his wildest fantasies of
conquest would never have allowed the state to "wither away" - but
then the same could be said of Stalin.
Thus I have no use at all for the type of people who argue Communism
has never been given a fair test since neither Russia or China are /
were Comunist.
By that "logic" we could argue that Naziism  should get another try
since Hitler diverged so much from the vision espoused in Mein Kampf.
Yeah sure.....

I do wonder whether Communism would have
run better if all the other countries of
the world hadn't been vigorously at war
against it from day zero.  Huge effort
and a vast amount of money was invested
by us to nobble it.  And still is.

The problem I've seen with Socialist regimes is that
even if they start out with the purist of intentions,
they are inevitably taken over by people more interested
in the retention and expansion of their own power, and
enriching themselves.

Sadly, that's kinda what most (all?) human systems/regimes *do* in the
long run, right? The people with the power inevitably rig things so that
they stay in power, and they benefit more than the ones who aren't in power.

Yes. The end state is a hereditary royalty, with absolute power. Getting
away from that over the past 1000 years has been an immense benefit to
most of the people, though not to the former rulers.

We're seeing a reversion to the mean at the moment, with power
and wealth concentrating in fewer and fewer hands, who use their
wealth and power to change laws to favor of their retention of
wealth and power.

pt

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Robert Carnegie
I do wonder whether Communism would have
run better if all the other countries of
the world hadn't been vigorously at war
against it from day zero.  Huge effort
and a vast amount of money was invested
by us to nobble it.  And still is.

When this became obvious, some communists decided that internationalism
wasn't a good idea and shut down the Third International and Trotsky was
out on the street. This did not make people in other countries feel any
more secure about it, though.

However, the first communist revolution was in Russia which was a country
with a long history of paranoia and insularity and that kind of colored
the movement from the beginning unfortunately.

Post by Cryptoengineer
The problem I've seen with Socialist regimes is that
even if they start out with the purist of intentions,
they are inevitably taken over by people more interested
in the retention and expansion of their own power, and
enriching themselves.

Yes, but this pretty much is the case for any organization, and eventually
it has to be cleaned out. Ever been on a con committee before? Or seen
an HOA from the inside? It's not just socialism, it is humanity.
--scott

[Joy Beeson]

Post by Scott Dorsey
Yes, but this pretty much is the case for any organization, and eventually
it has to be cleaned out. Ever been on a con committee before? Or seen
an HOA from the inside? It's not just socialism, it is humanity.

But *can* it be cleaned out? I have no hope that what descended from
the League of Amerian Wheelmen can ever cease to be the most
anti-bicycle organization around.

[The Horny Goat]

On Mon, 05 Feb 2024 08:31:00 -0800, Paul S Person

Post by Paul S Person
On Mon, 05 Feb 2024 12:04:10 +1100, Mad Hamish

Post by Mad Hamish
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 19:38:19 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire
I don't know why people are upset, it is just standard communism.
Surely they knew that would happen when they located the WorldCon in a
communist country.

in what world is modern china a communist country?

The real world.
Mainland China is communist because the /only/ political party allowed
is the Communist Party.
Or has that changed?

One major western historian (I'm going from memory here - I think it
was Stephen Kotkin author of the 2/3 part (part 3 covering 1945 -
Stalin's death isn't out yet and was delayed by the pandemic)
biography of Stalin) said that he was visiting China hoping to meet
with top members of the Politiburo and was told that they were meeting
for a multiday private discussion and teaching on Marx and Engels
which apparently they do every 4 or 5 years.

Despite the changes in China in the last 20 years there's no doubt
it's a communist country though a rather different flavor than was
typical of the Soviet Union in its heyday.

So I would completely accept the "what did the Worldcon organizers
EXPECT?" question

[Quadibloc]

Post by Mad Hamish
On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 19:38:19 -0600, Lynn McGuire

Post by Lynn McGuire
I don't know why people are upset, it is just standard communism.
Surely they knew that would happen when they located the WorldCon in a
communist country.

in what world is modern china a communist country?

The People's Republic of China is ruled by the Communist Party of China.

Also, it is a totalitarian dictatorship; for example, churches aren't allowed to exist
except as state-run organizations.

Whether or not their Marxism or Maoism is as pure as it once was is really not
a concern to anyone but the Party itself.

John Savard

[Scott Dorsey]

Post by Quadibloc
The People's Republic of China is ruled by the Communist Party of China.

Yes. This does not necessarily they are communist, any more than the
Republican Guards necessarily believe in a republic or the US Democratic
Party necessarily believes in democracy. But it's certainly an indicator
in that direction.

Post by Quadibloc
Also, it is a totalitarian dictatorship; for example, churches aren't
allowed to exist except as state-run organizations.

This has nothing to do with it being communist; it is completely orthogonal
to the economic system of the country. You can have a totalitarian capitalist
country like Saudi Arabia or a communist representative democracy like Milan
was for a while.

Post by Quadibloc
Whether or not their Marxism or Maoism is as pure as it once was is really
not a concern to anyone but the Party itself.

Well, it might also be a concern to the residents of the country who are
subject to that government.
--scott

Post by Quadibloc
John Savard

[Kevrob]

Post by Quadibloc
The People's Republic of China is ruled by the Communist Party of China.

Yes. This does not necessarily they are communist, any more than the
Republican Guards necessarily believe in a republic or the US Democratic
Party necessarily believes in democracy. But it's certainly an indicator
in that direction.

Post by Quadibloc
Also, it is a totalitarian dictatorship; for example, churches aren't
allowed to exist except as state-run organizations.

This has nothing to do with it being communist; it is completely orthogonal
to the economic system of the country. You can have a totalitarian capitalist
country like Saudi Arabia or a communist representative democracy like Milan
was for a while.

Post by Quadibloc
Whether or not their Marxism or Maoism is as pure as it once was is really
not a concern to anyone but the Party itself.

Well, it might also be a concern to the residents of the country who are
subject to that government.

Here's the thing about Maoism: if the current regime got rid of Marxism-Leninism-
Stalinism-Mao-Zedong-Thought as the basis of its political system, what would
replace it? The Maoist tradition provides political legitimacy. Sure, one could describe
The People's Republic as a technocratic-authoritarian oligarchy with a totalitarian
history that bubbles under the surface, but, absent Maoism, what gives it any legitimacy?
The Mandate of Heaven?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_(political)

Note that we in the US aren't having our own crisis of legitimacy.

[/PoliSci wonkery]

[Quadibloc]

Post by Kevrob
Note that we in the US aren't having our own crisis of legitimacy.

What with January 6th and all that, one could say the U.S. is having
a crisis of some sort, but is it really a crisis of _legitimacy_?

At first glance, Trump's lie about the "stolen election" could make it
appear that legitimacy is the issue. But one would have to be a sucker
to believe that lie.

Perhaps the real crisis is demographic change in the United States.
And instead of obviously discriminatory measures to ensure black
voters stand in long line-ups at the polls, at least one state is
considering a measure to truly fix the problem, Arizona, with a
measure introduced by John Fillmore. If the state legislature, not the
voters, picks the electors, then as long as the process of picking the
state legislature is suitably gerrymandered, black Americans can be
thoroughly disenfranchised.

*Then*, after the Republicans get their way, you will see a *serious*
crisis of legitimacy.

John Savard

[Paul S Person]

On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 13:04:03 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Kevrob
Note that we in the US aren't having our own crisis of legitimacy.

What with January 6th and all that, one could say the U.S. is having
a crisis of some sort, but is it really a crisis of _legitimacy_?
At first glance, Trump's lie about the "stolen election" could make it
appear that legitimacy is the issue. But one would have to be a sucker
to believe that lie.
Perhaps the real crisis is demographic change in the United States.
And instead of obviously discriminatory measures to ensure black
voters stand in long line-ups at the polls, at least one state is
considering a measure to truly fix the problem, Arizona, with a
measure introduced by John Fillmore. If the state legislature, not the
voters, picks the electors, then as long as the process of picking the
state legislature is suitably gerrymandered, black Americans can be
thoroughly disenfranchised.

Have to be very subtle, as the Supreme Court's treatment of Alabama
shows.

The Supremes may have removed the "Jim Crow days voting discrimination
requires judicial supervision forever" part of the law, but /current/
attempts to discriminate are still illegal and the Courts can still
draw the maps and force them on the State.

The threat of which, IIRC, "encouraged" Alabama to finally redraw the
map as directed to avoid having one imposed on them from outside.

Post by Quadibloc
*Then*, after the Republicans get their way, you will see a *serious*
crisis of legitimacy.

[Paul S Person]

Post by Kevrob

Post by Quadibloc
The People's Republic of China is ruled by the Communist Party of China.

Yes. This does not necessarily they are communist, any more than the
Republican Guards necessarily believe in a republic or the US Democratic
Party necessarily believes in democracy. But it's certainly an indicator
in that direction.

Post by Quadibloc
Also, it is a totalitarian dictatorship; for example, churches aren't
allowed to exist except as state-run organizations.

This has nothing to do with it being communist; it is completely orthogonal
to the economic system of the country. You can have a totalitarian capitalist
country like Saudi Arabia or a communist representative democracy like Milan
was for a while.

Post by Quadibloc
Whether or not their Marxism or Maoism is as pure as it once was is really
not a concern to anyone but the Party itself.

Well, it might also be a concern to the residents of the country who are
subject to that government.

Here's the thing about Maoism: if the current regime got rid of Marxism-Leninism-
Stalinism-Mao-Zedong-Thought as the basis of its political system, what would
replace it? The Maoist tradition provides political legitimacy. Sure, one could describe
The People's Republic as a technocratic-authoritarian oligarchy with a totalitarian
history that bubbles under the surface, but, absent Maoism, what gives it any legitimacy?
The Mandate of Heaven?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_(political)
Note that we in the US aren't having our own crisis of legitimacy.

It has been my impression that mainland China /does/ believe its
rulers have the Mandate of Heaven and so are the rightful rulers of
the entire world.

Never underestimate the power of megalomania.

[Cryptoengineer]

Post by Kevrob

Post by Quadibloc
The People's Republic of China is ruled by the Communist Party of China.

Yes. This does not necessarily they are communist, any more than the
Republican Guards necessarily believe in a republic or the US Democratic
Party necessarily believes in democracy. But it's certainly an indicator
in that direction.

Post by Quadibloc
Also, it is a totalitarian dictatorship; for example, churches aren't
allowed to exist except as state-run organizations.

This has nothing to do with it being communist; it is completely orthogonal
to the economic system of the country. You can have a totalitarian capitalist
country like Saudi Arabia or a communist representative democracy like Milan
was for a while.

Post by Quadibloc
Whether or not their Marxism or Maoism is as pure as it once was is really
not a concern to anyone but the Party itself.

Well, it might also be a concern to the residents of the country who are
subject to that government.

Here's the thing about Maoism: if the current regime got rid of Marxism-Leninism-
Stalinism-Mao-Zedong-Thought as the basis of its political system, what would
replace it? The Maoist tradition provides political legitimacy. Sure, one could describe
The People's Republic as a technocratic-authoritarian oligarchy with a totalitarian
history that bubbles under the surface, but, absent Maoism, what gives it any legitimacy?
The Mandate of Heaven?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_(political)
Note that we in the US aren't having our own crisis of legitimacy.

I think I could rewrite that paragraph with 'Confucianism' replacing
Maoism, and it would be a pretty close description of Ming or Qing
dynasty China.

Sometimes, the labels change, but the system remains the same.

pt

[Kevrob]

[snip]

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Kevrob
Here's the thing about Maoism: if the current regime got rid of Marxism-Leninism-
Stalinism-Mao-Zedong-Thought as the basis of its political system, what would
replace it? The Maoist tradition provides political legitimacy. Sure, one could describe
The People's Republic as a technocratic-authoritarian oligarchy with a totalitarian
history that bubbles under the surface, but, absent Maoism, what gives it any legitimacy?
The Mandate of Heaven?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_(political)
Note that we in the US aren't having our own crisis of legitimacy.

I think I could rewrite that paragraph with 'Confucianism' replacing
Maoism, and it would be a pretty close description of Ming or Qing
dynasty China.
Sometimes, the labels change, but the system remains the same.

I'd say that was probably fair. Any regime- by which I mean a
constitutional arrangement, in the Aristotelian sense - has underlying
premises, often based on a religious or philosophical system. If one
doesn't care for those premises, they get called an ideology. If one
likes them they get referred to by other labels. They can be just as
much an ideology, though.

[Paul S Person]

On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 13:25:56 -0500, Cryptoengineer

Post by Cryptoengineer

Post by Kevrob

Post by Quadibloc
The People's Republic of China is ruled by the Communist Party of China.

Yes. This does not necessarily they are communist, any more than the
Republican Guards necessarily believe in a republic or the US Democratic
Party necessarily believes in democracy. But it's certainly an indicator
in that direction.

Post by Quadibloc
Also, it is a totalitarian dictatorship; for example, churches aren't
allowed to exist except as state-run organizations.

This has nothing to do with it being communist; it is completely orthogonal
to the economic system of the country. You can have a totalitarian capitalist
country like Saudi Arabia or a communist representative democracy like Milan
was for a while.

Post by Quadibloc
Whether or not their Marxism or Maoism is as pure as it once was is really
not a concern to anyone but the Party itself.

Well, it might also be a concern to the residents of the country who are
subject to that government.

Here's the thing about Maoism: if the current regime got rid of Marxism-Leninism-
Stalinism-Mao-Zedong-Thought as the basis of its political system, what would
replace it? The Maoist tradition provides political legitimacy. Sure, one could describe
The People's Republic as a technocratic-authoritarian oligarchy with a totalitarian
history that bubbles under the surface, but, absent Maoism, what gives it any legitimacy?
The Mandate of Heaven?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legitimacy_(political)
Note that we in the US aren't having our own crisis of legitimacy.

I think I could rewrite that paragraph with 'Confucianism' replacing
Maoism, and it would be a pretty close description of Ming or Qing
dynasty China.
Sometimes, the labels change, but the system remains the same.

This is why I expect that, when China enters her next "warring
kingdoms" phase, it will be "warring People's Republics" and the
leaders will be "Central Committee Chairmen" rather than "warlords".

But it will be the same-old same-old. Except, of course, that some of
them will have nukes.

Interesting times ahead, indeed.

[Scott Dorsey]

Here's the thing about Maoism: if the current regime got rid of Marxism-Len=
inism-
Stalinism-Mao-Zedong-Thought as the basis of its political system, what wou=
ld=20
replace it? The Maoist tradition provides political legitimacy. Sure, one=
could describe=20
The People's Republic as a technocratic-authoritarian oligarchy with a tota=
litarian=20
history that bubbles under the surface, but, absent Maoism, what gives it =
any legitimacy?=20

For a while after his death, the Cult of Mao died off somewhat in China
and although the government did consider themselves created and inspired
by Mao, they weren't hanging big Mao banners up everywhere.

But, in more recent years, the Mao banners have been coming back, precisely
for the reason you state. Thankfully the Maoist notion of "permanent state
of revolution" has not come back although I am sure the current management
has it waiting in the wings if it is necessary for them to retain power.

Note that we in the US aren't having our own crisis of legitimacy.=20

Maoism also has the same kind of problem that Reaganism has, in that the
young Mao was a genius general (one who even defined the birth of a state)
but who stayed in power far too long and who was a raving and drooling
fool later in life (witness the Cultural Revolution). When someone speaks
of Mao, which one are they talking about? Or are they talking about Mao
the abstract symbol of China?
--scott

[D]

Post by Scott Dorsey

Here's the thing about Maoism: if the current regime got rid of Marxism-Len=
inism-
Stalinism-Mao-Zedong-Thought as the basis of its political system, what wou=
ld=20
replace it? The Maoist tradition provides political legitimacy. Sure, one=
could describe=20
The People's Republic as a technocratic-authoritarian oligarchy with a tota=
litarian=20
history that bubbles under the surface, but, absent Maoism, what gives it =
any legitimacy?=20

For a while after his death, the Cult of Mao died off somewhat in China
and although the government did consider themselves created and inspired
by Mao, they weren't hanging big Mao banners up everywhere.
But, in more recent years, the Mao banners have been coming back, precisely
for the reason you state. Thankfully the Maoist notion of "permanent state
of revolution" has not come back although I am sure the current management
has it waiting in the wings if it is necessary for them to retain power.

It seems they are all using the same playbook. I think Putin has brought
back and rehabilitated Stalin as well the last couple of years.

Post by Scott Dorsey

Note that we in the US aren't having our own crisis of legitimacy.=20

Maoism also has the same kind of problem that Reaganism has, in that the
young Mao was a genius general (one who even defined the birth of a state)
but who stayed in power far too long and who was a raving and drooling
fool later in life (witness the Cultural Revolution). When someone speaks
of Mao, which one are they talking about? Or are they talking about Mao
the abstract symbol of China?
--scott

[The Horny Goat]

Post by Scott Dorsey
This has nothing to do with it being communist; it is completely orthogonal
to the economic system of the country. You can have a totalitarian capitalist
country like Saudi Arabia or a communist representative democracy like Milan
was for a while.

Not sure precisely what you mean though assuredly any Muslim cleric
who offended the powers that be in RIyadh would quickly be removed
(and if he was lucky that would be all that happened to him)

Post by Scott Dorsey

Post by Quadibloc
Whether or not their Marxism or Maoism is as pure as it once was is really
not a concern to anyone but the Party itself.

Well, it might also be a concern to the residents of the country who are
subject to that government.

Very true.

[Lynn McGuire]

Post by Chris Buckley
https://www.polygon.com/24049021/hugo-awards-controversy-china-censorship-babel
I haven't seen any discussion of this previously! It sounds quite
intolerable - books being declared ineligible because of their Chinese
content. Is there confirmation that all of this actually occurred and
is being reported correctly?
Chris

Charles Stross wrote his own version of this.

http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2024/01/worldcon-in-the-news.html

I need to read more of his books. He hangs out in reddit.
https://www.reddit.com/r/printSF/comments/1abo34l/worldcon_in_the_news/

Lynn

[Mike Van Pelt]

Post by Lynn McGuire
Charles Stross wrote his own version of this.
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2024/01/worldcon-in-the-news.html

Fascinating.

Especially the update at the end:

"A commenter just drew my attention to this news item on
China.org.cn, dated October 23rd, 2023, right after the
worldcon. It begins:

Investment deals valued at approximately $1.09 billion
were signed during the 81st World Science Fiction Convention
(Worldcon) held in Chengdu, Sichuan province, last week at its
inaugural industrial development summit, marking significant
progress in the advancement of sci-fi development in China.

The deals included 21 sci-fi industry projects involving
companies that produce films, parks, and immersive sci-fi
experiences ..."

That's a metric fuckton of moolah in play, and it would totally
account for the fan-run convention folks being discreetly elbowed
out of the way and the entire event being stage-managed as a
backdrop for a major industrial event to bootstrap creative
industries (film, TV, and games) in Chengdu. And—looking for
the most charitable interpretation here—the hapless western
WSFS people being carried along for the ride to provide a veneer
of worldcon-ness to what was basically Chinese venture capital
hijacking the event and then sanitizing it politically.

Follow the money."

[Moriarty]

Post by Chris Buckley
https://www.polygon.com/24049021/hugo-awards-controversy-china-censorship-babel
I haven't seen any discussion of this previously! It sounds quite
intolerable - books being declared ineligible because of their Chinese
content. Is there confirmation that all of this actually occurred and
is being reported correctly?

When I first heard about this, I was scratching my head to work out why RF Kuang's "Babel" was so offensive that it was made ineligible. I hadn't realised the author had written an earlier alternative history series where a major character is loosely modelled on Mao. Of course the CCP took offense.

-Moriarty

[Quadibloc]

Post by Moriarty

Post by Chris Buckley
https://www.polygon.com/24049021/hugo-awards-controversy-china-censorship-babel
I haven't seen any discussion of this previously! It sounds quite
intolerable - books being declared ineligible because of their Chinese
content. Is there confirmation that all of this actually occurred and
is being reported correctly?

When I first heard about this, I was scratching my head to work out why
RF Kuang's "Babel" was so offensive that it was made ineligible. I hadn't
realised the author had written an earlier alternative history series where
a major character is loosely modelled on Mao. Of course the CCP took offense.

The point is, I suppose, that if RF Kuang could sue Worldcon for a pile of
money for being excluded unfairly from consideration... and win in U.S. courts...
then organizations like Worldcon would take notice, and never, ever consider
holding their events in countries like the PRC again. Or even places like, say,
Dubai, where there would also be _some_ danger of _some_ political censorship,
although of a different kind.

Anything that involves handing out awards to books or movies or other things
that may have political content... would strictly be confined to safe countries
thoroughly aligned with the United States.

Next step is to figure out how to achieve the same result with respect to the
Olympics, for the sake of the safety of all athletes.

John Savard

[Robert Carnegie]

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Moriarty

Post by Chris Buckley
https://www.polygon.com/24049021/hugo-awards-controversy-china-censorship-babel
I haven't seen any discussion of this previously! It sounds quite
intolerable - books being declared ineligible because of their Chinese
content. Is there confirmation that all of this actually occurred and
is being reported correctly?

When I first heard about this, I was scratching my head to work out why
RF Kuang's "Babel" was so offensive that it was made ineligible. I hadn't
realised the author had written an earlier alternative history series where
a major character is loosely modelled on Mao. Of course the CCP took offense.

The point is, I suppose, that if RF Kuang could sue Worldcon for a pile of
money for being excluded unfairly from consideration... and win in U.S. courts...
then organizations like Worldcon would take notice, and never, ever consider
holding their events in countries like the PRC again. Or even places like, say,
Dubai, where there would also be _some_ danger of _some_ political censorship,
although of a different kind.

They would have to prove that a Hugo award
or nomination comes with "a pile of money".

It doesn't.
<https://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-faq/#Is%20there%20a%20monetary%20award?>
"No."

[Paul S Person]

On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 11:48:46 +0000, Robert Carnegie

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Moriarty

Post by Chris Buckley
https://www.polygon.com/24049021/hugo-awards-controversy-china-censorship-babel
I haven't seen any discussion of this previously! It sounds quite
intolerable - books being declared ineligible because of their Chinese
content. Is there confirmation that all of this actually occurred and
is being reported correctly?

When I first heard about this, I was scratching my head to work out why
RF Kuang's "Babel" was so offensive that it was made ineligible. I hadn't
realised the author had written an earlier alternative history series where
a major character is loosely modelled on Mao. Of course the CCP took offense.

The point is, I suppose, that if RF Kuang could sue Worldcon for a pile of
money for being excluded unfairly from consideration... and win in U.S. courts...
then organizations like Worldcon would take notice, and never, ever consider
holding their events in countries like the PRC again. Or even places like, say,
Dubai, where there would also be _some_ danger of _some_ political censorship,
although of a different kind.

They would have to prove that a Hugo award
or nomination comes with "a pile of money".
It doesn't.
<https://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-faq/#Is%20there%20a%20monetary%20award?>
"No."

But does it help them /sell more books/? Money from lost book sales
would surely count as "damages".

[James Nicoll]

Post by Paul S Person
On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 11:48:46 +0000, Robert Carnegie
https://www.polygon.com/24049021/hugo-awards-controversy-china-censorship-babel

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Moriarty

Post by Chris Buckley
I haven't seen any discussion of this previously! It sounds quite
intolerable - books being declared ineligible because of their Chinese
content. Is there confirmation that all of this actually occurred and
is being reported correctly?

When I first heard about this, I was scratching my head to work out why
RF Kuang's "Babel" was so offensive that it was made ineligible. I hadn't
realised the author had written an earlier alternative history series where
a major character is loosely modelled on Mao. Of course the CCP

took offense.

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Quadibloc
The point is, I suppose, that if RF Kuang could sue Worldcon for a pile of
money for being excluded unfairly from consideration... and win in

U.S. courts...

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Quadibloc
then organizations like Worldcon would take notice, and never, ever consider
holding their events in countries like the PRC again. Or even places

like, say,

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Quadibloc
Dubai, where there would also be _some_ danger of _some_ political

censorship,

Post by Robert Carnegie

Post by Quadibloc
although of a different kind.

They would have to prove that a Hugo award
or nomination comes with "a pile of money".
It doesn't.
<https://www.thehugoawards.org/hugo-faq/#Is%20there%20a%20monetary%20award?>
"No."

But does it help them /sell more books/? Money from lost book sales
would surely count as "damages".

Back in the Puppy days, Kameron Hurley mentioned that her advances
got higher after she won a Hugo. However, I have heard POC authors
complain their advances are consistently lower than white authors
get for comparable work, so it may be that Kuang's acolades do not
bring extra money with them.

[Paul S Person]

On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 09:16:23 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc

Post by Quadibloc

Post by Moriarty

Post by Chris Buckley
https://www.polygon.com/24049021/hugo-awards-controversy-china-censorship-babel
I haven't seen any discussion of this previously! It sounds quite
intolerable - books being declared ineligible because of their Chinese
content. Is there confirmation that all of this actually occurred and
is being reported correctly?

When I first heard about this, I was scratching my head to work out why
RF Kuang's "Babel" was so offensive that it was made ineligible. I hadn't
realised the author had written an earlier alternative history series where
a major character is loosely modelled on Mao. Of course the CCP took offense.

The point is, I suppose, that if RF Kuang could sue Worldcon for a pile of
money for being excluded unfairly from consideration... and win in U.S. courts...
then organizations like Worldcon would take notice, and never, ever consider
holding their events in countries like the PRC again. Or even places like, say,
Dubai, where there would also be _some_ danger of _some_ political censorship,
although of a different kind.

I haven't paid a lot of attention to this, but, IIRC, the convention
sites are chosen by convention members (present or not), so the actual
rules governing convention site selection would have to be changed.
Which, inevitably, will take time.

Post by Quadibloc
Anything that involves handing out awards to books or movies or other things
that may have political content... would strictly be confined to safe countries
thoroughly aligned with the United States.

I suspect that trans athletes are in as much danger in Florida as
China or Iran. Perhaps more so.

Post by Quadibloc
Next step is to figure out how to achieve the same result with respect to the
Olympics, for the sake of the safety of all athletes.
John Savard