i think there may be very good reasons for controlling taste. look at the state of western pop music. do I need to say more? and you have overlooked that in China the market is encompassed by a greater value than purely the market. this is what makes China different and so crucially important for moving beyond the excesses of the neoliberal Empire.
In my view, a media outlet or social media account, even if state-run, can express an opinion on art, culture, etc. Letting business-run media express opinions while preventing the state-run media to do it will end up in giving all the power to the market, which is Elon Musk’s or Peter Thiel’s wet dream. Here, the real problem seems to be something else, namely the link between the opinion and the cancellation, which we don’t know. We should break this link, in case, not forbid the opinion
"Permission is not protection. It is only the first round of uncertainty." That sentence applies far beyond a cancelled concert. It describes the operating environment for every private actor in any system where formal approval can be informally withdrawn. The concert was approved. Tickets were sold. Contracts were signed. Travel was booked. Then a commentary from an outlet adjacent to power changed the risk calculus for every venue, sponsor, and local official involved, and the concert evaporated without anyone issuing an order. The mechanism is the most efficient form of control there is: power that operates through inference rather than instruction, and therefore leaves no document trail to challenge.
The paragraph about the small economy around every concert is the one that stays longest. Lighting engineers, security guards, hotel bookings, merchandise sellers, temporary workers. The commentary was written from inside an institution that absorbs none of those costs. The people it affected absorb all of them. The asymmetry between who exercises the power and who pays the price is the structural problem the essay identifies, and it runs through every market where official opinion can override contractual certainty after the fact.
"The rule of law is tested not only in grand political cases. It is tested in ordinary commercial life." A powerful essay on an important topic. There does seem to be a worrying trend for officials in China to be increasingly willing to intervene in areas where it is absolutely not warranted. As you say this is not just about civil liberties (although that is essential), but also about the logic of a market society (which China is).
Market societies are pluralistic societies, where consumers are able to pursue (within reason) very different life goals through their consumption decisions. Sometimes the results are not pretty- crappy clothes, tacky music etc. And, pace market advocates, the dictate of profitability as well as the requirement for consumers to earn their living through wage labour does drastically limit the options available to consumers. But I would still argue that the results are worthwhile, both in terms of their intrinsic value for human flourishing (giving people a wider range of options in terms of deciding their identity in terms of their hobbies, clothing and music choices, the company they keep etc.), but also in terms of their positive economic externalities. Almost 50 years of private sector development in China demonstrates these benefits.
What China does differently to the West amounts to being more willing to take a guiding hand in shaping the economic landscape. In areas such as industrial development this approach tends to work out well. But everything has its limits. And wisdom comes down to knowing where these limits lie. I would agree with this post in identifying these limits in the realm of the creative economy and everyday consumption choices. As long these choices are not grievously harmful (e.g. promoting violence), then can't we just let people buy the things they want, even if we think they are a bit lowbrow?
i think there may be very good reasons for controlling taste. look at the state of western pop music. do I need to say more? and you have overlooked that in China the market is encompassed by a greater value than purely the market. this is what makes China different and so crucially important for moving beyond the excesses of the neoliberal Empire.
In my view, a media outlet or social media account, even if state-run, can express an opinion on art, culture, etc. Letting business-run media express opinions while preventing the state-run media to do it will end up in giving all the power to the market, which is Elon Musk’s or Peter Thiel’s wet dream. Here, the real problem seems to be something else, namely the link between the opinion and the cancellation, which we don’t know. We should break this link, in case, not forbid the opinion
"Permission is not protection. It is only the first round of uncertainty." That sentence applies far beyond a cancelled concert. It describes the operating environment for every private actor in any system where formal approval can be informally withdrawn. The concert was approved. Tickets were sold. Contracts were signed. Travel was booked. Then a commentary from an outlet adjacent to power changed the risk calculus for every venue, sponsor, and local official involved, and the concert evaporated without anyone issuing an order. The mechanism is the most efficient form of control there is: power that operates through inference rather than instruction, and therefore leaves no document trail to challenge.
The paragraph about the small economy around every concert is the one that stays longest. Lighting engineers, security guards, hotel bookings, merchandise sellers, temporary workers. The commentary was written from inside an institution that absorbs none of those costs. The people it affected absorb all of them. The asymmetry between who exercises the power and who pays the price is the structural problem the essay identifies, and it runs through every market where official opinion can override contractual certainty after the fact.
"The rule of law is tested not only in grand political cases. It is tested in ordinary commercial life." A powerful essay on an important topic. There does seem to be a worrying trend for officials in China to be increasingly willing to intervene in areas where it is absolutely not warranted. As you say this is not just about civil liberties (although that is essential), but also about the logic of a market society (which China is).
Market societies are pluralistic societies, where consumers are able to pursue (within reason) very different life goals through their consumption decisions. Sometimes the results are not pretty- crappy clothes, tacky music etc. And, pace market advocates, the dictate of profitability as well as the requirement for consumers to earn their living through wage labour does drastically limit the options available to consumers. But I would still argue that the results are worthwhile, both in terms of their intrinsic value for human flourishing (giving people a wider range of options in terms of deciding their identity in terms of their hobbies, clothing and music choices, the company they keep etc.), but also in terms of their positive economic externalities. Almost 50 years of private sector development in China demonstrates these benefits.
What China does differently to the West amounts to being more willing to take a guiding hand in shaping the economic landscape. In areas such as industrial development this approach tends to work out well. But everything has its limits. And wisdom comes down to knowing where these limits lie. I would agree with this post in identifying these limits in the realm of the creative economy and everyday consumption choices. As long these choices are not grievously harmful (e.g. promoting violence), then can't we just let people buy the things they want, even if we think they are a bit lowbrow?
Very interesting analysis, thanks for sharing...