Why I Chose Substack: A Brief Discussion On the Accumulated Vices of Simplified-Chinese Internet Censorship
“To stop the mouths of the people is more perilous than stopping a river.”
The Guoyu, or Discourses of the States, is the progenitor of Chinese narrative history, classified within the “Miscellaneous Histories” section of the Siku Quanshu. It chronicles the history of the Zhou royal court and its vassal states, including Lu, Qi, Jin, Zheng, Chu, Wu, and Yue. The records begin with King Mu’s campaign against the Quanrong (circa 947 BCE) and end with the partitioning of the state of Jin by the three houses of Han, Zhao, and Wei (453 BCE).
Within the first volume of this work, “Discourses of Zhou, Part I,” lies a well-known parable that has had a profound impact on China’s long political and cultural history. This is the famous story of “Duke Shao’s Remonstrance Against King Li’s Suppression of Slander.” (邵公谏厉王弥谤) The original text reads as follows:
King Li was a tyrant, and the people of the capital censured him. Duke Shao reported this to the king, saying, “The people cannot bear your commands!” The king was enraged. He found Wei Wu and ordered him to spy on those who spoke ill of him. Upon Wei’s report, the critics were executed. The people of the capital dared not speak; on the roads, they could only communicate with their eyes. The king was pleased and told Duke Shao, “I have managed to stop the slander; now they dare not speak.”
Duke Shao replied, “This is merely a blockage. To stop the mouths of the people is more perilous than stopping a river. When a dammed river bursts, it will surely harm many people, and so it is with the people. Therefore, those who manage rivers dredge them to let them flow; those who govern the people guide them to let them speak. Thus, the Son of Heaven, when conducting his administration, would have his ministers and officials present poems, the blind musicians present melodies, the historians present books, the masters offer admonitions, the elders recite odes, the juniors chant verses, the artisans present counsel, the commoners convey messages, the close attendants offer thorough advice, and the royal relatives provide scrutiny and oversight. The blind musicians and historians were there to instruct. The elders would then review it all, and the king would deliberate upon it. In this way, government affairs could be carried out without going against reason.”
“The people have mouths, just as the earth has mountains and rivers from which resources are derived, and just as it has plateaus, lowlands, and fertile plains from which food and clothing are produced. When the mouth speaks, good and bad governance arise from it. By implementing the good and guarding against the bad, the state’s wealth and the people’s sustenance are enriched. The people ponder in their hearts and speak with their mouths; their thoughts mature and are put into action. How can they be blocked? If you block their mouths, how long can you last?”
The king refused to listen. Consequently, no one in the capital dared to speak. Three years later, the king was exiled to a place called Zhi.
Notes:
King Li (厉王): A king of the Zhou dynasty of China. Li (厉), directly translated into severe, strict, is a pejorative posthumous name meaning “The Tyrannical,” given to reflect his cruel and oppressive rule that ultimately led to a popular revolt and his exile.
Guoren (国人): Specifically refers to the inhabitants of the national capital and its immediate suburbs. During the Zhou Dynasty, society was divided between the guoren and the yeren (”people of the wilderness”), the latter being mainly agricultural laborers of lower status.
Bang (谤): Slander.
Mi (弭): To stop.
Zhang (障): To block.
Yong (壅): To obstruct.
Wei (为): To govern.
Xuan (宣): To release; to understand what is right and wrong by observing what the people say.
Gu (瞽): The eyeless; refers to musicians.
Shi (史): The Grand Historian. According to the Rites of Zhou, the Grand Historian was in charge of the books of the Three Sovereigns and Five Emperors.
Zhen (箴): To admonish the king’s faults to rectify his course.
Sou (瞍): One without pupils.
Meng (蒙): One with pupils but unable to see. According to the Rites of Zhou, the meng were in charge of string music and recitations of admonitions.
Bai gong (百工): Artisans who served the sovereign. Their counsel was offered through their craft.
Shuren (庶人): Commoners of low status, whose observations of the times could not be directly conveyed to the king and were passed on through rumor.
Jin chen (近臣): Close attendants, such as carriage drivers and servants.
Qi ai (耆艾): Elders and tutors.
Zhenzhuo (斟酌): To deliberate and act.
Bei (悖): To go against reason.
Just as mountains and rivers release the earth’s energy to produce wealth, the mouth releases the people’s thoughts to speak of good and bad.
Flat, wide land is a yuan (原); low, wet land is a xi (隰); low, flat land is a yan (衍); irrigated land is a wo (沃).
To implement the good and guard against the bad, means to carry out what the people deem good and to take precautions against what they deem bad.
Fu (阜): Abundant.
Zhi (彘): Present-day Yong’an.
King Li of Zhou was a cruel and despotic ruler who faced criticism from the people of his capital. When Duke Shao of Zhao informed him that the people could not endure his harsh governance, King Li flew into a rage. He chose to silence dissent by spying on and executing his critics, leading to a state where citizens on the street dared not speak, communicating only with their eyes.
Pleased with himself, King Li boasted to Duke Shao that he had successfully suppressed the slander.
Duke Shao admonished him directly: building a dam to hold back a river will only cause the water to rise, and when it inevitably breaks, many will be harmed. “To stop the mouths of the people,” he warned, “is more perilous than stopping a river.”... When the people are allowed to express their opinions, the monarch can know what they praise and what they condemn. Promoting what the people approve of and taking precautions against what they criticize is the fundamental way to ensure the nation’s prosperity and the people’s well-being. What the people think in their hearts, they speak with their mouths; once these ideas mature, they will act on them. How can this be forcibly suppressed? If you block their mouths, how long can such a rule last?
King Li ignored the advice completely. As a result, no one in the kingdom dared to speak their mind publicly. Just three years later, in 841 BCE, the famous “Guoren Riot” (Rebellion of the Citizens) erupted. King Li of Zhou was subsequently exiled to the land of Zhi (Yong’an).
The Tang dynasty poet Du Mu wrote in his “Epang Palace Ode”:
“The people of Qin had no time to mourn for themselves, and later generations mourned for them; if later generations mourn for them but do not learn from their fate, they will cause future generations to mourn for them in turn.”
King Li’s tyranny and censorship jointly led to the Guoren Riot and his eventual exile. So, more than two thousand years later, what is the state of political discourse and censorship today?
On November 10th, the Chinese Ministry of State Security published an article on its WeChat public account titled, “‘Climbing the Wall’? A Curious Act of Genuine Danger,” which stated:
In the era of the mobile internet, obtaining information and news online has become the common way for people to understand the outside world. However, a few netizens with weak legal and risk-prevention awareness illegally use ‘wall-climbing’ software (commonly known as VPNs or ‘ladders’) to access overseas websites, register accounts, and participate in group chats. Indulging in this curiosity not only poses risks to personal information security but can even affect national security and social stability.
...An employee of a state-owned enterprise who frequently visited anti-China websites overseas to watch and disseminate political rumors about our country was arrested by the national security organs in accordance with the law.
Let us have a moment of silence for this employee of a state-owned enterprise. After all, silence is our only option. Dare to speak out? It seems you’re asking for trouble too.
As the example of King Li shows, censorship has an extremely long history. What’s more, the principles that “to stop the mouths of the people is more perilous than stopping a river” and “when the mouth speaks, good and bad governance arise from it” are incredibly simple truths.
Therefore, the article from the Chinese Ministry of State Security compels us to ask several questions:
Why has censorship been favored by so many rulers throughout history?
Why has contemporary China’s implementation of such a strict censorship policy not led to an event like the “Guoren Riot”?
And, the title of this article: Why did I choose Substack?
Please allow me to answer these in order.
First, the first question: Why has censorship been favored by so many rulers throughout history?
I believe the answer is simple:
Because change that affects interests always touches upon the soul and has always been met with immense resistance. Censorship is the fundamental means to postpone all forms of change.
As Duke Shao said, “When the mouth speaks, good and bad governance arise from it. By implementing the good and guarding against the bad, the state’s wealth and the people’s sustenance are enriched.” — Allowing the people to speak can bring forth good and bad. Then, one can act on the good and guard against the bad.
What does it mean to “act on the good and guard against the bad”? — It means implementing what the people deem good and taking precautions against what they deem bad.
And how do the people decide what is good and bad? — Naturally, from their own standpoint.
This brings us to the conflict of interest between the ruling class and the ruled. So, what should the ruling class do if they are unwilling to “act on the good and guard against the bad” and do not wish to be constrained by public opinion?
The obvious solution is to tackle the problem at its source: forbid speech and censor expression.
This is why censorship has such a long history. And the more intense the conflict of interest between the ruling and the ruled classes, the stronger the censorship becomes.
Next, the second question: Why has contemporary China’s implementation of such a strict censorship policy not led to an event like the “Guoren Riot”?
I believe the answer to this question is also not complicated: “That was then, this is now. How can they be the same?”
The Guoren Riot was clearly not just a result of King Li’s censorship. It was the cumulative result of his multiple actions:
First, “King Li was a tyrant.” This was the initial reason for the people’s criticism. If not King Li had been a cruel and despotic ruler, if not “the people could not bear your commands,” why would he have been criticized and slandered? — King Li’s oppressive rule was the primary cause of the Guoren Riot.
Second, “upon report, the critics were executed.” This shows that the specific methods of King Li’s censorship were in line with his previous tyranny — extremely cruel. Once reported, the punishment was direct execution. — King Li’s brutality was a secondary cause of the Guoren Riot.
Third, he “found Wei Wu and ordered him to spy on those who spoke ill of him.” King Li’s policy was so high-pressure and brutal, yet it was executed by a single person, Wei Wu — a crude method. The result was merely that people on the roads “communicated with their eyes.” Citizens only dared to exchange glances on the streets, good. But what about in private? Would people not organize in secret? — King Li’s lack of statecraft was the fundamental reason for the Guoren Riot.
A tyrant, though unjust and inhumane, can still be methodical and cunning.
If King Li had possessed the political mind of a Stalin, a Hitler, a McCarthy, or a Mao Zedong — if he had orchestrated something like the Great Purge, the Holocaust, McCarthyism, or the Cultural Revolution, fostering an environment of mutual denunciation and creating a terrifying atmosphere where everyone felt insecure—how could he have been overthrown by the Guoren Riot in just three years?
In the early Ming Dynasty, the Hongwu Emperor launched four major purges, implicating hundreds of thousands of high-ranking officials in what are known as the “Four Great Cases of the early Ming”. Yet, his position as the supreme ruler only grew more stable with each purge. He achieved this through precisely this kind of method.
Thus, the Guoren Riot was not solely the result of King Li’s extensive censorship. It could be said that even without the censorship, given his tyrannical style and crude methods, he would have been overthrown sooner or later.
From this perspective, China today is still some distance from a “new era Guoren Riot.” Moreover, there is a danger of repeating the disaster of the Cultural Revolution.
In terms of the social environment, I believe the conditions for a “new era Guoren Riot” are already ripe.
Economically, since the coronavirus recession, the deflationary trend in China’s economy has intensified, and the economic hardship of the general populace has become increasingly severe. The government is heavily indebted, and Hubei, with the 15th Five-Year Plan approaching, has blatantly begun to implement “three-capitals reform,” staging a fine play of “China Against China.”
Politically, since the June Fourth Incident in 1989, political reform has stagnated for thirty-six years, and citizens’ basic political rights are virtually non-existent. In August of this year, the Jiangyou bullying incident and protests occurred, where citizens expressing almost no clear political demands were met with harsh suppression.
Economic hardship and political high pressure are both in place, which is why I say: in terms of the social environment, the conditions for a new era Guoren Riot are already mature.
However, I still believe this riot is some distance away, and may even risk repeating the catastrophe of the Cultural Revolution. Why?
Astute readers may recall my conclusion to the first question:
The more intense the conflict of interest between the ruling and the ruled classes, the stronger the censorship becomes.
Censorship is the imprisonment of thought. If thought is imprisoned, can the repetition of past mistakes be far behind?
This brings me to the third question and the title of this article: Why did I choose Substack?
Of course, the article published by the Chinese Ministry of State Security on its WeChat account has already answered this question. In the current environment, speaking out within the “wall” (The Great Firewall) is too dangerous, too restrictive. And many platforms outside the wall have their own limitations.
Overall, Substack is a place where one can have a certain impact and, relatively speaking, speak with great freedom.
Freedom of speech is a condition, not a goal. Here, I want to quote Duke Shao again: “When the mouth speaks, good and bad governance arise from it.”
On this platform, I will try with my own humble efforts to attempt, for our era, to distinguish between good and bad actions and to promote good and expose bad ideas.
The chinese version of this article could be found below:
