By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following a recent surge in mass casualty attacks in China, attributed to societal pressures and feelings of injustice, President Xi Jinping ordered local governments to prevent future occurrences. These attacks, labeled “revenge on society crimes,” stem from various personal grievances, prompting authorities to investigate potential conflicts ranging from family disputes to workplace issues. However, this increased scrutiny into citizens’ private lives raises concerns about further tightening of state control and potential backlash, mirroring the intense restrictions imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic. The government’s response, involving censorship and intensified surveillance, has been met with apprehension about its long-term effectiveness.
Read the original article here
China’s Xi Jinping has issued a directive to halt a surge in mass killings, often referred to as “revenge on society crimes.” This isn’t a whimsical order, however; it reflects a serious escalation of random acts of violence, including incidents like pedestrians being run over or individuals being randomly stabbed. The increase in these attacks over recent months has prompted Xi to take action.
The directive, however, is not a simple ban on killing. Instead, it involves a significant increase in citizen surveillance, aiming to identify and apprehend potentially dangerous individuals before they can act. This approach mirrors elements of dystopian fiction, drawing parallels to the omnipresent surveillance in George Orwell’s *Nineteen Eighty-Four* and the pre-crime technology depicted in *Minority Report*.
This crackdown highlights the significant challenges facing China. Many young adults, those in their thirties and forties, have experienced a dramatic shift in economic realities, moving from an era of consistently high GDP growth to one marked by economic uncertainty, job losses, and falling property values. This economic whiplash, impacting even those previously benefiting from the rapidly expanding economy, is a significant underlying factor fueling public discontent and potentially contributing to the recent upsurge in violence.
The government’s response, however, is characterized by a heavy focus on control and secrecy. The suppression of information surrounding these attacks, including the swift removal of online videos and eyewitness accounts, reveals a strategy of controlling the narrative rather than addressing the root causes. Delayed release of casualty figures, as seen in the Zhuhai and Hunan incidents, further underscores this approach. This information control is, of course, at odds with transparency and public trust, and may even exacerbate anxieties among the populace.
The official response is characterized by a top-down approach, where pressure is exerted from the central leadership, expecting results from lower-level authorities. This creates an environment where aggressive, and potentially illegal, tactics may be employed by local police in their pursuit of rapid results, with the blame easily shifted to overzealous officers. While the outward message focuses on a tough-on-crime stance, the methods may raise serious ethical and legal concerns.
The situation in China presents a complex challenge, with striking parallels to similar issues faced by other countries, most notably the United States, with its high frequency of mass shootings. Both nations grapple with significant instances of mass violence, yet their responses differ vastly. The openness of information about mass shootings in the U.S. stands in stark contrast to the stringent censorship in China, where information is tightly controlled and attempts to conceal the extent of the problem may contribute to a lack of understanding and effective solutions.
The underlying causes remain complex and multifaceted. Economic hardship, social instability, and a lack of effective social safety nets are likely contributing factors. Attempts to address the issue by solely focusing on increased surveillance and repression could potentially backfire, leading to further social unrest and resentment. Focusing only on reactive measures, instead of addressing the fundamental socioeconomic issues driving these acts of violence, is likely insufficient to address the problem effectively. The strategy feels more like attempting to contain a pressure cooker rather than defusing it, potentially resulting in a dangerous explosion of pent-up frustration and anger.
The “revenge on society crimes” moniker itself hints at a profound sense of grievance and alienation amongst some individuals, pointing to a deeper societal problem requiring more than just a simple police crackdown. Ultimately, Xi’s order, while seemingly decisive, ultimately reveals the limitations of a top-down approach to solving complex socio-economic issues, a problem further exacerbated by the government’s efforts to suppress information and control the narrative. The long-term effectiveness of this strategy remains to be seen, but the lack of transparency and the heavy-handed response raise concerns about the potential for escalation rather than resolution.