Using the term "Social Credit" confuses and gives credence to Western propaganda. Far better to use the term "Trustworthy System" since it better illustrates the purpose of the Chinese system.
correct. a great point. In Chinese, "xin yong" can be translated either into "credit" or "trustworthiness". I assume the people who did the original translation from Chinese into English never thought of the difference. media in west just took advantage and manipulated the concept.
It matters because the West (US State Department) only allocated 1.6 Billion in 2025 for anti-China propaganda. Any new propaganda or work uses up money and resources and any budget has limits.
There's also that big fat elephant in the room called CIA and its sister Mossad, whom by some sources is magnitudes higher than the (public figure?) 1.6 billion by Dept of State, but who knows? And they dedicate at least 60-80% if not more towards anti-China propaganda and subversive activities, given that China is, after all, the #1 threat to their hegemony - whatever that's left of it.
Honestly, "social credit" has such a horribly dystopian vibe, regardless of western propaganda. One thing that the Chinese is still far behind is in marketing, for lack of a better word.
"Social" denotes something inherently natural and human, but unquantifiable and unmeasurable; while "credit" suggests something transactional, enforceable and negotiable. Put the two together, and you invite dystopian narratives.
it doesn't matter what China calls it. the western media is determined to undermine whatever the country does. when basic common sense and integrity are absent, there is no ground for a discourse.
Ultimately it doesn't matter what the west thinks or says - as long as the system works to the advantage of the Chinese and the population supports such initiatives, it's good enough. Smearing doesn't weaken China and merely dumbs down the intended audience.
I have to disagree. It does matter. The constant drip of smearing of country X dehumanizes that nation and builds up hate towards it. That is how indoctrinated people are willing to go to the front and die for greedy imperialist oligarchs. That's is why the US Empire spends so much money and efforts on propaganda. Without the consent of the population, it would not be able conduct any aggression, directly or by proxy, abroad.
Speaking of Confucius, I wouldn't say it is a full return to Confucianism but rather recognizing what works and is applicable to modern society and discarding the outdated aspects.
China in that regard (thanks to the CPC and President Xi) has done well in melding the old and new and applying it to governance in a practical manner that benefits everyone in society. I have yet to see other "civilization states" do that.
India has been discussed ad nauseum so I'll leave that alone. Iran and other Islamic societies continue to struggle with applying ancient philosophy to modern society. Russia has done better but again seems highly dependent on Putin being in charge. Not sure how sustainable his changes and reforms are in the long-term once someone else eventually takes the reigns.
you are right. the revival of Confucianism is not a wholesale repeat of all legacies, some of which are decidedly unfit for modern societies including the rigid relationship between the individual and the authority.
CPC has selectively promoted elements of Confucian teachings that are compatible with modernity and progress. Many of the values Confucius advocated are timeless such as fealty, family value, patriotism.
I agree few ancient civilizations seem to be actively reviving their core values. Gulf monarchs and Turkey seem to use Islam to enhance their own rule rather than for public good, for example. Traditional values must be institutionalized to survive and prosper.
If I may be permitted to say so, I wish you would avoid the word "societal". The normal "social" has a wide range of meanings, including "to do with society".
I suspect the new coinage was due to Western dislike of socialism. Surely anyone with sympathies for China, the best example of successful socialism, would be happy to say "social".
By the way, I think that in China as elsewhere, one important reason why socialism is successful has been that its enemies were prevented from destroying it by force and treachery. China has been very wise indeed to rearm, and to do so on such a comprehensive scale. If Cuba had had such powerful armed forces, I think it would have thriven since the 1950s. If Libya had been armed, rather than pacifist, Colonel Qadafi might still be alive (unless he died peacefully at home), and Libya might still be the most prosperous nation in Africa.
the "rule-based world order" by the west is about law of the jungle. Instead of being the garden as the rest of the world as the jungle, as remarked by joseph borrell, the west is the predator of the jungle. Cuba and Libya suffer from the same problem as Mexico - too far from god, too close to the US/Europe.
Interesting observation on the usage of those words, I hadn't noticed that. I'll have to look into it out of interest, since such use of "societal" does seem like a neologism.
Unfortunate ever-changing politically correct language policing has made such considerations difficult, at fear one is mistaken for partaking in it. It is no wonder that philology—the study of written and especially oral use and *meaning* of language—has been thoroughly deprecated in Western countries in favour of linguistics, which is merely the study of language structure and rules (grammar, syntax, phonology, etc).
"But language does not simply write and think for me, it also increasingly dictates my feelings and governs my entire spiritual being the more unquestioningly and unconsciously I abandon myself to it. And what happens if the cultivated language is made up of poisonous elements or has been made the bearer of poisons? Words can be like tiny doses of arsenic: they are swallowed unnoticed, appear to have no effect, and then after a little time the toxic reaction sets in after all."—Victor Klemperer, Lingua Tertii Imperii [Language of the Third Reich]
the third reich wrote the book on propaganda. joseph geobbels weaponized words and the US media, ironically mostly controlled by jewish interests, inherited it wholesale.
Great and important post! I hope to see more about this in the future.
The discussion of social trust is critical, as it's a foundational element of economic success and quality of life, much like a common language.
A low-trust society based on extreme individualism effectively becomes a society-wide "prisoner's dilemma." This creates a Nash Equilibrium where individual rationality leads to collective poor outcomes. For anyone interested, I delve into this dynamic on my own Substack in an essay titled "From Abraham to 'My Truth': The Lineage of Selfishness That Dooms the West".
---
On the topic of social credit scores:
The U.S. has a comprehensive, privatized version. Having seen the products from inside the leading company in this field, I can attest that with just an email address, phone number, etc. they instantly generate a detailed "Comprehensive Person Report" on an individual--from legal history to your Amazon reviews--and map one's personal connections to family, neighbors, etc. This isn't a niche tool; it's been cheaply available to attorneys and government agencies for decades.
I've been gone from that company for a decade, but they have a partnership with OpenAI (ChatGPT) now, so I'm certain the product is far more robust today.
India unfortunately is the prime example of how low trust can cripple a society. The upper castes feel entitled to cheat and steal while the lower castes continue to punch down in the hope that they will one day be reborn as an upper caste.
low trust societies naturally breed adversaries - us vs. them. Similarly, societies with deep inequalities result in a trust deficit. it is a vicious cycle - lower trust, higher costs, more inequalities, even lower trust, and on and on.
I'm not as knowledgeable about India as I am my own society or others that I've truly studied. But it seems to me that a hierarchy based on the "vagina lottery" (Warren Buffett's term) is the worst of systems.
That said, I think contemporary USA itself is extremely low trust. Thankfully I'm old enough that I only have to interact with the polis on the rare occasions I go to buy supplies that cannot be delivered (groceries & lumber).
great point about the evil of hereditary social systems. europe overthrew landed aristocracies to achieve enlightenment and liberty but things seem to be regressing in much of the west with generational wealths and social status increasingly stratified. social mobility reduced. low trust society is not a pleasant environment to live.
low trust society is basically high cost and inefficient as transational barriers are necessary to protest oneself, leading to unnecessary costs associated with overinsurance, malpractice protections, etc. also one feels depressed in a low trust environment as you have to keep your guards up all the time.
I have seen the same thing in my lifetime. China used to be low trust, and the USA high trust. I worried about pickpockets in China, homeless people panhandling, scammed goods, etc.
Completely flipped the last 30 years. Now I see homeless people everywhere in the USA, people have low trust in each other, people in major cities afraid to go out at night, etc.
Really unfathomable the changes in the last few decades.
lived experience is what matters. Unfortunately, lots of people have ideological blinders and been brainwashed to the point they don't believe in their own eyes but rather rely on others to feed them propaganda. To learn the truth, just visit the two countries and see for yourself. Changes in China in the last 2 decades have been breathtaking, even for natives.
arguably, it's already in the phase. It took Qing 70 years to get finished off from 1840 to 1911. But everything is on an accelerated schedule in this day and age.
An article which encourages those of us who believe that a society should, and can, function around interpersonal trust. Expanded from a few to many to most — that is what seems to be happening in China today.
I do believe, however, that Hua underestimates the impact of the top leadership — specifically Xi Jinping. His steadfastness, his writings and his individual charisma can be seen and felt by all. While avoiding hero worship, I think most of us can applaud and appreciate a true leader, one that stands alongside those of a long forgotten era, de Gaulle and JFK. Even Nixon has proven himself a visionary dedicated to unpopular ideas — such as the EPA which was formed during his administration. He was a president with failings, yes, but he never stooped to the sulfurous personal greed of all presidents from Clinton to Trump (with the exception appearing to Bush Jr).
Agree. President Xi's role has been central in rebuilding trust and traditional values in Chinese governance. I actually wrote a piece on Xi's top 10 achievements - when I first started to write on Substack. You could dig it up - I think the piece has stood the test of time (of about a year:)
Actually besides President Xi, another leader has been instrumental in Chinese governance in the past 3 decades - Wang Huning, the No 4 in the CPC hierarchy. I have long intended to write about him in an essay but haven't got around. He has a fascinating personal history and prescient foresight about the country's development. He is the lead think tank for the last 3 presidents.
The profound difference in statecraft/governance between China and the West has never been more exposed. Dare I posit that the gulf is widening?
Sixty years ago, we had three scions of a wealthy American family all enter into public service, two with tragic consequences (JFK, RFK). Those events doubtless (to my mind) prefigure the ongoing transition in power to a new group.
Today we have had thirty years of successive presidents (from WJC to present) engage in the most blatant use of office for personal enrichment while killing vast numbers of people in their own country.
Corruption at the imperial level presaged the collapse of a dynasty (losing the “mandate of heaven”). Your comment on Wang is interesting— and part of the intriguing question of the succession to Xi. While there are many private white papers on the subject, I’ve see little in English. While there are doubtless multiple promising candidates, there’s evidence that even Xi himself has promoted individuals that he later lost confidence in.
the Kennedys saga is a fundamental fork in the road for the US. israel's hand is probably behind both JFK and RFK's death (Michael Piper Collins' the Final Judgement). since the founding of israel, the US seems to have become a rogue state.
as for Xi's successor, the issue is there are many qualified candidates but not clear who has the X factor - the charisma and the fortitude for a long confrontation with the west. the good news is Xi has the set of party institutional structures to identify and groom his successor. but leadership selection always comes with "unknown unknowns"
Hopefully one day we will move past the need for such levels of surveillance. There is always a trade off between privacy and security. While privacy is a good thing to have, and only with privacy can there be true trust, societies today face this issue and I believe that the Chinese model is superior to the western one.
in a way, the Chinese approach to privacy vs security reflects the instinct of a collective society, in contrast to the more individualistic western perspective. People here are generally easier to convince to sacrifice some privacy in exchange for higher security. that said, each society should find its own sweet spot.
"After all, in a high trust society, people’s default assumption is that strangers, institutions, and even competitors will act honestly, competently and without malice."
I grew up in that environment in Boston Massachusetts. (lived there from 1947 to 1980). The overseer of right-and-wrong was the Catholic Church.
Emmanuel Todd wrote in his Defeat of the West that the loss of religion and moral compass is a primary contributor to western decline. Cultural and moral nihilism always preceeds societal collapse.
The data graph of most trusting societies is interesting, and reminds me of something I had read some years ago on Nigerian scammers from someone who, knowing locals, had visited there for some time and could not help but ask.
They apparently had began to disproportionately target Nordic countries such as Norway, while going for longer term scams such as romance scams. Why? These countries are wealthy, trusting, and due to their good-natured high trust culture, naïve and gullible; perfect targets.
Worth noting that to Nigerians' credit, they were said to be ashamed of them and to look down upon them and their dishonest work, which is not the impression I get regarding Indian scammers.
I've known an unusual amount of both Northern Europeans and Chinese due to background, language study, and growing up in a rather Chinese area, but I hadn't thought into both being high trust before. Though anecdotal, my impression is that the Chinese are less naïve than Scandinavians, and I rather doubt Nigerians would want to target China like Norway.
I wonder if this is in part due to recent history, the cultural revolution, and if this culturally relates to e.g anti-corruption efforts. It seems unusual to me for a high trust culture to also have a healthy, sceptical realism, which perhaps also reflects in Chinese being good in business, etc. Chinese trust seems qualitatively different in some ways; not just a small percent difference.
Americans especially think of Chinese as conformist and unquestioning, but in my opinion could not be more wrong, and misunderstand more trusting and especially *subtler* cultures. What to expect from a loud and boisterous culture that expresses itself via bumper stickers and hats?
I think those are quite astute observations.i Older Chinese have developed more immunity against scams etc. due to their experience in the cultural revolution and social turmoils. the Gen Z in China has become more trusting than their parent generations - both a good and bad thing. Nordic trust is more unique to small and homogeous populations - and at a level hard to achieve for large and more diversified countries. But from what I heard, immigration is diluting the culture, e.g. in Sweden - a sad outcome if true.
Very nice article. People focus too much on the material perspective without inspecting the "inner value and belief system (culture)" that actually drives everything. If you look at the map, the majority are from the Scandinavian countries with a homogeneous demographic, an equitable society (low gini index or palma ratio), and a small population. However, China is a different story; it is on the other side of the spectrum, related to the 3 variables (gini index is a bit lower now compared to the opening up era, but still relatively high) If you look at the data based on the surveys that asked the question "most people can be trusted" from1984 to 2022, the percentage has barely moved from 59 percent to 63 percent in China. So, do economic conditions drive everything? However, if you look at the 2025 Edelman Trust Barometer, the "trust" level is pretty significant between the high and low income level group (10 percent spread, but they are both very high compared to other countries, 83 and 73, the highest among low level income countries, respectively) Is there Jean Viljean's conundrum taken place?
Of course, better economic conditions and other governmental policies will only decrease the "bad behaviors" that China has implemented and demonstrated in the past few decades. The anti-corruption has resulted in over 100K convictions (data was from 2022) when Pres Xi made it one of his top priorities when he assumed the office. One was recently put on the death penalty. According to the latest Edelman Trust Barometer, the trust in government has plummeted across the board. Trust in government index, Saudi Arabia was 1st at 87 percent, and China was second at 83 percent (it was 91 percent in 2022) The two monarch gulf states were in the top 5, including India. The institutions of government and business and their processes have declined, with only about 56 percent believing in the current trend (business scores a bit higher at 62, but in decline from past surveys) The alarming trend is the future outlook, with only about 36 percent seeing a better future for the next generations (not a surprise per se)The global south is more optimistic regarding this view (China is at 69 percent) Overall, the most alarming instrinsic view is how people perceive the zero-sum mentality. People with a high grievance mindset believe in the zero-sum game (China and Thailand were excluded from this question) All in all, the global south has a better outlook than the west in every metric. So, there is the future.
India is an interesting case; it scored high on this survey. However, if you look at the data from the question of "most people can be trusted" from 1984 to 2022, it plummeted from 34 percent to 17 percent.
great points all through. I also thought about the comparison between large and small countries akin to apple and orange. Small homogeous societies intuitively should have higher trust but there are certainly contrarian data. I think any individual survey is for reference only. Important thing is when multiple surveys and studies from different angles point to the same direction, the data becomes more credible. That's why the Edelman study and Ash center studies are relevant to back up the assertion.
Regarding economic conditions and trust, I would make the point conversely that although Nordic countries' economies have stagnated, and are facing major societal issues that are not being addressed and continue to simmer—austerity is the rule as elsewhere, with social democracy having been replaced with neoliberalism, and seen as discredited by many for its failures to deal with concerns relating to e.g immigration and rising costs of living—they continue to be high trust, perhaps to their detriment.
I suspect Nordic countries are actually lower trust today than before they were wealthy. Search "Jantelagen" and you can see the high trust social conformity of Nordic countries was described long before they became known for being wealthy countries.
China similarly has a long history of rice farming, which requires very careful coordination between families and management of land and water resources. This is very different from wheat farming, which is more independent. The conditions for a high trust society have always been there, so perhaps it is merely that the group which is trusted has expanded outward from the local community, matching the growth of society as China has become a large, industrial country; trust has been reinforced, not chipped away at.
The importance of economic conditions regarding this might be overstated where other factors are not given enough weight. I think becoming a wealthier country may not improve anything by itself, but wealth may rather only correlate by being the means through which a country may or may not take actions that improve trust.
China has chosen to take such actions where many countries have not, but it also already had the groundwork there: economic conditions alone cannot reduce bad behaviour, but social engineering can. Scandinavian countries on the other hand were already very trusting, and economic conditions did not improve this; rather, their model of social democracy was reflective of what an already high trust society might be expected to do.
I also suspect Nordic trust level may have peaked. From what I understand, immigration is leading to a decline in societal trust, especially in Sweden. Small and homogeous societies intuitively should fare higher on mutual trust but when societal structure shifts, there will be a long term effect over time.
Chinese history is mostly an agragrian one so collective work has been critical to survival and prosperity. China has long engaged in large public works such as large-scale flood control and irrigation projects. To coordinate such projects, high trust was required amongst the stakeholders. That is indeed an important anthropological basis for trust, as you pointed out.
My father used to leave his keys in the car both at home and work because he was always losing them. No thought of someone stealing them... Try that today in the good old USA.
the small town, communal feel is irreplaceable. I remember reading about such communities when I was learning English back in the 80s. maybe future generations will get some of that back...
I would add "sovereignty" to your list as only sovereign peoples can pursue higher ideals and better societies. We must eliminate the overburden of too many dangerous paradoxes now existing.
thanks for the correction. I always confuse the Ash Center and Belfer Center. By the way, there was a very granular report that they publish that goes to the questions level. Lots of interesting findings. A decent AI assistant should be able to dig up the reports.
Although in America (mostly, I think), we are taught morality from the crib, individuals cannot be counted upon to practice and deliver trustworthy behavior. Enter the penal system, which has steadily broken down from the time of our county's inception. Now viewed as non-trustable. Loyalty and social cohesion have fallen away; we have too many factions tugging in different directions. Add in a governance that pretends responsiveness to its people on its face, but poorly attempts to hide its real agenda, thereby inducing distrust. I will give you one example, the most recent: Social Security recipients got a 2.8% COLA this year. For many seniors, Medicare is paid out of it. Medicare was raised 9%; this, in my view, is the true rate of inflation, and you don't need to be an economist to know your purchasing power is falling behind at the greater rate.
All this said, I enjoyed the read on the situation in China (and the world, for that matter), and your counterpoint to Western propaganda. I was most impressed by the scarcity of crime, and that citizens have little fear of venturing out at any hour. Likewise, the strict burden of altruistic behavior required of public servants. While the West accentuates the fear campaign, in China the focus on Confucian graces leads to a much better outcome, and the results are plain to see. The key, as you said in so many words, is intolerance for bad behavior. In America, there is a slogan: No One Is Above The Law! Until we start practicing such to the letter, we will continue our decline.
totally agree. Trust has to be earned through accountability and delivering results. Unfortunately too many indicators point to the other direction in how western liberal governance system actually performs.
This is a result of a small minority taking advantage of the system to enrich themselves over the vast majority. Then these vested interest groups use their power to further lock in the existing system to the point no reform is possible.
Everything is weaponized, from the law to the penal system to media, to entrench it. Hyper capitalism and neoliberal nihilism deliver a one two punch to the spirit of the society. And the decline of trust and societal disintegration are the logical end result.
"This is a result of a small minority taking advantage of the system to enrich themselves over the vast majority. Then these vested interest groups use their power to further lock in the existing system to the point no reform is possible." This is the crux of the situation, well identified!
"The most important political trend of our time is the spread of governance focused on citizen welfare and problem solving rather than ideology."
Indeed. If a government is consistently improving the well-being of ALL it's citizens, and not just an elite, then it's a good government regardless of its political ideology. I would go so far as to say that whether you're living in an 'autocracy' or 'democracy,' if your life and those of everyone around you is improving, then you are living the good life. Government doesn't get any better than that.
pragmatism always trumps ideology in delivering results. Deng Xiaoping and Lee Kuan Yew, two of the greatest statesmen of the 20th century, shared the same fundamental belief in solving problems and delivering prosperity for their population over blind ideological dogma. Deng said, "it doesn't matter why a cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice". This is the ultimate measure of governance.
An interesting article. I plan on travelling around China in a few months and am curious to observe this for my self. If China can successfully direct its energy towards lifting the TFR to at or near replacement level it will be unstoppable. Unlikely, but either way China is set to be the last functional industrial nation left standing in the coming decades, alongside Vietnam.
*Do you think that this is a 'rebound' in social trust, or a novel development? Western descriptions of Chinese in the 19th and early 20th century, while of course colored by racism, often noted what we today would term 'low trust' and disregard for civic sense found in the Chinese. Knowing the horrifying conditions of China from 1800-1950 I wouldn't expect the general population to be upstanding and trusting, outside of their close familial and friendship circles - effectively the definition of low trust.
I put little to no stock in mainstream western reporting on China. It is dishonest to the core. I suggest you see for yourself, since you may be traveling to the country. Alternatively, there are tons of YouTube videos or TikTok short clips, done by foreign visitors to China, that you can check up. I assure you after the trip, you'll not believe a word from the western media when it comes to China.
if you are academically bent, there are multiple studies done on Chinese views of their government and the party by independent third party sources such as Harvard Ash Center and Edelman, the global PR firm. The results of such surveys never find a way to western media, for a good reason - they just highlight the moral bankcrupcy of the western media.
Using the term "Social Credit" confuses and gives credence to Western propaganda. Far better to use the term "Trustworthy System" since it better illustrates the purpose of the Chinese system.
correct. a great point. In Chinese, "xin yong" can be translated either into "credit" or "trustworthiness". I assume the people who did the original translation from Chinese into English never thought of the difference. media in west just took advantage and manipulated the concept.
The term Xin Yong Ka 信用卡 for "credit card" having been established, translating to "social credit" only makes sense.
Agreed, however does it really matter what they call it in China if the (((western MSM))) is just going to spin it into something sinister?
It matters because the West (US State Department) only allocated 1.6 Billion in 2025 for anti-China propaganda. Any new propaganda or work uses up money and resources and any budget has limits.
There's also that big fat elephant in the room called CIA and its sister Mossad, whom by some sources is magnitudes higher than the (public figure?) 1.6 billion by Dept of State, but who knows? And they dedicate at least 60-80% if not more towards anti-China propaganda and subversive activities, given that China is, after all, the #1 threat to their hegemony - whatever that's left of it.
it's always a wonder - who hurt more? the people they lie about or the people they lie to. maybe both are enemies.
Honestly, "social credit" has such a horribly dystopian vibe, regardless of western propaganda. One thing that the Chinese is still far behind is in marketing, for lack of a better word.
"Social" denotes something inherently natural and human, but unquantifiable and unmeasurable; while "credit" suggests something transactional, enforceable and negotiable. Put the two together, and you invite dystopian narratives.
it doesn't matter what China calls it. the western media is determined to undermine whatever the country does. when basic common sense and integrity are absent, there is no ground for a discourse.
Ultimately it doesn't matter what the west thinks or says - as long as the system works to the advantage of the Chinese and the population supports such initiatives, it's good enough. Smearing doesn't weaken China and merely dumbs down the intended audience.
I have to disagree. It does matter. The constant drip of smearing of country X dehumanizes that nation and builds up hate towards it. That is how indoctrinated people are willing to go to the front and die for greedy imperialist oligarchs. That's is why the US Empire spends so much money and efforts on propaganda. Without the consent of the population, it would not be able conduct any aggression, directly or by proxy, abroad.
Agree....if we were playing word association and you said, "social credit".......I think "soylent green".
LOL. War is Peace, right?
Speaking of Confucius, I wouldn't say it is a full return to Confucianism but rather recognizing what works and is applicable to modern society and discarding the outdated aspects.
China in that regard (thanks to the CPC and President Xi) has done well in melding the old and new and applying it to governance in a practical manner that benefits everyone in society. I have yet to see other "civilization states" do that.
India has been discussed ad nauseum so I'll leave that alone. Iran and other Islamic societies continue to struggle with applying ancient philosophy to modern society. Russia has done better but again seems highly dependent on Putin being in charge. Not sure how sustainable his changes and reforms are in the long-term once someone else eventually takes the reigns.
you are right. the revival of Confucianism is not a wholesale repeat of all legacies, some of which are decidedly unfit for modern societies including the rigid relationship between the individual and the authority.
CPC has selectively promoted elements of Confucian teachings that are compatible with modernity and progress. Many of the values Confucius advocated are timeless such as fealty, family value, patriotism.
I agree few ancient civilizations seem to be actively reviving their core values. Gulf monarchs and Turkey seem to use Islam to enhance their own rule rather than for public good, for example. Traditional values must be institutionalized to survive and prosper.
If I may be permitted to say so, I wish you would avoid the word "societal". The normal "social" has a wide range of meanings, including "to do with society".
I suspect the new coinage was due to Western dislike of socialism. Surely anyone with sympathies for China, the best example of successful socialism, would be happy to say "social".
By the way, I think that in China as elsewhere, one important reason why socialism is successful has been that its enemies were prevented from destroying it by force and treachery. China has been very wise indeed to rearm, and to do so on such a comprehensive scale. If Cuba had had such powerful armed forces, I think it would have thriven since the 1950s. If Libya had been armed, rather than pacifist, Colonel Qadafi might still be alive (unless he died peacefully at home), and Libya might still be the most prosperous nation in Africa.
And socialist.
the "rule-based world order" by the west is about law of the jungle. Instead of being the garden as the rest of the world as the jungle, as remarked by joseph borrell, the west is the predator of the jungle. Cuba and Libya suffer from the same problem as Mexico - too far from god, too close to the US/Europe.
Predatory Identity: Western “Civilization” Is Camouflage:
https://youtu.be/5wlZkEgpzMo?si=MIHGvlypmv9oCP-R
facts please. only dimwits make a sweeping statement without backing it up. trolls like you are not welcome
Interesting observation on the usage of those words, I hadn't noticed that. I'll have to look into it out of interest, since such use of "societal" does seem like a neologism.
Unfortunate ever-changing politically correct language policing has made such considerations difficult, at fear one is mistaken for partaking in it. It is no wonder that philology—the study of written and especially oral use and *meaning* of language—has been thoroughly deprecated in Western countries in favour of linguistics, which is merely the study of language structure and rules (grammar, syntax, phonology, etc).
"But language does not simply write and think for me, it also increasingly dictates my feelings and governs my entire spiritual being the more unquestioningly and unconsciously I abandon myself to it. And what happens if the cultivated language is made up of poisonous elements or has been made the bearer of poisons? Words can be like tiny doses of arsenic: they are swallowed unnoticed, appear to have no effect, and then after a little time the toxic reaction sets in after all."—Victor Klemperer, Lingua Tertii Imperii [Language of the Third Reich]
the third reich wrote the book on propaganda. joseph geobbels weaponized words and the US media, ironically mostly controlled by jewish interests, inherited it wholesale.
cheap trolls who cannot spell. which rat hole did you climb out?
Great and important post! I hope to see more about this in the future.
The discussion of social trust is critical, as it's a foundational element of economic success and quality of life, much like a common language.
A low-trust society based on extreme individualism effectively becomes a society-wide "prisoner's dilemma." This creates a Nash Equilibrium where individual rationality leads to collective poor outcomes. For anyone interested, I delve into this dynamic on my own Substack in an essay titled "From Abraham to 'My Truth': The Lineage of Selfishness That Dooms the West".
---
On the topic of social credit scores:
The U.S. has a comprehensive, privatized version. Having seen the products from inside the leading company in this field, I can attest that with just an email address, phone number, etc. they instantly generate a detailed "Comprehensive Person Report" on an individual--from legal history to your Amazon reviews--and map one's personal connections to family, neighbors, etc. This isn't a niche tool; it's been cheaply available to attorneys and government agencies for decades.
I've been gone from that company for a decade, but they have a partnership with OpenAI (ChatGPT) now, so I'm certain the product is far more robust today.
India unfortunately is the prime example of how low trust can cripple a society. The upper castes feel entitled to cheat and steal while the lower castes continue to punch down in the hope that they will one day be reborn as an upper caste.
low trust societies naturally breed adversaries - us vs. them. Similarly, societies with deep inequalities result in a trust deficit. it is a vicious cycle - lower trust, higher costs, more inequalities, even lower trust, and on and on.
I'm not as knowledgeable about India as I am my own society or others that I've truly studied. But it seems to me that a hierarchy based on the "vagina lottery" (Warren Buffett's term) is the worst of systems.
That said, I think contemporary USA itself is extremely low trust. Thankfully I'm old enough that I only have to interact with the polis on the rare occasions I go to buy supplies that cannot be delivered (groceries & lumber).
great point about the evil of hereditary social systems. europe overthrew landed aristocracies to achieve enlightenment and liberty but things seem to be regressing in much of the west with generational wealths and social status increasingly stratified. social mobility reduced. low trust society is not a pleasant environment to live.
low trust society is basically high cost and inefficient as transational barriers are necessary to protest oneself, leading to unnecessary costs associated with overinsurance, malpractice protections, etc. also one feels depressed in a low trust environment as you have to keep your guards up all the time.
I have seen the same thing in my lifetime. China used to be low trust, and the USA high trust. I worried about pickpockets in China, homeless people panhandling, scammed goods, etc.
Completely flipped the last 30 years. Now I see homeless people everywhere in the USA, people have low trust in each other, people in major cities afraid to go out at night, etc.
Really unfathomable the changes in the last few decades.
lived experience is what matters. Unfortunately, lots of people have ideological blinders and been brainwashed to the point they don't believe in their own eyes but rather rely on others to feed them propaganda. To learn the truth, just visit the two countries and see for yourself. Changes in China in the last 2 decades have been breathtaking, even for natives.
The United States will approach late-Qing conditions within another 30 years
arguably, it's already in the phase. It took Qing 70 years to get finished off from 1840 to 1911. But everything is on an accelerated schedule in this day and age.
An article which encourages those of us who believe that a society should, and can, function around interpersonal trust. Expanded from a few to many to most — that is what seems to be happening in China today.
I do believe, however, that Hua underestimates the impact of the top leadership — specifically Xi Jinping. His steadfastness, his writings and his individual charisma can be seen and felt by all. While avoiding hero worship, I think most of us can applaud and appreciate a true leader, one that stands alongside those of a long forgotten era, de Gaulle and JFK. Even Nixon has proven himself a visionary dedicated to unpopular ideas — such as the EPA which was formed during his administration. He was a president with failings, yes, but he never stooped to the sulfurous personal greed of all presidents from Clinton to Trump (with the exception appearing to Bush Jr).
Agree. President Xi's role has been central in rebuilding trust and traditional values in Chinese governance. I actually wrote a piece on Xi's top 10 achievements - when I first started to write on Substack. You could dig it up - I think the piece has stood the test of time (of about a year:)
Actually besides President Xi, another leader has been instrumental in Chinese governance in the past 3 decades - Wang Huning, the No 4 in the CPC hierarchy. I have long intended to write about him in an essay but haven't got around. He has a fascinating personal history and prescient foresight about the country's development. He is the lead think tank for the last 3 presidents.
Thanks for the reference — I’ll run it down.
The profound difference in statecraft/governance between China and the West has never been more exposed. Dare I posit that the gulf is widening?
Sixty years ago, we had three scions of a wealthy American family all enter into public service, two with tragic consequences (JFK, RFK). Those events doubtless (to my mind) prefigure the ongoing transition in power to a new group.
Today we have had thirty years of successive presidents (from WJC to present) engage in the most blatant use of office for personal enrichment while killing vast numbers of people in their own country.
Corruption at the imperial level presaged the collapse of a dynasty (losing the “mandate of heaven”). Your comment on Wang is interesting— and part of the intriguing question of the succession to Xi. While there are many private white papers on the subject, I’ve see little in English. While there are doubtless multiple promising candidates, there’s evidence that even Xi himself has promoted individuals that he later lost confidence in.
the Kennedys saga is a fundamental fork in the road for the US. israel's hand is probably behind both JFK and RFK's death (Michael Piper Collins' the Final Judgement). since the founding of israel, the US seems to have become a rogue state.
as for Xi's successor, the issue is there are many qualified candidates but not clear who has the X factor - the charisma and the fortitude for a long confrontation with the west. the good news is Xi has the set of party institutional structures to identify and groom his successor. but leadership selection always comes with "unknown unknowns"
Hopefully one day we will move past the need for such levels of surveillance. There is always a trade off between privacy and security. While privacy is a good thing to have, and only with privacy can there be true trust, societies today face this issue and I believe that the Chinese model is superior to the western one.
in a way, the Chinese approach to privacy vs security reflects the instinct of a collective society, in contrast to the more individualistic western perspective. People here are generally easier to convince to sacrifice some privacy in exchange for higher security. that said, each society should find its own sweet spot.
Sounds vaccinated
"After all, in a high trust society, people’s default assumption is that strangers, institutions, and even competitors will act honestly, competently and without malice."
I grew up in that environment in Boston Massachusetts. (lived there from 1947 to 1980). The overseer of right-and-wrong was the Catholic Church.
Emmanuel Todd wrote in his Defeat of the West that the loss of religion and moral compass is a primary contributor to western decline. Cultural and moral nihilism always preceeds societal collapse.
The data graph of most trusting societies is interesting, and reminds me of something I had read some years ago on Nigerian scammers from someone who, knowing locals, had visited there for some time and could not help but ask.
They apparently had began to disproportionately target Nordic countries such as Norway, while going for longer term scams such as romance scams. Why? These countries are wealthy, trusting, and due to their good-natured high trust culture, naïve and gullible; perfect targets.
Worth noting that to Nigerians' credit, they were said to be ashamed of them and to look down upon them and their dishonest work, which is not the impression I get regarding Indian scammers.
I've known an unusual amount of both Northern Europeans and Chinese due to background, language study, and growing up in a rather Chinese area, but I hadn't thought into both being high trust before. Though anecdotal, my impression is that the Chinese are less naïve than Scandinavians, and I rather doubt Nigerians would want to target China like Norway.
I wonder if this is in part due to recent history, the cultural revolution, and if this culturally relates to e.g anti-corruption efforts. It seems unusual to me for a high trust culture to also have a healthy, sceptical realism, which perhaps also reflects in Chinese being good in business, etc. Chinese trust seems qualitatively different in some ways; not just a small percent difference.
Americans especially think of Chinese as conformist and unquestioning, but in my opinion could not be more wrong, and misunderstand more trusting and especially *subtler* cultures. What to expect from a loud and boisterous culture that expresses itself via bumper stickers and hats?
I think those are quite astute observations.i Older Chinese have developed more immunity against scams etc. due to their experience in the cultural revolution and social turmoils. the Gen Z in China has become more trusting than their parent generations - both a good and bad thing. Nordic trust is more unique to small and homogeous populations - and at a level hard to achieve for large and more diversified countries. But from what I heard, immigration is diluting the culture, e.g. in Sweden - a sad outcome if true.
Very nice article. People focus too much on the material perspective without inspecting the "inner value and belief system (culture)" that actually drives everything. If you look at the map, the majority are from the Scandinavian countries with a homogeneous demographic, an equitable society (low gini index or palma ratio), and a small population. However, China is a different story; it is on the other side of the spectrum, related to the 3 variables (gini index is a bit lower now compared to the opening up era, but still relatively high) If you look at the data based on the surveys that asked the question "most people can be trusted" from1984 to 2022, the percentage has barely moved from 59 percent to 63 percent in China. So, do economic conditions drive everything? However, if you look at the 2025 Edelman Trust Barometer, the "trust" level is pretty significant between the high and low income level group (10 percent spread, but they are both very high compared to other countries, 83 and 73, the highest among low level income countries, respectively) Is there Jean Viljean's conundrum taken place?
Of course, better economic conditions and other governmental policies will only decrease the "bad behaviors" that China has implemented and demonstrated in the past few decades. The anti-corruption has resulted in over 100K convictions (data was from 2022) when Pres Xi made it one of his top priorities when he assumed the office. One was recently put on the death penalty. According to the latest Edelman Trust Barometer, the trust in government has plummeted across the board. Trust in government index, Saudi Arabia was 1st at 87 percent, and China was second at 83 percent (it was 91 percent in 2022) The two monarch gulf states were in the top 5, including India. The institutions of government and business and their processes have declined, with only about 56 percent believing in the current trend (business scores a bit higher at 62, but in decline from past surveys) The alarming trend is the future outlook, with only about 36 percent seeing a better future for the next generations (not a surprise per se)The global south is more optimistic regarding this view (China is at 69 percent) Overall, the most alarming instrinsic view is how people perceive the zero-sum mentality. People with a high grievance mindset believe in the zero-sum game (China and Thailand were excluded from this question) All in all, the global south has a better outlook than the west in every metric. So, there is the future.
India is an interesting case; it scored high on this survey. However, if you look at the data from the question of "most people can be trusted" from 1984 to 2022, it plummeted from 34 percent to 17 percent.
https://www.edelman.com/trust/2025/trust-barometer
great points all through. I also thought about the comparison between large and small countries akin to apple and orange. Small homogeous societies intuitively should have higher trust but there are certainly contrarian data. I think any individual survey is for reference only. Important thing is when multiple surveys and studies from different angles point to the same direction, the data becomes more credible. That's why the Edelman study and Ash center studies are relevant to back up the assertion.
Regarding economic conditions and trust, I would make the point conversely that although Nordic countries' economies have stagnated, and are facing major societal issues that are not being addressed and continue to simmer—austerity is the rule as elsewhere, with social democracy having been replaced with neoliberalism, and seen as discredited by many for its failures to deal with concerns relating to e.g immigration and rising costs of living—they continue to be high trust, perhaps to their detriment.
I suspect Nordic countries are actually lower trust today than before they were wealthy. Search "Jantelagen" and you can see the high trust social conformity of Nordic countries was described long before they became known for being wealthy countries.
China similarly has a long history of rice farming, which requires very careful coordination between families and management of land and water resources. This is very different from wheat farming, which is more independent. The conditions for a high trust society have always been there, so perhaps it is merely that the group which is trusted has expanded outward from the local community, matching the growth of society as China has become a large, industrial country; trust has been reinforced, not chipped away at.
The importance of economic conditions regarding this might be overstated where other factors are not given enough weight. I think becoming a wealthier country may not improve anything by itself, but wealth may rather only correlate by being the means through which a country may or may not take actions that improve trust.
China has chosen to take such actions where many countries have not, but it also already had the groundwork there: economic conditions alone cannot reduce bad behaviour, but social engineering can. Scandinavian countries on the other hand were already very trusting, and economic conditions did not improve this; rather, their model of social democracy was reflective of what an already high trust society might be expected to do.
I also suspect Nordic trust level may have peaked. From what I understand, immigration is leading to a decline in societal trust, especially in Sweden. Small and homogeous societies intuitively should fare higher on mutual trust but when societal structure shifts, there will be a long term effect over time.
Chinese history is mostly an agragrian one so collective work has been critical to survival and prosperity. China has long engaged in large public works such as large-scale flood control and irrigation projects. To coordinate such projects, high trust was required amongst the stakeholders. That is indeed an important anthropological basis for trust, as you pointed out.
My father used to leave his keys in the car both at home and work because he was always losing them. No thought of someone stealing them... Try that today in the good old USA.
the small town, communal feel is irreplaceable. I remember reading about such communities when I was learning English back in the 80s. maybe future generations will get some of that back...
I would add "sovereignty" to your list as only sovereign peoples can pursue higher ideals and better societies. We must eliminate the overburden of too many dangerous paradoxes now existing.
The survey was done by the Ash Center and it was published in 2020
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/07/long-term-survey-reveals-chinese-government-satisfaction/#:~:text=Levels%20of%20government%20and%20public,satisfied%20with%20the%20federal%20government.
thanks for the correction. I always confuse the Ash Center and Belfer Center. By the way, there was a very granular report that they publish that goes to the questions level. Lots of interesting findings. A decent AI assistant should be able to dig up the reports.
Although in America (mostly, I think), we are taught morality from the crib, individuals cannot be counted upon to practice and deliver trustworthy behavior. Enter the penal system, which has steadily broken down from the time of our county's inception. Now viewed as non-trustable. Loyalty and social cohesion have fallen away; we have too many factions tugging in different directions. Add in a governance that pretends responsiveness to its people on its face, but poorly attempts to hide its real agenda, thereby inducing distrust. I will give you one example, the most recent: Social Security recipients got a 2.8% COLA this year. For many seniors, Medicare is paid out of it. Medicare was raised 9%; this, in my view, is the true rate of inflation, and you don't need to be an economist to know your purchasing power is falling behind at the greater rate.
All this said, I enjoyed the read on the situation in China (and the world, for that matter), and your counterpoint to Western propaganda. I was most impressed by the scarcity of crime, and that citizens have little fear of venturing out at any hour. Likewise, the strict burden of altruistic behavior required of public servants. While the West accentuates the fear campaign, in China the focus on Confucian graces leads to a much better outcome, and the results are plain to see. The key, as you said in so many words, is intolerance for bad behavior. In America, there is a slogan: No One Is Above The Law! Until we start practicing such to the letter, we will continue our decline.
totally agree. Trust has to be earned through accountability and delivering results. Unfortunately too many indicators point to the other direction in how western liberal governance system actually performs.
This is a result of a small minority taking advantage of the system to enrich themselves over the vast majority. Then these vested interest groups use their power to further lock in the existing system to the point no reform is possible.
Everything is weaponized, from the law to the penal system to media, to entrench it. Hyper capitalism and neoliberal nihilism deliver a one two punch to the spirit of the society. And the decline of trust and societal disintegration are the logical end result.
"This is a result of a small minority taking advantage of the system to enrich themselves over the vast majority. Then these vested interest groups use their power to further lock in the existing system to the point no reform is possible." This is the crux of the situation, well identified!
"The most important political trend of our time is the spread of governance focused on citizen welfare and problem solving rather than ideology."
Indeed. If a government is consistently improving the well-being of ALL it's citizens, and not just an elite, then it's a good government regardless of its political ideology. I would go so far as to say that whether you're living in an 'autocracy' or 'democracy,' if your life and those of everyone around you is improving, then you are living the good life. Government doesn't get any better than that.
pragmatism always trumps ideology in delivering results. Deng Xiaoping and Lee Kuan Yew, two of the greatest statesmen of the 20th century, shared the same fundamental belief in solving problems and delivering prosperity for their population over blind ideological dogma. Deng said, "it doesn't matter why a cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice". This is the ultimate measure of governance.
An interesting article. I plan on travelling around China in a few months and am curious to observe this for my self. If China can successfully direct its energy towards lifting the TFR to at or near replacement level it will be unstoppable. Unlikely, but either way China is set to be the last functional industrial nation left standing in the coming decades, alongside Vietnam.
*Do you think that this is a 'rebound' in social trust, or a novel development? Western descriptions of Chinese in the 19th and early 20th century, while of course colored by racism, often noted what we today would term 'low trust' and disregard for civic sense found in the Chinese. Knowing the horrifying conditions of China from 1800-1950 I wouldn't expect the general population to be upstanding and trusting, outside of their close familial and friendship circles - effectively the definition of low trust.
I put little to no stock in mainstream western reporting on China. It is dishonest to the core. I suggest you see for yourself, since you may be traveling to the country. Alternatively, there are tons of YouTube videos or TikTok short clips, done by foreign visitors to China, that you can check up. I assure you after the trip, you'll not believe a word from the western media when it comes to China.
if you are academically bent, there are multiple studies done on Chinese views of their government and the party by independent third party sources such as Harvard Ash Center and Edelman, the global PR firm. The results of such surveys never find a way to western media, for a good reason - they just highlight the moral bankcrupcy of the western media.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/07/long-term-survey-reveals-chinese-government-satisfaction/#:~:text=Levels%20of%20government%20and%20public,satisfied%20with%20the%20federal%20government