DeepSeek, and other Chinese models, are heavily subsidised by the Chinese government. The reason they release the AI models is economic warfare against US, not because of charity or kindness. It's great for us consumers, but the goal is not to help humanity or open-source.
Framing it that way hides all the levers used to tilt the playing field for US companies, no?
The government that removed restrictions on how private companies can access capital after a certain scale (the JOBS Act), that removed the need for private companies to report as if they were a public company after a shareholder threshold was crossed, superpowering the access of wealthy private investors to get in earlier in a growing company while at the same blocking the public from participating in funding growing enterprises at an earlier stage (since it required companies to IPO much earlier to access capital) which allowed retail investors to also reap the rewards on funding them early when they grew to become behemoths (like Amazon, Meta/Facebook, Google, etc.).
It's not fair in either place, the USA has its own model of unfairness, China has a completely different one. The difference is that in the USA the government allows private investors to become more powerful than the State (outside of the monopoly of violence) while plunging the rest of society into increasingly more precarious lives while in China the State is the power and its legitimacy only exists while the population feel they have a better life.
IMO the selective enforcement of regulatory requirements should be added to the list. Observing from the outside, I have a hard time believing that e.g. musks gas powered data centers really follow all the environmental laws, for example, or that the authorities really see no grounds for indictment if Altmans company hacks hundreds of third parties, or that there's really no one at the SEC having a problem with Anthropics fear mongering prior to the IPO.
In a list describing how the USA system works, sure: selective enforcement is there.
As a differentiator from the Chinese system, not so much. For two otherwise equal companies, the one that says things against the party line will experience selective enforcement too.
Except that in China, the people who do that will disappear.
The propaganda of trying to make US and China government appear the same is making people dumber. and is one of the most heavily used tools in China’s online propaganda arsenal.
>The propaganda of trying to make US and China government appear the same [...] is one of the most heavily used tools in China’s online propaganda arsenal.
The government could do some very easy things to remove this tool from China's toolbelt. Like you know, prosecuting rich people when they've earned it.
In the USA, they don’t disappear, they commit suicide in their car typically. In Russia, they fall out of windows and off of balconies. I don’t think it’s accurate to call the circumstances equivalent, or the regimes equivalent. But there are some remarkable similarities, and their goals are similarly structured - to keep those in power powerful and to enrich the wealthy.
Who was trying to make the US and China appear the same? I think you have reading comprehension problems, buddy.
If you look at the comment I responded to, they were remarking on selective enforcement in the USA. I merely observed that this isn’t a unique feature of the US system, it happens in China too. I said nothing about the severity of the consequences.
There's a framing though, by mentioning only Chinese tactics as nefarious/malicious it leaves the USA as the morally superior model (and for many it will be assumed as the "fair" option), which it definitely isn't.
If you think about it, the US labs are heavily subsidised too. Not only they receive billions in state funding, the administration is also prepared to engage in trade wars to help them.
I think the Chinese government is backing their labs by less direct means. For example cheap electricity and investing in chip manufacturers such as Huawei and cxmt.
Deepseek specifically, is known to operate with minimal resources. The entire company has around 160 employees and every model they release must break even within ten months.
SpaceX has been awarded roughly $22 billion to nearly $30 billion in cumulative public federal contracts, the $280 billion CHIP act, and who knows how much the CIA + NSA are spending.
It seems obviously dustortionary to highlight the niche, optional part of the process they did spend time on, that would be utterly worthless without the difficult bit being done elsewhere. Please be less specific.
Yes. If you think SpaceX is some sort of terrible also-ran that can only get contracts through political links, then honestly I don't think I can help you there. I don't think anyone can.
You see why there are so many conspiracy theories about US landing on the moon, one is left wondering how is it possible that a countries of such retards did something like that
> I think the Chinese government is backing their labs by less direct means.
It may be that the effect of the backing in both places is essentially equal but this statement is strange. The Chinese government invests directly in Deepseek[1]. Notice the article, in addition to saying the CCP is investing, says Tencent is also a major backer. CCP owns a golden share of Tencent.
I'm not arguing about a comparison here. I'm trying to correct a misconception about China that I see a lot from Western perspectives.
Everything a Chinese company does has the explicit backing of the CCP, at least ideologically and usually financially in some fashion. While DeepSeek may not be the CCP, it couldn't exist if it was expressing any kind of ideology that wasn't inline with them and, in this case, is explicitly funded by them.
A Chinese company has no freedom to say Taiwan is a country the way someone in the US could suggest California succeed from the nation.
Any public message you hear coming out of China has the implicit approval of the Chinese government.
I would like to point out that a lawsuit is currently live about the us govt forcing US tech companies to retaliate against us citizen criticizing the govt’s policy.
> Everything a Chinese company does has the explicit backing of the CCP, at least ideologically and usually financially in some fashion.
If you're not arguing about comparison then don't state this as if it's any different from the US. Because you make it sound that way. Or do you think that if tomorrow OpenAI came out vocally supporting the DSA - that suddenly they wouldn't see lots of barriers rise up out of nowhere?
Retaliation is different than what happens in China. In China, the DeepSeek CEO drafts a press release about Taiwan's independence and he's promptly fired and sent to prison.
If OpenAI comes out in support of _any_ political party, they may lose business from the government in the future.
I'm pretty sure, the training/fine tune through Claude/OpenAi would not be possible without the army/China's hacking teams (and legal protection). So it's more than just a cheap electricity.
Supporting deepseek is just like supporting the Chinese army, no need for that. Though it goes both ways, OpenAi subscription just lowers the cost of the US army as well.
Sorry, are you saying that it's a subsidy that it's legal for them to distill other models, or what? It's not even clear that there's any kind of protection for models in Western countries. Why would they be worried about the legality of distillation? And what does the army have to do with distilling models? Like you're saying it's a subsidy that China protects their borders from invasion by the US?
It's not a subsidy for the Chinese to say they're going to ignore our IP laws. It's a subsidy for us to say we're going to make them and try to push them on the world. It's literally granting a monopoly by legal force. It's very obviously not aligned with the interests of the American people, while China releasing things in the open is.
In the US, it’s only a matter of time before El Presidente decides to take away those reservations from the Indians and sell them off and the same goes for Camp Pendleton in Taco’s favorite American state.
As bad as casualties get in a future war like that, it's still very likely to be a symmetric war where the main targets are military infrastructure. No systematic annihilation of universities, hospitals, religious sites, journalists and health workers like certain genocidal regimes backed by the tech oligarchies have been doing.
When one player tries to monopolize AI tech and market by all means, others are those who don't want to be hooked to a foreign will in the future. I think this is the reason in doing open research, and it's likely positive for all of us.
Well, they are helping 17% of the world's population, and the US is currently actively engaged in trade wars and economic warfare or explicitly attempting to leverage it's hegemony against its long term alliea for short term gain.
There is as much to criticize about American hyper scalers and AI labs and the lack of interest in helping humanity or contributing to open source, but that might not be as popular an opinions on this site.
17% is the approximate population of Earth in China. I was using a simple example as a counter to the anglocentric view the parent poster was expressing by trying to paint China as a villain.
> Well, they are helping 17% of the world's population,
Any open weights model that Chinese companies are releasing for free are allowing everyone in the world to have access to high quality realizations of these tools without the risk of the US regime arbitrarily cutting you off.
Also, it's funny how all the neoliberal mantras of how free market drives progress through competition stops when it's a US company that's being challenged.
> Iran has expressed a willingness/eagerness to nuke Israel and the US.
Source? The last Supreme Leader of Iran issued a fatwa against nukes, way before he and his extended family where bombed in their home in a failed attempt at a decapitation strike.
> The reason they release the AI models is economic warfare against US
The story is so much more complicated than that, to the point that this economic warfare theory is basically a meme.
Chinese models are open because they don’t have a choice. “When you trail the frontier, openness maximizes reputation per unit of capability. The moment you lead, you close.” [0]
They do have a choice, as evidenced by all the times when the other option gets picked. The article you link tries to acknowledge ByteDance's Doubao and Alibaba's Qwen Max as exceptions, but forgets about Baidu's Ernie and iFlytek's Spark, which are also closed-weight. There's simply no consensus yet on which strategy is better, so different companies end up making different bets.
That’s because Baidu sells model access and iFlytek sells integrated products. Also both have released open models, just older ones. They just close their latest ones because they got the reputation they needed out of them and have transitioned to a product. Notice that both of these explain the motivation without resorting to unfalsifiable claims about "economic warfare".
Huh, when XHToken released a model named Spark, I assumed it was just a name collision, since iFlytek appears nowhere in the documentation. But on iFlytek's model marketplace, it's listed as their self-developed model: https://maas.xfyun.cn/modelSquare So they actually released an open model quite recently! Thanks for letting me know.
If you want a direct example of the US subsidising a major AI lab, we can use Microsoft's investment in OpenAI. Microsoft has the largest ownership stake - 27%.
Microsoft did not pay with money - it paid (mostly) with Azure cloud computing credits. MSOFT is then able to write this off as a loss against tax.
It is generally far more tax-efficient in the US to write a loss in this way than it is to write a loss for a cash investment.
In this case, I believe the difference was ultimately highly significant. When including MSOFT eventually writing-off the deprecating Azure hardware it had used to buy the OpenAI equity, the result was MSOFT's tax reduction being either close-to or exceeding the actual cash value of MSOFT's investment in OpenAI - IIRC.
These examples represent taxes that the US chooses not to collect - the US could choose to make investments like these less tax-efficient. Instead, by making them extremely tax-efficient, the US subsidises the transaction hugely.
Even ignoring monetary subsidies, there are the non-monetary ones: not being sued into oblivious by the government for their countless hacks of other companies and countries, the slaps on the wrist for massive piracy, the waving of environmental (and other) regulations in order to allow their data centres to be built an operated.
That's what I'm asking - which monetary subsidies?
> not being sued into oblivious by the government for their countless hacks of other companies and countries
That isn't normally how enforcement works, and it hasn't been very long since they disclosed those breaches. If the victims want to pursue legal action, they can, and they still may!
> the slaps on the wrist for massive piracy
So judges and juries are involved in the subsidization conspiracy, too?
> the waving of environmental (and other) regulations in order to allow their data centres to be built an operated
Sure, though if you think this isn't happening in China too, I have a bridge to sell you.
The original comments is "DeepSeek, and other Chinese models, are heavily subsidised by the Chinese government"
> That's what I'm asking - which monetary subsidies?
I am listing for you the non-monetary subsidies, which are just as real and equally important.
> not being sued into oblivious by the government for their countless hacks of other companies and countries
If it was one of the Chinese labs doing this hacking, the government would be stepping in. If it was European labs they'd be stepping in. If it was you or I the government would be stepping in. That is a massive subsidy (they don't have to worry about the same legal fees and exposure) and being allowed to continue doing business is in fact priceless.
> So judges and juries are involved in the subsidization conspiracy, too?
There is no conspiracy. They are objectively operating by a different set of rules than you or I could operate in this market.
> Sure, though if you think this isn't happening in China too, I have a bridge to sell you.
I never said it wasn't, I'm saying that it's happening here and it's a very real subsidy.
All the major labs would be dead in the water if the government acted on the things I mentioned. If they treated the labs the way they would have treated us for all those hacks. Or if they enforced pollution measures (or god forbid ban on-prem turbines because of the climate damage). Or rule that training on data is not fair use, or that ingesting GPL3 code and then turning that into weights counts as a derivative work. Or. Or. Or.
Nah, nothing here is a special advantage of US firms.
The hacks are pretty bland as long as there is no mens rea and the hacked victims do not want to press charges. This isn't a "subsidy", it's just our normal legal process at work.
The pollution question is winding its way through court systems and getting a lot of pushback. I wouldn't call this a subsidy, just a slow bureaucracy. And at any rate this isn't special to the US; certainly China's environmental policy is far more lenient.
With the training data, again there's nothing specific to US corporations here. Anyone can use that dataset. It's just how our legal system works. You might not like it, but it's the accepted law right now. This doesn't meet any reasonable definition of "subsidy".
On the other hand, shoveling billions of dollars of taxpayer funds into corporations is by definition a subsidy. Full stop.
>Fair enough, but it sure meets the definition of 'helpful intervention'.
I don't see how. Anyone can buy electricity without any intervention from the government. An intervention is an action that changes what would happen by default.
I heard someone calling the key metric in Anthropic financial reports EBBT: Earnings Before Bad Things[1] :-)
[1] Where "Bad Things" would be the typical interest, taxes, depreciation, amortisation plus the Anthropic specific employee compensation, LLM training (you know, for the LLM lab), revenue sharing agreements (which is a form of paying for infrastructure), etc.
A recent YouTube video by Patrick Boyle said the same thing. They are only profitable if you ignore all the costs that make them unprofitable such as paying employees and developing A models.
I made a statement about whether Anthropic was profitable I don't understand your reply.
Assuming you meant to reply to me and not someone else are you saying under GAAP accounting standards Anthropic is a profitable business because under GAAP accounting their only expense is electricity?
(I see what happened you skimmed the conversation and didn't follow what was being discussed.)
1. And that marginal cost is large, much larger than the marginal cost of serving a Google Search query
2. The marginal cost is electricity until the hardware overflows. So it's continuous for electricity and a step function for hardware capacity.
Plus you don't address the core point. Frontier AI is capital intensive. A lot more capital intensive than regular software. The existing clouds supporting the entire internet (!!!!) were built for a fraction of the cost of AI infrastructure, and there isn't even an end in sight to this continuous hardware investment.
Let alone hardware refresh cycles.
AI is basically investment into roads.
Software used to be a magical place, closer to selling music albums but even better.
AI is a much worse business margin wise than regular software.
If the "fixed costs" kill you unit economics won't save you. Scare quotes because true fixed costs generally have a long shelf life. Right now AI models die every 6-9 months.
Indirect subsidies are an accepted economic concept and well studied. The posts you replied to are obviously talking about indirect subsidies and dismissing them because they didn't say "indirect" everywhere is just sophism.
The government, specifically Trump's government and the current money circle in AI inflating American company stocks. In addition to all that American models do not share their papers like Deepseek and Qwen do. So you can literally say Chinese models are doing it for charity at this point.
Sure, but I couldn't say that a US company writing about some work they did in paper form is charity. At least not seriously! If it were charity, Google might be the most charitable company of all time, since their researchers published "Attention Is All You Need." But it is not.
Google has published a lot of open source software and a lot of research papers: I do believe they used to be very charitable even if they are less so today.
They have other issues as well, but among other things, I'd classify them as somewhat charitable too.
The US regime, which includes the ruling class: the US VCs and megacorps are just as much of an extension of the US regime. They're incredibly intertwined.
> The reason they release the AI models is economic warfare against US, not because of charity or kindness
There are many other reasons Chinese companies releasing models open-source or open-weight makes strategic sense.
A really easy-to-understand example is a company who has a near-monopoly on "serving video content" releasing a video model openly.
If you can be relatively certain that video content created by a model (which you have trained, using data from your own platform) will be ultimately served on your own platform, thus generating revenue from watch-hours, it makes sense to make those models as widely-available as possible.
It's also a net-positive if people use your public research to build better video models, because - again - you are reasonably certain that the even-better content those new models produce will be watched on your platform.
The alternative would making models harder to access and learn from (broadly, the current western model). Many would argue that Google, in choosing to not optimise its video generation models for "availability", is directly causing less content to be uploaded to YouTube. This is the trade-off.
I don't know much about DeepSeek's financing specifically, which obviously doesn't release video models - so I don't know how directly this analogy runs, or who directly benefits from the extremely evident rising tide that the public release of DeepSeek's research creates. However, this does not negate the broader rising-tide effect of the scientific method.
It's certainly also true that it's geopolitically beneficial to be able to undercut American labs' models. If I ran a global superpower, I would probably want my country to be technologically competitive too.
But Chinese companies are already serving a huge volume of customers in a complex, existing marketplace, before even thinking about the US market, and it's overly simplistic to assume that their entire strategy revolves around economic warfare directed specifically at the US. It's more nuanced than that.
This is, of course, without even getting into opening the can-of-worms around whether US economic policy also results in the US state functionally subsidising technological innovation, how comparable that is to China's model, etc.
Interestingly if Google did release readily available video models then they'd likely be dealing with an order of magnitude of scale in the same way GitHub has had to.
Causing less content to be uploaded, when you are clearly the gorilla in the room, looks to be a wise strategy not a trade off.
I'm not sure I follow - do you mean an order of magnitude of compute demand?
Releasing models openly doesn't mean providing the compute. It's beneficial for relatively GPU-poor Chinese orgs to let users run models themselves - by releasing the models openly - as it means the orgs don't have to provide the compute to run their own models.
I'm not sure "subsidised" is the right word. If a government funds research and the results are released openly, that's just publicly funded research. It's how a lot of science works in the US and Europe too.
The open-weight models are a great boon to all American companies other than a handfull of Mega Corps in the A.I business. Care to explain how this is "economic warfare against the U.S"
Yes we see that in all other countries trying to avoid dependence on the US for everything. What we don’t see is competition with other countries having anything to do with warfare.
Economic warfare against the US? I mean maybe against specific US companies and stakeholders but on the whole it seems like it's good for the US economy as well as the rest of the world, kind of like supplying free electricity would be
It's one of these rare cases where intention is not what is the most important - the net benefit for consumers and companies outside of the USA is indisputable.
Not sure why so many people will vehemently refuse this idea. I won’t say it’s 100% true but it would be foolish to dismiss it. China is very much an adversary to America and has made it pretty clear they want to be a dominant leader of not the new world leader. Not here to evaluate what is good or bad. Keep in mind historically China has aggressively fostered industry (not unlike the west) but sometimes even more aggressively.
Americans need to travel to China. The Chinese have zero issues with us. They quite like Americans. This is such a weird propagandist take. Idk if you remember but both country's leaders just had a slumber party for 3 days in DC. This is not what enemies do.
Not even our leaders say China is an enemy, ita mostly businessmen who are scared of competition and trying to regulate chinese out of their markets so they can make more money milking us.
I have been to China many times. The citizens and visiting the country has nothing to do with global politics. Your take is just as propagandist as any other. China is not unlike the US and China has also made it subtly clear their desire to be a dominant global force. I am not marking judgement on it but don’t be a fool thinking that China is not some level of threat. This is how these discussions become weird. I don’t think China is going to blow up the US and I think it’s often a weird talking point by some US politicians but I also don’t think they are a peaceful actor but folks like you will suggest I am repeating propaganda. No, just pointing out that if you look at their language and actions they are an actor to pay attention to. Just because leaders meet means nothing.
> are heavily subsidised by the Chinese government
We hear this about literally every industry the Chinese excel in - that it's only because the government subsidizes them that they succeed. For chip manufacturing, for batteries, for EVs, for solar, for AI. I don't see how the chinese government can afford to subsidize all of these industries and still have them contribute to the GDP.
It is great for everyone except for a few people who want power over everyone else, and the fact it is not charity of kindness makes it more sustainable, because charity and kindness is quick to go when big money and politics is involved.
I want more warfare like this. Building stuff instead of destroying stuff.
I wish US was rich enough to subsidise development of open source science and useful open AI models. I wouldn't mind US waging this kind of wconomic warefare against China or everyone else on the world.
Charity and kindness is not a motivation, it's an outcome of what you do.
>
DeepSeek, and other Chinese models, are heavily subsidised by the Chinese government.
So were Amazon and Uber by the US, which have now established monopolies across the globe. To the countries suffering from those, there's zero difference with China doing it to solar. Actually there is, at least solar got them cheap renewable energy in return. This would never have happened in the US because big oil interests would make it take decades. That's the reality.
You need to spend 10 years outside the US, deprogram, and then go back.
At least DeepSeek didn't build its models on government subsidies. It came out of a quantitative hedge fund, so funding was never really an issue for them.
It just so happens that helping open source is the result. Image how far behind we’d (the hackers, not the moneymen) be as a sharing community be without them.
What do you think your comment is refuting!!? Chinese are publishing their research publicly and opening their models! How on Earth would they monopolize anything?? Such nonsense. If and when they start copying the Americans and closing everything down, you can say stuff like that. Until then, ffs stop this nonsense.
It doesn't matter if they are doing it out of altruism, the result benefits everyone anyway. It feels silly to have to explain this kind of thing. Are you trolling?
> DeepSeek, and other Chinese models, are heavily subsidised by the Chinese government.
US companies are burning colossal piles of cash in ways that makes it unclear if it qualifies as dumping, not to mention their deep ties with the country's regime.
Claiming that companies from a country have ties to the regime and burn through cash is a very miopic accusation.
> The reason they release the AI models is economic warfare against US, not because of charity or kindness. It's great for us consumers, but the goal is not to help humanity or open-source.
You put it like US has a goal of help humanity or open-source
Economic warfare against the US is charity and kindness to a sizable portion of the world's population, especially when the US uses it's global hegemony as warfare against them. Neither system is perfect, but lets not be disingenuous.
If your belief is accurate, we should expect China to short the IPOs of Anthropic and OpenAI and release better frontier models immediately after their IPOs.
Does anyone think that likely? I have no clue or bias.
I don't think that's likely because my understanding is that Chinese people in mainland China have a tricky time shorting American stocks due to Chinese capital controls.
So you’re telling me warfare doesn’t having to be blowing up schools and children, skyrocketing prices, crippling sanctions, and all that shit? Can I sign up for more of this warfare.
Meanwhile, American AI models are heavily subsidized by stock market speculation. Ultimately, the subsidies from both countries are flowing out of the pockets of individuals.
Ha! 10-15 years ago, I wouldn't have used it that way either. But the stock markets these days just feel entirely speculative. It is not clear to me if individuals are buying these AI stocks based on their expected future revenue/profit or the whole space is just momentum plays and the funds are directly being transferred back to the companies (by way of incentive packages and ability to get loans based on market valuations) to keep the train moving, despite there being no clear profitable destination for any of the LLM sellers. The hardware folks are making out like bandits, though.
I’m neither in the camp of Chinese or the Americans(collective West) in general..
As a neutral party, this characterization is crazy.
As if the AI companies - Claude and OpenAI are guardians of freedom and humanity and very charitable to the global society without any self interests…
“Chinese models are subsidized by the Chinese Government, therefore they’re inherently bad for humanity” is a highly propagandist argument. The politics of US vs China may be whatever it is in reality.. You have one company releasing their models for cheap, actually open sourcing their trained weights, and publishing details of their optimizations and learnings for others to use. The other camp actively “aligning” their models, nerfing their capabilities, hyping their swarm activities from poor sandboxes, and trying their best to lock users into their harnesses and walled platforms. They are subsidized by the capitalist VCs who are essentially waiting for their payouts..
At some point, one has to see things for what they are and evaluate their own reasoning..
I’m happy to stay provider agnostic, try all models and cheer any useful progress as open as possible.
A conspiracy to make the US look bad by being better at producing all the goods and services the world needs at a reasonable price. Have they no shame?
> DeepSeek, and other Chinese models, are heavily subsidised by the Chinese government.
Yes, because everything China does is against the US. That's all they think about day and night. God forbid they want to corner the global market or have a genuine business case. How dare they provide options for those who can't afford a measly $200 a month? How can we let Chinese labs publish research for free for the whole world so that they can benefit? The nerve! To think they can use soft power instead of military might! I mean, Anthropic and OpenAI are the last bastions of human kindness and charity. Right?
Not really this is an X algo conspiracy. Up until recently the Chinese government wasn't even that invested in these companies. We're talking very very small grants compared to training costs.
Its very xenophobic of you to say China has zero intention of helping humanity, and just wants to "wage economic warfare".
Last time I checked, it was ourselves (USA) waging economic warfare on 2/3rds of the world.
I dont get this cope people have where people have this idea that its impossible for a Chinese company (that make billions of dollars) to have done something by their own merit, but instead its always some Chinese Communist Party conspiracy where the main goal is to destroy America.
What's wrong with governments subsidizing scientific work?
You think extremely US-centric. China has a different economic model than US and your rules for a specific kind of Capitalism may not apply to them. You assume a country of 1.4 Billion people is obsessed with a couple of foreign AI companies. What if they don't care.
Same goes for the US companies as well. Current US administration wants US to win the AI race at any cost and China is the only competitor left in the race. Winners always write the history or in this case the future of humanity
Why the anti China propaganda from you? The United States is doing the same thing here and making American multi-billionaires even wealthier. The greed of American AI, GPU and memory and storage corporations is a black hole on availability to humans around the World. The result is a massive financial bubble promoted by the American Government to the detriment of our citizens. The USA has an AI ponzy scheme shuffling the same money between data center owners (Oracle & X), Nvidia and memory & storage vendors.
I think it’s quite important to understand in what context that have been said. The ”parasites” are immigrants that have not integrated, entire families and generations living off welfare and the ethnic group basically have a super high unemployment rate of maybe 50% or more.
I’ve listened a lot to talks from the party leader of Örebropartiet, and while I think he would benefit from slowing himself down, yell and insult less, I really can’t see he being racist or far-right. More leftist actually. I think he’s simply VERY motivated/obsessed around questions like to get government less corrupt, much more efficient governence, and to stop major ethnic groups from very poor parts of the world get an unreasonable high amount of the governments welfare spending.
It's possible to support all of the same policies without referring to human beings as "parasites," and I don't think we should be flippant about what language is used. It's relevant. It reflects a state of mind.
I personally do not ever see myself voting for (or otherwise indirectly supporting) a politician that speaks like that, regardless of whether you can steelman it with more neutral language.
Article by a news media outlet that is considered very far left (communist). Try finding the same claim or description in any national Swedish media. You won't.
The claims in the social media post is pure bullshit. The party is a tiny (read: one person elected) radical populist left-economic-leaning nationalists. They have gained popularity for pointing out wasteful use of Örebro's municipalities resources, and their leader's fondness of lengthy ridiculing other parties politicians in lengthy debates, that he often publish on Instagram and YouTube.
No, they have 8 people elected: 3 in the region, 5 in the municipality.
They got 4,46 % of the votes in the region, and 7,92 % in the municipality. And who knows, maybe they'll use that 5 million SEK to get more seats in this years election.
Are his public stances on immigration precisely stated as remigration, or does he describe a thing such as remigration without explicitly naming it as such?
About his quote from wikipedia "They will also be forced to leave, even if they are born in Sweden, because they have no natural connection to Sweden. They are not Swedish." which links to this video tweet https://x.com/AllardKlipp/status/2060109271635771457 can you give full context/translation?
He says what is quoted when talking about criminals with immigrant roots. "Those [criminals] - they should get out, even if they were born in Sweden, because they do not have a connection to Sweden. They received a swedish passport but they have not become swedish [as belonging to swedish culture]. They are not interested [in becoming swedish] and here I'm ready to go on corpses...".
Overall his stance on immigration (taken from this video) is not as extreme as one can imagine reading HN comments. It is extreme but not to the extent that he's ready to push out anyone whos granddad was not Andersson.
Swede here. That's not even close to accurate. Örebropartiet is not extremist, but I would absolutely label them radical populist left-economic-leaning nationalists. Please do some research and make up your own mind. They're a tiny local party active in Örebro municipality where their founder and leader loudly points out clearly wasteful use of government funds, or more or less corrupt decisions made by leading party figures in other parties on local matters. The party leader is known for ridiculing competing parties party members on debates.
Where the Örebropartiet (Örebro Party) usually are called extremist is in questions regarding immigration. They are of the opinion that people that move to Sweden should not integrate but also assimilate, and quickly, find a job. For some people, this might sound extreme, but I would argue that more than half of the Swedish population (and its parties) nowadays share this view, similar to how Japanese people and society broadly want people that move their to assimilate.
> similar to how Japanese people and society broadly want people that move their to assimilate
And it's super racist there too, I can assure you. My father in law is Korean but lived in Japan his whole life. There's no way to describe what he experienced except racism. People just hated him for being Korean.
I have no respect for people that concern troll about some vague cultural purity to disguise their prejudices.
A friend of mine who is a non Japanese Asian lived in Japan and when asked said there's no racism. There's mild cases but if you are careful to follow the customs and speak the language, you are generally accepted as a Japanese in daily life.
No, there's a fundamental difference between what we both wrote. There's a difference between saying "I know someone who has experienced racism" and "My friend says there's no racism in X country." One is a personal experience, the other invalidates the experiences of everyone else. They are not two sides of the same coin like you are implying. If you take the phrase "There is no racism in Japan" at face value, you are either pushing an agenda or falling for someone else's.
"We just want assimilation" is the palatable marketing term for "We would be fine arresting people at their immigration hearings if they are brown enough." Just look at the U.S.
Rewrite my comment to say "my friend experienced no racism". Not more than in his home country at least.
What you said is the same. One is according to what your relative said another is according to what my friend said.
I don't think it's crazy to expect assimilation. We are fascinated with different countries and cultures and we generally consider it's a good idea they exist and are different. Diversity is strength. But they can only be different if they have their own culture and traditions. Would everyone be so fascinated with Japan or Korea if it was not for their culture? Would they be the same without high trust society that is made possible by it?
> I don't think it's crazy to expect assimilation.
What's that mean to you? In my city, immigrants work, run businesses, pay taxes, have kids and send them to local schools, ride the bus, complain about the weather, practice their religion. I guess the only thing they don't do is complain as loudly about the government as (many of) the rest of us. What more could they be doing to assimilate?
Probably nothing. Looks good to me, they speak your language, have jobs (don't abuse welfare), pay taxes, live legally. Reading about the party it seemed that they want to kick out people far from what you described (which can be still wrong, idk, but I'm not sure it's so outrageous I would boycott a business over its owner's preference). If they campaign to kick out people who are like what you described then I would think harder.
No, it's a reasonable question. Language is how 90% of communication happens. 如果我用中文說話，你根本聽不懂我在說什麼。只有聽得懂鄰居和社區裡的人在說什麼，我才會感到自在；如果聽不懂，我就不會有這種自在感。I've a significant chunk of my life in places where people don't speak my language and it's not a comfortable situation to be. Sure I have some anxieties but everyone does and if you say their feelings are invalid then I'm not sure which of us is more intolerant.
> Most people I know are not fascinated by Japan, they are fascinated by a romanticized idea of Japan that has been filtered through Reddit posts and Anime
Somehow people I know who rave about Japan just don't watch anime that I know of. They just go there and like how everything is. The anime nerds I know don't talk about real Japan much.
If you don't have that fascination, fine. I was fascinated by tons of things there. I think most people were. And most people would say it's a horrible idea destroying that culture.
You are completely dodging the topic of assimilation. You are implying that Japan is great because it's culturally homogeneous, and the reason it's culturally homogeneous is because people assimilate, and therefore Sweden deporting teenagers is morally right because they are protecting their own culture from people that don't assimilate.
You have no specifics on how immigrants don't assimilate, and what part of the culture is worth preserving, or how you can even assimilate to a culture that is constantly developing. If I am ethnically Japanese and grow up in Japan, but I don't act like others, that is not a "lack of assimilation." That is me actively participating in a shift of the culture, and that's how everyone would see it. But if I were a different ethnicity in the same situation, I would be a problem immigrant anchor baby who is trying to destroy the culture of the country. Do you see the difference?
This idea that culture is able to be frozen in time and preserved is paradoxical. It's a cudgel used to bludgeon disadvantaged people who are perfectly functioning citizens, and even harm people who could make the country better, not worse. How do you expect immigrants to introduce new ideas to a culture if you elect politicians that will demonize and deport them if they are not sufficiently "assimilated"
> You have no specifics on how immigrants don't assimilate,
I haven't been to Sweden. I take the word of people who have been there or live there elsewhere in this thread.
But elsewhere I definitely have seen communities of immigrants which don't speak local language and treat local population as less than themselves because they are of different religion.
> If I am ethnically Japanese and grow up in Japan, but I don't act like others
Racism is one of those things that unfortunately crosses political and social boundaries. Some groups just hide it better than others by enforcing anti-racism as a group norm.
Racism definitely crosses all boundaries, but deporting people on the grounds they are not culturally aligned is what we'd call a positionally right policy. That does not mean left wing parties can't do it. It means it lies right on the political spectrum.
That's not a subjective opinion I made, that is just a textbook definition of what we consider authoritative right. Left and right mean things, and they don't mean what traditionally progressive or conservative parties happen to be doing at that time.
Left and right refers to where the Girondins and the Montagnards/Jacobins sat in the French revolutionary assembly. We’ve bastardized this into imaginary delineations of political positioning and for some reason we keep bolting on arbitrary positions as Girondin or Jacobin.
I don’t care what textbook you are looking at, I’m looking at (or maybe writing) a different one. Left and right do not actually “mean things” if you intend for “meaning” to be universally or even widely agreed upon. I suppose for you “meaning” may only be relevant if a certain group or class agrees upon the meaning, but the rest of us will continue to say and believe what we want!
You are being needlessly contradictory, in a pointlessly academic way. I can assure you nobody thinks of left or right as the French revolutionary assembly, any more than we think of "Wednesday" as the day of the Norse god Odin, or "a sandwich" as the Earl of Sandwich's gambling snack. The Etymological origin doesn't determine current meaning.
> but the rest of us will continue to say and believe what we want
Who is we? These definitions are mostly settled, and where they aren't, there are fuzzy differences, not huge gaps of disagreement. It's a shared language of understanding where people lie on a quadrant of politics. It's socially useful to have that language when posing political theory. Again, this does not mean political parties are permanently stuck to their quadrant. What do you think Republicans mean when they call themselves right wing? Nothing?
> I suppose for you “meaning” may only be relevant if a certain group or class agrees upon the meaning
What? You seem to be stuck on an idea that I am making some kind of partisan statement by saying a certain policy is left or right wing. That is not a value statement on whether it's good or bad. I don't know why you are so heated about this.
There is no shared language anymore, and I’m tired of pretending that there is. The 20th century notion of left and right, which was itself a fantasy, has been turned into a tool of propaganda. It does nothing but muddy the waters.
“Right-wing” politicians are arguing for nationalization in some cases and wielding industrial policy like they’re FDR. We may see price controls and even capital controls before long. The oil market interventions alone would make Stalin blush. Meanwhile they are jumping on regulation in other places, such as AI “safety”, and have floated hate speech bans (to combat antisemitism).
“Left-wing” pols (admittedly in the face of immense hate from their base) are coming out for free market solutions gently guided by the government and deregulation so we can build faster. Outside the US, you have bizarro world Labour policies in the UK (they seem to be aiming to absorb the Tories), China’s roaring Communist economy that’s the global hotbed of economic activity, etc.
The traditional categories still seem to hold in Latin America, for some reason. But that’s it.
What exactly does the left-right distraction provide except for an easily abused method for enforcing a (tenuous, completely malleable) group orthodoxy? These days it seems like people just use it as shorthand for “enemy”. Any heterodox position is automatically of the other wing, preventing adaptation to real-world circumstances. Some positions (like a land value tax) are somehow both left and right wing depending on who you ask. It’s infuriating.
You are taking me to say left means Democrat and right means Conservative, and acting like it's a gotcha when they criss cross. I already said all of this was possible.
> “Right-wing” politicians are arguing for nationalization in some cases and wielding industrial policy like they’re FDR
Nationalization is a policy lying on the left. State ownership of industry is the textbook left pole
> The oil market interventions alone would make Stalin blush
Price controls on markets are authoritarian left
> are coming out for free market solutions gently guided by the government and deregulation so we can build faster
Economic right, mildly libertarian
> What exactly does the left-right distraction provide except for an easily abused method for enforcing a (tenuous, completely malleable) group orthodoxy?
No, they provide categorization to resist group orthodoxy. People are going to categorize, that is human nature. Without these, the only way to categorize a policy is what the parties happen to be doing at the time. That causes a group orthodoxy. There are people describing themselves as "more left" or "more right" as a shorthand to reject group orthodoxy. There are people describing a policy as left or right, regardless of which party is doing it. You're not sparing anything by resisting policy categorization, you are making things less specific and more likely to default to broad buckets.
That doesn't mean you can't talk about the policies in specifics, it means they lie on a very flexible and descriptive map.
That isn’t at all useful. If a party adopts a few platform items that are “left” and some that are “right” (as all parties do), what good is it to point out that X party has adopted Y-wing stance on this issue? The only purpose that this could serve is to give ultras (left or right) ammunition to enforce orthodoxy to these “standard” categories. Meanwhile in the real world, as I mentioned, all parties and candidates adopt mixed platforms, and if you care at all about pragmatism and responding to real conditions, those positions should be evaluated individually on their merits rather than slapping on a left or right label.
This tendency to force everything into a black or white frame is what gives us politicians who run without platforms, on party label alone, and who then adopt unpopular or harmful positions when in office.
At some point we decided that platforms don’t matter, and if platforms exist, they must be orthodox. This is a problem!
> Swede here. That's not even close to accurate. Örebropartiet is not extremist, but I would absolutely label them radical populist left-economic-leaning nationalists. Please do some research and make up your own mind.
This sounds like you expect very few people to do this. I can't speak for others but this was exactly the first thing I did upon hearing about it, and
> Where the Örebropartiet (Örebro Party) usually are called extremist is in questions regarding immigration.
is exactly the conclusion I came to, based on their statements about "parasites". Not the integration aspect indeed...
I'm very surprised the article doesn't mention Bun. Bun is significantly faster than Vite & Rolldown, if it's simply speed one is aiming for. More importantly Bun allows for simplicity. Install Bun, you get Bundler included and TypeScript just works, and it's blazing fast.
IMO Bun and Vite are best suited for slightly different things. Not to say that there isn't a lot of overlap, but if you don't need many of the features Bun provides, it can be a bit overkill.
Personally, I write a lot of Vue, so using a "first party" environment has a lot of advantages for me. Perhaps if you are a React developer, the swap might be even more straightforward.
I also think it's important to take into consideration the other two packages mentioned in this post (oxlint & oxfmt) because they are first class citizens in Vite (and soon to be Vite+). Bun might be a _technically_ faster dev server, but if your other tools are still slow, that might be a moot point.
Also, Typescript also "just works" in Vite as well. I have a project on work that is using `.ts` files without even an `tsconfig` file in the project.
It's been a while since I've tried it, but post-1.0 release of Bun still seemed like beta software and I would get all sorts of hard to understand errors while building a simple CRUD app. My impression from the project is the maintainers were adding so many features that they were spread too thin. Hopefully it's a little more stable now.
Bun and Vite are not really analogous. Bun includes features that overlap with Vite but Vite does a lot more. (It goes without saying that Bun also does things Vite doesn't do because Bun is a whole JS runtime.)
I created an account just to say that your map is amazing! It's beautiful and very interesting to look at, because of all the details. Thank you for documenting your method of creating this! I've been looking for a way to create a similar map for the island I'm living at, and maybe your method will work for this. Thank you so much for documenting the steps!
