William Wan writes in the Washington Post that in China
Trivial indeed. Worse than trivial. Not crimes at all. Just normal speech in a free society. But of course China isn't a free society. Despite its moves toward markets and profits, China remains a one-party state still characterized by state ownership of the commanding heights of the economy. And that party is the Communist party, a party born to eradicate capitalism, a party that as it came to power in 1949 spoke of “the extinction of classes, state power and parties,” of “a socialist and communist society,” of the nationalization of private enterprise and the socialization of agriculture, of a “great and splendid socialist state” in Russia, and especially of “a powerful state apparatus” in the hands of a “people’s democratic dictatorship.” That's a vision that doesn't fit very well with "unflattering blog post[s] about a local official." The problem is endemic to socialism. Robert Heilbroner, a distinguished American intellectual who called himself a socialist (though the New York Times declined to be so rude in its obituary), was admirably candid in explaining the place of dissent in a socialist society in a 1978 article in, well, Dissent:
Socialism ... must depend for its economic direction on some form of planning, and for its culture on some form of commitment to the idea of a morally conscious collectivity... If tradition cannot, and the market system should not, underpin the socialist order, we are left with some form of command as the necessary means for securing its continuance and adaptation. Indeed, that is what planning means... The factories and stores and farms and shops of a socialist socioeconomic formation must be coordinated ... and this coordination must entail obedience to a central plan... The rights of individuals to their Millian liberties [are] directly opposed to the basic social commitment to a deliberately embraced collective moral goal... Under socialism, every dissenting voice raises a threat similar to that raised under a democracy by those who preach antidemocracy.
That is, even an unflattering blog post about a local official threatens "the basic social commitment to a deliberately embraced collective moral goal" under the direction of “a powerful state apparatus” in the hands of a “people’s democratic dictatorship.” So we deplore China's use of labor camps "as an expedient way to silence critics," in the words of the Post, but we shouldn't be surprised by it. Indeed, a front-page article in today's Post on Hugo Chavez's legacy refers to
the tenets of what Chavez called 21st-century socialism---intervening in the economy, putting state institutions under the executive’s control and corralling opponents and the press.
Sounds a lot like 20th-century socialism.