22 ms·
Previously it was a sort of vaguely Maoist gerontocracy; power was concentrated in some central committees, not just the premier.
by QAPereo 9y ago
Previously it was a sort of vaguely Maoist gerontocracy; power was concentrated in some central committees, not just the premier.
- seanmcdirmid 9y agoYou mean party secretary. The premier is Li Keqiang, who is pretty powerless, at least compared to Wen Jiabao.
- QAPereo 9y agoYou’re right, my bad!
- vkou 9y agoWhat difference does it make to the common people, or to political activists, that power is spread out among the leaders of dozen CCP committees, versus a single man? The police will continue to repress, the press committees will continue to censor...
- QAPereo 9y agoDictators tend to collapse along with the stability of their countries. The more distributed power is, the more stable it is. China was already a huge country with massively centralized power. Now it’s still huge, but the power is concentrated in just one man, and thats even more unstable. So... worse crackdowns, even less freedom, and a much worse and less potentially flexible long term trajectory. Edit: to be clear I am not endorsing either system, just describing them as accurately as possible.
- owebmaster 9y agoThe secret is to continue raising the standard of living of the people as fast as it's been raising in the past 2 decades.
- stevenwoo 9y agoI thought the problem with that is that it is literally impossible to continue the trajectory.
- owebmaster 9y agoIt might be a better time to say this when the strategy start to fail but this seems like american wishful thinking as China keeps growing strongly.
- matt4077 9y agoThere's a case to be made that a government by a large number of committees and other institutions tends to be more benevolent. Many of the worst actions of repressive regimes have usually been motivated by emotions, not expediency. As more people get involved, the chance of any single personal obsession resulting in crass harm to, for example, a certain group of citizen is lowered. Competition for power among people and/or these institutions also results in a sort of crude "checks and balances". There are too many people with considerable power that it becomes impossible for all of them to move billions to Switzerland, and if only a few do so, they risk being taken down by others who get jealous. Of course, as China shows, this is still far below the standards set by real rule of law. But compare China with the half-bit dictators (Qaddafi, Barack Hussein) and it's hard to deny that it's not quite that bad.
- vkou 9y agoSure, when you've got an incredibly paranoid sociopath like Stalin, who sees traitors and enemies of the revolution in every shadow, you're going to have serious problems. Xi does not strike me as one. (But I could, of course, be proven wrong.)
- QAPereo 9y agoHow about the guy after Xi? After that? The power, once concentrated tends to remain so, and eventually you roll a Hoxha, Stalin, or Pol Pot.
- vkou 9y agoGiven that the Maoist gerontocracy managed to produce a dictatorship by Xi, it doesn't seem that it actually protects people from despotism. Eventually, someone wins the power struggle, and consolidates power under themselves. Comrade Stalin didn't become Vozjd because the Bolshevik party wanted to instill an all-powerful dictator. Like Xi, he decisively won a power struggle in a government which was originally composed of a number of powerful committees. The revolution had ~30 fathers - yet, 13 years after Lenin's death, all but one of them - Stalin - were dead, in a GULAG, or in exile (And soon to be dead). The only way to protect against despotism is to have relatively frequent turnover in government. If US presidents and congresscritters were elected for 20 year terms, the US would have long ago become a dictatorship.