4 ms·

> they are investing so heavily in reducing corruption I am extremely sceptical about such claims. Claiming to fight corruption is usually more of PR stunt. To

> they are investing so heavily in reducing corruption I am extremely sceptical about such claims. Claiming to fight corruption is usually more of PR stunt. To really fight corruption you have to do institutionalized changes, such as increasing transparency, which is painful for most of regimes on Earth. Fighting corruption without changing the system is busy work and reality show.

pasabagi 8y ago
I'm actually pretty convinced. I think the Party is basically fairly smart, and they are extremely aware of the threats to their rule. For instance, after the first gulf war, they started extensive military reforms, presumably seeing how Saddam's gigantic, tank-heavy, cold-war era army fared against new technology, and seeing that the same could happen to them. I think time and time again, they've moved very fast to neutralize threats - and as I see it, there are few that would be more pressing than general disillusionment, the normalization of graft and cynicism. It's this culture that really killed the USSR. When nobody believes in your system, it doesn't matter how absolute your power is, or how utterly defeated your enemies are. Everybody in your administration will be essentially working for themselves, and stealing everything that isn't bolted down.
- doombolt 8y ago
  I'm really unconvinced by Xi Jinping concentrating power. It does look like he desperately wants to be China's Putin (with the charisma of Medvedev), and there's nobody to stop him.
  - pasabagi 8y ago
    Yeah, that's probably a bad sign. That said, I don't think it's as fundamental a difference as a western perspective makes it out to be. Westerners are, for obvious reasons, terrified of charismatic leaders - but there are plenty of dictatorships that get along just fine with a bureacracy. Having an official great leader doesn't necessarily transform the power structure.
    - doombolt 8y ago
      I don't think so. Leader for life == trouble.

pasabagi 8y ago

I'm actually pretty convinced. I think the Party is basically fairly smart, and they are extremely aware of the threats to their rule. For instance, after the first gulf war, they started extensive military reforms, presumably seeing how Saddam's gigantic, tank-heavy, cold-war era army fared against new technology, and seeing that the same could happen to them. I think time and time again, they've moved very fast to neutralize threats - and as I see it, there are few that would be more pressing than general disillusionment, the normalization of graft and cynicism. It's this culture that really killed the USSR. When nobody believes in your system, it doesn't matter how absolute your power is, or how utterly defeated your enemies are. Everybody in your administration will be essentially working for themselves, and stealing everything that isn't bolted down.

doombolt 8y ago
I'm really unconvinced by Xi Jinping concentrating power. It does look like he desperately wants to be China's Putin (with the charisma of Medvedev), and there's nobody to stop him.
- pasabagi 8y ago
  Yeah, that's probably a bad sign. That said, I don't think it's as fundamental a difference as a western perspective makes it out to be. Westerners are, for obvious reasons, terrified of charismatic leaders - but there are plenty of dictatorships that get along just fine with a bureacracy. Having an official great leader doesn't necessarily transform the power structure.
  - doombolt 8y ago
    I don't think so. Leader for life == trouble.