3 ms·

I'm not sure why the article give so many of it to Xi. I doubt things will go much different if you swap Xi with someone else. Mao and Deng are IMO different.

by nirui 3y ago

I'm not sure why the article give so many of it to Xi. I doubt things will go much different if you swap Xi with someone else. Mao and Deng are IMO different. For Mao, he is the starter of this saga. For Deng, he's a visionary, and the decision he made was largely against the common trend in the party. But for Xi, he is just a continuation of the tradition, it's how the ancient civilization views governing, which can be summed up with the traditional Chinese family relationship: the parents are always right, and the children must obey. In this arrogant and dangerously outdated analogy, the leaders are the "parents" (for example, as in "父母官", or "Official like a dad or mom"), and people are the children. Parents always wants the best for their childs, right? (And how can parent be abusive to their child?) You would probably understand a lot of what China did based on that analogy. If you view yourself as a parent, then many of your people's demand suddenly look like pointless tamper tantrum. > In the darker scenario, China faces “Japanification” China is an autocracy. Unlike in a democracy (Japan) where it's leaders are expected to leave the office to someone else, an autocrat can and usually do use all the means necessary to protect their power. That includes just become a sellout for a foreign nation, or worse. If the current trend of decoupling from the wealthy nations continued and China's systems remained unupgraded, "Japanification" could as well be the ceiling of the whole spectrum of possibilities. That's why I think China's leadership will face some serious real tests in the future years much more critical than just simple stagnation.

TehShrike 3y ago
I don't know why you wouldn't ascribe the last decade of China's fist-tightening to Xi, unless you think that all autocrats must inevitably behave so. Xi could have left the country quasi-free, but he didn't. If you're talking about China's slump, talking about Xi is unavoidable.
- nirui 3y ago
  > Xi could have left the country quasi-free With what method? Before Xi's rising, China wasn't exactly a nice place to begin with. The corruption was rampant, and the gangs were effecting the lives of common people. All the communist shit mixed in with capitalist shit. The only thing kept China going is people's wishes to improve their lives, not some gov policy. Given the track record on how the Communist Party's China solve it's problems (likely doing patches rather than finding long-lasting systematic solutions), it's quite reasonable to assume that a quasi-free China will have other type of issues going on that are equality bad as fist-tightening.
  - alephnerd 3y ago
    > With what method There has been a systemic decrease in freedoms and grey areas in China under Xi over the past few years. Criticism and protests have always been fairly common in China, but the level to which they have been cracked down and prosecuted under Xi is stark compared to the late 2000s and early 2010s. Furthermore, the CCP always had the ability to choose to harden the Great Firewall, but never chose to until the 2nd Xi Administration. Furthermore, Xi dismantled a number of the checks and balances the CCP developed after Mao's death in order to prevent a Mao 2.0 from arising. The Premiership and State Council has been hollowed out, and regulations such as term limits and federalism have been thrown on the wayside. Finally, under the guise of anti-corruption reforms, the Xi Administration has increasingly cut off average Chinese from the rest of the world by severely limiting cash and asset outflow (which is needed if you want to study abroad because being an international student isn't cheap). China was never a Disneyland, but the level of authoritarianism in China today was unseen since the death of Mao. > wasn't exactly a nice place to begin with I agree with that, but the issue is selective enforcement. People like Bo Xilai and Jack Ma absolutely deserve to be prosecuted for corrupt business practices and criminality, yet similar enforcement doesn't extend to business and party leaders close to Xi, and in some cases Xi himself (such as his tenure in Fujian). There is a way to walk a middle ground between full blown authoritarianism and managed authoritarianism. Russia pre-2016 is a good example of how managed autocracy could work (it sucks but it's still more free than China today) > continuation of the tradition This statement reeks of Orientalism. Taiwan, HK, and Singapore are children of the same traditions, yet are significantly less authoritarian than Mainland China today. Ascribing cultural reasons takes the onus of responsibility away from the individuals who systemically undermined institutions within China. > Unlike in a democracy (Japan) where it's leaders are expected to leave the office to someone else This was China before 2018. After Deng Xiaoping's reforms, the Politburo made 2 term rule a requirement, and formalized the 2nd term Secretariat to Party Secretary pathway

by nirui 3y ago

TehShrike 3y ago

I don't know why you wouldn't ascribe the last decade of China's fist-tightening to Xi, unless you think that all autocrats must inevitably behave so. Xi could have left the country quasi-free, but he didn't. If you're talking about China's slump, talking about Xi is unavoidable.

nirui 3y ago
> Xi could have left the country quasi-free With what method? Before Xi's rising, China wasn't exactly a nice place to begin with. The corruption was rampant, and the gangs were effecting the lives of common people. All the communist shit mixed in with capitalist shit. The only thing kept China going is people's wishes to improve their lives, not some gov policy. Given the track record on how the Communist Party's China solve it's problems (likely doing patches rather than finding long-lasting systematic solutions), it's quite reasonable to assume that a quasi-free China will have other type of issues going on that are equality bad as fist-tightening.
- alephnerd 3y ago
  > With what method There has been a systemic decrease in freedoms and grey areas in China under Xi over the past few years. Criticism and protests have always been fairly common in China, but the level to which they have been cracked down and prosecuted under Xi is stark compared to the late 2000s and early 2010s. Furthermore, the CCP always had the ability to choose to harden the Great Firewall, but never chose to until the 2nd Xi Administration. Furthermore, Xi dismantled a number of the checks and balances the CCP developed after Mao's death in order to prevent a Mao 2.0 from arising. The Premiership and State Council has been hollowed out, and regulations such as term limits and federalism have been thrown on the wayside. Finally, under the guise of anti-corruption reforms, the Xi Administration has increasingly cut off average Chinese from the rest of the world by severely limiting cash and asset outflow (which is needed if you want to study abroad because being an international student isn't cheap). China was never a Disneyland, but the level of authoritarianism in China today was unseen since the death of Mao. > wasn't exactly a nice place to begin with I agree with that, but the issue is selective enforcement. People like Bo Xilai and Jack Ma absolutely deserve to be prosecuted for corrupt business practices and criminality, yet similar enforcement doesn't extend to business and party leaders close to Xi, and in some cases Xi himself (such as his tenure in Fujian). There is a way to walk a middle ground between full blown authoritarianism and managed authoritarianism. Russia pre-2016 is a good example of how managed autocracy could work (it sucks but it's still more free than China today) > continuation of the tradition This statement reeks of Orientalism. Taiwan, HK, and Singapore are children of the same traditions, yet are significantly less authoritarian than Mainland China today. Ascribing cultural reasons takes the onus of responsibility away from the individuals who systemically undermined institutions within China. > Unlike in a democracy (Japan) where it's leaders are expected to leave the office to someone else This was China before 2018. After Deng Xiaoping's reforms, the Politburo made 2 term rule a requirement, and formalized the 2nd term Secretariat to Party Secretary pathway