3 ms·

> 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,

by 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

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