5 ms·
It remains to be seen how stable a totalitarian government can be. China has the benefit of having full control over its people and therefore gets to decide wha
by qwertox 2y ago
It remains to be seen how stable a totalitarian government can be. China has the benefit of having full control over its people and therefore gets to decide what is important and what not, and currently people are ok with handing that control over to the government. But it's also a very fragile state, which can only be retained through full repression.
- aaomidi 2y ago[flagged]
- borski 2y agoWe’ve seen a CEO shot, and the majority of people definitely don’t cheer it on; just a very vocal minority. Moreover, he may yet get the death penalty; I’m not sure I’d call that any more “fragile” than any other shooting.
- dartos 2y agoNot to mention that that CEO was in health insurance. A very emotionally charged industry where someone’s life or death is directly affected by CEO decisions.
- paganel 2y ago[flagged]
- borski 2y agoThat is simply not true. Moreover, this forum is not “targeted towards the well-off.” Out in the real world, Luigi is a criminal who shot a man in cold blood and sparked a conversation. That’s about it. Hardly a hero. And the majority of the populace does not agree with you.
- gr8joos 2y ago[dead]
- dang 2y agoPlease don't post spurious generalizations about this community. What you said here is completely made up.
- skywhopper 2y agoDid I miss some other CEOs being gunned down? I only know of the one. I’m more concerned about the folks cheering on vigilantes and cops who murder unarmed non-CEOs who have not perpetrated actual harm on thousands of people.
- suraci 2y agoThere's a saying in Chinese liberals community: We cannot help but admire the American system's ability to self-correct. I've seen it twice these years, one was after JoeBiden won election, said the system choose Biden to fix Trump mess, one was after DTrump won, said the system correct the Biden error. So China is, of course, more fragile.
- elashri 2y agoAll what I can see from this comment logic is that the US have a cycle of mess that get rotated not a demonstration of self correction mechanisms. Not to say that I believe that the US (or any other government or country) unable to have self correction ability or mechanisms. I am just pointing that your logic is flawed.
- suraci 2y agoGlad you pointed out the logical fallacy. In that context, "less fragile" are vague words without a clear subject. I posted the saying to be satirical, but in depth, the two-party system is more stable than any other political systems: To people, it may seem like a cycle of mess, but the system itself is very stable, it avoids the regime change by normalizing it.
- elashri 2y ago> the two-party system is more stable than any other political systems: To people, it may seem like a cycle of mess, but the system itself is very stable, it avoids the regime change by normalizing it. How is that makes the two-party system more stable than any other political systems. all what you say normalizing regime change does apply on all democratic systems. So you don't have the choices (both party does actually suck on many mutual aspects) but also don't gain much stability than other democratic system. In parliament system there is usually more acceptance and normalization of changes than the two-party system when you get stuck between worse and the worst most of the time.
- huijzer 2y agoI guess it's time to bring back an old joke from Ronald Reagan [1]: An American and a Russian are arguing about their two countries. The American says look: "In my country, I can walk into the Oval Office, pound the president's desk, and say 'Mr. President, I don't like the way you're running our country!'". And the Russian says "I can do that." The American says "You can?" The Russian says "Yes, I can walk right into the Kremlin, go to the General Secretary's office, slam my fist on his desk and say "I don't like the way President Reagan is running his country." [1]: https://youtu.be/9qh-1_tXeuQ https://youtu.be/9qh-1_tXeuQ
- paganel 2y ago> It remains to be seen how stable a totalitarian government can be Much more stable than the government that has Trump, Musk and Vivek calling the shots, that's for sure.
- qwertox 2y agoIf these three died, it might be a loss to the country. None of them is as important to the country as Xi is to China. The resilience of the CCP, in light of its dependence on Xi, can only be upheld through the absolute suppression of freedom. But the average daily life is certainly much more enjoyable than in NK.
- Mistletoe 2y agoI am absolutely certain that those three dying would be a gain of function for the world.
- tokioyoyo 2y agoI’m curious, what do you think would happen if Xi stepped down tomorrow for whatever reason? You think everything will just fall apart?
- varenc 2y agoIf Xi Jinping died suddenly, it’d cause serious instability. His centralization of power erased clear succession plans, so top CCP factions would likely fight for control. Markets would also freak out. Long-term? Either a return to pre-Xi more collective leadership or another strongman doubling down on Xi’s approach. Centralized systems with no backup plans are fragile. It’s possible that with technology like absolute communication control and ubiquitous surveillance the chance of internal unrest or revolution is greatly reduced. And as long as the country is growing and the average citizen is getting richer they’re much less likely to get unruly. It’s like startups: growth solves all problems.
- chvid 2y agoIt is probably more stable now than at any time since the communist takeover.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- littlestymaar 2y agoDubious claim, unless in the era between the cultural revolution and Mao's death China under the communists has always been made very stable due to the collegiality at the top, now the collegiality is gone and so will the stability as soon as Xi is no more. That's the problem when one individual grabs all power.
- freefaler 2y agoThis argument might've worked in Mao's time. Now with a capitalist economy under the party the resource allocation while still skewed is much more efficient than during Mao or USSR central planned economy. (And EU wide policies sometimes aren't that far off from USSR stupidity). Loss of feedback in authoritarian regimes is a problem, but in the short time it might not be if Xi doesn't make really stupid moves. It pains me to see it, but they show more long-term thinking that many of the Western governments who aren't interested what will happen after their time in the office. While the people have plenty use of force can be minimal.
- varenc 2y ago> It pains me to see it, but they show more long-term thinking that many of the Western governments… Absolutely agree, and it pains me as well. Besides long-term thinking, they can also just impose sweeping new rules to address certain problems in a way the West never could. For example, with teen gaming addiction, they didn’t hesitate to just ban kids under 18 from gaming more than a few hours a week, crashing the value of certain gaming companies. In the West, we’d spend years debating, lobbying, and litigating over individual freedoms vs. public good, and likely end up with nothing meaningful. It comes with huge drawbacks, but their system allows them to take drastic action quickly, while we’re often paralyzed by process.
- andy_ppp 2y agoDo the governments elected recently in the West look stable to you?
- janice1999 2y agoThey do. Ireland just had an election I voted in and is forming a new government with multiple parties. The UK, after years of TV worthy Tory party drama, had its most transformative election in over a decade. I see active and engaged multi-party democracies with peaceful transitions of power and long established and respected laws for calling elections, no confidence votes (e.g. France, yes it happens) and so on.
- eunos 2y agoI've read variations of that assertion since mid Hu Jintao era (around Beijing Olympics). Maybe it's time to move on?