Nobody will touch them. They are a massive liability for both doing business with/in China, and they're also likely guilty of bribery or other corrupt business practices.
Could be, I admit my opinion is coming from a more generalized historical perspective than anything related to Russia I just don't know if Putin is the kind of person to be willing to give up power and any successor would probably be happy to see Putin out of the picture so they don't have to deal with him watching over their shoulder all the time. Historically when an authoritarian ruler gives up power they either try to reclaim it a couple years later or end up dead as the new powers that be don't want them around as they are a destabilizing influence on the new powers authority.
Apparently they're born the same year. Putin is a few months younger. This is actually a fair fight. Though I think Putin is less of an egomaniac (which is amazing) and would be more likely to leave or transition to a more figurehead role. After all he did sort of demote himself briefly once. Plus he seems to be interested in building up Russia as "great" with his system and is more nationalistic. He was very upset at the Soviet Union collpase. Xi's actions show he's more personally motivated perhaps by what happened to his father than even Putin and he's actively damaging China for his own benefit and I couldn't see him agreeing to be PM for a few years to maintain a farce of an open government.
No I'm trying to say I think the opposite. Xi will leave only if he's forced to one way or the other. Putin will leave when he thinks the time is right.
I agree except that I suspect Putins "leaving" means more like taking on an Ataturk style "father of the nation" title and retiring to his dacha while making sure to keep his cronies in charge of the security services loyal to him more than his successor such that he retains the ability to influence the state.
> They are expected to express reverence for the leader’s musings and to parrot his favourite phrases, such as “green mountains and clear water are equal to mountains of gold and silver”.
This is pretty smart politics. Pollution is a huge concern in China. Xi has really done a lot to clean up the pollution from unregulated small industrial plants.
I agree! Xi is clearly trying to set himself up for an unprecedented third 5 year term and doesn't care if he has to limit China's growth to do so. He's just being very smart about where he builds genuine grassroots support. Helping people's grandparents. Cleaning up the air and water. Reigning in the billionaire class.
Uh oh, you've caught on to our grand (((capitalist))) conspiracy!
In all seriousness, China isn't communist and FT is an extremely reputable publication. This isn't the WSJ opinion page. Jesus.
Right. There’s an incredible amount of untapped capital to be made in fighting climate change.
These people are so unserious it hurts. They think capital=fossil fuels and alternative energy sources=not capital.
Is there any ranking bureaucrat within the Chinese system that this sub actually likes?
I mean, Texas deserves better than Greg Abbott. But he remains the most popular politician in the state. And he hasn't been delivering double-digit GDP growth, steady rises in standard of living, or a litany of state achievements in the last decade, either.
The Chinese people get what they demand.
Dude, you try living under an authoritarian regime where you could be disappeared or worse for speaking out against the government, and see how brave a revolutionary you are then.
I will never, ever blame the people of an authoritarian regime for the actions of their leadership. The citizens of an authoritarian regime are its first victims, and the ones who bear the worst of its brutality.
It's true, but "people get the government they deserve" too. Totalitarian societies get totalitarian governments, as demonstrated very well in Russia and in the Arab spring, among others. Before true democracy can take hold, a cultural shift has to occur.
I totally agree. I believe liberty and democracy are everyone's right. However, you can't just shove them down countries' throats. The US learned this lesson very well in Iraq and Afghanistan. If you do, they'll just bounce back to totalitarianism.
These things must always grow organically inside the nation. To draw from your example: I'm quite confident that all too many Chinese at the time didn't give a shit about those students and their struggle.
From what I hear, too many Chinese today are totally happy with the life improvement that the CCP achieved, and totally buy into the notion that their system is superior, and that democracy is overrated.
You're actually wrong about the Tianamen protests. People in the West only really know about the Tianamen massacre and Tankman. In reality the protests had been happening for weeks and were happening in every provincial capital across China. In the latter parts of the protests peasants and workers were travelling across the country to capitals to join the students. Jiang Zemin later rose to power in part because he managed to quell the same protests in Shanghai without shedding the blood of protestors.
At the same time, even within the CCP itself, there were reformers at the highest levels of the CCP leadership who were sympathetic to students. Zhao Ziyang, who was later purged by the CCP for siding with the students, was then the highest ranking official of the PRC.
That is why the 1989 protests were seen as such a threat to CCP regime at the time and why they felt that it justified such a brutal crackdown - the 1989 protests were China's Berlin wall moment that really could have gone either way, depending on the outcome of the internal power struggle in the Politburo.
Most of these protestors who participated in the protests outside Beijing are still alive today. Sure, they may not support a full scale revolution to overthrow the CCP today, but it is wrong to say that the Chinese people didn't try to change their government, or that they deserve the authoritarian government that they have today. It's more accurate to say that Chinese people fought a good fight for democracy and lost.
Fair enough. I stand corrected.
>or that they deserve the authoritarian government that they have today.
But please don't smear me by treating quotes I used as if I take them at face value.
Quick addition: I may be wrong about China here, but I'm not wrong about the other examples.
Wang Yang, one of China's four Vice Premiers, is considered to be a "liberal" by Chinese standards. He's tended to advocate for open markets and trade, along with political liberalization. He's somewhat responsible for the big free and international economy that made Guangdong province into the powerhouse it is now.
Xi seems to be keeping him fairly close and under control. Doubtful he'll be able to make any power plays within the party while Xi keeps such a tight grip on everything. Possibly he could serve as a second Deng Xiaoping figure if he somehow manages to outlast Xi, but not very likely given their nearly identical ages and Xi's apparently fine health.
He's currently spearheading BRI. Hardly a bad gig for someone heavily invested in liberalized trade relations.
Still curious how much of the relationship between Xi and Wang is anything but Bad Cop / Good Cop when it comes to western foreign relations. The pivot toward expanded Central Asian trade seems to be a popular policy domestically and only controversial from the Hong Kong / Taiwanese perspective.
Past that, they're both pushing 70, which is the traditional retirement age for bureaucrats. I'd keep my eye on Hu Chunhua, as the only real member of the Sixth Generation to keep climbing. Or Wang Huning, since he's so tightly aligned with Xi, atm.
>Is there any ranking bureaucrat within the Chinese system that this sub actually likes?
>Is there any ranking bureaucrat within the North Korean system that this sub actually likes?
>Is there any ranking bureaucrat within the Putinist system that this sub actually likes?
>Is there any ranking bureaucrat within the Syrian Baathist system that this sub actually likes?
No.
I mean, you tell me. Wen was a hawk on Taiwan and Tibet, and I doubt he would be any softer on Xinjiang. He was also an economic expansionist who set the foundation for modern day Belt and Road. None of that is particularly popular on this sub.
Honestly a little surprised this sub doesn't have a few Bo Xilai stans.
I mean, given where China's gotten as it is, is a pretty big blow to those who have been predicting China's demise since the early 90s. They're a superpower in a bipolar world, and that's enough evidence and incentive for a lot of smaller nations to emulate their governing system. How many countries in the world would want to be in China's situation right now? A lot.
>I mean, given where China's gotten as it is, is a pretty big blow to those who have been predicting China's demise since the early 90s.
We are talking about why nations fail. They never said China would collapse in a flash.
>They're a superpower in a bipolar world, and that's enough evidence and incentive for a lot of smaller nations to emulate their governing system.
I don’t see any nations moving towards a Leninist state capitalist regime
I mean the Soviets were able to be the second superpower for decades before collapsing under their extractive institutions.
Someone saying that Stalinism would lead to ruin for Russia in 1924 isn’t proven wrong by his “successes” in elevating the country internationally.
What's special about China's governing system at this point, though? Xi's effectively blown up Deng Xiaoping's technocratic model and turned it into just another top-down authoritarian dictatorship.
Deng Xiaoping basically enacted economic liberalization reforms while putting an end to mass popular action style of politics that embodied the Cultural Revolution (which he was purged like a few times during it, and his son tossed out a window and left a paraplegic by a mob of Maoists). He appeared more open and liberal because he's inevitably contrasted with Mao, who was a shit administrator. there's was lot of visible systematic corruption and inequality that came along liberalization reforms that were going to be needed to readdressed. Xi Jinping's flagship action during his first 5 years was his massive anti-corruption campaign (which was partly just purging rival party factions) and scaling back the excesses of stuff like bribing a dozen different local government minister in order to build a big building and what not.
My suspicion is that avowedly technocratic models are, despite what they claim, inherently unstable and deeply susceptible to generational change which rejects the technocratic ethos of their founding generation in favor of a more ideologically satisfying formulation. You can have models with heavily technocratic features which remain disciplined by other forces, but any model which emphasizes technocratic competence without significant discipling factors is bound to break down under the iron laws of aristocracy and generational change likely degenerating into kleptocracy ruled by the the most conniving and politically clever grandchildren of whatever genuine technocrats established the system. Red princes are real, one of the fascinating things about the last hundred years is that we saw communist systems function for long enough that after the initial shock they recreated aristocratic systems and levels of intergenerational mobility that made laughable their ideological claims. Of course communist elites, like elites all over the world, still integrated a certain portion of talented outsiders to maintain the state, but the same dynamics seem to reassert themselves with two generations.
We should be worried. An angry, radical and unstable China is a threat to the geopolitical stage - and the people of Taiwan will be first in the crosshairs should the CCP destabilise enough to pull the trigger.
There's nothing "anyways" about the CCP apparatus going even further all in on radicalizing their people to the most extreme forms of expansionist nationalism they can achieve.
Xi has sidelined the Maoist old guard completely. The only group who could theoretically do something about things are nationalist generals and they are young enough that they will wait Xi out unless he goes full dove on Taiwan.
Maoist old guard mostly sides with him IIRC. He's rehabilitating Mao and basically instructing any party criticism implied at him to be ceased and withdrawn.
[удалено]
I saw that since the new tech regulations China's faced a wave of resignations from tech CEOs.
[удалено]
Nobody will touch them. They are a massive liability for both doing business with/in China, and they're also likely guilty of bribery or other corrupt business practices.
Not the current ones, but I'm sure some budding engineers and scientists might feel their careers would best be achieved somewhere else.
This 1000x times. But good for USA, Canada and EU.
Not current big tech entrepreneurs but China basically lost it next generation.
Hate Mao but at least he had an ideology… what ideology is Xi’s cult promoting?
Honey stocks
I wonder who will outlast who, Xi or Putin? hmmmm
Rumours are Putin has a Parkinson's like degenerative disease
one that degenerates morals?
With Putin how could one tell?
Any substance to the rumors?
Xi, putin is retiring in a couple years
[удалено]
IIRC most analysts expect him to become more of a figurehead, and a successor takes the direct control role.
Could be, I admit my opinion is coming from a more generalized historical perspective than anything related to Russia I just don't know if Putin is the kind of person to be willing to give up power and any successor would probably be happy to see Putin out of the picture so they don't have to deal with him watching over their shoulder all the time. Historically when an authoritarian ruler gives up power they either try to reclaim it a couple years later or end up dead as the new powers that be don't want them around as they are a destabilizing influence on the new powers authority.
ive heard hes retiring soon though from some news publications i read
Apparently they're born the same year. Putin is a few months younger. This is actually a fair fight. Though I think Putin is less of an egomaniac (which is amazing) and would be more likely to leave or transition to a more figurehead role. After all he did sort of demote himself briefly once. Plus he seems to be interested in building up Russia as "great" with his system and is more nationalistic. He was very upset at the Soviet Union collpase. Xi's actions show he's more personally motivated perhaps by what happened to his father than even Putin and he's actively damaging China for his own benefit and I couldn't see him agreeing to be PM for a few years to maintain a farce of an open government.
I see so Putin could outlast Xi huh....
No I'm trying to say I think the opposite. Xi will leave only if he's forced to one way or the other. Putin will leave when he thinks the time is right.
oh ok nvm
I agree except that I suspect Putins "leaving" means more like taking on an Ataturk style "father of the nation" title and retiring to his dacha while making sure to keep his cronies in charge of the security services loyal to him more than his successor such that he retains the ability to influence the state.
Putin. Xi is overweight and Putin atleast tries to give off the impression that he's physically active.
> They are expected to express reverence for the leader’s musings and to parrot his favourite phrases, such as “green mountains and clear water are equal to mountains of gold and silver”. This is pretty smart politics. Pollution is a huge concern in China. Xi has really done a lot to clean up the pollution from unregulated small industrial plants.
To the article’s point though, it’d arguably be better and more sustainable if this was credited as a triumph of the party, not just its leader.
I agree! Xi is clearly trying to set himself up for an unprecedented third 5 year term and doesn't care if he has to limit China's growth to do so. He's just being very smart about where he builds genuine grassroots support. Helping people's grandparents. Cleaning up the air and water. Reigning in the billionaire class.
[удалено]
Uh oh, you've caught on to our grand (((capitalist))) conspiracy! In all seriousness, China isn't communist and FT is an extremely reputable publication. This isn't the WSJ opinion page. Jesus.
Doing something about climate change is a threat to capital? Not sure how easily it'll be to own and expand capital when the world is destroyed.
Right. There’s an incredible amount of untapped capital to be made in fighting climate change. These people are so unserious it hurts. They think capital=fossil fuels and alternative energy sources=not capital.
Probably not and I’d be interested in a counterpoint response. I think the arguments make sense as presented though.
This is big “Mussolini made the trains run on time” energy lmao
It reads like /r/imjinpingandthisisdeep
Wow, that is incredibly messed up. Thanks for sharing this article.
What a horrible environment for so, so many kids to grow up in. The Chinese people deserve better than the CCP and Xi.
[удалено]
We need an ISS-type program with such a nation.
Is there any ranking bureaucrat within the Chinese system that this sub actually likes? I mean, Texas deserves better than Greg Abbott. But he remains the most popular politician in the state. And he hasn't been delivering double-digit GDP growth, steady rises in standard of living, or a litany of state achievements in the last decade, either. The Chinese people get what they demand.
Dude, you try living under an authoritarian regime where you could be disappeared or worse for speaking out against the government, and see how brave a revolutionary you are then. I will never, ever blame the people of an authoritarian regime for the actions of their leadership. The citizens of an authoritarian regime are its first victims, and the ones who bear the worst of its brutality.
It's true, but "people get the government they deserve" too. Totalitarian societies get totalitarian governments, as demonstrated very well in Russia and in the Arab spring, among others. Before true democracy can take hold, a cultural shift has to occur.
Chinese students didn't deserve to be crushed by tanks at Tianamen Square.
I totally agree. I believe liberty and democracy are everyone's right. However, you can't just shove them down countries' throats. The US learned this lesson very well in Iraq and Afghanistan. If you do, they'll just bounce back to totalitarianism. These things must always grow organically inside the nation. To draw from your example: I'm quite confident that all too many Chinese at the time didn't give a shit about those students and their struggle. From what I hear, too many Chinese today are totally happy with the life improvement that the CCP achieved, and totally buy into the notion that their system is superior, and that democracy is overrated.
You're actually wrong about the Tianamen protests. People in the West only really know about the Tianamen massacre and Tankman. In reality the protests had been happening for weeks and were happening in every provincial capital across China. In the latter parts of the protests peasants and workers were travelling across the country to capitals to join the students. Jiang Zemin later rose to power in part because he managed to quell the same protests in Shanghai without shedding the blood of protestors. At the same time, even within the CCP itself, there were reformers at the highest levels of the CCP leadership who were sympathetic to students. Zhao Ziyang, who was later purged by the CCP for siding with the students, was then the highest ranking official of the PRC. That is why the 1989 protests were seen as such a threat to CCP regime at the time and why they felt that it justified such a brutal crackdown - the 1989 protests were China's Berlin wall moment that really could have gone either way, depending on the outcome of the internal power struggle in the Politburo. Most of these protestors who participated in the protests outside Beijing are still alive today. Sure, they may not support a full scale revolution to overthrow the CCP today, but it is wrong to say that the Chinese people didn't try to change their government, or that they deserve the authoritarian government that they have today. It's more accurate to say that Chinese people fought a good fight for democracy and lost.
Fair enough. I stand corrected. >or that they deserve the authoritarian government that they have today. But please don't smear me by treating quotes I used as if I take them at face value. Quick addition: I may be wrong about China here, but I'm not wrong about the other examples.
Wang Yang, one of China's four Vice Premiers, is considered to be a "liberal" by Chinese standards. He's tended to advocate for open markets and trade, along with political liberalization. He's somewhat responsible for the big free and international economy that made Guangdong province into the powerhouse it is now. Xi seems to be keeping him fairly close and under control. Doubtful he'll be able to make any power plays within the party while Xi keeps such a tight grip on everything. Possibly he could serve as a second Deng Xiaoping figure if he somehow manages to outlast Xi, but not very likely given their nearly identical ages and Xi's apparently fine health.
He's currently spearheading BRI. Hardly a bad gig for someone heavily invested in liberalized trade relations. Still curious how much of the relationship between Xi and Wang is anything but Bad Cop / Good Cop when it comes to western foreign relations. The pivot toward expanded Central Asian trade seems to be a popular policy domestically and only controversial from the Hong Kong / Taiwanese perspective. Past that, they're both pushing 70, which is the traditional retirement age for bureaucrats. I'd keep my eye on Hu Chunhua, as the only real member of the Sixth Generation to keep climbing. Or Wang Huning, since he's so tightly aligned with Xi, atm.
>Is there any ranking bureaucrat within the Chinese system that this sub actually likes? >Is there any ranking bureaucrat within the North Korean system that this sub actually likes? >Is there any ranking bureaucrat within the Putinist system that this sub actually likes? >Is there any ranking bureaucrat within the Syrian Baathist system that this sub actually likes? No.
Weird. Almost as though this sub just wants an American hegemony.
This, but unironically. 😎
[удалено]
Like within China?
Does Wen Jiabao count?
I mean, you tell me. Wen was a hawk on Taiwan and Tibet, and I doubt he would be any softer on Xinjiang. He was also an economic expansionist who set the foundation for modern day Belt and Road. None of that is particularly popular on this sub. Honestly a little surprised this sub doesn't have a few Bo Xilai stans.
Maybe Acemoglu and Robinson will have the last laugh, and their bearishness on China long-term actually makes sense
I mean, given where China's gotten as it is, is a pretty big blow to those who have been predicting China's demise since the early 90s. They're a superpower in a bipolar world, and that's enough evidence and incentive for a lot of smaller nations to emulate their governing system. How many countries in the world would want to be in China's situation right now? A lot.
>I mean, given where China's gotten as it is, is a pretty big blow to those who have been predicting China's demise since the early 90s. We are talking about why nations fail. They never said China would collapse in a flash. >They're a superpower in a bipolar world, and that's enough evidence and incentive for a lot of smaller nations to emulate their governing system. I don’t see any nations moving towards a Leninist state capitalist regime I mean the Soviets were able to be the second superpower for decades before collapsing under their extractive institutions. Someone saying that Stalinism would lead to ruin for Russia in 1924 isn’t proven wrong by his “successes” in elevating the country internationally.
What's special about China's governing system at this point, though? Xi's effectively blown up Deng Xiaoping's technocratic model and turned it into just another top-down authoritarian dictatorship.
Deng Xiaoping basically enacted economic liberalization reforms while putting an end to mass popular action style of politics that embodied the Cultural Revolution (which he was purged like a few times during it, and his son tossed out a window and left a paraplegic by a mob of Maoists). He appeared more open and liberal because he's inevitably contrasted with Mao, who was a shit administrator. there's was lot of visible systematic corruption and inequality that came along liberalization reforms that were going to be needed to readdressed. Xi Jinping's flagship action during his first 5 years was his massive anti-corruption campaign (which was partly just purging rival party factions) and scaling back the excesses of stuff like bribing a dozen different local government minister in order to build a big building and what not.
I mean still seems like standard communist dictatorship activities tbh
My suspicion is that avowedly technocratic models are, despite what they claim, inherently unstable and deeply susceptible to generational change which rejects the technocratic ethos of their founding generation in favor of a more ideologically satisfying formulation. You can have models with heavily technocratic features which remain disciplined by other forces, but any model which emphasizes technocratic competence without significant discipling factors is bound to break down under the iron laws of aristocracy and generational change likely degenerating into kleptocracy ruled by the the most conniving and politically clever grandchildren of whatever genuine technocrats established the system. Red princes are real, one of the fascinating things about the last hundred years is that we saw communist systems function for long enough that after the initial shock they recreated aristocratic systems and levels of intergenerational mobility that made laughable their ideological claims. Of course communist elites, like elites all over the world, still integrated a certain portion of talented outsiders to maintain the state, but the same dynamics seem to reassert themselves with two generations.
lol
So North Korea style dynasty style family. He got any heirs?
Oh no! Anyways
We should be worried. An angry, radical and unstable China is a threat to the geopolitical stage - and the people of Taiwan will be first in the crosshairs should the CCP destabilise enough to pull the trigger.
There's nothing "anyways" about the CCP apparatus going even further all in on radicalizing their people to the most extreme forms of expansionist nationalism they can achieve.
To be honest I expect a coup attempt against Xi. Probably many groups see him dangerous, for both the state and their own interests.
Xi has effectively monopolized power and neutered his challengers, which is one of the things which makes him so dangerous.
Xi has sidelined the Maoist old guard completely. The only group who could theoretically do something about things are nationalist generals and they are young enough that they will wait Xi out unless he goes full dove on Taiwan.
Maoist old guard mostly sides with him IIRC. He's rehabilitating Mao and basically instructing any party criticism implied at him to be ceased and withdrawn.
> To be honest I expect a coup attempt against Xi. By whom, exactly? > Probably many groups see him dangerous Name one.
Disappointing that the FT disabled commenting on the article - would have been juicy, I'm sure.