Re:Dealing with China Isn’t Worth the Moral Cost
by gaukes on Wednesday October 09, 2019 @11:02PM
(#21210428)
Good points made above. Out of curiosity, is there a route to a return of rotating leaders without a voluntary abdication by Xi?
Re:Dealing with China Isn’t Worth the Moral Cost
by JumpCrisscross on Wednesday October 09, 2019 @11:06PM
(#21210448)
> is there a route to a return of rotating leaders without a voluntary abdication by Xi?
History has limited examples of such peaceful (i.e. no civil war) transitions of power. (Most are from the modern era.)
My guess is the CCP’s senior guard would need to orchestrate his “illness.” But Xi has done a good job of purging the Politburo of able competition.
If I were giving this question serious study, I’d look at the PLA.
Re:Dealing with China Isn’t Worth the Moral Cost
by mortenjorck on Wednesday October 09, 2019 @11:49PM
(#21210708)
There has to be a faction within the Politburo, or at least within the Central Committee, that is becoming increasingly skeptical of Xi’s hardline policies, even if all those with pre-existing loyalties were politically purged before. I suppose the question is whether they all find themselves suddenly facing corruption charges one day before they have a chance to consolidate any power.
Re:Dealing with China Isn’t Worth the Moral Cost
by mc32 on Wednesday October 09, 2019 @11:11PM
(#21210480)
I’m not sure he’s up to the level of Stalin, but he’s sure purged many of those whom he thought might threaten his standing —most under rather made up circumstances like corruption, where you know, everyone is corrupt, but they all play the game, except if you’re out, then of course, you’re denounced, striped of property, put in jail, or worse, depending. It’s so reminiscent of soviet politicking.
Re:Dealing with China Isn’t Worth the Moral Cost
by mooreds on Wednesday October 09, 2019 @11:29PM
(#21210606)
Last good example in China was Mao, who basically had to die to lose power.
Re:Dealing with China Isn’t Worth the Moral Cost
by youthfulbacon on Thursday October 10, 2019 @12:48AM
(#21211004)
I was under the impression that Deng Xiaoping had similar levels of influence and power during his first 10 years in power and that he stepped down due to a weakened influence following Tiananmen.
China is a dictatorship, Xi a leader for life. That dramatically changed Beijing's political profile.
Pre-Xi, one could argue China had long-term planning capacities. The rotation of leaders and intraparty competition limited corruption and promoted political fitness. Dictatorships have neither. They're cronyist, corrupt and focussed on short-term political survival.
A strategic China would have waited until 2050 to deal with Hong Kong. Instead, Xi got insecure about Winnie the Pooh or whatever. A strategic China would have slowly accumulated technology, capital and soft power. Instead, they're pivoting into a wall.
> On the one hand I think the CCP bought a dud with Chairman Xi. But maybe that’s good for the rest of us.
In the short term, sure. In the medium term, it's a security nightmare. In the long term, we're going to watch billions of peoples' humanity and productivity get squandered. That's a loss to everyone.