Xi does not want power for himself. Xi wants power to remain in the hands of the party and CPC is laying the foundation of governance model for a robust state in the 21st century that also (TBD) does not inhibit economic and technological development. It is reasonable to argue against that goal (statist socialism) but imho superficial to frame this as yet another power grab by an individual. He is simply the tip of a consensus block in CPC. Historically, Xi represents the ‘adjustment of CPC to global conditions while maintaining continuity of the party’ post Nixon era re-engagement and re-evaluations.

If Xi did not want power for himself he would not have removed the two-term limit to keep himself in power for life.

General Secretary of the CCP(no term limit) is the top leader, The president of the PRC is the ceremonial head of state of the PRC, So the president's two-term limit removed in 2018 is not important, just like the Queen of England(ceremonial head of state) has not term limit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_People%27s_Re...

Because Communist countries tend to have very messy transfers of power, if not through continuity or annointment of a new leader by the old?

And by messy I mean armed forces involvement and/or bodies in the streets.

China has had a decent track record, they are well organized. If Xi truly believed in China, then he would make it a priority to facilitate a smooth transition of power, and to enable the leader after their ascension. I really don't think this is much of an excuse for him.

The story is really simple - CCP wants to forbid any private control of information, that's it. It's not a new concept.

The Deng -> Zhao -> Jiang -> Hu years weren't very clean, and did have military involvement and civilian deaths.

You're right, I should have merely indicated the leader, not the individual, that's fair.

It's unlikely that anyone really knows what Xi wants. The narrative that 'he just wants what's best for China' plays directly into his potential megalomania, at the same time, I don't doubt that there is some truth to this as well. Nations can benefit from long-lived leaders.

That said, the whole thing does not look good. Actions further suppressing the spread of basic information are not going to be good for China in the long run. And Xi probably is just another kind of dictator, we have a very long run of world history that gives us innumerable examples. One thing he could have done when extending his term limits, was signal when he would leave, and making sure that the 'new rules' are just and equitable with respect to future leaders.

> what Xi wants

Highest priority: to stay in power. That China is his (he get to be the dictator) for all of his life.

Possibly thereafter: Make China stronger, economically, military, land area.

Destroying independent press damages and weakens China, but that's ok because a strong China is only 2nd priority for Xi (and his closest men I suppose).

Do you think people in China don't know how to use VPNs and find information on the broader Internet? They do. It seems like you may be the one living in a bubble.

Of course they do. Do you think the Chinese government can't figure out what you access via a VPN?

I find it hard to be confident that the US Security Apparatus couldn't figure out what I access via VPN if they chose to.

I'm not sure whether the US or the CCP would be more able to block all VPNs, but I have the feeling the answer is the latter (for legal, rather than technical reasons).

US has no technical ability to block mass numbers of connections on a selective basis. That's a 'scale' ability they don't have anything close to. I mean, possibly on some algorithmic basis, but there's no agency with the manpower to do that.

Crude operations to shut down certain parts of the web, yes. Ability to monitor individuals, yes.

But the only entity on earth that can do surveillance at scale is China. They've invented that in the modern sense.

Makes sense, I'd hate to be targeted by either but am thankfully of little importance.

Maybe, but do you have any evidence that people are punished for using VPNs to view information that is officially banned on the Chinese Internet? Or is that just a personal fantasy

A VPN will get you a few research papers, and some insight into the world outside, but it won't change common attitudes within the country, which will be shaped by a controlled information system.

Having a 'hole' in the information firewall can be useful for some things, but it's still a marginal effect.

Most of the population won't have any use for it - they'll have no reason to question what's in the mainstream.

When Xi bans any negative mention of him, or any mention at all of taboos subjects i.e. Tiananmen, or any material discussion at all of sensitive issues like Taiwan, Uyghurs or Tibet, Hong Kong, anywhere, at any time - then he'll effectively convince the general population of his will on the subject.

The population will ,by and large, believe what he wants them to believe, most people wouldn't consider dissent on the issue because there would be no point.

There are some people within every population that will chose to 'look outside' and 'seek unpopular truths' - but the mainstream population will take care of suppressing them.

Xi could do anything he wants to the Uyghurs, he could subsequently justify it in the press irrespective of how truthful that information was, and the general public would be fine with it. The small number of dissenters would have no means to disagree.

When you combine information control with the fact that there's a lack of any right to organize or assemble, then you have total control. FYI - this is why 'freedom of assembly' is a primary right in all modern constitutions, it's mostly a means of organizing around information.

Finally, it would be incredibly naive to not grasp the implications of this regulatory movement which further entrenches total government control of information, without any oversight whatsoever.

Just a comment on the following:

> Taiwan, Uyghurs or Tibet, Hong Kong

These are not the types of issues that most Chinese people are upset about, when it comes to their government. These are the types of issues that play well to audiences outside of China.

There's a massive disconnect here. Most controversies, cultural trends, fads, etc. in China receive almost no coverage outside of China, not because it's intrinsically difficult to find out about them (all you need is an internet connection and Chinese language skills), but because the foreign media tends to focus almost exclusively on the types of issues you listed. The vast majority of people outside China simply have no idea what's going on in the country.

This isn't to excuse the lack of independent media in China, but just to point out that the foreign media is also doing the public a massive disservice on this count.

Thanks - but this is mostly my point - though I don't agree with your conclusion.

People within a 'closed system' (i.e. China) are going to have a view of an internal issue that the government wants them to have.

"There's nothing big happening here, just 'ABC' because 'XYZ', the Westerners a bit upset about it but that's their colonialist view, they should mind their own business"

So they justify their actions, don't allow debate, suppress the language of rhetoric, distract and use the 'foreigner' straw man, and make petty villains out of anyone challenging the authority.

That 'people don't care' is the result of that control.

The same thing is true in Russia. Putin has journalist and political opponents killed, and he's totally corrupt. And yet, he has an 80% approval rating.

If you can control the press and the narrative, you can convince people that your actions 'were necessary for the promulgation of the state', the plebes won't be able to make an informed consensus as to any situation.

Likewise, Russians seem to have an indifference to a lot of state corruption.

So I don't agree that 'The West' is doing a 'big disservice' by talking about issues that the average Chinese doesn't care about, or by highlighting how corrupt and murderous Putin is.

The whole point of the exercise is to contemplate that 'rights' are a material part of the equation - and, ironically - probably going to make them much wealthier in the long run anyhow. Hong Kong and Taiwan are considerably more wealthy on a per-capita basis, at least largely because they don't live under the sane ultra authoritarian system.

The Tiananmen protests were a very powerful and visceral display of where the power really lies in China, and the true consequences of challenging that power. It's an important bit of history.

Finally, we're all victims of this to some extent, western press has a number of potent institutional biases, and now we have the problem of completely fabricated news, which is another thing altogether.

The reason why most Chinese people care about completely different issues is not because they are uninformed. The average person in Chinese is much better informed about China and its domestic issues (including Tiananmen) than most people outside of China. After all, they actually live in the country and experience it every day. Many people personally lived through the events of Tiananmen, or know people who did. But frankly, after 30 years of massive societal change and (for people in the developed world unimaginable) improvements in living conditions, it isn't on the top of people's minds. There are other issues - issues that are rarely covered in the foreign press - that are much more pressing.

I find that many Westerners believe that because they can read the New York Times or Washington Post, they know more about what's going on in China than people in China do. The problem is that those newspapers only cover a tiny sliver of what goes on in China, and they focus almost exclusively on a small set of negative stories (and very often, this reporting is extremely inaccurate, partial or exaggerated). Imagine if you didn't speak English and had never been to the US, and all you ever read about the US was how terribly prisoners are treated and all the wars it fights around the world. You would have an incredibly skewed picture of the country.

What do people actually care about? Things like the corrupt local officials who may be colluding with property developers (and consequently, the ongoing anti-corruption campaign is very popular), or the rat race to get ahead in an ultra-competitive society.

> Hong Kong and Taiwan are considerably more wealthy on a per-capita basis, at least largely because they don't live under the sane ultra authoritarian system.

The gap between the more developed parts of the mainland and Taiwan is rapidly closing, and is not that large any more. Beijing and Shanghai are not far behind Taipei, and may catch up in the next few years. Hong Kong, on the other hand, is considerably wealthier than either Taiwan or mainland China.

I just think that most of the Western press does a terrible job of covering China, and is actually significantly misinforming its audience in this regard. The quality standards for China coverage are just incredibly low (and because the audience is mostly uninformed on the topic, they mostly can't tell), and the geopolitical rivalry seems to color and shape the reporting to a huge extent.

> Imagine if you didn't speak English and had never been to the US, and all you ever read about the US was how terribly prisoners are treated and all the wars it fights around the world. You would have an incredibly skewed picture of the country.

So in other words... literally people all over the world, not in the US. Because that's exactly what happens in China, hell even in Europe where they speak English...

English is much more widely spoken (as a second language) around the world than Chinese, and people are exposed to plenty of positive media about the US (e.g., Hollywood movies, TV shows). Even in China, people are exposed to a ton of positive media about the US. Until Trump, I would even say the US was widely admired within China.

> Most of the population won't have any use for it - they'll have no reason to question what's in the mainstream.

Exactly. The point of information control in closed society is not to avoid the exposure of particular events, but to suppress entire lines of thought.

F.ex. How would you begin a conversation with a North Korean about democracy?

Their very concept of the idea, inasmuch as they are likely aware of it at all, is alien to your concept.

Which means that conversation has to start all the way underneath, at the underpinnings and philosophical bases of democracy. Which is a much more difficult and lengthy conversation.

Which is the entire point, because most people won't make the effort. Anymore so than the average American is capable of and interested in learning enough to have a nuanced conversation on the differences between Soviet and Chinese communism.

> Most of the population won't have any use for it - they'll have no reason to question what's in the mainstream.

> […]

> The population will ,by and large, believe what he wants them to believe, most people wouldn't consider dissent on the issue because there would be no point.

> There are some people within every population that will chose to 'look outside' and 'seek unpopular truths' - but the mainstream population will take care of suppressing them.

The more effective approach by far is to condition people from childhood into believing that the ability to select from one of a few impotent political identities, all of which lead to the slightest variations of policy conclusions within the field of pre-determined acceptability, represents the universal best possible form of governance and the purest instantiation of such high-minded ideals as Freedom, Liberty, and Justice.

This way you can mollify a population into accepting almost anything as normal: endless wars, hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths, lifelong debt, a constant struggle to afford housing, education, and medical care, etc. You can convince them at will that any rival is a tyrannical regime under a capricious, childish, genocidal maniac, and that any evidence to the contrary should be dismissed with self-satisfied smugness as coerced or compensated state propaganda.