Rise of the conservatives - Making sense of the current political climate in China - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues in the People's Republic of China.

Moderator: PoFo Asia & Australasia Mods

Forum rules: No one-line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum moderated in English, so please post in English only. Thank you.
#14708622
As I try to follow politics in China, I went from highly supportive to Xi’s leadership – to highly disappointed (As explained in my previous thread). But as I try to make sense of what’s happening within high leadership, it became clear to me that, as a “liberal minded” person I can only make peace and wait it out.

Keep in mind that since China’s politics is completely blocked from outside, much of what I discuss here are purely deductions from my observations. Bear with me the exceptionally long article.

Follow my journey in the past two years:
Xi Jinping started his term as leader of our nation by launching the most successful anti-corruption campaign in the history of modern China – he destroyed a number of his top opponents, solidified his power while actually managed to clean up lots of corrupt officials. Regardless of what you think his motives are, the change in atmosphere is undeniable - two birds with one stone! That won him lots of popular support, and with the newly consolidated power, he announced the “One belt one road”, “Industry 4.0” and “Internet+” initiatives. He encouraged investments into science and research, environmental protection, the media industry and Chinese local brands. He reversed lots of GDP-led government policies left by previous governments. I can go on to explain why I think all these initiatives are vital to China’s economic future some other day, but let’s leave it here for now. All in all, things look okay and nationalism soared.

But at the same time, leadership also turned more and more intrusive. Severe limits have been placed on entertainment, news and social media. Executive orders to shut down a particular TV show came every other month – no cleavage on TV, no divorce and pre-marital sex, no this no that, one would think we are living in Iran. The party propaganda machine now penetrates social media as well, shutting down any opinion except the nationalists. In my hometown Hong Kong, political climate has also gotten completely toxic, as Beijing demands complete obedience from HK government and pro-establishment parties, the young and disgruntled joins the opposition and pushes for further and further extremism. But the worst came with China’s recent actions in South China Sea. Regardless of who you think those islands belong to, it seems to me that these actions are completely at odds with Xi’s own diplomatic goals, destroying what’s left of China’s image and any hope of joint Eurasian development / Asian unity.

What’s wrong with China?
So what happened? To understand the Chinese leadership you need to first answer this question – “What’s needs to be fixed with 21st century China?” I am sure every man’s a critic - but outside China, mainstream opinion goes something like this:
“Pollution, rampant corruption, no respect to intellectual property, repression to freedoms, occupation of Uighur, Tibet and South China Sea”

Within China, however, “mainstream” opinion is very different. The answer goes:
“Pollution, rampant corruption, no respect to intellectual property, corruption of social virtual, too much negativity and depravity in media, not being respected by other countries”

You might notice while we share a number of viewpoints, the biggest difference with the liberal world (e.g. “The west”, Hong Kong, Taiwan, parts of South East Asia, etc) vs China, is that in the liberal world, government is considered only to be a custodian of public services. China, on the other hand, is a collective society, where government’s responsibility is to guide the nation and enforce social values accepted by the majority. We call it “Tyranny of the masses” in liberal dictionary.

Democratic China, finally!
Therefore, in a very weird sense, Xi’s government is the most democratic government ever graced our nation, that if we were to hold election, a person like him will be elected.

I can see that you are now shaking your head in disbelief, so let me explain it further:

If you are reading this long and tedious English language article, you are very likely a foreigner or English speaking Chinese, my intended audience. Chinese people that you know likely has more exposure to foreign culture and liberal viewpoints - people like myself. I dislike having my favorite TV shows censored, I am completely dumbstruck as China and Hong Kong went at each other’s throats, and I sneer at excessive displays of nationalism.

In short, I am part of the liberal urban middle class.

In the past 20 years, things were a bit like this: While our government censor you for speaking out against them (Or jail you if you are really irritating), they don’t give a damn about anything else. Everybody is encouraged to get rich and do whatever you want as long as you don’t touch politics, because getting rich is just glorious. In an environment like this, the “liberal urban bourgeois” thrive. We watch Japanese cartoons and Hollywood movies, and the rich ones send their kids to receive foreign education, drive German cars and drink French wine. We sneer at government media mouthpieces and “western liberal narrative” wins no matter what kind of toxic bile they are spewing over China, because being western is just so much cooler. On the foreign policy side, the Chinese government was pretty docile. We could get our Libyan embassy bombed or people massacred in Malaysia, but the Chinese government seldom does anything more than strongly worded condemnation.

At the same time, corruption soars. Income inequality, pollution and a massive array of social problems came shortly after. But for most Chinese bourgeoisie, life’s okay – we will complain, but at the end of the day economic opportunities are plenty and these problems are far removed from our daily lives.

The repressed majority
More and more, I hear these complains from old uncles and grannies: “Chinese people these days have no morals, look at all those crap on TV! In the past we…”, “It’s an American/Japanese conspiracy, we should strike back, our government is so weak…”, “We should promote Chinese traditions, because foreign culture is depraved!”

While my liberal mind habitually dismisses these comments as utter nonsense, what I didn’t realize is that they represent the heart of China’s social conservatives - and they are actually the under-represented majority. People in 2nd/3rd tier cities, suburban towns, rural areas, older people – they are numerous and have very strong views on our country, but they never found their voice in the past decade - Xi Jinping is that voice.

Xi’s game: an analogy
Consider this scenario where China is a corporation. 30 years ago, when we finally ended all major wars and the disastrous cultural revolution, China.co one day found itself looking at a huge blue ocean market free for the taking, and nothing to stop it. The entrepenual Chinese people took full advantage of it - salespeople (aka. City governments, corporates - the haute bourgeois) is busy signing deals every day, and business soared. Naturally, a sales minded CEO is selected by the board, and he took a laisser-faire approach: the guys who bring in most sales (GDP) is rewarded, occasion missteps are overlooked. Unsupervised salespeople then starts to make under table deals, overstep on each other’s boundaries, overpromise on customer delivery, and line their own pockets. But business is good and the CEO doesn’t care. In fact, this mess is not a bad thing, as long as it keeps the guys motivated – in a blue ocean market, speed + aggression is the essence, and greed is the strongest motivator. We call this period “the wild growth”, a term frequently coined to describe this very common phase in our private sector.

But then problems begin to accumulate. Salespeople eat into each other’s territory, customer service is horrible, and company reputation suffers. As more competitors enter our market, China.co needs to transform its business, and the board took on a new CEO, Mr. Xi. Mr. Xi is faced with a big challenge at his hands, but the first thing he needs to do is to bring discipline to all these salespeople running amok. He did it by giving the legal and compliance department lots of power, who started putting an avalanche of regulations in place. A number of department heads protests, all removed by corruption charges and then replaced by Xi’s own people. All that is good for a start - but the real challenge remains - how can we transform this massive business, and find that next blue ocean? Our new CEO has a few good ideas, but like any reformers in human history, he will need access to incredible political power, and for mr.Xi, the only place he can get this power is from popular support.

So who, in China Co. will support him? Simple – the proletariats – who are incredibly conservative, who suffered most from the previous policies. But once you tap into this power, you will need to abide to its views, even if some of it is going against your own policies. China started throwing a nationalist fit, leaving the world completely bewildered.

What’s in store for the future?
As a depraved western aligned liberal living in China, the latest push to conservatism and nationalism is uncomfortable to say the least – and it is likely to continue for the next few years. But I am willing to bet the urban bourgeois class is at least as uncomfortable as I am. Most of us don’t realize what’s happening just yet, but eventually there will be pushbacks. This economy is new to everyone, and China is effectively going through a painful adjustment period – what happens now is simply an over-correction to what happened in the past decade.

The pendulum will swing back - until then - hide your strength, bide your time…
#14708827
Very enlightening post, it sure helps clarify where you're coming from. Good to see you're not blind to the creeping rightism. Your attitude of critical support is pretty much reasonable.

Ultimately China faces structural contradictions it can't escape. Export-driven state capitalism is subject to the crises of the global economy, and the world market is a hollow financial sham that's starting to come apart at the seams. Global capitalism is going to face its final collapse somewhere within a decade, when financial bubbles much larger than the productive economy pop.

China's state capitalist development has been a resounding success, but it will soon come a point where clinging to capitalism will become destructive to the productive forces. Unfortunately the CPC leadership is too bourgeois and too conservative to take the construction of socialism seriously. I'm not sure a rightist leadership will be able or willing to turn left at the right time.

TLDR version: China needs more democracy and more socialism, I worry that it's getting less and less of either.
Last edited by KlassWar on 09 Aug 2016 15:35, edited 1 time in total.
#14708831
It's the same phenomenon as in Russia, is my guess. When leftists/communists get their way, they bottom out their own fertility and then only more conservative people are left. I expect the same phenomenon to happen in the west but it takes a lot longer because western liberalism is not as extreme as communism and they supplant their population with minorities. But in 2-3 more generations, non-conservative white people will probably be extinct.
#14712849
KlassWar wrote:China's state capitalist development has been a resounding success, but it will soon come a point where clinging to capitalism will become destructive to the productive forces. Unfortunately the CPC leadership is too bourgeois and too conservative to take the construction of socialism seriously. I'm not sure a rightist leadership will be able or willing to turn left at the right time.

TLDR version: China needs more democracy and more socialism, I worry that it's getting less and less of either.

Indeed - however I remain confident that the Chinese people as a whole, still has enough political will and flexibility to do what's necessiary, as we have done a couple times in the past century. We can swing to the far left, we can go full capitalist and we can swing to the far right whever the universe calls - because all in all, we are not an idealistic people and we always return to the mundane as soon as allowed. As insane as we look now, that pendulum will swing back once the conservatives run out of steam.
In fact I am already seeing budding resistance from sacarstic young liberals, and that Beijing is attempting a less heavy handed approach to Hong Kong (Although that might be too late)
My only hope is that our people will grow more mature after these events.
#14712853
Just quickly because I'm working ... will get back to this at a later date.

Therefore, in a very weird sense, Xi’s government is the most democratic government ever graced our nation, that if we were to hold election, a person like him will be elected.


I once talked to 89 student dissident Wang Dan and I asked him if there were to be national governmental elections would a majority of people vote for the CCP (CPC)? He said that initially there may well be the sentiment to embrace a whole new non-CCP era, but if the CCP stayed in the game, in the next election people may well gravitate back in their direction. He also said that, no doubt, the majority of the political candidates in any potential open election would actually be ex-CCP people.
#14712859
I once talked to 89 student dissident Wang Dan and I asked him if there were to be national governmental elections would a majority of people vote for the CCP (CPC)? He said that initially there may well be the sentiment to embrace a whole new non-CCP era, but if the CCP stayed in the game, in the next election people may well gravitate back in their direction. He also said that, no doubt, the majority of the political candidates in any potential open election would actually be ex-CCP people.

In other words, pretty much the same situation which occurred in post-Soviet Russia. The ex-nomenklatura became ruthless capitalist oligarchs who looted the country and rigged elections until they had almost driven the country into the ground. Then once they had sufficiently weakened themselves and the nation with infighting and pillaging of the national economy, Putin stepped in, rehabilitated the Soviet era in the minds of the Russian public (not difficult to do after the mayhem of the 1990s), restored the Soviet national anthem, and constructed something resembling the Soviet Union Lite. Liberalism is now synonymous with treason in the minds of most Russians, and with good reason. For a Russian to say, "I am a liberal" is like saying, "I am a traitor to my country". The Russian people will not quickly forget the treason, criminality and corruption of the 1990s, when the Russian nation was sold out to its enemies in the name of "liberalism" and "freedom". Do the Chinese people wish to learn the same hard lesson?
#14712867
They are afraid because they know Taiwan is the best China. If the PRC let Taiwanese run in the mainland they would win in landslide. Don't believe the polling it is skewed because they can't read traditional Chinese!!

But seriously, democracy doesn't go against the infrastructure. It just kind of pretends to. So if everyone who has connections, power, money was with the previous era of leadership, the same people will be in the next era. This even happened in Cambodia despite the communists killing so many people.
#14712868
@benpenguin, China is neither liberal nor conservative, China is nationalist!

It was Deng who started to modernize the country, not Xi. The decisions for measures against environmental damage, for investment in innovation, etc., all predate Xi. China is still a corrupt country and every campaign against corruption by a new leader simply means replacing one set of corrupt officials with another set of corrupt officials. Even if you don't see it now, it's just a power game. It's got nothing to do with the fight against corruption. Corruption can only be rooted out by transparent government and the checks and balances of democratic government, i.e. the very thing China cannot do.

Back in the 1970s, one widespread view in the West was that China cannot modernize technically/industrially as long as it does not liberalize politically. This view has been partly proven wrong by China's economic development; however, it is probably still true that China can only modernize up to a certain point without political liberalization. I think it is quite possible that Chinese technological/economic development will hit a ceiling at which China will start to stagnate in the future.

As to the desirability of cultural/social/political liberalization in China, I don't really know. I think the Chinese don't care as long a the government continues to provide the goods (ie. economic growth). As for the rest of the World, an economically strong China turning into a bully is not desirable. But China falling apart under democratic rule may also not be desirable.
#14712890
Hong Wu wrote:If the PRC let Taiwanese run in the mainland they would win in landslide.

Ah, and that's where the world outside China is wrong - mainlanders think very, very differently, and my post here is trying very hard to explain the world through their eyes (especially the conservatives). I'd say 80% of mainlanders are very feverent nationalists, and desire stability above all else, easily at the expense of their own (and others') liberty. The occasional petty quabble of the Taiwanese government alone is enough to discredit the candidate.
Don't get me wrong, I would have preferred to live in Taiwan over mainland any day. I happen to go to both places very frequently on business trips, and I am from Hong Kong, the most rabid anti-China front in the world right now.

Atlantis wrote:China is neither liberal nor conservative, China is nationalist!

I was trying to find the right label for social conservative + nationalist + isolationist... Donald Trumpist? :D Also I was talking about different prevailent positions amongst all Chinese, not just the party itself. Even the party is not united anyway, no matter how hard they pretend.
Atlantis wrote:It was Deng who started to modernize the country, not Xi.
Never said that :eh: Where did you deduce that from?
Atlantis wrote:It's got nothing to do with the fight against corruption.
But you have again reached this conclusion based on assumptions of all powerful democracy only... Consider this: Luxury good sales dropped dramatically and has never recovered. Officials are not allowed to send families overseas or they will be removed from power. Candidates to government exams dropped dramatically. Dongguan the sex city is shut down, the protective umbrella rooted out, and any attempts for a new one is hunted down. Corrupt officials are still dropping like flies as we speak, and many are now much more hesitant to receive bribes (I work in IT channel sales, all my partners tell me the same story). This has gone on for a year and still has no sign of letting up. Ask any mainland Chinese and they will tell you this same story. Xi's anti-corruption campaign is about BOTH rooting out corruption and dealing with rivals, why can't anybody get that? :lol:

Look, guys. I know that China at this date is annoying as fuck. I am simply analysing why, instead of going with the usual "They are facist evil cartoon commie dictators who wants to retain power and eat babies" kind of CNN trope.
#14712931
@benpenguin, you were trying to portrait Xi as the great reformer. I'm telling you that it was Deng who started the reform process and that Xi is only continuing the policies already under way.

Corruption is not limited to spending on luxury items and humans are very inventive in finding ways of granting privileges. That will invariably result in corruption in any country without sufficient transparency and checks and balances. And since the CCP cannot have its monopoly on power questioned, there is no way China can introduce sufficient transparency and checks and balances.

Corruption doesn't have to be bad. All traditional societies use cronyism as the glue to hold society together and bribery as the fuel to keep the economy going. It's just when the economy reaches a certain level of development that corruption is detrimental to the domestic economy, for example, in the Philippines and other countries in the 3rd world, where corruption sucks the blood out of the national economy. So far, corruption in China has been beneficial in that the collusion of private entrepreneurs and officials resulted in the creation of strong Chinese corporations that conquered world markets, which in turn, benefited the Chinese economy. But this will change as China reaches the next stage of development. And since the monopoly on power of the CCP cannot be challenged, corruption is inbuilt.
#14713110
I don't think you fully understand what I am trying to position here.
- Xi is a reformer yes, but nowhere "great". He is a completely different type of reformer with Deng. Deng opens, he restricts, as the people (Who are very conservative) demands - just that I think "the people" are crazy and should not be listened to.
- I believe the strategy at first is okay, but it soon gets hijacked by nationalism and conservatism. There are also elements where Xi himself has too much lust for grandeur.
- I believe anti-corruption campaign is real, not just because he treated some of the symptoms, but also because this fits his personality for grandeur and control. But I will not dismiss the whole campaign outright - it will not "solve" corruption, but it is a good start.
- I don't see how democracy can solve corruption? As you said, people are very inventive, and many democratic countries are as corrupt, if not more, as China.
- The entire nation is looking for those reforms, and if not him, another person will do 70% of what he does. What he brought to the table is good execution, but also fanaticism.
- I share your views on corruption, but I wasn't saying it should be rooted out everywhere (read again my section about the corporation analogy). I simply think China has reached the state where she needs to rein it in, and she is doing just that.
#14713751
benpenguin wrote:- I don't see how democracy can solve corruption? As you said, people are very inventive, and many democratic countries are as corrupt, if not more, as China.


Free press is bad for corruption. E.g.: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 2701001864

As for democracy, does China have any experience on a local level?
#14713826
"Security demographics" has become a new subfield of Security Studies in recent years, as scholars have begun to envision the security implications of long-term demographic change. This subfield provides important new insight into the problem of population, social stability and conflict, but our research suggests that an additional demographic factor must be taken into account when assessing social stability and security of a state—that of sex ratios. What are the security implications for a population whose males, particularly those of the young adult population, significantly outnumber females? China and India, as well as several other Asian states, are currently undergoing various demographic transitions, one of the most important being the increasingly high sex ratios of young segments of these populations. We argue that internal instability is heightened in nations displaying the high level of exaggerated gender inequality indicated by high sex ratios, leading to an altered security calculus for the state. Possibilities of meaningful democracy and peaceful foreign policy are diminished as a result. The high sex ratios in China and India in particular have implications for the long-term security of these nations and the Asian region more broadly.
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/173530/summary


Boer (2004) argued that the surplus male population in Asia's largest countries such as China and India threatens domestic stability and international security. High male-to-female ratios often trigger domestic and international violence and most violent crime is committed by young unmarried males, who lack stable social bonds. The situation is quite different in Japan, where women outnumber men by 3,479,000, which may have something to do with the country's relatively low crime rates and pacifist foreign policy, while Chinese society is increasingly unstable with frequent riots caused by the surplus male population. Moreover, China has been creating seven new islets in the South China Sea by piling sand onto reefs, resulting in frequent military confrontations with its Asian neighbours.
#14713916
Rugoz wrote:Free press is bad for corruption. E.g.: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 2701001864
Well, China's press exposes much more corruption than others, though mostly state sanctioned so you may argue "it's all power struggle mate".
In the free world though - "free press" basically = "corporate press" who are usually in bed with the powerful anyway. I don't see which one's better tbh...
It comes down to whose hand you want to place that power at? Capitalists or Government? Choices, choices...
Rugoz wrote:As for democracy, does China have any experience on a local level?
Well, do those super corrupt village representative elections count? If so then yes.
ThirdTerm wrote:Boer (2004) argued that the surplus male population in Asia's largest countries such as China and India threatens domestic stability and international security.
That would be a factor to the rising machoism yes...Combined with the ever rising social conservativism (Government cracks down on porn, whoring and all forms of "depravity", with the people's approval ...) men have even less outlets to steam.
#14713941
benpenguin wrote:Well, China's press exposes much more corruption than others, though mostly state sanctioned so you may argue "it's all power struggle mate".
In the free world though - "free press" basically = "corporate press" who are usually in bed with the powerful anyway. I don't see which one's better tbh...
It comes down to whose hand you want to place that power at? Capitalists or Government? Choices, choices...


Yawn. Do we really have to lower ourselves to "simplistic pofo nonsense" level? Press freedom is measured along a variety of dimensions. Media independence is one of them, that includes independence from government, business and religious power.

Needless to say general statements such as "free press is bad for corruption" must not necessarily hold for individuals countries. Still, I don't see how more press freedom could be bad for China.

benpenguin wrote:Well, do those super corrupt village representative elections count? If so then yes.


You lost me here, I should probably read about it.
#14713953
Rugoz wrote:Yawn. Do we really have to lower ourselves to "simplistic pofo nonsense" level? Press freedom is measured along a variety of dimensions. Media independence is one of them, that includes independence from government, business and religious power.

Well I am honestly very interested to know. How does any press manage to stay free from the powerful, by the reporter's good soul? News outlets survive on income and readership - how can they ever get both without acting how they are now?
Honestly all western news I have read are full of toxic sensationalist bile with little value. (Though I must admit, much more readable than the toxic sensationalist bile from our Chinese state media) They have the power to cruxify politicians but they do so mostly out of political strife, strawmen beating and slogan yelling. Couldn't see any relationship with fighting corruption.
They did succeed in forcing the powerful to hide their corruption, but the Chinese state media did that as well.
Independent media seems to me a bit of a unicorn that doesn't exist outside Scandadavia the shining beacon of humanity, or am I just not paying enough attention? Would love to see some good examples.
#14713965
benpenguin wrote:Well I am honestly very interested to know. How does any press manage to stay free from the powerful, by the reporter's good soul? News outlets survive on income and readership - how can they ever get both without acting how they are now?


You know its funny how some people always dismiss the profit motive when it suits them. The press survives on readership and thus writes what their target audience wants to read. Like other companies, they will go bankrupt if they do not offer a desirable product. As with any other market, market concentration can be an issue. For example, launching an nation-wide TV channel is a big investment (my guess), so it's not easy to enter that market with a new product. Once the competition can be easily shut out corporate control becomes a problem.

benpenguin wrote:Honestly all western news I have read are full of toxic sensationalist bile with little value. (Though I must admit, much more readable than the toxic sensationalist bile from our Chinese state media) They have the power to cruxify politicians but they do so mostly out of political strife, strawmen beating and slogan yelling. Couldn't see any relationship with fighting corruption.


Press freedom doesn't say anything about the quality of the media per se. I would say the quality depends primarily on the people who consume the media. I think you read the wrong Western news outlets though, it's not that bad.
#14716631
benpenguin wrote:Well I am honestly very interested to know. How does any press manage to stay free from the powerful, by the reporter's good soul? News outlets survive on income and readership - how can they ever get both without acting how they are now?


Back in the good old days before neoliberalism political parties had their own newspapers, some mass organizations (usually big unions) had theirs, and small independent media run by intellectuals on ideological lines was relatively common, and they used to allow voters to be more or less reasonably informed. It went to shit when the neoliberals took power and sold out every chunk of civil society to the highest bidder, of course.

You are confusing phenotype and genotype. Yes,[…]

My take from this discussion is that @QatzelOk w[…]

Semafor. :lol: The Intercept :lol:

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

This is why they are committed to warmongering.[…]