China will scrap limit on presidential term, meaning Xi Jinping can stay on - Page 2 - 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.
#14891932
colliric wrote:
Classic lipservice.... Gave himself a 100 year timeframe. What a cunt.


The image of Indian democracy is at the forefront of most Chinese minds. Frankly, if Xi called elections tomorrow, he'd win easily, even in a completely fair and free vote. The CCP is genuinely popular across most of China, and will be as long as the economy continues to perform.

Here's the relevent text from the speech.

As socialism with Chinese characteristics has entered a new era, the principal contradiction facing Chinese society has evolved. What we now face is the contradiction between unbalanced and inadequate development and the people's ever-growing needs for a better life. China has seen the basic needs of over a billion people met, has basically made it possible for people to live decent lives, and will soon bring the building of a moderately prosperous society to a successful completion. The needs to be met for the people to live better lives are increasingly broad. Not only have their material and cultural needs grown; their demands for democracy, rule of law, fairness and justice, security, and a better environment are increasing.At the same time, China's overall productive forces have significantly improved and in many areas our production capacity leads the world. The more prominent problem is that our development is unbalanced and inadequate. This has become the main constraining factor in meeting the people's increasing needs for a better life.


He makes a few references to the New Era and that by 2050, the CCP should make strides to achieve it. They're aiming for the 100 year anniversary. This includes:

The Thought on Socialism with Chinese Characteristics for a New Era makes the following things clear:

 * It makes clear that the overarching goal of upholding and developing socialism with Chinese characteristics is to realize socialist modernization and national rejuvenation, and, that on the basis of finishing the building of a moderately prosperous society in all respects, a two-step approach should be taken to build China into a great modern socialist country that is prosperous, strong, democratic, culturally advanced, harmonious, and beautiful by the middle of the century.


Commitment to the organic unity of Party leadership, the running of the country by the people, and law-based governance is a natural element of socialist political advancement. We must keep to the path of socialist political advancement with Chinese characteristics; uphold and improve the system of people's congresses, the system of Party-led multiparty cooperation and political consultation, the system of regional ethnic autonomy, and the system of community-level self-governance; and consolidate and develop the broadest possible patriotic united front. We should develop socialist consultative democracy, improve our democratic institutions, diversify our forms of democracy, and establish more democratic channels. We must see to it that the principle of the people running the country is put into practice in China's political and social activities.


Full text of his speech is here, and this is the cornerstone of Xi Jingping Thought which is being put into the constitution. His speech mentions democracy almost a hundred times, explicitly. Yes, his consolidation of power has the potential for abuse, and I think, in general, institutions benefit from a separation of powers that Xi has absolutely eroded, but, Honestly, I don't think Xi is a bad leader, or acting in bad faith - at the very least, one has to concede, it could be much worse.
#14891933
Fasces wrote:That's absurd. By this definition, any pushback by the Hong Kong government is also anti-patriotic, because they're trying to preserve local power/sovereignty.


From that very same message I think you should have known better that I am an anti-patriotism person. IMHO it does more harm than good for China's case.

In general I think you are too trustful of the Chinese leadership, which their deeds in Hong Kong and Macau prove otherwise.

I don't call for immediate democracy for the whole of China. I call for a split because there are so many regional differences. At least achieve freedom at locations where they are capable (i.e. big cities, and not just Hong Kong. Shanghai, Guangzhou and other coastal regions are all capable).
#14891935
Patrickov wrote:In general I think you are too trustful of the Chinese leadership, which their deeds in Hong Kong and Macau prove otherwise.


I think their deeds in Hong Kong and Macau actually showed remarkable constraint. They abide by the terms set forth in the handover despite there being absolutely nothing anybody could do about it if in 1998 they decided to do otherwise. It's not like Hong Kong or the UK could have realistically tried to undo the transfer.
#14891936
Fasces wrote:I think their deeds in Hong Kong and Macau actually showed remarkable constraint. They abide by the terms set forth in the handover despite there being absolutely nothing anybody could do about it if in 1998 they decided to do otherwise. It's not like Hong Kong or the UK could have realistically tried to undo the transfer.


As a believer in force and balance, of course it's unrealistic to undo the transfer.

And yes they do things with immense constraint -- by their standard that is, but that doesn't help because it's their very agenda that we are against.
Last edited by Patrickov on 26 Feb 2018 06:54, edited 1 time in total.
#14891940
Fasces wrote:Not all Hong Kongers share your fetishization of the white race.


I see Godwin's law taking effect now.

The central point is: Chinese system is "rule by law" instead of "rule of law". It's corrupt and unsustainable. Now they wanna implement it in Hong Kong. Anybody trusting it would be harmed sooner or later.

Some of my thoughts (i.e. British do it better) are just extensions from observations of small details and it's totally okay that few (if any) agree with those.
#14891943
I agree with @Patrickov .

Rule by law means one group is protected by the law but not subject to it, while another group is subject to it but not protected by it. This can only result in oppression. In the long run there will be resentment and resistance. When the system encounters the inevitable down periods, it will fall.

Rule by law favours absolute leaders who can do very well in the short term. And we are seeing a fair bit of this around the world at present. But they tend to use their power to avoid adjustments in the economy because they don’t want to lose their aura of strength and also that their absolute power means they can. But avoiding adjustments builds up imbalances in the economy which can’t be avoided forever.

Xi Jinping has the problem that he has to make it look like the economy is going strong. But, since the economy is export dependant and world markets haven’t been that strong since the crisis in 2008, this is impossible to maintain. If we look at growth in energy use as an indicator of real economic strength, we see only 1.5% growth rather than the offical 6.5%. It seems there is some financial shuffling going on in order to maintain image.

Certainly China isn’t the only country doing this. One wonders to what extent the American economy is a house of cards. However, at least the Americans have the advantage that no one individual is wholly responsible and their leaders can be readily replaced by democratic means. If things go pear shaped for Xi Jinping, the Mandate of Heaven will bring him down.

Rule of law and democracy might seem inefficient at present but the result is long term stability and avoidance of oppression.
#14892005
Igor Antunov wrote:That makes no sense.

Image


Having a high IQ doesn't necessarily mean they can take care of their own rear ends. A good system means even when idiots are in charge they can do no significant harm. In fact an old Chinese saying suggests that intelligent but wicked people bring more misery and tragedy than idiots.

In some sense China is too intelligent instead of too stupid, if you insist.
#14892767
Igor Antunov wrote:It is not by accident that High-IQ societies (not limited to leadership), even after immense ruin and destruction caused by psychotic leadership, quickly recover (see France, Germany, Japan, China, Russia) and retain their great power trappings.

Not so for low-IQ societies. They stay lame or middling forever.


Irrelevant. Without good system, ruin and destruction will happen all the time. The problem of the Chinese is that they constantly bring themselves to this in the first place. How does high IQ help in this then?
#14893325
China never changed in the last 2,000 years. Those who believed that communist China was different didn't understand that the CCP cadres served the same function as the Mandarins of the imperial bureaucracy.

Emperor Xi just founded a new dynasty. The few years of turmoil between the last dynasty and the new one are nothing but a short interval in the long succession of dynasties.

Under emperor Xi, China will go back to sleep and stagnation under a totally corrupt system.
#14893326
foxdemon wrote:Rule of law and democracy might seem inefficient at present but the result is long term stability and avoidance of oppression.

I'm glad you have finally come to see it my way. With a bit of effort you might even qualify for EU membership!

Congratulations! Keep up the good work! :)
#14893909
Atlantis wrote:I'm glad you have finally come to see it my way. With a bit of effort you might even qualify for EU membership!

Congratulations! Keep up the good work! :)



What do you mean ‘come to see it your way’? I’ve always seen things as such.


Some people who don’t live under communism or fascism might think those ideologies are trendy but I value political freedom. Authoritarianism I will never support. That being said, inequality must be addressed, hence the need for some degree of redistribution.


In truth my views aren’t at all incompatible with EU values. But the EU could move to reduce autocratic bureaucracy. In fact West in general has been suffering autocratic liberalism for a few decades. There is a need to move back to a more democratic liberalism.


Yet with 5 decades of rising social economic inequality, a return to democracy can result in what has happened in America (note though America has seen sharper rises in inequality than elsewhere in the West). How did someone like Trump end up in charge? It should be recognised increasing levels of economic inequality leads not just to concentration of wealth but also to concentration of power and those who get marginalised from social influence tend toward radicalism. This is my explanation of Trump the tyrant and his fascist supporters. Autocratic liberalism created them by silencing those left behind.


Anyway, regardless, surely the sensible person would want to live in a society where he won’t be persecuted because he wants to think for himself.
#14894278
Atlantis wrote:@foxdemon, congratulations you have managed the impossible. You have fabricated an unheard of straw-man to blame Trump on the EU.

It's the other way around. The EU is the antithesis to Trump and to imperialism. It's the only thing that keeps the barbarians at bay.



You misunderstand. The autocratic liberalism is common to both Europe and America. Also what a Trump represents is present in the EU as well as America. Umm, in fact that popularist authoritarianism is just everywhere today. A sign of a world in disarray. But it was the imprudence of autocratic liberalism that got it there.
UK votes for Boris...

@Kaiserschmarrn @Politics_Observer, "US […]

EU-BREXIT

The MPs who sabotaged Brexit have by and large bee[…]

Blaming everything on the opposite side is not re[…]

Oh. And what you said. Because he is a dick.