The China Thread

[DGuller]

He wants to treat brain aneurism with traditional medicine?  I guess he really cares a lot about the wellbeing of his country.

[celedhring]

Or he's getting all the modern treatment while putting this out for PR.

[HVC]

Or afraid of going under the knife. Convenient way to assassinate someone.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah. There may be something to it but that's just one of those articles reporting what's being said on social media/blogs.

[CountDeMoney]

At least it wasn't a plane crash.  Or does the Party not do that anymore?

[Jacob]

Wouldn't it just put a shine on 2022 if both Xi and Putin exited this year?

Not that I expect any replacements to be better, but it's still pleasant on a personal level.

[Josquius]

Wouldn't it just put a shine on 2022 if both Xi and Putin exited this year?

Not that I expect any replacements to be better, but it's still pleasant on a personal level.

The replacements won't be better. But it's that one step closer to the replacements to the replacements to the replacements who might be.

[Admiral Yi]

The replacements won't be better. But it's that one step closer to the replacements to the replacements to the replacements who might be.

Xi's replacement could be better.  Compare the trend lines pre-Xi and now.

[DGuller]

I think Xi's replacement could be better, my understanding is that China used to have an effective pipeline for leadership by authoritarian country standards.  It's hard to tell who the Putin's replacement is even going to be, the people you would think of as Putin replacements by definition don't stick around as Putin's replacements.

Regardless of the quality of replacement, the good thing is that authoritarians need time to establish themselves.  Starting a war in Ukraine is not something you do on your second year on the job, you need to thoroughly cow the elite into submission personally.

[Jacob]

Xi's replacement could be better.  Compare the trend lines pre-Xi and now.

One can hope. But it's an open question whether Xi's direction is an aberration or indicative of a new direction.

And - as per CdM's point of view - a softer China could just lull us into a fall sense of security, allowing Xi 2.0 (who might be less incompetent) to do more damage when he comes around.

[Josquius]

The replacements won't be better. But it's that one step closer to the replacements to the replacements to the replacements who might be.

Xi's replacement could be better.  Compare the trend lines pre-Xi and now.

That's true. But I get the impression Xi has thoroughly remade the party along his lines and got rid of any of the old generation from when China seemed to be going in a positive direction.

Those who actually know about Chinese politics please do correct me.

[Sheilbh]

My read is China was never going in a positive direction and that Xi isn't a break or an aberration but a clear choice by the party of the direction they wanted to go. After all, the main alternative was Bo Xilai.

Edit: But obvs - absolutely not knowing much.

[Jacob]

That's true. But I get the impression Xi has thoroughly remade the party along his lines and got rid of any of the old generation from when China seemed to be going in a positive direction.

Those who actually know about Chinese politics please do correct me.

It'll take more than what Xi did to get rid of countervailing forces in China, and within the party. The Chinese in general are very good at colouring within the lines. Tens of millions of Chinese are taking the piss out of (and critiquing) Xi and the CCP in social medial in various ways using slang, code, and metaphors. The sentiment may not make a substantial difference most of the time, but it's there.

Similarly, China and the party is big enough that cliques exist. Li Keqiang is the premier (though slated to be replaced) is from a different faction and occasionally says (and does) things to undermine Xi. Yes Xi has purged a number of potential enemies (corruption, don't you know), but most folks in the party know how to make the right noises, keep their heads low, and bide their time.

Basically, Xi has only started the process of centralizing and personalizing his power that Putin has carried out for decades, and the Chinese system has and had way more safeguards and structural obstacles in the way. That Xi wants to be Mao (or Putin) is pretty clear, but he's got longer to go.

So whatever streams existed within the party prior to Xi's ascent are still there, I expect.

[Jacob]

My read is China was never going in a positive direction and that Xi isn't a break or an aberration but a clear choice by the party of the direction they wanted to go. After all, the main alternative was Bo Xilai.

Edit: But obvs - absolutely not knowing much.

I think the June 4th movement, the HK pro-democracy movement, and the phases of liberalization in thought and economics represented movement in a positive direction. But until China accepts pluralism, any movement in a positive direction can be washed away in an instant.

The question, of course, is also what is meant by "a positive direction". Positive for the world economy and standards of living? Positive for the Chinese people to not be oppressed? Positive for non-Han populations inside China to not be forcefully assimilated? Positive for China's neighbours?

But yeah, given the choice of what Bo Xilai promised and what Xi Jinping delivered neither can be seen as movement in a positive direction, so that was a choice between two bad directions. Hu Jintao was, comparatively, less malign IMO.

[Sheilbh]

I think the June 4th movement, the HK pro-democracy movement, and the phases of liberalization in thought and economics represented movement in a positive direction. But until China accepts pluralism, any movement in a positive direction can be washed away in an instant.

Fair points. I was not meaning wider Chinese society never going in a positive direction - rather the state.

The question, of course, is also what is meant by "a positive direction". Positive for the world economy and standards of living? Positive for the Chinese people to not be oppressed? Positive for non-Han populations inside China to not be forcefully assimilated? Positive for China's neighbours?

Quite. I still think the vast majority of the legitimacy the PRC has is because of their role (mostly mythologised) in national liberation, then subsequently (more real) economic growth transforming the lives of hundreds of millions of Chinese and lately Chinese assertiveness - and the initial success of covid zero in China pre-vaccines.

Those are big things that for many was, I imagine, enough of a positive direction for support or quiescence. But China was never going to move to anything that remotely challenged or threatened the supremacy of the party. Instead, as China grows richer and more powerful, the role of the party would probably have to grow. For example, it would not want to be at the behest of oligarchs or, say, technocrats who are not properly in line with the party.

As long as the party-state is the model I don't see China deviating from that. And, for what it's worth, I think Soviet history is incredibly contingent on Gorbachev's failures as a leader - he was too idealistic, too naive and not very competent. So it's less whether China will eventually appoint a Gorbachev who will open them up, but whether they will appoint a bad leader and the party have so little left to remove them before it all falls apart. I'm not optimistic on that either.

But yeah, given the choice of what Bo Xilai promised and what Xi Jinping delivered neither can be seen as movement in a positive direction, so that was a choice between two bad directions. Hu Jintao was, comparatively, less malign IMO.

I agree on Hu. What I'm unsure of is how much is that because the party wanted that less malign model - or because they didn't feel in a position to assert a more forceful position as they were leaving the leadership generations at least partialy mapped by Deng.

My instinct is that it's becuase China wasn't in a position to take the sort of direction Bo and Xi would - both internationally, but also just in terms of tech and research. I think the direction reflects the party leadership's sense of China's strength rather than actually being a shift. But again that is basically just a guess and I could be totally wrong.