Tenure for life in leading posts is linked both to feudal influences and to the continued absence of proper regulations in the Party for the retirement and dismissal of cadres. ... During the “Cultural Revolution”, Lin Biao and the Gang of Four did everything to procure a privileged life style for themselves and inflicted great suffering upon the masses. At present there are still some cadres who, regarding themselves as masters rather than servants of the people, use their positions to seek personal privileges. This practice has aroused strong mass resentment and tarnished the Party’s prestige. Unless it is firmly corrected, it is bound to corrupt our cadres.
President in China is a ceremonial title. It was only after Deng that it was consolidated with general party secretary, which Deng was definitely during his reign. Edit: oops, no, he wasn’t party secretary; this was held by Zhao Zhiyang and (after 1989) Jiang Zemin.
That should be the sign for the sane investor to get out of China. Rulers that want to stay forever usually get to a high level of stagnation, corruption and suppression rather sooner than later. The status of a supreme leader can only be challenged by revolution, uprising and/or violence. The communist party already has absolutist power - now they get insane. Good luck with that.
The performance of the economy has nothing to do with investment returns. Paradoxically, the correlation between economic growth and stock market returns is actually negative[1][2][3]. Investors can do well in stagnating economies. Also, the anti-corruption campaign[4] happening in China right now is probably the farthest reaching since its imperial days.
The economic explanation for this is quite simple: huge growth in the stock market means that money is being taken from productive and moved into speculative vehicles. The higher the growth in the stock market, the higher the desire to move more money into stock (the phenomenon of "chasing returns"). So, contrary to what most economists say, a high growth in the stock market is a primary indicator that the real economy is lacking investment. Of course the result is that a huge recession follows, which is "explained away" by economists as the "normal investment cycle".
Investors look at the short term. In the short term this works well.
Even In the longer ter, individual investors may well personally do very well (be on the good side of the supreme ruler and the possibilities are very good).
If anything, investors will be encouraged to invest in China due to this news. Xi has been a stable leader for the country. This news simply means more of the same.
More of the same would be keeping the term limit, this signals a regression to the worst tendencies in humanity, eroding the laws that are designed to prevent them. Even if Xi is a stable leader for the next 30 years, will the next leader to take advantage of the removal of term limits be the same?
Assuming we're talking about foreign investors. Quite simply that's going to depend on the policies, not whether Xi is in there or not.
As a party dictatorship with routinely transitioned politicians, China's government has been fairly stable in recent times. Xi clearly isn't necessary in any regard, he's trying to make himself necessary. Hu Jintao was a stable leader that oversaw one of the fastest economic expansions in world history. He also wasn't necessary, in terms of remaining perpetually in power. Xi inherited that nicely built-up economic position. It's the policies that Xi follows/implements that will determine investor confidence, just as it was for Hu Jintao and Jiang Zemin (also a stable leader that didn't need to remain in power perpetually). Xi is properly replaceable like the others, insofar as he doesn't implement political changes that forcibly make him otherwise. The power move that Xi appears to be going for, is all down to his personality, rather than necessity, which is in stark contrast with the prior two Presidents.
Those leaders had mandates from the people in any case, via elections they could lose. Unless you are talking about the Taiwan and South Korea dictators of Mao’s era.
I can't tell whether the people in this thread claiming this will be the downfall of China are serious. Do you really believe that, or do you just want it to be true because you're afraid of China?
Probably both. Everyone, including and especially China's own citizens, should be very afraid of the current regime and its path towards a surveillance state. I don't think anyone in this thread actually expects China to fall within a few years, but it isn't unjustified to believe that this will be the downfall of China, and that we should be very worried about an upcoming war.
Doesn't seem to me this is a step towards China growing into the preeminent power. More like a small step toward autocratic rule and a cult of personality.
Xi is a fine leader — I don't believe problems would start with him. More so his successor who may have decades of rule.
Actually I might put money into China off this news. Irrespective of other risks of China - the state capitalist model is working and Xi is going to hold to this implementation of it.
If this system is working well (I'm not judging), and the only way to sustain it is to annoint a dictator for life (because the rest of the Communist Party won't support this system?) then something is dangerously wrong.
The new proposal of amendment to the Constitution of China, if you could call it, contains large sections about supervisory commissions. This commissions and subordinate branches would be able to oversee and veto any inferior level legislative branches although appointed by the legislative branch of the same level. This means the newfound commission would be a hierarchy under Xi and controls underlying administrative, legislative and any other organizations and persons. IMHO it is likely to become something vaguely resembles ICAC in Hong Kong, or NKVD in Soviet. Xi knows.
Modern China has a political system where nobility of 60 million people who mostly inherited their position have the power. They select some of the people who start slowly ascend towards real power over decades. Those who get into power have expiry date and they must step down and let others in.
It's not a democracy, it's clearly authoritarian rule of the few, but it's not a dictatorship. There is system a that allows continuity and people change.
Xi may do fine at first. After a while the need to stay in the power affects everything he does. Government organization, military organization, economics, even foreign policy. Nobody stays in power without supporters and they except to be paid.
The explanation given in first year political science was that China is a very rare example of a successful party-based dictatorship, as opposed to a dictatorship based on an individual or family.
I used to belong to a model railroad club. There were two members who argued about nearly everything; didn't get along at all. Eventually, one of them resigned from the club. I thought: Finally, things can run smoothly now, without that nonsense. But from that point, the club slowly died. It took over a year, but that was the inflection point.
The conflict had been part of keeping things moving forward, but I didn't recognize it.
Edit: super surprised by the multiple downvotes. I guess the connection is obvious to everyone else - so could someone spell out for me what parent poster likely had in mind?
----
Original comment:
I am having trouble seeing why this was brought to mind for you. Was the moral of your story, for you, that when members argue bitterly ("didn't get along at all") to the point of one of them resigning, it means things are moving along?
Okay but what reminded you of the Xi story - there was really no arguments mentioned?
If I extrapolate your lesson too far (I don't think this is what you're saying) it could be that you say, where there is no bitter member conflict, projects die? So, if the members agree that Xi should stay in power, without bitter argument, it is a sign the Party is dying?
That seems absurd. But then I just don't understand why you thought of your anecdote.
It's the stagnation of very low friction systems (aka yes-man systems).
It happens in corporations. It happens in political systems.
Take someone like Steve Jobs. He was emperor, in this example. That was particularly the case in his second stint at Apple. His personality sparked friction however, he cultivated it on purpose, constantly seeking it out. He wanted to fight over ideas and got upset when people wouldn't fight with him. Had he not done so, stagnation would be the only possible outcome given his managerial dominance, it would have led to a yes-man system, and Jobs would have been flying entirely blind (his yes-men would hide everything from him, lie to him, tell him only what he wanted to hear, etc). For example, there's a lot of evidence that eg Saddam Hussein and Hitler's yes-men regularly attempted to lie to them, hide facts from them, etc. due to the consequences.
Gates and Bezos also likewise cultivate/d friction, despite being emperor equivalents in their companies. Gates liked to aggressively challenge people to combat him on ideas. He inserted friction. He similarly would get upset if you walked away from a battle without resolution (Paul Allen describes that in his book).
Putin and Stalin as dictators and personality contrasts, crush/ed friction, and ruled by strict edict. They require/d unquestioning allegiance and obedience, seeking minimal challenges to their approaches and ideas. That's extremely common in political dictatorships. That approach can only lead to stagnation, which you have historically universally seen in political dictatorships. Obama has a good quip about this aspect of political life in his episode of Jerry Seinfeld's Comedian in Cars, in terms of interacting with dictator types.
Parent comment was an anecdote that basically implies that there would be less opposition within or outside the party to counterbalance Xi & supporters the longer he remains within power. Opposition is a form of conflict or argumentation to provide a counterbalance against bad/extreme ideas. So if there's less opposition, then likely this could signal the beginning of the end of the current system in China.
This obviously feels like a move in the wrong direction, but at the same time, in a single-party government, how much will it really matter? I'm not trying to be cynical, it's an honest question.
Relatedly, could moves like this actually encourage some sort of reaction by the people against their authoritarian government?
One party rule can still have different levels of checks and balances.
Until recently, the power in China was divided between several people in the Standing Committee, loosely organized into two factions. The two factions alternated every several years (not based on elections but just a pre-agreed schedule). This was intended to prevent the leader from doing something too crazy even by CCP standards, like say another cultural revolution.
Now there's no alternating between factions because there's only one faction left. And, the power of the Standing Committee is much weaker. Xi has much more power than any leader for the past couple decades.
The risk of some insane decisions by Xi is therefore much greater: it's a lot more difficult for the rest of the party to stop him.
Of course, if you think Xi is a good leader, who is likely to help make China more prosperous and a more enjoyable place to live in, it's possibly a good news. But even then you should be worried about succession: how to prevent some insane leader from taking control of all this power in the future?
whenever that question gets brought up, I'm always confused why the laws allowing the leader excess power aren't written to expire when that leader loses power.
> in a single-party government, how much will it really matter?
There are still intra-party factions. Xi’s anti-corruption drive is an effort to defang them. An arguable strength of China’s one-party system was that it had an odd sort of internal democracy, neatly contained to the party elite. Xi is disabling that internal disagreement, which bodes well for short-term stability but points, long-term, towards China becoming a normal sort of dictatorship.
It could, but if the revolutionary are to achieve success, many would need to react at the same time so the impact is swift and "unmanageable" by the Chinese government. It's not a coincidence that China recently filled all streets with one of the most advanced AI-powered video surveillance systems in the world ahead of this announcement.
If the Chinese government is able to "kill" (not necessarily in a metaphoric way) any small groups organizing against the government, then it will be very difficult to change this.
If Putin succeeded in becoming a dictator in Russia, I think it's going to be easier for Xi to become a dictator and maintain his power in China.
I'm afraid it may be more likely for some of the Chinese elites that secretly hate and oppose Xi to start something up than for the population to rise at this point in time. Maybe in 20 years, the frustration in the population would bubble up and they could do something about it en mass. Or China could become a bigger version of North Korea.
The advancements in technology don't really seem to be on the people's side either, other than censorship-resistant (a key point, as not all are) blockchain technologies. But I'm not sure these P2P technologies will advance fast enough to stay ahead of Surveillance AI.
"If Putin succeeded in becoming a dictator in Russia, I think it's going to be easier for Xi to become a dictator and maintain his power in China."
Not sure what this means... In what sense is Putin not a dictator already? Despite the illusion of free elections (almost universal in dictatorships), widespread vote tampering, the imprisonment of opponents and prohibition of alternative parties make his rule absolute.
Both Xi and communist party wants stability and economic growth, and they cannot get that if they can't keep most of the people happy.
Even with media censorship, the Chinese government has to react to people's comments (and a lot of times, much faster and effective than western governments, contradictory to what western media wants to believe)
I think it matters. Mr Hu cannot be said to be the same as mr Xi. Now, I think it was good for them to have someone like mr Xi tackle institutional corruption, even with its purge-like effects, given the entrenched corruption was not doing the country any favors. But you still need turnover and new ideas and renewal at the top.
This is a good question and the fact is that regardless of its formal organization there are still many factions who disagree with each other, even though the expression of that disagreement doesn't look like a western presidential/parliamentary democracy.
Fact that they went to a great length to secure his position means that it really matters. Maybe the relationships that he has build over years with foreign nations is too valuable to lose or there is no suitable candidate to replace him.
The government should just use an exponential decay like on HN or Reddit, where something can theoretically stay on the front page forever but it needs exponentially more votes to do so over time.
As an interesting idea as that is, the moment you introduce the possibility of staying in power forever then it only becomes an issue of adjusting the ratio parameters, something people won't react to like "abolish the hard term limit".
Is the hard term limit really something can't be abolished then? Obama spent years of efforts building something and Trump spent its term tears it down. Can the government achieve anything meaningful like that?
Dictators do tend to command high vote counts. When people see you are going to stick around they try to keep you happy. As in russia, the province that most supports the leader recieves the most from him in turn.
The world seems set for a gerontocracy. Mugabe flies to Singapore for mysterious medical treatments, but the pattern seems to be repeating with elderly politicians and leaders everywhere. Perhaps they receive much more medical attention than the average old person, or perhaps they have access to life-extension treatments that aren’t widely publicized yet.
Regardless, it seems like the case for term-limits is stronger now, than it’s ever been.
Dark skinned people age well because their skin color conceals the effects of aging skin that you can see in light colored skin: mottle, precancerous lesions, and wrinkles
Readit News
Deng Xiaoping, 1980 https://dengxiaopingworks.wordpress.com/2013/02/25/on-the-re...
[1]: https://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2014/02/growth-an...
[2]: https://www.ft.com/content/8b5ae298-a065-11e2-a6e1-00144feab...
[3]: http://www.moneyobserver.com/opinion/gdp-makes-stocks-grow-f...
[4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-corruption_campaign_under...
Even In the longer ter, individual investors may well personally do very well (be on the good side of the supreme ruler and the possibilities are very good).
As a party dictatorship with routinely transitioned politicians, China's government has been fairly stable in recent times. Xi clearly isn't necessary in any regard, he's trying to make himself necessary. Hu Jintao was a stable leader that oversaw one of the fastest economic expansions in world history. He also wasn't necessary, in terms of remaining perpetually in power. Xi inherited that nicely built-up economic position. It's the policies that Xi follows/implements that will determine investor confidence, just as it was for Hu Jintao and Jiang Zemin (also a stable leader that didn't need to remain in power perpetually). Xi is properly replaceable like the others, insofar as he doesn't implement political changes that forcibly make him otherwise. The power move that Xi appears to be going for, is all down to his personality, rather than necessity, which is in stark contrast with the prior two Presidents.
But then, he's 64, he has another 5 legit years, so he'll be 69 when his 2 terms end. He might not have that much time. But who knows...
Deleted Comment
Xi is a fine leader — I don't believe problems would start with him. More so his successor who may have decades of rule.
Dead Comment
China is setting the stage for an actual dictator.
If Linus were bad at his job, you'd only have to find someone better and start pulling your kernel source from them. No civil war necessary.
http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2018-02/25/c_136999323.htm
http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2018-02/25/c_136998986.htm
It's not a democracy, it's clearly authoritarian rule of the few, but it's not a dictatorship. There is system a that allows continuity and people change.
Xi may do fine at first. After a while the need to stay in the power affects everything he does. Government organization, military organization, economics, even foreign policy. Nobody stays in power without supporters and they except to be paid.
The explanation given in first year political science was that China is a very rare example of a successful party-based dictatorship, as opposed to a dictatorship based on an individual or family.
The conflict had been part of keeping things moving forward, but I didn't recognize it.
----
Original comment:
I am having trouble seeing why this was brought to mind for you. Was the moral of your story, for you, that when members argue bitterly ("didn't get along at all") to the point of one of them resigning, it means things are moving along?
Okay but what reminded you of the Xi story - there was really no arguments mentioned?
If I extrapolate your lesson too far (I don't think this is what you're saying) it could be that you say, where there is no bitter member conflict, projects die? So, if the members agree that Xi should stay in power, without bitter argument, it is a sign the Party is dying?
That seems absurd. But then I just don't understand why you thought of your anecdote.
EDIT: I'd just like to understand your point.
It happens in corporations. It happens in political systems.
Take someone like Steve Jobs. He was emperor, in this example. That was particularly the case in his second stint at Apple. His personality sparked friction however, he cultivated it on purpose, constantly seeking it out. He wanted to fight over ideas and got upset when people wouldn't fight with him. Had he not done so, stagnation would be the only possible outcome given his managerial dominance, it would have led to a yes-man system, and Jobs would have been flying entirely blind (his yes-men would hide everything from him, lie to him, tell him only what he wanted to hear, etc). For example, there's a lot of evidence that eg Saddam Hussein and Hitler's yes-men regularly attempted to lie to them, hide facts from them, etc. due to the consequences.
Gates and Bezos also likewise cultivate/d friction, despite being emperor equivalents in their companies. Gates liked to aggressively challenge people to combat him on ideas. He inserted friction. He similarly would get upset if you walked away from a battle without resolution (Paul Allen describes that in his book).
Putin and Stalin as dictators and personality contrasts, crush/ed friction, and ruled by strict edict. They require/d unquestioning allegiance and obedience, seeking minimal challenges to their approaches and ideas. That's extremely common in political dictatorships. That approach can only lead to stagnation, which you have historically universally seen in political dictatorships. Obama has a good quip about this aspect of political life in his episode of Jerry Seinfeld's Comedian in Cars, in terms of interacting with dictator types.
Relatedly, could moves like this actually encourage some sort of reaction by the people against their authoritarian government?
Until recently, the power in China was divided between several people in the Standing Committee, loosely organized into two factions. The two factions alternated every several years (not based on elections but just a pre-agreed schedule). This was intended to prevent the leader from doing something too crazy even by CCP standards, like say another cultural revolution.
Now there's no alternating between factions because there's only one faction left. And, the power of the Standing Committee is much weaker. Xi has much more power than any leader for the past couple decades.
The risk of some insane decisions by Xi is therefore much greater: it's a lot more difficult for the rest of the party to stop him.
Of course, if you think Xi is a good leader, who is likely to help make China more prosperous and a more enjoyable place to live in, it's possibly a good news. But even then you should be worried about succession: how to prevent some insane leader from taking control of all this power in the future?
There are still intra-party factions. Xi’s anti-corruption drive is an effort to defang them. An arguable strength of China’s one-party system was that it had an odd sort of internal democracy, neatly contained to the party elite. Xi is disabling that internal disagreement, which bodes well for short-term stability but points, long-term, towards China becoming a normal sort of dictatorship.
When people in western governments started to form conflicting opinions, they'd say, let's create different parties and compete with each other.
When people in Chinese government started to form conflicting opinions, they'd say, let's keep the conflicts internal and unite under the same party.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/china-surveillance-came...
If the Chinese government is able to "kill" (not necessarily in a metaphoric way) any small groups organizing against the government, then it will be very difficult to change this.
If Putin succeeded in becoming a dictator in Russia, I think it's going to be easier for Xi to become a dictator and maintain his power in China.
I'm afraid it may be more likely for some of the Chinese elites that secretly hate and oppose Xi to start something up than for the population to rise at this point in time. Maybe in 20 years, the frustration in the population would bubble up and they could do something about it en mass. Or China could become a bigger version of North Korea.
The advancements in technology don't really seem to be on the people's side either, other than censorship-resistant (a key point, as not all are) blockchain technologies. But I'm not sure these P2P technologies will advance fast enough to stay ahead of Surveillance AI.
Not sure what this means... In what sense is Putin not a dictator already? Despite the illusion of free elections (almost universal in dictatorships), widespread vote tampering, the imprisonment of opponents and prohibition of alternative parties make his rule absolute.
Even with media censorship, the Chinese government has to react to people's comments (and a lot of times, much faster and effective than western governments, contradictory to what western media wants to believe)
Pretty sure Putin stays in power because people still remember Yeltsin. Today's Russia is a massive improvement on 90's Russia.
As for Xi, China isn't exactly doing poorly. Not sure why anyone would want to shake things up now.
Americans should understand, Obama would have beat Trump...
Regardless, it seems like the case for term-limits is stronger now, than it’s ever been.
Dead Comment
Dead Comment