I find the parallels between Xi and Putin fascinating: both had "modest" origins (or modest spells in the case of Xi) and much publicize them. Both were not really accounted for much, simply managing to rise through the ranks without making a wave, and always scrupulously deferring to authority. Both were nominated to the head of their respective party as a compromise or a strawman. That is until they took power, after which they both consolidated their grasp quickly, much to the surprise of everyone.
Interesting that the leaders of two of the world's superpowers (and the two formerly communist ones at that) share such a similar journey.
Can someone explain to me why Xi is considered to have "consolidated his grasp"? This seems to be a well accepted idea but I don't see what substantiates that. He starts his second term as prime minister of China, and serving two terms has been the norm in recent times.
I did not remark China becoming more authoritarian under his rule. I do not see indications that he may stay after 2022, his scheduled depart. What did I miss?
He isn't prime minister, but party secretary and president. Li Keqiang is premier, the closest thing to a PM, but not as powerful as a party secretary (the president position is ceremonial).
Hu Jintao served two terms as party secretary, but never consolidated his power base (Jiang Zemin protruded a lot into his reign), so was not very powerful, even compared to his premier (wen jiabao). Xi, on the other hand, has completely consolidated his power base and sidelined Li Keqiang. His competitors and apparent successors have been hit up on corruption (they are all corrupt, but who gets prosecuted depends on power plays).
If his successor (maybe another Hu) isn't apparent at this congress, then there will be a lot of talk of him staying passed his terms. If the successor is named, which is probable, then that talk will stop. However, he could totally pull a Jiang Zemin and retain some powerful poets (e.g. Head of the military commission) to keep more influence afterward. But in reality, all the retired leaders retain power behind the scenes, and it's just a matter of how much (him putting his protégés in power and kicking out Hu's will help a lot).
- Accumulation of many titles, not always held by the General Secretary. Sometimes this is Xi gaining a title of an already existing leadership group, sometimes he has created new groups, such as the "Central Commission for Integrated Military and Civilian Development" ( which is about funding military industries, sort of like the US military-industrial model ). Titles like this mean he has effective policy control over many branches of China's administration. His ability to create new groups shows his ability to reform the bureaucratic hierarchy.
- Anti corruption campaign, restore legitimacy in party with regard to people's opinions, level some playing fields, purge the party of corruption and also strengthen ideological and political support for Xi.
- Xi has been called "The Core", this term was only ever used for Mao and Deng.
- Anti-corruption has also focused on military. Result seems to be Xi has greater control of and greater loyalty from the military.
- The PLA garrison in HK broke tradition this year to address Xi as "Chairman", instead of "Commander" --a first. Perhaps this reflects that while usually the leader also Chairs the Central Military Commission, as Xi does, Xi's power is less figurehead and more effective.
- Xi has achieved many things internationally that have not been done by China ever: first overseas military base, in Africa; taking control of disputed islands in its coastal waters in defiance of neighbours; creation of the ambitious, "One Belt One Road", infrastructure, trade and investment project, to expand China's influence along a "new silk road" Westward; and exercised tighter control over old and new media, with very effective online censorship.
- In summary, he does a lot, has made many changes, is always in the news cycle as an effective leader, and has presided over a very successful period for China both with regard to domestic growth and stability, and international standing and ambitious expansion.
> I did not remark China becoming more authoritarian under his rule.
Xi greatly suppressed political dissent, online and off. There was a burgeoning, very interesting online debate about democracy and governance, full of thoughtful ideas, brilliant satire, and more. AFAIK, that's mostly gone. You can read about it here:
He also arrested and otherwise suppressed many political opponents, at least in large part under the guise of an 'anti-corruption' campaign.
He's also revived Communist ideology and a Mao-ish cult of personality for himself. In contrast, Deng Xiaopeng avoided it - my understanding is that he even was cremated and had his ashes scattered at sea so there would be no shrine to him.
Finally, he has helped create an intense wave of nationalism.
(I will say, in fairness, that cults of personality and nationalism are trendy in other countries too, such as the U.S. I don't know how everyone forgot the evil that those things lead to.)
> Xi greatly suppressed political dissent, online and off.
But was that different from his predecessors?
> He also arrested and otherwise suppressed many political opponents, at least in large part under the guise of an 'anti-corruption' campaign.
That I would like to know more about. Most of the times, people just quote Bo Xilai (who seem to have been a genuinel crime ring boss) and his successor. I have a hard time understanding why the official version is just dismissed.
>> Xi greatly suppressed political dissent, online and off.
> But was that different from his predecessors?
Yes; I meant to say he greatly increased suppression of dissent
> Is there a place to read about that?
I'd start with the link above. The NY Times covers it occasionally, including a recent story about Xi's childhood home (AFAICT - I didn't read much more than a paragraph).
Political observers have called Xi "the most powerful Chinese leader since Deng Xiaoping."[84] Xi has notably departed from the "collective rule" practices of his predecessor Hu Jintao.
It's a good idea to question assumptions. And to me living in China since Hu, the main difference is that Chinese people themselves perceive Xi as much stronger than his predecessors, and probably rightly so: the crackdown on corruption is no joke, I have relatives who gave back their German cars to avoid issues. Also people of the diaspora or in Taiwan follow closely the tiger hunt at the head of the state and it seems to not be nowhere like catching butterflies. So yes Xi has earned a reputation.
His anti-corruption campaign is the main one. There's a focus on "tigers" and "flies" - high profile targets and a general clean-up of low-level corruption. It seems like quite a lot of the "tigers" were opponents of Xi.
Also, he gets compared to his immediate predecessor (Hu) who was was very bland and worked more on a consensus model.
But his anti-corruption campaign really looked like an anti-corruption campaign. I understand that they can be used as power tools but what are the elements to believe this is the case presently?
People never fight for the fighting's sake, they fight for profit, all sorts of profit.
Why Xi wants to put down the tigers and flys?
It's because those are in his way to achieve his idea of "revitalize the Chinese nation". Because those people are having different ideas on how to do the same thing, or entirely having a different purpose.
Conveniently, it's always been true that absolute power comes with absolute corruption. That has never been more true since the economic take-off of China. And anti-corruption has always been the most effective weapon to put down powerful people.
What I was saying is that anti-corruption always will be the most effective weapon to take down powerful people in China, because of its political structure. It does not matter if the motivation is to save the economy, or whatever, there isn't much sense to guess the motivation of political activities, which always have very complex combination and reasoning can change with different angles.
I think he's genuine. Corruption is rotting the Communist Party inside and hurting China. And for all their faults Chinese politicians are nationalist.
As a foreigner this feels a bit like a US' reaction about their loss of leadership. There has to be something wrong about China's rise. Imagining that it will surpass their own economic power through good management by a central government is something they just refuse to accept. It has to be some authoritarian cheat mode.
I don't think the Atlantic piece is suggesting that at all. The article is making the point that the delicate power balances behind the Chinese Communist Party is very complex, and that the soundbites we hear from our Western media (or any media for that matter) probably do not capture the full extent of the power dynamics, wheeling and dealing, and inner workings of the Chinese Communist Party.
Reminds me of how every "expert" said Trump wouldn't win. It was amusing how everyone was surprised to find out there's a whole landmass between NY and California. Fly over country for sure but eligible to vote.
In general, 'something nefarious is going on overseas', beyond the Anglo cultural domain. Interesting thing to me is, as you point out, how the "mechanics of power" are held to be a byzantine mystery in Communist Party of China, but it is over here just a matter of a 'pick the least ugly' beauty contest over here in US of A.
Of course, what is truly opaque is just which groupings in the West hold the true power and just what is the nature of the "mechanics of power" here in the West.
Good management is hardly necessary. China has ~5 times the population of the US; it would be shocking (is shocking, sadly...) for it to be economically weaker.
Hmmm ... that's pretty speculative, or really completely speculative.
This movie has been made before. The USSR claimed something similar. Now of course, China's aggregate economy could match the U.S.'s when its citizens are only 25% as wealthy, but that is not a sign of great economic performance.
> good management by a central government
I think you mean by an undemocratic authoritarian government (I don't think centrality is the issue). Regardless, I don't see good management, mostly effective suppression and international propaganda. If management is so great, why do they need to censor and propagandize their own citizens on a massive scale, not to mention outlawing dissent and imprisoning dissenters? Who needs the 'Great Firewll', in that case.
I don't think people in Tibet, Hong Kong, Taiwan, or Xinjian would say China is so well managed, as obvious examples.
Why has this post been downvoted so many times? Would someone who downvoted this post care to put down any word on which of those statements that you don't agree?
Sometimes the downvoting and its related visibility mechanism here really puzzles me...I really feel that perhaps we should give more weights, in terms of visibility, to those downvotes that come with even a little bit of explanation, or otherwise we are not much different from a group of mobs in the Spartan assembly (i.e. "Apella") who would consider themselves democratic and then vote by shouting loudly...
=====
PS: I am not the original poster (so in case anyone feels like to cast his downvote for the sole reason of complaining about downvoting, just go ahead and downvote mine and leave alone the OP's)...but I really don't understand (and feel a bit curious about it...) why it attracted some many downvotes, without any explicit criticism...
the reduced points really do not matter, but the reduced visibility might turn some inexperienced readers away and thus further decrease the probability of having them join in the discussion and share their perspective...
I can provide some hypotheses based on experience: Comments that support certain political positions are consistently downvoted. IME it happens with comments that are,
- critical of the Chinese government
- discuss Russian propaganda and trolling/astroturfing (other than to deny their existence)
- critical or questioning of the white male supremacist movement (alt-right) principles, in their propagandized 'reasonable' forms - though those comments are regularly voted back up by others; I've seen some wild fluctuations.
- critical or questioning of Elon Musk
I'm sure there are other topics that I'm not remembering. I guessed that the GP comment would be downvoted when I posted it.
Note that the first two subjects in my list have massive, well-documented online astroturfing and propaganda operations, and the third is no slouch in that area. HN policy, in kind of an odd political correctness, protects those people by forbidding any suggestion that such things are occurring - even as a possibility to consider. Don't mention the Emperor's clothes. That must make it heaven for astroturfers, propagandists, and naked Emperors everywhere.
Musk's fanboys are extreme: Drink the kool-ade or die. The man himself seems obsessed with image but enough to run an astroturfing operation? I have no knowledge that he does but would it be a surprise? Certainly he's not in the category with the other three for many very obvious reasons. For example, I hope he isn't in the dustbin of history but succeeds wildly.
Finally, the first sentence of my comment didn't help; it's a bit sharp, but that imperfection shouldn't be a big deal.
EDIT: I also wonder why alphaalpha101's comment is dead. It's not brilliant, IMHO, but certainly sufficient.
One way he is more powerful is he has greatly restricted freedom of press and internet discussion, and use this to halt criticism of the regime and the opportunity for any organized opposition to arise. Nowadays people rarely say in public anything except what the regime wants it to say.
I honestly find it suspect that the media is full of "russia! russia! russia!", but nobody ever mentions China, which is in a far greater position for war (1.6 MILLION TROOPS) and accounts for like 28% of all known hack attempts.
And speaking of influencing elections... there was this thing in the 90's called... Chinagate. [1] With millions directly found to influence an election. As well as leaked weapons and nuclear secrets as recently as >>2009<<. But I guess 6 years is forever ago and China has completely changed its ways.
p.s. And I'm NOT saying "don't talk about Russia" I'm saying, why aren't we talking about BOTH?
The Chinese don’t feel the US needs to regress for them to succeed. They have confidence in themselves that they will continue growing, and probably grow faster, with a strong US as a partner.
Russia, on the other hand, has been regressing and getting smaller. Set aside their nuclear arsenal, and they aren’t leading in anything, and are falling behind in nearly everything (they are barely within the top 10 of countries in terms of GDP). This is quite a comedown from 30 years ago and the Russian, especially Putin’s, response has been to create havoc amongst Western democracies.
China will continue to hack into other countries’ systems to steal technology and IP etc (and the various intelligence agencies have been warning against this for over a decade) but they are not gonna try and create political havoc unlike the Russians.
Well, given that the established aristocracy was mostly destroyed in communist revolutions in each country, it's not entirely surprising. You need political support from that class of people in the U.S., although being one of them isn't necessary. A few presidents have been from middle class (or upper middle class) backgrounds, Obama and Bill Clinton both did.
Interesting that the leaders of two of the world's superpowers (and the two formerly communist ones at that) share such a similar journey.