The Thoughts of Chairman Xi(bbc.co.uk)
bbc.co.uk
The Thoughts of Chairman Xi
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/Thoughts_Chairman_Xi
47 comments
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xi_Jinping#Consolidation_of_po...
The entire article is a good read, it's amazing how much power he has.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xi_Jinping#Consolidation_of_po...
The entire article is a good read, it's amazing how much power he has.
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.
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.
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.
So basically, you are assuming the conclusion.
What conclusion?
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.
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.
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).
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.
- 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:
http://chinadigitaltimes.net/
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. 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:
http://chinadigitaltimes.net/
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.
> and a Mao-ish cult of personality for himself.
Is there a place to read about that?
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.
> and a Mao-ish cult of personality for himself.
Is there a place to read about that?
>> 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).
> 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).
[deleted]
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?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_campaign_fi...
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?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_campaign_fi...
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.
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.
There was that whole annexation of Crimea thing.
Don't forget the drones with GPS flooding the world and taking pictures of everything everywhere
This is because our intelligence agencies currently view China as a tamed bitch and Russia as a wild threat.
This view may or not be in tune with reality, but that is the view none the less
This view may or not be in tune with reality, but that is the view none the less
And it is suprising that such social mobility is possible in autocratic regimes but not in US.
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.
Maybe it's just two autocrats who use cults of personality and tactics from the same playbook.
Maybe it's just two autocrats who use cults of personality and tactics from the same playbook.
And it's almost the same trajectory for Leonid Brezhnev.
This article mentioned China's debt as a problem, which I've seen before, so I finally looked it up. One article I found said China has added $24 trillion in debt in the last ten years alone, with a debt-to-GDP ratio of about 300%. With so much money appearing out of thin air to finance this or that program or development or expansion, it's easy to imagine opportunities for corruption. Add to that giant spigot all the smaller ones, as banks participate in the boom indirectly. It's no surprise then that Xi would have to address corruption overtly, given how it must be a daily temptation for party members to steer the wealth this way or that. Considering the scale of China's growth, it's remarkable how smoothly things are going. If there's any fractiousness within party ranks, it doesn't translate into churn we can see that slows things down. https://seekingalpha.com/article/4091155-update-china-debt?p...
The story was formatted with Shorthand [1]
Does anybody know an open source equivalent? Thanks.
[1] https://shorthand.com/
Does anybody know an open source equivalent? Thanks.
[1] https://shorthand.com/
Unfortunately this article has an annoying habit of jumping position when changing scroll for me (iOS Chrome). Makes going back to re-read a paragraph tricky.
Problem with leaders that consolidate power is that one successor will eventually be a weak link and things will go wrong.
Xi graduated from middle school and his leading style is more like culture-revolution-movement than anything else. he is probably the least capable but most ambitious leader there since Mao, thus the most dangerous, just wait and see.
Another article on New Yorker (published in 2015), "Born Red", is quite interesting as well on this subject.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/04/06/born-red
According to the article, Xi once said,
Humanity itself is a quite complex matter. It's true that sometimes, certain people can be quite cruel, ruthless, or even cold-blooded; but this should not be a universal trait for the overall human beings -- or otherwise, it would have been a definition for the concept of "human" many centuries ago. There is a dynamic motley of benignity and malignity in any individual -- and the concept of "benignity" or "malignity" can be relative in certain cases. It's better for us all, if we construct a system that could inspire more benignity (-- or if possible, maximize ) out of us.
But today, many dealings by the Chinese government seems to simply view its citizens as objects or even tools, with "fickling" worthiness that does not lie within themselves but is based on the external perspective of the ruling party, to perpetuate their ruling.
Perhaps that is why Xi would raise the question to Biden in 2011/2, "why does the U.S. put so much emphasis on human rights." [1]
Note: [1] see https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/04/06/born-red for the details about that episode...
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/04/06/born-red
According to the article, Xi once said,
"People who have little experience with power,
those who have been far away from it, tend
to regard these things as mysterious and
novel. But I look past the superficial
things: the power and the flowers and
the glory and the applause. I see the
detention houses, the fickleness of
human relationships. I understand politics
on a deeper level."
Humanity itself is a quite complex matter. It's true that sometimes, certain people can be quite cruel, ruthless, or even cold-blooded; but this should not be a universal trait for the overall human beings -- or otherwise, it would have been a definition for the concept of "human" many centuries ago. There is a dynamic motley of benignity and malignity in any individual -- and the concept of "benignity" or "malignity" can be relative in certain cases. It's better for us all, if we construct a system that could inspire more benignity (-- or if possible, maximize ) out of us.
But today, many dealings by the Chinese government seems to simply view its citizens as objects or even tools, with "fickling" worthiness that does not lie within themselves but is based on the external perspective of the ruling party, to perpetuate their ruling.
Perhaps that is why Xi would raise the question to Biden in 2011/2, "why does the U.S. put so much emphasis on human rights." [1]
Note: [1] see https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/04/06/born-red for the details about that episode...
> Humanity itself is a quite complex matter
I cannot help to remind you that Xi is the president of a country with 1.3 BB people. If you think he does not know this fact, you are plain ignorant.
Chinese political sphere isn't any another-world strange thing. It's just like any such things: human-dealing and power-plays... Xi knows too well how to deal with people, and how complex they are, otherwise he would not reach his currnet power at all...
I cannot help to remind you that Xi is the president of a country with 1.3 BB people. If you think he does not know this fact, you are plain ignorant.
Chinese political sphere isn't any another-world strange thing. It's just like any such things: human-dealing and power-plays... Xi knows too well how to deal with people, and how complex they are, otherwise he would not reach his currnet power at all...
> If you think he does not know this fact,
> you are plain ignorant.
I won't deny that I am indeed ignorant -- and on that, I would concur in Socrates' words, "I know nothing except the fact of my ignorance"...
> Xi knows too well how to deal with people,
> and how complex they are, otherwise he would
> not reach his currnet power at all
I think everyone knows his own way of dealing with people -- that's the social aspect of every human being...it's just that their knowledge about that matter could be very different from each other...
When I state "humanity itself is a quite complex matter", I am just stating it's complex; and I am not stating _how_ it is complex -- I feel that's a very very broad and involved matter; and on that, too, different people may have different opinion and understanding, which could be evolving and changing all the time...
For instance, you could say that half a century ago another Chinese "power" leader, Mao Zedong, understood how to deal with people -- for "otherwise he would not reach his then current power at all" -- and the manner of his dealing was to simply destroy or even annihilate those who did not agree with him; and he termed that dealing as "revolution". It's indeed a great achievement for Mao to somewhat successfully reach that goal; but this does not mean that kind of policy really benefited the average Chinese people living in those days...
Knowing how to rise to power while mostly staying under the radar, knowing how to consolidate power, and knowing how best to wield power are different things. The truth is, he's likely still rising to power; so what happens after the next Congress will be very interesting to watch.
Power is a great test of one's mettle and humanity, a test most fail historically - though I make no predictions about Xi.
Power is a great test of one's mettle and humanity, a test most fail historically - though I make no predictions about Xi.
To me, this sounds a lot like "Make China Great Again".
Temperamentally, of course, Xi is almost the exact opposite of Trump...
Temperamentally, of course, Xi is almost the exact opposite of Trump...
There is actually a group of researchers tasked to measure the progress of "make China great again", they reported back in 2012 that the goal is 62% completed.
Chinese source from People's Daily -
http://politics.people.com.cn/n/2012/0805/c1001-18670287.htm...
Trump just copied the idea from Hu and Xi.
Chinese source from People's Daily -
http://politics.people.com.cn/n/2012/0805/c1001-18670287.htm...
Trump just copied the idea from Hu and Xi.
...and Reagan.
Haha, I wonder if the Chinese premier in Veep is based off of him.
Obama made Xi look like Winnie the Pooh. Xi must be much happier with Trump, as unhinged he is.
Alright, I have to ask. How did he make him look like Pooh? When I think of Pooh, I think calm to the point of naive, not very smart but sometimes philosophical, friends with all, and very fond of honey.
I'm well and truly confused. This is not entirely unusual.
I'm well and truly confused. This is not entirely unusual.
[deleted]
theWatcher37(3)
"And money talks. When Xi visited Seattle in 2015, America’s technology giants allowed themselves to be summoned
The bosses of Apple, Microsoft, Cisco, IBM and Amazon all stood alongside Xi in the front row of a group photograph. All have since embarked on multiple partnerships with China despite its commitment to perfecting internet censorship.
Also prominent in that photo was Mark Zuckerberg, but despite a charm offensive which included inviting the Chinese Communist leader to suggest a name for his baby, and praising Xi’s book on governance, Facebook is still barred from China. Google’s founders were not even invited to be in Xi’s photo.
Xi has ambitious plans for control of the internet and that means leverage over foreign companies.
Facebook’s messaging tool Whatsapp is increasingly blocked in China and Apple has now removed from its China App Store the VPNs which once gave Chinese users access to social media tools in the West, including the YouTube channel which gave the gleeful Guo Wengui such a devastating platform to discredit Xi’s rule.
To fully control China’s cyberspace, Xi has had to take action against the world’s."