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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
> 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.
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".
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.
Chinese internet had been shocked by the news this evening .Now the govermet has blocked all the key words.Xi has became the second Deng Xiaoping in numbers of people’s mind,so I don’t know whether Chinese people can stand out to oppose this.In recent years,there was a Putin Adoring trend in the Chinese internet.I guess this was induced by goverment
I have seen changes of power of governments after 16 years. The result is always that corruption is discovered. After 16 years politicians have had time to get used to power and to put friendly people as public service officers. When power shifts corruption surfaces. The longer the term, the more corruption is found. Some parties are worse than others, but all are worst at the end of a decade that when they began.
It is my experience, and it seems logical. But I don't know if there is studies about this effect.
You are saying that the corruption is established during the rule (before the change of power) but is more likely to be uncovered upon the change of power, correct?
As opposed to the corruption coming about because of the change of power, which is how I'm afraid some people could read your comment if they skim quickly.
Assuming that's what you mean, yes it makes a lot of sense.
To put it another way, stability of power tends to allow corruption to remain hidden.
So all the people who are reaping the benefits of corruption will love the idea of Xi staying in power.
The skeptic in me would say that the new rulers try to discredit their predecessors with allegations of corruption. Not saying you're wrong, but you can't assume the 'challengers' to the establishment always have altruistic motives. Lots of revolutions go completely sideways...
I once read a statement that if absolute power corrupts absolutely, then endless power corrupts endlessly. Term limits are one of the most effective checks on a county's leadership because those with power will eventually find themselves without.
Term limits are needed not just for the highest office but all elected officials. In my opinion the mess US is in currently is because of long term career politicians that are beholden to special interest groups. If they were limited to 1 or 2 terms most of them would care less about courting donations.
There is actually an interesting trade-off with term-limits.
If the term-limits are brief, then lawmakers have to frequently rely on the party's election and fundraising apparatus, and therefore feel pressure to tow the party line.
If the term-limits are extended, then lawmakers aren't as beholden to the populous, and can therefore become corrupt.
I think I first read this balance articulated (much more clearly than I'm putting it here) in a book by the economist James Buchanan.
In case the significance is not immediately obvious: this means things have officially been set in motion to keep Xi Jinping in power for the rest of his life, which will mean a continuation of his style of Chinese policies for the foreseeable future.
Looks like only part of the proposal got onto the front page of news [0]. The proposal itself has plenty of other contents that are interesting [1], especially the one on supervisory commission (the anti-corruption body) [2].
Should I add a note of irony? The 19th congress of CPSU was also set to "solidify Stalin's rule for all eternity" it was all but affirmed, but as we all know 19th congress was Stalin's last. Supposedly he died of natural causes, but even if he were not to, it is clear that the amount of people preparing to back stab him was enough to dethrone him before the 20th congress.
It may be the same for Xi. It is all or nothing now for the few of his remaining opponents.
Possibly an unpopular opinion, but at least it is Xi Jinping. China's system I think is rather horrid but numerous reports over the years suggest Xi is moderate, not an ideologue and leans slightly pro-West. Classified cables released by Wikileaks also point in this direction. If I am off the mark on this, please correct me as I find the area interesting.
So is this the return to Maoist politics? Hope they learned a lesson from those days --getting rid if corruption is one thing, but concentrating power into a dictatoriat dies not bode well.
[+] [-] ilamont|8 years ago|reply
Deng Xiaoping, 1980 https://dengxiaopingworks.wordpress.com/2013/02/25/on-the-re...
[+] [-] fspeech|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] geff82|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pdog|8 years ago|reply
[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...
[+] [-] isostatic|8 years ago|reply
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).
[+] [-] rainygold|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Cw67NTN8F|8 years ago|reply
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...
[+] [-] chvid|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] stevenh|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ezVoodoo|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] tzahola|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] frgtpsswrdlame|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ttflee|8 years ago|reply
http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2018-02/25/c_136999323.htm
http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2018-02/25/c_136998986.htm
[+] [-] nabla9|8 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] thomasfoster96|8 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] CapitalistCartr|8 years ago|reply
The conflict had been part of keeping things moving forward, but I didn't recognize it.
[+] [-] mgbmtl|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dgudkov|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] logicallee|8 years ago|reply
----
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.
[+] [-] QasimK|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hanklazard|8 years ago|reply
Relatedly, could moves like this actually encourage some sort of reaction by the people against their authoritarian government?
[+] [-] _cs2017_|8 years ago|reply
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?
[+] [-] JumpCrisscross|8 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] mtgx|8 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] mc32|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ixtli|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ssdd|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Alex3917|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Drakim|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sandworm101|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fbytr|8 years ago|reply
Regardless, it seems like the case for term-limits is stronger now, than it’s ever been.
[+] [-] Osterzone|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kartan|8 years ago|reply
It is my experience, and it seems logical. But I don't know if there is studies about this effect.
[+] [-] natch|8 years ago|reply
As opposed to the corruption coming about because of the change of power, which is how I'm afraid some people could read your comment if they skim quickly.
Assuming that's what you mean, yes it makes a lot of sense.
To put it another way, stability of power tends to allow corruption to remain hidden.
So all the people who are reaping the benefits of corruption will love the idea of Xi staying in power.
[+] [-] Mikeb85|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] noetic_techy|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chrisaycock|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xbmcuser|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] richardfeynman|8 years ago|reply
If the term-limits are brief, then lawmakers have to frequently rely on the party's election and fundraising apparatus, and therefore feel pressure to tow the party line.
If the term-limits are extended, then lawmakers aren't as beholden to the populous, and can therefore become corrupt.
I think I first read this balance articulated (much more clearly than I'm putting it here) in a book by the economist James Buchanan.
[+] [-] ssdd|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vincvinc|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dictum|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] paradite|8 years ago|reply
[0] https://www.reuters.com/ http://www.bbc.com/
[1] http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2018-02/25/c_136999077.htm
[2] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-politics-corruption...
[+] [-] baybal2|8 years ago|reply
It may be the same for Xi. It is all or nothing now for the few of his remaining opponents.
[+] [-] alva|8 years ago|reply
https://wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/09BEIJING3128_a.html
[+] [-] mc32|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] enitihas|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] gigatexal|8 years ago|reply