> The party hierarchy outranks the state one. In other countries, the ministers of finance and foreign affairs (government jobs) are usually the most important ones after the president or prime minister. In China, they are not even in the top 25. Neither man is a member of the Politburo, let alone its inner sanctum, the Politburo Standing Committee. Formally, the People’s Liberation Army is controlled by the party, not the government.
It was interesting to read. Some countries have an official "balance of powers" defined in the Constitution. But even authoritarian or dictatorial regimes have an informal balance of powers. In the old Soviet Union they pretty much had the Politburo, the army and KGB. They kind of kept each other in check in strange way.
Wonder where the business interests fit in the China's balance of powers. Do large companies bribe the government officials or go through the party to get things done and how do they interact in general.
> Do large companies bribe the government officials or go through the party to get things done and how do they interact in general.
For about ~15 years before Xi fully consolidated power, that's how things routinely worked. It was run almost entirely on a bribery to get things done approach, in the business sphere.
Xi has moved the system/party on to new goals, with the business realm no longer having the same high order position that it previously did. I wouldn't want to be Jack Ma or Pony Ma in the environment that's being setup now. Alibaba and Tencent will eventually be too large for Xi's liking, if that's not already the case.
Australia's former PM, Kevin Rudd, has an excellent write-up on all of this (he has a particularly strong background regarding China):
I never really understood the relationship between the party and the state in China, but this article cleared up a lot. Having a better grasp of that relationship also makes this development all the more unsettling:
> No less important, the parliament will approve what looks like a new administrative branch that merges elements of the party, government, police and judiciary into a powerful organisation called the National Supervision Commission. This will incorporate the party’s discipline-enforcement body but work closely with the courts and report to the legislature—ie, there will be no separation of powers. It will be able to interrogate, search, detain and punish any official, whether from the party or the government bureaucracy, in cases involving corruption, violations of ethics and ideological deviation.
It sounds like any state check on the power of the party that existed before will be effectively neutered by this commission.
One of the few things that China's governmental system had going for them was term limits for their head of state. This is a very unfortunate development for the world.
I'm reading a very good book called "China Dream: Great Power Thinking and Strategic Power Posture in the Post-American Era"
I haven't finished it so I'll save you all from a premature review, but from what I have read so far I believe we need a more serious national conversation on China and the role that technology companies play in enabling dictatorships.
I also think in light of recent events I think we'd benefit from people educating themselves on the actual state of free trade with respect to China, China is far more protectionist than the US, but if we try to do something about it, it's considered to be starting a trade war.
>I believe we need a more serious national conversation on China and the role that technology companies play in enabling dictatorships.
if this interests you, I recommend reading "IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance between Nazi Germany and America's Most Powerful Corporation" by Edwin Black
For those who say it's OK to be a president for life because he's a competent person: he's 64 years old. Brain deteriorates rapidly with age. The most reasonable person today can suddenly start rounding up Chinese who post memes on WeChat a year from now simply because of a normal biological process. That's where you need a system in place that strips them off power very quickly. History has had plenty Mad Kings.
The biggest problem is the precedent it sets. Once Julius Cesar made himself "first citizen" and took control over the senate, absolutely NONE of his successors relinquished power back to the Senate. ...and some of them were disastrous leaders.
Would you please stop using HN for political and national battle? You've been doing it a lot, and it's not what this site is for. As such discussions get more predictable (such as when people dump boilerplate political links into comment threads), they get both less interesting and more flame-prone, a double whammy of destruction for what we care about here.
Can you elaborate more on why China's increasing military budget is a disturbing sign to you?
China spends a mere 1.9% of its GDP in 2016 and that number is smaller than from Vietnam, Korea, India even Singapore [0]. To me China is only trying catching up its neighbors.
BTW Japan's PM has just submitted his 2018 Military Budget and if approved would be the 6th "straight annual increase" [1].
If china invades taiwan in will be a sign that China believes US leadership to be weak, and the world would follow that lead depending on the us response.
If they successfully coax a response, we hurt our economic ties, if they dont, they get facevalue gains and reduce us foreign credibility.
Is it disturbing from a US POV, or generally speaking? Because if I recall correctly, the US military spending has gone up significantly as well, also it's projected to rise even further in the future.
On a related note, could someone explain to me how Russia manages to stay a threat with a military budget that's about 6% of the US budget? Or does it only seem to be that smaller because their soldiers are payed less?
Vietnam just had to expend a large amount of effort to placate and reassure China, so the US could dock an aircraft carrier in Danang.
For a country as powerful and on the rise as China is, it's remarkable how insecure the CPC are about every little thing. It's an overwhelming indication of the fragility of their power and their own sense of security about their control.
I must’ve missed the part when China became a democracy. While I hold the same fear as China continues to aggressively pursue the Orwellian path, I seldom to see model governments that makes China second think its authoritarian decision. After all, I can’t envision other governments wanting to become US—-when excluding its resources. I hope we become better so we can emerge as the role model that we once were.
> I hope we become better so we can emerge as the role model that we once were.
USA is still a role model on many areas: cultural, economic, military, etc. It was never a moral role model, although that didn't deter the government of boasting about it anyway.
I have a feeling 10 years from now Trump will be funny blip on the radar of how crazy the '10s were while Asia will be quite meaningfully transformed. I wish this was getting as much attention as BREAKING NEWS: Trump/staffer did something dumb. The (soon plausibly) richest and most populous country in the world will soon have a dictator. That's a bit scary.
Two things give me some hope.
1. I don't think totalitarianism lends itself to economic prosperity, long term. Sure, the right authoritarian can move much faster and implement beneficial changes much more quickly than a democratic government can. But that knife cuts both ways.
2. The entire government system in China, and it's culture, heavily values stability and collective unity (hence it's desire to squash and eliminate anything that may lead to extreme reaction or departure from consensus).
But this will lead to calcification, or, if the dictator changes too much or is too heavy handed, instability is inevitable, which leads me to think that the dictator will be changed out.
Ultimately, I think that the power of any society is in the hands of the citizens, and that Chinese culture is extremely pragmatic. They may be able to be kept peaceful for a bit, but if progress starts stagnating or even reversing, changes will happen.
It's part of the same larger pattern. The entire world seems to be moving toward totalitarianism to varying degrees. I have yet to encounter a really good explanation of why this trend is occurring across so many nations and cultures.
While fussing over every misstep of the administration is a distraction, this is an unfortunate time to have a US President who seems uninterested in global politics.
Trump will be a blip provided a Congress willing to check his powers is elected to office, and doesn't itself go down the same path. It might be one election away from stacking of the courts and all that jazz. Don't count your chickens before they hatch.
Strange as it is, centrally planned economies are kicking the West's arse right now. We're busy electing far right faux populists (like Italy yesterday) and giving money to the rich.
The economist is completely and openly biased with all their reporting; that's why their pieces are both valuable and only part of the picture. To just scratch the surface:
> Our public agenda is liberal in the classical sense. We have supported free trade ever since our foundation in 1843 when we opposed Britain’s corn laws, which sought to keep the price of grain high by limiting imports. We have continued to advocate bold policies in favour of individual freedoms, such as same-sex marriage and legalisation of drugs, regardless of whether they are politically popular, in the belief that the force of argument will eventually prevail.
I thought it was kind of odd when Trump joked that maybe the US should experiment with getting rid of term limits.
The joke he made was clearly to enrage us leftists, but it also reeked of a man who doesn't fully grasp this new situation, which is actually scary.
It was odd because China is an extremely advanced country and Xi Xinping made an extremely undemocratic, dictatorial move by abolishing term limits.
So now we have the makings of a dictator leading the largest country on Earth, commanding an extremely technologically-advanced military.
The cynic in me makes me think I don't understand Trump's joke because maybe he knows something I don't. The paranoid in me wonders, if Trump really is so misinformed.
Outside of the west, democracy is generally held in contempt. This can be dated at least as far back as Plato. Trump isn't misinformed, he believes that democracy is contemptible. And whether he is wrong is arguable.
[+] [-] rdtsc|8 years ago|reply
It was interesting to read. Some countries have an official "balance of powers" defined in the Constitution. But even authoritarian or dictatorial regimes have an informal balance of powers. In the old Soviet Union they pretty much had the Politburo, the army and KGB. They kind of kept each other in check in strange way.
Wonder where the business interests fit in the China's balance of powers. Do large companies bribe the government officials or go through the party to get things done and how do they interact in general.
[+] [-] adventured|8 years ago|reply
For about ~15 years before Xi fully consolidated power, that's how things routinely worked. It was run almost entirely on a bribery to get things done approach, in the business sphere.
Xi has moved the system/party on to new goals, with the business realm no longer having the same high order position that it previously did. I wouldn't want to be Jack Ma or Pony Ma in the environment that's being setup now. Alibaba and Tencent will eventually be too large for Xi's liking, if that's not already the case.
Australia's former PM, Kevin Rudd, has an excellent write-up on all of this (he has a particularly strong background regarding China):
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-03-03/emperor-x...
[+] [-] mortenjorck|8 years ago|reply
> No less important, the parliament will approve what looks like a new administrative branch that merges elements of the party, government, police and judiciary into a powerful organisation called the National Supervision Commission. This will incorporate the party’s discipline-enforcement body but work closely with the courts and report to the legislature—ie, there will be no separation of powers. It will be able to interrogate, search, detain and punish any official, whether from the party or the government bureaucracy, in cases involving corruption, violations of ethics and ideological deviation.
It sounds like any state check on the power of the party that existed before will be effectively neutered by this commission.
[+] [-] joncrane|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dionian|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] justinzollars|8 years ago|reply
I haven't finished it so I'll save you all from a premature review, but from what I have read so far I believe we need a more serious national conversation on China and the role that technology companies play in enabling dictatorships.
[+] [-] mistermann|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] greggarious|8 years ago|reply
if this interests you, I recommend reading "IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance between Nazi Germany and America's Most Powerful Corporation" by Edwin Black
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_and_the_Holocaust
[+] [-] zavi|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] koheripbal|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anthonyleecook|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dang|8 years ago|reply
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
[+] [-] bgee|8 years ago|reply
China spends a mere 1.9% of its GDP in 2016 and that number is smaller than from Vietnam, Korea, India even Singapore [0]. To me China is only trying catching up its neighbors.
BTW Japan's PM has just submitted his 2018 Military Budget and if approved would be the 6th "straight annual increase" [1].
[0]: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS?end=2...
[1]: https://thediplomat.com/2017/08/whats-in-japans-record-2018-...
Disclaimer: I'm Chinese.
[+] [-] drharby|8 years ago|reply
If they successfully coax a response, we hurt our economic ties, if they dont, they get facevalue gains and reduce us foreign credibility.
Now that i think about it...im scared for taiwan
[+] [-] arialeks|8 years ago|reply
On a related note, could someone explain to me how Russia manages to stay a threat with a military budget that's about 6% of the US budget? Or does it only seem to be that smaller because their soldiers are payed less?
[+] [-] adventured|8 years ago|reply
For a country as powerful and on the rise as China is, it's remarkable how insecure the CPC are about every little thing. It's an overwhelming indication of the fragility of their power and their own sense of security about their control.
[+] [-] moreorless|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lxmorj|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] arieskg|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ASalazarMX|8 years ago|reply
USA is still a role model on many areas: cultural, economic, military, etc. It was never a moral role model, although that didn't deter the government of boasting about it anyway.
[+] [-] ahtu123|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] natecavanaugh|8 years ago|reply
Ultimately, I think that the power of any society is in the hands of the citizens, and that Chinese culture is extremely pragmatic. They may be able to be kept peaceful for a bit, but if progress starts stagnating or even reversing, changes will happen.
[+] [-] api|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mannykannot|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pishpash|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] purplezooey|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] moreorless|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] akvadrako|8 years ago|reply
> Our public agenda is liberal in the classical sense. We have supported free trade ever since our foundation in 1843 when we opposed Britain’s corn laws, which sought to keep the price of grain high by limiting imports. We have continued to advocate bold policies in favour of individual freedoms, such as same-sex marriage and legalisation of drugs, regardless of whether they are politically popular, in the belief that the force of argument will eventually prevail.
https://www.economist.com/about-the-economist#editorial-phil...
[+] [-] pmarreck|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mannykannot|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bigmanwalter|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andrepd|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] debt|8 years ago|reply
The joke he made was clearly to enrage us leftists, but it also reeked of a man who doesn't fully grasp this new situation, which is actually scary.
It was odd because China is an extremely advanced country and Xi Xinping made an extremely undemocratic, dictatorial move by abolishing term limits.
So now we have the makings of a dictator leading the largest country on Earth, commanding an extremely technologically-advanced military.
The cynic in me makes me think I don't understand Trump's joke because maybe he knows something I don't. The paranoid in me wonders, if Trump really is so misinformed.
[+] [-] squeegee5|8 years ago|reply