The guys is almost 80 73, he’s an old man.
He’s been very successful in his tenure, carried out great anti-corruption campaigns, overseen a pivot to green energy, helmed China as it has retaken its place in the sun.
At the same time there’s a lot of foreign policy stuff that leaves some wanting. There’s still cliques of liberals (as far as I understand, which is very little, which is why I ask) that are working towards something very different (I hear Shanghai is really bad?) not to mention some impending economic doom, according to some China posters here.
Whatever the case is, Xi has been monumental and at the forefront of a great wave of change. One must Imagine he has planned for his retirement, moved things around to ensure some of His Guys are in good positions to take over.
Or maybe not?
So what happens when he goes away? Who is likely to take his spot? What will happen on the world stage?
I’m not so convinced. Liberalism is seductive like a religion. The truth doesn’t matter to liberals nor the appeal of liberalism I think. It whispers in your ear begging you to dance. For some amount of people facts, logic, reasoning don’t really matter, it’s about emotions and the feel of a thing so these are vulnerable to emotional appeals and propaganda.
Many Chinese may also not see it as socialism that helped them but some special Chinese nationalism or believe their people are superior, that they accomplished it in-spite of socialism not because of it. Never under-estimate the human ability for self-deception.
Care should be taken. Given Xi was chosen in the first place there is good reason to be hopeful about the CPC’s abilities but danger continues to lurk.
Have you seen Chinese people speak of racial exeptionalism?
Chinese media phrasing things in terms of “see how our system has made us so successful” and “this system is why we are doing so much better”.
Not “We’re better because we’re Chinese”.
Not to insult you, but not listening to “facts, logic, reasoning” seems to me to describe yourself. I say this because you are applying the world of politics you know and are familiar with - outside of it’s context.
The world you know is one of racial supremacism, ethnonarcissism, idealism, lack of dialectical materialism.
Are we describing China? Is this how they teach people to think in China? If it is, then what is Chinese socialism?
Do you believe that China is a socialist country? Do you believe that China is a communist country?
Oh please.
There are people in China who are Chinese nationalists. Not necessarily along some sort of racialized supremacist lines as in the US but who are less communists and more nationalists and who in a hypothetical where a US blockade and missteps led to economic problems and suffering might easily turn on the party just as soon because the economic headwinds have changed and they no longer see the party as benefiting them. And there are a ton of fair weather communists who are so because it’s the path of least resistance and because they were educated in such. Such people at times get into various levels of leadership and such people at times also take the path of least resistance in engaging in corruption and taking money as we have seen.
To assert Chinese people are somehow special and the ‘white-brain-pan’ is the only one that can possibly be vulnerable to the siren song of liberalism is itself a racially reductive and problematic take. There are traitors within China including within the CPC as there were within the USSR and the party there. China has taken steps with lessons learned from the fall of the USSR to attempt to address many of these problems and that is good but given the amount of corruption Xi had to root out, the existence of liberal cliques, etc there are inevitably as part of China’s opening up necessary playing with fire economic liberalization and penetration by foreign capital (to secure that capital) those who feel a certain way and have not been necessarily purged but who fester, tolerated so as to not scare off foreign capital and economic partnership and only reigned in as Jack Ma was if they openly go too far against the party. This however says nothing to what some of these traitors may privately think but be smart enough not to give voice to at present. Rot starts small with little concessions. Kruschev did not set out to destroy communism or the USSR and there is more than one way to fell a tree.
What I am saying is it is the mandate of the party, the vanguard to maintain vigilance. To not grow slack, to not assume liberalism can be so easily extinguished as you do. It is a weed and it must be plucked and it must be understood it can sprout up time and again from apparently cleared soil and that the vigilance here will need to be a longer one.
Importantly the USA has not yet failed. It is the strongest empire in history with a lot of cultural hegemony still built in around the globe and seeped into a lot of thinking in ways people don’t even realize. It will likely be decades before the danger lessens significantly as that is how long it will take assume the Iran war really does bring US power and image low (a Suez Crisis moment) for this all to really fully manifest in the illusion and its remnants falling away. In that time China will almost certainly transition to a new leader. Like an injured scorpion it isn’t wise to count it out but be more cautious than ever in its death throes. Future generations next century may live free of this watchful vigilance if we are successful. But we owe it to all who have struggled not to presume too much too soon. Until the enemy is buried and long dead and discredited the risk remains and so must worry and watchfulness.
Great points all around.
Now that we are looking at an additional condition, let’s game it out?
How do economic headwinds change?
Scenario 1: War and global supply chain issues (the current problem)
In this situation we are seeing Chinese people look at the US as the source of the trouble.
War and fear makes people more conservative. They want to preserve the status quo and prevent loss. People rally around existing institutions.
Not to give any weight to horseshoe theory, but in China that would mean people digging their heels in for the communist system.
This last point is a conclusion on my part based on what science exists on human behaviour. If someone in China disputes this, let me know.
Scenario 2: Chinese government liberalizes.
This would create a circular argument, because the we would need the liberalization of the government to cause the circumstances that can bring about the liberalization of the government.