You must log in or register to comment.
What an article. Thanks for linking it. It really puts into perspective what China’s been going through since Deng. It was really socialist in nothing but name. It would seem as if the Western powers were right in their assumption that market liberalisation would lead to the death of socialism in China and Deng’s reform might have really been the death knell of socialism.
Until Xi.
His rule will possibly be the biggest event in 21st century political history. I really can’t help but admire the man. Everyone talks of combatting corruption. Xi’s the only one who’s actually managed to do so. He really is the greatest Chinese leader since Mao.
I have cultural/social criticisms of “striking hard” against drug use etc. from a western liberal perspective. But that has no place in this conversation, at least right now. Maybe once China is in the clear, there can be a conversation about “morality” and against “conservatism”. But if those concepts can help China defeat neoliberalism (from within and without) then these criticisms can wait.
It it was truly socialist in nothing but name, I don't think the party would have been able to regain control in the way they did. Wasn't the whole idea of Deng's reforms to allow Western capital into the country, accept that there will be come chaos and problems to solve as a result, but keep a firm grip on the core tools of power to keep them out of the hands of capital? Shady stuff was expected and planned for.
I'm skeptical of the idea that the anti-corruption reforms wouldn't have happened without Xi. The way socialism with Chinese characteristics works is to try and create as many people like Xi as possible, and keep them in power. If Xi died in some freak accident tommorow, I have no doubt that his replacement would do a fine job.
What's more is, could anti-corruption reforms have really happened much earlier than they did? Hong Kong got the majority of it's foreign driven growth done from the mid 90s to about 2005. The floodgates for foreign investment were opened in '92. Anti-corruption campaigns would definitely scare off those foreign investors. Using Hong Kong as a model, it looks like around 2010 or so is when scarring off foreign investment is no longer a big deal. The anti-corruption campaigns began in full scale 2012. So right on track.
We are so used to governments being utterly incompetent in the West that when a foreign government says they are going to do something and actually does it, it seems like some insane special thing that defies normal explaination. But it's perfectly possible to maintain an organization to keep a consistent complex goal without relying on a single individual being in change forcing it.
I have cultural/social criticisms of “striking hard” against drug use etc. from a western liberal perspective. But that has no place in this conversation, at least right now. Maybe once China is in the clear, there can be a conversation about “morality” and against “conservatism”. But if those concepts can help China defeat neoliberalism (from within and without) then these criticisms can wait.
Some of you scare me.
Seriously, the complete lack of material analysis and ideological consistency is baffling at times.
The article is so written in that bizzare, contradictory liberal style that every article about a non-western state is written in. They are so desperate to make sure they don't accidentally say something neutral about China that they literally claimed that morphine is an ineffective painkiller and is barbaric compared to using ketamine. Just so they could say China is horrible because they started using ketamine as a battlefield drug after the West started using it.
The useful information has to be picked out of the liberal non-sense. It could be shortened down to a few paragraphs if you removed the anti-chinese bullshit.
I thought it was a fairly pro China article tbh. Maybe I didn’t pick up on the subtle sinophobia.
It was hardly subtle. Nearly every sentence was full of it.
If any of this was written about a western country none of you would support it.
Context matters. China isn’t in the West i.e. it hasn’t gotten rich from centuries of exploitation and colonialism. Instead it was on the other side of that equation and seeing them rise is an inspiration to all other countries sin the Global South.
Fantastic article, and some really interesting citations in there as well. Thanks for sharing!
Interesting article, I wonder if the recent crackdown on narcotics is more of a focus on punishing users (which is bad), punishing producers/gangs (which is more neutral depending on context), or improving conditions so less people fall into addictions (good). But it leaves me wondering if the party-state shift will continue after Xi's term or if the liberal side of the party will regain power.
