I don’t think the problem is the disintegration of the family though.
It's sort of funny how universal that social conservative analysis is worldwide, though. Everything revolves around "the family".
Posting an article that echoes a narrative I have observed on Twitter, just to see what people think.
Inb4 "OMG this article is so Sinophobic, it takes all sorts of things about modern China and makes them look worse than they are" - I knooooow. Try to shrug that off if you can.
echoes a narrative I have observed on Twitter
Please, no. Twitter discourse is painfully bad.
In any case, it's a shit article. Trying to cast one guy (out of 7) in the Politburo Standing Committee with some shitty opinions as shadow-dictator of all policy for 30 years is clear nonsense.
So he is one of sources of that neo-conservatism, fuck him then. Also, lmao: pay below reproduction rate - how can workers not reproduce themselves, quite a mystery, we must change culture
Take it with a big grain of salt, too. The article is full of orientalist trash, and is basically trying to imply that a single spooky guy dictated all Chinese policy from the shadows for 30 years.
Palladium’s political theory and analysis has touched on the importance of deradicalization, how to find meaning in a world of power hierarchies, why elite responsibility is important, the growing Confucian power center in China that is making a bid for world power, and why we need a new state consciousness to support the public good.
:lmayo: A whole magazine dedicated to imperialists' paranoid orientalist fever dreams about China.
Yeah, but I’m skeptical in general: taken china policy together they aim to bridge the gap of rich/poor: remove displays of wealth, raise salaries of workers, that’s well and good.
But let’s dream for a moment: what if China mandated labor accounting (I.e. parallel to gaap reporting or whatever tax forms they have) in all its products, and marked them on products sold? This brings socialism much closer then socdemy policies of raising wages/disappearing rich people. Plus fighting culture is also not a good thing, it may be necessary for some short term goals, but not as a policy
I don't disagree that China's attempts at shaping culture can be pretty counterproductive, but I'm not really discussing anything about China here.
Just pointing out this is a garbage article from a garbage source, and you shouldn't take it at face value.
Garbage article may have glimpses of truth, unless they completely misrepresented a) his position in party b) framing of his books c) his liking of closing the american mind
He's 1/7 of the politburo standing committee, and they're acting like he controlled all policy from the shadows for the past 3 presidents.
This article is like the most ridiculous form of great man theory with a heavy dash of orientalism, and all I'm saying is not to take any of it at face value.
Yeah, richelieu/grey cardinal stuff is whatevs, but still his entire existence in that place in party is bad
We know there's a current of social conservatism in the CPC (which I agree is bad), so even if that part of the article is true, it's hardly news. That aside, I hardly trust this magazine not to warp the facts.
You can always look for other sources. His book might even be available translated somewhere. But like I said, we know the social conservative current exists, and even if this guy is a big promoter of it, he's not the only one. I don't think it's that interesting unless he actually is the great man in the shadows like they imply, which he obviously isn't.
This is pretty clearly an article which just focuses on one highly-placed member with objectionable opinions, and tries to cast him as dictator of all policy.
His book might even be available translated somewhere
