Anyone who says they know who Xi is is probably BS since Xi has a very small circle and the elders who picked him were probably surprised by his assertiveness. Having said that, if one focusing on facts, it’s probably logical to agree on a few things about him 1. He sees the need to curb corruptions and improve livelihood of the under-c…
Anyone who says they know who Xi is is probably BS since Xi has a very small circle and the elders who picked him were probably surprised by his assertiveness. Having said that, if one focusing on facts, it’s probably logical to agree on a few things about him 1. He sees the need to curb corruptions and improve livelihood of the under-class as prerequisite for Government long term survival, notwithstanding any personal gains at the expense of rivals. You do see a much stronger grass root level support than affluent class or among elites 2. He is a 2nd generation leader, and probably feels a sense of leadership destination or entitlement to make China “better”, whatever that better means in his perspective. “2nd generation” political/wealth tends to be more aggressive than 1st generation. 3. Evidences thus far don’t seem to support strongly one way or the other, in terms of if he is a Marxist believer vs. taking whatever it takes to get to where he thinks the country needs to get to, there have been a lot of different speculations but hard to have conclusion
This analysis begs the main question though—is he aware that the main economic challenge facing the country is the need to rebalance? For the only way to help the underclass in any substantial way is through a major transfer of wealth from the wealthy (ie the ccp in particular which still controls 40-50% of the economy in a very inefficient way, the evidence for which is that the national debt has doubled catastrophically in a decade which is evidence the ccp infrastructure investment is now uNprofitable) to the underclass. But he seems to have ruled out any reform which will reduce the power, economic or political, of the ccp over the lives of the underclass, this dooming the economy to the fate of every other under consuming, investment led economy which is decades of stagnant on (bad I do mean every case, there are two dozen or so examples of the same model China is using all with the same result if you don’t rebalance).
Agreed on the second point as I think most would—like in all communist systems, by the second generation a bureaucratic elite develops which has extreme (relative) wealth and privilege and intoxicating absolute power and the imperative for them is to preserve their wealth and privilege and absolute power above all else.
As to the third point, again it begs the question, clearly he thinks it needs to go in a far more nationalist, ideological, shrill and aggressive direction, but the question as I posed it is why? Why does he want this direction? You said it’s hard to have a conclusion, fine, but it’s an important question and we should lay out the evidence as we see it to have the best understanding possible. That’s the only critical thinking way to get st the problem and so our best to understand the situation we find ourselves in. And the framework I laid out was I thought it was likely to be because either a) he realized rebalancing would be impossible and so needed to distract the population from lack of rising living standards with nationalism and mao-style control over everyone’s daily life, or b) he doesn’t realize rebalancing is important because he’s a Marxist and believes “the contradictions will somehow he resolved.” This is really the key question: how does Xi View the major challenger facing the country (need to rebalance economically)?
Years of anti-corruption bought Xi a lot of power through fear, not respect. No Chinese official can claim he is 100% clean. Such power structure is unstable unlike coalitions which is held together by common (economic & political) interest.
Xi knew the first generation reformers from the Deng’s era were not his allies. Certainly the group of corrupted-power-money vested groups from Jiang’s era were not his friends.
Thus, he has to rely on the grass root and nationalism to use them to keep himself in power. The message therefore is: President Xi loves the people and he is sacrificing himself to take on these corrupted officials and resume Chinese rejuvenation.
He needs these "little red guards" as much they need him. They fed upon feverish national pride from time to time (e.g. Amazing China); they in turn forced the government on silly national issues that has no practical purposes - forcing US airlines to reclassify Taiwan; forcing NBA Daryl Morey issues etc.
Your framework makes sense. On #1. It’s clearly he is aware of some of it, but yet the track record is mixed at best. On one hand, the strong deleveraging policies Since 2015 and efforts to prevent real estate bubble shows the administration understands the economic challenge and trying to think long term, yet efforts on SOE reforms and support for private enterprises which generates most jobs in China are clearly lacking if not going backward by some measures. I’m just not sure more than a few people in the inner circle really knows the answer on that #3. Both scenarios have been speculated by experts, but only time would tell I suppose
Anyone who says they know who Xi is is probably BS since Xi has a very small circle and the elders who picked him were probably surprised by his assertiveness. Having said that, if one focusing on facts, it’s probably logical to agree on a few things about him 1. He sees the need to curb corruptions and improve livelihood of the under-class as prerequisite for Government long term survival, notwithstanding any personal gains at the expense of rivals. You do see a much stronger grass root level support than affluent class or among elites 2. He is a 2nd generation leader, and probably feels a sense of leadership destination or entitlement to make China “better”, whatever that better means in his perspective. “2nd generation” political/wealth tends to be more aggressive than 1st generation. 3. Evidences thus far don’t seem to support strongly one way or the other, in terms of if he is a Marxist believer vs. taking whatever it takes to get to where he thinks the country needs to get to, there have been a lot of different speculations but hard to have conclusion
This analysis begs the main question though—is he aware that the main economic challenge facing the country is the need to rebalance? For the only way to help the underclass in any substantial way is through a major transfer of wealth from the wealthy (ie the ccp in particular which still controls 40-50% of the economy in a very inefficient way, the evidence for which is that the national debt has doubled catastrophically in a decade which is evidence the ccp infrastructure investment is now uNprofitable) to the underclass. But he seems to have ruled out any reform which will reduce the power, economic or political, of the ccp over the lives of the underclass, this dooming the economy to the fate of every other under consuming, investment led economy which is decades of stagnant on (bad I do mean every case, there are two dozen or so examples of the same model China is using all with the same result if you don’t rebalance).
Agreed on the second point as I think most would—like in all communist systems, by the second generation a bureaucratic elite develops which has extreme (relative) wealth and privilege and intoxicating absolute power and the imperative for them is to preserve their wealth and privilege and absolute power above all else.
As to the third point, again it begs the question, clearly he thinks it needs to go in a far more nationalist, ideological, shrill and aggressive direction, but the question as I posed it is why? Why does he want this direction? You said it’s hard to have a conclusion, fine, but it’s an important question and we should lay out the evidence as we see it to have the best understanding possible. That’s the only critical thinking way to get st the problem and so our best to understand the situation we find ourselves in. And the framework I laid out was I thought it was likely to be because either a) he realized rebalancing would be impossible and so needed to distract the population from lack of rising living standards with nationalism and mao-style control over everyone’s daily life, or b) he doesn’t realize rebalancing is important because he’s a Marxist and believes “the contradictions will somehow he resolved.” This is really the key question: how does Xi View the major challenger facing the country (need to rebalance economically)?
Years of anti-corruption bought Xi a lot of power through fear, not respect. No Chinese official can claim he is 100% clean. Such power structure is unstable unlike coalitions which is held together by common (economic & political) interest.
Xi knew the first generation reformers from the Deng’s era were not his allies. Certainly the group of corrupted-power-money vested groups from Jiang’s era were not his friends.
Thus, he has to rely on the grass root and nationalism to use them to keep himself in power. The message therefore is: President Xi loves the people and he is sacrificing himself to take on these corrupted officials and resume Chinese rejuvenation.
He needs these "little red guards" as much they need him. They fed upon feverish national pride from time to time (e.g. Amazing China); they in turn forced the government on silly national issues that has no practical purposes - forcing US airlines to reclassify Taiwan; forcing NBA Daryl Morey issues etc.
Your framework makes sense. On #1. It’s clearly he is aware of some of it, but yet the track record is mixed at best. On one hand, the strong deleveraging policies Since 2015 and efforts to prevent real estate bubble shows the administration understands the economic challenge and trying to think long term, yet efforts on SOE reforms and support for private enterprises which generates most jobs in China are clearly lacking if not going backward by some measures. I’m just not sure more than a few people in the inner circle really knows the answer on that #3. Both scenarios have been speculated by experts, but only time would tell I suppose