I did not remark China becoming more authoritarian under his rule. I do not see indications that he may stay after 2022, his scheduled depart. What did I miss?
Hu Jintao served two terms as party secretary, but never consolidated his power base (Jiang Zemin protruded a lot into his reign), so was not very powerful, even compared to his premier (wen jiabao). Xi, on the other hand, has completely consolidated his power base and sidelined Li Keqiang. His competitors and apparent successors have been hit up on corruption (they are all corrupt, but who gets prosecuted depends on power plays).
If his successor (maybe another Hu) isn't apparent at this congress, then there will be a lot of talk of him staying passed his terms. If the successor is named, which is probable, then that talk will stop. However, he could totally pull a Jiang Zemin and retain some powerful poets (e.g. Head of the military commission) to keep more influence afterward. But in reality, all the retired leaders retain power behind the scenes, and it's just a matter of how much (him putting his protégés in power and kicking out Hu's will help a lot).
- Anti corruption campaign, restore legitimacy in party with regard to people's opinions, level some playing fields, purge the party of corruption and also strengthen ideological and political support for Xi.
- Xi has been called "The Core", this term was only ever used for Mao and Deng.
- Anti-corruption has also focused on military. Result seems to be Xi has greater control of and greater loyalty from the military.
- The PLA garrison in HK broke tradition this year to address Xi as "Chairman", instead of "Commander" --a first. Perhaps this reflects that while usually the leader also Chairs the Central Military Commission, as Xi does, Xi's power is less figurehead and more effective.
- Xi has achieved many things internationally that have not been done by China ever: first overseas military base, in Africa; taking control of disputed islands in its coastal waters in defiance of neighbours; creation of the ambitious, "One Belt One Road", infrastructure, trade and investment project, to expand China's influence along a "new silk road" Westward; and exercised tighter control over old and new media, with very effective online censorship.
- In summary, he does a lot, has made many changes, is always in the news cycle as an effective leader, and has presided over a very successful period for China both with regard to domestic growth and stability, and international standing and ambitious expansion.
Xi greatly suppressed political dissent, online and off. There was a burgeoning, very interesting online debate about democracy and governance, full of thoughtful ideas, brilliant satire, and more. AFAIK, that's mostly gone. You can read about it here:
He also arrested and otherwise suppressed many political opponents, at least in large part under the guise of an 'anti-corruption' campaign.
He's also revived Communist ideology and a Mao-ish cult of personality for himself. In contrast, Deng Xiaopeng avoided it - my understanding is that he even was cremated and had his ashes scattered at sea so there would be no shrine to him.
Finally, he has helped create an intense wave of nationalism.
(I will say, in fairness, that cults of personality and nationalism are trendy in other countries too, such as the U.S. I don't know how everyone forgot the evil that those things lead to.)
But was that different from his predecessors?
> He also arrested and otherwise suppressed many political opponents, at least in large part under the guise of an 'anti-corruption' campaign.
That I would like to know more about. Most of the times, people just quote Bo Xilai (who seem to have been a genuinel crime ring boss) and his successor. I have a hard time understanding why the official version is just dismissed.
> and a Mao-ish cult of personality for himself.
Is there a place to read about that?
> But was that different from his predecessors?
Yes; I meant to say he greatly increased suppression of dissent
> Is there a place to read about that?
I'd start with the link above. The NY Times covers it occasionally, including a recent story about Xi's childhood home (AFAICT - I didn't read much more than a paragraph).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xi_Jinping#Consolidation_of_po...
The entire article is a good read, it's amazing how much power he has.
Also, he gets compared to his immediate predecessor (Hu) who was was very bland and worked more on a consensus model.
Why Xi wants to put down the tigers and flys?
It's because those are in his way to achieve his idea of "revitalize the Chinese nation". Because those people are having different ideas on how to do the same thing, or entirely having a different purpose.
Conveniently, it's always been true that absolute power comes with absolute corruption. That has never been more true since the economic take-off of China. And anti-corruption has always been the most effective weapon to put down powerful people.
What I was saying is that anti-corruption always will be the most effective weapon to take down powerful people in China, because of its political structure. It does not matter if the motivation is to save the economy, or whatever, there isn't much sense to guess the motivation of political activities, which always have very complex combination and reasoning can change with different angles.
Check this article out: "Xi Jinping May Be Less Powerful Than He Seems" ( https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2017/04/xi... )
The fact of the matter is that the outside world knows very little about the inner workings at the top of the Communist Party in China.
This movie has been made before. The USSR claimed something similar. Now of course, China's aggregate economy could match the U.S.'s when its citizens are only 25% as wealthy, but that is not a sign of great economic performance.
> good management by a central government
I think you mean by an undemocratic authoritarian government (I don't think centrality is the issue). Regardless, I don't see good management, mostly effective suppression and international propaganda. If management is so great, why do they need to censor and propagandize their own citizens on a massive scale, not to mention outlawing dissent and imprisoning dissenters? Who needs the 'Great Firewll', in that case.
I don't think people in Tibet, Hong Kong, Taiwan, or Xinjian would say China is so well managed, as obvious examples.
Sometimes the downvoting and its related visibility mechanism here really puzzles me...I really feel that perhaps we should give more weights, in terms of visibility, to those downvotes that come with even a little bit of explanation, or otherwise we are not much different from a group of mobs in the Spartan assembly (i.e. "Apella") who would consider themselves democratic and then vote by shouting loudly...
=====
PS: I am not the original poster (so in case anyone feels like to cast his downvote for the sole reason of complaining about downvoting, just go ahead and downvote mine and leave alone the OP's)...but I really don't understand (and feel a bit curious about it...) why it attracted some many downvotes, without any explicit criticism...
the reduced points really do not matter, but the reduced visibility might turn some inexperienced readers away and thus further decrease the probability of having them join in the discussion and share their perspective...
I can provide some hypotheses based on experience: Comments that support certain political positions are consistently downvoted. IME it happens with comments that are,
- critical of the Chinese government
- discuss Russian propaganda and trolling/astroturfing (other than to deny their existence)
- critical or questioning of the white male supremacist movement (alt-right) principles, in their propagandized 'reasonable' forms - though those comments are regularly voted back up by others; I've seen some wild fluctuations.
- critical or questioning of Elon Musk
I'm sure there are other topics that I'm not remembering. I guessed that the GP comment would be downvoted when I posted it.
Note that the first two subjects in my list have massive, well-documented online astroturfing and propaganda operations, and the third is no slouch in that area. HN policy, in kind of an odd political correctness, protects those people by forbidding any suggestion that such things are occurring - even as a possibility to consider. Don't mention the Emperor's clothes. That must make it heaven for astroturfers, propagandists, and naked Emperors everywhere.
Musk's fanboys are extreme: Drink the kool-ade or die. The man himself seems obsessed with image but enough to run an astroturfing operation? I have no knowledge that he does but would it be a surprise? Certainly he's not in the category with the other three for many very obvious reasons. For example, I hope he isn't in the dustbin of history but succeeds wildly.
Finally, the first sentence of my comment didn't help; it's a bit sharp, but that imperfection shouldn't be a big deal.
EDIT: I also wonder why alphaalpha101's comment is dead. It's not brilliant, IMHO, but certainly sufficient.
Most of the "analysis" you read are pure speculations based more on wishful thinking and prejudice than on facts.
Of course, what is truly opaque is just which groupings in the West hold the true power and just what is the nature of the "mechanics of power" here in the West.