Hacker News Reader

Comment by briga | Hacker News Reader

From the outside looking in it seems like Xi has been doing a great job leading China. Are there any serious contenders for Chinese leadership like Navalny in Russia?

Not to mention that historically there have been many excellent leaders who rules for decades. An arbitrary term limit can be useful to prevent corruption, but it's also the reason for the fiasco that is Washington in 2018.

View on HN

There's a reason why it looks like he's doing a great job from the outside. Same with why there aren't really any viable alternatives. His political rivals have been punished with corruption charges[1], and he's ruled China with a calculated level of control that hasn't been seen in decades[2].

The move to remove term limits means he will be an absolute dictator for life. One of the only "good" things about the Chinese political system was the 10 year limit, and governance through an oligarchy, so there wouldn't be another cult of Mao type scenario. Since taking office Xi has slowing consolidated power for himself alone, and now with the removal of term limits, I think his control over China is complete.

[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-corruption-xi-insig...

[2] https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/02/china... - There's a better video report of surveillance on Bloomberg I think (I remember it was on a business news site)? but I can't find the link right now.

> Not to mention that historically there have been many excellent leaders who rules for decades

There are probably more historical examples of not-so-excellent (incompetent, evil, tyrannical, etc) leaders ruling for decades than excellent ones. The problem with tyranny is that the only way out is revolution. You may have an excellent dictator for decades, but then he dies and his son/crony/not-so-excellent replacement arrives for the next N decades...

At least with Trump there are a variety of strategies besides bloodshed to get rid of him if people decide they don't like him.

Well, in fairness, there are probably more historical examples of not-so-excellent leaders than excellent ones, regardless of whether they ruled for decades. The problem is, if you've got a not-so-excellent one and you're stuck with him/her for decades, that's a really big chunk of your life...

> From the outside looking in

Exactly, there's your problem. China is suffering from 300%+ debt, capital outflows (hidden, unreported), fake gdp growth (several provinces have claimed 20-30% fake revenue), demographics time bomb, middle income trap, shrinking population (800M estimated in 2100), corruption, pollution, belligerent behaviors against all its neighbors (Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Vietnam, Australia, India, etc), smart people wanting leave, rich people wanting to leave, etc

I can think of a number of first world nations sufferings from the same issues.

No you can't. Even Greece doesn't have that level of GDP to debt, let alone the level of potential fraud in official figures.

I don't tend to agree with China, but there doing what a lot of economists have been saying they need to do for years.

Chinas rise has been remarkable, and it's great so many people have been able to lift themselves out of poverty. But we really should temper our expectations, and our view of just how well China is doing, which is often sensationalized. The above is just what manages to make it past the censors as well.

I'm not worried about a superpower overtaking the US, I'm worried about a sharp economic collapse causing it to lash out. I'm worried about the global economic consequences if that were to happen.

Can you name six of those “great rulers” and as a bonus, make those sure those six allowed for a peaceful transfer of power when they were done. No fair if you pick rulers who were “great” and the whole place suffered terribly upon their death or removal from power.

Off the top of my head: Solon, Trajan, Hadrian, Marcus Aurelius, Akbar, Charlemange

There are many more examples, those are just some that come to mind right away. You can argue whether or not they were "good", but they certainly did good things for their empires.

I too yearn for the good old days of the Massacre of Verden, and forced religious conversion under penalty of death.

...and a bunch of Roman emperors. I prefer modern politics to that of imperial Rome, thanks.

Oh, and Solon. Arguably a truly great man, but um...

After completing his work of reform, Solon surrendered his extraordinary authority and left the country. According to Herodotus[123] the country was bound by Solon to maintain his reforms for 10 years, whereas according to Plutarch[59] and the author of the Athenian Constitution[124] (reputedly Aristotle) the contracted period was instead 100 years. A modern scholar[125] considers the time-span given by Herodotus to be historically accurate because it fits the 10 years that Solon was said to have been absent from the country.[126] Within 4 years of Solon's departure, the old social rifts re-appeared, but with some new complications. There were irregularities in the new governmental procedures, elected officials sometimes refused to stand down from their posts and occasionally important posts were left vacant. It has even been said that some people blamed Solon for their troubles.[127] Eventually one of Solon's relatives, Peisistratos, ended the factionalism by force, thus instituting an unconstitutionally gained tyranny. In Plutarch's account, Solon accused Athenians of stupidity and cowardice for allowing this to happen.[128]

I’ll argue that off the top of your head is what’s getting you into so much trouble with sweeping generalizations.

Even the greatest emperor isn't going to fix all of the ills of society. What matters is what they can achieve during their time in power. If tomorrow some all-knowing wise leader were be elected to power in China, do you really think there would be no problems? That corruption and violence would vanish? You have to look at the historical context of their reigns.

I think the point that is being made is that regardless of whether or not that particular ruler is effective, in the long term they have weakened their society because they have broken the system that ensures that capable people/groups peacefully succeed each other to power.

I don't think you can argue that any of those rulers weakened their societies--unless you completely disregard historical fact.

I was just questioning the dogma that having leaders in power for multiple terms is automatically bad. I'm open to the possibility that Xi is a bad leader--I'm no expert on China--but it seems that China today is a better place than when he came in to power. I guess people don't agree with me here.

Cough

Within 4 years of Solon's departure, the old social rifts re-appeared, but with some new complications. There were irregularities in the new governmental procedures, elected officials sometimes refused to stand down from their posts and occasionally important posts were left vacant. It has even been said that some people blamed Solon for their troubles.[127] Eventually one of Solon's relatives, Peisistratos, ended the factionalism by force, thus instituting an unconstitutionally gained tyranny.

And

... Charlemagne's grandsons broke the Carolingian Empire in civil war.

Sounds weaker to me. It seems like you’re somewhat lazily working your way backwards from a foregoing conclusion. Is it really any wonder we don’t agree with you?

It seems like you're missing the forest for the trees here. I would recommend Durant's history of civilization if you would like a detailed account of what these people accomplished. I also encourage you to compare these leaders with the other rulers of the day.

Have you really lost sight of what this this thread is about? It’s not your view of historical figures in their time, it’s about your endorsement of autocracy in general and Xi in particular. If we’re at the point of judging the rulers you picked by only the standards of their day, I’d say you’ve ceded what point you had.

It is kind of pleasant to realize that you were just arguing for the sake of it though, rather than some bizarre conviction in autocratic stability.

Apparently. I'm just having a conversation. Have a pleasant day.

Marcus Aurelius was followed by Commodus, and Charlemagne's grandsons broke the Carolingian Empire in civil war. As IntronExon pointed out, a major problem with benevolent dictators for life is that their successors may not be as benevolent. Furthermore, most dictators throughout history were not nearly as competent as the half-dozen handpicked examples.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com