China and Taiwan are very very closely economically and culturally linked. The PRC and ROC governments do work together, it's no longer the 1970's.
They just disagree on who should run the reunified nation.
At any rate, summing it up as "the RoC agrees" would seem to simplify a cultural argument along the lines of "the US agrees completely that guns are good".
For example: https://www.scmp.com/comment/opinion/article/3151551/tsai-in...
> On Sunday, at an event marking the same revolution, Tsai called on the Taiwanese people to renew their commitment “that the Republic of China and the People’s Republic of China should not be subordinate to each other.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2021/10/10/taiwan-china...
Tsai has not made this one country position part of her administration, and her speech a couple of days ago made that even more explicit.
Taiwan is a democracy and a majority of Taiwanese want independence but argue for keeping the status quo in order to avoid a war (both the KMT and the DDP - their disagreement is more technical than that). Some wanted Taiwan to declare it in the 90s to force the hand of the USA and win a decisive war but this position seems more precarious nowadays.
We both know, that you do not agree that the moon is made of cheese, in this situation. I have just made words come out of your mouth, to something that you do not agree with.
To say that they "agree" is just a silly word game, that does not reflect the truth of the matter, and instead is playing into propaganda that denies the reality that Taiwan is already a country, and is already independent of china, and that Taiwan is not interesting in being taken over, or taking over china.
I agree on the cultural and economical aspects both governments work together but I am not sure that on other aspects tensions are not as high as in the 1970s or worse. I wish they were not, I just don't know.
As a fellow Chinese person, it's pretty accurate. Deng Xiaoping deserves the credit for modern China's economy. China was slowly but surely opening up and slowing becoming decentralized for efficiency, and it was a moderate rule by committee with term limits vs a one man dictatorship for life that's veering into a centralized economic planning disaster reminiscent of Mao. He is destroying China, one industry at a time.
I can understand your "patriotism" if you're commenting from the mainland. Not so much if you're writing from elsewhere.
Not remotely.
Xi was selected to fix Deng's unequal growth phase strategy. Hence all the regulations and crack down because Deng's model ran it's course. And Deng's policies only worked due to the base Mao built. Cultural revolution secularized and mobilized human capital, even great leap forward was massively successful in building industrial base - PRC in the 70s was less urbanized but considerably more industrialized than other low income peers. Which facilitated Deng's transition, which wouldn't have worked in India trapped in multiculturalism, historic power structures and rural economy. It only worked because Mao made sure everyone spoke mandarin, society had no strong attachments to history etc.
>He is destroying China, one industry at a time.
He's regulating previously underregulated industries. He's doing what the west talks about doing in policy papers for years but systemically can't. Sino-US ideological competition is battle of political systems, and so far PRC's has demonstrated to be more nimble and focsing on correct priorities. It's why US and others are trying to copy PRC's industrial policy, which PRC once copied from west. Also the fact that Xi managed to build SCS islands and modernize military sufficiently that US now discusses greater power competition in miiltary terms handly justifies his leadership. BoXiLai wasn't up to that task. The amount of comprehensive national power Xi built is insane. He's PRC's 3rd and maybe 4th term FDR in time of remarkable opportunity and crisis. He may sound and look dopey as hell, but his results have been remarkable.
Xi outmaneuvered his rivals. I highly doubt that the others wanted to forfeit their own power for his. Deng's policy was also already proven to work. Expanding it and not destroying it would have been more logical and responsible.
> And Deng's policies only worked due to the base Mao built. Cultural revolution secularized and mobilized human capital, even great leap forward was massively successful in building industrial base
That sounds delusional. Mao's policies were a complete disaster that killed millions of Chinese people. It didn't prepare China for the future. The only things it accomplished were massive suffering and international embarrassment. It was a complete mess. That isn't to say that Mao didn't achieve anything good, but the Great Leap forward and the Cultural Revolution are not good examples. If anything, that greatly hindered both Zhoe Enlai and Deng's reforms, and that's putting it lightly.
> He's regulating previously underregulated industries.
He is centralizing control and power. In his new order, there's no room anyone exceptional in private industry, or really anyone else. There's only room for his cult of personality. He is slowly regressing China into a Mao style of rule which completely throws out most of the lessons from the past: decentralization is more efficient and yields more production vs a centrally planned economy (relics of 20th century Communism)
> PRC's has demonstrated to be more nimble and focsing on correct priorities.
How can you be nimble when you're re-centralizing everything?
> It's why US and others are trying to copy PRC's industrial policy, which PRC once copied from west.
I don't know what you're trying to convey here.
> Also the fact that Xi managed to build SCS islands and modernize military sufficiently that US now discusses greater power competition in miiltary terms handly justifies his leadership
In a world with global ballistic nuclear missiles, it looks like Xi just copied a bad US habit, which is a source of massive corruption and waste.
> He may sound and look dopey as hell, but his results have been remarkable.
If it walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck; it's a duck.
> his results have been remarkable
This is still up in the air and highly debatable. For example, Xi is extremely impatient. One China Two Systems was working until he decided to completely trash it. We can assign the mess in HK and Taiwan's new calls for independence on him. If he didn't interfere in Deng's policy, China would have quietly completely swallowed both in a decade or two.
He outmaneuvered them by being compromised candidate that no one had any objection to. And no one objected because Xi was the kind of person LKI compared to Nelson Mendella calibre of person. CIA dossier concluding Xi's incorruptible by money suggests Xi had the reputation to and disposition to negotiate the gilded age left by Deng's policies that Hu couldn't stem. Xi had the qualities to at least direct PRC in right direction vs Bo.
>that sounds delusional
PRC can trade lives for progress. It's harnessing the capital part of human capital. Bluntly frontloading a few million deaths to quickly set up the right conditions for future growth is the correct decision. Of course there were missteps, but overall Mao did the right things considering external factors. Again, look to India for a comparable alternative. It's a fucking mess because it can't break eggs to create omelette. Mao's mess was MASSIVELY beneficial, even if it led to excesses like CR and GLF, which bluntly are drop in the bucket tragedies on PRC historic scales.
>He is centralizing control and power.
A competent leader gaining power during interesting times isn't bad. It's not about efficiency but building comprehensive national power, many things simply do not get built or changes cannot be made without massive state directed attention even if less efficient. Recentralizing is not bad either - it's industrial policy - which is what made the west strong in the first place. Policies US abandoned and now is trying to rapidly regain. The ability to recentralize when needed is relative nimbleness the alternative is institutional stagnance west finds itself trapped in.
>Xi just copied a bad US habit ... > If it walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck; it's a duck.
Xi modernized the PRC military on a modest 2% budget. It's what NATO ought to spend. The amount of procurement PRC has made under Xi doesn't suggest there's massive waste - one of Xi's first efforts was cleaning out notoriously corrupt PLA brass, which Bo was associated with. Again he wasn’t up to the task, Xi was the best choice in the timeline we had. Matching US deterrence post pivot to Asia was incredibly difficult undertaking. Obama/Clinton already didn't buy Hide & Bide. Xi's a very impressive duck. Even centralizing power is a hard trick that requires acumen. Don’t have to praise it, but recognize that Xi got a lot of hard things done, fast.
> One China Two Systems was working
No it wasn't. HK existed for 23 years of NSL exception and being exploited by the west as the spy capital of Asia to undermine PRC interest - it was never a sustainable arrangement. HK only ever paid 1C2S lip service, and cultural shift as old demographics with memory of KMT/PRC relations die out, 1C2S wouldn't have been viable in TW either. No one had any pretensions that TW would return to PRC on a 10/20 year timeline. 1C2S ran its course like Deng’s development model or hide&bide and (eventually) no first use, 1C2S was a policy out of weakness, there will be alternative models as a result of PRC gaining strength. Xi is nimble enough to move past uneasy and untenuous policies. While the future of TW is debatable, Xi successfully secured HK, XJ, Tibet and built enough hard power to challenge the US when Trump decided to set eyes on PRC after covid drama. Wolf-warrior last year showed very few countries willing to step on PRC toes on internal issues, that PRC can effectively do what she pleases on core interests with relative impunity. Again, no small part thanks to Xi’s military modernization efforts. Xi has been great for PRC national interests.
I agree that Bo wouldn't have been much better than Xi, but that doesn't mean that Xi is a good statesman. His incorruptibility is marred by poor decisions that make little sense unless you're the Chinese version of Trump (Maduro & Chavez are probably better comparisons).
> PRC can trade lives for progress. It's harnessing the capital part of human capital. Bluntly frontloading a few million deaths to quickly set up the right conditions for future growth is the correct decision. Of course there were missteps, but overall Mao did the right things considering external factors. Again, look to India for a comparable alternative.
Just because India has its own mess, it doesn't condone what Mao did. India's problems also pale in comparison to the man made disasters of the Great Leap "Forward" and the Cultural Revolution. A lot of lives were lost, but no progress was gained unless you consider it as a step in controlling the overall world population. Instead, it just caused chaos and national humiliation. If anything, it was 1000 steps backwards.
> Recentralizing is not bad either - it's industrial policy - which is what made the west strong in the first place
It is not what made the West strong. Capitalism is about decentralizing control, and letting the more efficient markets decide where to allocate resources. It's imperfect and there's still waste, but overall it's far more efficient than centralized economic planning. Centralized economic planning is what caused the Great Leap and the Cultural Revolution. All it takes is a few bad ideas and absolute control. There's plenty of historical data to bolster my position.
> Xi modernized the PRC military on a modest 2% budget. It's what NATO ought to spend. The amount of procurement PRC has made under Xi doesn't suggest there's massive waste
Yes, I totally believe that coming from an authoritarian government with little to no transparency. /s
> one of Xi's first efforts was cleaning out notoriously corrupt PLA brass, which Bo was associated with.
The corruption elimination campaigns are just thinly veiled efforts to eliminate political rivals. If officials really wanted to eliminate corruption, you would need transparency. Transparency only comes with freedom of speech and a democratic government.
> Matching US deterrence post pivot to Asia was incredibly difficult undertaking.
While US is still powerful at the moment, only the Western equivalents of you and FooBarWidget would fail to admit that it's been on a steady decline for years now. Not to mention that it's extremely overstretched by being World Police, and politically polarized as a divided nation. The TPP failed. Literally the only thing China would need to do is wait. Nothing immediate needed to be done. The only thing Xi has accomplished is to galvanize rival nations to better cooperate with each other. Genius move just like his mishandling of HK.
> No it wasn't. HK existed for 23 years of NSL exception and being exploited by the west as the spy capital of Asia to undermine PRC interest - it was never a sustainable arrangement.
Is this a joke? The Lost generation was just a vocal minority. Key emphasis on minority. The new generation can barely even speak Cantonese anymore. Again all you had to do was wait for the inevitable to happen. Yet due to Xi's 'genius', he's shifted formerly indifferent public opinion to support the Lost gen.
> No one had any pretensions that TW would return to PRC on a 10/20 year timeline.
Like HK and given the controls and policies set by Xi's predecessors, it was only a matter of time when Taiwan was so economically linked to the mainland, that meaningful opposition would all but disappear. Instead, Xi with his usual genius moves just helped the separatists make their point with his other genius decisions involving HK.
You keep alleging this but much of his decisions made perfect sense and help contribute to building national power. Something Bo wouldn't do, and things Hu failed to do. So in that sense Xi is at least more competent than Hu while also keep in mind Xi's policies in many ways proceeded his tenure. The different between other populist is Xi's China is unequestionablly stronger in relative power by almost every metric. Xi's successful.
> pale in comparison ... no progress was gained
There was progress. Destroying the old and uniting society under common national identity was paramount to enabling subsequent reforms. Destruction WAS the progress. It was the point. Sometimes destruction was excess, but MORE destruction was better than less. India unable to destroy and renew itself = India STILL has hunger problems on level of North Korea today. The result is additional generations of Indians suffering subsistent poverty hundreds of millions of excess and prevental death. Cost of GLP and CR pale in comparison.
> /s
Lazy. Plenty of literature out there affirming PRC industry and purchase power = massive buildup cheap.
> you would need transparency
I mean no? You don't? You've drank the democracy dogma koolaid. CCDI eliminated 2M+, Xi doesn't have that many rivals. Of course he's going to use it to consolidate power, because eliminating that much corruption require firm power.
> Literally the only thing China would need to do is wait...
Waiting is how PRC got embarassed in 3rd strait crisis and Belgrade embassy bombing with inpunity. Again, learn some history, US pivoted to Asia before Xi. Manifested in Trump pushing unconstrained anti-PRC populism. Xi couldn't wait because US was already plotting against PRC pre Xi. He had to answer, like every PRC leader during their Sino US crsis. Except Xi chose respond to US as equal. And it worked. The reason why western MSM is losing their shit is Xi's PRC can't be talked to from "position of strength" anymore.
> galvanize rival nations to better cooperate with each other. Genius move just like his mishandling of HK.
Except... none of this is true outside of western MSM headlines. Wolf warrior demonstrated that PRC barking = no countries except US will affect PRC domestic concerns except with theatre. Every one of these "cooperative" alliance has stalled or failed to affirm intent to contain PRC. Essentially everyone expressed neutraility or explicitly won't commit to military against PRC interests, including TW. Xi's asserting revealed how weak bloc against PRC actually is.
> support the Lost gen
Lost gen had enough political capita to block NSL and patriotic education and were gaining support. Now they're gone. It's not Xi being genius but doing what eventually had to be done. NSL free HK is too much liability in age of great power competition, not worth "waiting" for.
> meaningful opposition would all but disappear
That's not how it works. I suspect you know how many countries have poor opinion of PRC but strong economic linkages. Did economic integration swayed PRC closer to US orbit? TW generations that grew up under democracy like HK generations that grew up under liberal educationisn't going to clamor for reunication with PRC under CCP... which it will be for foreseeable future. It doesn't take a genius to read the room and know where things are going and how to respond. Xi isn't some genius sweeping the west with grand strategy, but he's doing a demonstrably great job doing generally the right things and the hard things for PRC interests.
You mean preceded. Since Xi has been declared president for life, when his tenure will be proceeded is indefinite.
I back up my assertions. You make sound like I just make random statements like, "Xi sucks" without offering a reason why
> Something Bo wouldn't do, and things Hu failed to do.
imo Bo seemed to be a clone of Xi with some slight variation. He's a little smarter, but more deeply flawed in terms of corruption. If my memory is correct, both want a return to Mao's style of rule.
Hu was superior to both of Bo and Xi. He is the last of the Deng era: rule by a moderate committee based in pragmatism and not Xi's bullshit theatrics.
> Destroying the old and uniting society under common national identity was paramount to enabling subsequent reforms. Destruction WAS the progress. It was the point.
Destruction is only 'progress' for insane psychopaths. Millions of Chinese people needlessly died due to a dangerous mixture of hubris and incompetence. There was no progress. Families were broken. Society was broken. Even the very people who engineered China's revival as a superpower were in mortal danger. The terrible ideas in the Great Leap Forward were comedic like getting villagers to smelt different grades of metal in homemade furnaces.
Mao's opus was his brilliant Modern Theory of Guerrilla Warfare, which still affects the world theatre. He was a legendary military strategist. Unfortunately, he was a really terrible statesman. I've already explained why multiple times. He would kill people who reported problems, allowing these problems to fester and get even worse. That alone is terrible enough. You have to be extremely delusional if not brainwashed to believe that the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution were successes.
> India STILL has hunger problems on level of North Korea today
This is a good one coming from someone who's defending Mao's accidental genocide. I'm surprised that you're not calling it "progress". India has a lot of problems, but they also have a free press and transparency. It does NOT have the hunger levels of North Korea. North Korea is basically what would happen if Mao was an immortal ruler and there were no pragmatists like Zhou Enlai to eventually overthrow his flawed train of thought.
> Waiting is how PRC got embarassed in 3rd strait crisis and Belgrade embassy bombing with inpunity.
Embarrassment? It was a very temporary setback that everyone else in the world has more or less forgotten. The only people who really remember it is the US Navy. Even if Xi wasn't leading, I think we can both agree that it wasn't a matter of if China would surpass US naval power in Asia, it was only when. The Belgrade embassy bombing was clearly an accident. It's also yet another issue that everyone in the world has forgotten.
Do you know what Chinese embarrassments that people still remember today? The Great Leap Forward, the Cultural Revolution, Hong Kong, and Xinjiang in reverse order. Those are embarrassments that the world will remember for generations to come. Half of them happened under Xi's watch. As a Chinese person, Xinjiang angers me the most. I will never forgive Xi for that, especially because millions of overseas Chinese will most likely be subjected to danger because of it for decades to come.
> Again, learn some history, US pivoted to Asia before Xi.
Where did I show my ignorance on this issue? The US pivoted to Asia immediately after WWII because Imperial Japan caught most US leadership by surprise. The humiliations in Vietnam and Korea bolstered this position. You make this pivot seem recent, but it's ancient. Everyone already knows about it and why it happened.
> Except Xi chose respond to US as equal. And it worked.
Trump is an idiot insurgent with a temporary hold on power, as designed in a democracy. All you have to do is wait until US elites regain their power. The US is another country that is essentially ruled by committee. The only time to worry is if Trump somehow miraculously holds on to power.
Regardless, the US is on a course for implosion. Only a "genius" would have the bright idea of moving into the blast radius. For some reason showmanship impresses is what impresses Xi's fans more than actual pragmatic leadership with real gradual progress. I guess I was right in calling Xi China's Trump.
> Except... none of this is true outside of western MSM headlines.
MSM headlines barely mention it. I don't even think Fox News glamorizes it because it's boring to the masses in the West, so I'm not sure what you're reading. No one outside of investment bankers and maybe tech company leadership care about TSMC foundries being built in multiple countries.
> Every one of these "cooperative" alliance has stalled or failed to affirm intent to contain PRC.
Yes, I've already mentioned that the TPP, the only true danger that Xi faced, failed because Trump unilaterally killed it. I find it comedic that the only true recent threat to China wasn't even mentioned until now and you didn't even name it. If Xi didn't emulate Trump's bravado and idiocy, new threats would emerge much more slowly. Instead, now we're seeing new cooperation amongst rival nations, even the very ones targeted by the TPP.
> Lost gen had enough political capita to block NSL and patriotic education and were gaining support.
They did not, until Xi broke the One China Two Systems policy which was pure 'genius'. No one cared about their little movement until everyone saw them being abused in the streets. This was exactly what the West wanted and the blame falls directly on Xi. Without Xi, their little movement would have died out to little fanfare. Of course, Xi loves theatrics even when it hurts China's standing and stability. He is Chinese Trump.
> That's not how it works. Did economic integration swayed PRC closer to US orbit?
Under Deng's policies it did. There certainly wasn't as much animosity as there is now, but that's a poor analogy because you're speaking of two nation states and not two provinces, or are you saying that Taiwan is a country?
> TW generations that grew up under democracy like HK generations that grew up under liberal educationisn't going to clamor for reunication with PRC under CCP... which it will be for foreseeable future.
Pro-PRC parties were gaining ground until the mess in Hong Kong. If HK was left in peace to meet their destiny of being fully swallowed by the mainland, Taiwan would have soon followed. China's economic tendrils are too deep. Now you have many countries going out of their way to provide more economic support to Taiwan. That is directly Xi's fault.
> Xi isn't some genius sweeping the west with grand strategy
That's putting it very lightly. The CIA report was very accurate. With Xi, the question isn't whether a disaster will happen due to his bumbling. The question is when and how big. His comparison to Winnie the Pooh is also accidentally accurate if you ever watch the cartoons.
Not really. Your assertions have been Xi sucks / his decisions are bad, then quote XYZ trope about authoritarian governance from western perspective. It's dogmatic like "at least India has free press and transparency"... because democracy gud??? Reality is Xi's performance has been overall good for PRC interests.
> 'progress' for insane sociopaths
It was never the less "right" progress. Mao was bad statesman for right goals. Like I said, he was excessive and did the hard things sometimes poorly, but it was important to do them none the less. Ditto with Xi. Zhou corrected Mao's excess. Someone will correct Xi's excess. But they will also all build off the "necessary" foundation Mao and Xi built. PRC simply could not be where it is if population trapped by old culture and social structure.
> India does NOT have the hunger levels of North Korea.
Go look up hunger indexes over last 20 years. India is at North Korean level. Or excess death studies due to poverty. Hundreds of millions, mostly children dead. Because India is a fragmented multicultural society with broken free press and transparency that can't coordinate for their citizens well being. India is what happens when you don't have "immortal rulers" doing the hard, dirty but necessary work. Because democracy sucks for development. Which is why I'm fine with Xi doing what he does. Authoritarianism is the worst form of government for developing countries... except for all the others.
>everyone else in the world has more or less forgotten.
...and PRC? The actual party that matters. Consistently being preoccupied with non-PRC interest and non-PRC POV when discussing the PRC is asinine. Why does it matter what others or diasphora are embarassed by? They don't matter. XJ terrorism stopped. HK is firmly under PRC control. This makes PRC citizens happy, and forwards interest of PRC. GLF and CR at least got that 30% bad label. This applies to the rest of yoru comments re: conflating Pivot to Asia policy to... history of US in east asia, TPP as magic China containment meme, Xi not worrying about Trump 2nd term. You can call/compare Xi to who/whatever. Still doesn't change the fact that has been massive boon for PRC interests. He's not looking for your forgiveness.
>Under Deng's policies it did.
And how did that work out? A bunch of political and people-to-people linkages that ultimately revealed the extend of US infiltration into PRC political systems. Why do you think the new animosity exist? Because PRC under Xi, eliminated foreign NGOs, intelligence networks and other sources of foreign influence that dangerously upset the system - the cost result of drawing closer to US orbit. Security dilemma trumps trade at end of day. Again see HK. I don't care if people refer to TW as country like it's a gotcha.
> Now you have many countries going out of their way to provide more economic support to Taiwan. That is directly Xi's fault.
Who didn't affirm 92 consensus? PRC or TW/DPP. Or TW Sunflower movement in 2014 that protested against trade integration with PRC before Xi did anything. The undercurrents were there, Xi didn't create it. So far, TW support has been marginal, and only beacause TSMC dominantes (for now). It's something to be managed, but ultimately there's no cultural or economic victory with TW.
>CIA report was very accurate
Except... he hasn't bumbled outside of this imaginary CIA report. He may very well in time, because he's tackling the hard things previous leaders couldn't. And from PRC perspective of his track record, there's a good chance he'll do well. The amount of irrationally angry western reporting on diifcult reforms CCP can tackle but west systemically can't will probably tell you how well.
Look we're clearly not going to agree on Xi. I'll eat my hat if PRC collapses in 2028.
Like you've done anything differently (Xi is great / his decisions are good, then quote XYZ troupe from PRC's perspective)? At least I'm doing it from the world perspective instead of just one country's POV.
> Like I said, he was excessive and did the hard things sometimes poorly, but it was important to do them none the less.
Mao didn't have to do anything. He could have at the very least delegated it to someone else more pragmatic.
> Go look up hunger indexes over last 20 years. India is at North Korean level.
You're right about the hunger index. I should have checked it. I can believe India's score. However, how is it even close to accurate for North Korea? Data isn't exactly easy to collect from the Hermit Kingdom. It could be much worse than the index score.
> Because democracy sucks for development.
India is a developing nation that doesn't represent all democracies. The US would be a much better example. Even then, it would be more accurate if we also look at the EU.
Less centralized economies, which is representative for democracies, are actually very good for development. One could see this at work before and after Deng's policies took effect.
> Authoritarianism is the worst form of government for developing countries... except for all the others.
Sometimes it works because of good leadership. Deng & his successors are the best example of this. I'm sure there are plenty more since dictators dominated most of human history. The issue with authoritarianism is that when you have bad leadership it's near impossible to get rid of them. They are there for life. Also any bad decisions get magnified 100x because there's no checks and balances of power. Democracy has a control for that: voting and term limits. For example, the US was able to neatly depose of Trump in four years without blood. You can't same about bad dictators.
> Why does it matter what others or diasphora are embarassed by?
Because the PRC obviously cares about saving face. Only barbarians would be indifferent to the developed world's uproar. The fallout for overseas Chinese is just a side effect, but it's still important.
> This makes PRC citizens happy, and forwards interest of PRC.
That's very debatable. How do we truly know when there's no free speech and free press? Data is not accurate within an authoritarian regime.
> Except... he hasn't bumbled outside of this imaginary CIA report.
He did and I've already listed his mistakes. Even you and the other guy admit that he doesn't seem very bright.
I think we're going around in circles. Your arguments are not going to move me, and vice versa. The second that you mentioned that the Great Leap Forward was "progress" is the second that this conversation became a waste of time for the both of us. We're grounded in different realities.
Exhibit 1: "From Yao To Mao" by Kenneth James Hammond, history professor at New Mexico State University https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VMEFNcbR0o&t=8m30s This history lecture states that The Great Leap Forward actually achieved many of its goals. One famous failure was the famine. But you better listen to his very interesting explanation of that instead of reading a summary by me.
Exhibit 2: life expectancy from 1850 to 2020. https://twitter.com/CarlZha/status/1439608272940519430?t=4-p... You see a couple of interesting things. From 1949 onwards, there was a steep gain. Even the famine only managed to slow the gain rather than reversing it. That same thread also refers to the Barefoot Doctor system which was a major contributor to raising life expectancy.
Exhibit 3: Kevin Tellier, a very good China watcher (corroborated by another HN user in this submission), discusses the nature of Xi's power centralization. https://twitter.com/kevtellier/status/1441774309652025346 Rather than grabbing power for the sake of power, Xi's power centralization served a real purpose that is in the interest of the nation, namely removing entrenched interests that keep the country back. The problem of entrenched interests influencing policy is unfortunately an unsolved problem in many democracies.
Mao was a brilliant military strategist, but he was a complete disaster as a statesman. He is not vindicated. He made Zhou Enlai's work much harder to accomplish and much longer to take effect. There are few statesmen who were worse than Mao like Stalin. I have to question either your logic, or whether or not if you're commenting from inside the mainland.
> Exhibit 2: life expectancy from 1850 to 2020.
Again, how can we trust the data from yet another secretive authoritarian government?
> Exhibit 3: Kevin Tellier, a very good China watcher
I don't know much about Kevin Teller, but if he has a conflict of interest like Hammond, then his opinion is worth less than more objective sources.
For the record, I am neither anti China or even anti CCP (I don't even think it really exists anymore since it's a dictatorship again); nor am I a pro US zealot. I am only anti-Xi, and I am not a fan of Mao's governance.
If something stinks, I'm not going to pretend that it's nice perfume.
If you want elaborate, nuanced comments from me, check my commenting history, such as this lengthy thread I wrote 2 weeks ago. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28632820 I am sorry if I don't turn every one of my comment into an essay.
As for Deng Xiao Ping, I am in agreement with dirtyid's comment.
China doesn't have freedom of speech. Chinese citizens can be punished for posting innocuous things such as a cartoon bear who loves honey, so it's not a stretch to assume that you will write differently when inside the mainland vs outside of the mainland.
This Harvard paper explains that, instead, censorship's role is to silence movements. Pro-government posts are censored when they have the potential to go viral. Anti-government posts that don't go viral, aren't censored. "How Censorship in China Allows Government Criticism but Silences Collective Expression" https://gking.harvard.edu/publications/how-censorship-china-...
Furthermore, censorship exists simultaneously with government responsiveness. That is, they actively monitor social media for grievances and they actively address these grievances (as in actually addressing, not arresting people for arresting). Nowadays social media is one of the major channels for government feedback. New law proposals are regularly formed based on mass complaints on social media (which may or may not also end up getting censored). This is a relatively new thing, developed in the past 15 years or so.
Punishments are not that common. You'd have to reach Julian Assange level for that to happen. Censoring without any further consequences is the norm.
I agree, but it's a moot point. When you censor all opinions that you don't like, it's only natural that if you limit available data, people will form very specific, limited opinions based on that data.
> That is, they actively monitor social media for grievances and they actively address these grievances
I kind of agree with you. In some cases, Beijing fixes problems that local provincial governments either cannot or will not, but that is not always the case, and due to lack of overall transparency; we don't know the ratio of fixing problems vs punishing people for reporting grievances.
> Punishments are not that common. You'd have to reach Julian Assange level for that to happen. Censoring without any further consequences is the norm.
Honestly, I do not feel that people broadcasting the events in Wuhan were Julian Assange level. Neither are the people who were speaking about Xinjiang. Yet they were still punished. Tax evasion imo is also not Assange level enough for a rendition and a resource intense redaction of media credits. Of course, you can argue that it's better than not punishing tax evaders at all like how virtually no one in Wall Street went to jail for the 2008 financial crisis.
I know the social credit system is still currently a mess implementation wise, but if it ever gets standardized and fixed nationally, we can revisit this subject.
There are tons more that I'm leaving out because I don't feel like searching for them. Enjoy. Or just continue to dismiss all Western journalism because you'd rather do that than look for quality.
I don't see the need for you to resort to confrontational hyperbolic strawmans. The fact that good China watchers are a small minority, is very bad for western understanding of China, and thus very bad for rational policy making that actually addresses issues rather than stirring up emotions or manufacturing consent for a war. This isn't just my own opinion; Kishore Mahbubani, ex-Singapore diplomat, ex-UN security council head, has spoken extensively about this problem.
By the way, your statement was about "Western China watchers," not some or even most. You may not have meant it that way, but that's how you said it.
I am in favor of relaxing the firewall. Yet I hold no illusions about that yielding a better outcome when it comes to inter-cultural understanding: it think all in all it's just going to lead to more flamewars.