Jack Ma had to learn the hard way that China like Kenya iko na wenyewe.
China is run by dynasties. The kids of Mao Zedongs henchmen run China today. 80% of China's state cooperations, which btw are the biggest companies in China are run by the group known in China as Princes. These are like the current president XI Jinping whose father Xi Zhongxun was the deputy to China's Prime Minister Chou Enlai.
China is not turning to democracy soon and neither should they.
Jack Ma had to learn the hard way that China like Kenya iko na wenyewe.
China is run by dynasties. The kids of Mao Zedongs henchmen run China today. 80% of China's state cooperations, which btw are the biggest companies in China are run by the group known in China as Princes. These are like the current president XI Jinping whose father Xi Zhongxun was the deputy to China's Prime Minister Chou Enlai.
China is MUCH more meritocratic than the US and Western politics in general. How many "princes" (children of former "big" names) have become American Presidents, Senators, House Members, and Governors? The anti-Chinese aggressive posture in Western media and discourse is far from objective and has been getting hyped for a while now, reaching hysterical levels under Trump (and now, Biden too). The West needs to get used to the bitter pill: The U.S. is no longer alone at the top and won't be number one for long, now. It's not even debatable anymore. The qustion is when, not "if" China becomes the World's top economic power (then military power). :)
China is not turning to democracy soon and neither should they.
Agreed!
Besides, the system they have seems to me to capture the "goal" of democracy much better than the one-man/one-vote elections business that poor countries adopted en mass all over the world in the past century with little results. The assumption behind this "conventional" democracy is that the voter is both well-informed and votes, in good, faith, in their best interests. Both are thoroughly baseless assumptions as numerous countries show, including even the U.S. In fact, what you have in this system is propaganda: who spins it/dupes the masses best, takes the ticket, assuming there's no risk of straight-up rigging as in poorer countries. The whole fiasco devolves into popularity contests. But who says popularity and competence are in anyway correlated? Especially with a first-term president/senator etc?
As I understand it, the Chinese people DO have a say in their governance, but it's through surveys in which they answer questions directly on performance in sectors the people have direct experience of and therefore where they are able in practice--not just theory--to make good judgments. Like: How has your experience been of water delivery/electricity etc, in the past year/three years? Are there too many power outages? Is it too expensive? etc etc. So while they don't vote on "who should govern Nairobi's water, electricity, roads?" they have tones of influence on: "Am I being served well as a water, eletricity/roads user?" Who's to say that the first is better just because it comes from the mzungu? The Chinese govt(party) has been able to maintain legitimacy among its population because its focussed on delivering for its people and the people have come to trust it for that specific reasons. The Chinese hoipoloi are very patriotic.
China is MUCH more meritocratic than the US and Western politics in general. How many "princes" (children of former "big" names) have become American Presidents, Senators, House Members, and Governors? The anti-Chinese aggressive posture in Western media and discourse is far from objective and has been getting hyped for a while now, reaching hysterical levels under Trump (and now, Biden too). The West needs to get used to the bitter pill: The U.S. is no longer alone at the top and won't be number one for long, now. It's not even debatable anymore. The qustion is when, not "if" China becomes the World's top economic power (then military power). :)
I do not get it. What does the situation in China have to do with the US?
We are here discussing what happened to Jack Ma in China and you bring in the West. What does that have to do with another?China is MUCH more meritocratic than the US and Western politics in general. How many "princes" (children of former "big" names) have become American Presidents, Senators, House Members, and Governors? The anti-Chinese aggressive posture in Western media and discourse is far from objective and has been getting hyped for a while now, reaching hysterical levels under Trump (and now, Biden too). The West needs to get used to the bitter pill: The U.S. is no longer alone at the top and won't be number one for long, now. It's not even debatable anymore. The qustion is when, not "if" China becomes the World's top economic power (then military power). :)
I do not get it. What does the situation in China have to do with the US?
We are here discussing what happened to Jack Ma in China and you bring in the West. What does that have to do with another?China is MUCH more meritocratic than the US and Western politics in general. How many "princes" (children of former "big" names) have become American Presidents, Senators, House Members, and Governors? The anti-Chinese aggressive posture in Western media and discourse is far from objective and has been getting hyped for a while now, reaching hysterical levels under Trump (and now, Biden too). The West needs to get used to the bitter pill: The U.S. is no longer alone at the top and won't be number one for long, now. It's not even debatable anymore. The qustion is when, not "if" China becomes the World's top economic power (then military power). :)
Ah, pole. U were just repeating a common Western/US propaganda meme about China "They are just a country in the clutch of dynasties" which is innacurate for its lack of nuance: Very poor, unconnected officials rise from the rural/poorest parts of China to its most powerful governing bodies via nothing but a astrict meritocracy that the US and other Western countries can only dream about. Princelings in China are in fact a tiny portion of these bodies, including the presidency if you look b4 the current president. I mentioned the U.S. because you were using one of their favorite "points." Iyo tu. Chinese aint angels but it's a myth that their govt is controlled by dynasties and princelings.
China is not a paradise the way you try to make it here.
My question to you, who was the father of the current president and what was his role in the times of Mao Zedong?
Now bring in Joe Biden and I ask you who was his father.
Kadudu, while I appreciate you may have contacts that give you a different picture (I admit here, I don't. I've been to China but I can't say I have any govt contacts at all), I hope you also look at what Eric Li has to say. He's a political scientist who has done comparative studies of the Western and Chinese governance structures in th West and China, including of the disastrous Mao years. I bring him up because it was encountering his ted talk that first made me question those metanarratives I was hearing about. Here is the one where he discusses it in summary but also with lots of information.
I still cannot get your arguement. Why bring in the US when we are discussing China? We are Kenyans discussing China and you bring in the US. I just do not get it. So one cannot make his own independent mind about China without bringing US influence?
Bwana, I already explained why I spoke about the U.S.: First, you were arguing something that's been a narrative of theirs/in their discourse in their new pseudo cold war with the Chinese. If you're saying you came up with the same (IMO, highly inaccurate) narrative about Chinese governance as them, sawa, I'll take it back. Secondly, the U.S is also useful as an analogy because people don't think of it as a "dynasty-trapped" country, yet it has the same (arguably more so) phenomenon of nepotism translating into politics, and lacks all those highly competitive checks/testing through the ranks that the Chinese have. The idea is to point out that the narrative that China has a problem in this area in a way that's unusual aint true. It's a Western pin . . . Ok, lemmie say a Kadudu spin since you're saying it's your own idea. Most of my point really is that this is not a true/accurate description. President Xi is the FIRST princeling to smell that position in all these years. That should say something, no? I just think Chinese governance is a weird hybrid of political institutions and meritocratic corporatism, and when we approach it with our Westrn-tinted glasses, we risk projecting onto it problems that are not problems viewed with a different framework.
China is not turning to democracy soon and neither should they.
Agreed!
Besides, the system they have seems to me to capture the "goal" of democracy much better than the one-man/one-vote elections business that poor countries adopted en mass all over the world in the past century with little results. The assumption behind this "conventional" democracy is that the voter is both well-informed and votes, in good, faith, in their best interests. Both are thoroughly baseless assumptions as numerous countries show, including even the U.S. In fact, what you have in this system is propaganda: who spins it/dupes the masses best, takes the ticket, assuming there's no risk of straight-up rigging as in poorer countries. The whole fiasco devolves into popularity contests. But who says popularity and competence are in anyway correlated? Especially with a first-term president/senator etc?
As I understand it, the Chinese people DO have a say in their governance, but it's through surveys in which they answer questions directly on performance in sectors the people have direct experience of and therefore where they are able in practice--not just theory--to make good judgments. Like: How has your experience been of water delivery/electricity etc, in the past year/three years? Are there too many power outages? Is it too expensive? etc etc. So while they don't vote on "who should govern Nairobi's water, electricity, roads?" they have tones of influence on: "Am I being served well as a water, eletricity/roads user?" Who's to say that the first is better just because it comes from the mzungu? The Chinese govt(party) has been able to maintain legitimacy among its population because its focussed on delivering for its people and the people have come to trust it for that specific reasons. The Chinese hoipoloi are very patriotic.
Jack Ma had to learn the hard way that China like Kenya iko na wenyewe.
China is run by dynasties. The kids of Mao Zedongs henchmen run China today. 80% of China's state cooperations, which btw are the biggest companies in China are run by the group known in China as Princes. These are like the current president XI Jinping whose father Xi Zhongxun was the deputy to China's Prime Minister Chou Enlai.
China is MUCH more meritocratic than the US and Western politics in general. How many "princes" (children of former "big" names) have become American Presidents, Senators, House Members, and Governors? The anti-Chinese aggressive posture in Western media and discourse is far from objective and has been getting hyped for a while now, reaching hysterical levels under Trump (and now, Biden too). The West needs to get used to the bitter pill: The U.S. is no longer alone at the top and won't be number one for long, now. It's not even debatable anymore. The qustion is when, not "if" China becomes the World's top economic power (then military power). :)
We are in china epoch..get used
AD
you can see how effective CCP "soft power" has been. The 50 cent army has bought all the facade. The chinese citizens themselves do not believe in china and anytime they are given an opportunity to vote with their feet they leave the country. Even the rich have one foot in china and the other in the west.