insightful speech that landed Jack Ma in trouble

[Nefertiti]

• Tweet

[RV Kirgit]

He looks like chinese version of Juan Guaidó

[Nefertiti]

Haha RV Kirgit what an analogy. Guaido is a dead experiment. Jack Ma should know better than to be politically incorrect in China today. Ironically those ideas are being implemented - yes by the PBOC! - but an example had to be made of him and the Ant Group. China is not turning to democracy soon and neither should they.

[Kadudu]

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.

Jack Ma is an outsider and had to be shown his limits. China has made him what he is today and can take away everything from him tomorrow.

[Dear Mami]

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).

[Dear Mami]

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.

[Dear Mami]

Jack Ma got slapped down very badly last year. I hope the Chinese leave him alone now...lesson has been learned. The billions lost is breath-taking. However . . . I actively try not to feel for dollar billionaires for losing billions. I cannot figure out why they hoard all that money. No family could use up a billion dollars if they all stopped working and simply enjoyed themselves maximally till death at a very old age. It's iffy. Even pretend philanthropists like Bill Gates (who has denied poor countries access to Oxford Covid research initially intended to be availed on open source so poor countries could make Covid vaccines) suck. The only billionaire I like is Mackenzie Bezos. She has been busy giving away her billions since her divorce, like nobody else. In fact, I suspect she's the only reason stingy Bezos finally got coerced (IMO) into giving away 10 billion. Didn't want to be too outshone (though he still was) by his ex who has fewer billions by far. 

[Nefertiti]

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).

By many estimations the "overtaking" will be 2028 thereabout. China no longer feels the impacts of western sanctions and plainly ignores them to ink major deals with Iran, Russia, Venezuela, etc. But the clearest signal yet that the Chinese have arrived is their proposal to mediate the Israel-Palestine conflict. Going by the hubris and matharao exhibited by Blinken and Jake Sullivan at the talks in Alaska it will take a while for the US to accept this reality. A multi-polar world should be more stable and peaceful. Hopefully!

[Nefertiti]

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.

The patriotism is on fierce display presently over Xinjiang, H&M, Nike, etc. Beijing seems to be reciprocating the western media propaganda.. except I have not seen open anti-western hostility in the streets as is happening here in the US.

Why are the Chinese boycotting H&M?

[Kadudu]

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).

[Nefertiti]

Lol Kadudu if you watch the Ma speech it is a West vs East/China, Developed vs Emerging comparison. Ma thinks Beijing is wrong on imposing capital ceiling on private banks and fintechs like Ant. Democracy vs meritocracy is very relevant because Ma was suddenly and rudely silenced thanks to his tactlessness. Beijing is open to good ideas just not in condescending lectures.

If you look at the resume of Xi Jinping vs Joe Biden you really see the "merit" in Chinese meritocracy. The worst problem with democracy is the inefficient policy ping-pong: Bush deploys into Iraq, Obama withdraws. Obama relieves Iran, Trump unloads. Trump takes on China, Biden cozies up. At least the US is a biparty; multiple-party democracies like Israel and the UK are more confused.

China has a clear mostly-uninterrupted strategic path albeit under wraps despite regular changes in leadership.
 

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).

[Dear Mami]

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. I was especially "moved" to reply by your analogizing them to Kwinya. My dude; US oligarchic politics is much more comparable to us than we are to China.

[Kadudu]

I have big issues with your line of arguement. Why always make anything that is said against China to become propaganda from the West? I have my own personal opinion through my contacts with the Chinese in the past years. I do not even need CNN to lecture me about China. 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.

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.

[Dear Mami]

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.

It's funny how your response just straight up ignores my post (Who said China is a paradise? I just said the "dynasties/princlings" stuff is propaganda. They are no more dynastic than the U.S.)

Secondly, I already mentioned the current president was a princeling, yet his predecessors are not, so what's the point of asking me hiyo swali?  It's part of the same U.S. meme you claim hasn't influenced you but that you're making by yourself to use the current president as the entire argument for this meme. While Biden isn't a princeling, I don't have to look far in US politics to find "relatives in high places" popping up all over America's ruling classes/governing bodies either.

China isn't a paradise, but it's not some institution-lacking dynastic ruling system. It just isn't. That's a caricature. The process of selection is highly competitive and a bright, poor, connection-lacking person has tonnes more chances to become President there than in the U.S. simply because the country operates like a company recruiting talent more than typical govts. Their system has done wonders for them, all its flaws notwithstanding.

[Dear Mami]

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.

[KenyanPlato]

China has a long way to. China is seriouy regressing during Xi rule. They still have 300 million piss poor citizens. Their economy is one big ponzi game. It will be a while before china can challenge western powers. China will end up like India or split up. Ccp is just buying time and unsure which way to turn to govern for the future. Ccp is under Xi is as paranoid as Mangufi.

[Kadudu]

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?

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.

[Dear Mami]

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.

[Kadudu]

No. I never mentioned the US. It is your line of arguement. I keep on insisting we argue from our point of view. Why bring in the US when we are duiscussing China among ourselves?
Also China is a relative young nation. Their father of the nation died in 1976. Just two years before Jomo. If you think of it, it did not take long for a princeling to land the big job. Much faster than in Kenya.

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.

[Kim Jong-Un's Pajama Pants]

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.

Chinese are not open to dissent.  So the "merit" only counts as long as you think within that box.  I consider that a long-term weakness compared to the western-model.