Western political decay makes China’s path stand out

[AViet]

Chinese run amok again. Western systems have their weaknesses but calling them decay is shameless. 99 pct Chinese on mainland for almost of chinese history of 3,000 years were suffering all sorts of oppressions from the landowners to local authority to the emperor. Most Chinese peasants had no rights only hard work and got exploited. Chinese merchants were treated like thieves and prostitutues. Lots were killed and looted.

Now under communist china, things have turned to positive. But considering the short time span, less than 100 years, it is too early to celebrate.

Do you feel no shame living in a foreign country while spewing Chinese propaganda?

Viet, from historical aspect, Chinese peasants in particular and Chinese society, together with other East Asian nations, were far more advanced than European peers in almost all criteria. You, together with a lot of immigrants coming from poor countries, can only see the positive sides of Western countries in their heyday (from early 20th century till early 21st century). What you said above about China are generally true, but do you think in Western societies it was better? No, at that times, all Western societies was far more barbaric and uncivilized. Judging by my own criteria, Western countries can only be seen as "civilized" by around 17 - 18th century, at least 1,000 - 1,500 years behind China.

If you made some deeper reading and analyzing, you could understand what I write here.

Even French-educated historian like Nguyễn Hiến Lê or Trần Trọng Kim, a high-ranking official working for the French, observed that in their works, including "Sử Trung Quốc", "Việt Nam Sử Lược", "Nho Giáo" etc.

 

[Viet]

Viet, from historical aspect, Chinese peasants in particular and Chinese society, together with other East Asian nations, were far more advanced than European peers in almost all criteria. You, together with a lot of immigrants coming from poor countries, can only see the positive sides of Western countries in their heyday (from early 20th century till early 21st century). . What you said above about China are generally true, but do you think in Western societies it was better? No, at that times, all Western societies was far more barbaric and uncivilized. Judging by my own criteria, Western countries can only be seen as "civilized" by around 17 - 18th century

If you made some deeper reading and analyzing, you could understand what I write here.

Even French-educated historian like Nguyễn Hiến Lê or Trần Trọng Kim, a high-ranking official working for the French, observed that in their works, including "Sử Trung Quốc", "Việt Nam Sử Lược", "Nho Giáo" etc.

the peasants had very hard life, lawless, were oppressed thee folds, by the landlords, the local mandarines, then the central government. Mao Zedong was the man, who liberated them from slavery, ending thousands years of oppressions. yes Mao did great thing, but he did terrible thing too, costing millions of lives.

I am not hurraying western things, but I hate that if someone seeks his greatness in lowering other people and cultures. it is blinded nationalism.

 

[Beast]

What do you see decay in the west?
Because of Trump? Because of Brexit? What? Because of worthless propaganda pieces here and there?

The people in Germany are enjoying the longest period of peace and prosperity in their entire history. They laugh at your decay story.

A German father complained to Merkel, they are not able to step out of their houses at night compare to ten years ago after Merkel stupid immigrant/refugee policy started.

 

[schoolboy]

OP is one of the most polished propaganda pieces though a bit overdone. 8/10 on my Propaganda Meter. There should actually be a separate sub-forum where these pieces can be posted. Reduces the burden of sifting out this stuff. Some statements are shamelessly inaccurate (e.g. causes of disintegration of the Soviet Union), some are clever half-truths (e.g. countries which push forward democratization lopsidedly) yet others are irrelevant to the subject being discussed (e.g. decline of political clout of Western countries).

For many third world countries, the idea of democracy is just the ability to vote. Doesn't matter whether you understand the policies or not, or who you are voting for, just the ability to vote.

You do third world countries (and their people) a disservice by assuming their people just have the ability to vote. While lack of education certainly makes it harder to choose the appropriate candidate, a vote cast is still a positive assertion - and to that extent the quality of governance is directly a result of the individual's choices. Swallowing a bad policy because I made a bad decision in voting is quite different from swallowing a bad policy made by people who I have no control over.

What China does not agree with the western countries is the method for leadership selection. In Chinese concept, a leader should someone who started from the bottom and through effort and skill, rise through the ranks. Their skills and merits will be evaluated by their immediate peers and most importantly, by people who are clearly qualified and experienced in the particular field. This is actually a quite common approach in scientific community and academia. The idea is that only qualified individuals should be able to pass judgement on others.

Thanks, I enjoyed reading this. While I have a few points of disagreement, I'll post on only one for now - the issue of leadership selection and your posting on the perceived advantages of the Chinese model.

While the Chinese model has the advantage of choosing qualification and skill (as you mention), it ensures that only people who qualify as 'skilled' in the perception of the party leadership will advance to eventually reach political power. Someone who views the One-China obsession as less important (just to take an example) will be weeded out as 'unskilled' - in other words diversity of political thought is stifled and conformity with what party bosses want becomes key to advancement. Most implementation of policy can, however, be entrusted to professionals - which is why permanent bureaucracies exist. Moreover political skills are hard to test in a closed environment of an office (unlike say technical expertise) so the analogy of merit-based promotion is not, IMO, a good one.

Furthermore, my perception is that party membership and participation is not as ubiquitous as commonly believed [outside China]. That is to say party participation is universal only among educated middle-class Chinese. Peasants, minorities, and low-income groups are left out of the political discourse and have little representation at the top level.

Western democracy also provides for a better form of accountability - the only check to an out-of-control government.

Lastly - working at bottom and working way up through the ranks happens in all spheres of life in all countries. Obama worked as a community organiser before law school, was a professor of law at Chicago and then a senator before becoming president - in each case with increasing responsibility. Modi ran his tea stall, was a provincial legislator ,then a chief minister for over decades and then PM. There are certainly exceptions when nepotism occurs - but that happens in China also - with the princelings.

IMO a good political system is one that represents the population well (so as to take care of their interests), where no single force stops a divergence of political ideology.

 

[tranquilium]

Thanks, I enjoyed reading this. While I have a few points of disagreement, I'll post on only one for now - the issue of leadership selection and your posting on the perceived advantages of the Chinese model.

While the Chinese model has the advantage of choosing qualification and skill (as you mention), it ensures that only people who qualify as 'skilled' in the perception of the party leadership will advance to eventually reach political power. Someone who views the One-China obsession as less important (just to take an example) will be weeded out as 'unskilled' - in other words diversity of political thought is stifled and conformity with what party bosses want becomes key to advancement. Most implementation of policy can, however, be entrusted to professionals - which is why permanent bureaucracies exist. Moreover political skills are hard to test in a closed environment of an office (unlike say technical expertise) so the analogy of merit-based promotion is not, IMO, a good one.

Here lays with one of the common misperception from foreign community, the idea that merits is only judged by "party bosses". You have to realize CCP is not like the political parties in India or America. In India or America, while the official number of people involved in the party is high, (For example, many people in US can claim to be Republican, but they are not actually in the running of party or active participating the internal party politics) official entry into the internal political circle is a limited membership event. In these types of situations, you need "party bosses" permission because your immediate superior is only a few steps from the party bosses.

In comparison, CCP is a much larger organization. For example, when Xi started his political career in CCP, he was selected to be leader of a village level production. He was among tens millions of people in similar positions, hardly "selected by party bosses". As he advanced through levels, he is judged by people with higher qualifications. For example, he was the production team leader, he would be judged by the village level leaders and his production team peers. When he was a village level leader, he would be judged by the county-level leaders and village level peers. So on and so far.

This is a mistake something very common within the foreign community. They generally image CCP as a Chinese version of their local political party, with all their faults and then added a few from the media and came up with something that can't possible be fit for leading.

Another thing I want address is the political diversity issue. You brought up the topic of "one China". The most important thing you need to remember is that any qualified Chinese leader, regardless of stance and position, is under no-obligation to put foreign interest ahead China's own interest. Similarly, we also do not expect any sane leaders from another country to put Chinese interest head of their own. Sure, India or US would love China to split apart. It makes their lives a lot easier, but there is no sane reason for Chinese to oblige. This is not a matter of political diversity, this is a matter of basic sanity.

Furthermore, my perception is that party membership and participation is not as ubiquitous as commonly believed [outside China]. That is to say party participation is universal only among educated middle-class Chinese. Peasants, minorities, and low-income groups are left out of the political discourse and have little representation at the top level.

That's just plain wrong.
https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/全国人民代表大会#.E6.AD.B7.E5.B1.86.E7.BB.84.E6.88.90.E4.BA.BA.E5.91.98

A specific column is for peasants/workers, which account for 18% of the representation in recent years. (In its height, it made up about 50% of people's assembly, but as China industrializes, the population composition changed.) Representatives also include minorities races, women, intellectuals, returned-foreign personnel.

Again, you are basically describing your own local political party and imaging that the Chinese are the same when all evidences point that they should be very different.

Western democracy also provides for a better form of accountability - the only check to an out-of-control government.

Lastly - working at bottom and working way up through the ranks happens in all spheres of life in all countries. Obama worked as a community organiser before law school, was a professor of law at Chicago and then a senator before becoming president - in each case with increasing responsibility. Modi ran his tea stall, was a provincial legislator ,then a chief minister for over decades and then PM. There are certainly exceptions when nepotism occurs - but that happens in China also - with the princelings.

IMO a good political system is one that represents the population well (so as to take care of their interests), where no single force stops a divergence of political ideology.

I strongly disagree. In fact, the lack of accountability is one of the biggest weakness in electoral system. For example, every American know George W. Bush screwed up, but all they did was trying to elect someone else into the office. The republican party is not affected and eight years later, you got another republican into the office.

Waiting for four years to elect someone into the office is about the worst way to hold anyone accountable. There is no long term repercussion and you have just wasted precious time while your rivals are advancing.

This is also why many of the Chinese member doesn't respect Indian politics, because there is too much "when we elect XXX into the office in YYY years, everything will be fine". No, you won't be fine. You are still letting the current one getting away with no punishment and you have just wasted several years of precious time. Time which your neighbours spent developing at a break neck speed.

More importantly, there is no motivation for the next one to do better, because what are you going to do? Elect the next one out of the office while letting him play for a few years with your country?

In comparison, the price of failure is a lot more severe in the Chinese system. If Xi fails, not only is his career over, the entire CCP will go down with him. The Chinese is also never the one to shy from capital punishment when it is due. This is actual accountability. Not something like the electoral system, which relies on public opinion and has been proven to be equivalent to a slightly more intelligent goldfish.

 

[schoolboy]

Another thing I want address is the political diversity issue. You brought up the topic of "one China". The most important thing you need to remember is that any qualified Chinese leader, regardless of stance and position, is under no-obligation to put foreign interest ahead China's own interest. Similarly, we also do not any sane leaders from another country to put Chinese interest head of their own. Sure, India or US would love China to split apart. It makes their lives a lot easier, but there is no sane reasn for Chinese to oblige. This is not a matter of political diversity, this is a matter of basic sanity.

I have not commented on foreign policy in my post.

As he advanced through levels, he is judged by people with higher qualififications.

My point is regarding the illusion of 'higher qualification'. Higher qualification assumes that an ordinary chinese citizen - the one with no access to levers of power - has zero say on who will decide policy for his city, his state, his country. I believe that is not only disrespectful but also a fundamentally flawed assumption - inasmuch as it equates political leadership with technocratic ability.

And as I said before, it also sets into motion a system where people are chosen for adherence to traits deemed 'good' by their superiors - in effect ensuring that candidates who have different views on policy get selected out. While that approach may be ok in a business corporation or in the military - where subordination is essential, I believe it is not a desirable trait in a political system.

I strongly disagree. In fact, the lack of accountability is one of the biggest weakness in electorial system. For example, every American know George W. Bush screwed up, but all they did was trying to election someone else into the office. The republican party is not affected and eight years later, you got another republican into the office.

The success is precisely that every American knows Bush screwed up. His reputation has suffered, his lies have been discussed on the senate floor, Trump used that as a campaign issue and won election - and successive presidents will think twice before attempting a repeat. Despite being the holder of the highest office Bush's false claims are analysed by academia in the most leading journals and news segments are run that talk about the extent of his culpability. Another president Bill Clinton had to testify before a grand jury in court for lying on the Lewinsky matter - and was debarred from legal practice.

Can you think of anything similar in China? Will anyone dare to publicly criticize Mao's policies and the millions who died in the Great Leap? Can a court in China dare summon Xi (or even a past chairman) and ask him to explain his conduct?

A specific column is for peasants/workers, which account for 18% of the representation in recent years. (In its height, it made up about 50% of people's assembly, but as China industrializes, the population composition changed.) Representatives also include minorities races, women, intellgiance, returned-foreign personnels.

Yet since 1949 only three minority leaders have served on the Politburo. And no ethnic minority has ever risen to the Politburo Standing Committee.

Also, reservation does not address the point that participation of rural and minority chinese at the lowest levels is drastically lower than the educated middle and upper class Han chinese. In fact the presence of reservation effectively negates your claim that everybody participates by membership to the party.

Waiting for four years to elect someone into the office is about the worst way to hold anyone accountable. There is no long term repercussion and you have just wasted precious time while your rivals are advancing.

I agree 4 years is a long time but at least there is power to change things. In China can people unhappy with Xi's policies change him?

If Xi fails, not only is his career over, the entire CCP will go down with him. The Chinese is also never the one to shy from capital punishment when it is due. This is actual accountability

You point out exactly the reason why accountability is never going to gain traction under the current system in China - the stakes are simply too high and given the amount of power it has the party as a body has no effective checks and balances (unlike say the US - where's Trump's so-called crazy travel ban was immediately shot down by courts).

Because the party is responsible for everything Chinese accountability cannot really indict the party for failures - that would be catastrophic. Instead it relies on individualised blame - as was done for Bo - and a quick disappearance / execution that is convenient for the party.

I believe the Chinese system of government has continued in China because of the overwhelmingly homogenous ethnic composition of the population (90% Han Chinese) and a cultural tradition of obeying the hierarchy (similar to pre-WW2 Japan and Prussia).

Most Indians genuinely admire Chinese economic development but few (if any) would want to live in China or import a China-like system of government. The closest we came to it was in 1975-77 and that is remembered with great distaste.

 

[tranquilium]

I have not commented on foreign policy in my post.



My point is regarding the illusion of 'higher qualification'. Higher qualification assumes that an ordinary chinese citizen - the one with no access to levers of power - has zero say on who will decide policy for his city, his state, his country. I believe that is not only disrespectful but also a fundamentally flawed assumption - inasmuch as it equates political leadership with technocratic ability.

High qualification means ordinary citizens would have the power to appraise the behavior of their immediate peers. For example, if you are a Chinese citizen, you will be participating in selecting leaders among your friends, your colleagues. This is because you know these people, not only their promise, but you also know them as a person.

These people would in turn select the best among themselves, because they are already in leadership role, so they would be able to appraise other leaderships. The process repeats.

And yes, ordinary citizens with no experience, no information should not be deciding national policies.

And as I said before, it also sets into motion a system where people are chosen for adherence to traits deemed 'good' by their superiors - in effect ensuring that candidates who have different views on policy get selected out. While that approach may be ok in a business corporation or in the military - where subordination is essential, I believe it is not a desirable trait in a political system.

The best traits in Chinese leadership would be competence in governing. You need to remember that low to intermediate level selection process will not conccern national policy. No single leader is also responsible for the promotion process. Just like academia, the appeasing individual interests of a single member doesn't work, the best method to success is general competence.

The success is precisely that every American knows Bush screwed up. His reputation has suffered, his lies have been discussed on the senate floor, Trump used that as a campaign issue and won election - and successive presidents will think twice before attempting a repeat. Despite being the holder of the highest office Bush's false claims are analysed by academia in the most leading journals and news segments are run that talk about the extent of his culpability. Another president Bill Clinton had to testify before a grand jury in court for lying on the Lewinsky matter - and was debarred from legal practice.

Can you think of anything similar in China? Will anyone dare to publicly criticize Mao's policies and the millions who died in the Great Leap? Can a court in China dare summon Xi (or even a past chairman) and ask him to explain his conduct?

Mao's policy has been analyzed while he is alive and everyday after and lots of people criticize his policy, especially in the 80s. However, the funny thing is, in the recent years, the criticism died down, because time showed that Mao is actually correct in his policies.

Yet since 1949 only three minority leaders have served on the Politburo. And no ethnic minority has ever risen to the Politburo Standing Committee.

Also, reservation does not address the point that participation of rural and minority chinese at the lowest levels is drastically lower than the educated middle and upper class Han chinese. In fact the presence of reservation effectively negates your claim that everybody participates by membership to the party.

The first black US president appeared after almost 300 years and African-Americans are way bigger percentage of the population than minority combined in China and I don't really need to address India's record on minority participation. Chinese rural and minority participation in political is much better than India or US.

I agree 4 years is a long time but at least there is power to change things. In China can people unhappy with Xi's policies change him?

Yes, it can. More specifically, what will change him is key indications of the nation, for example, productivity, industry development, environment status, health care, etc.

What will NOT change him include: internet posts claiming to have large support, but was found to be untrue, ideas that do not benefit the nation in the long run, baseless whining in general.

You point out exactly the reason why accountability is never going to gain traction under the current system in China - the stakes are simply too high and given the amount of power it has the party as a body has no effective checks and balances (unlike say the US - where's Trump's so-called crazy travel ban was immediately shot down by courts).

Because the party is responsible for everything Chinese accountability cannot really indict the party for failures - that would be catastrophic. Instead it relies on individualised blame - as was done for Bo - and a quick disappearance / execution that is convenient for the party.

I believe the Chinese system of government has continued in China because of the overwhelmingly homogenous ethnic composition of the population (90% Han Chinese) and a cultural tradition of obeying the hierarchy (similar to pre-WW2 Japan and Prussia).

Most Indians genuinely admire Chinese economic development but few (if any) would want to live in China or import a China-like system of government. The closest we came to it was in 1975-77 and that is remembered with great distaste.

Trump's idea isn't a good check and balance at all. If the check and balance is good, then the idea wouldn't have made out of the white house in the first place. It should not have made pass president immediate peers and people in charge of governing the nation.

Well, if you don't believe the threat of collapsing of your political organization is a good check and motivation, then there really isn't much to talk about.

For Japan and Russia, what on earth are you talking about? Both Japan and Russia were mostly feudal before 20th century. Japan's army vs navy feud was legendary and responsible for much its strategic mistakes in WW2. Russia's long feudal nature can also be traced as a reason for eventual collapse of USSR.

You are right about one thing though. The modern Chinese system IS heavily influenced by its traditional system. China is really the only civilization on Earth that have thousands year long absolute monarchy, while the Europeans briefly experienced it (brief being a relative term to China). There is a reason Chinese is the most flourishing civilization for vast majority of human history.

 

[Nan Yang]

I have not commented on foreign policy in my post.



My point is regarding the illusion of 'higher qualification'. Higher qualification assumes that an ordinary chinese citizen - the one with no access to levers of power - has zero say on who will decide policy for his city, his state, his country. I believe that is not only disrespectful but also a fundamentally flawed assumption - inasmuch as it equates political leadership with technocratic ability.

And as I said before, it also sets into motion a system where people are chosen for adherence to traits deemed 'good' by their superiors - in effect ensuring that candidates who have different views on policy get selected out. While that approach may be ok in a business corporation or in the military - where subordination is essential, I believe it is not a desirable trait in a political system.



The success is precisely that every American knows Bush screwed up. His reputation has suffered, his lies have been discussed on the senate floor, Trump used that as a campaign issue and won election - and successive presidents will think twice before attempting a repeat. Despite being the holder of the highest office Bush's false claims are analysed by academia in the most leading journals and news segments are run that talk about the extent of his culpability. Another president Bill Clinton had to testify before a grand jury in court for lying on the Lewinsky matter - and was debarred from legal practice.

Can you think of anything similar in China? Will anyone dare to publicly criticize Mao's policies and the millions who died in the Great Leap? Can a court in China dare summon Xi (or even a past chairman) and ask him to explain his conduct?



Yet since 1949 only three minority leaders have served on the Politburo. And no ethnic minority has ever risen to the Politburo Standing Committee.

Also, reservation does not address the point that participation of rural and minority chinese at the lowest levels is drastically lower than the educated middle and upper class Han chinese. In fact the presence of reservation effectively negates your claim that everybody participates by membership to the party.



I agree 4 years is a long time but at least there is power to change things. In China can people unhappy with Xi's policies change him?



You point out exactly the reason why accountability is never going to gain traction under the current system in China - the stakes are simply too high and given the amount of power it has the party as a body has no effective checks and balances (unlike say the US - where's Trump's so-called crazy travel ban was immediately shot down by courts).

Because the party is responsible for everything Chinese accountability cannot really indict the party for failures - that would be catastrophic. Instead it relies on individualised blame - as was done for Bo - and a quick disappearance / execution that is convenient for the party.

I believe the Chinese system of government has continued in China because of the overwhelmingly homogenous ethnic composition of the population (90% Han Chinese) and a cultural tradition of obeying the hierarchy (similar to pre-WW2 Japan and Prussia).

Most Indians genuinely admire Chinese economic development but few (if any) would want to live in China or import a China-like system of government. The closest we came to it was in 1975-77 and that is remembered with great distaste.

The proof is in the pudding. The development of China's high speed rail, the infrastructure, the space program, the military, the urbanization, poverty eradication etc do not happen by accident.

 

[schoolboy]

I never tire of seeing the valiant attempts Chinese posters refusing to concede an inch and fastidiously maintain that they're the best economy, best system of government, best religion, whatever. But that's the art of good propaganda - say it a million times till everyone believes it.

And yes, ordinary citizens with no experience, no information should not be deciding national policies.

I think - that is the core of your belief - and a frightening one at that. What you say is the justification used by tyrants for thousands of years to impose their will on their subjects. That's a highly arrogant view, an insult to ordinary citizens and is a great dissevrice to their intelligence. Well just have to agree to disagree.

The best traits in Chinese leadership would be competence in governing. You need to remember that low to intermediate level selection process will not conccern national policy.

Wrong assumption. Political leadership occurs at various levels and at lower levels the unit of administration is smaller - say a small city, province or region. With the exception of foreign policy, political leaders are every level face similar issues.

ots of people critize his policy, especially in the 80s

Who are these "lots of people". Anyone in the politburo? Anyone who later became chairman? Even the USSR permitted more criticism of past leaders (think Khrushchev, Brezhnev)

The first black US president appeared after almost 300 years and African-Americans are way bigger percentage of the population than minority combined in China and I don't really need to address India's record on minority participation. Chinese rural and minority participation in political is much better than India or US.

300 years? They've been independent for only about 230. And African-Americans are not a "way bigger percentage" of the population - they are approx. 13% - compared to Chinese ethnic minorities that are about 10%. And anyway the Americans have always acknowledged minority under-representation as a real problem - unlike your persistent claim that everything is good. For a country that labels itself 'people's republic' it's ironic that no ethnic minority has ever risen to the Politburo Standing Committee - and only three have made it to the Politburo.

You know next to nothing of India's minority participation - we've had Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Zoroastrians Christians, Jains occupy literally every major and top level political position.

Yes, it can. More specifically, what will change him is key indications of the nation, for example, productivity, industry development, environment status, health care, etc.

Nixon lost his job over the watergate fallout. Bill Clinton was severely discredited by his weaknesses (and got impeached, lost his law licence, etc. ) and his party lost the white house for 8 years. George Bush's own party nominee publicly bashed his Iraq policy well enough to win the white house. This is despite the fact that these presidents presided over some of the most prosperous years for the US - with low unemployment, high wage increases and tax cuts.

But name one Chinese Chairman who has ever been publicly held accountable.

Trump's idea isn't a good check and balance at all.

Err...Federal courts are not 'Trumps idea' - they're part of the judiciary - and an excellent set of checks and balances. Obama's goverment lost <50% of its cases before the US Supreme Court.

Russia's long feudal nature can also be traced as a reason for eventual collapse of USSR

That's funny. The USSR collapsed because the planned economy model just didn't work well enough to incentivize innovation and the non-transparent ballooning military expenditure became unsustainable. Nothing to do with feudal nature.

China is really the only civilization on Earth that have a thousand year long absolute monarchy

Another frequently cited myth - and one I've exposed on these forums before. The so-called 'thousand year' monarchy is merely a series of dynasties that often had no linguistic, ethnic or political continuity. Moreover they ruled a very small area of modern PRC China.

The proof is in the pudding. The development of China's high speed rail, the infrastructure, the space program, the military, the urbanization, poverty eradication etc do not happen by accident.

An undesirable system of government and economic development are not mutually exclusive. The Meiji era (basically an autocracy) saw the fastest industrial revolution in the world - and look where that ended up.

 

[Nan Yang]

That's funny. The USSR collapsed because the planned economy model just didn't work well enough to incentivize innovation and the non-transparent ballooning military expenditure became unsustainable. Nothing to do with feudal nature.

USSR actually was very innovative. Sputnik, first man in space, first women in space, the MIG15, MIG21, the AK47 Kalashnikov, the rocket propel grenade etc.
Add Nazi Germany too. V1, V2, the jet engine, first real jet plane, Tiger tank, the Volkwagen, etc

Yea...the Myth perpetuated by western media..... Took the bait eh ?

Another frequently cited myth - and one I've exposed on these forums before. The so-called 'thousand year' monarchy is merely a series of dynasties that often had no linguistic, ethnic or political continuity. Moreover they ruled a very small area of modern PRC China.

Myth? Errr China's civilization is RECORDED continuously.

But we all know the OTHER so call civilization that has no real records and based on Myth......right ?

An undesirable system of government and economic development are not mutually exclusive. The Meiji era (basically an autocracy) saw the fastest industrial revolution in the world - and look where that ended up.

Well China must be doing something different. Look where China is now versus Japan.

 

[TaiShang]

In comparison, CCP is a much larger organization. For example, when Xi started his political career in CCP, he was selected to be leader of a village level production. He was among tens millions of people in similar positions, hardly "selected by party bosses".

A specific column is for peasants/workers, which account for 18% of the representation in recent years. (In its height, it made up about 50% of people's assembly, but as China industrializes, the population composition changed.) Representatives also include minorities races, women, intellectuals, returned-foreign personnel.

All you need to know about the election of delegates to the 19th CPC National Congress
By Zhang Yu Source: Global Times Published: 2017/2/16


○ The number of delegates to the CPC National Congress continues to grow

○ Political soundness and moral integrity are the two top criteria in the elections

○ Fewer Party officials and more frontline workers will be elected this year

Party delegates in Yiling district, Yichang, Central China's Hubei Province vote for district Party committee members, alternate committee members and discipline inspection commission members on December 16, 2016. Photo: CFP


At each National Congress of the Communist Party of China (CPC), which is held every five years, the number, composition and election criteria for delegates differs slightly.

The elections for delegates to the 19th CPC National Congress, which will be held in the latter half of this year, began last November and will end in June. The congress will see a higher percentage of grass-roots delegates than in previous years, and yet the criteria for the elections will be tougher, reflecting the CPC's growing emphasis on Party discipline and moral integrity.

The delegates' responsibilities will include listening to and reviewing reports produced by the CPC Central Committee and the CPC Central Commission for Discipline Inspection; discussing and deciding on major Party issues; and electing a new CPC Central Committee, according to Party guidelines.

The Global Times will walk you through the process of the election, and examine how the election fits into the Party's past, present and future.

Election basics

According to guidelines released by the CPC Central Committee for the election of delegates to the 19th CPC National Congress, by June a total of 2,300 delegates will have been elected from 40 electoral units in China, an increase of 30 delegates compared with the 18th CPC Congress five years ago. "The growth in the number of delegates is in line with growth in the number of Party members, and reflects growing intra-party democracy," Yao Huan, a professor at the Party School of the CPC Beijing Municipal Committee, told the Global Times.

Since the 10th CPC National Congress in 1973, the number of CPC delegates has been steadily rising. Over the 96 years of the Party's history, from only 13 delegates representing a total of 50-odd CPC members in 1921 to a total of 2,300 delegates representing over 88 million CPC members today, the number of CPC delegates has been expanded 176 times.

Among the 40 electoral units, 34 are divided by regions, including China's provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities, the CPC work committees in Hong Kong and Macao, and the All-China Federation of Taiwan Compatriots.

The remaining six electoral units are all part of the central government. The People's Liberation Army (PLA), for example, is one of the most important electoral units of all. During the 18th CPC National Congress, 251 delegates from the PLA were elected, accounting for 11 percent of all delegates and topping all electoral units in terms of delegate quota. All departments directly under the CPC Central Committee also belong to one electoral unit, as well as all the central government-controlled enterprises.

The quota for the number of delegates to be elected by each regional unit reflects the region's political importance, rather than its population, experts say. Shanghai, for example, traditionally churns out the largest number of delegates among all regions. A total of 73 delegates from Shanghai were elected for the 18th CPC National Congress in 2012, topping the regional electoral units. In contrast, Hainan Province, with a delegation of 26, was the smallest regional delegation that year.

In comparison, the quota for delegates to the National People's Congress (NPC) is mostly decided according to each area's population. During the 12th NPC, Shandong Province, one of the most populous provinces in China, had the biggest quota of 162 delegates, while Shanghai had only 50.

So far, only two regional electoral units, namely Jiangsu Province and the Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, have publicly announced their quota for the 19th CPC National Congress.

According to the Nanjing-based Xinhua Daily newspaper, Jiangsu Province has a quota of 69 delegates this year, one less than at the 18th congress, and the Jiangsu provincial Party committee has decided to nominate 90 candidates. After these candidates are reviewed by the CPC Central Committee, an election will be held during the provincial Party congress, and 21 candidates will be eliminated, while the rest will go to Beijing to attend the national congress.

This means in Jiangsu, there will be around 30 percent more candidates than available posts. This is in line with the election rule that the number of candidates should be at least 15 percent more than the number of deputies to be elected.

Rigorous standards

This year's election will also see tightened criteria on political integrity and moral standards in the reviewing and election process, according to official documents.

"[Delegates to the 19th CPC National Congress] should be the crème de la crème of all Party members ... Their political standards should be the top criteria in the election, and their ideals and beliefs, political integrity and moral standards should be especially examined," read a commentary on published in the People's Daily last December on the election of the delegates.

China's higher level elections have been hit by scandals. In 2013, more than 500 city-level legislators were dismissed from the legislature after the discovery of their involvement in trading cash for votes in Hengyang, Central China's Hunan Province. Last year a similar case was reported in a Liaoning provincial legislature election, in which a total of 523 deputies to the Liaoning Provincial People's Congress were implicated.

Liaoning Province, hit hard by this electoral fraud, has vowed not to make the same mistakes again. In a provincial Party committee meeting on January 10, the province's top officials said they will "learn profoundly the bitter lesson from Liaoning's electoral fraud ... strengthen election discipline, and ensure that the candidates' political integrity, moral standards and personal identity will be closely examined to ensure that the deputies elected meet central government requirements and are welcomed by Party members across the province," according to a Liaoning Daily report.

Zhang Xixian, a professor at the Party School of the Central Committee of the CPC, told the Global Times the Liaoning case also serves as a warning to all candidates looking to attend the 19th CPC National Congress. "Theoretically though, electoral fraud is less likely to happen among Party delegates than among NPC deputies because the Party delegate election is carried out within the Party system, which has stricter criteria, but still we should never drop our guard."

Fewer officials

CPC Congress delegates can generally be divided into two groups: Party officials and model Party-member workers who work on the frontlines.

The Party officials include Party leaders of various provincial and municipal CPC and government organs, State-owned enterprises, universities and institutions.

"One feature of the CPC National Congress is that the majority of delegates are Party officials. After all, the purpose of the CPC National Congress is to strengthen the leadership of the Party," Zhang said.

But in the past 25 years, the percentage of Party officials has gradually dropped from 78 percent during the 14th Party congress in 1992 to 69.5 percent in the 18th Party congress. This year, that proportion will further be lowered. According to the Organization Department of the CPC Central Committee, which is responsible for personnel management, in 33 of the 40 electoral units, over one third of the delegates elected should be Party members working on the frontlines.

Among the 90 candidates that Jiangsu Province plans to nominate this year, 56.7 percent, will be Party officials, while frontline workers will account for 43.3 percent.

"Delegates from the frontline can better reflect the interests and needs of grass-roots workers. They're more down-to-earth, and know a lot about society that officials don't," Yao said.

Zhang said this can also help prevent the Party from drifting away from the masses, and that setting a cap on the percentage of Party leaders is especially important. "There may be hundreds of thousands of Party members in a city, and yet more often than not, it's often the Party secretary who's elected as the delegate, because frontline workers have little chance to achieve the same influence. A cap on the percentage of Party leaders will ensure that frontline workers are not ignored," he said.

The rising number of frontline workers means the competition among Party officials to become congress delegates will be fiercer. In order to prevent the manipulation of quotas, the Organization Department said in a press conference that Party members who have multiple titles or social roles should join the election using only their major title. "[Party officials] hiding or altering their real identity in order to evade reviews, and occupy the quotas of frontline deputies such workers, farmers, and skilled professionals should be prevented," it said.

 

[Nan Yang]

Do you feel no shame living in a foreign country while spewing Chinese propaganda?

Living in a foreign country? You question my nationality?

Propaganda? How?

Western electoral democracy over the decades has been infiltrated by lobbyists, money politics and lawyers to the point you can't tell who is telling the truth. Politicians spends half the time campaigning and the other half raising money for the next election.
As the country goes down hill.

And decades of partisan politics have split countries into two opposing ideologies. One in power and one doing all it can to bring it down. It's a blame game. Claim any credit and blame any mess on the other.

It has now reached its level of incompetence.

 

[Viet]

A German father complained to Merkel, they are not able to step out of their houses at night compare to ten years ago after Merkel stupid immigrant/refugee policy started.

Merkel had a weak moment. some said she had a blackout.

Living in a foreign country? You question my nationality?

Propaganda? How?
Western electrol democracy over the decades has been infiltrated by lobbyists, money politics and lawyers to the point you can't tell who is telling the truth. Politicians spends half the time campaigning and the other half raising money for the next election.
As the country goes down hill.

And decades of partison politics have split countries into two opposing ideologies. One in power and one doing all it can to bring it down. It's a blame game. Claim any credit and blame any mess on the other.

It has now reached it's level of incompetent.

You aggravate the situation. But in any caes the people have a choice. Yes in any cases of most incompetent politicians, one thing can't be touched: individual liberty. That is the most valuable asset in the western democracy.

 

[Nan Yang]

You aggravate the situation. But in any caes the people have a choice. Yes in any cases of most incompetent politicians, one thing can't be touched: individual liberty. That is the most valuable asset in the western democracy.

Yes people do have a choice but only between two parties. Any third choice is called a wasted vote.

Yes Western society stressed too much on individualism at the expense of the society.
Sometimes it's hard to understand. They always lecture about individual rights, but when things goes wrong they blame the society.

You are Asian. You should understand. ... The rights of the society always have priority over the rights of the individual.

 

[Jlaw]

All you need to know about the election of delegates to the 19th CPC National Congress
By Zhang Yu Source: Global Times Published: 2017/2/16


○ The number of delegates to the CPC National Congress continues to grow

○ Political soundness and moral integrity are the two top criteria in the elections

○ Fewer Party officials and more frontline workers will be elected this year

Party delegates in Yiling district, Yichang, Central China's Hubei Province vote for district Party committee members, alternate committee members and discipline inspection commission members on December 16, 2016. Photo: CFP


At each National Congress of the Communist Party of China (CPC), which is held every five years, the number, composition and election criteria for delegates differs slightly.

The elections for delegates to the 19th CPC National Congress, which will be held in the latter half of this year, began last November and will end in June. The congress will see a higher percentage of grass-roots delegates than in previous years, and yet the criteria for the elections will be tougher, reflecting the CPC's growing emphasis on Party discipline and moral integrity.

The delegates' responsibilities will include listening to and reviewing reports produced by the CPC Central Committee and the CPC Central Commission for Discipline Inspection; discussing and deciding on major Party issues; and electing a new CPC Central Committee, according to Party guidelines.

The Global Times will walk you through the process of the election, and examine how the election fits into the Party's past, present and future.

Election basics

According to guidelines released by the CPC Central Committee for the election of delegates to the 19th CPC National Congress, by June a total of 2,300 delegates will have been elected from 40 electoral units in China, an increase of 30 delegates compared with the 18th CPC Congress five years ago. "The growth in the number of delegates is in line with growth in the number of Party members, and reflects growing intra-party democracy," Yao Huan, a professor at the Party School of the CPC Beijing Municipal Committee, told the Global Times.

Since the 10th CPC National Congress in 1973, the number of CPC delegates has been steadily rising. Over the 96 years of the Party's history, from only 13 delegates representing a total of 50-odd CPC members in 1921 to a total of 2,300 delegates representing over 88 million CPC members today, the number of CPC delegates has been expanded 176 times.

Among the 40 electoral units, 34 are divided by regions, including China's provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities, the CPC work committees in Hong Kong and Macao, and the All-China Federation of Taiwan Compatriots.

The remaining six electoral units are all part of the central government. The People's Liberation Army (PLA), for example, is one of the most important electoral units of all. During the 18th CPC National Congress, 251 delegates from the PLA were elected, accounting for 11 percent of all delegates and topping all electoral units in terms of delegate quota. All departments directly under the CPC Central Committee also belong to one electoral unit, as well as all the central government-controlled enterprises.

The quota for the number of delegates to be elected by each regional unit reflects the region's political importance, rather than its population, experts say. Shanghai, for example, traditionally churns out the largest number of delegates among all regions. A total of 73 delegates from Shanghai were elected for the 18th CPC National Congress in 2012, topping the regional electoral units. In contrast, Hainan Province, with a delegation of 26, was the smallest regional delegation that year.

In comparison, the quota for delegates to the National People's Congress (NPC) is mostly decided according to each area's population. During the 12th NPC, Shandong Province, one of the most populous provinces in China, had the biggest quota of 162 delegates, while Shanghai had only 50.

So far, only two regional electoral units, namely Jiangsu Province and the Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region, have publicly announced their quota for the 19th CPC National Congress.

According to the Nanjing-based Xinhua Daily newspaper, Jiangsu Province has a quota of 69 delegates this year, one less than at the 18th congress, and the Jiangsu provincial Party committee has decided to nominate 90 candidates. After these candidates are reviewed by the CPC Central Committee, an election will be held during the provincial Party congress, and 21 candidates will be eliminated, while the rest will go to Beijing to attend the national congress.

This means in Jiangsu, there will be around 30 percent more candidates than available posts. This is in line with the election rule that the number of candidates should be at least 15 percent more than the number of deputies to be elected.

Rigorous standards

This year's election will also see tightened criteria on political integrity and moral standards in the reviewing and election process, according to official documents.

"[Delegates to the 19th CPC National Congress] should be the crème de la crème of all Party members ... Their political standards should be the top criteria in the election, and their ideals and beliefs, political integrity and moral standards should be especially examined," read a commentary on published in the People's Daily last December on the election of the delegates.

China's higher level elections have been hit by scandals. In 2013, more than 500 city-level legislators were dismissed from the legislature after the discovery of their involvement in trading cash for votes in Hengyang, Central China's Hunan Province. Last year a similar case was reported in a Liaoning provincial legislature election, in which a total of 523 deputies to the Liaoning Provincial People's Congress were implicated.

Liaoning Province, hit hard by this electoral fraud, has vowed not to make the same mistakes again. In a provincial Party committee meeting on January 10, the province's top officials said they will "learn profoundly the bitter lesson from Liaoning's electoral fraud ... strengthen election discipline, and ensure that the candidates' political integrity, moral standards and personal identity will be closely examined to ensure that the deputies elected meet central government requirements and are welcomed by Party members across the province," according to a Liaoning Daily report.

Zhang Xixian, a professor at the Party School of the Central Committee of the CPC, told the Global Times the Liaoning case also serves as a warning to all candidates looking to attend the 19th CPC National Congress. "Theoretically though, electoral fraud is less likely to happen among Party delegates than among NPC deputies because the Party delegate election is carried out within the Party system, which has stricter criteria, but still we should never drop our guard."

Fewer officials

CPC Congress delegates can generally be divided into two groups: Party officials and model Party-member workers who work on the frontlines.

The Party officials include Party leaders of various provincial and municipal CPC and government organs, State-owned enterprises, universities and institutions.

"One feature of the CPC National Congress is that the majority of delegates are Party officials. After all, the purpose of the CPC National Congress is to strengthen the leadership of the Party," Zhang said.

But in the past 25 years, the percentage of Party officials has gradually dropped from 78 percent during the 14th Party congress in 1992 to 69.5 percent in the 18th Party congress. This year, that proportion will further be lowered. According to the Organization Department of the CPC Central Committee, which is responsible for personnel management, in 33 of the 40 electoral units, over one third of the delegates elected should be Party members working on the frontlines.

Among the 90 candidates that Jiangsu Province plans to nominate this year, 56.7 percent, will be Party officials, while frontline workers will account for 43.3 percent.

"Delegates from the frontline can better reflect the interests and needs of grass-roots workers. They're more down-to-earth, and know a lot about society that officials don't," Yao said.

Zhang said this can also help prevent the Party from drifting away from the masses, and that setting a cap on the percentage of Party leaders is especially important. "There may be hundreds of thousands of Party members in a city, and yet more often than not, it's often the Party secretary who's elected as the delegate, because frontline workers have little chance to achieve the same influence. A cap on the percentage of Party leaders will ensure that frontline workers are not ignored," he said.

The rising number of frontline workers means the competition among Party officials to become congress delegates will be fiercer. In order to prevent the manipulation of quotas, the Organization Department said in a press conference that Party members who have multiple titles or social roles should join the election using only their major title. "[Party officials] hiding or altering their real identity in order to evade reviews, and occupy the quotas of frontline deputies such workers, farmers, and skilled professionals should be prevented," it said.

Unfortunately, the mouth from the south do not care and will not read. Let's just agree with him that Indian democrazy is the best and move on.