[FooBarWidget]

That's a very unnuanced, MSM kind of take. As a Chinese, I am very disappointed at the absolutely one-dimensional analyses of western China watchers. Their takes are rarely accurate, often full of ideological bias, and they don't help me understand China better at all.

[chaostheory]

And your comment isn't "one dimensional" and "unnuanced"?

As a fellow Chinese person, it's pretty accurate. Deng Xiaoping deserves the credit for modern China's economy. China was slowly but surely opening up and slowing becoming decentralized for efficiency, and it was a moderate rule by committee with term limits vs a one man dictatorship for life that's veering into a centralized economic planning disaster reminiscent of Mao. He is destroying China, one industry at a time.

I can understand your "patriotism" if you're commenting from the mainland. Not so much if you're writing from elsewhere.

[dirtyid]

> it's pretty accurate.

Not remotely.

Xi was selected to fix Deng's unequal growth phase strategy. Hence all the regulations and crack down because Deng's model ran it's course. And Deng's policies only worked due to the base Mao built. Cultural revolution secularized and mobilized human capital, even great leap forward was massively successful in building industrial base - PRC in the 70s was less urbanized but considerably more industrialized than other low income peers. Which facilitated Deng's transition, which wouldn't have worked in India trapped in multiculturalism, historic power structures and rural economy. It only worked because Mao made sure everyone spoke mandarin, society had no strong attachments to history etc.

>He is destroying China, one industry at a time.

He's regulating previously underregulated industries. He's doing what the west talks about doing in policy papers for years but systemically can't. Sino-US ideological competition is battle of political systems, and so far PRC's has demonstrated to be more nimble and focsing on correct priorities. It's why US and others are trying to copy PRC's industrial policy, which PRC once copied from west. Also the fact that Xi managed to build SCS islands and modernize military sufficiently that US now discusses greater power competition in miiltary terms handly justifies his leadership. BoXiLai wasn't up to that task. The amount of comprehensive national power Xi built is insane. He's PRC's 3rd and maybe 4th term FDR in time of remarkable opportunity and crisis. He may sound and look dopey as hell, but his results have been remarkable.

[chaostheory]

> Xi was selected to fix Deng's unequal growth phase strategy.

Xi outmaneuvered his rivals. I highly doubt that the others wanted to forfeit their own power for his. Deng's policy was also already proven to work. Expanding it and not destroying it would have been more logical and responsible.

> And Deng's policies only worked due to the base Mao built. Cultural revolution secularized and mobilized human capital, even great leap forward was massively successful in building industrial base

That sounds delusional. Mao's policies were a complete disaster that killed millions of Chinese people. It didn't prepare China for the future. The only things it accomplished were massive suffering and international embarrassment. It was a complete mess. That isn't to say that Mao didn't achieve anything good, but the Great Leap forward and the Cultural Revolution are not good examples. If anything, that greatly hindered both Zhoe Enlai and Deng's reforms, and that's putting it lightly.

> He's regulating previously underregulated industries.

He is centralizing control and power. In his new order, there's no room anyone exceptional in private industry, or really anyone else. There's only room for his cult of personality. He is slowly regressing China into a Mao style of rule which completely throws out most of the lessons from the past: decentralization is more efficient and yields more production vs a centrally planned economy (relics of 20th century Communism)

> PRC's has demonstrated to be more nimble and focsing on correct priorities.

How can you be nimble when you're re-centralizing everything?

> It's why US and others are trying to copy PRC's industrial policy, which PRC once copied from west.

I don't know what you're trying to convey here.

> Also the fact that Xi managed to build SCS islands and modernize military sufficiently that US now discusses greater power competition in miiltary terms handly justifies his leadership

In a world with global ballistic nuclear missiles, it looks like Xi just copied a bad US habit, which is a source of massive corruption and waste.

> He may sound and look dopey as hell, but his results have been remarkable.

If it walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck; it's a duck.

> his results have been remarkable

This is still up in the air and highly debatable. For example, Xi is extremely impatient. One China Two Systems was working until he decided to completely trash it. We can assign the mess in HK and Taiwan's new calls for independence on him. If he didn't interfere in Deng's policy, China would have quietly completely swallowed both in a decade or two.

[dirtyid]

>Xi outmaneuvered his rivals.

He outmaneuvered them by being compromised candidate that no one had any objection to. And no one objected because Xi was the kind of person LKI compared to Nelson Mendella calibre of person. CIA dossier concluding Xi's incorruptible by money suggests Xi had the reputation to and disposition to negotiate the gilded age left by Deng's policies that Hu couldn't stem. Xi had the qualities to at least direct PRC in right direction vs Bo.

>that sounds delusional

PRC can trade lives for progress. It's harnessing the capital part of human capital. Bluntly frontloading a few million deaths to quickly set up the right conditions for future growth is the correct decision. Of course there were missteps, but overall Mao did the right things considering external factors. Again, look to India for a comparable alternative. It's a fucking mess because it can't break eggs to create omelette. Mao's mess was MASSIVELY beneficial, even if it led to excesses like CR and GLF, which bluntly are drop in the bucket tragedies on PRC historic scales.

>He is centralizing control and power.

A competent leader gaining power during interesting times isn't bad. It's not about efficiency but building comprehensive national power, many things simply do not get built or changes cannot be made without massive state directed attention even if less efficient. Recentralizing is not bad either - it's industrial policy - which is what made the west strong in the first place. Policies US abandoned and now is trying to rapidly regain. The ability to recentralize when needed is relative nimbleness the alternative is institutional stagnance west finds itself trapped in.

>Xi just copied a bad US habit ... > If it walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck; it's a duck.

Xi modernized the PRC military on a modest 2% budget. It's what NATO ought to spend. The amount of procurement PRC has made under Xi doesn't suggest there's massive waste - one of Xi's first efforts was cleaning out notoriously corrupt PLA brass, which Bo was associated with. Again he wasn’t up to the task, Xi was the best choice in the timeline we had. Matching US deterrence post pivot to Asia was incredibly difficult undertaking. Obama/Clinton already didn't buy Hide & Bide. Xi's a very impressive duck. Even centralizing power is a hard trick that requires acumen. Don’t have to praise it, but recognize that Xi got a lot of hard things done, fast.

> One China Two Systems was working

No it wasn't. HK existed for 23 years of NSL exception and being exploited by the west as the spy capital of Asia to undermine PRC interest - it was never a sustainable arrangement. HK only ever paid 1C2S lip service, and cultural shift as old demographics with memory of KMT/PRC relations die out, 1C2S wouldn't have been viable in TW either. No one had any pretensions that TW would return to PRC on a 10/20 year timeline. 1C2S ran its course like Deng’s development model or hide&bide and (eventually) no first use, 1C2S was a policy out of weakness, there will be alternative models as a result of PRC gaining strength. Xi is nimble enough to move past uneasy and untenuous policies. While the future of TW is debatable, Xi successfully secured HK, XJ, Tibet and built enough hard power to challenge the US when Trump decided to set eyes on PRC after covid drama. Wolf-warrior last year showed very few countries willing to step on PRC toes on internal issues, that PRC can effectively do what she pleases on core interests with relative impunity. Again, no small part thanks to Xi’s military modernization efforts. Xi has been great for PRC national interests.

[chaostheory]

> Xi had the qualities to at least direct PRC in right direction vs Bo.

I agree that Bo wouldn't have been much better than Xi, but that doesn't mean that Xi is a good statesman. His incorruptibility is marred by poor decisions that make little sense unless you're the Chinese version of Trump (Maduro & Chavez are probably better comparisons).

> PRC can trade lives for progress. It's harnessing the capital part of human capital. Bluntly frontloading a few million deaths to quickly set up the right conditions for future growth is the correct decision. Of course there were missteps, but overall Mao did the right things considering external factors. Again, look to India for a comparable alternative.

Just because India has its own mess, it doesn't condone what Mao did. India's problems also pale in comparison to the man made disasters of the Great Leap "Forward" and the Cultural Revolution. A lot of lives were lost, but no progress was gained unless you consider it as a step in controlling the overall world population. Instead, it just caused chaos and national humiliation. If anything, it was 1000 steps backwards.

> Recentralizing is not bad either - it's industrial policy - which is what made the west strong in the first place

It is not what made the West strong. Capitalism is about decentralizing control, and letting the more efficient markets decide where to allocate resources. It's imperfect and there's still waste, but overall it's far more efficient than centralized economic planning. Centralized economic planning is what caused the Great Leap and the Cultural Revolution. All it takes is a few bad ideas and absolute control. There's plenty of historical data to bolster my position.

> Xi modernized the PRC military on a modest 2% budget. It's what NATO ought to spend. The amount of procurement PRC has made under Xi doesn't suggest there's massive waste

Yes, I totally believe that coming from an authoritarian government with little to no transparency. /s

> one of Xi's first efforts was cleaning out notoriously corrupt PLA brass, which Bo was associated with.

The corruption elimination campaigns are just thinly veiled efforts to eliminate political rivals. If officials really wanted to eliminate corruption, you would need transparency. Transparency only comes with freedom of speech and a democratic government.

> Matching US deterrence post pivot to Asia was incredibly difficult undertaking.

While US is still powerful at the moment, only the Western equivalents of you and FooBarWidget would fail to admit that it's been on a steady decline for years now. Not to mention that it's extremely overstretched by being World Police, and politically polarized as a divided nation. The TPP failed. Literally the only thing China would need to do is wait. Nothing immediate needed to be done. The only thing Xi has accomplished is to galvanize rival nations to better cooperate with each other. Genius move just like his mishandling of HK.

> No it wasn't. HK existed for 23 years of NSL exception and being exploited by the west as the spy capital of Asia to undermine PRC interest - it was never a sustainable arrangement.

Is this a joke? The Lost generation was just a vocal minority. Key emphasis on minority. The new generation can barely even speak Cantonese anymore. Again all you had to do was wait for the inevitable to happen. Yet due to Xi's 'genius', he's shifted formerly indifferent public opinion to support the Lost gen.

> No one had any pretensions that TW would return to PRC on a 10/20 year timeline.

Like HK and given the controls and policies set by Xi's predecessors, it was only a matter of time when Taiwan was so economically linked to the mainland, that meaningful opposition would all but disappear. Instead, Xi with his usual genius moves just helped the separatists make their point with his other genius decisions involving HK.

[dirtyid]

> decisions that make little sense

You keep alleging this but much of his decisions made perfect sense and help contribute to building national power. Something Bo wouldn't do, and things Hu failed to do. So in that sense Xi is at least more competent than Hu while also keep in mind Xi's policies in many ways proceeded his tenure. The different between other populist is Xi's China is unequestionablly stronger in relative power by almost every metric. Xi's successful.

> pale in comparison ... no progress was gained

There was progress. Destroying the old and uniting society under common national identity was paramount to enabling subsequent reforms. Destruction WAS the progress. It was the point. Sometimes destruction was excess, but MORE destruction was better than less. India unable to destroy and renew itself = India STILL has hunger problems on level of North Korea today. The result is additional generations of Indians suffering subsistent poverty hundreds of millions of excess and prevental death. Cost of GLP and CR pale in comparison.

> /s

Lazy. Plenty of literature out there affirming PRC industry and purchase power = massive buildup cheap.

> you would need transparency

I mean no? You don't? You've drank the democracy dogma koolaid. CCDI eliminated 2M+, Xi doesn't have that many rivals. Of course he's going to use it to consolidate power, because eliminating that much corruption require firm power.

> Literally the only thing China would need to do is wait...

Waiting is how PRC got embarassed in 3rd strait crisis and Belgrade embassy bombing with inpunity. Again, learn some history, US pivoted to Asia before Xi. Manifested in Trump pushing unconstrained anti-PRC populism. Xi couldn't wait because US was already plotting against PRC pre Xi. He had to answer, like every PRC leader during their Sino US crsis. Except Xi chose respond to US as equal. And it worked. The reason why western MSM is losing their shit is Xi's PRC can't be talked to from "position of strength" anymore.

> galvanize rival nations to better cooperate with each other. Genius move just like his mishandling of HK.

Except... none of this is true outside of western MSM headlines. Wolf warrior demonstrated that PRC barking = no countries except US will affect PRC domestic concerns except with theatre. Every one of these "cooperative" alliance has stalled or failed to affirm intent to contain PRC. Essentially everyone expressed neutraility or explicitly won't commit to military against PRC interests, including TW. Xi's asserting revealed how weak bloc against PRC actually is.

> support the Lost gen

Lost gen had enough political capita to block NSL and patriotic education and were gaining support. Now they're gone. It's not Xi being genius but doing what eventually had to be done. NSL free HK is too much liability in age of great power competition, not worth "waiting" for.

> meaningful opposition would all but disappear

That's not how it works. I suspect you know how many countries have poor opinion of PRC but strong economic linkages. Did economic integration swayed PRC closer to US orbit? TW generations that grew up under democracy like HK generations that grew up under liberal educationisn't going to clamor for reunication with PRC under CCP... which it will be for foreseeable future. It doesn't take a genius to read the room and know where things are going and how to respond. Xi isn't some genius sweeping the west with grand strategy, but he's doing a demonstrably great job doing generally the right things and the hard things for PRC interests.

[FooBarWidget]

I am in fact not writing from the mainland. The insinuation that the only way I can have a different opinion, is because I am forced, is part of my critique: that western views of China are entirely unrealistic and overly warped by biases and preconceived notions that people are unwilling to let go.

If you want elaborate, nuanced comments from me, check my commenting history, such as this lengthy thread I wrote 2 weeks ago. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28632820 I am sorry if I don't turn every one of my comment into an essay.

As for Deng Xiao Ping, I am in agreement with dirtyid's comment.

[chaostheory]

> The insinuation that the only way I can have a different opinion, is because I am forced, is part of my critique

China doesn't have freedom of speech. Chinese citizens can be punished for posting innocuous things such as a cartoon bear who loves honey, so it's not a stretch to assume that you will write differently when inside the mainland vs outside of the mainland.

[FooBarWidget]

Censorship exists, but that is not at all the same thing as forcing people to have a certain opinion.

This Harvard paper explains that, instead, censorship's role is to silence movements. Pro-government posts are censored when they have the potential to go viral. Anti-government posts that don't go viral, aren't censored. "How Censorship in China Allows Government Criticism but Silences Collective Expression" https://gking.harvard.edu/publications/how-censorship-china-...

Furthermore, censorship exists simultaneously with government responsiveness. That is, they actively monitor social media for grievances and they actively address these grievances (as in actually addressing, not arresting people for arresting). Nowadays social media is one of the major channels for government feedback. New law proposals are regularly formed based on mass complaints on social media (which may or may not also end up getting censored). This is a relatively new thing, developed in the past 15 years or so.

Punishments are not that common. You'd have to reach Julian Assange level for that to happen. Censoring without any further consequences is the norm.

[chaostheory]

> Censorship exists, but that is not at all the same thing as forcing people to have a certain opinion.

I agree, but it's a moot point. When you censor all opinions that you don't like, it's only natural that if you limit available data, people will form very specific, limited opinions based on that data.

> That is, they actively monitor social media for grievances and they actively address these grievances

I kind of agree with you. In some cases, Beijing fixes problems that local provincial governments either cannot or will not, but that is not always the case, and due to lack of overall transparency; we don't know the ratio of fixing problems vs punishing people for reporting grievances.

> Punishments are not that common. You'd have to reach Julian Assange level for that to happen. Censoring without any further consequences is the norm.

Honestly, I do not feel that people broadcasting the events in Wuhan were Julian Assange level. Neither are the people who were speaking about Xinjiang. Yet they were still punished. Tax evasion imo is also not Assange level enough for a rendition and a resource intense redaction of media credits. Of course, you can argue that it's better than not punishing tax evaders at all like how virtually no one in Wall Street went to jail for the 2008 financial crisis.

I know the social credit system is still currently a mess implementation wise, but if it ever gets standardized and fixed nationally, we can revisit this subject.

[ailun]

Then you aren't reading the right "China-watchers". Some names from a quick review of my Twitter feed to check out if you're actually interested: Kevin Tellier, Peter Hessler, Xifan Yang, Michael Pettis, Manya Koetse, Sabina Knight, Amy Qin, Keith Bradsher, Yuen Yuen Ang, Chaoyang Trap (podcast), Matthew Casey, Jonathan Cheng, Yiling Liu, US-China Perception Monitor, Paper Republic, China Media Project.

There are tons more that I'm leaving out because I don't feel like searching for them. Enjoy. Or just continue to dismiss all Western journalism because you'd rather do that than look for quality.

[FooBarWidget]

I am in fact following a couple of the people you mentioned. The critique isn't that no good China watchers exist. It's that most of them are like Gordon Chang instead of Kevin Tellier.

I don't see the need for you to resort to confrontational hyperbolic strawmans. The fact that good China watchers are a small minority, is very bad for western understanding of China, and thus very bad for rational policy making that actually addresses issues rather than stirring up emotions or manufacturing consent for a war. This isn't just my own opinion; Kishore Mahbubani, ex-Singapore diplomat, ex-UN security council head, has spoken extensively about this problem.

[ailun]

Sure, the quality of mainstream news is always, and has always been, a problem. More education and improvement in understanding is always a good thing. But you're not making any interesting points there, and you have no way to quantify that "most of them are like Gordon Chang". And the problem I see is that people have a tendency to find poor sources of information and use them to dismiss entire categories of information and positions.

By the way, your statement was about "Western China watchers," not some or even most. You may not have meant it that way, but that's how you said it.

[FooBarWidget]

Okay fine. Although I did mention MSM.

[TheSmiddy]

It would be a hell of a lot easier for the west to understand China if China would let their citizens interact with the wider internet.

[theteapot]

Check out quora.com, It must be whitelist or something ... it's a real melting pot ...

[FooBarWidget]

That isn't my experience. There are in fact quite a lot of Chinese people that jump over the firewall. Most of the time, their opinions are quite different from the mainstream western perspective. But when they voice such opinions on western platforms, they tend to be labelled as shills. Only negative, dissenting opinions about China are accepted.

I am in favor of relaxing the firewall. Yet I hold no illusions about that yielding a better outcome when it comes to inter-cultural understanding: it think all in all it's just going to lead to more flamewars.