[anovikov]

Well, start with the first 10, then remaining ones will emigrate and simply assign bounty for any head of CCP member based on the rank - until the Party is eliminated. How about that? Don't underestimate the money - it goes the long way.

[vkou]

> then remaining ones will emigrate and simply assign bounty for any head of CCP member based on the rank

This is a fantasy.

[ksey3]

You think Jack Ma didnt try that?

[anovikov]

Still, human history shows us that money always wins. People have natural instinct to acquire wealth. No political regime has remained viable for a long time if it tried to go against this instinct. Authoritarianism works fine; in fact i am even in a bit of doubt about democracy being the better social order, in any case our empirical data to confirm that is insufficient - but even authoritarian society should exploit, rather that try to suppress, this basic motivator of the people.

So far we can't see CCP making this mistake - which sort of confirms that Party has a healthy self-preservation instinct. Let's say, they are trying to do everything to avoid collapse of real estate prices because that will hit retirement savings of too many people, and they seem to accept lower rates of economic growth if that will be necessary to achieve that.

[vkou]

> Still, human history shows us that money always wins.

Human history has shown us that whomever controls the army usually wins.

[anovikov]

Still, you need money to control the army and keep it interested. Then there comes a choice of either being unable to do it because of not raising enough cash from society to make a sufficiently big army to keep population in check, being able to have better income they can have in civilian life; or doing it and ruining the competitiveness of the overall economy - like the good old Soviet Union.

Now, in the post-industrial era, we have a third threat. Extinction. And China may actually combine all three.

Money is the force of reason, ignoring it comes at one's own peril regardless of the force one controls: it means going against common sense that established itself through the power of competition, in favour of some arbitrary political theory or just someone's wits. Even if it succeeds for a while, it always reduces overall quality of the system and increases it's vulnerability.

[vkou]

> Still, you need money to control the army and keep it interested.

Making payroll is never an issue for a sovereign that controls a central bank that controls their own currency. You're completely missing the point, because you're thinking in terms of money. A country isn't a business, or a household, it doesn't budget in the way you think.

> Money is the force of reason, ignoring it comes at one's own peril regardless of the force one controls:

Money is a floating-value paper proxy for material wealth. When there's a shortage of material prosperity - when people aren't building stuff, that's when you get a problem. Your position has just as many ideological blinders on as the one you think you are making arguments against.

The USSR collapsed because it failed to provide material prosperity. China, by any metric you could measure, is wildly succeeding at providing that material prosperity. That is what the party is focused on, because that's what's going to keep them in power.

[ethbr1]

For counterexamples of the primacy of money, see also: North Korea, Iran, Russia, Pakistan.

You have to have bases of power, who are compensated and secured.

It's less stable, but doable with the right mix of alternatives, to ignore "the people" as one of those bases of power.

[albatruss]

> Still, human history shows us that money always wins.

Are you aware of what happened to the landlords in China or do you mean the landlords weren't human?

[anovikov]

It only shows us that current Chinese regime is a civilisational dead end. Also, by that point, they didn't have the money. China was overpopulated and did not have marginal income to pay them, and the productivity was overall too low. No one in China had money, so force ruled.

[Eisenstein]

> It only shows us that current Chinese regime is a civilisational dead end.

Creating an all-encompassing historical 'rule' like 'money always wins' and then discounting evidence of a blatant counter-example is not generally a method that ends in good outcomes.

See: all major failed political movements based on an ideology that refused to adapt to conditions that did not line up with its dogma.

[modo_mario]

>until the Party is eliminated

The party has 98 million members

[tibbydudeza]

The Soviet Communist Party also had millions of members, but we all know how that ended - hardly with a bang and a whimper.

Folks join not for ideology but for the social standing and future career prospects - you not going to be a senior bureaucrat or military officer if you ain't a member.