[TrackerFF]

I sometimes see people "celebrate" this, with the rationale that China is cracking down on white-collar crimes and handing out sentences unheard of in the west.

But, are these sort of things just examples of selective prosecution? Would the inner circle members of CCP leadership realistically face the same prosecution and sentencing, if they were to be caught doing the same?

[tyre]

Xi has shown repeatedly that he’s serious about corruption. As others have noted, some of the highest civilian and military officials have been removed for it. Some sentenced to death.

He sees it as a challenge to his legitimacy and China’s power, which, as you’d expect are the most important things to him; even if you take the most cynical view.

Another timely example, because it is the World Cup, is the Chinese football programs. They’ve been decimated because of corruption prosecutions, both executives and players. It’s a major reason why China isn’t competitive on the global stage, which much smaller countries with significantly smaller budgets can compete. And, yes, Xi does care about competing in the World Cup. Prestige is very important to his concept of China’s honor and global standing.

[nonethewiser]

>He sees it as a challenge to his legitimacy and China’s power

This right here is why “corruption” should be looked on with great skepticism. In an authoritarian government basic liberties we take for granted in the West are considered corruption. You know, like having a say in how people are governed. This is a high crime in a state with 1 party that cannot be replaced.

In that way, “corruption” can mean “not being loyal to the dictator.”

[vkou]

> In an authoritarian government basic liberties we take for granted in the West are considered corruption

Could you list some of those basic liberties? Are they the sort of liberties whose exercise involves taking half a billion in bribes?

---

Generally, basic liberties like showing up to a protest aren't considered corruption, they get called terrorism, or somesuch. A Texas judge just sentenced a dozen people to 30-70 years in prison for exercising them, by the way. Some of the people given 30 weren't even at the protest. Half this forum looked at that, and saw nothing wrong with it. I can only imagine that if they were born on the other side of the Pacific ocean, they would be card-carrying party members.

[Jblx2]

>Some of the people given 30 weren't even at the protest.

That by itself isn't a convincing argument. You can't plan a bank heist and be waiting at your safe house and say, "I'm not guilty of anything, because I wasn't in the bank!". The mafia guy doesn't get to say, "I didn't actually whack the victim, I just nodded to Joey, and he did the whacking".

You might be interested in:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_conspiracy

...maybe this is mostly a thing in common law jurisdictions? Maybe there is a lawyer here who can point us to a interesting history of conspiracy in common law vs civil law jurisdictions? Also of interest might be things like:

https://www.justia.com/criminal/offenses/homicide/felony-mur...

[vkou]

Thank you for giving a front-page example of the CCP's logic when it comes to dealing with protests and dissenters. Find one who did something illegal, hang the rest for conspiracy.

[guywithahat]

For anyone else curious as to what OP is talking about, I had to look this up:

> The protest was a late-night/noise demonstration (involving fireworks) against immigration detention policies. It turned violent when a shooting injured a police officer. Prosecutors described it as an "act of terrorism" linked to an alleged antifa cell; defendants and supporters denied organized antifa ties and framed it as protected protest activity

https://x.com/i/grok/share/87352ef0ac4b454aba924157c44f476f

It sounds like they arrived in tactical gear, started destroying property, and when cops arrived opened fire.

This seems like a bad example on your part, as the people opposing ICE are some of the most misaligned people in the country. That said, we have a right to protest in traditional public forms, you don't have a right to shoot up an ICE facility.

[vkou]

Only one person opened fire. He got 100 years. (I agree that he shouldn't have gotten a slap on the wrist for what he did, but I'll happily point out that killers serve less, if at all.)

The rest got 70. None of them had guns.

The guy who got 30 years wasn't even at the protest.

---

There is no universe where this is not completely batshit insane, but it's interesting to see you use the exact same logic[1] the CCP has in its crackdowns and pogroms to justify it.

The reason the sentences were so high, by the way, was because the judge took dozens of minor offenses and added the sentences for each. It's the equivalent of sentencing someone who stole a 12-pack for 12 counts of theft, or someone tagging 'FUCK ICE' for 8 counts[1] of destruction of federal property.

For some reason, the current regime does not hold its footsoldiers and other useful idiots to the same standard.

---

[1] Someone in a protest/movement/group did something bad, brand them all terrorists, and make sure that everyone's going to a 're-education' camp for what will remain of their lives.

[2] One for each letter, and another one for the space.

[guywithahat]

I think your confusion comes from the fact this wasn't a protest gone awry, it was an organized domestic terrorist attack. It was a small group of armed people in body armor who privately organized a domestic terrorist attack intending to cause damage and hurt/kill federal officers in an ambush. The only reason the officer lived was because Song's gun jammed before he could kill people and get away.

Certainly if this was a jihadist attack, a lifetime sentence would be appropriate. Why should it be different just because they're white?

[copper-float]

Bringing guns to shoot people you disagree with, then shooting them and injuring them for doing their job is not a harmless demonstration. It's terrorism, and they deserve what they got.

[vkou]

Only one person brought a gun (singular). The rest didn't shoot anyone, nor was there any evidence that they planned to do so. They were convicted for being at a protest where one asshole brought and shot a gun.

He could have had the book thrown at him. As for the rest, if you seriously think that getting 70 years for being at a protest where one person shot a gun is appropriate, you have a lot in common with a Stalin-era Soviet judge.

[ClumsyPilot]

>> basic liberties we take for granted in the West are considered corruption

Like insider trading by congress?

Jokes aside, this is not how dictatorships normally deal with democratic activists? I don’t see how you can come to this conclusion u less you believe that corporations are people, election spending is a form of legally protected free speech, and corporations should vote in elections:

https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/delaware-court-upho...

[JumpCrisscross]

> Like insider trading by congress?

No. Like Kushner and Witkoff and Trump (and probably Hunter Biden) literally peddling influence for money.

[paytonjjones]

That may well be true, but that hardly applies to the current case of taking $325M in bribes

[nekusar]

US folks will contort to the extremes about any discussion of gross illegal conduct in China.

This guy took $325M in bribes, embezzlement, abuse of power, and money laundering. And he did this as a public servant for over 30 years.

I say good on China for attacking such brazen corruption so directly. Violating the public trust should be extremely harsh.

[trhway]

>And he did this as a public servant for over 30 years.

and it was discovered just now? May it be that he played exactly by the rules, the real rules, of the regime - corruption being among the foundational rules of it - and thus it was going for 30 years? And right now he just got his turn like it usually happens in totalitarian regimes. The regime will for show find an excuse to execute you if you got your turn, corruption is just the easiest one.

Also note that corruption is for the officials, state treason is for regular citizens. Same as in Russia. The regime wouldn't want to create impression of political disunity among the officials.

>Violating the public trust should be extremely harsh.

definitely. The only question why the comrade Xi is still not executed?

[ToucanLoucan]

> and it was discovered just now? May it be that he played exactly by the rules, the real rules, of the regime - corruption being among the foundational rules of it - and thus it was going for 30 years? And right now he just got his turn like it usually happens in totalitarian regimes. The regime will for show find an excuse to execute you if you got your turn, corruption is just the easiest one.

Yeah, that would be wild if any of that completely unsubstantiated conjecture, bordering on fan-fiction, was what actually happened.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

White collar criminals often get caught later in their "careers" precisely because they do it for years and years and years without being caught. They get complacent. They get messy. Each round of embezzlement leads to a larger body of evidence that exists somewhere that becomes more and more damning as time goes on.

> The regime wouldn't want to create impression of political disunity among the officials.

In this thread we have dozens of examples of political officials being prosecuted. I'd strongly suggest you park your McCarthyism, take a break, perhaps go for a nice walk.

[libertine]

Well it isn't much contortionism when you look at the big picture you'll find that corruption is an institution in some countries.

For example, you're making an effort to try legitimize the regime by framing a factual gross illegal conduct as a overarching policy.

But is it like that when you observe the whole structure?

How wealthy are the ruling elites? Or for example, how has IP theft policy changed?

Or we can reframe this: how do we tell the difference between a genuine tackle on corruption, from a weed out of the system with a public display?

You have plenty of cases in other corrupt regimes when they want to seize assets from someone the regime wants to push away: it's corruption.

Which again, they could be very well be corrupt, but they are corrupt because they're part of the regime.

You'll probably say: "Oh but the USS!!!" Yes, there's some level of systemic corruption there, just not an institution - yet!

[ClumsyPilot]

I like how you are unable to separate actual crimes from government policies you disagree with.

>> corruption is an institution

>> Or for example, how has IP theft policy changed?

Another country may decide to have no IP protections, that’s not a crime.

Furthermore Intellectual property is legal fiction, some people and countries don’t believe in it.

Apparently Anthropic don’t believe in IP either, they are stealing everything that isn’t nailed down, but cry wolf when someone does it to them. And they are asking for legal immunity on IP theft.

[anjel]

Intro to "moral hazard"

[trhway]

As Stalin demonstrated even when you're totally loyal, you're still frequently made victim of the terror.

The point of totalitarian regime is that nobody should feel safe, nobody should have an agency. In particular the people shouldn't be able to obtain safety themselves even by the way of being totally loyal.

I have no doubt that that guy was corrupt like any other official there. Yet, he isn't punished for the corruption. The show needed another star, and he was chosen to be that star.

[pessimizer]

These are just weird fantasies that you're writing out, with absolutely no reference to any events that have happened in China. You seem to just be writing fiction, and assigning it to the Chinese. The Chinese are actually people, though, they're real. If you want to accuse them of unremitting evil, you should be able to talk about something they did in detail.

That does not mean that you should google "China bad" and paste a bunch of random urls in a reply, though.

What Cold War propaganda did to Western brains is tragic.

[trhway]

>What Cold War propaganda did to Western brains is tragic.

Some weird fantasies you have.

I grew up in USSR. So very well familiar with inner workings of such regimes.

[omicronxt]

> I grew up in USSR. So very well familiar with inner workings of such regimes.

Just wondering how old you are? 60? 70?

[D_Alex]

Did you feel safe, growing up?

[maerF0x0]

> to his concept of China’s honor and global standing.

Or his sinocentricity and even racism (as in superiority of chinese people). There's been a long standing view in China about their own superiority of others, including all the way into the way they view their national pride as extending back further than any other civilization, even though external historians might view it more like several disjoint civilizations in a similar region... Kinda like how we don't call American history as starting when previous groups from contemporary russian crossed ice bridges to the Americas... We say it started in 1776 because it was a new major iteration of the regime.

[z2]

I don't think this makes any sense, what you argue would imply that the external historians would say that Japanese history starts in 1947 or that French history starts in 1958, but I'm not sure if they nor people of those countries would agree with that.

The point is, there's a lot more to history than political organization. A continuous culture and language is a big part of why civilizations extend far beyond the current governing regime.

[Sammi]

It's like you're so close to getting it. Xi is serious about "corruption" alright. It's just that in an authoritarian state "corruption" is really just used as a euphemism for illoyality.

[VulgarExigency]

If having corruption as an euphemism for "illoyality" means we get the same kind of public investment in infrastructure in the west as China does, then I'm all for it. Seems like here we only have the corruption part, except they call it lobbying and rub it in our faces.

[jibal]

Trump pardons people for a fee.

[maxfurman]

How can a soccer player be loyal or illoyal to Xi?

[IAmBroom]

Duh, by saying things Xi perceives as disloyal... which in China can be something as bizarre as posting a picture of Winnie the Pooh.

https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-china-blog-40627855

[ianm218]

But there is also tons of actual corruption especially in the military [1] which is maybe by design so you never know if a purge is political or legitimate or both.

[1]. https://www.businessinsider.com/china-corruption-rocket-forc...

[insane_dreamer]

> Xi has shown repeatedly that he’s serious about corruption.

that's BS

cracking down on corruption has been a common tactic for decades to get rid of people who are a threat to the top dog at the CCP, and Xi has employed this perhaps better than anyone since Mao

are those people being purged corrupt? probably most are. but plenty of people who are corrupt aren't purged, it's a highly selective process.

Xi started this a few years after coming into power -- and it was obviously to the educated class was it was (I was living in Beijing at the time), but "mei banfa" (or emigrate, as many people with the $/ability to do so, did).

[maxglute]

CCDI hit like 7m+ people by now, that's hardly selective. You can say it was intelligently staged for power consolidation component, purging corrupt rival/cliques (who should be purged) first before cleaning own house, i.e. Xi's faction wasn't spared, it just happened later, because that's smart sequencing. Beijing educated class from 2012s aren't as baizuo shitlibs as Shanghai but their opinions are comparably useless, and it's been 10+ years, we now know scale + duration of anticorruption program. Like you don't discipline millions of flies, and 1000s of tigers because they're all rivals, you do it because you want to reduce corruption. Ask what kind of people had $ to immigrate in 2010s and buy up those million dollar mansions when PRC per capita GDP was was like $7000, hint the corrupt, which frequently overlaps with the educated.

[nixon_why69]

Xi in particular seems to be personally offended by small scale corruption like business lunches. Huge crackdown on it for probably a negative political benefit.

[insane_dreamer]

there have always been ongoing crackdown on small scale corruption ("flies"); it's taking down the big "tigers", who all just happened to be from other CCP factions, that made Xi stand out among his predecessors.

[nixon_why69]

It's gotten ridiculous in the last 2 years according to my hearsay, like it's actually hurting the restaurant industry.

[ragazzina]

>plenty of people who are corrupt aren't purged

This sounds really interesting, do you have any examples?

[insane_dreamer]

have you lived in China? just look around and you'll find plenty of examples. the country literally runs on "favors"

[ragazzina]

Ah OK, so no.

[stasomatic]

>Xi has shown repeatedly that he’s serious about corruption. As others have >noted, some of the highest civilian and military officials have been removed for >it. Some sentenced to death.

Honest question to anyone who may be from China - the perception I've been fed in the US is that almost every bureaucrat is on the take. They certainly were in the USSR, you had to "know someone" to get anything done or just eat.

Perhaps it's just a RIF.

[haunter]

tbh my take as someone who follows sports heavily: China is just not good at team sports. If we consider the most relevant ones (part of the Olympics games):

- volleyball. Probably their best team sport. Men's team have nothing to show but the women's team won the competition 3 times (1984, 2004, 2016) and the World Cup twice (1982, 1986)

- basketball. Women's team are usually there at the Olympic games and they won a silver medal in 1992 and a bronze in 1984 but nothing ever since. They were the runner ups in the last World Cup final (2022) against the US. Men's team have 0 results.

- football, irrelevant. Men's team only qualified to the World Cup once in 2002. Women's team is slightly better being the runner up once in 1999, and they also won silver medal in the 1996 Olympic games. But that was a one generation thing, nothing to show ever since.

- water polo, irrelevant. Women's team is slightly better usually qualifying for the Olympic games but 0 results. Same at the World Cup.

- baseball/softball, irrelevant.

- field hockey, irrelevant.

- handball, irrelevant.

- rugby sevens, irrelevant.

China is good at group sports where everyone have to do the same thing together (artistic swimming and diving) but team sports needs individuals working together where everyone have to be good at their given position, in their own little world, so almost the exact opposite.

[mrandish]

> China is just not good at team sports

One thing we know is important for a country to be globally competitive in team athletics is having pervasive grass roots youth leagues developing talent from an early age. My sense is the Chinese have a structured selection system where they try out kids in key sports and select the best for special development.

Compare this with Western democracies where kids of most skill levels are generally able to keep playing club sports through high school as long as they have an interest and any aptitude at all. In America, pee wee football, girl's soccer leagues, etc are part of the social fabric of communities. It's considered worthwhile to let kids practice, play and develop even when they show no professional or collegiate potential.

The deep reach and years of development of kids with no clear aptitude matter because it's about identifying outliers. I suspect it comes down to chaotic but pervasive casual development beating central planning.

[ecshafer]

China will probably be a contender in like 20 years for basketball. Basketball is incredibly popular, and the average male height has grown significantly as they embraced Capitalism.

[drdec]

people have been making similar predictions about the US and soccer since I was a kid. Youth soccer is incredibly popular yet...

[ecshafer]

Youth Soccer is popular, but at least in my experience, most of the top athletes in school will leave soccer for the big 3 as a focus sport Football/Basketball/Baseball. If they are very good, those are much more likely to give scholarships as well. Soccer is much more popular with the middle to upper middle class suburbia kids, who might also be playing other sports, but are not treating it as a career. Maybe theyll play soccer in college, but their Major is still Finance.

[jst1fthsdys]

Ah yes, race essentialism. I'd say I'm surprised to see this on HN, but I'm not.

[NikolaNovak]

I don't agree with OP, and I'm willing to hear why you're correct in that assessment, but can you elaborate?

To be explicit about each other's assumptions, I think Race (however ill-defined or specific construct as it may or may not be), is not the same thing as Country, Political System, Culture, Religion, etc.

Understanding racists these days mostly use euphemisms and codewords, and it's a devil's work sometimes to figure it out, in the "Principle of Charity" sense, I read that post as being a critique of China's political and cultural systems in general, and their sport-league / development in particular, leading to specific societal outcomes. I could be extremely naive though but I'm willing to learn if you may provide more backing/thought for that?

[jst1fthsdys]

There is a strong theme of "Chinese people are drones" when you hear about whatever the west's current propaganda issue is. I'm not sure if the poster was explicitly trying to hint at that, or just repeating derived ideas from those that really think it.

Lots of posts about how the CPC isn't really doing the will of the people, they are just following and the people are too docile or subdued to resist. Chinese people are bad at team sports where an individual contribution can play a big part. They are only good at the ones where they all do the same thing.

It ties in with the western ideology that we are unique, dynamic, flawed but able to push ahead in a way collectives aren't.

I will also posit the downplaying and discrediting of Chinese tech and industry is also related with this mindset.

[noname123]

As a Chinese-American, I feel rather ambivalent about it - dare I say even positive emotion at the West's current propaganda. Due to the quote - "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win", with the only caveat that West doesn't laugh but rather "coddle you as the savior". So in another word, I don't expect NYT (or Fox News for that matter) to "accept" or "approve" Chinese people - as much as I can't wait for Japan to apologize or ask reparations for IJA 's action in Asia during WW2; when China has overtaken Japan in GDP decades ago. (which is by the way of due to Plaza Accord which is an tangent but not really on the subject matter of self-reliance and global unilaterism vs. multilaterism).

Not sure when we will see this but when we have the Century of Africa, I'd love to see the spin on the front-page of NYT then. I predict something similar to the shade like "Nationalism/Hinduism by Modhi" when he won't play ball with the West on Russian sanction; when African countries rise up with their own ambitions and visions for their own people.

[carabiner]

Chinese govt is a GPU. US is a CPU. Whether that's hereditary is a separate question, but culture exists.

[bamboozled]

The problem seems to be that "he" chooses who is corrupt and who isn't', right?

This is a person who invites war criminals to his country and rolls out the red carpet...then again...

[jr3592]

Absolutely love it. The West could take some notes. And to those who would jump to downvote, ask yourself why one country is on the rise, and the other is in a drain spiral.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Xi has shown repeatedly that he’s serious about corruption

Xi is also fantastically corrupt. He wasn’t born a billionaire.

[maxglute]

And he still isn't a billionaire. There's no credible evidence to suggest he's even 8-9 digit millionaire outside of FLG spam or US intelligence / DNI copium that he's hiding $$$ via extended family, who leveraged their princeling/read family stature to get rich well before Xi. Like all signs comports with wikileak CIA profile that Xi is incorruptible by money / not $$$pilled. See bloomberg investigation 10 years ago (that got them booted from country) into Xi/Peng finance and found them squeeky clean which relative to 10 years ago, would be outlier for for their status. Not not saying Xi acetic, his wife famous to never need to worry about money on her own right, but there's nothing suggest Xi not fine with being merely very financially secure vs three comma club.

[JumpCrisscross]

> he still isn't a billionaire

There is credible evidence his family controls billions of dollars of assets. Those assets accumulated in direct correlation with his power. Chinese state media disagrees, and if that's your cup of tea for Chinese leaders' corruption, I guess sure, Trump's also clean as a whistle.

[maxglute]

>his family controls billions of dollars of assets

None sequitur / who cares? Xi personally doesn't have obscene wealth/assets according to relevant evidence which is what matters.

Many CCP red family nepo babies/princelings influence peddled their way to wealth in last 50 years, they get are first dibs aristocracy class and their wealth should logically snowball with PRC moving from billion to trillion $ economy.

But Xi himself specifically has been outlier in how squeaky clean, even by western investigations. Nothing has been tied to him, hence lame "but his family manages his wealth" cope. Like the bro married Chinese 80s Taylor Swift and all signs point to him being fine what he has, which is not nothing, but also not extravagant, which makes trying to associate him to stupendous graft levels corruption he is trying to fix impossible.

Of course broader PRC leadership class has lots of corruption from development, it should be expected that Xi's sister/husband, both from red families to be wealthy from PRC development, but timeline of Xi's sister/husband wealth predates Xi - i.e. early real estate / rare earth investments. Difference between Xi and Trump is Xi himself has been historically clean, and in office made his family divest/liquidate 100ms in assets vs Trump is is historically unclean and family uses his influence to accumulate.

So no, all signs point to Xi is clean as a whistle while Trump isn't, and its ridiculous to equate the two just because both families are wealthy.

And to circle to original claim, there is no evidence that Xi is fantastically corrupt, only evidence to the contrary, that he is outlier in how uniquely uncorrupt he is relative to elite prestige, access, opportunities.

[ianm218]

5 of the 7 highest ranking officials have been purged in recent years [1].

It’s not totally clear what the consequences were for those purged or if their crimes were legit but seems like they are all in prison.

[1]. https://www.afpc.org/publications/articles/the-inevitability...

[jandrese]

I'm not saying that those guys weren't corrupt, but that's a classic authoritarian pattern. Purging anybody who might potentially in the future be a threat to your rule is step two in any authoritarian playbook. Were they perchance replaced with unambitious yes men?

[ianm218]

To be clear that was 5 of the top 7 in the military not the CCP as a whole. Leaves just Xi and the anti corruption officer.

But yes agreed. It’s very hard to parse what is going on from the outside.

My very uninformed read is that the people who were purged seemed already loyal allies to Xi but had more clout to disagree with him, while the new guys know they are replaceable. The PLA is notoriously corrupt as well so hard to say which of those purges were political control vs corruption based.

I kinda doubt the new guys are unambiguous though you need to be ambitious and risk taking to rise like that in the CCP.

[axus]

Russia is even tougher on corrupt oligarchs

[malfist]

No, Russia is tough on oligarchs that split from Putin. There is no non-corrupt oligarch.

[zamadatix]

I think they are meaning "the measure seems meaningless as it would imply Russia is even tougher on corruption" rather than "Russian leadership cares deeply about corruption".

It's a risky play to try to communicate over the internet to a bunch of us literalist nerds :p.

[Sammi]

Yes and that's also exactly how Xi deals with illoyal people in China - just accuse them of "corruption". It's the authoritarian playbook.

[mrandish]

> Would the inner circle members of CCP leadership realistically face the same prosecution and sentencing

Almost certainly. But it's not simple to understand because four things are simultaneously true:

1. Corruption is a serious problem Xi is genuinely focused on reducing through high-profile prosecutions with extreme sentences.

2. Xi and his party lieutenants have certainly used corruption charges to eliminate central party 'Titans' because they got too powerful, got too greedy, or were deemed insufficiently 'loyal'.

3. Corruption is pervasive at almost every level and there's no way most of it can be eliminated anytime soon. In fact, the system relies on it to function as well as it does. The purpose of these high-profile prosecutions is only to reduce the size and frequency of corruption. It reminds officials that stealing half the money half the time can be bad for their health. So they stick closer to taking 10-20% only 10-20% of the time.

4. The sub-1% of corrupt officials who are prosecuted, likely end up being busted because they got 'too greedy' and were made a sacrificial lamb by their corrupt peers to fill the system's need for a few high-profile examples. The 'too greedy' isn't from taking too much, it's usually from not greasing enough palms with enough money (including the provincial corruption investigators themselves). When there's tens of millions of dollars of illicit money at stake, the dynamics become like de facto organized crime mobs and there's always competition between factions. This guy probably knows exactly which rival played the game better and beat him.

[asdfman123]

It's like unlimited PTO. Take a reasonable amount of PTO and you're fine, but if you actually treat it as unlimited then you'll get fired.

[rcbdev]

I never understood why you can't just take any random European country where ones company also has a presence and stick to the (government mandated) vacation time there, usually 5-6 weeks p.a. - is this considered unacceptable in the U.S.A.?

[mrandish]

The key is understanding that accounting is driving the policy. 'Unlimited PTO' really means 'uncounted PTO' because for most public companies in the U.S., once PTO is counted, the salary value of each vacation day becomes another liability which must be reported and carried on the balance sheet. It's no different from a payable debt like a bank loan, except the debt becomes immediately due in cash the moment the employee ceases employment for any reason (quits, retires, laid-off, fired). It's also a debt that cannot be delayed, negotiated or discharged even in bankruptcy.

In a competitive employment market, paid time off is just another part of the cash value of any compensation package. Employees compare the overall packages, so companies need to offer 'competitive' PTO. In the past decade, FAANG-ish valley companies have had to offer 4-6 (or more) weeks of PTO. I know people who took two weeks every year and 'banked' four weeks. They retired early after 12 years with an extra YEAR of cash salary paid in full the day they left. When 5-10% of a company's debt is owed to their own employees and could become immediately due at any moment - it can be a cash flow and accounting issue for companies.

By 'not counting' the PTO, any time off you don't take in the year you earn it doesn't go on the balance sheet as an unpaid debt from the prior year - meaning PTO becomes 'use it or lose it'. This isn't materially different than the EU where it's normal for most corporate employees always take every day of PTO anyway. In the U.S., where historical PTO trends were closer to 2-3 weeks and only recently grew to 4-6 weeks, the result was more employees took more PTO each year (which is net good), but one component of their overall comp package became a little less good because they could no longer 'bank' more than one year's PTO and cash it out. Earned PTO carry-over was capped at one year and any you didn't take disappeared, unless you made an agreement with your manager.

For example, I deferred a chunk of my vacation into the next calendar year because we were shipping a major product (I was happy to do so and suggested it myself as I was leading the product). Technically, I guess it wasn't 'counted' in any HR record-keeping so if I suddenly quit before I took the vacation, I might not have been paid for the extra two weeks I deferred from the prior year - but only if my boss and the company decided to be real jerks about it. Another reason not to work for jerks if you can avoid it. Also, it isn't smart for companies to not reasonably honor verbal agreements with employees because word gets around and no other employee would agree to defer any PTO and future big projects would suffer. This flexibility wasn't always only in the company's favor. There was also a time I deferred a week of PTO to the next year by verbal agreement which I lumped together with paternity leave when my kid was born. Note: I'm only familiar with the dynamics in the U.S. I believe they also apply in some other geos but regulations and financial reporting requirements differ per country.

[rcbdev]

> [...] but only if my boss and the company decided to be real jerks about it. Another reason not to work for jerks if you can avoid it.

Worker protection rights in the U.S.A. truly are seen as a joke.

[mrandish]

I've spent a lot of time in the EU working with tech companies, have a lot of friends there in tech companies and am on the board of a Swiss company at the moment. While it's true the average corporate worker generally has more protected rights in the EU, in my experience that additional government regulation doesn't usually pay off in ways that really matter that much to most employees most of the time.

As a thought experiment, if offered a tech job in, say, downtown Zurich, how much extra money would be required for an avg EU tech worker to happily accept that same job under Bay Area employment law, protections and standards (at-will employment, non-banked PTO, etc) than under EU employment law, protections and standards? In other words, apples-to-apples what are those extra protections actually worth in cash value? I suspect the answer would be, at most, around $25K to $50K/year. But when you look at the total comp packages (salary, benefits, equity, 401k, etc) between Bay Area and Zurich tech workers, the delta is far greater than that. In effect, the bay area tech worker 'sold' that extra protection for a big chunk of cash and is using some of it to self-insure against the potentially increased volatility. I think a lot of EU tech workers would be delighted to make the same trade. Another way of looking at it is you've given up a lot of upside for a relatively small amount of guaranteed extra protection on the downside.

This might surprise you but the reality is, many of the potential employment abuses you may be concerned about are vanishingly unlikely to occur in practice. The point is, you can end up paying a lot for expensive 'tiger insurance' you probably won't ever use and don't really need. While you can feel good knowing you have extra protection from tigers, on a purely economic basis I averaged over $500k/yr over my multi-decade career in bay area tech. In good years, the equity could take it over a million. My own admin (with no college degree) averaged over $200k a year in total comp. The highest paid admin at the Zurich company I'm on the board of makes closer to 50k CHF (and living in downtown Zurich isn't much less than SF). So, the "US tech employment deal" may seem weird and perhaps less fair, but the extra half million dollars my admin earned over several years put a lot of 'social safety net' in the bank that she can spend whenever and however she wants - and she still works there for my old boss, still loves her job and has never had to use any protections or social safety net yet (she's probably over a million in extra total comp banked by now). In short, viewed objectively, it's a different deal but not necessarily a worse deal. In many cases, EU workers may be giving up far more value than they're actually receiving in return.

[mushufasa]

Xi Jinping rose to power on a message of anti-corruption, and part of the reason he remains in power on an indefinite term is by presenting himself as the "only trusted" person to maintain anti-corruption amongst all the factions.

While I'm sure he doesn't catch all corruption and the CCP overall has selective enforcement, the reason they do have measures like this is in large part because of Xi Jinping's specific reputation and positioning.

[nonethewiser]

You seem to be circling the issue. Corruption can mean anything from taking bribes to exerting influence that is outside Xi’s interests.

[mikeyouse]

And far too people are aware that Xi is extraordinarily corrupt..

"Similarly, Xi’s siblings, nieces, and nephews held assets worth over $1 billion in business investments and real estate"

https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/assessments/ODNI-Un...

[jandrese]

Or in authoritarian regimes it often means "stole from the party". As long as you only steal from the poor and give the proper bribes up the chain you are in no danger in most corrupt societies. Except possibly in the rare occasion where your corruption causes a disaster that embarrasses the people above you in the hierarchy.

Far too often when you see stories about how someone was persecuted for corruption it boils down to "he stole from rich people".

[edot]

This is true in any power structure ever. Kings, mafia, pick-your-dictatorship, many democracies. Hurt or steal from the poor, not other rich or elite, and always make sure to kick some up to the big guys.

[seanmcdirmid]

All presidents rise to power on a message of anti-corruption, they all clean house when they start in office but usually it falls off until the next president takes over. The problem Xi has is that now that he is now president for life, the house isn't getting cleaned in the usual way every 10 years; he has to do a corruption purge every so often or things will get grimey.

[Terr_]

> All presidents rise to power on a message of anti-corruption

You mean in China specifically? Otherwise there are some pretty harsh counterexamples to that "all".

[seanmcdirmid]

I'm just talking about China, we were only talking about China right? We don't really have a lot of data points to go by since there have been only three presidents so far with supreme power (after it was combined with General Secretary and military chair head, before that president was more of a ceremonial role).

[sumedh]

> Xi Jinping rose to power on a message of anti-corruption

Just like Trump and Modi

[Aeolun]

> are these sort of things just examples of selective prosecution

Maybe, but they hit the rich. All the selective prosecution in the US hits those least able to resist.

[bryanlarsen]

Counter-example: Sam-Bankman Fried. Biden's second biggest donor. Sentenced to 25 years in jail. Prosecuted even though it wasn't a clear cut case so there were excuses to hang a lack of prosecution on. No pardon.

[vkou]

The case was pretty clear-cut, and as for the pardon... He clearly didn't pay the right president, Trevor Milton got one right at the start of this presidency.

[bryanlarsen]

The case was clear-cut, choosing to prosecute wasn't. Especially in hind-sight given FTX's holdings of Anthropic shares.

[bryanlarsen]

Exactly. Hopefully the contrast between the two presidencies weans people off the idea that "they're all corrupt" and "they're all liars". I'm not hopeful.

[Barrin92]

>Would the inner circle members of CCP leadership realistically face the same prosecution and sentencing

no need to speculate, it's already happened. Zhou Yongkang who was a member of the Politburo Standing Committee (the highest governing body in Chinese politics) was prosecuted, and up until that point people at the top were considered relatively untouchable. Xi also axed the last to vice chairmen of the central military commission, Xu Caihou and Guo Boxiong, that's the commander in chief of the PLA.

[lordgilman]

The Zhou Yongkang incident happened over a decade ago, it happened in roughly the first year of Xi Jinping's tenure, Zhou Yongkang was a supporter of the also-purged Bo Xilai, and while he was still in power he ran the department responsible for internal security. I don't doubt the guy was corrupt but this is exactly the sort of target you go after if you want to maintain your own grip on power.

[nonethewiser]

Isnt that just the winning end of corruption?

Are we really heralding purging political opponents as anti corruption? Imagine if Trump won and put Harris in jail.

[lordgilman]

I think we're in agreement, I was trying to dispute the GP's portrayal of the purges but maybe my intent was not clear.

[seanmcdirmid]

> Imagine if Trump won and put Harris in jail.

Trump definitely thought about doing that, but even the judges he appointed wouldn't go for it. He still talks about putting Obama in jail for reasons.

[losvedir]

I mean, Trump was prosecuted as well and plenty of people want to put him in jail. My point is these kinds of things can't really be argued purely from a meta-level, the actual specifics matter. And in the case of China and Xi, I certainly don't know the specifics and I doubt most people here do either.

[seanmcdirmid]

Trump was actually convicted of a felony in New York even though he wasn't put in jail. Trump wants to throw his political enemies in jail without due process, very different thing.

[fragmede]

Trump's trying to put Comey in jail.

[throwaway27448]

At least they try to appear anti-corruption—that's certainly more than you can say about the west.

[Aunche]

It's easy to appear anti-corruption if you have complete control your country's internet and almost as much control of your country's internet.

[lysace]

Don't confuse "the west" with the US. The US is less than half of "the west".

[throwaway27448]

Are you claiming Europe is not obviously corrupt? Or Latin America? Or Korea, or Japan? I can't speak to Australia or New Zealand, I suppose.

Corruption is, of course, universal. China has a corruption problem that will be eternally difficult to tackle from the top-down—local officials are notoriously much more corrupt than central ones. But in the west, we simply pretend to not have the issue at all, or we simply make it legal. I would prefer if our politicians or popular media could at least acknowledge this.

[myrmidon]

> Corruption is, of course, universal.

So is crime. But it's all about prevalence.

And not just because corruption has some "indirect taxation" effect, but also because low corruption/trust is a big enabler for a society.

You are never gonna get rid of clannish mentality, vigilantism, nepotism and other undesirable behavior if your citizens don't have any trust in the system.

If you just look at e.g.:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Corruptio...

you will see that the spread is very wide, and China/India is significantly behind most western nations.

[lysace]

You are shifting the goalposts. You first said "at least they try to appear anti-corruption".

This thing about not caring about appearances is new. (And also the only thing I commented about.)

[verdverm]

Europe is prosecuting the Epstein Pedos. Trump is protecting his friends

Corruption is everywhere and varies in degree. The US likes to claim a mantle of superiority when it seems quite the opposite. We have a bully/greatest conman ever in the white house

[lostlogin]

> Europe is prosecuting the Epstein Pedos.

Are they?

Price Andrew got a name change, but hasn’t had any real penalty to date. He had the Queen protecting him. Mandelson probably will end up in court but it won’t be for anything related to child abuse.

[ceejayoz]

> Price Andrew got a name change, but hasn’t had any real penalty to date.

For the British Royals, I suspect becoming persona non grata is more impactful than a jail sentence.

[odiroot]

They're not wrong. It's definitely spread throughout EU too.

[altairprime]

The West would benefit from an increase in prosecution of $100M+ financial crimes, regardless of whether that prosecution is fair or uniform. Many will avoid such crimes, even when they might be allowed them by corruption, simply to avoid being held hostage to that same corruption. That doesn’t mean that corruption is a great thing (it’s not), but frequent and capricious enforcement is somewhat better relative to today’s infrequent and erratic enforcement.

[christina97]

Selective prosecution and tough punishment can still be a net positive vs no punishment. (I am not saying it necessarily is nor that I would celebrate this.)

The CCP derives a significant part of its legitimacy from improving quality of life and living standards for the common Han Chinese. Waste and fraud that harms consumers is a drag on this progress; the incentives somewhat align. Real economic harm often causes real political harm.

[maxglute]

Xi's been anticorruption for 10+ years, CCDI has prosecuted MILLIONs, including his own faction/clique i.e. even Xi doesn't have that much enemies. Westoids just can't fathom it's simply a systematic, competent drain the swamp program designed to change culture an work through the huge backlog of illict behavior form 30+ years of under regulated development.

[nradov]

It's a systematic, competent purge the political rivals program.

[maxglute]

Can't it be both? Xi doesn't have 7m+ rivals, and you know... rivals can be corrupt and should be purged. There's reason wikileaks / CIA analysis on Xi insinuates he's incorruptible by $$$, so who better to lead. Sometimes swamp is filthy and needs cleaning, and sweeping out legacy clique/faction level power structure that CCP had to "put up with" as part of ascendancy, aka power consolidation, is just good 101 good old power politics. Doing it right is how China gets 300+ year stable/rising dynamitic cycles. American wanks about 250 while swamp filthier than ever, and forget power consolidation has built many 250+ year civilizations.

Sometimes systemic, competent purge the political rivals program is gud and what you want. But IMO US too young/stubborn, doesn't have institutional memory of REAL political crisis, nor humility to learn from history.

[goobatrooba]

While other commenters take the lesson that Xi goes after corruption, I would restate it:

* he goes after corrupt officials, in both minor roles and very public big cases; and * he also accused inconvenient people (mostly potential contenders) of corruption to get rid of them (see the list of party leaders purged since Xi came to power, with some even led off stage at the main CCP Congress in a show of power). * How many corrupt officials are not persecuted due to political favouritism is by definition impossible to know from the outside.

[seanmcdirmid]

Inner circle members of the CCP are the first to fall because their competitors wouldn't dare not use it against them. The whole Bo Xilai mess a decade and a half ago is a good example of that.

[pjc50]

I think the way to determine how real this is: is the corruption allowed to damage the real economy? Most of the problems of Africa and South America are linked to that answer being "yes".

[lyu07282]

> Would the inner circle members of CCP leadership realistically face the same prosecution and sentencing, if they were to be caught doing the same?

The west is inundated with simplistic anti-chinese propaganda, so you would never perceive it as such, the way it would be presented to you in the west is as the evil dictator Xi Jingping purging his opposition, for instance:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-41670162

[dirck-norman]

Correct, so long as there is a state controlled media and no independent media and we can only speculate on where people who have “disappeared” from public view are, this is exactly the position everyone should hold.

This is single party autocracy, no matter how much people cry about propaganda.

[lyu07282]

It's a complex system of layers of representatives being elected on the local level, various institutions and levels of governance that you know literally nothing about and yet has been incredibly successful at uplifting it's people. In the simple mind of the western chauvinist this rich five thousand year old culture and complex society with good and bad, gets flattened into antagonistic slogans like "single party autocracy".

You don't understand how calling you a victim of propaganda is me being charitable, I could've also called you a typical western ignorant sinophobe.

[dirck-norman]

Ah yes, the old - it’s too complex to understand by outsiders argument. And claims of racism to boot.

Taiwan is Chinese, they don’t have this system. So spare me the crocodile tears.

Single party rule and state controlled media with one of the most sophisticated censorship infrastructure in the world has exactly one simple goal.

[fragmede]

Which goal is that?

[bit-anarchist]

Control.

[ActorNightly]

Not everything that Chinese leadership does is perfect, they have made mistakes, but overall, leadership that is openly like "we need to maintain a tight control over the population for stability" is generally more trustworthy than that campaigns on freedom and small government only to get in power and make themselves richer.

[jychang]

Only if society needs more security.

You can’t squeeze blood from a brick. At a certain point, you need to tolerate a little messiness to optimize societal growth.

Think of it as a dial you can turn clockwise or counterclockwise:

Security <——> Freedom

A healthy society would have good feedback mechanisms that allow it to change the dial of the government in power, to adjust to the current situation. Obviously, there’s no one optimal position; to use a historical example: Churchill was great for Britain during WW2, and immediately elected out afterwards.

[ActorNightly]

Given how China is doing, Id say they have the knob in a more optimal place.

[nonethewiser]

Yes. The Chinese people trade freedom for good governance.

The problem is, if they dont like their governance they cant trade it back for their freedom.

[ActorNightly]

Freedom is not one dimensional. In some ways Chinese are more "free" than Americans.

[ceejayoz]

Sure they can. That's how they got this government.

[godwinson__4-8]

This often gets missed. Of course, it can be repulsive. But I sort of appreciate how honest other societies are about their social problems. In the United States there is a lot of doublespeak. The current president is actually quite refreshing in this regard, or at least was for a time.

The way the mainstream media freaked out about him asking Bill O'Reilly, "what, you think our country is so innocent?" is a good example. Or saying we're in Venezuela for oil at the outset. Or talking about how they killed so many Iranians they don't even know who they are negotiating with anymore. I mean at least we didn't have to suffer through fumbling Bushisms about freedom. If the day ever comes when presidents are held to the same standards as the people, then ironically in many regards we will have to at least give him some points for honesty... it is quite sad how he is the only person to succeed to such an extent on such an "outsider", really anticorruption message ("drain the swamp"), then turn around and do the same thing. I think it is probably related to the core problem of American society - the doublespeak, the dual consciousness, the resistance to self reflection. People don't want honest answers - including to their own complicity (who elected these people anyway?). They want slogans. The results are sad, but predictable. A society that elects (and then worse, reelects) someone like Trump to end corruption is clearly a society that cannot look itself in the mirror. The same goes for the other side of the aisle. The "democracy" party that has no primaries and says it's either "fascism" or geriatric grandpa. We take this election very seriously that is why we have nominated a corpse. Don't mention it or you're a fascist. No you don't get another choice. Vote for us or democracy dies...

Sad... maybe if politics was a venue where people weren't punished for being honest we wouldn't have such low quality politicians. Brings to mind the George Carlin line:

That would be a nice realistic campaign slogan for somebody: 'The public sucks. Elect me.'"

[noufalibrahim]

Probably not but it's hard to really pin this down. On the one hand, China's rise has in the recent past has been phenomenal but that kind of rapid cleanup has always been accompanied by repression and destruction of political rivals. So. perhaps a bit of both.

[casey2]

The top is already pushed with prisoner for life. In a tiered society a well functioning country focuses on the tier that is current bottleneck.

[lofaszvanitt]

Just look what corruption does to russia. Total brainfuck, kleptocracy, subhuman idiots everywhere.

[expedition32]

Corruption endangers the CCP rule and weakens China why would they not self purge?

Everyone in China knows how dynasties end.

[ncruces]

Has the dictator been removed for it? Someone cherished by them? Or are we to assume those are impollute?

[jmyeet]

It's fascinating to see the effects of anti-China propaganda. There are plenty of stories about China cracking down on corruptiojn yet people need to do contortions to make this anti-China somehow.

There's no evidence that Xi Jinping is like Putin (who has enriched himself to abe unknown but expectedly high dgree), no evidence the military generals have enriched themselves with corruption (again, like Russia) or really anything else. Instead there's evidence that the likes of Jack Ma, a billionaire, are brought to heel, China has cracked down on so-called yin-yang contracts, sentenced to death people who messed with the baby formula supply chain and so on.

People really should reflect on why they're so willing to seek confirmation bias and why they have that bias at all.

Here's a tip: if you take anything China says or does at face value you will be more correct than 95% of the China "experts" that have entrenched themselves in the media and Western policy circles.

[1234letshaveatw]

Is reflection really necessary? On why they're so willing to seek confirmation bias on a self appointed dictator for life and why they have that bias towards a self appointed dictator for life? Isn't it self evident?

[toomuchtodo]

A win is a win. Could there be more wins? Glass is half full.

[chaostheory]

These are mainly political purges dressed up as “anti corruption drives”. Not ideal, but at least someone high up is getting punished compared to slaps on the wrist in the West.

[ColdStream]

I see it as being sort of like how every 6 months someone is made an example of by the media and they need their retribution. It is a means of keeping people at ease and that the narrative of the system works, 'the bad person' will be punished, just like in the movies. All is well.

Admittedly, in a lot of the western world one side of the conversation has seen Trump take this place, only without any sort of completion of the narrative arc. Good for business, bad for emotional strength for some people. Will be interesting to see what comes after him.

[hbd-investor]

As opposed to the US where even if white collar criminals are caught and punished they get pardoned by Biden or Trump, Obama, etc... Every US president has pardoned white collar criminals

[fragmede]

Biden didn't pardon SBF.

[hbd-investor]

China executes their criminals, in the US criminals get pardoned

All of these white collar criminals were pardoned by Biden

Nina Simona Allen (December 2024): Convicted of conspiracy to defraud financial institutions.

Duran Arthur Brown (December 2024): Convicted of conspiracy to commit wire fraud in a mortgage fraud scheme.

Ravidath Ragbir (January 2025): Convicted of wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud.

Jerry Donald Manning (December 2024): Convicted of two counts of mail fraud.

Marcus Mosiah Garvey (January 2025 - Posthumous): Convicted of mail fraud in 1923.

Alex Nain Saab Moran (December 2023): Convicted of money laundering conspiracy (released as part of a U.S.–Venezuela prisoner swap).

Abraham W. Bolden Sr. (April 2022): Former Secret Service agent convicted of bribery attempts, fraud, and obstruction.

Kim Douglas Haman (December 2024): Convicted of making false claims against the government.

Vadim Konoshchenok (July 2024): Convicted of conspiracy to defraud the U.S., smuggling goods, and export control law violations (released as part of a multi-national prisoner swap).

Paul John Garcia (December 2024): Convicted of signing false documents with intent to deceive and theft/sale of government property while serving in the Navy.

Hunter Biden (December 2024): Convicted of federal tax offenses (alongside separate firearm charges). The pardon broadly covers any federal offenses committed or taken part in between January 1, 2014, and December 1, 2024.

Gerald Glenn Lundergan (January 2025): Convicted of unlawful campaign contributions, making false statements, and falsifying documents.

Ernest William Cromartie (January 2025): Convicted of attempting to evade or defeat tax, as well as structuring financial transactions to evade reporting requirements.

[mittensc]

You can ask the same about inner circle of current US leadership

It will have the same answer, no

who would be able to prosecute them and how?

who would even investigate them

[MattDamonSpace]

Yeah but that’s bad right

[glenstein]

The Achilles heel of all whataboutism is assuming someone can't consistently criticize the new thing in addition to the original thing.

[mittensc]

It's not whataboutism if you point out question was naive. (answer is the same everywhere and has always been the same)

Inner circle leadership won't be prosecuted anywhere as long as their group holds some power.

So, then, question is, how can this be improved?, can it be improved?

[glenstein]

I don't understand why you think your question in reply to theirs revealed that theirs was naive.

If anything, I think it actually reduces the quality of discussion because it tries to say that dynamics in China are equivalent to the next you would find in pretty much any country which is is vague and lazy as analysis goes, and goes against the HN recommendation that conversations get more precise over time.

[matthewdgreen]

We improve it by ensuring the same people don't dominate the justice system and that prosecutions still happen whenever they don't. It was Biden's and his AG's job to do something about this and he fumbled.

[mittensc]

There's nothing Biden could have done that would have prevented the american people from voting in Trump.

Trump was convicted, he still won. He probably would have won from jail as well.

So original question remains, what can be done?

[mittensc]

of course

[NooneAtAll3]

You're trying to approach from the wrong side

it's not a question of "prosecute this one or the other person" - it's the choice between "prosecute this one or nobody"

thus celebration that at least something got done

[grvbck]

I understand that perspective to some degree, but imagine a hypothetical country with say, two parties in power, where prosecutors only crack down on white collar criminals if they are supporters of one party and not the other. We would call that system corrupt, and probably not celebrate that at least some of the criminals face justice.

Also, from a practical standpoint, charging some and not others is not necessarily better if the selection is made politically. That moves the needle from "at least something got done" to "law is just a tool of oppression".

[NooneAtAll3]

again, you're approaching it from perspective "both sides get caught" being a possibility

when in actuality the choice is between "both sides steal" or "one side steals"

and allowing both sides to steal is in no way better

---

the main way desired "both sides get caught" state becomes a thing is after "one side" splits in two - still being close in horizontal connections to stabilize, but with developed instruments for either half to guard against the other

[grvbck]

No, I tried to be pretty clear that "at least one side got caught" is not always better than "nobody got caught" if corruption dictates who gets caught.

[NooneAtAll3]

it's not corruption that dictates who gets caught - it's power balance

crying about oppression only leaves you stuck in "everyone steals" state

[fellowniusmonk]

How else do you propose a system that is fucked like that ever gets unfucked?

[thewebguyd]

To unfuck a system like that you have to have a clean reset of sorts. It will feel unjust because past criminals will all go free, but you have to prioritize future stability. You offer amnesty for past crimes in exchange for absolute transparency and massive structure reforms moving forward.

Or, you do what the democratic party in the US has been afraid to do: Rip the bandaid off, accusations of weaponization of the DOJ be damned. The parent's hypothetical situation is precisely what is happening in the US right now where Garland failed to prosecute, and the entire democratic party was far too afraid of appearing to weaponize the justice system meanwhile the opposition has no qualms about doing so. Yes, the public will view it as entirely partisan but there's no other path forward.

But if you just do nothing at all, eventually the social contract breaks. The cost of the corruption becomes too high and the state fails, or you get a forced regime change.

[AnimalMuppet]

You start with one party - doesn't matter which - getting in power, and then prosecuting corruption on both sides, not just on the other side.

[blooalien]

> You start with one party - doesn't matter which - getting in power, and then prosecuting corruption on both sides, not just on the other side.

The day this happens is the day that 90% (or more) of our "leaders" find themselves suddenly in prison.

[palmotea]

> But, are these sort of things just examples of selective prosecution? Would the inner circle members of CCP leadership realistically face the same prosecution and sentencing, if they were to be caught doing the same?

> thus celebration that at least something got done

Is it really something to celebrate if:

1. Someone got sentenced to death because they lost some internal power struggle, and bribery was falsely used as the public reason?

2. The guy's getting killed as a scapegoat, or because he pissed off his superiors by not sharing more of his bribes, etc.?

[vkou]

#1 is a net-better outcome for everyone else than doing nothing.

[palmotea]

> #1 is a net-better outcome for everyone else than doing nothing.

You kill some corrupt guy, just to replace him with another corrupt guy who's in the leader's good-graces. How is that "a net-better outcome for everyone else"?

[vkou]

Another possibility exists - the new one might well be less corrupt.

Given that this one took nearly half a billion, it is, in fact, quite likely.

[glenstein]

>it's the choice between "prosecute this one or nobody"

Even that assumes a normal of being lucky that anything is prosecuted, ever. So it's good but against a low bar rather than rising to the bar parent commenter suggested.

[ozgrakkurt]

Killing people in any context is barbaric because it is not possible to bring someone back from the dead.

I’m not a law expert but it seems pretty basic that there shouldn’t be irreversible punishment.

Also there should be equity which means everyone that does the same crime should face the same consequence, which doesn’t happen anywhere in the world as far as I can understand.

So harsher punishment means people with less power will get shafted harder

[godwinson__4-8]

Just to be clear - you can't really "reverse" most things. The arrow of time only moves in one direction. People who are jailed and then exonerated do not have their lives "reversed". Their future circumstances are changed. Maybe they are compensated. But they still suffered in jail. You cannot erase that part of their reality anymore than you can raise the dead. This is not to discount your point that making amends while someone is still alive is seen as preferable.

Of course, attempts are made to "reverse" even after someone had been put to death. Posthumous pardons are a thing. It may not bring anything to the person who has passed, but it could give somewhat similar benefits to living descendants.

It's just to say we shouldn't undermine how impactful something like incarceration is on the theory that it is "reversible". Evidence suggests such experiences mess people up in pretty severe ways. Lets also remember thinking of death in these distinct terms may be very cultural. Few penal systems escape barbarity. There are worse things than death. There are many instances or societies were it is preferable or expected people kill themselves rather than go through something like the ignominy of incarceration.

As to the last line, I'm also not sure. Brutal societies have a way of turning on themselves. Nations that accord more protections to their people are generally a better place for their rulers, even if the reverse is not always true. Personally I would love a legal system that baked into its norms higher punishments for people with more power. I think these have existed in the past, even if enforced through less modern mechanisms.

It is also the case that people in power do things that people with less power are incapable of. Getting rid of notions of executive privilege or qualified immunity would be a good start. The way the law is written currently, people in power won't simply not be punished - they won't even be charged. Take George Bush. Did he ever even just have to testify under oath about the rationale for the Iraq War once? Would the United States really descend into a banana republic if he had been charged for perjury or war crimes? It seems like the push in that direction can instead trace its genesis to the fact that in America, we evidently make our leaders untouchable.

[sethammons]

> there shouldn’t be irreversible punishment

I am not convinced. "You can no longer hold office" is a permanent punishment. Why should that not be allowed?

> Also there should be equity which means everyone that does the same crime should face the same consequence

I am also unconvinced. I don't think it is fair to treat a child like an adult and I think those in power should have more stringent standards and larger consequences for violating them.

[bandofthehawk]

> I am not convinced. "You can no longer hold office" is a permanent punishment. Why should that not be allowed?

Let's say that some new evidence comes out that exonerates the person. You can indeed reverse the "no longer hold office" punishment. You can't bring someone back from the dead.

[sethammons]

Le sigh. Fine, the punishment was you forfeit your chickens to your neighbor. Should those chickens be inedible by the new legal owner? What if they have to return them later if new evidence comes to light?

[cess11]

Chickens are basically fungible and interchangeable with money.

You can't select some random person and do a bit of bureaucracy and then tell a family whose member you killed that this rando is now part of their family as restitution for your mistake. You can give them money but in general it is considered somewhat distasteful to put an immediate pecuniary value on human life.

[luqtas]

barbaric is society which has half of the worlwide population living with less than 6 USD per day in borderline slavery

[fragmede]

The problem with putting a dollar number on it is it's devoid of context. Lunch from McDonald's is going to cost me $15 in the US, so $6 is not enough to live off of here. But the actual number is irrelevant. Is it enough to get food for the day or the week. How about housing? $6 doesn't sound like a lot, but if lunch is $0.50 and a roof over your head is $1.00 for the night, $6 goes a lot further!

[klaff]

barbaric is society which has 1% of its adult population living behind bars

[ImJamal]

If 1% of its adult population have committed crimes then it would not be barbaric if they were in jail?

[khazhoux]

Objection: relevance

[anepoitilivam]

The funny thing you really believe that, american m..n

[lenkite]

So what is the alternative punishment for folks like this who have destroyed the lives of countless people ? Hard labour for life in a mine until death ?

[cavoirom]

> I’m not a law expert but it seems pretty basic that there shouldn’t be irreversible punishment.

I agree with you, but we also can't reverse entropy.

[afroboy]

Does that killing is bad apply to other nations with different beliefs than you?

[anepoitilivam]

You are murdering people for so much less..

In Iran, Gaza, Russia (no no, it is not you, it is.. "Ukraine").

You are much worse than them, actually. Though believing yourself to be the light of civilization, soulless robots..

[pessimizer]

The US has four times as many prisoners per capita as China, the "police state."

edit: some interesting trivia. Due to the combination of America's incarceration rate, a racist justice system, and a completely wealthless and desperate class of freed slaves who were never compensated (although their owners were), Black Americans are 0.5% of the world's population but 5% of the world's prison population.

[bit-anarchist]

Another piece of interesting trivia: PRC can legally confiscate and search your devices without warrant nor case.

[anepoitilivam]

Oh really?

Your american KGB knows nearly everything about me, as well as about any other person with internet access (and also those without), without any "warrants", "judges", etc

Never even imagined in Soviet Union.

You are the ultimate horror.

[bit-anarchist]

"my"? I'm not even american.

"american KGB"? pray tell, who would that be? FBI? NSA? ICE? Even with their tooling, they are still struggling to legally acquire information, and even more so to act on it. There's even considerations of abolishing these agencies.

Try suggesting the abolition of the MSS as a mainland Chinese national and see what happens.

[anepoitilivam]

"Fbi, nsa,.." - I dont care much about their acronyms or the organizational structure

"Still struggling to legally acquire information.."

I dont doubt for a single moment, and I dont think you should, that you are right there in their database, with your identity, psychological profile, and all the rest. Now whether it was acquired "legally" i dont know, but when they choose people to murder abroad, I dont think that matters much.

[ImJamal]

Perhaps people in the US commit more crimes than people in China?

[wat10000]

Even if it's politically motivated, it's still punishment for a real and serious crime. Compare to prosecuting someone for touching a pool that the president happens to really care about for no good reason.