[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?

[anigbrowl]

This guy carried out an organized domestic terrorist attack with help from others, actually killed someone as well as badly injuring another, and got only 41 years. Why the disparity?

The Federal Building where he murdered the security guard is just an administrative building; at least the people in Texas were motivated by the somewhat reasonable belief that they were attacking guards at a concentration camp.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/steven-carrillo-sentenc...

[vkou]

> it was an organized domestic terrorist attack

A guy deliberately drove his car through a street full of scattering protesters in my neighbourhood a few years ago, and when people tried to pull him out of it, he shot one of them, and then ran off, waving his gun (with a jungle-taped pair of mags inserted into it).

Was he a (disorganized) political terrorist? If these guys got 70 years for being at the protest, how many hundreds of years in prison do you think were warranted for him?

[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.

[trhway]

You really don’t know what you’re talking about, don’t you? You’re from a Western country, right?

>White collar criminals often get caught later in their "careers" precisely because they do it for years and years and years without being caught.

You’ve definitely never seen the castles and fleets of exotic cars that government officials in those countries manage to get on their meager government salaries. Yet you post such authoritative comments …

[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.

[libertine]

I'm not being unable to separate crime from policy, you're the one trying to dilute both as showing a signal to policy change.

If this was just a political action to take down just another corrupt official enabled by the government, how is this a good thing?

Well for a lot of countries protecting inventions with patents was a major trigger for development, so much so it became a cornerstone and you can even say an institution. So of course it would be viewed as corruption by any country with such institutions.

And it's not like China says it would never abide by IP, else they would have never got the investment that made them into what they are today.

But look further from IP theft, what about seizing assets from companies, or whole companies?

[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.

[haunter]

I sincerly didn't mean to be racist with my comment so I apologize, it was just my sport loving observation

[carabiner]

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

[throw2827274]

It's 100% social. The biggest difference is Americans generally believe immigrants and minorities can become American, and diversity is good. Whereas Chinese people believe you are born Chinese. Recently China is trying to change that and create a larger, more diverse, Chinese identity.

[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.