By.: Politics, Society
Not bad, I like this artilce because it told me a lot.
With the current leadership on the way out, why does it not take the approach that it has ‘nothing to lose’ and therefore introduce the necessary policies to address the structural and systemic problems?
I suppose that whenever there is a change of leadership, there is always period of paralysis around that period. However, one suspects that the new leaders will also try to avoid any radical political change and hope to continue to ‘muddle through.
It’s true: no wonder the one originally from Shanghai was finally chosen as the top official in China in 1989 because he had culturally professionally, successfully, and shamelessly muddled everything into a state that others could not figure out who was who that any success made was therefore conclusively due to his leadership.
It’s very true, the sweeping dropping of bombs from high is the “iron birds laying eggs,” as the Chinese proverb, of old, says, as is the case in Libya; consequently, Kaddafi had more than “won first prize in the aviation lottery”, religio-philosophically speaking. Furthermore, should the inflation, “on a high level since the second half of 2010,” be turned into, to be such as the “bomb” … Oh, the Arabic Spring, come! I say and I pray. For I’ve been in the netherworld for too long.
PS: “Chapter 08”, unheard of! I’ve only heard of that he was sent therefore to a place “safer”, “On grounds of international security”.
That’s it! That’s due punishment of the obsessed; the theme of the towering work in literature, Crime and Punishment of Dostoevsky. But some of my Chinese acquaintances have often ignored what does the “due” mean: when they hear of someone being cursed for example they read it rather superstitiously: they are much unaware of that, the curse is a due: when one is evil for instance he is cursed at the same time!
I do not feel sure of that, “the current leadership’s on the way out”; I feel perhaps NOT! For I myself dare not ignore the power of the currents of the deep waters, the deeps of the bottomless pit!
A complement to Zhengxu’s blog might be to read the previous issue of The Economist, which had a special report on State Capitalism. As brought out in various articles of the special report, the problem of the triumphal adoption/adaptation of capitalism to powerful state interests in China, Russia and elsewhere is the question of governance, not simply of the huge state-owned firms, but of society more broadly. And this comes down to voice, or the lack of it. While party apparatchiks and acolytes pocket huge fortunes and monopolise power over resources, most citizens are disempowered and increasingly, I suspect, disenchanted with the conspicuous appropriation of wealth. China is more effective at squashing alternative voices than Russia and others, but that is not necessarily an inevitable or sustainable future.
I think it is because that it has too much to lose so it prefers to leave the burden to the next one inline…