Everything has a reason. The fact that China’s ruling party changed its term limit rule could also mean that no term limit is good for China currently. When it reaches the point that a term limit is better for China, it can bring it back.
It’s not wise to be inflexible and insist the same term limitation rule unto all the countries equally. We need to respect China as a country and allow it to choose the best policy for them at the current point of time.
Nothing is universally good for all the times. And nothing is universally bad for all the times.
Be open minded and be humble. None of us knows China better than Xi and his party.
Yes but creation and sustaining of a middle class are two different constructs. China has created a middle class, but what is looking out for the best interests of the middle class in China for the next 30, 90, 200 years? This is a rhetorical question.
Right now the single-party-CCCP is looking out for the interests of the middle class, because they view this as a priority.
What is to say that in 30, 90, 200 years time, that the single-party-CCCP will continue prioritizing the middle class? Will a single-party-political-system always result in a self-correcting-system over time that always looks after the interests of the largest block of its population?
History has not provided a kind answer to this question, and I fear the elimination of the 2-term-limit in China will only serve to solidify this.
“Everything else will resolve itself” - either a political system can be self-correcting by design (i.e. the pendulum) or a political system can be corrected at inflection points in history (i.e. revolution / fall of a dynasty). China has lots of experience with the latter. The world only has limited experience with the former (US being the longest experiment with the former, which is not very long in the grand scheme of things.)
Yes agreed! Very insightful! It sounded like the kind of pragmatism that Deng was promoting… black cat white cat so long as it can catch mice it’s a good cat…
To be able to criticize China intelligently, we need to go live in China for 64 years, like Xi has done. Xi did not emigrate out of China when it was a fad to do so.
Prematurely install democracy can cause instability and devastate a country. China’s cultural revolution was a bad experiment for democracy and the emperors were doing better than that democracy
China does not need to prioritize the middle class. It just needs to prioritize capitalism. As long as capitalism is being embraced, the middle class will stay strong and the innovation keeps coming. This is what I meant by “things will resolve on there own”.
Yes, people usually get the concepts wrong by thinking that democracy is what enables economic success and wealth. Very wrong. What drives wealth is capitalism and an intelligent populace. (Ok here comes the race debate again… ).
Without the above ingredients, the only way for a country to be rich is with natural resources (oil or precious metals). However, in such society wealth can be distributed very unevenly, so it’s not desirable.
Absolutely. America has always been the land of opportunity and always will be. If not, why did you come here the first place and why are you staying here?
Brown is way better than silly clowns in SF. If SF has a mayor like Xi, all of us would be jumping to the moon with the joy. Too many clowns are causing so much pain to the people. It’s better with Willie Brown instead stupid Jane KIM and her silly peers
At least we all live in California for years. How many years did you live in China?
I’m not saying China is perfect, neither is Xi and his party. It’s simply the fact that they won in the end after numerous forces in play. Winners win based on their merit in that particular environment. Xi won because he won the support from the people and his party.
I agree that Jane Kim and David Chiu are disastrous — Brown would be way better than the current clowns in SF politics.
Now, I’m not saying Russia is perfect, neither is Putin and his “party.” It’s simply the fact that Putin won in the end after numerous forces in play. Winners win based on their merit in that particular environment. Putin won because he won the support from the oligarchs and his “party.”
).
