Mankind should agree that in political positions people should be allowed to stay til 70 and then give it to younger ones. It is globally known that after 70, clear and concise thinking goes down (therefore you have to visit doctor for driving licence every 2 years).
Yes ofc, there are exceptions but they are 20 pct. Add long stay in politics surrounded by people willing to do anything (for themselves).
At 70 - become the wise elder adviser or something… should be an unwritten rule.
"It's fair to say that 80 percent of the world's problems involve old men hanging on who are afraid of death and insignificance, and they won't let go," - Barak Obama
The reason why this happens with Xi in particular, but not the other chairmen between him and Deng:
After Mao, the CCP adopted the concept of collective leadership [1], which dispersed some power from the top guy to the politburo standing committee. Also they established term limits. Deng officially implemented this, perhaps partially due to his personal suffering during the cultural revolution. Of course he was still immensely powerful during his time and ran things behind the curtains for quite a while after he passed the chair. After him, the term limit and collective leadership took hold, and the top guys all retired long before they got too old.
This was of course reversed by Xi after he changed the constitution to abolish the term limit. Now the standing committee also becomes a group of his close followers. Previously, the successor would be brought up into the committee first for a term before he took power. Xi hasn't brought anyone who's much younger than him in.
Therefore we are back to the Mao days. Top guy got older and more frail. Became paranoid of younger, more competent prospects so he purged them. As a result, his circle was filled with supposed loyalists and yes-men, or as the kids these days say, scheming eunuchs. When he finally passed, a power struggle would happen and all the big players would probably not include the ones who were actually good at governing.
This is also why the "they think in centuries" praise from some China enthusiasts always amuses me. Preventing peaceful transfer of power is one of the most selfish and shortsighted thing a leader can do, and it almost never ends well. But I would get another term or two, right?
Trump is 80, Putin 74 and von der Leyen 68. You could argue that some of them won't rule after 10+ years, but considering their successors are also going to be old folk that's not reassuring.
Considering almost everyone else is sent to pension/old people home at that age it's funny we let them decide the destiny of humanity.
She would need the backing of both the European Council and the European Parliament to get a third term. That is extremely unlikely to happen. Moreover, the European Parliament can kick her out at any point if it really wants to.
There are also hard limits on what she can do as president. Brussels doesn't rule over the member states like Beijing rules over the provinces (Chinese + "acquired" ones). Most things need the backing of the Council (= the member states) + the member states can drag things out at home if they want to. The EU doesn't have anything like the US National Guard that can be used in member states to force them to comply (possibly against state laws and state constitutions).
The European Union is the consensus making cooperation machine many European countries have chosen to use and die Uschi is only in charge of one component of that machine.
The length of time someone can serve in a leadership position doesn't make them a "ruler" in the same sense as Trump, Xi or Putin. The political system they operate within matters a lot.
To put von der leyen in the same sentence as the other two says a lot more about you than anything else.
For one thing, she is much more likely to be 'ruling' in 10+ years being both female and only 68, and people are only sent to old peoples home when they can't look after themselves. Trump definitely meets that mark, Putin we obviously do not know. Pension for von der Leyen, maybe, but with age comes wisdom with her role, and stability.
Hopefully not. Xi could have been as good for China as Deng Xiaoping was. After his elections, he ousted the military out of the CCP parliament, and despite what our media said, it was a good thing for the world stability (and also why the 'china will invade Taiwan' discourse to me was a sign of a simple mind).
However the last 10 years I'm not impressed, even if I ignore the Uyghur genocide and hongkong political repression (and I don't). The number of millionaires in the Chinese parliament grew extremely fast. The CCP is older and while it never truly represented China, it is even less diverse than it used to be. The parliament is richer, older and more masculine than it ever was, and the politburo is even worse. The obvious issues from China's rural areas stayed ignored for years, and the only way the politburo addressed it was on a very limited way, through a genocide (not a violent one, so it is palatable to their intelligentsia, but still a genocide).
Still, I think the author is too hard on China. Xi and his government still have to have the parliament support, and it can be lost quickly. Xi's death won't suddenly make the 2.5k parliament member quits and take arms. Most of them are from the economic elites (farm/boat/factory owners), and wouldn't support any kind of local mayhem.
It really seems to break some people's brains that China, a self-declared communist nation, is actually successful and the most probable contender to break American hegemony
It has been a very common saying for a long time among the intelligentsia that the best form of government is a benevolent dictatorship. The worst is a malevolent dictatorship. Democracy exists to avoid the latter, not because it is superior to the former.
Yeah, problem is that even a dictator is benevolent, they can't live forever, and there's no way to prevent a malevolent successor from hiding their true color just long enough till the power is transferred. Then you're back to a malevolent dictatorship.
Ironically this is very similar to what happened with Xi. Rumor had it that the party elders picked him over his rival (Bo) because he seemed to be a more moderate guy. Didn't expect the purges and power consolidation that quickly followed, ouch.
I would even go further and argue that a truly benevolent person will never opt to take power this immense for precisely this reason. Yes, you may be able to do a lot of good during your reign, but the amount of power you amassed during it will almost certainly fall to the wrong hands. Not being able to foresee this is enough to disqualify one from being such a benevolent ruler in my book.
Well yes, self-declared. China's economic success came after becoming less and less communist in practice. The most (in practice, as observed in real-world communism) communist thing about China is the authoritarian state with a one-party system, which to be sure is better than a full-on one person dictatorship.
Marx viewed capitalism as a necessary precondition for communism. His argument for this was, that communism cannot be built out of poverty. It requires the immense material wealth and industrial capacity that only capitalism can generate. It's probably why the historical communism was such a failure, as it was built out of poverty and not out of abundance.
In this regard, China seems to be closer to Marx' vision of a communist society.
The GDR mostly had the economic preconditions, but one problem or maybe two: its government was basically a puppet of the USSR government, and it was not brought into power by the people. Could have been interesting.
I predict that China will not achieve the communism that Marx had in mind neither. Why? Because I don't believe in predictions about radical changes in highly complex systems. You can make changes, but then you need to watch and see what actually happens instead of sticking with what some guy came up with in his room 150 years ago. Past performance of communism (so-called, but the only one that has ever existed) and current indicators (the autocrats like their power) are stronger predictors than what Marx wrote.
In a possible future if(!) and when AI can do all the work, we might need something like communism, or better extreme social democracy (democracy with massive redistribution), because the alternative is a an economic inequality that makes the Industrial Revolution times in the UK look like 70s Sweden.
Marx doesn't make a prediction here, but merely identifies the necessary precondition for communism, namely, the material abundance generated by capitalism. Fully automated luxury communism cannot emerge without this foundational framework.
However, it is a necessary condition, not a sufficient one. Post-scarcity and automation do not guarantee a transition to communism
Before that it was the Soviets and before that it appeared Imperial Germany would be the best contender to break English hegemony. It turns out that autocratic regimes often set themselves in opposition to democratic governments that believe government derives it's authority from the consent of the governed.
Knight fight mentioned in the article.
Mankind should agree that in political positions people should be allowed to stay til 70 and then give it to younger ones. It is globally known that after 70, clear and concise thinking goes down (therefore you have to visit doctor for driving licence every 2 years).
Yes ofc, there are exceptions but they are 20 pct. Add long stay in politics surrounded by people willing to do anything (for themselves).
At 70 - become the wise elder adviser or something… should be an unwritten rule.
"It's fair to say that 80 percent of the world's problems involve old men hanging on who are afraid of death and insignificance, and they won't let go," - Barak Obama
> At 70 - become the wise elder adviser or something… should be an unwritten rule.
Make it a written rule please, and legally binding.
The reason why this happens with Xi in particular, but not the other chairmen between him and Deng:
After Mao, the CCP adopted the concept of collective leadership [1], which dispersed some power from the top guy to the politburo standing committee. Also they established term limits. Deng officially implemented this, perhaps partially due to his personal suffering during the cultural revolution. Of course he was still immensely powerful during his time and ran things behind the curtains for quite a while after he passed the chair. After him, the term limit and collective leadership took hold, and the top guys all retired long before they got too old.
This was of course reversed by Xi after he changed the constitution to abolish the term limit. Now the standing committee also becomes a group of his close followers. Previously, the successor would be brought up into the committee first for a term before he took power. Xi hasn't brought anyone who's much younger than him in.
Therefore we are back to the Mao days. Top guy got older and more frail. Became paranoid of younger, more competent prospects so he purged them. As a result, his circle was filled with supposed loyalists and yes-men, or as the kids these days say, scheming eunuchs. When he finally passed, a power struggle would happen and all the big players would probably not include the ones who were actually good at governing.
This is also why the "they think in centuries" praise from some China enthusiasts always amuses me. Preventing peaceful transfer of power is one of the most selfish and shortsighted thing a leader can do, and it almost never ends well. But I would get another term or two, right?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_leadership
Xi is very young, he is not even 80!
When he turns senile, it will be global spectacle! We seen in last two elections cycles!
Trump is 80, Putin 74 and von der Leyen 68. You could argue that some of them won't rule after 10+ years, but considering their successors are also going to be old folk that's not reassuring.
Considering almost everyone else is sent to pension/old people home at that age it's funny we let them decide the destiny of humanity.
Von der Leyen is not a "ruler" like Trump, Xi and Putin. There's no great power vacuum behind her.
She is at the helm of EU for 7 years, and afaik can be there indefinitely. This sounds very rulery to me.
She would need the backing of both the European Council and the European Parliament to get a third term. That is extremely unlikely to happen. Moreover, the European Parliament can kick her out at any point if it really wants to.
There are also hard limits on what she can do as president. Brussels doesn't rule over the member states like Beijing rules over the provinces (Chinese + "acquired" ones). Most things need the backing of the Council (= the member states) + the member states can drag things out at home if they want to. The EU doesn't have anything like the US National Guard that can be used in member states to force them to comply (possibly against state laws and state constitutions).
The European Union is the consensus making cooperation machine many European countries have chosen to use and die Uschi is only in charge of one component of that machine.
Doesn't seem very rulery to me.
The length of time someone can serve in a leadership position doesn't make them a "ruler" in the same sense as Trump, Xi or Putin. The political system they operate within matters a lot.
[dead]
I think vdL might be a case of a power vacuum with another power vacuum behind.
[dead]
To put von der leyen in the same sentence as the other two says a lot more about you than anything else.
For one thing, she is much more likely to be 'ruling' in 10+ years being both female and only 68, and people are only sent to old peoples home when they can't look after themselves. Trump definitely meets that mark, Putin we obviously do not know. Pension for von der Leyen, maybe, but with age comes wisdom with her role, and stability.
if you limit your arguments to include only people you dislike (or like), that says more about you than you realize.
Hopefully not. Xi could have been as good for China as Deng Xiaoping was. After his elections, he ousted the military out of the CCP parliament, and despite what our media said, it was a good thing for the world stability (and also why the 'china will invade Taiwan' discourse to me was a sign of a simple mind).
However the last 10 years I'm not impressed, even if I ignore the Uyghur genocide and hongkong political repression (and I don't). The number of millionaires in the Chinese parliament grew extremely fast. The CCP is older and while it never truly represented China, it is even less diverse than it used to be. The parliament is richer, older and more masculine than it ever was, and the politburo is even worse. The obvious issues from China's rural areas stayed ignored for years, and the only way the politburo addressed it was on a very limited way, through a genocide (not a violent one, so it is palatable to their intelligentsia, but still a genocide).
Still, I think the author is too hard on China. Xi and his government still have to have the parliament support, and it can be lost quickly. Xi's death won't suddenly make the 2.5k parliament member quits and take arms. Most of them are from the economic elites (farm/boat/factory owners), and wouldn't support any kind of local mayhem.
It really seems to break some people's brains that China, a self-declared communist nation, is actually successful and the most probable contender to break American hegemony
It has been a very common saying for a long time among the intelligentsia that the best form of government is a benevolent dictatorship. The worst is a malevolent dictatorship. Democracy exists to avoid the latter, not because it is superior to the former.
Yeah, problem is that even a dictator is benevolent, they can't live forever, and there's no way to prevent a malevolent successor from hiding their true color just long enough till the power is transferred. Then you're back to a malevolent dictatorship.
Ironically this is very similar to what happened with Xi. Rumor had it that the party elders picked him over his rival (Bo) because he seemed to be a more moderate guy. Didn't expect the purges and power consolidation that quickly followed, ouch.
I would even go further and argue that a truly benevolent person will never opt to take power this immense for precisely this reason. Yes, you may be able to do a lot of good during your reign, but the amount of power you amassed during it will almost certainly fall to the wrong hands. Not being able to foresee this is enough to disqualify one from being such a benevolent ruler in my book.
Well yes, self-declared. China's economic success came after becoming less and less communist in practice. The most (in practice, as observed in real-world communism) communist thing about China is the authoritarian state with a one-party system, which to be sure is better than a full-on one person dictatorship.
Marx viewed capitalism as a necessary precondition for communism. His argument for this was, that communism cannot be built out of poverty. It requires the immense material wealth and industrial capacity that only capitalism can generate. It's probably why the historical communism was such a failure, as it was built out of poverty and not out of abundance.
In this regard, China seems to be closer to Marx' vision of a communist society.
The GDR mostly had the economic preconditions, but one problem or maybe two: its government was basically a puppet of the USSR government, and it was not brought into power by the people. Could have been interesting.
I predict that China will not achieve the communism that Marx had in mind neither. Why? Because I don't believe in predictions about radical changes in highly complex systems. You can make changes, but then you need to watch and see what actually happens instead of sticking with what some guy came up with in his room 150 years ago. Past performance of communism (so-called, but the only one that has ever existed) and current indicators (the autocrats like their power) are stronger predictors than what Marx wrote.
In a possible future if(!) and when AI can do all the work, we might need something like communism, or better extreme social democracy (democracy with massive redistribution), because the alternative is a an economic inequality that makes the Industrial Revolution times in the UK look like 70s Sweden.
Marx doesn't make a prediction here, but merely identifies the necessary precondition for communism, namely, the material abundance generated by capitalism. Fully automated luxury communism cannot emerge without this foundational framework.
However, it is a necessary condition, not a sufficient one. Post-scarcity and automation do not guarantee a transition to communism
If you ignore all the ways in which it isn't close to communism, then it's close to communism. That's fine, but it's not meaningful.
Before that it was the Soviets and before that it appeared Imperial Germany would be the best contender to break English hegemony. It turns out that autocratic regimes often set themselves in opposition to democratic governments that believe government derives it's authority from the consent of the governed.