Is it time for Xi Jinping to resign?

kropotkin1951 wrote:

So what do you think about this thought about the Chinese system?

The thought consists of a 14-point basic policy as follows:

1. Ensuring Communist Party of China leadership over all forms of work in China.
2. The Communist Party of China should take a people-centric approach for the public interest.
3. The continuation of "comprehensive deepening of reforms".
4. Adopting new science-based ideas for "innovative, coordinated, green, open and shared development".
5. Following "socialism with Chinese characteristics" with "people as the masters of the country".
6. Governing China with Rule of Law.
7. "Practice socialist core values", including Marxism, communism and socialism with Chinese characteristics.
8. "Improving people's livelihood and well-being is the primary goal of development".
9. Coexist well with nature with "energy conservation and environmental protection" policies and "contribute to global ecological safety".
10. Strengthen national security.
11. The Communist Party of China should have "absolute leadership over" China's People's Liberation Army.
12. Promoting the one country, two systems system for Hong Kong and Macau with a future of "complete national reunification" and to follow the One-China policy and 1992 Consensus for Taiwan.
13. Establish a common destiny between Chinese people and other people around the world with a "peaceful international environment".
14. Improve party discipline in the Communist Party of China.

Nice ideals, but the Chinese Communist Party is far from the only political party in the world to have strayed from what it is supposed to be about. Their long-standing blatant censorship of the internet is a huge problem, for starters.

Of course, Western leaders pretend to care about human rights within China, but their authoritarian system of government is perfect for businesses who want to go there and make money without having to worry about pesky things like workers rights and environmental protection.

Aristotleded24 wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

So what do you think about this thought about the Chinese system?

The thought consists of a 14-point basic policy as follows:

1. Ensuring Communist Party of China leadership over all forms of work in China.
2. The Communist Party of China should take a people-centric approach for the public interest.
3. The continuation of "comprehensive deepening of reforms".
4. Adopting new science-based ideas for "innovative, coordinated, green, open and shared development".
5. Following "socialism with Chinese characteristics" with "people as the masters of the country".
6. Governing China with Rule of Law.
7. "Practice socialist core values", including Marxism, communism and socialism with Chinese characteristics.
8. "Improving people's livelihood and well-being is the primary goal of development".
9. Coexist well with nature with "energy conservation and environmental protection" policies and "contribute to global ecological safety".
10. Strengthen national security.
11. The Communist Party of China should have "absolute leadership over" China's People's Liberation Army.
12. Promoting the one country, two systems system for Hong Kong and Macau with a future of "complete national reunification" and to follow the One-China policy and 1992 Consensus for Taiwan.
13. Establish a common destiny between Chinese people and other people around the world with a "peaceful international environment".
14. Improve party discipline in the Communist Party of China.

Nice ideals, but the Chinese Communist Party is far from the only political party in the world to have strayed from what it is supposed to be about. Their long-standing blatant censorship of the internet is a huge problem, for starters.

Of course, Western leaders pretend to care about human rights within China, but their authoritarian system of government is perfect for businesses who want to go there and make money without having to worry about pesky things like workers rights and environmental protection.

That is Xi Jinping's "thought." Indeed the Chinese government is repressive especially against people who they suspect may want to foment a regime change. Lately it seems that some Western companies are having a hard time adapting to the fact that China now has employment standards laws and even enforces them on occasion. On paper they are as strong as the ones in BC but it is all about enforcement of course. I don't China but in BC there are not enough inspectors and if you have a complaint that your employer is breaching the Employment Standards Act you have to fill out a 27 page form and give it to your employer to resolve the issues. Then you can approach the government with a complaint but they are understaffed so they are unlikely to follow up on it for a variety of cut and paste reasons. As for the environment the tar sands is the biggest disaster happening on the planet and it is in Canada.  China is making leaps forward in alternative energy sources and other environmental issues. I am really hoping that we piss the Chinese government off enough that they cut and run from the tar sands completely. That would be a good thing out of this shit storm.

WWWTT wrote:

His communist atheist beliefs and teachings are extremely risky for the icm to attack out of fear that the icm will only promote world peace rooted in Chinese atheist communism. 

Why would atheism be such a selling point for Chinese Communism? Nothing against atheism myself, but if Chinese Communism is so ideal, I'm not sure why having to embrace atheism should be a sine qua non for those wishing to adopt the system.

Is that the best you got Time Bandit? You’re A broken record with your lame ass piss poor debating comments. Getting  real old. 

WWWTT wrote:

Is that the best you got Time Bandit? You’re A broken record with your lame ass piss poor debating comments. Getting  real old. 

Are you done examining Xi's tonsils? Most people go the oral route rather than the colon.

I think I'm the "oldest" account left. Maybe Unionist has been around longer.

No, it's not my best, but you're not worth the effort. Your hostility, however, is delightful. I take it as a sign I'm pretty close to the mark.

Timebandit wrote:

WWWTT wrote:

Is that the best you got Time Bandit? You’re A broken record with your lame ass piss poor debating comments. Getting  real old. 

Are you done examining Xi's tonsils? Most people go the oral route rather than the colon.

I think I'm the "oldest" account left. Maybe Unionist has been around longer.

No, it's not my best, but you're not worth the effort. Your hostility, however, is delightful. I take it as a sign I'm pretty close to the mark.

What I mean by “getting real old” is that your approach is very boring with a huge pinch of predictable uselessness. Nothing to do with your age, how long you’ve remained on this site or how long you’ve been a babbler  

If I wasn’t worth the effort than why bother responding to my comments at all? You sound like your full of shit. Not the first time that idea popped in my head either. 

My “hostility” as you put it, is only me replying back to you in the same manner you reply to me. And somehow you find that delightful? Ok if you say so Timebandit. 

There are numerous issues with the Chinese government, but it's not the place of anyone in "The West" to call on the leader of the Chinese government to step down.  Such calls do nothing but validate the paranoia of those leading that government.

China needs change-the "everybody's out to get us/four out of every three people are enemies" mindset of the regime needs to change and soon-but it's not our place to demand that the leader of the Chinese government stand down.

As I understand how whom is eligible to succeed the presidency according to the CPC rules, the candidates have to have a high level of experience in leadership. 

From what I recall, in a corruption crackdown a few years ago, one member in particular who qualified as a candidate was found guilty of corruption disqualifying him. And there won’t be any eligible candidates for some time. (If Canada has the same laws as China, Mulroney Cretein Harper And Justin would be in jail or have served time!)

I believe the CPC Congress took this into account when removing term limits to allow Xi Jin Ping one more term if necessary. 

As well China is at a very critical turning point in its current history. Together with the fact that Xi Jin Ping is highly experienced, a prime statesman and hugely popular domestically and internationally, the CPC would probably want to play it safe with Xi Jin Ping. 

Where I see the CPC failed is that they never promoted more younger diverse politicians within it’s ranks. Nothing wrong with the CPC’s high standards, as long as they are promoting within the ranks for future leadership 

It is interesting Ken you should mention the Cultural Revolution because looking at his bio it is clear that was the period that formed his character.

After the founding of the People's Republic of China in 1949 by Mao Zedong, Xi's father held a series of posts, including propaganda chief, vice-premier, and vice-chairman of the National People's Congress.[42]

In 1963, when Xi was age 10, his father was purged from the Party and sent to work in a factory in Luoyang, Henan.[43] In May 1966, the Cultural Revolution cut short Xi's secondary education when all secondary classes were halted for students to criticise and fight their teachers. Student militants ransacked the Xi family home and one of Xi's sisters, Xi Heping, was killed.[44] Later, his mother was forced to publicly denounce his father, as he was paraded before a crowd as an enemy of the revolution. Xi was aged 15 when his father was imprisoned in 1968 during the Cultural Revolution; he would not see his father again until 1972. Without the protection of his father, Xi was sent to work in Liangjiahe Village, Wen'anyi Town, Yanchuan County, Yan'an, Shaanxi, in 1969 in Mao Zedong's Down to the Countryside Movement.[45] After a few months, unable to stand rural life, he ran away to Beijing. He was arrested during a crackdown on deserters from the countryside and sent to a work camp to dig ditches.[46] He later became the Party branch secretary of the production team, leaving that post in 1975.[47]

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

@21

Ken mentioned the Hundred Flowers campaign. That ended nine years before the Cultural Revolution started.

In July 1957, Mao ordered a halt to the campaign. By that time, Mao had witnessed Nikita Khrushchev denouncing Joseph Stalin and the Hungarian Revolution of 1956, events by which he felt threatened. Mao's earlier speech, On the Correct Handling of the Contradictions Among the People, was significantly changed and appeared later on as an anti-rightist piece in itself.

The Cultural Revolution, by contrast, was not a case of democratization run amuck. The Red Guards, while they kind of made their own decisions about what to do on a day-to-day basis, were for the most part responding to ideological mandates from high up in the party. Hence, the Gang Of Four trials after the ascension of Deng.

https://tinyurl.com/bq73ckn

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Ken Burch wrote:

I get it that the Chinese, as a culture, value order-but the dissent which occurs within China, in the vast majority of cases, is from Chinese people themselves respectfully challenging the status quo.

It's not the end of the world to allow open discussion and new ideas from below.  

I think Ken you need to look at more sources of information about China. There is much discussion about many issues at various levels within their system. They also have a secret police that looks for people who want to install a liberal democracy instead of the system that has been built over the last fifty years. You don't see everything good created by their system because all you see is the second part. I hate to inform you but my country and your country also have nasty spy agencies that look for people who want to replace our "democracy" with any other system. The way Canadians generally talk about the Chinese government one would think that they are in a different league than the Western agencies and that is what pisses me off. I am scared to enter the US because some border guard might not like my answer to any number of questions. I am planning on going to China and have no worries about those kind of things.

I do see good in what has been done.  I simply don't accept that what was good required what was bad.

And, despite what you seem to assume about me(edited to remove harsh phraseology I shouldn't have put in there), I'm fully aware that the North American countries, Britain, and Europe all have secret police forces and a reprehensible history of coercion, brutality and rule by force.  I've spent much of my life speaking otu against what THEY do as well-the only reason I've largely not mentioned that in this thread is that that has nothing to do with what I stand for or what we are discussing here. 

You have no reason at all to think I don't understand or condemn that, or any reason at all to assume that I'm an apologist for ANY of that, OR an advocate of imposing Western-style "representative" austerity democracy. 

It isn't as though the only choices are to be unquestioningly allied with "The West" or unquestioningly allied with China, and/or Russia.  Those countries do not represent the only possibilities in life.It's not as though every place on the planet HAS to have authoritarian rule.  The people, working together, making their own decisions collectively, democratically, and from below, can come up with far better possibilities than that.

Ken you routinely use language about China's leaders and its government that you do not use about Trump or May or Macron. That is why I have a problem with your posts about Hong Kong. I live in a part of the world with a long history of anti-Chinese racism and when you find yourself on the side of imperial idiots like North Report you might want to consider being more balanced.