The once-every five years Chinese Communist Party conference is now over. It appears that Xi Jinping has not identified an heir to himself as his two predecessors did at the time of this equivalent meeting during their presidencies. Furthermore, unlike either of them, Xi has joined Mao and Deng Xiaoping in having his work identified in the Chinese constitution as being an official part of Chinese ideology. Most observers consider this a sign that even if Xi gives up one or maybe even two of his official positions, he is likely to continue to be the Paramount Leader in practice beyond the next five years. A key part of his thought is the superior role of the Communist Party and its foundation on Marxist principles, even if a mixed economy is to be followed, “socialism with Chinese characteristics.” So, the assertion of Marxism-Leninism in China by Xi apparently means a justification for him to remain in power in China for the indefinite future.
The obvious way that Xi could pull off staying in power without changing the constitution would be to hang on to being Party Secretary as well as Chair of the Central Military Commission. The job that has a two term limit is President, with him just starting his second five year term as that. In five years he could easily select somebody who is willing to obey him to replace him as President while he hangs on to the other two positions, which have no term limits to them. The one rule he will have to break, although apparently it is not in the constitution and merely a recently accepted policy, is the upper age limit of 68. That is apparently for all positions. In five years he will be 69, so that would have to go as a rule, at least for him.
Barkley Rosser
Jiang Zemin had his “Three Represents” put in the constitution at the 16th party congress.
Little John,
I think you are going to have to provide a link for this claim. I have searched internet on this and found zero supporting your claim and lots of sources that say what I put, that only Mao, Deng, and Xi have their thought put into the constitution. The books by Jiang and Hu were mentioned in the final release from this Congress, but not with their names attached, and they were not put into the constitution.
Of far greater import and interest than how long Xi stays in power are::
1. What is Xi’s policies agenda — domestic and foreign policies,
2. How much political backing and/or opposition does he have for these policies?
Longtooth,
In a few months the third edition of my textbook with my wife, Marina, will be out from MIT Press, Comparative Economics in a Transforming World Economy. It has a chapter on China that discusses current policies at length. I am not going to reproduce that in a comment or even a post anywhere.
More imporant is that while some policies are good and some could be improved, not a single change to any of them of any was changed during the Congress. There was massive praise of the status quo at the Congress as part of the general glorification of Xi Jinping as part of the establishment of his supreme authority.
As near as we can tell, Xi is at least moderately popular with the Chinese population. But there has been an increase in political repression and there are no opposition political parties allowed, so it is hard to know for sure. But the economy has continued to grow fairly rapidly, is more slowly than in the past, and Xi’s moves in foreign policy seem to have been fairly successful, or look like it, from the standpoint of the population.
Marxism-Lenninism has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with what is happening in China today. China is an authoritarian, predatory capitalist society. Just because they laughably claim to still be communist doesn’t make it true, any more than a calling a cat a dog will make it start barking.
Yeah, it was specifically called Jiang Zemin thought but rather the Three Represents. Google three represents and the 16th congress.
WASN’T called Jiang Zemin Thought.
Karl,
You should understand that capitalizing things on the internet is prima facie evidence that the capitalizer is wrong. You are at best not fully right. Consider Soviet Russia under Lenin at the end of his life. It was a mixed economy under the New Economic Policy (NEP). If one looks at the balance of privately owned capiatlist parts and state-owned socialist parts, the ratio was not all that different from China.
PRC is Marxist-Leninist at least partly because indeed it is ruled by a Communist Party advocating Marx’s ideas, with this advocacy reaffirmed and pushed anew by this recent Congress. It is authoritarian and predatory, but then so was Soviet Russia under Lenin.
Of course, the late Nobel Prize winner, Ronald Coase, agreed with you, publishing a book at age 101 on How China Went Capitalist.
Little John.,
The thought entered the constitution, but not under his name, which makes a difference.
arkley,
In your response to @Karl, you made a statement:
“PRC is Marxist-Leninist at least partly because indeed it is ruled by a Communist Party advocating Marx’s ideas, with this advocacy reaffirmed and pushed anew by this recent Congress. It is authoritarian and predatory, but then so was Soviet Russia under Lenin.”
I’m focused on the part “It is authoritarian and predatory…”
The reason for my focus on that part of the statement is that is so trite as to have no meaning in a relative sense. Anything not what the U.S. defines as an acceptable government/economic system is always “authoritarian and predatory”.
By “authoritarian” I presume you mean it’s not a pure democratic system, but then neither is the U.S.’s system a pure democracy and in that sense the term “pure” depends on whose definition is used. The U.S uses a two party system in contrast to the PRCs one party system. But a two party system only means formalized parties in opposition on some things and agreement on others. A single party system has opposition within itself just as either Dem’s or GOP have opposition within themselves .. it’s only a matter of the degree of opposition. sometimes the internal opposition is greater (as it is today with the tea-party and moderates under the auspices of the single GOP part), and sometimes its less. Sometimes the opposition between parties is greater (as it is today) and sometimes less.
So “authoritarian” if you mean a single party system leaves a decidedly subjectivity and personal opinion taste in my mouth.
Can you be more specific and objective about what you mean by “authoritarian”? Even in a U.S. style democracy the loosing side of a vote by the parties deems the other side authoritarian… how it arrives at it’s ability to impose it’s “authority” is a separate issue, is it not?
Yes I know this is the general position by westerners about any communist system, as well as it is about any royal dictatorship. I’m not asking what the popular opinion is, though I’m asking y0u to define what you mean by “authoritarian” in objective and relative terms..
Second is the term “predatory” which is even an more subjective term in the context of governments. The current congress is contemplating a predatory tax system.. .more regressive and less progressive for example, and has tried several times already to implement a predatory health care system change., with more efforts continuing as we speak. On the other hand the wealthy think the tax on them at present is “predatory” and was even more “predatory” before Reagan.
So I’m asking you what you mean by the PRC’s being “predatory” in objective and relative terms.
Barkley,
My general comment (),
“Of far greater import and interest than how long Xi stays in power are::
1. What is Xi’s policies agenda — domestic and foreign policies,
2. How much political backing and/or opposition does he have for these policies?
It was a general comment… the questions were not intended to be directed to anybody or you specifically. I made the comment to put your own post into a perspective related to the larger questions or if you prefer the import or lack it of Xi’s longevity of governing
I note however in your response to the question. you made the following statement:
“…some policies are good and some could be improved, not a single change to any of them of any was changed during the Congress.”
Both of the terms “good” & “improved” are relative to some foundation. I would assume they should refer to what is “good” for China overall in the view of it’s government, and what needs to be “improved” under the same basis.
I note that the same can be said of any government’s policies at any point in time however, so the statement you made has no meaning without being specific, which you made no effort to specify. In other words a hollow statement.
ongtooth,
More authritarian than the US because Xi Jinping has completely crushed even the internal party opposition, quite aside from the complete lack of popular elections. Predatory as the party leadership and its families corruptly control most of the top economic ruling positions and extract huge rents from the population, although inequality not much worse than in the US.
As for your second comment, why do you ask questions that are not directed at anybody, and, no, I am not going to bother defining “good” or “improved,” and no, it is not true that “the same can said of any government’s policies at any point in time.” Want to try that with Hitler’s Holocaust in Germany?