This post— as usual —is in response to Noah Smith’s latest, entitled “What if Xi Jinping isn't that competent…?”
https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/what-if-xi-jinping-isnt-that-competent
In his well-written post, Noah lays out a number of ways in which XI acts in a way that no western leader would, especially with regard to the Chinese economy. In response, I argue that XI is fully aware of what a western leader would do but has goals that impel him in another direction. Indeed, I argue that XI makes sense to XI.
One important factor that Noah left out of his analysis of XI is his obsession over why the Soviet Union fell. XI believes that the Soviets lost their ideological commitment—but to a nationalist ideology rather than a communist ideology. XI sees a similar danger facing his own country: He sees the focus of the individual Chinese on their own economic welfare as attention subtracted from the nation's collective welfare—on Great China.
One reason why he feels a ready affinity with Putin is that Putin has restored the primacy of Great Russia in the Russian mind, thereby reversing in a large degree the fall of the Soviet Union.
XI believes that the people of China have as much material welfare as they need— in fact the populace should embrace belt tightening rather than pursue a higher standard of living. At the same time, they should remember the truly poor among them and be glad to watch while the poor catch up with the average Chinese in a move XI calls "common prosperity."
XI is clearly determined to swim against market forces.
That is why XI shows no interest in bailing out the average Chinese for losses in the real estate market or in providing economic stimulus. Xi thinks the average Chinese has more than enough of this world's goods already.
This is a major reason why I think XI will never invade Taiwan. He doesn't respect or trust the Chinese people to have the intestinal fortitude to get the job done. In XI's mind, two decades of excess prosperity have made the Chinese people, and especially Chinese young people — gasp! — decadent.
Finally, in adopting a posture of swaggering strength on the world stage —suppressing Hong Kong, wolf diplomacy — he strives to show that China is finally post-colonial and can walk with its head as high as the US or Britain ever did. In fact, XI's invasion of Hong Kong was the final act in the reconquest of that bit of Chinese territory from British colonialism.
He may well have thought that China's swaggering attitude on the world stage might actually be attractive to other post-colonial nations. It worked for Donald Trump. In fact, China’s swagger would have attracted other nations as cowed suppliants if there had not been another 800 pound gorilla in the world in whose shadow they could take refuge—the United States.
Note to readers: if you're interested in my take on China, please subscribe to my Substack (always free) because there will be more posts on China forthcoming.
The larger point that the article has not taken up is Xi may make sense to Xi but may not make sense for China. There's no doubt Xi has belief and confidence in what he is doing but I'm sure Mao did as well and we all know how that turned out. Every leader is fallible, and previous regimes from Deng to Jintao had a strong CCP and term limits to enable some checks and balances (albeit with "Chinese characteristics "). Our dude has dismantled all of those, and till now the consequences don't look positive.
No matter how absolute the power of a leader seems leadership will work best when aligned with the aspirations of the population. Which is why Deng and Zhou Enlai are viewed differently from Mao... Mao had absolute power but all his policies were systematically dismantled by his successors, same will probably happen with Xi when he goes...
“One important factor that Noah left out of his analysis of XI is his obsession over why the Soviet Union fell. XI believes that the Soviets lost their ideological commitment—but to a nationalist ideology rather than a communist ideology.”
I Agree with your newsletter and you make excellent points, but I would posit, communism only exists in theory. No country has truly been communist, including China and The Soviet Union.
As high school students we learned that communism is when “everything is owned by the government and then divided up equally among the people who then all work for it.” A simplified definition.
Additionally, one of the falsehoods of communism is the belief that communism is a government form of control. The Soviet Union and China aren’t communist for the simple reason that communism has absolutely nothing to do with government.
Neither Marx or Engels ever said that communism had anything to do with government. They believed government should be abolished completely.
Karl Marx defined communism as a “stateless, classless, moneyless society based on common control of the means of production.”
Show me any country on earth that is stateless and classless, or moneyless for that matter? Most countries economies are mixed between state and private ownership and spending. All practice forms of socialism; including all western countries and the US. They just vary in degrees.
The more we move towards unfettered free market capitalism, the closer we become to a Russian economy. Authoritarian, kleptocratic rule or a kakistocracy. Just Oligarchs and brutal dictatorships.
As for Noah’s take on why Xi believes the Soviets fell, it wasn’t there lack of commitment to ideals:
“An analysis of XI is his obsession over why the Soviet Union fell. XI believes that the Soviets lost their ideological commitment—but to a nationalist ideology rather than a communist ideology. XI sees a similar danger facing his own country: He sees the focus of the individual Chinese on their own economic welfare as attention subtracted from the nation's collective welfare—on Great China.
The Soviet Union fell because of two reasons: the Soviet Union was broke (a decade in Afghanistan), and the people didn’t believe in the Soviet Union; it was forced servitude and a brutal kleptocracy, run by incompetent dictators.
IMHO...:)