freediver wrote on Dec 4^th, 2022 at 9:49am:

But of course, it's not a meritocracy, at least not in terms of talent or earned ability. Any Chinese person will tell you that the custom of guanxi in Chinese society elevates those who have it above those who don't.

In China under the CCP, guanxi translates into how much influence you have with CCP officials. There are administrative seniors in China who can barely read and write but are liked and trusted by CCP leaders in the region.

Jack Ma calling that out is one reason he's hiding out in Japan, sans his billions, of course.

freediver wrote on Dec 4^th, 2022 at 10:07am:

The result of an unaccountable and corrupt political system.

I think I have figured it out. It is nothing to do with the CCP's actions or achievements. It is all about saying you have the correct goals:

thegreatdivide wrote on Dec 11^th, 2022 at 10:32am:

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 7^th, 2024 at 11:17am:


Why did it take 50 million deaths for CCP to realise it had made an "administrative error"?

freediver wrote on Jun 7^th, 2024 at 11:36am:



Because a pragmatic revolutionary party trying to lift a billion people out of absolute povety had no guide book.

Turns out that pragmatism worked after some mistakes: compare the other comparable economy in the world, India, which went down the democratic election route after independence.

Growth in the two economies (with similar GDPs in 1980)  diverged markedly after the Deng reforms in China, so much so we can say democracy failed in India, with the latest election proving people are weary of governments who don't achieve economic progress for all. 

freediver wrote on Jun 7^th, 2024 at 1:46pm:


They didn't, so your following is mere hypothetical conjecture, but let's have a look.....we can always benefit from  exploring your delusional "freedom values" brain (ie freedom for individuals, regardless of egregious outcomes for the collective).   

Note: naturally you are blindly obsessed with a past 'socialist' policy which failed to deliver for the collective,  and use it to avoid examination  of present  freemarket failure, eg the current cost of living crisis resulting in homelessness, and food and energy insecurity for poor people. 

Quote:


No it wouldn't, government is complex and  the situation was complex; information from far flung areas in a vast country was sketchy:

(google)

"(Famine) caused by a combination of radical agricultural policies, social pressure, economic mismanagement, and natural disasters such as droughts and floods in farming regions."

Quote:


For the same reasons noted above, ie,  government is complex eg it took years for the Morrison govt. to understand its Robodebt policies were killing people.

The jury is still out on which system (one party consensus meritocracy,  or adversarial  two party system)  is the best; but it would be paranoia gone mad to try to destroy China just because you don't like its system. 

Quote:


No it didn't:

(google)

The policies of Mao Zedong were criticized. The failure of the Great Leap Forward as well as the famine forced Mao Zedong to withdraw from active decision-making within the CCP and the central government, and turn various future responsibilities over to Liu Shaoqi and Deng Xiaoping.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jun 8^th, 2024 at 12:25pm:


They allowed Mao to withdraw for a while. It was his decision. That is hardly punishment. They then allowed Mao to return to the leadership role and start yet another round of killings. They even threw him a grand funeral when he died at the grand old age of 83. He was still in office on the day he died. Allowing a mass murdering to run your country and go on killing is not punishment.

And you claim not to defend the CCP killing nearly 100 million people. You just tell little lies to make it seem like they did something about it.

How can you call China a meritocracy with a straight face when it's leader was so incompetent that it took 50 million people starving to death before realising something was up? And then rewarded the man responsible with rule for life?