A top economist has joined the growing list of China’s elite to have disappeared from public life after criticizing Xi Jinping, according to The Wall Street Journal. 

Zhu Hengpeng served as deputy director of the Institute of Economics at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS) for around a decade.

CASS is a state research think tank that reports directly to China’s cabinet. Chen Daoyin, a former associate professor at Shanghai University of Political Science and Law, described it as a “body to formulate party ideology to support the leadership.”

According to the Journal, the 55-year-old disappeared shortly after remarking on China’s sluggish economy and criticizing Xi’s leadership in a private group on WeChat.

  • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    2 months ago

    Because they are profoundly authoritarian, and become more so over time.

    I have asked, repeatedly, for mechanical analysis. Any change in structure, drop in approval rates, anything. Simply saying “the vibes they give off are scary and the vibes have been getting stronger over time” is not mechanical analysis.

    You’re posting in a thread about China’s leader erasing a contrary voice from existence. I’m not sure how much clearer this could all be.

    You’ll forgive me for taking the nuances of a Business Insider article with respect to a Socialist country with a grain of salt. Western sources often call firing officials “disappearing” them, because they are intentionally doing Red Scare propaganda. You’ll note that if you read the article, it’s relatively light on facts and hard evidence, and tries to link phenomena without hard basis.

    You’ll also notice that the near identical story, down to the format, has been posted to other western media outlets like WSJ, in light of the US approving billions of dollars to discredit the PRC.

    This is why I am asking for hard, mechanical analysis.

    • cygnus@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      I have asked, repeatedly, for mechanical analysis. Any change in structure, drop in approval rates, anything.

      This is rapidly devolving into bad-faith pedantry, but fine. I would point to the horrifically botched early response to COVID; ongoing suppression of protests on June 4th of every year; the crushing of dissent in Hong Kong; Xi’s very public sidelining of Hu; the ongoing genocide in Xinjiang; mass surveillance; Xi’s undoing of term limits; and the list goes on, but that should be enough to tide you over for now.

      • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        This is rapidly devolving into bad-faith pedantry

        Is it bad-faith to ask for examples and critique instead of vibes? I have given analysis and referenced Marx and Engels directly, as well as linked Wikipedia articles so you know how the PRC operates democratically. I find it fairly insulting to call it bad-faith pedantry to ask for similar in return, if you’re going to take a definitive stance.

        I would point to the horrifically botched early response to COVID; ongoing suppression of protests on June 4th of every year; the crushing of dissent in Hong Kong; Xi’s very public sidelining of Hu; the ongoing genocide in Xinjiang; mass surveillance; Xi’s undoing of term limits; and the list goes on, but that should be enough to tide you over for now.

        Do you have any links at all? What was botched about the COVID response, did another country do it better? This is a firehose of vague statements, the closest of which to an actual point being the abolition of term limits, but you don’t explain how you think that goes against democratic control and operation. You just kind of shot-gunned blanket statements without giving any of them any kind of attention or analysis.

        • cygnus@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          2 months ago

          Perhaps I should have used the term “sealioning” instead of bad-faith pedantry. When you come at people with trite gems like this one,

          abolition of term limits, but you don’t explain how you think that goes against democratic control and operation

          you make it very difficult for others to believe you’re interested in a genuine conversation rather that endlessly bogging down your interlocutor with minutiae and winning a war of attrition. Here’s a hard source for you. Enjoy, because I’ve finished wasting my time here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning

          Sealioning is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity (“I’m just trying to have a debate”), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter. It may take the form of “incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate”, and has been likened to a denial-of-service attack targeted at human beings. […] It has been described as “incessant, bad-faith invitations to engage in debate”.

          • Cowbee [he/him]@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            2 months ago

            I can quote Wikipedia articles too. When you intentionally gish gallop to the point of saying it should “keep me busy for a while,” you essentially shut the conversation down there and then. Me asking you to refocus and have an actual conversation based on specifics, as I have been doing the entire time, is not sealioning, incorrectly applying a fallacy is false logic itself.

            At that point, just say “disengage” or say you don’t want to have a conversation, without trying to get a jab in to justify why. That’s your right to disengage, you don’t owe me a response, but I’d appreciate the respect I’ve given you returned to me.

      • This is rapidly devolving into bad-faith pedantry, but fine

        No it isn’t.

        Cowbee has asked multiple times for you to expand upon what you stated such that it can be engaged with. Much of what you have stated is vibes, it doesn’t contain any specifics. You feel that Marx would have been this way, you feel that china is authoritarian, none of it engages with reality, none of it contains any sources. If asking for this is bad-faith pedantry, then no discussion can be had.