Posted on 10/27/2016 6:35:15 AM PDT by Olog-hai
China’s Communist Party on Thursday elevated President Xí Jìnpíng to the position of “core” of the leadership, underscoring the clout he has amassed on the back of a sweeping anti-corruption campaign and crackdown on dissent. […]
While mainly symbolic, the move to bestow Xí with “core” status reflects his assertion of himself as one of the country’s most powerful leaders in decades.
It was an accolade bestowed on past leaders including famed reformist Dèng Xiǎopíng and ex-President Jiāng Zémín, but which Xí’s immediate predecessor never attained. …
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
Is it my imagination, or are the Chinese unable to cope with life unless they have an Emperor....?
Obama’s jealous. All he has is some dopey Euro peace trophy.
I can see Hillary doing this for Bill and after that precedent expecting her successor to do it for her. Just think what speech fees will be if you have “core status” in the US government. Since she’s “unfairly” limited to 2 terms this is the next best thing.
You sound like an expert.
Are you, by any chance, a professor someplace?
“anti corruption”
As if a philosophy bent on destroying the family and religion can be non-corrupt in any way.
These days Xi is called Xi Huangdi, which kind of rhymes with Shi Huangdi(The first emperor of China, Qin Shihuang.)
That title is a bit too reminiscent of that of the mythical Yellow Emperor, who is a god in Chinese folklore.
That ‘Communist’ Party doesn’t practice communism anymore.
What would you call that form of government now?
Yes they do. Just in the form of Lenin’s New Economic Policy. Communism is whatever the Party says it is. And the CPC has not given up on their goals of abolition of property, family and religion.
Where’s the communes over there?
I apologize if I came across as a know-it-all. Not my intent at all.
No, I try to read a lot of good informative sources, and I do make an effort to try to sift out the worldly nonsense from it.
In place of the old bourgeois society with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.And that can mean anything at all. Including Lenin’s New Economic Policy in perpetuity.
I am definitely not defending them. I’m just saying that there are no longer communes there.
Well, that’s nice. Communism was never intended to move past the socialism stage, and Marx and Engels never really promoted communes.
They used to have communes both in China and Russia and that is how the name ‘Communist’ was derived.
The communes are no longer in existence. It is one party rule. It is very corrupt. So my question becomes, what is the proper description to apply to that government?
Care to give an appropriate answer?
I gave the “appropriate answer”, especially when reflecting the Manifesto. The presence or absence of communes signifies nothing, since “communism” is whatever the Party wants it to be, as is “socialism”.
Tenets such as abolition of the family, abolition of private property and abolition of religion, however, are non-negotiable absolutes under Marxism (if one wants to be pedantic, let’s call it “Marxism”; how does that sound?)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.