I sometimes see people "celebrate" this, with the rationale that China is cracking down on white-collar crimes and handing out sentences unheard of in the west.<p>But, are these sort of things just examples of selective prosecution? Would the inner circle members of CCP leadership realistically face the same prosecution and sentencing, if they were to be caught doing the same?
5 of the 7 highest ranking officials have been purged in recent years [1].<p>It’s not totally clear what the consequences were for those purged or if their crimes were legit but seems like they are all in prison.<p>[1]. <a href="https://www.afpc.org/publications/articles/the-inevitability-of-chinese-military-purges" rel="nofollow">https://www.afpc.org/publications/articles/the-inevitability...</a>
Xi has shown repeatedly that he’s serious about corruption. As others have noted, some of the highest civilian and military officials have been removed for it. Some sentenced to death.<p>He sees it as a challenge to his legitimacy and China’s power, which, as you’d expect are the most important things to him; even if you take the most cynical view.<p>Another timely example, because it is the World Cup, is the Chinese football programs. They’ve been decimated because of corruption prosecutions, both executives and players. It’s a major reason why China isn’t competitive on the global stage, which much smaller countries with significantly smaller budgets can compete. And, yes, Xi does care about competing in the World Cup. Prestige is very important to his concept of China’s honor and global standing.
>He sees it as a challenge to his legitimacy and China’s power<p>This right here is why “corruption” should be looked on with great skepticism. In an authoritarian government basic liberties we take for granted in the West are considered corruption. You know, like having a say in how people are governed. This is a high crime in a state with 1 party that cannot be replaced.<p>In that way, “corruption” can mean “not being loyal to the dictator.”
> In an authoritarian government basic liberties we take for granted in the West are considered corruption<p>Could you list some of those basic liberties? Are they the sort of liberties whose exercise involves taking half a billion in bribes?<p>---<p>Generally, basic liberties like showing up to a protest aren't considered corruption, they get called terrorism, or somesuch. A Texas judge just sentenced a dozen people to 30-70 years in prison for exercising them, by the way. Some of the people given 30 <i>weren't even at the protest</i>.
>> basic liberties we take for granted in the West are considered corruption<p>Like insider trading by congress?<p>Jokes aside, this is not how dictatorships normally deal with democratic activists? I don’t see how you can come to this conclusion u less you believe that corporations are people, election spending is a form of legally protected free speech, and corporations should vote in elections:<p><a href="https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/delaware-court-upholds-voting-by-companies-small-towns-election-2026-05-26/" rel="nofollow">https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/delaware-court-upho...</a>
That may well be true, but that hardly applies to the current case of taking $325M in bribes
Intro to "moral hazard"
US folks will contort to the extremes about any discussion of gross illegal conduct in China.<p>This guy took $325M in bribes, embezzlement, abuse of power, and money laundering. And he did this as a public servant for over 30 years.<p>I say good on China for attacking such brazen corruption so directly. Violating the public trust should be extremely harsh.
As Stalin demonstrated even when you're totally loyal, you're still frequently made victim of the terror.<p>The point of totalitarian regime is that nobody should feel safe, nobody should have an agency. In particular the people shouldn't be able to obtain safety themselves even by the way of being totally loyal.<p>I have no doubt that that guy was corrupt like any other official there. Yet, he isn't punished for the corruption. The show needed another star, and he was chosen to be that star.
It's like you're so close to getting it. Xi is serious about "corruption" alright. It's just that in an authoritarian state "corruption" is really just used as a euphemism for illoyality.
If having corruption as an euphemism for "illoyality" means we get the same kind of public investment in infrastructure in the west as China does, then I'm all for it. Seems like here we only have the corruption part, except they call it lobbying and rub it in our faces.
How can a soccer player be loyal or illoyal to Xi?
tbh my take as someone who follows sports heavily: China is just not good at team sports. If we consider the most relevant ones (part of the Olympics games):<p>- volleyball. Probably their best team sport. Men's team have nothing to show but the women's team won the competition 3 times (1984, 2004, 2016) and the World Cup twice (1982, 1986)<p>- basketball. Women's team are usually there at the Olympic games and they won a silver medal in 1992 and a bronze in 1984 but nothing ever since. They were the runner ups in the last World Cup final (2022) against the US. Men's team have 0 results.<p>- football, irrelevant. Men's team only qualified to the World Cup once in 2002. Women's team is slightly better being the runner up once in 1999, and they also won silver medal in the 1996 Olympic games. But that was a one generation thing, nothing to show ever since.<p>- water polo, irrelevant. Women's team is slightly better usually qualifying for the Olympic games but 0 results. Same at the World Cup.<p>- baseball/softball, irrelevant.<p>- field hockey, irrelevant.<p>- handball, irrelevant.<p>- rugby sevens, irrelevant.<p>China is good at group sports where everyone have to do the same thing together (artistic swimming and diving) but team sports needs individuals working together where everyone have to be good at their given position, in their own little world, so almost the exact opposite.
> are these sort of things just examples of selective prosecution<p>Maybe, but they hit the rich. All the selective prosecution in the US hits those least able to resist.
Xi Jinping rose to power on a message of anti-corruption, and part of the reason he remains in power on an indefinite term is by presenting himself as the "only trusted" person to maintain anti-corruption amongst all the factions.<p>While I'm sure he doesn't catch all corruption and the CCP overall has selective enforcement, the reason they do have measures like this is in large part because of Xi Jinping's specific reputation and positioning.
You seem to be circling the issue. Corruption can mean anything from taking bribes to exerting influence that is outside Xi’s interests.
All presidents rise to power on a message of anti-corruption, they all clean house when they start in office but usually it falls off until the next president takes over. The problem Xi has is that now that he is now president for life, the house isn't getting cleaned in the usual way every 10 years; he has to do a corruption purge every so often or things will get grimey.
The West would benefit from an increase in prosecution of $100M+ financial crimes, <i>regardless</i> of whether that prosecution is fair or uniform. Many will avoid such crimes, even when they might be allowed them by corruption, simply to avoid being held hostage to that same corruption. That doesn’t mean that corruption is a great thing (it’s not), but frequent and capricious enforcement is somewhat better <i>relative to</i> today’s infrequent and erratic enforcement.
Inner circle members of the CCP are the first to fall because their competitors wouldn't dare not use it against them. The whole Bo Xilai mess a decade and a half ago is a good example of that.
At least they try to <i>appear</i> anti-corruption—that's certainly more than you can say about the west.
I think the way to determine how real this is: is the corruption allowed to damage the real economy? Most of the problems of Africa and South America are linked to that answer being "yes".
Probably not but it's hard to really pin this down. On the one hand, China's rise has in the recent past has been phenomenal but that kind of rapid cleanup has always been accompanied by repression and destruction of political rivals. So. perhaps a bit of both.
>Would the inner circle members of CCP leadership realistically face the same prosecution and sentencing<p>no need to speculate, it's already happened. Zhou Yongkang who was a member of the Politburo Standing Committee (the highest governing body in Chinese politics) was prosecuted, and up until that point people at the top were considered relatively untouchable. Xi also axed the last to vice chairmen of the central military commission, Xu Caihou and Guo Boxiong, that's the commander in chief of the PLA.
The Zhou Yongkang incident happened over a decade ago, it happened in roughly the first year of Xi Jinping's tenure, Zhou Yongkang was a supporter of the also-purged Bo Xilai, and while he was still in power he ran the department responsible for internal security. I don't doubt the guy was corrupt but this is exactly the sort of target you go after if you want to maintain your own grip on power.
These are mainly political purges dressed up as “anti corruption drives”. Not ideal, but at least someone high up is getting punished compared to slaps on the wrist in the West.
Killing people in any context is barbaric because it is not possible to bring someone back from the dead.<p>I’m not a law expert but it seems pretty basic that there shouldn’t be irreversible punishment.<p>Also there should be equity which means everyone that does the same crime should face the same consequence, which doesn’t happen anywhere in the world as far as I can understand.<p>So harsher punishment means people with less power will get shafted harder
Just to be clear - you can't really "reverse" most things. The arrow of time only moves in one direction. People who are jailed and then exonerated do not have their lives "reversed". Their future circumstances are changed. Maybe they are compensated. But they still suffered in jail. You cannot erase that part of their reality anymore than you can raise the dead. This is not to discount your point that making amends while someone is still alive is seen as preferable.<p>Of course, attempts are made to "reverse" even after someone had been put to death. Posthumous pardons are a thing. It may not bring anything to the person who has passed, but it could give somewhat similar benefits to living descendants.<p>It's just to say we shouldn't undermine how impactful something like incarceration is on the theory that it is "reversible". Evidence suggests such experiences mess people up in pretty severe ways. Lets also remember thinking of death in these distinct terms may be very cultural. Few penal systems escape barbarity. There are worse things than death. There are many instances or societies were it is preferable or expected people kill themselves rather than go through something like the ignominy of incarceration.<p>As to the last line, I'm also not sure. Brutal societies have a way of turning on themselves. Nations that accord more protections to their people are generally a better place for their rulers, even if the reverse is not always true. Personally I would love a legal system that baked into its norms higher punishments for people with more power. I think these have existed in the past, even if enforced through less modern mechanisms.<p>It is also the case that people in power do things that people with less power are incapable of. Getting rid of notions of executive privilege or qualified immunity would be a good start. The way the law is written currently, people in power won't simply not be punished - they won't even be charged. Take George Bush. Did he ever even just have to testify under oath about the rationale for the Iraq War once? Would the United States really descend into a banana republic if he had been charged for perjury or war crimes? It seems like the push in that direction can instead trace its genesis to the fact that in America, we evidently make our leaders untouchable.
> there shouldn’t be irreversible punishment<p>I am not convinced. "You can no longer hold office" is a permanent punishment. Why should that not be allowed?<p>> Also there should be equity which means everyone that does the same crime should face the same consequence<p>I am also unconvinced. I don't think it is fair to treat a child like an adult and I think those in power should have more stringent standards and larger consequences for violating them.
barbaric is society which has half of the worlwide population living with less than 6 USD per day in borderline slavery
So what is the alternative punishment for folks like this who have destroyed the lives of countless people ? Hard labour for life in a mine until death ?
> I’m not a law expert but it seems pretty basic that there shouldn’t be irreversible punishment.<p>I agree with you, but we also can't reverse entropy.
Corruption endangers the CCP rule and weakens China why would they not self purge?<p>Everyone in China knows how dynasties end.
Even if it's politically motivated, it's still punishment for a real and serious crime. Compare to prosecuting someone for touching a pool that the president happens to really care about for no good reason.
You're trying to approach from the wrong side<p>it's not a question of "prosecute this one or the other person" - it's the choice between "prosecute this one or nobody"<p>thus celebration that at least something got done
I understand that perspective to some degree, but imagine a hypothetical country with say, two parties in power, where prosecutors only crack down on white collar criminals if they are supporters of one party and not the other. We would call that system corrupt, and probably not celebrate that at least some of the criminals face justice.<p>Also, from a practical standpoint, charging some and not others is not necessarily better if the selection is made politically. That moves the needle from "at least something got done" to "law is just a tool of oppression".
> But, are these sort of things just examples of selective prosecution? Would the inner circle members of CCP leadership realistically face the same prosecution and sentencing, if they were to be caught doing the same?<p>> thus celebration that at least something got done<p>Is it really something to celebrate if:<p>1. Someone got sentenced to death because they lost some internal power struggle, and bribery was falsely used as the public reason?<p>2. The guy's getting killed as a scapegoat, or because he pissed off his superiors by not sharing more of his bribes, etc.?
>it's the choice between "prosecute this one or nobody"<p>Even that assumes a normal of being lucky that anything is prosecuted, ever. So it's good but against a low bar rather than rising to the bar parent commenter suggested.
The top is already pushed with prisoner for life. In a tiered society a well functioning country focuses on the tier that is current bottleneck.
Not everything that Chinese leadership does is perfect, they have made mistakes, but overall, leadership that is openly like "we need to maintain a tight control over the population for stability" is generally more trustworthy than that campaigns on freedom and small government only to get in power and make themselves richer.
Only if society needs more security.<p>You can’t squeeze blood from a brick. At a certain point, you need to tolerate a little messiness to optimize societal growth.<p>Think of it as a dial you can turn clockwise or counterclockwise:<p>Security <——> Freedom<p>A healthy society would have good feedback mechanisms that allow it to change the dial of the government in power, to adjust to the current situation. Obviously, there’s no one optimal position; to use a historical example: Churchill was great for Britain during WW2, and immediately elected out afterwards.
Yes. The Chinese people trade freedom for good governance.<p>The problem is, if they dont like their governance they cant trade it back for their freedom.
This often gets missed. Of course, it can be repulsive. But I sort of appreciate how honest other societies are about their social problems. In the United States there is a lot of doublespeak. The current president is actually quite refreshing in this regard, or at least was for a time.<p>The way the mainstream media freaked out about him asking Bill O'Reilly, "what, you think our country is so innocent?" is a good example. Or saying we're in Venezuela for oil at the outset. Or talking about how they killed so many Iranians they don't even know who they are negotiating with anymore. I mean at least we didn't have to suffer through fumbling Bushisms about freedom. If the day ever comes when presidents are held to the same standards as the people, then ironically in many regards we will have to at least give him <i>some</i> points for honesty... it is quite sad how he is the only person to succeed to such an extent on such an "outsider", really anticorruption message ("drain the swamp"), then turn around and do the same thing. I think it is probably related to the core problem of American society - the doublespeak, the dual consciousness, the resistance to self reflection. People don't want honest answers - including to their own complicity (who elected these people anyway?). They want slogans. The results are sad, but predictable. A society that elects (and then worse, reelects) someone like Trump to end corruption is clearly a society that cannot look itself in the mirror. The same goes for the other side of the aisle. The "democracy" party that has no primaries and says it's either "fascism" or geriatric grandpa. We take this election very seriously that is why we have nominated a corpse. Don't mention it or you're a fascist. No you don't get another choice. Vote for us or democracy dies...<p>Sad... maybe if politics was a venue where people weren't punished for being honest we wouldn't have such low quality politicians. Brings to mind the George Carlin line:<p><i>That would be a nice realistic campaign slogan for somebody: 'The public sucks. Elect me.'"</i>
> Would the inner circle members of CCP leadership realistically face the same prosecution and sentencing, if they were to be caught doing the same?<p>The west is inundated with simplistic anti-chinese propaganda, so you would never perceive it as such, the way it would be presented to you in the west is as the evil dictator Xi Jingping purging his opposition, for instance:<p><a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-41670162" rel="nofollow">https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-41670162</a>
Correct, so long as there is a state controlled media and no independent media and we can only speculate on where people who have “disappeared” from public view are, this is exactly the position everyone should hold.<p>This is single party autocracy, no matter how much people cry about propaganda.
It's a complex system of layers of representatives being elected on the local level, various institutions and levels of governance that you know literally nothing about and yet has been incredibly successful at uplifting it's people. In the simple mind of the western chauvinist this rich five thousand year old culture and complex society with good and bad, gets flattened into antagonistic slogans like "single party autocracy".<p>You don't understand how calling you a victim of propaganda is me being charitable, I could've also called you a typical western ignorant sinophobe.
Ah yes, the old - it’s too complex to understand by outsiders argument. And claims of racism to boot.<p>Taiwan is Chinese, they don’t have this system. So spare me the crocodile tears.<p>Single party rule and state controlled media with one of the most sophisticated censorship infrastructure in the world has exactly one simple goal.
A win is a win. Could there be more wins? Glass is half full.
It's fascinating to see the effects of anti-China propaganda. There are plenty of stories about China cracking down on corruptiojn yet people need to do contortions to make this anti-China somehow.<p>There's no evidence that Xi Jinping is like Putin (who has enriched himself to abe unknown but expectedly high dgree), no evidence the military generals have enriched themselves with corruption (again, like Russia) or really anything else. Instead there's evidence that the likes of Jack Ma, a billionaire, are brought to heel, China has cracked down on so-called yin-yang contracts, sentenced to death people who messed with the baby formula supply chain and so on.<p>People really should reflect on why they're so willing to seek confirmation bias and why they have that bias at all.<p>Here's a tip: if you take anything China says or does at face value you will be more correct than 95% of the China "experts" that have entrenched themselves in the media and Western policy circles.
You can ask the same about inner circle of current US leadership<p>It will have the same answer, no<p>who would be able to prosecute them and how?<p>who would even investigate them