This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
China’s Top General Accused of Giving Nuclear Secrets to U.S.
What are we to make of the latest major Chinese purge?
I am no seasoned China expert, but broadly Xi’s purges have fallen into three primary categories. The first is purges of those directly tied to his political rivals, most notably the Bo Xilai faction he defeated to achieve and solidify his grip on power. These have mostly been over for a while. The second is a combination of provincial and national anti-corruption initiatives that have targeted some of the most brazen graft; this is not to say no innocents have been targeted, only that there is a solid case that a lot of these purges have been at least semi-legitimate (friends of Xi and allies may not have been targeted, but many of those targeted were corrupt). The third involves more short-term and medium-term political and economic objectives, including temporary purges where the person or people in question are disappeared for a time, then brought back with renewed loyalty. We can presume they have been taught a lesson.
There are three major angles to looking at this purge, which are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
Mild to Moderately Bearish: The current purge is wholly legitimate. That is to say one of the PLA’s leading figures and an erstwhile close Xi ally really was selling nuclear secrets to the US, which objectively means that the PLA was compromised at the most senior level. This isn’t unreasonable - the Western press in the last few days has discussed Zhang as a ‘key contact’ for Western military officials in China, which is surely code for ‘nobody’s surprised he was doing it’.
Yes, there’s a way of construing this as the removal of a tired old corrupt general and his replacement by younger, more loyal, more patriotic cadres (more on that below), but one has to squint pretty far for it if this is accurate; if the charges were known for a while but not acted upon, it suggests that Xi was fine with this going on at least for a while. The man was also 75 and could have been retired.
Moderately Bullish: The general was not corrupt, but represented a generation of dim or mid-witted PLA sinecures unfit for any actual major conflict with a top-tier peer power (you know the one). A legacy of a poorer, more dysfunctional, more third-world, less capable, less advanced China, he has been replaced - even if he wasn’t corrupt - by smart younger men from the new China, the Deepseek China, the hypersonic missile China, men capable of actually defeating the USA in battle or at least of taking Taiwan without embarrassment. His removal serves as a warning - if you’re not ready, if you’re here because your uncle in the CCP got you a job in the military in 1974, get out quietly, don’t hang on, don’t challenge progress.
Mildly (if at all) Bearish: The purge represents nothing more than another step toward Xi taking absolute power in China. Already the most powerful Chinese political figure since Mao, Xi wants full, absolute control of the military in the event of a crisis or conflict of any kind. Bearish why? Because he is getting older, and taking absolute power always comes with risks, even as a great man, especially at that age.
Various interpretations, all positive for the US.
Either:
Xi's soft power in China is limited. From the looks of it, Xi wants to invade Taiwan, and faced real push back. If the generals were just old, they would have been forced to retire with awards and honorary titles. The corruption allegations are punishment for pushing back against Xi. An overt purge is only needed when gentle methods fail.
China's inner circle is compromise-able and the CIA is pulling off Eli Cohen-Mossad style Hollywood operations on the regular. As Reddit tier-list subs would say: 'CIA upscale'.
Xi is moving to a hard dictatorship, the canonical imperial Chinese failure mode. This story can only end with the XiongNu buring Xian, and Xi being taken as a sex-slave.
Purges have long been the norm in CCP China, often done silently. The high profile and overt nature of it signals weakness by Xi. Jack Ma's (the the Chinese software startup industry's) purge was along similar lines. But, in that case, Xi could frame the narrative as communism vs capitalism, infrastructure vs consumption. Treason and corruption charges towards long-believed patriots of the highest level never sell the same.
IDK, it really depends on how well Xi can spin these allegations for consumption by the general public (which, in turn, is easier to pull off if the allegations are in fact true, but not impossible even otherwise, especially when the state already has a vice-grip on the media). If he plays his cards right, Xi could bolster his domestic legitimacy as a “good czar (formerly) surrounded by bad boyars”
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think this is a good reminder of one of the strongest arguments against abuse of power and censorship.
The official stance is apparently that Zhang disagreed too much on PLA and military timelines.
Often we see arguments against censorship or abuse of power that go like "imagine what happens if the other side did this to us?" with the idea that the only/main issue of censorship is an external threat. Rather I think the main threat is internal, the abuse of power that makes people think "well maybe that one is ok, I didnt like the victims anyway" that normalizes, and more importantly, empowers the abuse.
Because often we see in authoritarian regimes that the threat is "from within". The purge heavy censorship people within "your group" have the selection effect of being purge heavy censorship people, and that means they support purging and censoring. What we see in the dictatorships and authoritarian governments isn't a crackdown on just "the enemy" with freedom for everyone else, it's a crackdown on all. Putin's top officials and allies aren't free to voice much opposition to the Ukraine war, and seemingly Xi's top officials aren't free to disagree too much on military timelines (or whatever actually upset him if the official stance is a lie). I doubt most top officials in North Korea, no matter how loyal, can publicly disagree with Kim Jung Un on a major issue and live to tell the tale. Even historically one of the biggest communist cucks in history Deng Xiaoping (now a beloved former leader of China for opening up the markets and making them actually function economically) was purged twice by Mao.
A lot of this I think lies in the flaw of tribalist thought to begin with. The idea of "my side" and the "other side" is overly simplistic to begin with, the major differences between factions are only put up with to face the Greater Evil. "Infighting" is just fighting, differences in beliefs trying to establish dominance. But tribalism pushes people to gloss over that, ignore the sins of "their own" and then they end up surprised when the pro purge people are fine with purging them too over their own disagreements. First They Came is a pretty good showcase of how this happens. The Enemy List of the authoritarian power abusers grows alongside their growth in power, until everyone is sitting around scared of being declared an enemy. You'll slowly lose your own freedom as your "enemies" get purged and you'll cheer it on smug and certain it could never come for you.
I don't know this for sure, but there's a high chance that Zhang was complicit in, or at least accomodating of, previous purges done to rivals or competition. I wonder if he feels any regrets over that now.
I was just going to link that in reply to your post. Happy 27th January.
Of course, Niemoeller is hardly the closest friend of the regime the Nazis murdered, that dubious honor likely falls to the SA leadership around Ernst Roehm, whose loyalty to the cause only bought them a quick death.
Nor is it uniquely the Nazis, power accumulated through violence has a tendency to not stay contained. The median victim of Robespierre was not an aristocrat or royalist, but (I think) a proponent of the revolution who simply was a bit more moderate, or a commoner who just got picked up by his goons when they were looking for an enemy to behead.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
(Disclaimer: despite my passable Mandarin and KTV skills, I’m far from a China Hand, so take all the following with a hefty splash of light soy sauce)
Most of this analysis seems plausible, except for:
I’d be more inclined to believe this if the sole remaining military officer on the CMC were anyone other than Zhang Shengmin (no relation to Youxia, AFAIK).
Whatever else you may say about him, at least Zhang Youxia (along with fellow [ex?] CMC member Liu Zhenli, who is similarly “under investigation”/possibly purged) has actual combat experience, specifically in the mostly-failed 1979 Vietnam adventure. By contrast, Zhang Shengmin is, by all accounts, a purely political creature. If the goal were to clear out the old deadweight from their cushy sinecures and make room for smart, young upstarts, why keep Shengmin around?
Not a China hand at all, but, bouncing off of your point, a genuine question: does Xi really need to trump up corruption charges if you just want to bring in fresh talent? Seems like it would be much easier and less embarrassing to just say "why don't you retire." I realize that might not work on people who are trying to cling onto power, but you'd think you'd only need to purge one or two of them successfully to make the point. Purging people after that suggests (at least to me) concerns about either their power or trustworthiness.
The extension would be: if nuclear secrets were really being passed to the US, would the CCP want to embarrass themselves by admitting it domestically?
My reaction was "who knows what's really going on there." Followed by "I suppose they just want an excuse to drop him out of a helicopter."
Western media releases are often panicked, middle of the night, written from the back of a car on a phone type jobs to get ahead of the Washington Post expose release at 5.30am. CCP ones are usually much more deliberate, attempting to portray the situation as they want it to appear. Chinese media does question weird disappearances, but there's a lot more top down control over narrative and publishing timeframes.
If a new boyfriend coyly admits that he likes a particular kind of porn ("big tits, MILFs") in response to your playful question on the third date, you should probably assume this is like 25-50% of the kinkiness he really goes for (anal, gangbangs).
"He released nuclear secrets" does sound better than "he's been on the CIA payroll for 15 years" for example.
Zhang Youxia was in custody for three months. Initially the CCP pushed that this was about corruption, bribes, and forming political cliques. The nuclear secrets thing came out later. Maybe this is to absolve Xi from the very real criticism of unfairly cleaning house/purging. It's hard to argue with a dismissal if a guy is giving nuclear secrets away and can be portrayed as an unfortunate necessity amid a national betrayal. Liu Zhenli was chief of staff of the CMC and removed at the same time though, and as far as I can see they haven't claimed he's a CIA source.
The CMC has been cut down from 7 to 2 members, and I just can't be sure what's going on. Like @stuckinthebathroom says, the sole survivor is a political appointee, Zhang Shengmin. And he's new to the job, only 12 months in or so. His background seems to be hunting down corrupt officers... or giving Xi the pretence to remove political/military rivals?
The main takeaway is that Xi is definitely personally in control of more of the party and military than ever before. I doubt this shifts the Taiwan needle to dangerous new levels, but it does seem like Xi is getting older and instead of doing succession planning he could be doing legacy planning (the Putin special?)
Dunno. I'm just hoping more of these chinese missiles are filled with water instead of fuel than we know about.
I’m curious, why do you say this? Regardless of the veracity of the charges against Zhang Youxia, I’ve read that he was one of the few people (perhaps even the only one) to tell Xi that his designs on Taiwan are hare-brained and likely to fail. With him out of the picture, how could an attempted invasion of Taiwan not be dangerously more likely?
It shifts it up, for sure, but like 5% to 7.5% or something. Not insignificant at all, but not like 20% is what I meant.
There's a lot of institutional pressure to not invade Taiwan in China.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think the only conclusive (and boring) point here is that Xi has consolidated power to an extent that his predecessors could not. And he does appear to have firm support from the Chinese ruling class considering how he purged all but one on the standing committee of the CMC without much troubles. When he started his term, people were talking about how he was a compromise candidate between Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao’s factions, and how he was going to reign with a Taishang Huang pulling strings behind him, but those predictions aged poorly.
It does not inspire confidence, for sure, to see such a high ranking general purged for being a traitor to the country. It certainly makes one wonder whether they are all compromised in some way. That being said, “leaking nuclear secrets” in this case could be serious, but it could also refer to something more benign, like “informing the Americans that we have significantly built up nuclear capabilities, so think thrice before you move”. A decade or two ago, the Americans or even the Taiwanese could induce defections by offering better material conditions, supporting opposition factions, or providing opportunities to immigrate, or simply by attracting naïve party members through ideological pull. I seriously doubt that this is still the case, given the cost benefit analysis. They can be compromised by inside forces but hardly by outside.
I’m fairly convinced that close to no one on the internet has a knowledgeable take on this. Chinese or non-Chinese spectators alike are like a lonely man living next door to a couple having sex. It’s possible for the man to guess at their relationship and catch glimpses of the truth, and if something goes transparently wrong he’d notice that too, but most of their dirty talk in bed amounts to nothing, except attracting his attention. When Lin Biao killed himself in a plane crash in Mongolia, no one was expecting it, except maybe the politburo and his direct underlings. And even now, no one outside of the Chinese decision making circle knows whether Lin was actually, seriously disloyal, or whether it was all Mao’s paranoia. Chinese history books are filled with such incidents, where a ruling emperor lives too long to pass the baton to the crown prince, until simmering distrust forces the crown prince either to usurp the throne or to idle until being killed by the emperor/father. This is literally the most common trope in Chinese history besides barbarians knocking on our door. Future historians will debate whether the killing of Zhang San was the single gravest mistake of the emperor that led to the downfall of the dynasty, or whether it was completely justified and with the crown prince a traitor, the dynasty was doomed regardless. I’m not convinced they are making informative guesses either way. Historians, not unlike me, will judge based on outcomes and on how well the narrative fits the prevailing zeitgeist, but I’m not deluded enough to think those takes are entirely truthful.
More options
Context Copy link
The coverage I've been seeing (admittedly from scattershot sources) has a fourth take, which is that regardless of the corruption allegations, the real reason Zhang was tossed was that he disagreed with Xi's alleged insistence that the PLA, PLAAF, and PLAAN prioritize having (or appearing to) have the capability to successfully invade and (re)conquer Taiwan by the end of 2027. Zhang allegedly believed that this was functionally impossible, and that the only way to even appear to comply with the political directive would be through a lot of boondoggles and diversion of effort away from other, more fundamental aspects of military training and readiness.
Again, I want to stress that I don't understand chinese and so can't read most of the coverage, and personally don't have much of a stake in this. However, I wanted to at least highlight that there's an alternative view out there, FWIW (which, again, may be nothing).
If true, this is the scariest possible take, IMO. The last (military) man standing on the CMC is now Zhang Shengmin, a career political hack with no actual combat experience, who survived this round of “investigations”/purges the same way he always has: by toeing the Party line and sycophantically telling Xi whatever he wants to hear. Now, worryingly, Xi has 2 more factors nudging him to go all-in on Taiwan 2027: no one’s around to tell him it’s a bad idea, and if he somehow does pull it off, he gets the PR win of making Zhang Youxia look like a treasonous coward.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
This guy has been showing up in my feed a lot lately, and I think he has a good perspective on the situation. Notably there's some history I didn't know: Xi Jinping's father was once "purged," but he wasn't executed, just removed from power for a while. He was eventually allowed to come back. So being "purged" is maybe not as severe a punishment as westerners might think.
The other thing is that there's always a certain amount of petty corruption going on there. For the most part they allow it and tolerate it. It's only used as an excuse to purge someone when they want to remove someone for other reasons. (That said... giving away nuclear secrets seems a lot more severe than petty corruption? but who knows)
So his conclusion is that this is essentially a move by Xi Jinping to consolidate power for himself and the CCP, taking power away from the top military leaders. You might ask why he'd want to do that, since he's already got plenty of power and you'd think he has enough on his plate trying to run a country of 1.4 billion people. But this would give him more power to do something dangerous and unpopular... like, say, start an invasion of Taiwan.
I really, really, really hope that doesn't happen. I've been to Taiwan and it's a nice place. I also think the US and its allies are in a bad state right now, not ready for this kind of major full-scale war.
Many, maybe even most senior figures survived the cultural revolution - even people you ‘wouldn’t expect’ (some prominent former Shanghai capitalists who defected to the communists, the former Emperor, various ‘right wing’ (for the party) figures). A lot of the most extreme cannibalism type violence was local, centuries of ground-level hatred for the local kulaks incited by the red book and cadres into ultra violence type behavior. Senior figures often got humiliated and were stripped of rank and privilege, professors sent to dig ditches for 5 years, but they lived. Surviving a purge in Stalin’s Soviet Union was arguably much harder.
In general, Chinese Communism seems to be more willing to tolerate ‘genuine conversion’ than Soviet Communism was. It might something to with the history of face and deference in China, I’m not sure. You see it even with the Uighurs.
Even in the Great Terror, most of those who were "purged" survived - though that could entail a wide range of possible punishments, from simple demotion to extreme torture and long prison sentences.
IIRC within the group of Red Army officers who were purged during the 1930s about 20% of them got death sentences.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I know China has been watching the Ukraine War very carefully for teachable moments. And Russia had to spend two solid years unfucking their general staff and getting rid of the incompetent political hacks, while in the middle of a war. So I wouldn’t be surprised if this was some spring cleaning. That said, I don’t know too much about CPC kremlinology in detail, unfortunately.
I prefer Pekingology myself. Quite a great name and a great podcast. I am certainly waiting for the analysis coming out of these guys and also from the Hoover Institution.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link