The men and odd women who have comprised the all powerful Chinese Politiburo Standing Committee since the communist revolution in 1949 are commonly placed into distinct generations by analysts and observers.

The first generation of leaders under Mao ruled from 1949 to 1976 and consisted of mainly political and military leaders.

The second generation of leaders under Deng Xiaoping ruled from 1976 to 1992 and these were younger but again mainly political and military leaders.

But what really caught my attention were the third generation (1992 to 2003) and the fourth generation (2003 to present) when China really began to emerge as a true world power and not just a country with a large population (like some other aspirants).

These third and fourth generation guys are all without exception engineers.......... cold calculating logical thinkers....... doers and makers of things who came up through various state-run industries!!!

No wonder the Great USA whose leadership is dominated by paper pushing, fancy talking Ivy Leaguers who've never produced anything in their lives is catching its ass competing against China.

In reply to JohnDoe

Yes, indeed! They're the masters of re-patent-riation!

In reply to Spectator



Can't argue with that. But their excuse might be, why re-invent the wheel?

In reply to JohnDoe

Untrue. Besides, engineering is a very amorphous category. That said, as a general rule, politicians, as opposed to technocrats, need to engage with/bullshit the electorate, so a background in the law or the humanities has been traditional.

I do wish peeps would stop wid all this China as 21st century superpower bullshit. They don't know what they're talking about. Superpowery is essentially about cultural influence. To put it bluntly, white people are really not interested in Asian cultures, in general, and China's, in particular.

In reply to Freddie

There is now a new paradigm shift!

In reply to XDFIX

Thus making Ja a superpower.

In reply to garyg

According to Freddie!

In reply to JohnDoe

Nice jab!

I think all these superpower talks for either China or India are very much misplaced. Whereas in case of India the information about the frailties and problems and limitations are known and easily accessible, with China they are simply just censored out.

Most of China's (and also to a large extent India's) recent economic growth has been dependent on the extraordinary wave of western consumerism of the last few decades. China doesn't have a solid middle class that is economically secure enough to buy their own products. The idea of Chinese superpower is reminiscent of the other non-democratic superpower in recent history which behind the facade of progress in weapons and technologies ran a threadbare country where the marginalized majority didn't even have a political right and no press was allowed to report on anything unsavory.

A country which is so insecure to feel the need to imprison (without trial) amateur filmmakers documenting the disenchantment of their own people and journalists reporting on the impact of natural catastrophes cannot have any claim to be other than what it is: a mighty military force run by a collective of despots with lots of money on the bank.

China would do well to become a progressive democracy where the majority people are guaranteed the basic amenities of life and have the rights to hold and express their opinions. As long as it sees the need to wipe off certain minorities systematically (for 'national growth', so to speak) one can hardly look at the ruling party with anything but disgust and horror.

In reply to Freddie

What is white people culture? Mac Donald, Britney Spears and a general lack of self awareness? The only reason US culture is so widespread is because they out satellite, out beam everybody else not because its so great.

In reply to Freddie

These things can easily be verified on Google yuh know.

Just Google Chinese Politburo Standing Committee.

But I appreciate your general point.

I too believe that Europeans/Americans through their fine art and great literature over the centuries and moving pictures and recorded music of the last century will continue to have a strong influence over all mankind for many generations to come.

It is still possible, however, that the Chinese could provide an alternative political model for other countries just like the Soviet Union once did.

A model whereby countries eschew western style democracy for more centralized control by a firm but well-meaning big brother.

In reply to subaltern

This is where we have a fundamental disagreement.

I really don't believe the majority in any society are qualified to express opinions that could shape the future of a country.

I rather admire the Chinese corporate style of governance.

In reply to JohnDoe

But what is a country without the majority of its people? If you are saying that oligarchy or a 'benevolent dictatorship' (if such a thing is possible) serves the benefit of the populace more than a democracy, then the lessons of History we probably should exclude from discussions about governance.

Also,expressing one's political opinion is not about qualification, but a fundamental human right. And when that right is deprived, you have the atrocities of what has happened to Tibetans, and in Western China, and in the days of 'Cultural Revolution'.




From a distance, I would suppose. Not as an ordinary human being living in that country.

I think the danger is that starting from your perspective it only takes a few steps to arrive at the conclusion that Gulags and Stalinist purges were 'admirable' because they were meant to 'shape the future of a country'. Yes, I am intentionally extrapolating and exaggerating...but once you surrender the basic principles of democracy and right to express your opinions, the logical sequence to totalitarianism is inevitable.

In reply to Freddie

You are right that the cultures (the plurality is important) of China are not going to shape the world the way Western cultural traditions have. But then equating hegemony with cultural influence begs certain questions:
a. What does 'culture' constitute of in this context? Language, cuisine, technology, fashion? Or does it include the so-called creative arts too?

b. If higher arts are included, then German music and philosophy, French philosophy and plastic arts have had significantly more influence in the wider world than the corresponding Anglo-Saxon traditions. It is only in Literature the English influence has been ubiquitous and omnipotent, though the British Empire was the biggest superpower for so many yeas. Similarly, the prominence of the nineteenth century Russian literature is disproportionate to the (lack of) influence of the then Russian empire outside a segment of Europe.

c. If higher arts are not considered, and culture is defined by Language and customs, then it can be argued that the Western cultural influence is a direct result of colonialism where the colonized had to come to terms with the foreign language and customs. If so, then of course China would never be culturally influential because (one hopes) it would never be allowed to become an aggressive force.

d. Finally, how different are the modes of popular culture (expressions, framework, ambitions) between the elites (and increasingly so, the middle class) of various (excluding the well-known cases of technological backwardness) Asian countries and that of the West? We all are marching steadily towards a culturally homogeneous world, and the absence of an intrinsically differentiating 'value' is the price to pay for that homogeneity, which one hopes would at least bring relative peace among nations.

In reply to Freddie

Wake up Freddie!

But Mandarin Chinese is set to become the second most popular foreign language learned in UK schools.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8365631.stm

So tens of millions of Chinese are learning/speaking English whilst the number of indigenous Brits seriously learning/speaking Chinese is probably in the tens. GSCE Mandarin don't count. GCSEs are a big JOKE.

The above story confirms two of my suppositions:

There's only the need for a single global lingua franca and that, of course, must be English.

Chinese people are, on average, cognitively more proficient than Indians.

Here's China's answer to sashami: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/6595481/Chinese-diners-eat-live-fish-in-YouTube-video.html

In reply to JohnDoe

That comment of yours brought back memories of a minor awkward moment. I was among group parents dining with administrators at a prestigious boarding high school in New England. In going thru the school’s college placement catalogue I had noticed that the great majority of the school’s graduates were accepted into Harvard, Yale, Brown, Williams, some had gone on to schools in Europe…etc…the classic Ivy League Mecca’s

I inquired as to why more graduates did not go to places like MIT and Cal-Tec…etc……..an administrator seem nonplussed by my naiveté – then somewhat condescendingly advised me that they prepared their students for leadership roles while Cal-Tech and MIT prepared workers…………..

Now I guess we end up with too many chiefs.