Discussion » Current Events » The Rise and Fall of a Princeling ..........Whats

  • Jay
    Jay wrote:
    <p>Bo Xilai, once seen as one of the rising stars of Chinese politics, has been removed from his prominent provincial post after a scandal involving one of his key deputies. There is a dearth of information regarding this unfolding saga in foreign news channels , however it's apparent that the local blogosphere is on fire with details and analysis ... Somebody please fill in the blanks for me</p>
  • Silje Linnerud

    Man, look out. You've already known too much, more than that you should have.

  • Jay
    Jay wrote:

    lol~ chinese politics has always intrigued me ......but this dirty inside politics is just captivating. Bo made headlines in the past three years in Chongqing and at a time westerners thought he would have Chairman Hu's job once he stepped down , unfortunately that job now belongs to the vice-president Xi. What bothers me most is the speed of his demise , I believe if China holds democratic elections , Bo will definitely win the presidency in a land-slide, he's got a strong personality.

    How is Wang Li Jun connacted to all of this?

  • Jay
    Jay wrote:

    王是他的人不错,但是他为什么要办姓王的呢? 不办王的话, 王为何要跑到美国领使馆呢?你不觉得奇怪吗?里面大有文章啊

  • A豆腐
    A豆腐 wrote:

    Populism is a dangerous thing, specially in a country in which more than half of the population lives below the poverty line. One Mao was enough.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    I think Wang Lijun's actions were a pretext. Bo Qilai reminds me of Hugo Chavez, another flawed populist who nonetheless represents a sympathetic ideology. The whole reason he was sent to Chongqing in the first place was to keep him away from Beijing.

    In other news, I heard the shit really hit the fan last night in a top session, some armor was mobilized in a particular public place, and web content filters went to defcon wtf. Let's talk about that, in vague English, without mentioning any proper nouns, shall we?

  • Silje Linnerud

    Unfortunately, back to a few years ago, since he was transferred to Chongqing, it has been obvious enough that he was no longer a candidate of Chinese chairman. The sign is clear, he's been wiped off from the central government. CQ is the economic center of southwest China. However, it is not politically and economically powerful enough.

    About Wang, it's a long story. you may look for the news about Chongqing government taking down the gangster groups and dirty cops.

  • Jay
    Jay wrote:

    First off I'd like to say tha bo was sent to CQ as part of a mentoring program, just like the current Chairman , he was selected to fill the post by a powerful camp in the politburo . What evades me is what really happened in CQ, Bo was of the impression that the mentoring program was still on thats why he fought corruption and gangsters in CQ with such zeal , but apparently he made alot of enemies both in the party and outside. Sources say that Bo was also involved with the very gangsters he was publicly fighting and Wang Li Jun was way too involved to be spared. This scandal is one of the dirtiest in a long while

  • Jay
    Jay wrote:

    我就纳闷儿了, 你那么大力度去打黑你干嘛还跟他们有一腿儿呢? 肯定有隐情

  • Silje Linnerud

    hmm, there were rumors that Bo'd be settled in BJ right after his term in Dalian. But it turned out that he was sent to CQ. And actually that period of time was the golden time of Bo's political life. He was the super star back then.

  • Chai Chu
    Chai Chu wrote:

    Bo was very loud, but not all popular here, I don't think he would win the presidency in a land-slide. If china holds demoncratic elections, there would be more strong personalities emerging to the scene.

    To my understanding, Bo's demise is one of the outcomes of the escalating political struggles within the party. There is a pattern for this kind of arm-wrestling since the "new age (openning-up)": "If you want someone down, you trap the deputy and he will drag the boss down with him". Bo's case fits the pattern very well. But there is also a peculiarity in this case -- the deputy (Wang) was no cannon-fodder material, he would rather die with his boots on -- not like his nameless predecessor. He successfully managed to get massive media attention, which would somehow save his ass and transform his destined victimazation into martyrdom. Voila.

    (Bo is boring! )

  • Jay
    Jay wrote:

    Chai i doubt if you are familiar with Bo , Bo has a bigger-than-life personality. He was one of the most outstanding bureaucrats in recent times , he can be easily compared to Deng Xiao Ping . I personally had the privilege to meet Bo when he was the Minister of Commerce( think that was his position then ). Bo has had a very brilliant political career, from Dalian to Bj then to CQ, he has always been hailed a reformist , but unfortunately I think he had too much character or rather too much personality and that definitely alienated him from the real king makers in the politburo. Many Chinese leaders follow a certain model , they want to be looked at as managers, very effective managers , they seldom emphasize their personality , but Bo is rather individualistic and that doesnt conform with the tennets of the model. Take for example Chairman Hu, he is a highly intelligent engineer who has a strong western background and who loves to dance , but u wouldnt guess any of these from his stoic appearance . I think Bo's demise can be directly related to his personality(which btw I love )

  • Jay
    Jay wrote:

    @ JZ please post more

  • Jay
    Jay wrote:

    太逗了!

  • Jay
    Jay wrote:

    太逗了!

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    Lulz were had. That punchline translates elegantly, Julie.

    Bo probably seems boring to people inside China because of all the red songs and Maoist revivalist nonsense that you were force-fed in school.

    But for those of us who are only reading a digest of what is happening, we might be able better to parse his ironic individuality from his collectivist ideology. As a political figure, he certainly seems like an obnoxious opportunist. But as my granny always said, only cream and bastards rise to the top.

    If I'm sad about Bo's ouster, it's because it's a blow against the Chinese New Left.

    Instead of placing him under house arrest, they should make him a diplomat and send him to Occupy Detroit.

  • Chai Chu
    Chai Chu wrote:

    I find Bush cute ~ meow

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    @Chai,

    OH NO YOU DIDN'T

  • A豆腐
    A豆腐 wrote:

    Instead of placing him under house arrest, they should make him a diplomat and send him to Occupy Detroit.

    yeah!!

    alt text

  • Chai Chu
    Chai Chu wrote:

    @ ಠ_ರೃ

    If I'm sad about Bo's ouster, it's because it's a blow against the Chinese New Left.

    Neo-leftism attracts sociopath and sexually repressed teenagers. social inequality roots not in new order --"capitalism", but in the very nature of human which, nonetheless, give rise to heroic epics and everyday ambition. Society is equal in the sence that everyone tries to survive all the shits in life and later dies equal. It is hubris to believe in a society in which everyone gets what they want and live happilly -- poetic hubris, though.

    those who cannot cope with this sadistic game of life would still survive for a quite long time as neo-left, neo nazi, neo-moron, neo-bushman or contemporary artist (most of them reproduce a lot). So, the human society we have here on earth shows great leniency towards most of its members - fit or not. This is a harmonious world in which morons and saints coexist well.

    capitalism is the EVIL? come on.

  • Alex ^∞
    Alex ^∞ wrote:

    Neo-leftism attracts sociopath and sexually repressed teenagers. social inequality roots not in new order --"capitalism", but in the very nature of human which, nonetheless, give rise to heroic epics and everyday ambition.

    Well said - but you forgot the part where it (neo-leftism) naturally morphs (hypocritically but predictably) into neo-feudalism. (Mr. E Blair wrote about it famously in Animal Farm.) Specifically this happens first though means of social stratification and then by the false meritocracy exerted within the confines of a preordained upper echelon group. A first among equals is then chosen from said group (made up of those 'more equal than others'), and there you have it. Rinse, repeat.

  • Alex ^∞
    Alex ^∞ wrote:

    The adorable part is that you dont see the irony. Lets refer to it as neo-neo then. I think the ironic use of "neo" (or just omitting it entirely) works pretty well though. The point is, everyone thinks that their shitz is "neo" - when it is simply just the same shitz as ever before: a phase in the age old rinse repeat cycle we know and love. Those who dont know history are doomed to repeat it, and it seems almost no one has even the most basic and fundamental grasp of history. Post 2001, neo-feudalism is simply feudalism with computers and "terror" laws. Feudalism 2.0, or 2001.1, whatever.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    Oh boy oh boy oh boy all I have to do is say "new left" and that provokes flaming rectal rage from randroids who think economics is a "natural" science because they use the maths.

    Neo-leftism attracts sociopath and sexually repressed teenagers.

    Well said - but you forgot the part where it (neo-leftism) naturally morphs (hypocritically but predictably) into neo-feudalism. (Mr. E Blair wrote about it famously in Animal Farm.)

    Is it hypocritical, predictable, or ironic?

    Choose one.

    But yes, I suppose that calling all leftists sociopaths would seem eloquent to someone who would imply that Orwell was anything other than a democratic socialist. He's farther left than Comrade Boner. Try reading a book rather than just memorizing titles and authors.

    ...

    Capitalism, as a political-economy is not evil at all and represents an incredible advancement over feudalism, which--I'm sorry to say--is where the rest of China remains and will remain unless public investment (or socialist development) gives all those rural peasants access to the same fundamental opportunities as people fortunate enough to be born with a Shanghai/Beijing/Guangzhou 户口.

    The capitalist mode of production is not evil in and of itself (nor is it entirely contradictory with the aims of socialism), but belief in capitalism as an ideology certainly is the source of much evil, as it results in mindlessly mechanical sub-thought concluding that social inequality cannot be solved without sucking the romance from human existence. Yes, those poor people are poor and shall remain that way and should remain that way because it's all part of God's plan.

    Go on, sister, recite a psalm for us:

    social inequality roots not in new order --"capitalism", but in the very nature of human which, nonetheless, give rise to heroic epics and everyday ambition.

    Let me guess: you just finished reading Atlas Shrugged.

    The only thing that can rightly be said of human nature is that we can make choices. Human decision-making can be aggregated into larger entities like markets or congresses, and often predictions can be made about these collective decisions, but the success of these systems does not mean that they are natural.

    Nor should they be. Sorry, puny fleshbags, but I don't show solidarity with collectivist political movements like anarchism and socialism because I feel bad for poor people. It's because I hate all of you petty bourgeois untermensch with your flawed and self-limiting understandings of "human nature." Your fragile made-in-China fast food consumer "individuality" won't survive the impending technological singularity.

    ...or maybe we could continue changing human nature, as we always have been, and hope we get this place cleaned up before SkyNet goes online.

    inb4 I for one welcome our new robot masters

  • Brenda Liu
    Brenda Liu wrote:

    anyone can post more about "3.19" ?

  • Alex ^∞
    Alex ^∞ wrote:

    LOL...meanwhile as Beardy Weirdy floats off in his technocratic wet dream (all beardy weirdies do this - who can blame such ill endowed individuals for wishing their bodies could be replaced with robotic alternatives?) the rest of us remain teathered to the ground in the knowledge that anything of man is inferior to man and that when skynet becomes self aware the heros among us will John-C it up and blast those bots (and their puny fleshbag sympathisers) back to binary oblivion. With that said:

    Is it hypocritical, predictable, or ironic? Choose one.

    No. Hypocricy is always ironic, and often predictable; after all, we are talking about human nature - it's all of the above.

    who think economics is a "natural" science because they use the maths.

    less about macro economics, more about division/delegation of rights, resources (power) etc. economics is only part of it, and no one here ever said anything about it being "natural".

    often predictions can be made about these collective decisions, but the success of these systems does not mean that they are natural.

    you assert that they are or have been "successful" by what measure? also, again, who said they were "natural"?

  • Mari Vidste
    Mari Vidste wrote:

    Let's do a little

    alt text

    implying George Orwell would not wipe his ass with the Little Red Book

    implying poverty is romantic

    implying Atlas Shrugged isn't God-tier literature

    implying humans are an extra-biological meta-species

    implying anarchists aren't individualists

    implying Ray Kurzweil isn't an ugly Jew

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    Some fag called transhumanism the world's most dangerous ideology. He was a neoconservative and a Bush lackey. But he was right. I'm not geek enough to be a technocrat, as one could tell by looking at all the errors in my Linux user logs, but I do regard transhumanism as an evolutionary and historical inevitability.

    no one here ever said anything about it being "natural".

    Chai, in exonerating the socio-political status quo of any blame for social inequality:

    social inequality [is] rooted ... in the very nature of human

    And Alex, in his painful misapprehension of Orwell's Animal Farm:

    (neo-leftism) naturally morphs (hypocritically but predictably) into neo-feudalism

    Orwell took a bullet in the throat fighting for the Partido Obrero de Unificación Marxista, which were regarded by the Soviets as fascist collaborators. Actual anarchists who organize and coordinate (yes, you read right) according to the principle of direct action are collectivists, especially the anarcho-syndicalist united labor fronts of Orwell's time (and Monty Python sketches).

    It's only the bourgeois lifestyle faux-anarchism of angsty teenagers that is "individualist."

    Anarcho-capitalism is a fucking joke.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    alt text

    For levity:

  • Alex ^∞
    Alex ^∞ wrote:

    @Beardy Weirdy - Im familiar with the life and times of eric blair so no need for the history lesson - please explain to me why it was a misapprehension to mention animal farm in this context? ok..so I stupidly misread something just now... please forget the last part of my previous post and concentrate on the below.

    but the success of these systems does not mean that they are natural.

    it might not "mean" that they are, but they are. Social orders form naturally, there is no intervention from outside "the set"....im not sure what you are referring to when you say "does not mean they are natural".

    Chai, in exonerating the socio-political status quo of any blame for social inequality

    woah, youre getting a step ahead of yourself. i dont think it was chai's intention to exonerate blame - I thought that he/she was merely making the point that IT IS a natural phonomenon and part of the human condition (capitalism can not be blamed) and I tend to agree, but I also agree with what you said about the blind following of "capitalist ideology" being evil. Very true.

    What has been omitted here is the mention morals and ethics, the application of which in themselves are "spiritual". Humans created these, I believe, for two reasons. Firstly because they believed their application to offer the potential for societal improvements (stability, safety etc) when compared to operating on pure natural instinct alone. Secondly because man innately (naturally) has inside of him, a belife in a higher power, or something that is "better" than man himself. Man tries to imitate this power, or at least appease it, by behaving differently to how his instincts would have him do. Whether or not this is a perception which has formed or has come about by the evolutionary process is not relevant here.

    The way I see it, the best humans are already "transhuman" and have been since the dawn of spirituality. Where we go from here is limited entirely to physical manipulation of our environments, or bodies. Transhumanists have recurring wet dreams about us all either transforming into giant robots or perhaps even living as brains in jars. Some go so far as to replace the body and mind with sentient electrostatic fields that can fly through space (lulz). Either way, I would postulate now (without anything to back me up) that even after increasing the processing power of the brain itself, we will still achieve only physical and performance related improvements. I do not see how any true philosophical, spiritual or divine gains could be made. Certainly nothing that will make us a "better" species. Will it make us happier "individuals"? Maybe, but probably not.

  • Chai Chu
    Chai Chu wrote:

    @Skaught

    My point is that debating capitalism and communism is SO 1930s, or else reserved for Fox News panels.

    and to which year does pussie-talk date back? we talk the old shit over and over again, this is our status quo. Enjoy~

    @Alex

    it seems almost no one has even the most basic and fundamental grasp of history. grasp of history is not a sine qua non for non-historians to survive the days, the same as the grasp of foreign language, philosophy, advanced math, ...., it would be scaring if I wake up in the morning and find everyone start to talk history.

    @ಠ_ರೃ

    The only thing that can rightly be said of human nature is that we can make choices. Human decision-making can be aggregated into larger entities like markets or congresses, and often predictions can be made about these collective decisions, but the success of these systems does not mean that they are natural.

    what is Atlas Shrugged? human nature here I meant everyone want to have more, and be better, know more, we just can't help it. No matter how much emphasis is put on the "better than myself" attitude, we would still somehow compare ourselves with others. this NATURE shapes the forms of society, and leaves necessary space for social inequality. it would be wonderful if we could have a system that provides opportunities to all its people without shits like HUKOU, but ignorance prevails. there is always a gap between "what it should be" and "what it is". We tent to get lost somewhere in the middle.

  • K5-35
    K5-35 wrote:

    Dear oh dear, I can't help paying respects towards all the insightful comments here.

    The motto of our corporation is also very trans-humanism, but as Dando said, it is probably an evolutionary inevitability to shape ourselves into something else, either X-men, Robotcop or the Fly...

    I can't express more personal opinions here, because firstly I don't have personal opinions, secondly, I am afraid of death.

    Also on a separate note, I almost froze myself to death in the animal farm days ago like those drunkards in Dostoeysky's book.

    A disclaimer to the Internet Police here: I have no political standing and any of my comments generated from this website should not be interpreted as such. I have not participated in any assembling activities or gathering initiated by any user here either. As all comments are written in English for entertainment purpose only, I am fully impunitive and indemnifiable by law. BTW, serve the people, bros, good job.

  • A豆腐
    A豆腐 wrote:

    It sounds like another Chen Xitong case link text

    In ancient times, camarilla of eunuchs. In modern times, camarilla of bureaucrats.

Please login to post a reply to this thread.

WeLiveInBeijing

WeLiveInBeijing.com is a social community for people living in or traveling to Beijing.

Powered by: Bloc