Understanding China's Regionally Administered Totalitarianism
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 бер 2024
- On March 26th, 2:00-3:00pm, please join the Freeman Chair in China Studies for a discussion on the institutional underpinnings of China’s political economy. What explains the Communist Party’s ongoing resilience? Why did China pivot away from the economic reforms that had generated so much wealth for the country and the government?
To answer these questions, the Freeman Chair is pleased to welcome Chenggang Xu, Senior Research Scholar at the Stanford Center on China’s Economy and Institutions and Visiting Fellow at Hoover Institution of Stanford University; and a Visiting Professor, Finance Department, at Imperial College London. He is also author of the forthcoming book Institutional Genes: The Origins of China's Institutions and Totalitarianism (Cambridge University Press, forthcoming) exploring these questions. Xu advances the framework of “Regionally Administered Totalitarianism” (RADT) to describe China’s political economic transition during the reform period. The event will be moderated by Jude Blanchette, Freeman Chair in China Studies at CSIS.
This event is made possible through general support to CSIS.
---------------------------------------------
A nonpartisan institution, CSIS is the top national security think tank in the world.
Visit www.csis.org to find more of our work as we bring bipartisan solutions to the world's greatest challenges.
Want to see more videos and virtual events? Subscribe to this channel and turn on notifications: cs.is/2dCfTve
Follow CSIS on:
• Twitter: csis
• Facebook: CSIS.org
• Instagram: csis
Love listening to smart people talk
everything is so relevant. it's soothing
This is a fantastic interview, thank you! Very informative and thought provoking.
Chinese citizens deserve democracy and greater freedom to express themselves.
这段视频讨论了中国的区域管理极权主义，以及如何通过制度基因和历史路径依赖性来理解中国的政治制度。视频中，斯坦福大学的资深研究学者讨论了他即将出版的书籍《制度基因：中国制度和极权主义的起源》，该书将由剑桥大学出版社出版。
03:14
中国的政治制度
讨论了中国极权主义的定义和概念
解释了中国共产党如何控制社会的各个方面
强调了党领导一切的重要性
21:41
制度基因的概念
探讨了制度如何随时间演变并保持一致性
讨论了社会共识在制度变迁中的作用
解释了制度基因如何在国家间传播
25:52
区域管理极权主义
描述了中国如何将极权主义与地方行政相结合
讨论了这种模式如何使中国的极权主义更加灵活和有效
分析了这种模式如何帮助中国在苏联解体后保持稳定
39:00
中国未来的政治轨迹
探讨了中国可能的政治发展方向
讨论了私营部门和民间组织在中国政治中的作用
分析了中国共产党如何重新获得对社会的控制权
Very interesting, thank you
For the Rithm
Why leave on the long intro? It's off putting
Starts 3:05ish
So you put an orientalist spokesman to make your case sound authentic
cs is pro pagan da.
Useful idiots at yr service
党领导一却！
切😂😂
The phrase "党领导一却" seems to be a typo or miswritten. The characters individually translate to "party", "leadership", "one", and a character that doesn't make sense in this context ("却", which can mean "but", "yet", "indeed"). It's possible there's a missing or incorrect character that changes the meaning significantly.
If you intended to reference a common phrase or slogan related to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) or another specific context, could you double-check the phrase? It might be a slogan or part of a larger sentence that didn't get fully captured or was misspelled.@@anwiycti1585
this is simply a case of over-fitting of selective observations with a highly convoluted "theory", there is no self-consistency in this "theory"
Nonsense without evidence. Communist Party members may resign from the Party, withdraw automatically without paying membership fees, or be expelled from the Party for serious violations of Party records or criminal offences. Joining and leaving the party are voluntary
In the US, nobody leaves the uniparty becuase they get rich in the party. I would guess the same for china.
What you said was a phenomenon happened before XI's time. Therefore many ccp members who worked in private companies or foreign firms had exited the party. Now, even though CCP members who worked in those two sectors had to enroll their memberships in the local residence administrator, nobody dares to exit the party.
To be honest, there are royals in Europe countries, are they poor or rich? Are their societies well organised? Do you see Chinese invade other countries within the history? I am a Chinese living in UK over 25 years, to be honest, the western are falling rapidly, China is developing rapidly, the speed is almost same. Maybe during the Chairman Mao age was extreme, but after 1990 China is a healthy and organised society for human beings to live normal life. My definition of normal life means, low crime rates, kids have free education from 6-18, living costs is ok towards average wage. No war involved. Dirty politicians everywhere in this planet, they are not included my definition of normal people.
Complete agree as an Indian in the UK, the west lives in a bubble where inside they think they are peaceful and democratic while outside they invade and destroy other nations. Western propaganda is a real problem
如果你把时间放回毛主席的时代，你就不会觉得极端，因为当时世界上所有的国家都在走极端，文革只是被西方媒体用来丑化中国而不断渲染放大了。那时二战刚结束，所有的国家都没有安全感，核威胁的恐怖和焦虑，中国被全面封锁，没有工业，大部分人都挣扎在贫困中，如果你研究过同一时期的经济，中国是做的最好的几个国家之一。教育、妇女解放，公共医疗，基础重工业，军事，这些根基都是在文革期间建设起来的。
Absolutely BS! Taiwan, Uyghurs, 9 dash line, china is in 15 border disputes right now lol your a joke wumao, go back to china!
What a dumb contradictory concept. Stringing a list of derogatory words has got to be desperate.
Spot on. This man knows wisdom.
so just tell me, why india is still so poor and devastated under a democracy regime when our gdp used to be higher than China 40 years ago?
1234
Listen, the totalitarian system may reach the developed level in a short time due to the highest centralised system, and the government controlled everything of the society. In this case, government could allocate any resources immediately and do not need to care about the personal interest conflict between individuals and the state. I admit this system has some advantages in initial development period of the economy. However, it also has a problem. When you finish all infrastructure construction and reach the level of the middle compensation country level, this system cannot be sustained. When people have enough money and the economy has already shaped a circle system, the continuous development of the economy must derive from its own energy instead of relying on the mandatory allocating of resources by the government. This is because in this period, the developed economy brings the consciousness of personal property, rights and civil society and its conflict with the mode that the government control anything. So, if the state hopes to develop continuously, the institution must be changed.
Indian system is different from us. Your system is based on a democratic institution. In this case, you cannot imitate the development mode for China, Taiwan, South Korea, and Singapore these authoritarian or former authoritarian countries. You need to construct a system to resolve the interest conflict between each region and the state. Also, the interest conflict within each reagion. Normally, the incentive system is the cure for resolving the interest conflict in the democratic system. In organization studies, we have a theory called "Tournament theory". You may construct an effective incentive system and surveillance system according to the tournament theory. Maybe this is the cure for you to resolve your bottleneck for your development issues.
I have always wanted to know where the number of 40 million deaths from famine first spread and how they were calculated? In China in the 1950s and 1960s: due to economic blockade internationally, it was difficult for foreign journalists to enter China, and most adults were illiterate with outdated communication facilities. How could this 40 million be counted?
You should know that most people who went through that era are still alive. I asked them, and they said that there are indeed cases of people dying from hunger, but 40 million is too unrealistic.
For example, in a large family, older and younger people may fall ill and die due to malnutrition, especially newly born babies who may die due to their mother's insufficient milk and lack of medical resources, but most people live.
I suspect that the data of 40 million is a lie woven by the Nationalist government and the US government for the sake of anti communism.