Trump 2.0 official thread
- Thread starter siegecrossbow
- Start date
This, I feel, is a talking point that has outlived its usefulness.
Let's have a look at the education background of the Standing Committee of the 20th Politiburo (undergraduate only):
Xi Jinping - went to Tsinghua as a Worker-Peasant-Soldier Student, studied chemical engineering
Li Qiang - Ningbo Branch of Zhejiang Agricultural University - agricultural mechanisation
Zhao Leji - went to Peking University as a Worker-Peasant-Soldier Student, studied philosophy
Wang Huning - Shanghai Normal University, studied French
Cai Qi - Fujian Normal University, Political Econmics
Ding Xuexiang - Northeast Heavy Machinery Institute, engineering
Li Xi - Northwest Normal University, Chinese Language and Literature
So it's a even mix between people who studied science/engineering vs humanities. Also I have to note that higher education in China during the Cultural Revolution was not great, so you'd have to put an asterisk on some members who did study back then.
The myth of 'engineer-technocrats' as leaders of China was really a thing only for the Hu-Wen era - ie 16th and 17th Politiburo era (2002 - 2012), when both Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao were trained as hydrologist and geologist respectively. It made sense in context - China was in the midst of massive urbanisation and infrastructure building. But as China's economy and growth driver transitions away from infrastructure building, we will see a mix of qualities in the top leadership team.
Thanks for the correction.
It lives on because of pop-polisci books, most recently . Much like the Hill article, a load of reductionist crap full of both-sideism and feel-good platitudes instead of academic research into more granular data. There is no trick, no shortcut, no magic solution. There never was.
I agree. We have to remember that the US had a massive industrial economy while at the same time not having engineering educated leaders.
I think the most important elements are to have the ingredients that support a large blue collar workforce on top of supporting investment in engineering. If you loose the blue collar workers, it wont matter how many engineer leaders you have as you wont have the workforce to support national objectives.
One side has ironically more day to day freedom, while the other has freedom for the rich to not have to look at the poor who are subject to social totalitarianism.
US did not build a massive industrial economy through hard work, US first built off massive amount of stolen land, capital, and literally human beings from Africa, then defaulted into the biggest industrial economy after Europeans destroyed themselves.
The half century of contineous downhill movement after the oil embargo and Vietnam loss is a direct demonstration of how much a non rational goverment can achieve on its own without theft.
Just because a mobster didnt need to go to college to make money doesnt mean you dont need to go to college, or that the mobster will be able to keep his money
Breakneck has been pretty thumped on for all of those reasons, and in particular the silly engineer-lawyer opposition. The US has always been 'lawerly' but still managed to become a dominant industrial giant in the 50s and 60s in much the way China has now, so its decline is obviously more complicated.