>He sees it as a challenge to his legitimacy and China’s power

This right here is why “corruption” should be looked on with great skepticism. In an authoritarian government basic liberties we take for granted in the West are considered corruption. You know, like having a say in how people are governed. This is a high crime in a state with 1 party that cannot be replaced.

In that way, “corruption” can mean “not being loyal to the dictator.”

> to his concept of China’s honor and global standing.

Or his sinocentricity and even racism (as in superiority of chinese people). There's been a long standing view in China about their own superiority of others, including all the way into the way they view their national pride as extending back further than any other civilization, even though external historians might view it more like several disjoint civilizations in a similar region... Kinda like how we don't call American history as starting when previous groups from contemporary russian crossed ice bridges to the Americas... We say it started in 1776 because it was a new major iteration of the regime.

It's like you're so close to getting it. Xi is serious about "corruption" alright. It's just that in an authoritarian state "corruption" is really just used as a euphemism for illoyality.

tbh my take as someone who follows sports heavily: China is just not good at team sports. If we consider the most relevant ones (part of the Olympics games):

- volleyball. Probably their best team sport. Men's team have nothing to show but the women's team won the competition 3 times (1984, 2004, 2016) and the World Cup twice (1982, 1986)

- basketball. Women's team are usually there at the Olympic games and they won a silver medal in 1992 and a bronze in 1984 but nothing ever since. They were the runner ups in the last World Cup final (2022) against the US. Men's team have 0 results.

- football, irrelevant. Men's team only qualified to the World Cup once in 2002. Women's team is slightly better being the runner up once in 1999, and they also won silver medal in the 1996 Olympic games. But that was a one generation thing, nothing to show ever since.

- water polo, irrelevant. Women's team is slightly better usually qualifying for the Olympic games but 0 results. Same at the World Cup.

- baseball/softball, irrelevant.

- field hockey, irrelevant.

- handball, irrelevant.

- rugby sevens, irrelevant.

China is good at group sports where everyone have to do the same thing together (artistic swimming and diving) but team sports needs individuals working together where everyone have to be good at their given position, in their own little world, so almost the exact opposite.

> Xi has shown repeatedly that he’s serious about corruption.

that's BS

cracking down on corruption has been a common tactic for decades to get rid of people who are a threat to the top dog at the CCP, and Xi has employed this perhaps better than anyone since Mao

are those people being purged corrupt? probably most are. but plenty of people who are corrupt aren't purged, it's a highly selective process.

Xi started this a few years after coming into power -- and it was obviously to the educated class was it was (I was living in Beijing at the time), but "mei banfa" (or emigrate, as many people with the $/ability to do so, did).

Absolutely love it. The West could take some notes. And to those who would jump to downvote, ask yourself why one country is on the rise, and the other is in a drain spiral.

The problem seems to be that "he" chooses who is corrupt and who isn't', right?

This is a person who invites war criminals to his country and rolls out the red carpet...then again...

> Xi has shown repeatedly that he’s serious about corruption

Xi is also fantastically corrupt. He wasn’t born a billionaire.

It's like unlimited PTO. Take a reasonable amount of PTO and you're fine, but if you actually treat it as unlimited then you'll get fired.

I'm not saying that those guys weren't corrupt, but that's a classic authoritarian pattern. Purging anybody who might potentially in the future be a threat to your rule is step two in any authoritarian playbook. Were they perchance replaced with unambitious yes men?

Russia is even tougher on corrupt oligarchs

You seem to be circling the issue. Corruption can mean anything from taking bribes to exerting influence that is outside Xi’s interests.

All presidents rise to power on a message of anti-corruption, they all clean house when they start in office but usually it falls off until the next president takes over. The problem Xi has is that now that he is now president for life, the house isn't getting cleaned in the usual way every 10 years; he has to do a corruption purge every so often or things will get grimey.

Counter-example: Sam-Bankman Fried. Biden's second biggest donor. Sentenced to 25 years in jail. Prosecuted even though it wasn't a clear cut case so there were excuses to hang a lack of prosecution on. No pardon.

It's easy to appear anti-corruption if you have complete control your country's internet and almost as much control of your country's internet.

Don't confuse "the west" with the US. The US is less than half of "the west".

It's a systematic, competent purge the political rivals program.

The Zhou Yongkang incident happened over a decade ago, it happened in roughly the first year of Xi Jinping's tenure, Zhou Yongkang was a supporter of the also-purged Bo Xilai, and while he was still in power he ran the department responsible for internal security. I don't doubt the guy was corrupt but this is exactly the sort of target you go after if you want to maintain your own grip on power.

Biden didn't pardon SBF.

I understand that perspective to some degree, but imagine a hypothetical country with say, two parties in power, where prosecutors only crack down on white collar criminals if they are supporters of one party and not the other. We would call that system corrupt, and probably not celebrate that at least some of the criminals face justice.

Also, from a practical standpoint, charging some and not others is not necessarily better if the selection is made politically. That moves the needle from "at least something got done" to "law is just a tool of oppression".

> But, are these sort of things just examples of selective prosecution? Would the inner circle members of CCP leadership realistically face the same prosecution and sentencing, if they were to be caught doing the same?

> thus celebration that at least something got done

Is it really something to celebrate if:

1. Someone got sentenced to death because they lost some internal power struggle, and bribery was falsely used as the public reason?

2. The guy's getting killed as a scapegoat, or because he pissed off his superiors by not sharing more of his bribes, etc.?

>it's the choice between "prosecute this one or nobody"

Even that assumes a normal of being lucky that anything is prosecuted, ever. So it's good but against a low bar rather than rising to the bar parent commenter suggested.

Only if society needs more security.

You can’t squeeze blood from a brick. At a certain point, you need to tolerate a little messiness to optimize societal growth.

Think of it as a dial you can turn clockwise or counterclockwise:

Security <——> Freedom

A healthy society would have good feedback mechanisms that allow it to change the dial of the government in power, to adjust to the current situation. Obviously, there’s no one optimal position; to use a historical example: Churchill was great for Britain during WW2, and immediately elected out afterwards.

Yes. The Chinese people trade freedom for good governance.

The problem is, if they dont like their governance they cant trade it back for their freedom.

This often gets missed. Of course, it can be repulsive. But I sort of appreciate how honest other societies are about their social problems. In the United States there is a lot of doublespeak. The current president is actually quite refreshing in this regard, or at least was for a time.

The way the mainstream media freaked out about him asking Bill O'Reilly, "what, you think our country is so innocent?" is a good example. Or saying we're in Venezuela for oil at the outset. Or talking about how they killed so many Iranians they don't even know who they are negotiating with anymore. I mean at least we didn't have to suffer through fumbling Bushisms about freedom. If the day ever comes when presidents are held to the same standards as the people, then ironically in many regards we will have to at least give him some points for honesty... it is quite sad how he is the only person to succeed to such an extent on such an "outsider", really anticorruption message ("drain the swamp"), then turn around and do the same thing. I think it is probably related to the core problem of American society - the doublespeak, the dual consciousness, the resistance to self reflection. People don't want honest answers - including to their own complicity (who elected these people anyway?). They want slogans. The results are sad, but predictable. A society that elects (and then worse, reelects) someone like Trump to end corruption is clearly a society that cannot look itself in the mirror. The same goes for the other side of the aisle. The "democracy" party that has no primaries and says it's either "fascism" or geriatric grandpa. We take this election very seriously that is why we have nominated a corpse. Don't mention it or you're a fascist. No you don't get another choice. Vote for us or democracy dies...

Sad... maybe if politics was a venue where people weren't punished for being honest we wouldn't have such low quality politicians. Brings to mind the George Carlin line:

That would be a nice realistic campaign slogan for somebody: 'The public sucks. Elect me.'"

Has the dictator been removed for it? Someone cherished by them? Or are we to assume those are impollute?

Correct, so long as there is a state controlled media and no independent media and we can only speculate on where people who have “disappeared” from public view are, this is exactly the position everyone should hold.

This is single party autocracy, no matter how much people cry about propaganda.

Is reflection really necessary? On why they're so willing to seek confirmation bias on a self appointed dictator for life and why they have that bias towards a self appointed dictator for life? Isn't it self evident?

Just to be clear - you can't really "reverse" most things. The arrow of time only moves in one direction. People who are jailed and then exonerated do not have their lives "reversed". Their future circumstances are changed. Maybe they are compensated. But they still suffered in jail. You cannot erase that part of their reality anymore than you can raise the dead. This is not to discount your point that making amends while someone is still alive is seen as preferable.

Of course, attempts are made to "reverse" even after someone had been put to death. Posthumous pardons are a thing. It may not bring anything to the person who has passed, but it could give somewhat similar benefits to living descendants.

It's just to say we shouldn't undermine how impactful something like incarceration is on the theory that it is "reversible". Evidence suggests such experiences mess people up in pretty severe ways. Lets also remember thinking of death in these distinct terms may be very cultural. Few penal systems escape barbarity. There are worse things than death. There are many instances or societies were it is preferable or expected people kill themselves rather than go through something like the ignominy of incarceration.

As to the last line, I'm also not sure. Brutal societies have a way of turning on themselves. Nations that accord more protections to their people are generally a better place for their rulers, even if the reverse is not always true. Personally I would love a legal system that baked into its norms higher punishments for people with more power. I think these have existed in the past, even if enforced through less modern mechanisms.

It is also the case that people in power do things that people with less power are incapable of. Getting rid of notions of executive privilege or qualified immunity would be a good start. The way the law is written currently, people in power won't simply not be punished - they won't even be charged. Take George Bush. Did he ever even just have to testify under oath about the rationale for the Iraq War once? Would the United States really descend into a banana republic if he had been charged for perjury or war crimes? It seems like the push in that direction can instead trace its genesis to the fact that in America, we evidently make our leaders untouchable.

> there shouldn’t be irreversible punishment

I am not convinced. "You can no longer hold office" is a permanent punishment. Why should that not be allowed?

> Also there should be equity which means everyone that does the same crime should face the same consequence

I am also unconvinced. I don't think it is fair to treat a child like an adult and I think those in power should have more stringent standards and larger consequences for violating them.

barbaric is society which has half of the worlwide population living with less than 6 USD per day in borderline slavery

So what is the alternative punishment for folks like this who have destroyed the lives of countless people ? Hard labour for life in a mine until death ?

> I’m not a law expert but it seems pretty basic that there shouldn’t be irreversible punishment.

I agree with you, but we also can't reverse entropy.

Yeah but that’s bad right

The US has four times as many prisoners per capita as China, the "police state."

edit: some interesting trivia. Due to the combination of America's incarceration rate, a racist justice system, and a completely wealthless and desperate class of freed slaves who were never compensated (although their owners were), Black Americans are 0.5% of the world's population but 5% of the world's prison population.