FWIW, as someone who knows next to nothing about Chinese political theory, this sounds to me like the Party trying to come to grips with postmodernity, failing, and disintegrating into conceptual incoherence. Well worth reading:https://twitter.com/palladiummag/status/1134562646483537920 …
-
-
This is the very way through the contradictions you noted above. It is very Hegelian.
-
I hope it works for them!
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Thanks. But I'm stumped at a logically prior question: What is it like to be Xi Jinping? Cf. Vladimir Bukovsky on Andropov —https://bukovsky-archive.com/back-to-the-future-iii/ …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It reads to me like a meta-non-system, where Xi can recognise what the right thing to do is in hindsight but can't provide a process to help people get there. "Where there is a river, build a bridge" could be read as "if your bridge worked, that was a river"
-
To paraphrase: "We're going to continually do better, in every way, by being confident and scientific, and innovating all the time." Doesn't sound so different from silicon valley a few years ago
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
After the YMCA Conquered China, Communism became its belief. Belief in the Christian mode is static (coherence is a non-issue) no matter what changes around you, belief must stay the same. It is Tragic, by definition. https://amzn.to/2I8yLzq
- End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.