US President Joe Biden said Wednesday he still believes Chinese President Xi Jinping is a dictator, even as the two leaders made progress in their relationship during a meeting outside San Francisco.
“Well, look, he’s a dictator in the sense that he is a guy who runs a country that is a communist country that’s based on a form of government totally different than ours,” Biden told CNN’s MJ Lee. “Anyway, we made progress.”
When asked about Biden’s latest comment at a Chinese Foreign Ministry briefing on Thursday, a spokesperson called it “extremely erroneous” and an “irresponsible political maneuver, which China firmly opposes.”
What a weird way to define a dictator.
Not “he has been in power for an extended period of time in a country with a single ruling party.”
But “he runs a communist country that has a different government than ours”?
I’m not a big fan of President Biden after some consideration I’ve decided I do like his answer. It’s nuanced, which means the Internet won’t understand it, but it answered the question correctly (Yes he is) while making it clear that other countries have different styles of Government that we may not like but must accept if we want to have relations with them.
Countries with Liberal Democracies, like the United States, have no responsibility to lie about another countries style of Government to spare their feelings but we also don’t need to let our distaste preclude us from talking to them.
But that’s just not what Biden said, at all. Here’s what Biden actually said: “he’s a dictator in the sense that he is a guy who runs a country that is a communist country that’s based on a form of government totally different than ours.”
This isn’t nuanced, it’s an ignorant and belligerent hot-take. He clearly indicated that either having a different form of government from ours, or being communist, or perhaps the combination of those two things (which is redundant), makes a country a dictatorship. That’s not a straw man reading, it’s what he said, in pretty clear terms. He didn’t say, or even approach saying, any of the things you suggested, except the “yes he is” bit.
Biden spews toxic nonsense almost as badly as Trump, sometimes. Thankfully, not as constantly.
What a weird take.
Care to share yours?
In China you can vote for 1 party but in America you can for for 2 (and 80% of their policies are the same) . Wow!
There are multiple parties in China.
But political parties play a different role in socialist/communist countries. It’s not similar to how it works in most western countries.
Nah its a p good take methinks
It’s as good a take as some news in the US saying everyone in Scandinavian countries are unemployed and lazy, collecting welfare money while doing nothing other than selling cupcakes.
That was an actual (fake) news published in the US. And cupcakes aren’t even a thing in these countries. The person creating the fake news didn’t even research local sweets. They just used whatever they know from the US, because they don’t care to make it look real, just want to spread lies.
The same is true for most things you read about China/Cuba/Korea/etc in the US and similar countries.
What makes it weird?
Everything. Its fully loaded with fake news from the biggest propaganda machine in the world: the US.
There’s no dictatorship in China. But the US spends A LOT of money to make every socialist country look bad, because if people knew there was an alternative to capitalism, most of the ruling class in the US would fall. They can’t let that happen.
China is effectively a dictatorship. It has one political party and Xi Jinping ended the two term limit so he could stay in power. What form of government would you say they have?
It has nine political parties, not one. But also, political parties work differently in a socialist country. You can’t expect other systems to be a 1-to-1 mapping of what you have in your country.
Even in a socialist country with a single party (which is not the case of China), there is competition for leadership.
The leader of China is elected. Really elected, without rigged elections like you see in countries like Russia. That effectively makes it not a dictatorship.
All this talk of China being a dictatorship comes from US propaganda.
So let me try and break a few of the misconceptions created by the US propaganda machine: the leader is elected. People can complain about the government, and they do. Not only that, but the government is regularly reading criticism and using that to make things better. There is no social credit score.
Edit: Actually, the US propaganda is weird. China has been getting flak for its social credit system for years, but they don’t have a social credit system. On the other hand, Italy DOES HAVE a social credit system, but since it’s a western country nobody talks about it.
There may be other political parties but none of them have anywhere near the power of the CPC. They are all subordinate. For example, all election candidates must be approved by the CPC.
Also, the only direct elections in China are at the local level. At higher levels of government everything is chosen by local congresses. This results in a system where the people at the top are very removed from the votes of citizens.
Also, the national Congress largely exists to rubber-stamp whatever Xi Jinping wants. Any opposition would be swiftly stamped out.
Probably aiming for the elderly votes or something. Then again, the guy is old himself so I don’t know.
Then again, the guy is old himself so I don’t know.
The core problem, sadly. Millennials and younger can’t relate to his worldview without doing a generational-history deep dive.
I’ll still vote for him if he’s the frontrunner, because I don’t enjoy the thought of the fascist alternative, and he’s done a better job than I expected in a lot of areas, but he won’t get my vote in the primaries.
In what sense is modern China a communist country?
They insist very much that they’re communist. Like, a lot. It’s even on their letterhead and business cards and website!
like the USA likes to imagine it is democratic rather than an oligarchy.
I’d argue that we’re way more democratic than they are communist. But that would be a very long and tedious argument.
This is basically the Democratic Socialist argument against China. If democracy is a prerequisite for “true socialism”, then the USA is actually closer to achieving that than China.
A few things:
Democratic Socialism isn’t necessarily the only democratic form of Socialism. DemSoc refers to a Socialist system with Liberal Democracy, as opposed to forms like ParEcon, Council Communism, Syndicalism, Soviet Democracy, etc.
Secondly, technically China subscribes to a form of Democracy, based on the concept of Democratic Centralism.
I personally don’t think the US or China is actually very Democratic, neither are truly accountable to the will of the people. The US is slightly more democratic, but it isn’t saying much.
Agree with almost everything you said, didn’t mean to come off like I was saying Democratic Socialism is the only form of Socialism with Democracy. I used democratic socialism use DemSocs are a bit more prevalent.
I am always dubious of “Democratic Centralism” though, at least in mainstream ML parties. Always seems to be a way to ban factionalism and therefore any opinion dissenting from the party line.
Fair and based.
We are still actually an Oligarchy though lol just, like you said, closer to what we claim we are then China is
They think that they are. Part of marxist theory, at least traditional ‘orthodox’ marxist theory is that the development of a capitalist mode of production is essential to development of revolutionary consciousness in the proletariat. The CCP keeps its oligarchs on a leash. They have been allowed to prosper only as part of the rapid modernization of the Chinese economy over the last 30-40 years.
Why is that weird? Seems fairly commonplace to me. Like, not that it’s necessarily correct, just not weird at all.
Because it is fundamentally wrong.
Wrong != weird.
The US president being wrong about something isn’t weird. I wish it were, but it isn’t. 
Not really. They have a kind of controlled capitalism where they don’t allow the rich to be too greedy or corrupt. The theory is that you can’t go directly from feudalism to communism, you need capitalism first for rapid development.
They have a kind of controlled capitalism where they don’t allow the rich to be too greedy or corrupt.
I think it’s more accurate to say that they don’t allow the rich to be become too powerful, which is very different from allowing them to be overly greedy or corrupt.
For example Jack Ma, he’s no more greedy or corrupt than many other ultra successful Chinese business people and China didn’t care about him until he got too popular and he started speaking negatively about the CCP in public. He was popular, rich, and criticizing the CCP so they took him down.
Ren Zhiqiang is another example. The CCP was fine with him being stupid wealthy and corrupt as hell but then he started getting popular by criticizing the CCP and that they wouldn’t tolerate so “Big Cannon Ren” went to prison.
You don’t need Oligarch status to draw their ire. Remember Peng Shuai? She was popular and became a threat to the CCP after making sexual assault allegations against a high ranking official. They do it to famous people of all types but only after they start criticizing the CCP.
The other way to get in trouble is if your greed and corruption become a threat to the Government. This is why the people behind Evergrande, Country Gardens, Zhongzhi, and other companies got away with INSANE levels of greed and corruption for so long. The CCP knew it was happening and didn’t care until that Greed and Corruption was threatening to topple the economy and thus the CCP itself.
Greed and Corruption? The CCP simply doesn’t care unless it threatens their power.
and what is the destination of late-stage capitalism?
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
I mean he literally abolished the term limits which were put in place to prevent another dictator from taking power in China.
He also has complete control over the party that controls the chinese equivalent of a congress, who then votes him into power. He won the last election with 100% of the vote, 2,952 For and 25 Absent.
Well. He is.
And I’m pretty sure Xi wouldn’t deny it in private.
In private, whoever said it would be killed summarily.
Gee, I hope the Chinese dictator isn’t offended.
You realize if Biden had failed to call Xi a dictator, they’d be squawking about how he was weak.
deleted by creator
“And if there’s one thing we love, it’s dictators. Just ask our biggest ally, Saudi Arabia.”
Biggest ally isn’t the descriptor I’d use for the Saudis…
deleted by creator
I think its a Trump quote?
Wouldn’t surprise me
Xan you be a dictator if you are a king with a kingdom?
Do we really need a news article for every sentence uttered?
This headline, while accurate, puts Biden’s statement in a way most likely to undermine current cooperations with China. The goal is to offend Xi and scuttle any deals reached, and if that doesn’t work, at least it paints Biden as a hypocrite for working with a dictator.
It’s scortched earth politics. It’s not meant to be news.
at least it paints Biden as a hypocrite for working with a dictator.
The United States has generally had no problem working with anyone, including Dictators. We’ve only every refused to do so when their crimes grow so obscenely large that they literally cannot be overlooked.
You underestimate how much the US is willing to overlook. I think it’s more fair to say they’ll work with anyone who benefits them up until the point they become a liability.
Did anyone else see that camera on Blinken wincing when he said it?
It’s gold.
I wanna see this!!
Wow. Thank you so much. Do you think Biden shouldn’t have said this?
I mean he is right
He is correct in the label and completely wrong with the explanation.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
When asked about Biden’s latest comment at a Chinese Foreign Ministry briefing on Thursday, a spokesperson called it “extremely erroneous” and an “irresponsible political maneuver, which China firmly opposes.”
Beijing responded furiously over the summer when the president made a similar comment and compared his Chinese counterpart to “dictators” in June.
The president made that comment during an off-camera campaign reception in California, hitting Xi for being caught by surprise after the US had shot down a Chinese spy balloon that had veered off course over the United States.
“The remarks seriously contradict basic facts, seriously violate diplomatic etiquette, and seriously infringe on China’s political dignity,” the spokesperson for the foreign ministry said.
Wednesday’s comment could threaten to derail the positive energy coming out of the meeting, which Biden described earlier in the news conference as “some of the most constructive and productive discussions we’ve had.”
“Both sides should understand each other’s principles and bottom lines, not make or stir up trouble or cross boundaries, (but instead) communicate more, have more dialogue and more discussions, and handle differences and accidents calmly,” Xi said.
The original article contains 533 words, the summary contains 183 words. Saved 66%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
I mean Biden casually bribed the Pakistan army to remove the previous government and yet he calls Pakistan a totally legit democracy even though elections still haven’t happened.
And water is wet. What else?
Stuff like this is a waste of time.
But does he still believe fire is hot?
Leader of a country that has a different form of governance than America? Must be a dictator.
Only America can be good.
While Xi’s move to remove term limits and humiliate his predecessor is worrying and very much dictator moves, china is still more democratic than most people realize. It’s just another model of democracy. Democracy happens within the Chinese Communist party, which anyone can join and participate in to elect local officials, which elect regional officials and so on.
Obviously not perfect, but not completely dictatorial eitherr.
within the Chinese Communist party, which anyone can join and participate in to elect local officials
This is definitely not the case anymore. Realistically speaking, it was never as simple as “anyone can join.” Today, most people will go through a lengthy process to just be denied membership.
Guess who you can thank for this…
If I go in a public square and liken Xi to Winnie the Pooh for several hours, will I be returning home untouched by the government and continue to live without government reprisal?
I think we could learn a lot from their more restrained capitalism system. But that doesn’t mean I can’t recognize the authoritarian dictatorship.
There’s an old Soviet Russia joke that applies here. They had freedom of speech too – in the US you can rant about Reagan all day and the government won’t do any reprisal, and in the USSR you can also rant about Reagan without any reprisal!
Recently in the UK, we had a lot of “not my king” protests where people were arrested for blank signs after people had signs mentioning Prince Andrew’s misdeeds.
That’s just the British
I get where you’re coming from but that’s not an argument about the defining characteristics of dictatorships, that’s an argument about the existence or lack thereof of free speech.
In my opinion a better argument would be that China has 1 leader at the top of the ladder with near unquestionable power over government precedings who will remain in that position until he either dies or chooses to step down. That already would make him something analogous to a monarch, but add the regular use of military strength in forcing compliance from the masses and now we have a dictator.
Try saying From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free! In Berlin. Or the many US states were boycotting Israel is illegal.
You can say that in any us state?
“As of 2021, 35 states have passed bills and executive orders designed to discourage boycotts of Israel.[4] Many of them have been passed with broad bipartisan support.[5] Most anti-BDS laws have taken one of two forms: contract-focused laws requiring government contractors to promise that they are not boycotting Israel; and investment-focused laws, mandating public investment funds to avoid entities boycotting Israel.”
Not as bad as I remembered. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-BDS_laws
The last point doesn’t count, we’re talking about Free Speech.
For the first one, it’s understandable why the Krauts have to be on the side of Israel hardcore due to their, uh, “history” with the Jews. Sucks but hey, that’s life.
Seems a bit disingenuous to use a phrase co-opted by antisemites as your example here. I don’t believe most people say it with that intent, but that doesn’t change that Hamas and company use it to refer to ethnic cleansing.
Wikipedia has a pretty good page that discusses the history of it. My perception is that it was used by proponents for a one state solution, but the opposition to it very purposely boosted the violent groups who used it. It’s like if I talk about the blood and soil in Israel or Palestine or work in the number 88. There are clear antisemitic connotations to those. It’s fairly idiotic to use any phrases like that if your goal is to keep antisemitism completely separate from criticism of Israel.
Anyway, assuming you’re in the US, you did just say it without reprisal too. This is one of those cases where providing an example immediately disproves it, because clearly, you’re allowed to say it.
That isn’t to say that some people haven’t tried to criminalize or have successfully criminalized similar sentiments. But the difference is that if I post about Xi being Winnie the Pooh on Chinese social media, I’m going to see reprisal from the government no matter where in the country I post it from. There are shades of authoritarian disallowance of criticism, and the US certainly has some of that. China is just considerably more.
Edit: I’m thinking of the original charter. The most recent version actually makes it clear that it isn’t directed towards all Jewish people.
Hamas specifically notes in their charter that they do not call for genocide against Jewish people. They specifically note that they do not have a problem with Judaism, and that their fight is only with Zionism, AND they specifically note that “From the river to the sea” is a call for a one state solution, not genocide.
That’s the most recent revision. The original document didn’t make those distinctions, and it’s what people think of.
So what you mean to say is that Hamas doesn’t use it to call for genocide of Jewish peoples, and that you were spreading misinformation in your previous comment.
I should edit it to be past tense, fair does.
It remains true however that they said it in their original charter. My point is just that people are (erroneously) thinking of that previous charter when it comes to this. I’m no longer passing any value judgment. The association is valid, but it’s based on an old revision and new revision doesn’t have that association.
