Okay, but we are talking about a country where you aren’t allowed to form a political party that opposes the CCP, right? How can we tell the difference between “hell yeah, my country is making my life great” and “there is exactly one answer to this survey question that will not get me in trouble”? I always try to keep in mind that I am not immune to propaganda, but I’ve personally known Chinese people who have very explicitly declined to offer any criticism of the Chinese government or go against the party line, even in private conversation, because they didn’t want trouble.
Yes, capitalists are prevented from undermining socialism. If you read the studies, the reason the people of China support their system is because it supports them and represents their interests.
But it’s also a ban on other socialist parties, not just capitalist ones, and it plays directly into the talking point that socialism is an authoritarian system that is imposed on people, not chosen on its merits. If the CCP really has enjoyed resounding, unwavering support from the proletariat for 75 years straight, why appear so weak by never allowing any competition whatsoever?
The PRC is officially organized under what the CCP terms a “system of multi-party cooperation and political consultation under the leadership of the CCP,” in which the minor parties must accept the leadership of the CCP.
The PRC isn’t weak for not allowing capitalist and other liberal parties to compete, and socialist democracy has never cared too much about multi-party “democracy.” The PRC values cohesion and cooperation, not needless competition. Any competing “socialist” party would, in all reality, be used by the west to undermine the long-term socialist project.
Further, they have 8 minor political parties that cooperate with the CPC.
Yeah, those don’t count, if they’re required to align with the party then they’re just subcommittees or something, not actual political parties.
I promise I’m keeping my mind open, but all of these answers seem indistinguishable from authoritarian rule, which was kinda my original point. The same organization has to rule in perpetuity because foreign influence would subvert the interests of the country if there were other options, quite lucky that they locked in the right one. Practically all one billion people are aligned on this and agree that this system is working for them, but no, they will not be allowing that to be tested at the ballot box or in a media environment where people can speak their mind, it might all fall apart despite how unified they are. It’s a party controlled by the workers and acting for their interests, with total control of the levers of power, they just felt like keeping some ultra-rich and ultra-powerful folks around for a laugh, not because they’re the ones who actually have the power.
Honestly, shit’s so bad in the west that I’m kinda open to the idea that maybe a totalitarian government that recognizes it needs to keep workers decently happy to allow them to rule is, in fact, better than what we’ve got going on now, but it’s really hard to go as far as saying that it’s an active, ongoing, consensual choice by the workers to never give themselves a choice.
You keep repeating the idea that the PRC is “totalitarian,” despite being broadly democratic with comprehensivs influence being driven from the bottom-up. You’re getting too wrapped-up in liberal, multiparty democracy that it’s running interference for your understanding of cooperative, socialist democracy.
I’m trying to get to how it’s democratic and worker-controlled in your eyes because it’s hard to see for me, as people don’t seem to get to choose much in the system as designed. What’s the mechanism for average people to change a government policy that they disagree with? If the party does start to lose touch with what the workers need or start working against their interests, how do the workers course-correct it?
But this doesn’t answer my question, the only mechanism for people’s input seems to be elections and polling, and it conspicuously omits the fact that elections only allow party-approved candidates. Maybe the powers-that-be have a great track record of listening and respecting the will of the people, and are beloved by all as a result, but that doesn’t actually put the people in control, it just means the ones actually in control are being nice. When the government and the people have a fundamental disagreement about the path forward, what piece am I missing that makes the government the one to back down?
They refuse to offer criticism to you, they will criticize the CCP constantly amongst themselves. They’ve sadly learned right or wrong that westerners are always trying to make China look bad. It’s largely from western news like BBC. Just look up the phrase China, but at what cost. The most hilarious one I read was China is curing cancer fast, but at what cost.
Of course not? If they gave you that impression then you would pry. As I said, it’s pretty universal at this point. No mind reading needed. The fact that you were trying to do exactly what they’re trying to avoid is hilarious to me.
Okay, but we are talking about a country where you aren’t allowed to form a political party that opposes the CCP, right? How can we tell the difference between “hell yeah, my country is making my life great” and “there is exactly one answer to this survey question that will not get me in trouble”? I always try to keep in mind that I am not immune to propaganda, but I’ve personally known Chinese people who have very explicitly declined to offer any criticism of the Chinese government or go against the party line, even in private conversation, because they didn’t want trouble.
A party that opposes the communists? Like, a fascist party?
Yes, capitalists are prevented from undermining socialism. If you read the studies, the reason the people of China support their system is because it supports them and represents their interests.
But it’s also a ban on other socialist parties, not just capitalist ones, and it plays directly into the talking point that socialism is an authoritarian system that is imposed on people, not chosen on its merits. If the CCP really has enjoyed resounding, unwavering support from the proletariat for 75 years straight, why appear so weak by never allowing any competition whatsoever?
There are 8 other minor parties in China.
Oh, c’mon.
The PRC isn’t weak for not allowing capitalist and other liberal parties to compete, and socialist democracy has never cared too much about multi-party “democracy.” The PRC values cohesion and cooperation, not needless competition. Any competing “socialist” party would, in all reality, be used by the west to undermine the long-term socialist project.
Further, they have 8 minor political parties that cooperate with the CPC.
Yeah, those don’t count, if they’re required to align with the party then they’re just subcommittees or something, not actual political parties.
I promise I’m keeping my mind open, but all of these answers seem indistinguishable from authoritarian rule, which was kinda my original point. The same organization has to rule in perpetuity because foreign influence would subvert the interests of the country if there were other options, quite lucky that they locked in the right one. Practically all one billion people are aligned on this and agree that this system is working for them, but no, they will not be allowing that to be tested at the ballot box or in a media environment where people can speak their mind, it might all fall apart despite how unified they are. It’s a party controlled by the workers and acting for their interests, with total control of the levers of power, they just felt like keeping some ultra-rich and ultra-powerful folks around for a laugh, not because they’re the ones who actually have the power.
Honestly, shit’s so bad in the west that I’m kinda open to the idea that maybe a totalitarian government that recognizes it needs to keep workers decently happy to allow them to rule is, in fact, better than what we’ve got going on now, but it’s really hard to go as far as saying that it’s an active, ongoing, consensual choice by the workers to never give themselves a choice.
You keep repeating the idea that the PRC is “totalitarian,” despite being broadly democratic with comprehensivs influence being driven from the bottom-up. You’re getting too wrapped-up in liberal, multiparty democracy that it’s running interference for your understanding of cooperative, socialist democracy.
I’m trying to get to how it’s democratic and worker-controlled in your eyes because it’s hard to see for me, as people don’t seem to get to choose much in the system as designed. What’s the mechanism for average people to change a government policy that they disagree with? If the party does start to lose touch with what the workers need or start working against their interests, how do the workers course-correct it?
Here’s a good overview of how China’s democracy works. The CPC adheres to the mass line, policies come from the people, and the CPC gets support for carrying that out.
But this doesn’t answer my question, the only mechanism for people’s input seems to be elections and polling, and it conspicuously omits the fact that elections only allow party-approved candidates. Maybe the powers-that-be have a great track record of listening and respecting the will of the people, and are beloved by all as a result, but that doesn’t actually put the people in control, it just means the ones actually in control are being nice. When the government and the people have a fundamental disagreement about the path forward, what piece am I missing that makes the government the one to back down?
“I want a different party”
There are 8 to choose from
“They don’t count”
Unserious af
They refuse to offer criticism to you, they will criticize the CCP constantly amongst themselves. They’ve sadly learned right or wrong that westerners are always trying to make China look bad. It’s largely from western news like BBC. Just look up the phrase China, but at what cost. The most hilarious one I read was China is curing cancer fast, but at what cost.
I’m in awe of your ability to read minds, because that was not at all the vibe I got when I was actually in that conversation.
Of course not? If they gave you that impression then you would pry. As I said, it’s pretty universal at this point. No mind reading needed. The fact that you were trying to do exactly what they’re trying to avoid is hilarious to me.