The PRC is democratic, in fact the public in China feels its desires are better represented through policy than in Western Countries, especially the US. It’s absolutely public ownership, this is an extremely confused idea on what Capitalism even is. Private Property is distinct from state property.
Further, markets are not “Capitalism.” The PRC does have private property, but limits it to medium and small firms, and cooperatives. The overwhelming majority of the large firms and key industries are publicly owned, as is the job of a Socialist government, to facilitate this gradual extension of Public Ownership to the entirety of the economy as it develops to the level that such ownership makes economic sense. This gradual transformation in society is the Socialist mode of production.
Lastly, “true” Communism isn’t a thing. There is Communism, and there’s Socialism, and there’s Capitalism. Applying descriptors like “true” or “false” is a moralistic judgement, not a scientific one, and Marxists reject moralistic analysis in favor of scientific analysis.
I think you may get better results if you talk about what people understand in their own lives. People understand how utterly undemocratic the private sector of the economy is. They also understand how unrepresentative the reps the dominant parties present for election. They understand who pays for their politics. People also understand how democracy works in non-partisan settings like municipalities, school boards and so on. Often people don’t realize these things and need help to connect the dots and build a complete picture, but they understand what’s going on. Once the picture is in place, they get it. Then from there you could draw parallels between parts of that picture and China to explain in terms people understand. E.g. the political democracy works similar to municipal democracy, no parties, just candidates and elections.
I agree that you have great points on how to communicate with people willing to learn, but unfortunately many people like Fizz here are entirely unwilling to learn even if we are to be as kind and understanding as possible.
My point is that this could work to pierce the programming which makes people unwilling to learn. Two years ago I might have reacted to what you’re saying just the same as Fizz does today. What helped chip away at my programming is the sort of explanations that take what I understood already. Also the audience isn’t Fizz alone but also the multitude who only read the discussions. I’m only saying this because you’re spending a lot of time and effort to talk to people already. Not because I have the right to demand more work. 😄
You’re sitting here trying to tell me that the one party authoritarian state who regularly crushes citizens freedom of expression is actually democratic. Yeah I’m sure they wander to the voting booth and make the touch decision of voting for the CCP or nothing with the CCP waiting over their shoulder.
You have a biased perception of what constitutes democracy, you take the western, liberal model to be the only form of democracy, and reject other models. This is a rather narrow-minded approach to political analysis, rather than immediately condemning others for not conforming to what you consider to be standard, it pays immensely to ask instead, “why?”
In western liberal democracy, democratic input is largely restricted to which party you want to represent you, not how each party functions. In China, you can’t really depose the CPC, but there is a much larger and more comprehensive scope on what you can influence. Public policy is comprehensively considered and voted on, tested, and local governments have large degrees of input from the local pooulation, laddering up to the regional and finally national level.
I think you’d do yourself a massive service if you asked the question “why do Chinese citizens overwhelmingly approve of their government, and feel that they have genuine democratic input despite having a different democratic model than my own?” Rather than simply looking at a different system and condemning it as wrong on the basis of it being a different system.
No, you can’t just rewrite the definition of democracy and take out all the key parts just so you can apply it to China and try and washing over all their flaws.
Didnt the CCP weld people into their homes during covid. People have no human rights to the CCP. They are just tools to be used to further the parties goals.
Fine I’ll ask myself “why do Chinese citizens overwhelmingly approve of their government, and feel that they have genuine democratic input despite having a different democratic model than my own?”
Probably because their government dominates every part of their life. Constantly propagandises them and viciously cracks down on any dissent. They also have been having a ton of economic growth which usually results in favour for the party in power.
They think they have democracy because they have been mislead to what democracy is and theyve been told they have it “its not authoritarianism its just democracy with Chinese characteristics” and those characteristics are stripping all rights and power from the populous.
No, you can’t just rewrite the definition of democracy
Interestingly, not even the ancient greeks would consider what modern-day western states are, as democracies. Both Aristotle and Plato considered any system based on elections to be undemocratic oligarchies, since only the wealthy have the money to finance campaigns or the prestige to win the popularity contest.
They rightly considered democracy as meaning rule by the poor, which is the opposite of modern day bourgeois democracy.
Furthermore, you just assert without basis that the people of China “have no rights” and that they are “constantly repressed,” repeating verbatim US State Department talking points without genuinely engaging with Chinese people and how they view their system. You even contradict yourself, you say that Chinese people support their system because it works for them, but also that they are scared of it and in constant fear, yet support it anyways. It’s a non-falsifiable orthodoxy describwd by Michael Parenti, in Blackshirts and Reds,:
In the United States, for over a hundred years, the ruling interests tirelessly propagated anticommunism among the populace, until it became more like a religious orthodoxy than a political analysis. During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them.
If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.
The PRC is democratic, in fact the public in China feels its desires are better represented through policy than in Western Countries, especially the US. It’s absolutely public ownership, this is an extremely confused idea on what Capitalism even is. Private Property is distinct from state property.
Further, markets are not “Capitalism.” The PRC does have private property, but limits it to medium and small firms, and cooperatives. The overwhelming majority of the large firms and key industries are publicly owned, as is the job of a Socialist government, to facilitate this gradual extension of Public Ownership to the entirety of the economy as it develops to the level that such ownership makes economic sense. This gradual transformation in society is the Socialist mode of production.
Lastly, “true” Communism isn’t a thing. There is Communism, and there’s Socialism, and there’s Capitalism. Applying descriptors like “true” or “false” is a moralistic judgement, not a scientific one, and Marxists reject moralistic analysis in favor of scientific analysis.
I think you may get better results if you talk about what people understand in their own lives. People understand how utterly undemocratic the private sector of the economy is. They also understand how unrepresentative the reps the dominant parties present for election. They understand who pays for their politics. People also understand how democracy works in non-partisan settings like municipalities, school boards and so on. Often people don’t realize these things and need help to connect the dots and build a complete picture, but they understand what’s going on. Once the picture is in place, they get it. Then from there you could draw parallels between parts of that picture and China to explain in terms people understand. E.g. the political democracy works similar to municipal democracy, no parties, just candidates and elections.
I agree that you have great points on how to communicate with people willing to learn, but unfortunately many people like Fizz here are entirely unwilling to learn even if we are to be as kind and understanding as possible.
My point is that this could work to pierce the programming which makes people unwilling to learn. Two years ago I might have reacted to what you’re saying just the same as Fizz does today. What helped chip away at my programming is the sort of explanations that take what I understood already. Also the audience isn’t Fizz alone but also the multitude who only read the discussions. I’m only saying this because you’re spending a lot of time and effort to talk to people already. Not because I have the right to demand more work. 😄
Fair enough, I’ll keep it in mind!
You’re sitting here trying to tell me that the one party authoritarian state who regularly crushes citizens freedom of expression is actually democratic. Yeah I’m sure they wander to the voting booth and make the touch decision of voting for the CCP or nothing with the CCP waiting over their shoulder.
You people are delusional.
You have a biased perception of what constitutes democracy, you take the western, liberal model to be the only form of democracy, and reject other models. This is a rather narrow-minded approach to political analysis, rather than immediately condemning others for not conforming to what you consider to be standard, it pays immensely to ask instead, “why?”
In western liberal democracy, democratic input is largely restricted to which party you want to represent you, not how each party functions. In China, you can’t really depose the CPC, but there is a much larger and more comprehensive scope on what you can influence. Public policy is comprehensively considered and voted on, tested, and local governments have large degrees of input from the local pooulation, laddering up to the regional and finally national level.
I think you’d do yourself a massive service if you asked the question “why do Chinese citizens overwhelmingly approve of their government, and feel that they have genuine democratic input despite having a different democratic model than my own?” Rather than simply looking at a different system and condemning it as wrong on the basis of it being a different system.
No, you can’t just rewrite the definition of democracy and take out all the key parts just so you can apply it to China and try and washing over all their flaws.
Didnt the CCP weld people into their homes during covid. People have no human rights to the CCP. They are just tools to be used to further the parties goals.
Fine I’ll ask myself “why do Chinese citizens overwhelmingly approve of their government, and feel that they have genuine democratic input despite having a different democratic model than my own?”
Probably because their government dominates every part of their life. Constantly propagandises them and viciously cracks down on any dissent. They also have been having a ton of economic growth which usually results in favour for the party in power.
They think they have democracy because they have been mislead to what democracy is and theyve been told they have it “its not authoritarianism its just democracy with Chinese characteristics” and those characteristics are stripping all rights and power from the populous.
Interestingly, not even the ancient greeks would consider what modern-day western states are, as democracies. Both Aristotle and Plato considered any system based on elections to be undemocratic oligarchies, since only the wealthy have the money to finance campaigns or the prestige to win the popularity contest.
They rightly considered democracy as meaning rule by the poor, which is the opposite of modern day bourgeois democracy.
This is a childish response. Democracy is not simply limited to “choosing the party in power.” China ticks all the boxes of democracy even in the Wikipedia article on democracy, elections are held for representatives and policy is guided by what the people themselves want. Here’s a good article comparing the US system with the PRC’s system.
Furthermore, you just assert without basis that the people of China “have no rights” and that they are “constantly repressed,” repeating verbatim US State Department talking points without genuinely engaging with Chinese people and how they view their system. You even contradict yourself, you say that Chinese people support their system because it works for them, but also that they are scared of it and in constant fear, yet support it anyways. It’s a non-falsifiable orthodoxy describwd by Michael Parenti, in Blackshirts and Reds,: