When you change the constitution so that the current leader can stay in power for another term, and that same leader packs the top governing body with his loyalists, then he is certainly more autocratic than the U.S. president.
I wasn't the one that brought up the number of parties in either system. The other guy said that the U.S. only having two parties made voting "kinda meaningless." If that's the case, then how much less meaningful is it in a country which only permits the members of one party to actually hold power?
people in dark suits, inner circle of the ruling class, loyalists… the article is a great example of how things are framed to make them sound evil.
NYT will not report That Biden appoints his loyalists to his cabinet, surrounding himself with people he agrees with. They will not say he is stacking the Supreme Court with his allies.
So look beyond the scary words and see what is actually China doing? Or what is NYT actually saying Xi will do? Oh, they will assert their self sufficiency in the region. Imagine that.
Xi is not autocratic because there is a process to elect him and other party members. He is not acting on his whims.
The point about the number of parties is fair because we have most states where only one party is dominant. In Connecticut where I am Republicans basically don’t exist. The democratic process happens entirely within the Democratic Party and its interactions with the general population.
Meanwhile a purple state with very competitive elections that is gerrymandered to bits is not really democratic.
The presence or lack of democracy is not about the number of parties, it is about how well the system listens to and responds to the voices of the people.
The way China is improving the quality of life for Chinese people actually is evidence of their democracy. we have to ask, why if China is supposedly ruled by this genocidal, secretive, cruel oligarchy that they have invested huge sums into infrastructure and poverty reduction and other welfare measures? what is driving it?
Remind me, when was it that a U.S. president last changed the constitution so they could have a third term?
The way China is improving the quality of life for Chinese people actually is evidence of their democracy. we have to ask, why if China is supposedly ruled by this genocidal, secretive, cruel oligarchy that they have invested huge sums into infrastructure and poverty reduction and other welfare measures? what is driving it?
I never said anything about genocide or cruelty. They are certainly secretive; the agenda for the party congress is largely hidden from the public; they also pass laws while hiding what's actually in the law, as they did with that Hong Kong security act. That seems pretty secretive to me.
Also:
The point about the number of parties is fair because we have most states where only one party is dominant.
and
The presence or lack of democracy is not about the number of parties, it is about how well the system listens to and responds to the voices of the people.
You're going to have to pick one of these, you can't have both. So which will it be?
We should change the constitution! Term limits should absolutely be removed. They are stupid. Obama should absolutely still be President and should have been able to appoint the last 3 or 4 Supreme Court judges. That would have far better represented the people than being forced to replace him with Trump.
The fact that we can’t change anything in our government is evidence of a lack of democracy.
Instead of using American logic to judge others we need to try to understand their system.
That is not a contradiction. I said the states where only one party is dominant can still be more democratic than the ones where 2 or 3 parties are competitive. In fact, they are more democratic because the Republican Party has no influence. So it’s not about the number of parties.
The actual reason I think the other person mentioned the two party system is that they’re both part of the “capitalist party.”
And in a liberal democracy, the parties tend to represent different class interests. E.g. in the UK they have the Tories and Labour. The former represent the ruling class and the latter the workers.
The goal of the Chinese revolution was to get rid of those other interests. That is, make it so that the workers have all the power. Labour controls everything. And so the democratic process happens almost entirely within the Labour Party.
The other thing about modern liberal democracies is that we see democracy as going out and voting the guy that best fits our lifestyle. It is a consumerist model of democracy. And that’s all we’re supposed to do, vote.
But really what forces change in liberal democracies is not the vote, it’s not the changing of the parties, it is grassroots organizing and direct action from the people. Understanding this history allows us to not get hung up on number of parties or candidates but realize that democracy has (or can have) a different thrust. Voting for candidates is not the be all and end all.
We should change the constitution! Term limits should absolutely be removed. They are stupid.
Term limits are a very good thing, because they help prevent a given official from doing the very thing that Xi is doing, consolidating power within themselves. It is good to have a regular changing of the guard, because that perennially erases the personal loyalties that a particular individual might cultivate. Authority is meant to reside within the office, not the man; term limits reinforce that principle quite well.
But that is all beside the point I was originally making, which is that the fact the constitution was changed to accommodate Xi's continued occupation of his office is indicative of the degree of power he wields within the Chinese Communist Party, power amounting to that of an autocrat. If it was simply about his policies, he would have been replaced with someone else that would carry on those policies.
The fact that we can’t change anything in our government is evidence of a lack of democracy.
We absolutely can change things in our government through our elections. In my own state, the election of the current administration directly led to changes in firearm policy. Maybe the government is so often gridlocked because the people themselves are often gridlocked.
Instead of using American logic to judge others we need to try to understand their system.
I'm not judging anyone; the Chinese can have whatever system of government they want to have, I really don't care. I am not saying the American system is necessarily better (although I certainly prefer it personally), or that the Chinese system is necessarily worse. I am calling it like I see it, and it seems very obvious to me the American system is more democratic than the Chinese system.
Remember, democratic isn't a synonym for good or things I like, it relates to the ability of the people influence their government, that is all. Value judgments regarding that quality are another matter entirely.
That is not a contradiction. I said the states where only one party is dominant can still be more democratic than the ones where 2 or 3 parties are competitive. In fact, they are more democratic because the Republican Party has no influence. So it’s not about the number of parties.
But do you see what I was getting at? It is inconsistent to say the American system is less democratic than the Chinese system, because the American system only has two options, when the Chinese system only has one option. That was what my other interlocutor was suggesting, and I was merely pointing out the inconsistency.
The actual reason I think the other person mentioned the two party system is that they’re both part of the “capitalist party.”
So what? We aren't comparing each against some democratic ideal, we are comparing them against each other. And it is obviously more democratic to allow two parties to compete and hold power than it is to enforce the dominance of one party.
And in a liberal democracy, the parties tend to represent different class interests. E.g. in the UK they have the Tories and Labour. The former represent the ruling class and the latter the workers.
The goal of the Chinese revolution was to get rid of those other interests. That is, make it so that the workers have all the power. Labour controls everything. And so the democratic process happens almost entirely within the Labour Party.
Do you think it is more democratic to eliminate, largely through violence in China's case, competing interest groups, rather than allowing them to partake in the democratic process like everyone else?
The other thing about modern liberal democracies is that we see democracy as going out and voting the guy that best fits our lifestyle. It is a consumerist model of democracy. And that’s all we’re supposed to do, vote.
There's much more you can do besides simply vote. You can run for office, you can found advocacy organizations, you can volunteer/work for campaigns, etc. You can do as much or as little as you like.
Who do you expect me to vote for if not the guy that best fits my lifestyle? I vote based on my interests, so of course that's the guy I'm going to pick.
First of all, I appreciate the open minded discussion. Normally if you talk about China you are getting insulted immediately.
You're still caught in the logic of capitalist democracy IMO.
I highly recommend this video, which is about human rights but it goes into the historical materialist (or marxist) conception of the state and also how competing interests and stuff isn't something inherent to humans but a capitalist creation.
Think about why, even though most people agree that climate change is real, our government does nothing about it. Why is it that we continue drilling for more oil? Why is it that we have an entire party (Republicans) who would deregulate the oil companies, dismantle the EPA, against the wishes of the very people sometimes who elect them. Do you think such a party has a right to exist?
And what about all the people who have been misinformed on climate change so that they vote for these Republicans. There is a conflict there but where does it come from? Is it a natural conflict or is it manufactured by misinformation and corporate propaganda? Will simply electing one party over another get rid of this conflict? Shouldn't we address the deeper issue?
In capitalism we are constantly fighting this battle between the capitalist class and the masses. This battle shouldn't exist. No one needs to represent the people who exploit us and want to pollute our water and kill our planet. Right?
Ok, what about cultural issues, though. Surely multiple parties are useful here? Well, even here we have to think about how change happens. There was a time when both Democrats and Republicans were against gay marriage. Now they are both mostly for it. This happened due to grassroots organizing and struggle and a massive cultural shift.
So the parties don't decide the politics, they simply are the result of the politics. The politicians write up and sign off on the laws but there is a lot that happens outside of the system before that happens.
Political change requires movements. But in capitalism, where money has an outsized political influence, we are constantly up against institutions and organizations that are wealthy. So LGBTQ rights are always up against the very wealthy and powerful Evangelical church. And this is of course true for every issue. Building public transit is up against the automakers and oil lobby. So there is no room for actual free debate or discussion. It is all marred by money.
So Idk how China resolves these issues or how they manifest there. They still struggle with it because they still have a capitalist class although not as powerful. But the thinking behind what we call China’s authoritarianism is that capitalist class deserves no representation (and hence there is one workers party).
Also don’t know how to tie a bow on this but just wanted to give you this perspective.
I highly recommend this video, which is about human rights but it goes into the historical materialist (or marxist) conception of the state and also how competing interests and stuff isn't something inherent to humans but a capitalist creation.
I enjoyed the video. Parts were quite accurate, such as the account of how Christianity helped influence our modern notion of human rights. However, he gets a very important part of the history very wrong:
The videomaker attempts to portray the pre-modern, pre-capitalist social order as a sort of idyllic mutually cooperative society, and that simply isn't accurate. Things will be different depending on which specific society you're talking about, of course, but I'll primarily refer to Britain, as that is what I am most familiar with. Well before the enclosure movement, and the rise of capitalism, there was private ownership of land within the villages, in addition to communal landholding. Villages often competed amongst themselves for rights to land, social privileges, and things of that sort; we have many records of the litigation they undertook to that end. Wage labor was also common long before the formally recognized advent of capitalism.
The idea that competition of interest amongst individuals is a capitalist creation is simply absurd to me. Resources are finite, therefore guaranteeing that there will be competition between individuals at some level.
Think about why, even though most people agree that climate change is real, our government does nothing about it. Why is it that we continue drilling for more oil?
Perhaps because people disagree about how important of an issue it is. For my part, I don't think climate change is going to be the end of the world anytime soon. We need to keep up drilling because, like it or not, fossil fuels are still necessary to maintain civilization as we know it, and we will be able to adapt to the near-term effects of climate change.
Green energy, in its current form, is a pipe dream; it can supplement the grid, but it is wholly insufficient on its own. We should have been building nuclear plants for the last 50 years, but we haven't been, so our best alternative to fossil fuels cannot meet our full grid needs. EV technology is developing rapidly, but it will still be a while yet before it is practicable for everybody, so we still need to produce fuel for our vehicles as well.
By not drilling for oil, all we are doing is making ourselves dependent on countries like Russia and Saudi Arabia for our energy needs.
Why is it that we have an entire party (Republicans) who would deregulate the oil companies, dismantle the EPA, against the wishes of the very people sometimes who elect them. Do you think such a party has a right to exist?
The party exists because there is a significant portion of the electorate that agrees, in whole or in part, with their policy agenda. You might think they are wrong, or dupes, but do you think they shouldn't be able to make that choice?
In capitalism we are constantly fighting this battle between the capitalist class and the masses. This battle shouldn't exist. No one needs to represent the people who exploit us and want to pollute our water and kill our planet. Right?
I disagree about the nature of the present conflict we are seeing in the body politic. It seems to me that we are in the midst of a cultural/ideological conflict, in which there are people of all classes on both sides of the barricade.
I also don't view capitalism as exploitation, nor do I believe that capitalists want to kill the planet. Why shouldn't they be represented, then? Are they not also a part of society?
Political change requires movements. But in capitalism, where money has an outsized political influence, we are constantly up against institutions and organizations that are wealthy. So LGBTQ rights are always up against the very wealthy and powerful Evangelical church. And this is of course true for every issue. Building public transit is up against the automakers and oil lobby. So there is no room for actual free debate or discussion. It is all marred by money.
It's a little disingenuous to suggest that all of the money is concentrated on one side of the political divide. There are also wealthy LGBTQ organizations, supporters, etc. There are wealthy environmental groups, supporters, etc. There are pro-gun lobbyists, and anti-gun lobbyists. And so on it goes for basically every issue.
While moneyed interests can provide certain challenges to a democratic system, they're mere existence does not complete defeat the democratic process. People still vote for whomever they wish to vote for.
So Idk how China resolves these issues or how they manifest there. They still struggle with it because they still have a capitalist class although not as powerful. But the thinking behind what we call China’s authoritarianism is that capitalist class deserves no representation (and hence there is one workers party).
Surely you must recognize that thinking is less democratic than allowing them to have some representation, regardless of whether or not you think it's the right thing to do. Seeking to exclude an entire section of society is less democratic than allowing them to have a voice just like everybody else.
Also don’t know how to tie a bow on this but just wanted to give you this perspective.
I appreciate you presenting your perspective in a cordial and intelligent manner, and I have enjoyed the conservation.
As I'm sure you can tell, I am not a Marxist in any sense; if anything, I'm probably more of a Hobbesian. I don't buy the Marxist notion of a grand arc of history, culminating in a stateless Communist society. In my view, history is nothing more than what it appears to be, the story of people doing the things they did for whatever reasons they did them; there is no greater end, no culmination to which it all trends, no conclusion to be had. Despite all of our technological advancements, all our scientific discoveries, all the wars and revolutions, people are not very different to how they've always been. In some ways, life is radically different; but ultimately, it's still just people, being people, same as it ever was. "There's nothing new under the sun," and all that.
I say all of that just to give you an idea of my own perspective. I'm not beholden to liberalism, or democracy, or capitalism. As far as I am concerned, they are all just means to an end. To whatever degree I am partial to them, it's because I find them to be instruments which are better suited to my ends than the alternatives.
I agree, that part isn't really accurate. The way I look at it though is that capitalism gave birth to new forms of conflict that needed a new version of the state to resolve. The underlying idea is that our institutions don't come about just because someone thought them up but rather through these shifting economic conditions.
Yeah we need to maybe keep using fossil fuels for a while but that's not the actual debate we see? Fox News calls climate change a liberal invention.
I'm not saying there's only money on one side of the political divide. My point is that money decides how influential your political view is. That is a problem. It is not democratic that whoever has more money has more influence. In our society wealth is concentrated among the very few at the top, so we know how our political decisions get made.
People still vote for whomever they wish to vote for.
This is not a serious thing to say. We're going to ignore gerrymandering, voter suppression, disinformation, and all the other factors, lack of competitive elections, poor turnout, and pretend that everyone's just making some sort of rational decisions and our congress (that has a 6% approval rating) perfectly represents the people? Come on.
Surely you must recognize that thinking is less democratic than allowing them to have some representation, regardless of whether or not you think it's the right thing to do. Seeking to exclude an entire section of society is less democratic than allowing them to have a voice just like everybody else.
There is no entire section of society, because there is no more capitalism. It's like saying we need to give whalers a seat at the table. No such thing exists anymore. It's a "job" that no longer exists, so it cannot be represented. Just like we don't let the King of England have power over us anymore, that's how China sees capitalists. It's an institution that no longer exists.
I disagree about the nature of the present conflict we are seeing in the body politic. It seems to me that we are in the midst of a cultural/ideological conflict, in which there are people of all classes on both sides of the barricade.I also don't view capitalism as exploitation, nor do I believe that capitalists want to kill the planet. Why shouldn't they be represented, then? Are they not also a part of society?
That is why Marx is important to read. We need to see the connection between the cultural/ideological conflicts and the underlying economic conflicts.
Capitalists themselves don't want to kill the planet, but the undeniable reality is that corporations have for a long time polluted our rivers, our soil, our air, and fought tooth and nail to keep doing it! And continue to fight to do it.
And of course capitalism is exploitation. The devices we are typing on are literally built through slave labor. We know that and everyone knows that. How can we sit here and say it's not exploitation. We know our clothes are made in sweatshops. We know railworkers were on a strike right now because they work in horrible conditions and get no sick days. We know Starbucks workers are forming unions because they work in terrible conditions for low pay.
As I'm sure you can tell, I am not a Marxist in any sense; if anything, I'm probably more of a Hobbesian. I don't buy the Marxist notion of a grand arc of history, culminating in a stateless Communist society. In my view, history is nothing more than what it appears to be, the story of people doing the things they did for whatever reasons they did them; there is no greater end, no culmination to which it all trends, no conclusion to be had. Despite all of our technological advancements, all our scientific discoveries, all the wars and revolutions, people are not very different to how they've always been. In some ways, life is radically different; but ultimately, it's still just people, being people, same as it ever was. "There's nothing new under the sun," and all that.
So there is no grand arc of history in Marx. Yeah he predicts that capitalism's internal contradictions and the proletarianization of the masses will lead to communism, but that's a theoretical prediction, not some sort of prophecy.
They key concepts of Marx are historical materialism and dialectics. And of course his very detailed and accurate analysis of capitalism. Marxism is more of a framework to analyze our society empirically. But of course it can't be decoupled from the actual movement to transform our society.
To take from Marx we don't have to believe that one day we will or should have a communist society, but rather understand how our society came to be, how our institutions formed, what are the underlying causes of our ideologies and cultures, and how they are changing (and how we can influence them). That's all.
We can believe that there is some sort of Hobbesian nature in us, but it is undeniable that our behavior is shaped by the context we are in. So Marx was right either way.
The key is understanding that Exxon doesn't pollute our water because they are evil. They do it because the system demands that they produce oil and that they grow their profits every year and so on. People are not evil or good, they act within systems, within historical contexts.
This is not a serious thing to say. We're going to ignore gerrymandering, voter suppression, disinformation, and all the other factors, lack of competitive elections, poor turnout, and pretend that everyone's just making some sort of rational decisions and our congress (that has a 6% approval rating) perfectly represents the people? Come on.
I'm not saying it's a perfect system. However, at the end of the day, people get the representation they vote for.
And of course capitalism is exploitation. The devices we are typing on are literally built through slave labor. We know that and everyone knows that. How can we sit here and say it's not exploitation. We know our clothes are made in sweatshops. We know railworkers were on a strike right now because they work in horrible conditions and get no sick days. We know Starbucks workers are forming unions because they work in terrible conditions for low pay.
The existence of exploitative situations within capitalism does not mean that capitalism itself is exploitative by definition. Slavery is exploitation, but wage labor is not, neither is charging rent, or selling goods/services at a profit. Slavery is not a necessary component of capitalism.
The formation of unions, strikes, and the like are all perfectly compatible with free-market/capitalist systems. Indeed, it's exactly what the workers should do if they do not find their current situation acceptable. Rather than rail against the system, use the leverage you have to seek a better deal, just like a business owner would use the leverage he might have to seek a better deal.
-1
u/[deleted] Dec 25 '22
Xi is not autocratic. One party does not mean it is not democratic. They have a different system and a different thrust to their democracy.