Surveillance in China is no greater than in western countries, though, and the decisions made by the CPC are made through constant polling and consensus building. This is why a much larger portion of Chinese citizens support their system and believe it represents their interests:
It’s still a centralized system, which is undemocratic. I agree that the majority of chinese citizens seems happy with how it works.
Who is doing this consensus building?
Who decides what questions to poll?
Its surprising that you claim that the surveillance of chinese citizens by the CCP is on the same level as let’s say Germany. Hard disagree. I thought the CCP is proud of the surveillance.
Centralization doesn’t mean a lack of democratization, that’s why socialist democracy centers cohesion and unity over endless fragmentation. In China, for example, local representatives are directly elected, and then these representatives elect from within them the higher rungs of government. The CPC itself has over 100 million members, has a presence in every major company, and thus has its finger firmly on the pulse of what people actually want.
Progress is slow but extremely stable, and as such China has been able to consistently outperform other countries when it comes to improving the lives of the citizens of China. The CPC conducts this polling, and you can see this in action when looking at how Five Year Plans are made. You can read more about this system in Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance.
I don’t see what you are saying by claiming Germany spies on its citizens less than China. Both Germany and China are better than Five Eyes countries, sure, but Germany absolutely is spying on its citizens, not to mention privatized spyware. China isn’t “proud of the surveillance,” I don’t know what you mean by this in a way that makes it different from western surveillance.
I do think explaining the difference between democracy and competing parties can be helpful, because it’s so thoroughly ingrained into people that democracy means voting between competing parties and not reflecting the will of the people.
It’s one of the more subtle propaganda narratives I find. On the surface it almost makes sense, but once you apply materialist analysis the whole thing falls apart because the whole discussion of democracy is meaningless when the means of production are privately owned. This arrangement takes away from public debate the key question of who governs our common economic life and to what ends?
Genuine democracy must include the power to shape the material conditions of our existence. The nature of labour, the distribution of its fruits, and the purpose for which we can produce are fundamental decisions we make as a society. When these are decided by a capitalist class alone with the absolute authority of private property, then political democracy becomes merely an ornamental competition on secondary issues. Citizens vote to choose politicians, but not regarding the structure of industry or finance, or the necessity for maximum profit which places all social and ecological considerations in a subordinate position. This creates an inherent contradiction where citizens are called equals politically, yet remain subordinates economically.
Any system where there is a private dictatorship over industry is not democracy but a carefully staged charade which legitimises the rule of money through the hollow ritual of elections. So you can have as many parties as you like, but there’s no actual democracy to be had.
Agreed, my point is that it’s helpful to explain that rather than jumping to insult right off the bat. Bloodsport is fun and all, but at the bare minimum I think it’s helpful to showcase why the point is bad, not just claiming that it’s bad. I know it isn’t as fun, and we do explain time and time again, but that’s the task we have as communists, to help bring the working class to more correct ideological lines.
Fair, I should work on being a bit more patient. It’s just so tiring when people keep regurgitating these same tropes that have already been addressed time and again. Kudos on your patience dealing with this sort of stuff and actually explaining things.
Believe me, I sympathize with the monotony of dispelling the same myths and tropes regularly. It’s why I usually reference prior comments of mine before making a bespoke comment or post, and tweak to better suit the context, similar to what you do. I’m a firm believer that simply explaining and refusing to take cheap rhetorical wins results in long-term ideological cohesion in internet communities, raising the general average understanding of those who use these forums, and results in reduced work load in the long run by increasing the number of people that can actually respond well.
Wtf of course china is authoritarian. China is all about total surveillance and total control by one party.
Imagine making totalitarian arguments about surveillance and repression of US enemies in the era of Palantir and ICE.
I’m sure glad it isn’t libertarian or it would have been overrun by bears decades ago
Surveillance in China is no greater than in western countries, though, and the decisions made by the CPC are made through constant polling and consensus building. This is why a much larger portion of Chinese citizens support their system and believe it represents their interests:
It’s still a centralized system, which is undemocratic. I agree that the majority of chinese citizens seems happy with how it works.
Who is doing this consensus building? Who decides what questions to poll?
Its surprising that you claim that the surveillance of chinese citizens by the CCP is on the same level as let’s say Germany. Hard disagree. I thought the CCP is proud of the surveillance.
Which states do you consider democratic?
Centralization doesn’t mean a lack of democratization, that’s why socialist democracy centers cohesion and unity over endless fragmentation. In China, for example, local representatives are directly elected, and then these representatives elect from within them the higher rungs of government. The CPC itself has over 100 million members, has a presence in every major company, and thus has its finger firmly on the pulse of what people actually want.
Progress is slow but extremely stable, and as such China has been able to consistently outperform other countries when it comes to improving the lives of the citizens of China. The CPC conducts this polling, and you can see this in action when looking at how Five Year Plans are made. You can read more about this system in Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance.
I don’t see what you are saying by claiming Germany spies on its citizens less than China. Both Germany and China are better than Five Eyes countries, sure, but Germany absolutely is spying on its citizens, not to mention privatized spyware. China isn’t “proud of the surveillance,” I don’t know what you mean by this in a way that makes it different from western surveillance.
Imagine being so utterly delusional to think that number of parties has anythign to do with how democratic the country is.
I do think explaining the difference between democracy and competing parties can be helpful, because it’s so thoroughly ingrained into people that democracy means voting between competing parties and not reflecting the will of the people.
It’s one of the more subtle propaganda narratives I find. On the surface it almost makes sense, but once you apply materialist analysis the whole thing falls apart because the whole discussion of democracy is meaningless when the means of production are privately owned. This arrangement takes away from public debate the key question of who governs our common economic life and to what ends?
Genuine democracy must include the power to shape the material conditions of our existence. The nature of labour, the distribution of its fruits, and the purpose for which we can produce are fundamental decisions we make as a society. When these are decided by a capitalist class alone with the absolute authority of private property, then political democracy becomes merely an ornamental competition on secondary issues. Citizens vote to choose politicians, but not regarding the structure of industry or finance, or the necessity for maximum profit which places all social and ecological considerations in a subordinate position. This creates an inherent contradiction where citizens are called equals politically, yet remain subordinates economically.
Any system where there is a private dictatorship over industry is not democracy but a carefully staged charade which legitimises the rule of money through the hollow ritual of elections. So you can have as many parties as you like, but there’s no actual democracy to be had.
Agreed, my point is that it’s helpful to explain that rather than jumping to insult right off the bat. Bloodsport is fun and all, but at the bare minimum I think it’s helpful to showcase why the point is bad, not just claiming that it’s bad. I know it isn’t as fun, and we do explain time and time again, but that’s the task we have as communists, to help bring the working class to more correct ideological lines.
Fair, I should work on being a bit more patient. It’s just so tiring when people keep regurgitating these same tropes that have already been addressed time and again. Kudos on your patience dealing with this sort of stuff and actually explaining things.
Believe me, I sympathize with the monotony of dispelling the same myths and tropes regularly. It’s why I usually reference prior comments of mine before making a bespoke comment or post, and tweak to better suit the context, similar to what you do. I’m a firm believer that simply explaining and refusing to take cheap rhetorical wins results in long-term ideological cohesion in internet communities, raising the general average understanding of those who use these forums, and results in reduced work load in the long run by increasing the number of people that can actually respond well.
For sure, even if the person making the original comment is just trolling, an explanation helps other people reading the thread.
Yep!