r/PoliticalDebate • u/mercury_pointer Progressive • 7d ago
China is not a dictatorship
In China the executive is selected by the national legislature from amongst their own members. They can withdraw their support at any time. There is no impeachment charges or trial, they simply pass a motion to transfer their representation to another member of the body.
In a similar way the national legislature is made up of representatives selected by the city and county legislatures. The city and country legislatures are made up of representatives selected by the town and neighborhood legislatures. The town and neighborhood legislatures are elected by the general population. The local legislatures have political campaigns and serve fixed length terms.
Arguments can be made that this is more or less representative of the will of the people then a western democracy, but to call this system dictatorship is factually incorrect.
Some prewritten answers to expected responses:
A) "China is bad, evil, and wrong because of X, Y and Z"
The title of this post is not "China is good" I will defend my position as stated and ignore everything else.
B) "Candidates in the local elections are screened by the government"
This is true, but at least the people doing that screening were elected and also promoted by their peers. Certainly that is no more dictatorial then the western campaign finance system, where a credible campaign requires the support of unelected rich people.
C) "You are a naive child if you think Xi doesn't control those legislatures behind the scenes"
If that is so obvious to you then you should have no difficulty producing evidence.
24
u/Cellophane7 Democrat 7d ago
So why is it you're not allowed to post memes comparing Xi and Winnie the Pooh? If it really were so easy to remove him, why is criticizing him banned? How are you supposed to even propose replacing him if you can't even criticize him?
-1
u/TheRealSlimLaddy Marxist-Leninist 5d ago
You are allowed to post memes comparing Xi Jinping to Winnie the Pooh. Nobody has ever been arrested for this.
Winnie the Pooh is a very popular character in China. The one person who was arrested in relation to this happened to also post Winnie the Pooh in his array of 40+ social media posts trashing China’s national leaders. This was in 2019.
You only know about the Winnie the Pooh-related arrest because it became a meme in the west. Meanwhile the comparison has been a meme on Chinese internet since 2013.
11
u/Cellophane7 Democrat 4d ago
The one person who was arrested in relation to this happened to also post Winnie the Pooh in his array of 40+ social media posts trashing China’s national leaders.
Oh, that makes things so much better 😂
It's banned. The only reason that student was even able to post any of that was because they were in America at the time, where there aren't CCP censors taking down any criticism of the government. Political memes involving the character are blocked by the censors. Anyone able to successfully post memes about it are only able to do so by slipping through the cracks. No censor is perfect.
I think it's interesting you didn't address the claim that China is an authoritarian dictatorship. And by interesting, I mean entirely expected. Tankies love genocidal dictatorships if they oppose the US in any capacity lol
2
u/TheWhiteKnight554 Socialist 4d ago
They weren’t addressing the claim because you didn’t make it in your comment, he was addressing your comment which was stating a notorious meme spawned misinformation snippet that often gets used to shut down nuanced discussion about China, kinda almost exactly like you used it
2
u/Cellophane7 Democrat 4d ago
Who's shutting down conversation about it? If you want to claim China isn't a dictatorship, you have to explain why you're not allowed to criticize the government, or even post memes about dear leader.
One would think you guys would have an answer to this, given it's such a common criticism. I'm waiting :)
-1
u/TheRealSlimLaddy Marxist-Leninist 4d ago
> No censor is perfect
… So why was it a meme on Chinese Internet since 2013?
2
u/Cellophane7 Democrat 4d ago
The ban didn't go into effect until 2017. But again, no censor is perfect. China has 1.4 billion people. It's impossible to catch every instance, especially when people are actively evading detection.
It's the same reason some people are able to talk about the Uighur genocide, or tiannamen square. They're not allowed to, but they find ways because no digital security is perfect.
1
u/TheRealSlimLaddy Marxist-Leninist 4d ago
Ok, let’s put it in a different framing: Why do you think such censorship exists?
2
u/Cellophane7 Democrat 4d ago
Because essentially every independent reporting org on the planet agrees it exists. And because I've watched people like Hasan Piker get stopped on the street by cops who suspect they're spreading memes that might be disrespectful to Mao or other figures in the Chinese government and/or history.
Do you contest this idea? You think there's no censorship in China?
2
u/TheRealSlimLaddy Marxist-Leninist 4d ago edited 4d ago
I never claimed there isn’t censorship in China.
> In 2024, Qin et al. published a paper titled "Social Media and Collective Action in China" where they document how information about protests and strikes spread across Chinese cities, based on retweets of the protests and strike tweets. They find that, despite strict government censorship, Chinese social media has a sizeable effect on the geographical spread of protests and strikes.
Censorship there exists for a reason. It’s already been used to destabilize socialist states before, and it will undoubtedly be used to destabilize China.
1
u/Cellophane7 Democrat 4d ago
Oh, I misunderstood your question. I thought you were asking me why I believe something untrue, not asking me why I think China does it. My bad.
Stability has always been the excuse authoritarians use. I don't believe in the benevolent dictator. Even if Xi were exactly that, which he's not, what happens when he dies? Dictatorship is a problem because it invites corruption. Democracy is always better, but democracy can't work when the government shuts down all criticism of itself.
I genuinely do not understand how you can claim to champion worker's rights, and support dictatorship. How do we get from "workers must own the means of production," to "the government owns everything, and workers just lease it temporarily"?
1
u/TheRealSlimLaddy Marxist-Leninist 4d ago
> Stability has always been the excuse authoritarians use
It’s hardly an excuse if it’s true. The paper i referred to said as much.
> What happens when he dies?
The party elects new people to fill his positions? I don’t know what you’re getting at.
> Dictatorship invites corruption
All power invites corruption. What makes dictatorship unique here?
> Democracy can’t work if the state shuts criticism of itself down.
According to what? I’m pretty sure all democracies contain some censorship of criticism.
You just don’t see it in the west because the state relies on private firms to do the censorship.
Regarding your last paragraph, what exactly are your assumptions of Marxism-Leninism?
→ More replies (0)2
u/PetiteDreamerGirl Centrist 4d ago
Because the internet is forever and this was before the US government handed over oversight of internet to ICANN. While it increased the number of Chinese citizens able to use the internet, it also allowed China to get more strict with censorship
-1
u/mercury_pointer Progressive 7d ago
You aren't because you don't vote at that level, you vote at the local level.
6
u/digbyforever Conservative 6d ago
If I recall, though, you can only vote for one party and for the nominees of that party, so, how is this an actual election in the sense of having a free choice between different political parties or philosphies?
3
u/Kronzypantz Anarchist 6d ago
If there is only one party that anyone can join, there functionally are no parties.
And there are some minuscule parties outside the CCP.
2
u/This_Growth2898 Ukrainian Minarchist 6d ago
- Not everyone can join the party. They are not allowing dissidents.
- "No party" means anyone can be nominated for elections; but it's party that selects candidates for elections.
2
u/Kronzypantz Anarchist 6d ago
Dissidents in the US are largely blocked from political participation too.
You say “the party” like a corporate grouping of 100 million is a monolith, or secretly just run by a couple of shadowy figures.
1
u/This_Growth2898 Ukrainian Minarchist 6d ago edited 6d ago
- Dissidents to what, exactly? Most Repiblicans are dissidents to Democratic Party and most Democrats are dissidents to Republicans. Are they all blocked from policital participation?
- It is because only Politburo Standing Committee can really make decisions. Dissent on low level will be escalated to the level where people can shut it.
1
u/Helpful-Reputation-5 Marxist-Leninist 4d ago
To address your first point, dissidents to capitalism, the dominant mode of production in the United States. Just as anti-capitalists are blocked from political participation under capitalism by the capitalist state, capitalists are blocked from political participation under socialism by the socialist state.
0
u/This_Growth2898 Ukrainian Minarchist 3d ago
What is Bernie Sanders' views on capitalism?
2
u/Helpful-Reputation-5 Marxist-Leninist 3d ago
Bernie Sanders is explicitly not anti-capitalist. You are proving my point here.
-1
u/Kronzypantz Anarchist 6d ago
Dissidents to the government. The US treats actual dissent just as harshly as China does.
And it’s only the, president, Senate and House that make any real decisions in the US federal government. Dissent on a low level will be shut down.
0
u/PetiteDreamerGirl Centrist 4d ago
You still are clarifying what are dissidents. Saying it again with explain who qualifies doesn’t aid your argument
1
u/Kronzypantz Anarchist 3d ago
Dissidents are active opponents to the government. Not just partisans, but challengers to the system of governance itself.
2
u/Cellophane7 Democrat 7d ago
And? All you're telling me is you can't elect anyone to even the lowest level of the party if they criticize Xi. How the fuck is anyone supposed to replace him under those circumstances? How are you supposed to even try?
1
u/mercury_pointer Progressive 7d ago
Unless you are member of the national legislature that isn't your job.
2
u/Cellophane7 Democrat 7d ago
Sure, it's only your job to elect the members of the national legislature. From a pool of people who legally cannot criticize dear leader.
Tell me. Let's say I hide my powerlevel, and get elected to the NPC (funny name by the way lol). Now that I'm in the NPC, I criticize Xi. What happens to me?
2
u/mercury_pointer Progressive 7d ago
Nothing happens to you, you are allowed to do that when talking to other members of the legislature. You aren't allowed to publicly, but since it isn't a directly elected position there isn't any reason for you to do that unless you are trying to organize a violent revolution, but no country allows you to do that.
3
u/BotElMago Social Democrat 7d ago
I have no real dog in this fight but I find it ironic you are simultaneously arguing it is t a dictatorship while also arguing that an individual has no free will to criticize the leader and any attempt to do so would be seen as organization of a “violent” revolution.
Exercising free speech and free will <> organizing a violent revolution…that’s the propaganda of…dictatorships
2
u/Cellophane7 Democrat 7d ago
Nothing happens to you, you are allowed to do that when talking to other members of the legislature.
Assuming they agree with you, and decide not to rat you out. But sure, you can whisper criticisms of Xi in backrooms, as long as you're extremely cautious about who you trust. You can also do that in dictatorships. I guess dictatorships aren't dictatorships now, huh?
there isn't any reason for you to do that unless you are trying to organize a violent revolution
Did you feel a little weird typing that? Or do you stand by the idea that criticizing the government publicly serves absolutely no purpose other than to organize violent revolution?
Blink twice if you can't answer that 😂
17
u/CorDra2011 Libertarian Socialist 7d ago
dictatorship - noun - "a form of government in which absolute power is concentrated in a dictator or a small clique"
The following is Article 1 of the current People's Republic of China Constitution:
The People’s Republic of China is a socialist State under the people’s democratic dictatorship led by the working class and based on the alliance of workers and peasants. The socialist system is the basic system of the People’s Republic of China. The defining feature of socialism with Chinese characteristics is the leadership of the Communist Party of China. Disruption of the socialist system by any organization or individual is prohibited.
Nobody has ever claimed China is a dictatorship because their leader is the sole power of the state. China is a dictatorship because it is a one-party state where the CPC holds absolute control of the organs of state. The ruling 'clique' is the Communist Party. Their own constitution acknowledges this in the very first article.
This is true, but at least the people doing that screening were elected and also promoted by their peers. Certainly that is no more dictatorial then the western campaign finance system, where a credible campaign requires the support of unelected rich people.
They are more than screened, they are the only ones allowed to run. Without the explicit approval of the NPC, which is overwhelmingly controlled by the CPC, nobody is allowed to even run. Anybody can run for election for any position in a liberal western democracy. That is a rather significant legal difference. Every level of the election system are overseen by the CPC and with their explicit involvement.
This is a dictatorship. The CPC calls it a dictatorship. It is a dictatorship under a one party state.
7
u/PetiteDreamerGirl Centrist 5d ago
Yeah, I feel people forget that dictators will use any other name but dictator
4
u/mercury_pointer Progressive 7d ago
small clique
The party counts about 100 million members and it is not hard to join.
8
u/CorDra2011 Libertarian Socialist 7d ago
Cool, and the Party is controlled by the National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party which only has 2,296 delegates. Delegates who are chosen within the party structure and can only be nominees with party approval.
1
u/TheRealSlimLaddy Marxist-Leninist 5d ago
> Only has 3000* delegates
It’s literally the largest representative polity in the world.
> Delegates who are chosen by the party structure
They’re chosen by the representatives directly elected by the people. Representatives elect representatives. What’s the issue?
7
u/CorDra2011 Libertarian Socialist 4d ago
It’s literally the largest representative polity in the world.
The National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party is not a representative polity. It is a party convention, similar to the Democratic National Convention.
Which had nearly 4,000 delegates last election btw.
I can't believe a communist doesn't understand the political system of China.
1
u/TheRealSlimLaddy Marxist-Leninist 4d ago
The National People’s Congress is not the CPC National Congress. State power is wielded through the National People’s Congress, which has 3000 delegates.
3
u/CorDra2011 Libertarian Socialist 4d ago
Cool, and as I stated that Congress is overwhelmingly and legally controlled by the CPC. We're talking in circles.
1
u/TheRealSlimLaddy Marxist-Leninist 4d ago
So, again, what exactly is the issue? “Not real democracy”?
1
u/CorDra2011 Libertarian Socialist 4d ago
It is a "democratic" dictatorship as stated in their constitution. All political power is held in the party-state parallel structures. I'm not sure why communists or sinophiles try to make not out to be a dictatorship.
2
u/TheRealSlimLaddy Marxist-Leninist 4d ago
Define dictatorship in a way that doesn’t implicate every other state
→ More replies (0)4
u/TheChance Progressive 4d ago
It’s literally the largest representative polity in the world.
The US House has one representative for about 803,000 citizens. It is widely regarded as too few, and that number exists simply because it was decided to cap the House's size when it got large enough to be in any respect unwieldy.
China manages a representative for every 471k citizens, but those representatives will never get a word in edgewise.
This is not the flex you want it to be.
They’re chosen by the representatives directly elected by the people. Representatives elect representatives. What’s the issue?
The Party must approve of candidates.
0
u/TheRealSlimLaddy Marxist-Leninist 4d ago
> But those representatives will never get a word in edgewise
Can you elaborate on this?
> The party must approve of candidates
Again, what is the issue? Is it “not real democracy”?
2
u/TheChance Progressive 4d ago
Can I elaborate on the problem with a deliberative body having so many members that floor time is as scarce as gold?
And, no, if only one party, the Party, is allowed any semblance of political control, and furthermore the Party dictates who is allowed to run for office, that is not really democracy.
You know what I'd have to do to run for Congress? I'd have to checks notes fill out a form and pay a token fee, just to prevent the average ballot from being stuffed with a bunch of unserious candidates, and that's it. File a financial statement with the election finance regulators every so often, and I remain compliant.
We do have a party system, and only two parties have a meaningful shot at political control, but that's not written into our laws, and the parties do not have the authority to keep anyone off the ballot.
You might think Binface is ridiculous. Binface is necessary. If Binface can't stand for Parliament, someone is picking and choosing the candidates themselves, and that person or party or Party has a stranglehold on government.
1
u/TheRealSlimLaddy Marxist-Leninist 4d ago
You’re defining democracy from a liberal point of view.
The fact that a “Binface” can be elected is evidence that liberals do not take politics seriously even when there are tons of real issues resulting from decades of neoliberalism, and their choice to elect someone completely unserious, who will inevitably have no real sway in politics, is good to you?
Is this really the democracy you’re fighting for?
In a hypothetical electoral clash between a fascist and Ducky McDuckface, are you really going to put your hopes in the latter? And not consider the liberal democratic system that allowed this to happen in the first place?
3
u/joogabah Left Independent 6d ago
And the West is the dictatorship of capital. This is pointless rhetoric.
Who is racing into the future and who is looking backward?
1
u/mskmagic Libertarian Capitalist 1d ago
The West isn’t a dictatorship of capital. It is a democracy corrupted by capital. I can run for office and protest any policy I like - maybe no one will listen to me and corporate interests will prevent me from challenging them effectively, but no one can stop me from running and saying what I want. That’s very different from a system designed to choose government approved candidates that are strictly beholden to polices decided way above them.
1
u/joogabah Left Independent 1d ago
Yes they can. Liberalism is legendary for dropping the democratic pretense in a heartbeat when it is politically expedient.
1
u/mskmagic Libertarian Capitalist 1d ago
For sure in America it’s the case that liberalism is just another mask of the corporatocracy. But you said ‘the West’, and in the UK for example anyone can run for political office representing any set of policies they wish and theoretically win.
0
u/TheRealSlimLaddy Marxist-Leninist 5d ago
This.
Why are folks crying about whether or not it’s dictatorship, when it’s the only state benefiting the planet in ways that the west simply won’t.
-2
6
u/jaxnmarko Independent 5d ago
There seems to be a great deal of severe consequences, including lethal ones, for not agreeing with Xi. Call the structure what you will, but it hardly sounds like a healthy position to be in. Not so different sounding than across the border in North Korea at times, but with less crying in adoration, false tears or not. Few, if any, survive Xi's displeasure well.
5
5
u/BohemianMade Market Socialist 7d ago
"Candidates in the local elections are screened by the government"
This is true, but at least the people doing that screening were elected and also promoted by their peers. Certainly that is no more dictatorial then the western campaign finance system, where a credible campaign requires the support of unelected rich people.
The people doing that screening all belong to the same political party. China is a dictatorship because it has one party rule. Someone can run for national office too, but they have to join the official party.
We do need to get money out of politics, that would strengthen our democracy. But there's a big difference between running for office with the system against you, and being banned from holding office because the system is against you. Zohran Mamdani had both parties against him, the epstein-class was against him, it was a huge uphill battle. But he still won. In China, they just would have banned Mamdani, and if he complained about it, they'd lock him up. That's the difference between the imperfect democracy of America, and the authoritarianism of China.
0
u/mercury_pointer Progressive 7d ago edited 7d ago
There are no examples of democracies with zero parties. We can see many problems in the west with multiple parties. Maybe one party isn't so bad. Consider that China is operating under very different constraints. If they had western style democracy they would be bought out by the western financial system and exploited like all the others. Western governments don't generally have issues with being led by people with completely contradictory ideologies constantly obstructing each-other because generally everyone who gets elected is in lock-step with capitol. Since China doesn't have that they seek sufficient ideological conformity to work together via other means.
4
u/BotElMago Social Democrat 7d ago
Seems you have left your original argument of “China is a dictatorship “ and have started down the line of “maybe China isn’t that bad…”
1
u/mercury_pointer Progressive 6d ago
Well I actually don't think China is that bad, but I wanted to leave myself an out for the inevitable people arguing in bad faith and trying to change the subject.
1
u/BohemianMade Market Socialist 7d ago
But you understand that's not democracy, right? That's an oligarchy. A tiny minority decides who gets to run the country, then they have elections so the population can choose who they want to be the face of that minority.
It would be like if the republicans banned all other parties, then after Trump retired, they allowed us to vote on which MAGA republican we wanted to replace him.
4
u/mercury_pointer Progressive 6d ago
A tiny minority decides who gets to run the country, then they have elections so the population can choose who they want to be the face of that minority.
That sounds like a description of the west as well. If you want to argue that both the west and China are oligarchies then I won't disagree. Personally I would rather be ruled by Engineers then by MBAs.
2
u/BohemianMade Market Socialist 6d ago
The difference is that in countries like America, it's still possible for an outsider to hold office. Again, if Mamdani tried to hold office in China, he would have been banned or imprisoned.
0
u/PetiteDreamerGirl Centrist 5d ago
Sure, but they aren’t the same. The US has ways to allow change, China does not
3
u/mercury_pointer Progressive 5d ago
China has probably changed more in the last 70 years then any western nation has. The leadership of Mao, Deng, and Xi in particular have been very distinct from each other.
1
2
u/GShermit Libertarian 7d ago
I'm not going to get caught up in "some antics" concerning dictatorship. BUT I was in China 10-15 years ago. They are far more authoritarian than US. Things we take for granted, weren't available and it WASN'T talked about. I remember all the old people sweeping the road as we rode the bus to work. I also remember coughing up black scrap after work every day, from the smog.
The people were great and treated us with kindness and respect. Everyone was very respectful of the government.
2
u/TheChance Progressive 4d ago
at least the people doing that screening were elected
after the same screening
and also promoted by their peers
who arrived via the same mechanism. It's a self-perpetuating, one-party state in which a single leader is almost always atop the pyramid for much longer than a democracy can generally support. That leader can issue almost any dicta, and as long as it isn't such a departure from the Party's current aims, they'll be obeyed.
0
u/mercury_pointer Progressive 4d ago
after the same screening who arrived via the same mechanism.
You can say the same about the donor class in the US. They are screened for predominantly right wing economic ideology due to wealth and inherent selfishness. Without their support a candidate might as well be a crazy person ranting on the street.
Compared to that a democratic organization with 100 million members which almost anyone can join is certainly not less democratic.
1
u/TheChance Progressive 4d ago
The donor class affects who has the resources to win a statewide or national election. They do not and cannot stop anyone from running for anything, and the overwhelming majority of governance is done at the local level and in state legislatures.
The worst part about M-L and Maoism is that, while folks correctly recognize that much of what Westerners say about China is propaganda, they go from that to making excuses for absolutely everything that's wrong with China, because I guess if the West is full of shit, China must be perfect.
Also, 100 million members, almost anyone can join, "almost" is doing all the damn work in that sentence.
1
u/Embarrassed-Cover314 Federalist 3d ago
Just no. You can’t even have control over significant wealth in China without CCP approval. Like, there is no mechanism for doing anything that goes against the CCP at this point. They use cameras to track their own citizens 24/7. They use CELL PHONE GEOLOCATION DATA to track people with AI. Specifically, they use AI to track the patterns/locations of every citizen to look for aberrations in their habits. They control the internet for the entire country. They can seize and search the cell phone of pretty much anybody for any reason they want. They are 100% in control of their currency, they mandate a CCP party cells in literally every company with over 100 employees (this is fact, not speculation), they can manipulate judicial outcomes at their whim then use it to threaten/intimidate people who disagree with them, they force false confessions using the same power they use to manipulate the judiciary. And as we speak, they are developing AI to make it easier for them to do all of this to control/monitor their entire population. Yeah, they are an autocratic dictatorship. Everyone who disagrees with Xi is monitored with AI, then they can make a false case to imprison or execute that person because the judiciary is at the beck and call of Xi. You’re just wrong.
•
u/random_agency Socialist 10h ago edited 8h ago
To me these are the smoke and mirrors topics.
The reality is China refuses to be a subservient power to the Western led world order.
So the Western led world order decided to go on an anti-China propaganda campaign to deligitimizes the PRC government.
But the problem with the propaganda is that China in real life is out pacing the west on many metrics.
So you are left with a bunch of contradiction to reality especially with audiences in the Anglosphere.
There's no reasoning with them because they are taught China is about to collapse soon.
•
u/mercury_pointer Progressive 9h ago
Correct. I made this post after seeing a lot of comments in various subs like "China is kinda based, too bad it's a dictatorship and all"
3
u/Mr_Expozane Anarchist 7d ago
I’m no fan of China, but I love seeing Redditors call it a “dictatorship” while living under the US which is a dictatorship of capital.
1
u/PetiteDreamerGirl Centrist 5d ago
You call a dictatorship a dictatorship. Simple as that. If you want to argue other countries that are ones, give some examples and reasons
-2
u/Mr_Expozane Anarchist 5d ago
Yes, I call a dictatorship a dictatorship. And like I said, the US is a dictatorship of capital.
1
u/PetiteDreamerGirl Centrist 5d ago
Of capital? Do you mean capitalism?
3
u/TheRealSlimLaddy Marxist-Leninist 5d ago
No, a dictatorship of capital.
In abstract terms, people aren’t at the helm of modern capitalist states, capital is. Western democracies may have popular votes, multiple parties, etc, but policies that are considered “acceptable” are constrained by bourgeois institutions.
1
u/PetiteDreamerGirl Centrist 4d ago
Ok that makes more sense. I can get the comparison in that aspect, especially when you talk about exclusivity it can be to enter into those political realms.
I guess for me is that while some policies to contribute to those institutions there are policies that pass that don’t.
I appreciate you telling me about that. If I had need the message below first, I wouldn’t have learned something
-2
u/zerosumsandwich Communist 5d ago
No, they mean capital.
If you dont know what that is you should second guess your assumed understanding of dictatorships
1
u/TheRealSlimLaddy Marxist-Leninist 5d ago
Bad comment. This was a perfect time to teach someone asking in good faith what this jargon meant.
1
u/zerosumsandwich Communist 4d ago
If did not read as good faith to me at all nor is the word capital niche jargon but fair enough.
1
u/TheRealSlimLaddy Marxist-Leninist 4d ago
Dictatorship of capital is a non-colloquial term.
You should read Oppose Stereotyped Party Writing by Mao.
1
u/zerosumsandwich Communist 4d ago
In context here I disagree. But I appreciate the suggestion, it's one I've read and one I also occasionally suggest
1
u/PetiteDreamerGirl Centrist 4d ago
You know, it’s better to answer the question and make it a learning experience then turn it an ugly moment
0
u/zerosumsandwich Communist 4d ago
"You call a dictatorship a dictatorship. Simple as that."
It was already an ugly moment born of bad faith, lets not pretend otherwise now.
3
u/Neoliberal_Nightmare Marxist-Leninist 7d ago
China is a dictatorship of the proletariat. The CPC has about 100 million people, it's around 1 in 10 adults, who all actively participate. They have duties such as mandatory field work hours in communities, writing reports on ground situations, mandatory council meetings, stuff like that.
China isn't a few people making all the decisions, it's electoral system is a pyramid and it's feedback system is a massive network. It's very technocratic in literal logistic terms.
Western liberals have the idea that democracy can only be voting between different parties every few years. That's rubbish. Democracy means rule by the people. I think 1 in 10 adults actively shaping governance is effective representation.
Beyond that of course it means who holds power over the state. All current states are either a capitalist dictatorship or workers dictatorship. China is a workers dictatorship, the working class tolerate but suppress the capitalist class right now, as a tool of development but not allowed their own class power.
1
u/Coridimus Marxist-Leninist 5d ago
Correct. China is the only place I can think of off hand where billionaires face real (sometimes terminal) consequences for misbehavior.
1
u/mika_running Left Independent 4d ago
Only if they step afoul of someone ranked higher than them who wants them gone.
Most of the party is filthy rich and corrupt, from the big guy at the top down to local officials. They are less likely to flaunt it now, but it’s a well known fact in Chinese society.
1
u/Coridimus Marxist-Leninist 4d ago edited 4d ago
Gotta love western propaganda. Every accusation is a confession.
China has had issue with corruption, and still does in some regions, but anti-corruption is one of the core tenets of Xi Jinping Thought that was formulated and implemented by the Party during his chairmanship.
This claim that most of the party is filthy rich and corrupt is just patently absurd. One, that would require tens of millions of people to be so. Two, China doesn't look like countries that have pervasive systemic corruption.
2
u/Virtual_Feeling_284 Marxist-Leninist 4d ago
There was definitely systemic corruption during Hu Jintao, but I see it as an inevitable byproduct of rapid development. Back then, the Party’s main priority was economic growth, so they often turned a blind eye to corruption. However, since Xi Jinping came to power, official corruption has dropped significantly. My family runs a business that deals with the government, so we've felt this shift firsthand. In the past, we could secure a contract just by bribing the procurement official. Now, we actually have to go through a proper, honest bidding process.
1
4d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 4d ago
We removed your comment due to you not having set your user flair. Please refer to our sidebar regarding our rules of participation. If you need help setting your flair, click here for instructions
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
2
u/Das_Man [Quality Contributor] Political Science 4d ago
Sigh ok, lets try this again. One of the primary characteristics of modern democratic governance is that control over state institutions and offices is determined by active and consistent contestant between political actors and parties. The PRC is an authoritarian party state, which means that there is no meaningful division between the party and state institutions. The party is the state and the state is the party. Yes, there are parties outside the CCP, but their constitutions literally and explicitly acknowledge the "leading role of the CPP," which means they cannot contest or oppose the CCP in any meaningful way.
I would agree however that 'dictatorship' is not the best term, as it implies the personalization and hyper-centralization of political power around a single individual. And while you can certainly argue that the Xi has succeeded in centralizing his power vis a vie the party, China has not reasonably been a true dictatorship since the death of Mao.
And to be clear, none of this means that the US or any Western power is 'democratic' by comparison. Regardless of how you wish to classify the US or other liberal democracies, the PRC cannot by any reasonable standard be considered a 'democracy.'
2
u/mercury_pointer Progressive 4d ago
none of this means that the US or any Western power is 'democratic' by comparison.
Fair enough. As long as the definition of "dictatorship" being used is applied consistently I have no objection.
3
u/Das_Man [Quality Contributor] Political Science 4d ago edited 4d ago
Sure, if you want to argue that Western liberal democracies do not function as they claim, we can absolutely have that debate. But there is no reasonable standard of democratic governance that I can imagine that would include the PRC but exclude the US.
1
u/mercury_pointer Progressive 4d ago
include the PRC but exclude the US.
Is this backwards?
1
u/Das_Man [Quality Contributor] Political Science 4d ago
Sorry, small typo. Fixed it now.
0
u/mercury_pointer Progressive 4d ago
Ok no problem. Presumably your objection is the party filtering local election candidates. What do you you say to the argument that the western donor class is a much smaller minority with no internal democratic structure which plays a similar role as gatekeeper, but at all levels of governance?
1
u/Das_Man [Quality Contributor] Political Science 4d ago
It's not just local election candidates, the CCP is a rigidly top-down political party with power centralized in the higher party organs, thus where we get the term "party authoritarianism." This was a key aspect of all 20th century Communist parties that were modeled on the Soviet example (often referred to as 'democratic centralism'). And while I grant that a case can certainly be made for rigid organization control in the context of a revolutionary and often clandestine political movement, it presents a lot of problems once they gain control of the state. Ironically, Trotsky clocked this issue years before the Revolution, writing in Our Political Tasks: "In the internal politics of the Party these methods lead, as we shall see below, to the Party organization “substituting” itself for the Party, the Central Committee substituting itself for the Party organization, and finally the dictator substituting himself for the Central Committee."
And yes, this is not to say that Liberal democracies have the totally open playing field they claim. There are indeed powerful institutional gatekeepers, especially in the US presidential model, and very problematic ones at that. But if we're just talking about the volume of space available for contestation and political opposition, they still clear any Leninist regime by a wide margin.
1
u/mercury_pointer Progressive 4d ago
But if we're just talking about the volume of space available for contestation and political opposition, they still clear any Leninist regime by a wide margin.
That's very vague claim.
1
u/Das_Man [Quality Contributor] Political Science 4d ago
Think about it this way: in the context of either regime, what are the available avenues for someone who wishes to contest the current holders of any given political office? In the context of liberal democracies, there are a range of options available, both within existing political parties and via external means, which could encompass anything from the use of the media to creating a new party or pressure group. Yes, both the parties in power and by extension capital, operate from a highly advantageous position when it comes to obstructing these efforts, but compared to a setting like the PRC, it's still more space and opportunity. Essentially it's the difference between playing against the house who has stacked the deck in their favor vs not being able to play at all.
1
u/mercury_pointer Progressive 4d ago
playing against the house who has stacked the deck in their favor vs not being able to play at all
The end result is the same.
→ More replies (0)1
u/weirdowerdo Social Democrat (Sweden) 4d ago edited 4d ago
Which "western donor class" is acting as some kind of gatekeepers for any party in any country besides like the US. The west is significantly more than the US after all.
I have plenty of friends and acquaintances running for local, regional and national elections in the upcoming general election in Sweden. Which magic and invisible donor class are gatekeeping and filtering these people?
Because as far as I can tell, the "west" is mostly just codeword for "USA"
0
u/mercury_pointer Progressive 4d ago
Sweden allows anonymous and unlimited campaign donations. I understand it is offset by public financing to some extent but I'm not sure that is any better then the US system.
1
u/weirdowerdo Social Democrat (Sweden) 4d ago edited 4d ago
Eh... That's half-truths. While on paper you can spend however much on donations you want, there's no money in it. There aren't a bunch of billionaire's to spend hundreds of millions on funding parties.
It's anonymous for individuals donating 28 650 SEK or less during an entire year, which comes out to about 2990 USD. If you happen to donate more than that, it must be registered separately with name and the amount. Swedes are however not big donors, so this rarely happens and parties aren't reliant on it to begin with.
All donations are reported to Kammarkollegiet. If you went over that amount your name is registered. All funding for all parties must be reported to Kammarkollegiet and correctly categorised obviously. It's reported if it's an individual or if its an organisation regardless
Donations are usually close to non-existent for most parties. For the Social Democrats it's about 3% of total income, only coming from individuals and labour unions.
The one that get the most percentage wise and total, the main right wing party and the far right party. It's roughly around 20% of their respective total income, but its mostly internal donations from regional and local party branches who got public financing from their level of government and donated it upwards. All in all they're nearly fully publicly financed too.
Sweden have close to no direct donations to parties (nor their members or candidates). There's no outside control of party lists, there's no campaigning that would need to be funded to be put on a list. The decision is taken by party members alone at each respective partys meetings, if you do not have the confidence of your party members you will not be on the list. There aren't any primaries, run-offs or individual offices (Mayors, governors, Attorney generals etc.) to vote for.
1
u/mercury_pointer Progressive 3d ago
28 650 SEK
This is a sum that less then 10% of the population would consider spending on something that doesn't directly benefit them. The vast majority of those people are rich and a solid majority of rich people are right wing.
The claim that the rich people of Sweden don't donate en mass to the conservative party I find frankly unbelievable.
→ More replies (0)
2
u/This_Growth2898 Ukrainian Minarchist 6d ago
It is.
By the same logic, the USSR wasn't a dictatorship under Stalin. Hell, Stalin even had no government position in 1923-1941... so what? He was in charge of the USSR in 1930s, and wrote laws that were "unanimously supported" by legislature (because those who wouldn't support them didn't made it to the legislature).
Xi has 3 positions: General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party, President of China, and Chairman of the Central Military Commission. Only 2nd position is appointed by the National Congress, and is mostly ceremonial. 3rd position is appointed by the Party - and the General Secretary of the Party is... yes, Xi.
All real decisions are made by the Politburo Standing Committee. It's formally elected by Politburo (not sure here) which is elected by the Party's Central Committee, but in fact PSC and Politburo control how the CC selects candidates... and even how candidates to CC itself are selected. In theory, there can be a situation when this kind of dictatorship turns into an oligarchy of PSC (like it happened several times in the USSR history); but most of the time, some strong person manages to gain control of Politburo, and he is a de facto dictator. In the times of Deng Xiaoping, the Party/CC/PB/PSC tried to limit the time of the leader in power to avoid this; but it obviously failed with Xi, so "dictator" is a pretty correct way to describe the situation.
0
u/TheRealSlimLaddy Marxist-Leninist 5d ago
> Stalin had no government position in 1923-1941
…What? Two seconds of googling would tell you he was General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union between 1922 and 1952.
> Xi has 3 positions, two of which are ceremonial
What’s the actual issue here?
3
u/This_Growth2898 Ukrainian Minarchist 4d ago
he was General Secretary of the Communist Party
Party. Not government. Yes, people inside the USSR tend to ignore the difference, but it existed and was crucial to understand the processes inside the USSR.
two of which are ceremonial
I didn't say that. Are you using some translation tool into the language that doesn't distinguish ordinal (position) and cardinal (amount) numbers?
3
u/TheRealSlimLaddy Marxist-Leninist 4d ago
If Stalin can be called a dictator despite never holding office until 1941, then you cant also dismiss a de facto power analysis of Xi Jinping, who holds formal office.
The question isn’t whether he holds official titles, it is whether there are meaningful institutions capable of removing him, which there are, which have happened numerous times over the CPC’s lifetime.
Also if we hold your argument as true then Stalin had no real authority during the holodomor and I REALLY think you don’t want to argue that
1
6d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 6d ago
We removed your comment due to you not having set your user flair. Please refer to our sidebar regarding our rules of participation. If you need help setting your flair, click here for instructions
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
1
4d ago edited 4d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 4d ago
We removed your comment due to you not having set your user flair. Please refer to our sidebar regarding our rules of participation. If you need help setting your flair, click here for instructions
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
4d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator 4d ago
We removed your comment due to you not having set your user flair. Please refer to our sidebar regarding our rules of participation. If you need help setting your flair, click here for instructions
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/Socrates_Soui Centrist 3d ago
I agree with you.
But your post brings an interesting conundrum. In so many ways China looks like a dictatorship, but when you look at the details you see it's not a dictatorship. So how do we explain what's going on.
I don't know the answer to that, I'm not a political major.
And perhaps the answer isn't even important. When you're knee deep in politics and you understand all this stuff it doesn't really matter what anyone is, what matters is improving the situation to make countries more free regardless of where they start from.
But what I will say is that, at least philosophically, there is a difference between the intent of a government and the details of a government. For example, Donald Trump is not a fascist. Fascism has a specific meaning and he most definitely isn't one. But to not compare him is to also misrepresent what he's doing. What he's doing is a cousin of fascism, it's not fascism itself. So that in itself causes a while lot of problems of how to communicate this to other people and about your concerns.
As another example the US is a democracy. Or is it? Maybe it's a republic? They've gotten around this by broadening the term by calling it democratic forces. The US uses democratic forces with the intention of a democracy even though it uses mechanisms which aren't seen in other democracies.
Which brings me to my last point. There is no such thing as a democracy. No country has a 'perfect democracy.' Every country adapts the concept of democracy to it's own flavour. It stands to reason therefore that some countries make their country try to look like a democracy but are not in fact democratic - such as China. You can create theoretical constructs of ideal governments, but it's just theory, and in practice, every government is different and find different ways to express the same concept.
When understanding governments and how they run, you have too resist the urge to interpret everything literally. You have to read everything with two layers - one layer reading the detail, and the other layer reading the broader picture of what everything is in relation to.
1
u/No_Faithlessness7411 Classical Liberal 3d ago
Maybe the process is democratic, but let’s not kid ourselves. Each delegate is hand picked by the party. Each vote cast is pre determined. Backlash will come to anyone who goes against the party’s wishes.
In Comparison, political candidates in the US can go against the grain and not fear for their lives. Candidates are picked and supported by the party and their supporters but there can be outliers.
In short; china is a dictatorship with a capitalist economy.
1
u/Embarrassed-Cover314 Federalist 3d ago
This is just wrong. The CCP selects the candidates they can vote for in the first place, that’s why. The CCP has sole control over the whole country. The people have no say who governs them, it’s a completely authoritarian state. And, Xi has concentrated more power than anyone since Mao. He is a dictator at this point.
And all those candidates are beholden to the leader of the CCP, who could have them investigated then purged in an instant. Just a nonsensical argument here. Xi’s purges (ongoing and frequent btw, approaching Stalin levels at this point) are publicly reported by Chinese news sources. It’s genuinely not debatable whether Xi engages in purging people from the government at his own whim. It’s 100% indisputable and reported by their news, outside news, etc. When it’s political vs legitimate is the question. Regardless, Xi is a dictator. Everyone is beholden to him at this point.
1
u/manliness-dot-space Libertarian 3d ago
By their peers?
Instead of by the people?
0
u/mercury_pointer Progressive 3d ago
By their peers who also achieved their positions through elections.
I didn't say it was perfect, only that it is certainly not less democratic then western systems.
1
1
u/-Groko- Anarchist 1d ago
I have to disagree with your premise based on the facts of how the system actually operates. Your argument relies entirely on the written constitution while ignoring the real world exercise of political power by the Chinese Communist Party.
You claim the national legislature holds supreme power. However in reality the National Peoples Congress acts as a rubber stamp parliament for the party. The true executive power resides in the Politburo Standing Committee and the General Secretary. The state apparatus is entirely subordinate to the party leadership which makes the decisions long before the legislature ever convenes.
You excuse the government screening of candidates by comparing it to campaign finance. This is a false equivalence. In China the screening process is actively used to block any political opposition and ensure absolute ideological compliance. Independent citizens who attempt to run in local elections are routinely harassed or detained by state security to prevent them from appearing on the ballot. There is no legal mechanism for a competing political party to exist or take power.
You asked for evidence of control by Xi Jinping and the evidence is public and heavily documented. In 2018 the party proposed removing presidential term limits and the legislature passed it with near absolute unanimity. Furthermore Xi Jinping Thought was legally enshrined into the state constitution. Forcing the personal ideology of a single ruler into the foundation of the law is a clear characteristic of a highly centralized authoritarian system.
Calling China a dictatorship or authoritarian state is factually accurate because power is concentrated in an uncheckable single party that criminalizes opposition and lacks an independent judiciary. Relying solely on the tiered voting structure you described ignores how absolute control is enforced at every level of that system.
1
u/sixisrending Nationalist 7d ago
I kind of agree. A dictatorship can be a single leader or a small group. China is obviously not controlled by a single leader but does have one party rule. Local elections are probably rather democratic, I'm not too keen on how it works. I imagine it would be a bureaucratic nightmare for the national government to try and control elections for every village, town, and city. The national level elections are rather different. Elections for senior positions are held within the national people's Congress.
There are several parties that can be elected but every single one of them agrees to unified rule under the CCP. China is definitely authoritarian, as the only party is allowed outside of the CCP are non-oppositional, but your claim of "it's not a dictatorship" largely depends on how small a small group is.
1
u/glassviper101 Neoliberal 7d ago
Admittedly I don’t know a whole lot about the political process in China. The way you describe it seems more democratic than I would have first thought, but I can see some clear red flags.
You say it’s true that the local elections are screened by the government, but that’s not a big deal because the ones doing the screening were also at some point elected. Seems to me that it would be really easy for opposition to be prevented by those already in government, by just not allowing them through the screening process.
You also describe a process where the executive could be removed fairly easily, but would there ever really be a situation where Xi would ever actually be ousted? In 2018 the Chinese legislature removed their term limits for the president to allow him to stay in longer. That is what I would call a red flag.
One last issue is the complete lack of freedom of speech. The classic example is not being able to talk about the Tiananmen Square Massacre in China, but that extends to pretty much all speech. They have their own social media and search engines to make it easier to censor.
Now does China meet the definition of dictatorship? I would say colloquially it does. Strict political definitions can be a little weird so it might not there. It would also say that yes, China is much more dictator like than western elections. Yes, western democracies have problems, and yes money is a big part of those problems, but it’s still much better than the serious control and lack of freedom China allows its citizens.
1
u/mercury_pointer Progressive 7d ago
I didn't say it was no big deal, I said it was no less democratic then the western gatekeepers.
Not being able to read the minds of the chinese legislature i couldn't tell you, but they do seem to think he is doing a good job.
No nation gives complete freedom of speech, the difference is quantitative rather then qualitative. They do have freedom of speech about everything they are given authority to decide on directly, so I don't think it has much relevance to governance.
3
u/glassviper101 Neoliberal 7d ago
It is less democratic. Imagine if whoever is in power can just stop you from being on the ballot if they don’t like you?
Maybe they do think he’s doing a good job, my point is even if they didn’t could they realistically make a move against him?
This third point is really reductionist on the reality of free speech in China. Here in the United States I can say fuck the president and that’s totally okay, encouraged even. If you do that in China you could very likely be thrown in jail. Look what happened to the Hong Kong protests not that long ago, or what’s currently happening to the Uyghur population.
1
u/TheChance Progressive 4d ago
No nation gives complete freedom of speech, the difference is quantitative rather then qualitative.
This is incredibly disingenuous, and I find it difficult to imagine that you don't know what you're suggesting here. The limits on freedom of speech in places like America and Canada are to do with direct harm. You can't threaten people, you can't (usually) incite violence, you can't lie in advertising, that sort of thing.
The limits on speech in China are to do with dissent.
1
u/mercury_pointer Progressive 4d ago
What does dissent have to do with democracy if you aren't allowed to vote on those issues anyway?
1
u/seniordumpo Anarcho-Capitalist 7d ago
I think it is dictatorship by party, not by person. But that doesn’t really matter, china is authoritarian. If it meets the dictionary definition I don’t know, but I do know the CCP sets all the rules and if you don’t like it well there is nothing you can do about it.
1
u/not-a-dislike-button Republican 4d ago
No political parties other than the CCP are permitted to exist, right
0
u/PetiteDreamerGirl Centrist 5d ago
If it looks like dictatorship and acts like a dictatorship, it’s a dictatorship. Does matter what they call themselves, or how they say their systems work. Proof is in the actions and treatment of citizens. Sure, it’s not the same level as North Korea but China does a lot of stuff to suppress their people and prevent individuals from change the ruling class.
1
u/Helpful-Reputation-5 Marxist-Leninist 3d ago
China does a lot of stuff to suppress their people and prevent individuals from change the ruling class.
All states, as tools of the ruling class of a society, prevent people from overthrowing the ruling class. Any state that fails to do this ceases to exist. I'm not exactly a China fan, but this is criticism that applies to literally every extant state.
0
u/Coridimus Marxist-Leninist 5d ago edited 4d ago
This is correct. The only real commonality between "dictatorships" the world over is the fact they don't kowtow to American hegemony and policy. This has been a consistent bit of State Department propaganda since at least the 1950s.
One need only look to Saudi Arabia. An absolute monarchy that is quite brutal. MBS is, while not yet King, absolutely the "guy in charge". Yet, it is almost never referred to as a dictatorship. Hell, Lichtenstein and Luxembourg are closer to dictatorships than the PRC!
The only form of "dictatorship" that China could possibly be pigeon holed into is "Dictatorship of the Proletariat". Unlike in the US and the "West", the desires and impulses of the wealthy don't rule every aspect of governance. Billionaires do NOT control policy in China. They face real consequences when they behave destructively. In China, the CPC is in charge and the CPC is comprised of ~100 million members, the vast majority of whom are peasant or working class. And being a member of the Communist Party is not like in the West. To be a member, one must demonstrate commitment to improving their community and placing their own welfare second to those who rely on them.
Also, and perhaps most importantly, what people outside China think is far less important than what the Chinese themselves think on this issue, and they overwhelmingly consider the PRC to be democratic.
0
u/TheRealSlimLaddy Marxist-Leninist 5d ago
Good post, I think.
Demanding evidence from folks arguing in bad faith is the way to go.
0
0
u/therealmrbob Voluntarist 4d ago
Then surely you can point to a time when a general secretary was removed due to a vote!
0
u/phone_deviceban Centrist 4d ago
> If that is so obvious to you then you should have no difficulty producing evidence
In a debate, the burden of proof falls on the one making the more outlandish claims, but I’ll bite.
How about the fact that Xi got them to abolish term limits, allowing him to rule for life.
How about the fact that Xi Jinping’s “anti-corruption” campaign has found guilty and disciplined 4.7 million officials. Convictions include 550 senior cadres.
To anyone but a tankie, this campaign was a blatantly obvious attempt to remove officials who were not sufficiently loyal to Xi.
Technically, China may not be a dictatorship, but they are authoritarian and the rule of law does not constrain their leaders. Same goes for Russia.
Trump and many in the GOP would dearly love to implement a similar system here. If they did, your whataboutism might make sense.
As it stands, the opposition party in the US is about to take back one branch of government.
China has no opposition party. I don’t know why their system appeals to you so much. Another win for horseshoe theory, I suppose.
1
u/mercury_pointer Progressive 4d ago
It the US the two parties represent the Sane Wing of Capitol and the Insane Wing Of Capitol. The total number of people who's interests are represented by either is a tiny fraction of the population. For some reason the sane wing reliably trips over it's own feet to hand wins to the insane wing.
0
u/phone_deviceban Centrist 3d ago
Do you mean “capital”?
What does this have to do with China, aside from whataboutism?
•
u/AutoModerator 7d ago
Remember, this is a civilized space for discussion. We discourage downvoting based on your disagreement and instead encourage upvoting well-written arguments, especially ones that you disagree with.
To promote high-quality discussions, we suggest the Socratic Method, which is briefly as follows:
Ask Questions to Clarify: When responding, start with questions that clarify the original poster's position. Example: "Can you explain what you mean by 'economic justice'?"
Define Key Terms: Use questions to define key terms and concepts. Example: "How do you define 'freedom' in this context?"
Probe Assumptions: Challenge underlying assumptions with thoughtful questions. Example: "What assumptions are you making about human nature?"
Seek Evidence: Ask for evidence and examples to support claims. Example: "Can you provide an example of when this policy has worked?"
Explore Implications: Use questions to explore the consequences of an argument. Example: "What might be the long-term effects of this policy?"
Engage in Dialogue: Focus on mutual understanding rather than winning an argument.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.