China has democracy. Just not bourgeois liberal democracy. The Chinese political system is based on whole-process people’s democracy, a form of consultative democracy. The local levels are directly elected, and then these representatives from around the country elect people to higher rungs, meaning any candidate at the top level must have worked their way up from the bottom and directly proved themselves. Also due to the nature of things the vast majority of representatives are among those directly elected by the people. You should research things before you just say things. And we’re very happy with our system. Even Harvard puts the approval rating around 95%.
Public ownership is the principal aspect of the Chinese economy, and the working classes control the state. It’s definitionally socialist. How on Earth is a country where public ownership is principal “capitalist” in your eyes?
You really should research things before you just make statements on things you have no understanding of.
I know you’re replying in bad faith but if you change your mind even out of curiosity if you engage with the content of these 3 replies I’ve already written
If China is a democracy, what opposition parties and media not related to government are in there?
“If China is a democracy, why isn’t there the constant threat of a far right party destroying the economy and all social welfare, and why don’t they have tabloids propagating fake news?”
You’ve literally seen the televised collusion of all western media and parties defending the Isntreali genocide in Palestine and denying reality, and you still believe we have independent media and politicians
If China is a democracy, what opposition parties and media not related to government are in there?
Democracy is not defined by how many parties exist. It means that political authority comes from the people and that the population participates in governance. Different societies organize that participation differently. Liberal systems center competitive parties and election campaigns. China organizes participation through elections at the grassroots level combined with consultation and representation throughout the policy process.
In China we call this whole-process people’s democracy. The idea is that democracy should not exist only on election day every few years. It should exist through the entire political process: discussion, drafting policy, consultation with social groups, implementation, and feedback.
At the local level, people directly elect deputies to township and county People’s Congresses. These bodies then elect representatives to higher levels, which continues upward through provincial congresses and ultimately to the National People’s Congress. Because of this structure, most officials reach higher positions only after years working at lower levels where they directly interact with voters. Advancement depends on performance, governance results, and evaluation by the people and bodies that elected them.
China also has a consultative system through the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference. Multiple legally recognized parties and mass organizations participate there along with the Communist Party. Trade unions, ethnic organizations, professional associations, business groups, and other social bodies submit proposals and participate in consultation before policy decisions are finalized. It is not an adversarial party competition model, but it is still a structured form of representation.
There’s only one party in China, every communication channel is controlled by party
China does manage information. But I would recommend learning about Parenti’s concept of “inventing reality.” In capitalist systems the media is formally private, but in practice it is owned by a handful of large corporations and billionaires. Those owners decide what stories are emphasized, what narratives are framed as legitimate, and what perspectives are marginalized.
That kind of control is less visible but still very real. A small group of capital owners has enormous influence over what hundreds of millions of people see and how events are interpreted. So the idea that Western media is completely free from power structures is not serious. Remember Cambridge analytica?
China consistently ranks near the bottom in every democracy index
“But the eagle burger institute of goodness says China bad”. These indexes measure democracy using a definition that assumes Western liberal institutions as the universal standard. If your scoring system requires competitive multi-party elections and privately owned media corporations, then of course a different political model will rank poorly.
China measures legitimacy differently. The government is evaluated based on outcomes and public satisfaction. Long-running surveys like the Harvard Ash Center study consistently find extremely high levels of reported public satisfaction with government performance in China.
You can disagree with the Chinese political system. That is fine. But reducing democracy to “number of parties” or citing Western indexes without examining how the Chinese system actually works is not a serious analysis.
Polls in authoritarian countries are notoriously more positive about own countries than in democratic ones due to insane amount of propaganda (yes, even compared to US). In which next country do we di polls next - Russia or North Korea?
“C’mon, Chinese govt lifted 800 million people out of extreme poverty. Took the country from one of the poorest in a world to a world power. All this in just 4 decades and you expect the people to hate the govt.”
Sure, they experienced their country go from one of the top three poorest countries on earth to a top two economy in just a couple generations, but the reason they support their system must be because they just don’t know better.
You are just privileged idealist disappointed in your own system so you try to latch on something completely opposite in order to belong somewhere. I have experienced living under one of those systems and fleeing it to one of the “West Bad!” countries. I am both envious that you didn’t have to go through this and pitying you that eventually you will be disappointed in your new “Good Country” choice
Lol what an amazing self report on how your psychology works, you petty little man. Pure team sports contrarianism, no analysis. I would feel bad for you if you weren’t so desperate to ignore reality in favor of regurgitating propaganda
Lmao you’re another one of the post soviet 20 something’s who think shock therapy was communism’s fault. Or you’re a reactionary who fled because you’re a right wing loser either way it explains your white man’s burden chauvinism.
“During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them.
If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.”
China has democracy. Just not bourgeois liberal democracy. The Chinese political system is based on whole-process people’s democracy, a form of consultative democracy. The local levels are directly elected, and then these representatives from around the country elect people to higher rungs, meaning any candidate at the top level must have worked their way up from the bottom and directly proved themselves. Also due to the nature of things the vast majority of representatives are among those directly elected by the people. You should research things before you just say things. And we’re very happy with our system. Even Harvard puts the approval rating around 95%.
China is capitalism, they even have mock elections
Public ownership is the principal aspect of the Chinese economy, and the working classes control the state. It’s definitionally socialist. How on Earth is a country where public ownership is principal “capitalist” in your eyes?
You really should research things before you just make statements on things you have no understanding of.
I know you’re replying in bad faith but if you change your mind even out of curiosity if you engage with the content of these 3 replies I’ve already written
https://lemmy.ml/post/44457794/24524987
https://lemmy.ml/post/44457794/24529983
https://lemmy.ml/post/44251521/24507103
I’m happy to have a conversation about why you believe what you do and the analysis and lived experience underpinning my thoughts as well.
If China is a democracy, what opposition parties and media not related to government are in there?
There’s only one party in China, every communication channel is controlled by party (not even the government).
China consistently ranks near the bottom in every democracy index
Ranked by whom?
“If China is a democracy, why isn’t there the constant threat of a far right party destroying the economy and all social welfare, and why don’t they have tabloids propagating fake news?”
You’ve literally seen the televised collusion of all western media and parties defending the Isntreali genocide in Palestine and denying reality, and you still believe we have independent media and politicians
There are nine political parties in the PRC
The very unbiased FreedomBurger Institute gives China 0/10 Freedoms
Democracy is if you have political parties, the more you have the democratier it is
Democracy is not defined by how many parties exist. It means that political authority comes from the people and that the population participates in governance. Different societies organize that participation differently. Liberal systems center competitive parties and election campaigns. China organizes participation through elections at the grassroots level combined with consultation and representation throughout the policy process.
In China we call this whole-process people’s democracy. The idea is that democracy should not exist only on election day every few years. It should exist through the entire political process: discussion, drafting policy, consultation with social groups, implementation, and feedback.
At the local level, people directly elect deputies to township and county People’s Congresses. These bodies then elect representatives to higher levels, which continues upward through provincial congresses and ultimately to the National People’s Congress. Because of this structure, most officials reach higher positions only after years working at lower levels where they directly interact with voters. Advancement depends on performance, governance results, and evaluation by the people and bodies that elected them.
China also has a consultative system through the Chinese People’s Political Consultative Conference. Multiple legally recognized parties and mass organizations participate there along with the Communist Party. Trade unions, ethnic organizations, professional associations, business groups, and other social bodies submit proposals and participate in consultation before policy decisions are finalized. It is not an adversarial party competition model, but it is still a structured form of representation.
China does manage information. But I would recommend learning about Parenti’s concept of “inventing reality.” In capitalist systems the media is formally private, but in practice it is owned by a handful of large corporations and billionaires. Those owners decide what stories are emphasized, what narratives are framed as legitimate, and what perspectives are marginalized.
That kind of control is less visible but still very real. A small group of capital owners has enormous influence over what hundreds of millions of people see and how events are interpreted. So the idea that Western media is completely free from power structures is not serious. Remember Cambridge analytica?
“But the eagle burger institute of goodness says China bad”. These indexes measure democracy using a definition that assumes Western liberal institutions as the universal standard. If your scoring system requires competitive multi-party elections and privately owned media corporations, then of course a different political model will rank poorly.
China measures legitimacy differently. The government is evaluated based on outcomes and public satisfaction. Long-running surveys like the Harvard Ash Center study consistently find extremely high levels of reported public satisfaction with government performance in China.
You can disagree with the Chinese political system. That is fine. But reducing democracy to “number of parties” or citing Western indexes without examining how the Chinese system actually works is not a serious analysis.
Polls in authoritarian countries are notoriously more positive about own countries than in democratic ones due to insane amount of propaganda (yes, even compared to US). In which next country do we di polls next - Russia or North Korea?
“C’mon, Chinese govt lifted 800 million people out of extreme poverty. Took the country from one of the poorest in a world to a world power. All this in just 4 decades and you expect the people to hate the govt.”
So we’re just too subhuman and brainwashed to answer a Harvard poll about our thoughts correctly?
You really think you’re the first one to cope with that argument?
Support for government in China: is the data accurate?
You really think you’re the first one to cope with that argument?
Support for government in China: is the data accurate?
Removed by mod
Masses, Elites, and Rebels: The Theory of “Brainwashing”
Peak white man’s burden. Complete chauvinism. Why am I not surprised.
Sure, they experienced their country go from one of the top three poorest countries on earth to a top two economy in just a couple generations, but the reason they support their system must be because they just don’t know better.
“Umm they’re they Bad Country sweaty you can’t trust the people there. Just like the other Bad Countries!”
You are a political toddler and the fact that you don’t understand this while our side diddles kids and bombs elementary schools is insane
You are just privileged idealist disappointed in your own system so you try to latch on something completely opposite in order to belong somewhere. I have experienced living under one of those systems and fleeing it to one of the “West Bad!” countries. I am both envious that you didn’t have to go through this and pitying you that eventually you will be disappointed in your new “Good Country” choice
Lol what an amazing self report on how your psychology works, you petty little man. Pure team sports contrarianism, no analysis. I would feel bad for you if you weren’t so desperate to ignore reality in favor of regurgitating propaganda
Lmao you’re another one of the post soviet 20 something’s who think shock therapy was communism’s fault. Or you’re a reactionary who fled because you’re a right wing loser either way it explains your white man’s burden chauvinism.
“During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them. If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.”
Blackshirts and Reds, Michael Parenti