Thank you for the suggestion. Have you read it? I’m not arguing that state capitalism isn’t a necessary step to socialism, merely that this development hasn’t concluded. Would you say that the interests of the whole people has been met and therefore state capitalism has been overcome?
I would say that at current in China it is very clearly being made to serve the whole people under a revolutionary democratic state and thus is socialism.
Before I respond fully to give me a baseline of your thoughts, could you explain to me how you think the Chinese system works? Why it doesn’t count as democracy and ideally an example or 2 of real democracies?
China is a one party state. The CCP cannot be voted out, challenged or replaced. The legislature has never once rejected a Party decision. Xi removed his own term limits in 2018. Media is state controlled, dissent gets you imprisoned and there is no independent judiciary.
Democracy means people can remove their government. In China that is simply not possible, it is written out of the system by design.
Two examples of actual democracies: Japan and South Korea. Both have multiple parties, a free press, independent courts and governments that have actually been voted out.
Sounds like you’re narrowing democracy down to liberal, capitalist “democracy.” Democracy means rule by the majority, neither of which is true in Japan and the Republic of Korea who are both dominated by capitalists. Socialist democracy is focused on collaboration and cooperation, not competition, whereas liberal democracy focuses on competition and division. Defining democracy as the presence of capitalist press is also another bit that doesn’t make sense.
Wrong immediately. China has nine legally recognised parties. The CPC is the largest, leading party because it is the party that actually led the revolution, built the state, and retains mass legitimacy. Pretending the other eight parties do not exist because they are not liberal opposition parties is cope and also idiotic.
The CCP cannot be voted out, challenged or replaced.
The Party line is challenged, tested, corrected, and revised constantly through congresses, consultation, local implementation, mass feedback, inspections, anti-corruption campaigns, policy pilots, and material results. You are confusing “not replaced by a capitalist opposition party” with “not accountable.” Those are not the same thing.
The legislature has never once rejected a Party decision.
Because by the time something reaches the final legislative stage, the struggle has usually already happened through drafting, consultation, amendment, expert input, local trials, and internal debate. You are judging the system only at the final vote and pretending the whole prior process does not exist. That is not serious. Especially when said prior process is years of testing revisions feedback and criticism.
Xi removed his own term limits in 2018.
Term limits are not inherently democratic. If the people support a leadership line and it is producing results, forcing it out because an arbitrary calendar says so is anti-democratic. Democracy means rule by the people, not worship of procedural gimmicks.
Media is state controlled, dissent gets you imprisoned and there is no independent judiciary.
Public media is preferable to billionaire media, advertiser media, landlord media, arms-industry media, and intelligence-cutout media. Western “free press” mostly means privately owned ruling-class consensus.
And yes, if you organise to overthrow the socialist state, promote separatism, or act as a tool of hostile powers, you will face consequences. Every serious state defends itself. Ordinary criticism of officials, corruption, pollution, housing, services, labour issues, and bureaucracy is widespread. You are pretending “China does not allow colour revolution politics” means “nobody can criticise anything.”
“Independent judiciary” means independent from whom? Courts in liberal states are not above class society. They defend property, capital, empire, and the constitutional order they belong to. China’s courts operate within China’s socialist constitutional order. That is not a scandal. That is state power being honest about itself.
Democracy means people can remove their government. In China that is simply not possible, it is written out of the system by design.
No, democracy means rule by the people. Reducing democracy to swapping elite factions every few years is liberal nonsense.
The real questions are: are people represented, are officials accountable, does mass feedback shape policy, do living standards improve, does the state act when necessary, and does the government serve the majority?
On that basis China has a stronger democratic claim than any liberal states. Direct elections exist at township and county levels. Higher deputies are elected upward through the people’s congress system. Grassroots legislative liaison stations, public consultation, local pilots, petitions, online criticism, and mass campaigns feed into policy. Democracy is treated as a continuous process, not a five-minute ritual every four years.
Two examples of actual democracies: Japan and South Korea.
I actually burst out laughing on the subway and got some stares. Your examples of “actual democracy” are a U.S. client state rapidly remilitarising under American strategy and another U.S. client state famous for chaebol domination, anti-communist repression, cult scandals, and politics bent around Samsung, LG, Hyundai, and SK.
If being allowed to choose which faction manages capitalism under U.S. military and financial hegemony is the summit of democracy in your mind I truly feel sorry for you.
Now shoot, cowboy.
If you want to be smug, try being correct first.
China is not a liberal multiparty capitalist state. Correct. It is a socialist people’s democratic system led by the CPC, with multiple recognised parties, direct local elections, consultation mechanisms, mass participation, cadre accountability, and a proven record of improving people’s lives.
Direct elections reach the township and county levels, where voters choose deputies to local people’s congresses. Those grassroots deputies form the base of the entire people’s congress system, and higher-level deputies are elected upward from below rather than parachuted in as media celebrities or donor-backed party hacks. Cadres do not begin as detached professional politicians selling themselves on television; they are expected to prove themselves through work at lower levels, in villages, counties, workplaces, departments, and local administrations before advancing. That ties political authority to practical service, local knowledge, and demonstrated ability, not just money, charisma, or elite schooling. Minority representation is also guaranteed: all 55 ethnic minorities are represented in the NPC, which matters directly to people like myself because representation is not left to the mercy of majority demographics or party marketing. Add to that grassroots legislative liaison stations, community consultation, local policy pilots, petitions, mass criticism, and the CPC’s presence across villages, factories, universities, scientific institutions, and public administration, and what you have is not “no democracy.” It is a different and I like many others would say better democratic form: continuous, organised, consultative, developmental, and rooted in material outcomes rather than liberal spectacle.
Also don’t think I didn’t notice your yellow peril nonsense of trying to equate China and Myanmar earlier.
The eight other parties all legally commit to CPC leadership in their founding documents. They cannot oppose it, campaign against it or replace it. Calling that multiparty democracy is like calling a company with one shareholder a cooperative because it has nine employees.
On Japan and South Korea: yes, US client states with real problems. But both have had their ruling parties voted out and replaced by the opposition. That has never happened in China and cannot happen. That remains the point.
The rest is redefining democracy until it means whatever produces the answer you want. Consultative processes, local pilots, cadre accountability, all of that can exist in an authoritarian system. And it does. The question is still the same one: can the people remove the government? A long and elaborate no is still a no.
Number of parties have fuck all to do with democracy as we can clearly see with western attempts at liberal democracies. What matters is that the government can be held accountable to the people and it works in the interest of the public. China demonstrably outperforms vast majority of western attempts at implementing democracy in this key regard.
We only need to look at the latest Democracy Perception Index, compiled by the Alliance of Democracies Foundation (in partnership with Nita Data). The Alliance of Democracies Foundation, the organization behind the report, cannot even remotely be suspected of being some sort of anti-West outlet: it was started by an ex-NATO Secretary General (Anders Fogh Rasmussen) and its stated purpose is “to unite world democracies”. The report measures “perception is reality” because, like it or not, what people believe about their system is what determines its legitimacy. A democracy that nobody actually experiences as one can’t credibly claim to be one.
Like every single year, according to the Chinese people themselves, China is one of the most democratic countries in the world. And I’ll just preempt the whole Chinese people are afraid to express their opinion nonsense. If that were the case you’d see the same dynamic in other presumed “authoritarian” countries. But Russia scores -21, Belarus -9, Kazakhstan -31. If “fear of the regime” explained China’s +14, why aren’t Russians and Belarusians equally afraid?
Professor Jason Hickel, who is an economic anthropologist, also wrote an article on exactly this topic titled “Support for government in China: is the data accurate?” where he systematically dismantles the “fear bias” argument by examining studies that used anonymized and implicit methodologies. His verdict is that across every methodology tested, Chinese people mean what they say. https://jasonhickel.substack.com/p/support-for-government-in-china-is
There’s also a higher perception of freedom of speech in China than in the immense majority of Western countries, including in the United States. Meaning that when you ask the Chinese people, a higher proportion of them feel they “can criticize the government without consequences” than in the US.
Even taking Hickel at face value, his own anonymized studies show support dropping to 62-77%, well below the headline figure. He also admits the methodology has its own problems.
But more importantly, none of this answers the actual question. Plenty of people liked Mussolini. Democracy is not about whether people approve of their government. It is about whether they can peacefully remove it. In China they cannot. That is the whole point. I’m glad most seem to like it. That does not make it a democracy, though.
Thank you for the suggestion. Have you read it? I’m not arguing that state capitalism isn’t a necessary step to socialism, merely that this development hasn’t concluded. Would you say that the interests of the whole people has been met and therefore state capitalism has been overcome?
Nobody has said China has finished the development of socialism, just that they are already socialist, which is true.
I would say that at current in China it is very clearly being made to serve the whole people under a revolutionary democratic state and thus is socialism.
I’m not sure I understand you correctly. Are you saying China is in the process of becoming democratic or is democratic already?
China is democratic. One of the few truly democratic nations on earth.
I see. We have a very divergent definition of democracy then. What are other truly democratic nations to you? North Korea? Myanmar?
Before I respond fully to give me a baseline of your thoughts, could you explain to me how you think the Chinese system works? Why it doesn’t count as democracy and ideally an example or 2 of real democracies?
China is a one party state. The CCP cannot be voted out, challenged or replaced. The legislature has never once rejected a Party decision. Xi removed his own term limits in 2018. Media is state controlled, dissent gets you imprisoned and there is no independent judiciary.
Democracy means people can remove their government. In China that is simply not possible, it is written out of the system by design. Two examples of actual democracies: Japan and South Korea. Both have multiple parties, a free press, independent courts and governments that have actually been voted out.
Now shoot, cowboy.
Sounds like you’re narrowing democracy down to liberal, capitalist “democracy.” Democracy means rule by the majority, neither of which is true in Japan and the Republic of Korea who are both dominated by capitalists. Socialist democracy is focused on collaboration and cooperation, not competition, whereas liberal democracy focuses on competition and division. Defining democracy as the presence of capitalist press is also another bit that doesn’t make sense.
Wrong immediately. China has nine legally recognised parties. The CPC is the largest, leading party because it is the party that actually led the revolution, built the state, and retains mass legitimacy. Pretending the other eight parties do not exist because they are not liberal opposition parties is cope and also idiotic.
The Party line is challenged, tested, corrected, and revised constantly through congresses, consultation, local implementation, mass feedback, inspections, anti-corruption campaigns, policy pilots, and material results. You are confusing “not replaced by a capitalist opposition party” with “not accountable.” Those are not the same thing.
Because by the time something reaches the final legislative stage, the struggle has usually already happened through drafting, consultation, amendment, expert input, local trials, and internal debate. You are judging the system only at the final vote and pretending the whole prior process does not exist. That is not serious. Especially when said prior process is years of testing revisions feedback and criticism.
Term limits are not inherently democratic. If the people support a leadership line and it is producing results, forcing it out because an arbitrary calendar says so is anti-democratic. Democracy means rule by the people, not worship of procedural gimmicks.
Public media is preferable to billionaire media, advertiser media, landlord media, arms-industry media, and intelligence-cutout media. Western “free press” mostly means privately owned ruling-class consensus.
And yes, if you organise to overthrow the socialist state, promote separatism, or act as a tool of hostile powers, you will face consequences. Every serious state defends itself. Ordinary criticism of officials, corruption, pollution, housing, services, labour issues, and bureaucracy is widespread. You are pretending “China does not allow colour revolution politics” means “nobody can criticise anything.”
“Independent judiciary” means independent from whom? Courts in liberal states are not above class society. They defend property, capital, empire, and the constitutional order they belong to. China’s courts operate within China’s socialist constitutional order. That is not a scandal. That is state power being honest about itself.
No, democracy means rule by the people. Reducing democracy to swapping elite factions every few years is liberal nonsense.
The real questions are: are people represented, are officials accountable, does mass feedback shape policy, do living standards improve, does the state act when necessary, and does the government serve the majority?
On that basis China has a stronger democratic claim than any liberal states. Direct elections exist at township and county levels. Higher deputies are elected upward through the people’s congress system. Grassroots legislative liaison stations, public consultation, local pilots, petitions, online criticism, and mass campaigns feed into policy. Democracy is treated as a continuous process, not a five-minute ritual every four years.
I actually burst out laughing on the subway and got some stares. Your examples of “actual democracy” are a U.S. client state rapidly remilitarising under American strategy and another U.S. client state famous for chaebol domination, anti-communist repression, cult scandals, and politics bent around Samsung, LG, Hyundai, and SK.
If being allowed to choose which faction manages capitalism under U.S. military and financial hegemony is the summit of democracy in your mind I truly feel sorry for you.
If you want to be smug, try being correct first.
China is not a liberal multiparty capitalist state. Correct. It is a socialist people’s democratic system led by the CPC, with multiple recognised parties, direct local elections, consultation mechanisms, mass participation, cadre accountability, and a proven record of improving people’s lives.
Direct elections reach the township and county levels, where voters choose deputies to local people’s congresses. Those grassroots deputies form the base of the entire people’s congress system, and higher-level deputies are elected upward from below rather than parachuted in as media celebrities or donor-backed party hacks. Cadres do not begin as detached professional politicians selling themselves on television; they are expected to prove themselves through work at lower levels, in villages, counties, workplaces, departments, and local administrations before advancing. That ties political authority to practical service, local knowledge, and demonstrated ability, not just money, charisma, or elite schooling. Minority representation is also guaranteed: all 55 ethnic minorities are represented in the NPC, which matters directly to people like myself because representation is not left to the mercy of majority demographics or party marketing. Add to that grassroots legislative liaison stations, community consultation, local policy pilots, petitions, mass criticism, and the CPC’s presence across villages, factories, universities, scientific institutions, and public administration, and what you have is not “no democracy.” It is a different and I like many others would say better democratic form: continuous, organised, consultative, developmental, and rooted in material outcomes rather than liberal spectacle.
Also don’t think I didn’t notice your yellow peril nonsense of trying to equate China and Myanmar earlier.
The eight other parties all legally commit to CPC leadership in their founding documents. They cannot oppose it, campaign against it or replace it. Calling that multiparty democracy is like calling a company with one shareholder a cooperative because it has nine employees.
On Japan and South Korea: yes, US client states with real problems. But both have had their ruling parties voted out and replaced by the opposition. That has never happened in China and cannot happen. That remains the point.
The rest is redefining democracy until it means whatever produces the answer you want. Consultative processes, local pilots, cadre accountability, all of that can exist in an authoritarian system. And it does. The question is still the same one: can the people remove the government? A long and elaborate no is still a no.
Number of parties have fuck all to do with democracy as we can clearly see with western attempts at liberal democracies. What matters is that the government can be held accountable to the people and it works in the interest of the public. China demonstrably outperforms vast majority of western attempts at implementing democracy in this key regard.
We only need to look at the latest Democracy Perception Index, compiled by the Alliance of Democracies Foundation (in partnership with Nita Data). The Alliance of Democracies Foundation, the organization behind the report, cannot even remotely be suspected of being some sort of anti-West outlet: it was started by an ex-NATO Secretary General (Anders Fogh Rasmussen) and its stated purpose is “to unite world democracies”. The report measures “perception is reality” because, like it or not, what people believe about their system is what determines its legitimacy. A democracy that nobody actually experiences as one can’t credibly claim to be one.
Like every single year, according to the Chinese people themselves, China is one of the most democratic countries in the world. And I’ll just preempt the whole Chinese people are afraid to express their opinion nonsense. If that were the case you’d see the same dynamic in other presumed “authoritarian” countries. But Russia scores -21, Belarus -9, Kazakhstan -31. If “fear of the regime” explained China’s +14, why aren’t Russians and Belarusians equally afraid?
Professor Jason Hickel, who is an economic anthropologist, also wrote an article on exactly this topic titled “Support for government in China: is the data accurate?” where he systematically dismantles the “fear bias” argument by examining studies that used anonymized and implicit methodologies. His verdict is that across every methodology tested, Chinese people mean what they say. https://jasonhickel.substack.com/p/support-for-government-in-china-is
There’s also a higher perception of freedom of speech in China than in the immense majority of Western countries, including in the United States. Meaning that when you ask the Chinese people, a higher proportion of them feel they “can criticize the government without consequences” than in the US.
Even taking Hickel at face value, his own anonymized studies show support dropping to 62-77%, well below the headline figure. He also admits the methodology has its own problems.
But more importantly, none of this answers the actual question. Plenty of people liked Mussolini. Democracy is not about whether people approve of their government. It is about whether they can peacefully remove it. In China they cannot. That is the whole point. I’m glad most seem to like it. That does not make it a democracy, though.
Nothing says “democracy” like a president for life!
An understanding of the Chinese system comparable to that of the most intelligent stone, very impressive.
Cope honkie.
Ah yes, the key feature of rocks: literacy.