Solarpunk is the fiction, the ideal. What China is doing in this regard is 1 version of an attempt to achieve it, and that’s great! Its not the only path forward and there is room for critique of every attempt.
As an anarchist, I would like less authoritarianism actually. But, as a solarpunk enthusiast and environmentalist, im in favor of this action by China. I believe that actions towards solarpunk and actions against government systems i dont like should be handled separately
How would China have to change their democratic processes, or methods of governance, to turn you around more on how they handle things? I often see people claim China should be less authoritarian, but I rarely see concrete steps they could take to be less-so structurally from those that see China that way.
Im not a scholar on china. I dont know a ton, and I dont know anything with a great degree of confidence. My understanding is that to some degree, they do human rights abuses much like the USA, Russia, UK, India etc. To my understanding, that’s just kind of a thing superpower countries do. I have enough on my hands dealing with the USA and all its problems. I value human dignity as the focal point of what a government should embody. If you can think of things they are doing thay go against that, that’s probably what id starr with. If you think that china is sufficiently defending human dignity without exception, id love to hear about that
I’m certainly not a scholar either, but I do think we can investigate certain statements further. Human rights abuses largely stem from class struggle and latent contradictions in society, opposing identities and possibilities, if that makes sense. Excess is a feature of all systems, and as such investigating what drives conflict and the manner of how it’s resolved requires a class analysis. In other words, it isn’t about size, or ideas of power, but largely resolution of contradictions.
In China, the working classes are in control of the state. However, contradictions exist, like the gap between urban and rural development, the class conflict between the proletariat and bourgeoisie, the contradiction between domestic and foreign capital, between liberalism and communism. These contradictions give rise to excess, which is avoidable suffering. However, unlike dictatorships of capital, China’s socialist system is built to address these contradictions.
Rural development is being prioritized to close the gap, including expanding rail, poverty alleviation programs, and making use of urban industrial production to build up rural areas. The proletariat are in control of the state, and use it to publicly own the commanding heights of industry, keeping the bourgeoisie subservient. Foreign capital is limited in what it can actually own, and technology share is mandatory. Corruption is regularly checked, and corrupt party members expelled from the party and punished.
China, compared to capitalist countries, has a great human rights track record, domestic and foreign. It is flawed, because it is real, and more than capitalist countries its structure allows it to improve over time. This extends to areas like LGBTQIA+ rights, which are increasingly important to younger generations while the more socially conservative older generations are replaced. China systemically has a people-first structure.
Forgive me if this is a confused question, I’m still learning my dialectics, but how does China’s concept of democratic centrism and its insistence that the CCP be the sole governing body mesh with this understanding of contradictions and their resolution? Is the existence of absolute power itself not a restriction that prevents (or could very well prevent) the movement and change that would otherwise happen to resolve the contradictions you mention? Like, fundamentally I just don’t see how dialectical materialism is consistent with unchallenged and unjustified power.
Is the existence of absolute power itself not a restriction
I just don’t see how dialectical materialism is consistent with unchallenged and unjustified power.
Well there’s your problem. Did you even read the rest of what Cowbee said in this thread, explaining much of how governance in China actually works? You come here basing your questions around this false assumption of “the existence of absolute power,” when no one in China has absolute power, rather power is vastly more evenly distributed there than in liberal “democracies.”
The fact that there is a single party is not (as western propaganda would have you believe) evidence of “dictatorship,” but instead functions as a bulwark preventing reaction and the destruction of the revolution by capital - something I would hope you would be able to recognize even with a very basic understanding of dialectics. There is no reason the will of the people can’t be enacted via a single party that exists to ensure it is their will and not that of capital that rules, indeed it makes more sense to have a single party when the rule of the people is the goal.
Consider how the approval rating for their government the across the population of China, well over a billion people, is above 90%! And now consider the U.S. with it’s “two party” system, where both parties represent the interests only of the political donor class (capital) and the government is largely despised by the population. The power there is concentrated in a small number of ultrawealthy bourgeoisie and it is continuously getting worse, more and more concentrated, while the people of the US are losing more and more of their so-called rights every day.
Yet you frame your questions under this base (and false) assumption of “unchallenged and unjustified power” in China without even considering how power is constantly challenged there (see Cowbee’s explanation further up of the many direct elections in China) and through that challenge, it’s justification is consistently being reestablished.
Solarpunk is the fiction, the ideal. What China is doing in this regard is 1 version of an attempt to achieve it, and that’s great! Its not the only path forward and there is room for critique of every attempt.
As an anarchist, I would like less authoritarianism actually. But, as a solarpunk enthusiast and environmentalist, im in favor of this action by China. I believe that actions towards solarpunk and actions against government systems i dont like should be handled separately
How would China have to change their democratic processes, or methods of governance, to turn you around more on how they handle things? I often see people claim China should be less authoritarian, but I rarely see concrete steps they could take to be less-so structurally from those that see China that way.
Im not a scholar on china. I dont know a ton, and I dont know anything with a great degree of confidence. My understanding is that to some degree, they do human rights abuses much like the USA, Russia, UK, India etc. To my understanding, that’s just kind of a thing superpower countries do. I have enough on my hands dealing with the USA and all its problems. I value human dignity as the focal point of what a government should embody. If you can think of things they are doing thay go against that, that’s probably what id starr with. If you think that china is sufficiently defending human dignity without exception, id love to hear about that
I’m certainly not a scholar either, but I do think we can investigate certain statements further. Human rights abuses largely stem from class struggle and latent contradictions in society, opposing identities and possibilities, if that makes sense. Excess is a feature of all systems, and as such investigating what drives conflict and the manner of how it’s resolved requires a class analysis. In other words, it isn’t about size, or ideas of power, but largely resolution of contradictions.
In China, the working classes are in control of the state. However, contradictions exist, like the gap between urban and rural development, the class conflict between the proletariat and bourgeoisie, the contradiction between domestic and foreign capital, between liberalism and communism. These contradictions give rise to excess, which is avoidable suffering. However, unlike dictatorships of capital, China’s socialist system is built to address these contradictions.
Rural development is being prioritized to close the gap, including expanding rail, poverty alleviation programs, and making use of urban industrial production to build up rural areas. The proletariat are in control of the state, and use it to publicly own the commanding heights of industry, keeping the bourgeoisie subservient. Foreign capital is limited in what it can actually own, and technology share is mandatory. Corruption is regularly checked, and corrupt party members expelled from the party and punished.
China, compared to capitalist countries, has a great human rights track record, domestic and foreign. It is flawed, because it is real, and more than capitalist countries its structure allows it to improve over time. This extends to areas like LGBTQIA+ rights, which are increasingly important to younger generations while the more socially conservative older generations are replaced. China systemically has a people-first structure.
Forgive me if this is a confused question, I’m still learning my dialectics, but how does China’s concept of democratic centrism and its insistence that the CCP be the sole governing body mesh with this understanding of contradictions and their resolution? Is the existence of absolute power itself not a restriction that prevents (or could very well prevent) the movement and change that would otherwise happen to resolve the contradictions you mention? Like, fundamentally I just don’t see how dialectical materialism is consistent with unchallenged and unjustified power.
Well there’s your problem. Did you even read the rest of what Cowbee said in this thread, explaining much of how governance in China actually works? You come here basing your questions around this false assumption of “the existence of absolute power,” when no one in China has absolute power, rather power is vastly more evenly distributed there than in liberal “democracies.”
The fact that there is a single party is not (as western propaganda would have you believe) evidence of “dictatorship,” but instead functions as a bulwark preventing reaction and the destruction of the revolution by capital - something I would hope you would be able to recognize even with a very basic understanding of dialectics. There is no reason the will of the people can’t be enacted via a single party that exists to ensure it is their will and not that of capital that rules, indeed it makes more sense to have a single party when the rule of the people is the goal.
Consider how the approval rating for their government the across the population of China, well over a billion people, is above 90%! And now consider the U.S. with it’s “two party” system, where both parties represent the interests only of the political donor class (capital) and the government is largely despised by the population. The power there is concentrated in a small number of ultrawealthy bourgeoisie and it is continuously getting worse, more and more concentrated, while the people of the US are losing more and more of their so-called rights every day.
Yet you frame your questions under this base (and false) assumption of “unchallenged and unjustified power” in China without even considering how power is constantly challenged there (see Cowbee’s explanation further up of the many direct elections in China) and through that challenge, it’s justification is consistently being reestablished.