Seems like the problem isn’t with democracy, but with the western falvor of liberal parliamentary democracy. Democracy is working just fine in China according to people who live there. All the available studies, including ones coming from prominent western institutions such as Harvard, consistently show that China is democratic and that public satisfaction with the government is far higher than in any western country:
There are plenty of places where citizens are free to engage in normal discussions about politics, and particularly the history of their own country.
But yes, nothing is perfect, the world is not your false dichotomy, and every system should seek to iteratively improve. China should seek to grant its citizens more individual freedoms as well, wouldn’t you agree? This is very low hanging fruit for free society, and China has a lot more work to do than the west on this particular issue.
There’s no false democracy. I’m simply pointing out what you clarified: there is no perfect. Speech will be restricted everywhere and claiming that democracy cannot exist without fully unfettered speech contradicts a fundamental tenet of liberalism—tolerance, and with it the dilemma of speech that harms and so interfere’s with others’ freedom not to be harmed. See Bentham, Mill, or Isaiah Berlin for more on this topic.
I suppose you mean first-generation rights (in the language of international human rights law) as these are the ones that flow from the enlightenment and cover the freedom of expression, for instance. While I agree that China should grant its citizens as many rights as possible, the level of our agreement depends on what we each mean by individual freedoms.
I agree with first-generation rights in principle but they are fundamentally contradictory and their experimental application around the world suggests they cannot be realised because the law cannot resolve those contradictions. There are political economic contradictions, too. Realising first, second-, and third-generation rights is incompatible with capitalism. It is simply not possible to uphold the right of private property and allow workers, for instance, a full right of free expression in the workplace, nor to allow moneyed lobbying in the legislature while granting the same voice to individuals. You can find a good explanation of the law underpinning this argument in International Human Rights by Philip Alston and Ryan Goodman (perhaps in Parts B and C).
China seems to be rather good at providing what are known as second- and third-generation rights, which are usually given less than lip-service in the west. If we are making a comparison, then China appears to accept a duty to implement these rights, while liberal democracies only accept that legislating for said rights is enough (including for first-generation rights). If we’re talking about the US, it doesn’t even acknowledge many such rights. The argument goes that the constituent states cannot legislate for the federal state and the federal state cannot legislate for the constituent states. There is a similarity with China but there the question is, how should these rights be implemented locally, not should they be implemented?
The west appears to have to go a lot further to go than China with regard to second- and third-generation rights but China appears to have a lot further to go than the west with regard to first-generation rights. I say ‘appears’ in both cases because neither party can go much further in the suggested directions under existing conditions. There are two insurmountable problems, one for each. The one for the west is explained above: capitalism and the guaranteed realisation of rights are incompatible.
For China, realising first-generation rights in the way that they are implemented in the west is incompatible with socialism. The text in emphasis is important because at a theoretical level, first-generation rights are needed to secure political participation. Socialists in China (not all – it is not a homogenous state) would argue that the way that first-generation rights are implemented in China is the only way to secure socialist political participation. Just as westerners often argue that the western model of human rights is the only way to secure bourgeois political participation.
At this point, the problem with relying on legal concepts to define ‘free society’ has been revealed. Law, which provides the language and the mechanism for securing ‘individual freedoms’, does not provide the full answer. A political view is needed instead. Pro-capitalists will argue that the mere act of legislating for individual freedoms is sufficient for a ‘free society’. Socialists will argue that a society can only be free if those rights are realised.
Which side do you fall on? Is legislating for individual freedoms enough? Or should a state try to ensure that those freedoms are realised?
It’s like you don’t even have a passing familiarity with Chinese politics. The local councils which the average person can actually vote for are notoriously corrupt. Easily as bad as anything you’ll find in the west, and often far more so.
It’s like I linked a whole bunch of scholarly articles from institutions like Harvard explaining Chinese politics. The reality is that people in China have seen their lives consistently improve with each and every decade. Countless studies show that the standard of living in China is improving at an incredible rate, and that people see the government work in their interest.
And yes, China isn’t perfect, there’s corruption, but that’s missing the point entirely. Corruption exists in every human society, the discussion is whose interest the government is working in. In the west the government works in the interest of the capital owning class, in China it works in the interest of the working majority.
Bro, I have family in China and have lived there for a few years. You are completely delusional about how this works in practice. I’ve also seen the real terror on the real face of a real person when you so much as utter some controversial political language in the wrong company.
It’s actually insane to me that you will call the west brainwashed, and then quote satisfaction surveys of the CCP without a hint of self awareness. Come on. You want actual data? China is ranked lower than basically every other developed nation on the global corruption perception index.
Bro I have friends from China, and lots of my friends moved back to China after university. Weird how Chinese students keep returning to China because it’s such a hell right. What’s insane is that somebody could live in the west and not see the brainwashing.
Meanwhile, it’s absolutely hilarious how you keep going on about corruption when countries like US have an entire government owned by the oligarchs.
Again, the fact you keep dancing around is that quality of life in China has been improving dramatically by practically every measure, meanwhile the opposite is happening in the west. That’s the elephant in the room mr. transparency index.
A major difference between China and the West re: corruption is that it’s institutionalized in the West and called “lobbying.” Because of this, it’s easy for Westerners to point at China and say local councils are “notoriously corrupt” but not bat an eye at lobbyists, rich donors, and [super]pacs swaying Congressional votes.
I’m not interested in any political system where I can’t criticize the ruling party without fearing for my or my family’s safety or permanently becoming unable to find employment anywhere except coal/steel plants working 12-14/hours straight 6 days a week for piss wages…
Don’t get me wrong, I’m an anarchist, I’m against the USA model as much as the Chinese model.
But lol, yeah sorry, not interested in being forced to conform by a hierarchy of “leaders” who have no inherent right to do so in the name of “society” or some vague idea of the greater good/social contract.
What communists accomplished in USSR, China, Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam are all successes of communism, even if they don’t fit with your ideals. All of these revolutions have resulted in huge tangible improvements in the standard of living for the people, and created far more egalitarian societies than anything seen under capitalism.
Not really successes at all if you’ve read your Marx.
All of them followed in Stalins ‘leninistic’ (how ironic) approach. With a single ruler that reeks of old fashioned monarchism rather then the rule of the prolitariat. Some of them even renouncing communism and embracing blatant capitalism (some only embracing capitalism but staying communist in name only).
The only thing they do for pure marxism is accelerating the revolution to come, but actualy condoning repression in other places just for that sake is quite fin de siecle type of marxist thought.
Having read my Marx, I know that Marx realized that Leninistic approach would be necessary to create a socialist state. This is the key disagreement Marx had with anarchists. Furthermore, it’s obvious that when the world is dominated by a capitalist hegemon, socialist states exist under siege. The fact that you equate socialist states with monarchism shows profound lack of understanding of the subject you’re debating.
Fallacious argument. Just because something hasn’t been successful before or people don’t see how to make it work doesn’t justify an existing unethical/immoral system. Plenty of people thought it was crazy to imagine a world where slavery wasn’t a thing. That didn’t justify continuing that system though.
There are many of examples of anarchist or pseudo-anarchist communities that exist. Many Shaolin monastic communities are anarchistic, and egalitarian depending on the sect. Some Mennonite and old world Amish communities are anarchistic also, having only collective property and some personal property, no privatization.
Some first nations tribes were pseudo-anarchist, operating as a collective with egalitarian leadership based largely on life experience and wisdom, they maintained completely voluntary relationships with other tribes in the region and had no private property.
It’s not a fallacious argument at all. When people keep trying to do something for over a century and have nothing to show for it, then the onus is on them to demonstrate that it can work. If you tell me that walking sucks because you can flap your arms and fly much faster, then you have to demonstrate that it’s actually possible to do.
Communists have built successful communist states that liberated millions of people from capitalist oppression, provided them with education, food, housing, and jobs. These are real tangible improvements that are possible following the communist model.
Anarchists have never achieved any sort of liberation at scale, and these pseudo-anarchist communities don’t translate into systemic change in society.
I’m surprised to see a narrative like this in some of the links, especially the Harvard ones. But I suppose the children of the ruling class need to be taught what the world is actually like if they are to have any hope of continuing to rule it.
It won’t serve a Harvard graduate very well to be lied to about what China is like – once their uncle gets them a cushy job, they’ll be expected to negotiate with Chinese businesses and diplomats, and that won’t go well if all they can repeat is the propaganda line.
It’s amazing how much factual information you can find in western sources when you know where to look. The genius of western propaganda though is that majority of people will not read these sources, and will react the way we see a lot of people in this thread reacting when presented with them. There’s no need for censorship because people censor themselves collectively. This is the ultimate brainwashing the west managed to achieve.
Seems like the problem isn’t with democracy, but with the western falvor of liberal parliamentary democracy. Democracy is working just fine in China according to people who live there. All the available studies, including ones coming from prominent western institutions such as Harvard, consistently show that China is democratic and that public satisfaction with the government is far higher than in any western country:
Sorry, you can’t have democracy without basic political agency. You can’t have basic political agency without the ability to speak freely.
Picking between three party approved technocrats is not sufficient for political self determination.
In that case, democracy doesn’t exist anywhere in the world and likely could never exist.
There are plenty of places where citizens are free to engage in normal discussions about politics, and particularly the history of their own country.
But yes, nothing is perfect, the world is not your false dichotomy, and every system should seek to iteratively improve. China should seek to grant its citizens more individual freedoms as well, wouldn’t you agree? This is very low hanging fruit for free society, and China has a lot more work to do than the west on this particular issue.
There’s no false democracy. I’m simply pointing out what you clarified: there is no perfect. Speech will be restricted everywhere and claiming that democracy cannot exist without fully unfettered speech contradicts a fundamental tenet of liberalism—tolerance, and with it the dilemma of speech that harms and so interfere’s with others’ freedom not to be harmed. See Bentham, Mill, or Isaiah Berlin for more on this topic.
I suppose you mean first-generation rights (in the language of international human rights law) as these are the ones that flow from the enlightenment and cover the freedom of expression, for instance. While I agree that China should grant its citizens as many rights as possible, the level of our agreement depends on what we each mean by individual freedoms.
I agree with first-generation rights in principle but they are fundamentally contradictory and their experimental application around the world suggests they cannot be realised because the law cannot resolve those contradictions. There are political economic contradictions, too. Realising first, second-, and third-generation rights is incompatible with capitalism. It is simply not possible to uphold the right of private property and allow workers, for instance, a full right of free expression in the workplace, nor to allow moneyed lobbying in the legislature while granting the same voice to individuals. You can find a good explanation of the law underpinning this argument in International Human Rights by Philip Alston and Ryan Goodman (perhaps in Parts B and C).
China seems to be rather good at providing what are known as second- and third-generation rights, which are usually given less than lip-service in the west. If we are making a comparison, then China appears to accept a duty to implement these rights, while liberal democracies only accept that legislating for said rights is enough (including for first-generation rights). If we’re talking about the US, it doesn’t even acknowledge many such rights. The argument goes that the constituent states cannot legislate for the federal state and the federal state cannot legislate for the constituent states. There is a similarity with China but there the question is, how should these rights be implemented locally, not should they be implemented?
The west appears to have to go a lot further to go than China with regard to second- and third-generation rights but China appears to have a lot further to go than the west with regard to first-generation rights. I say ‘appears’ in both cases because neither party can go much further in the suggested directions under existing conditions. There are two insurmountable problems, one for each. The one for the west is explained above: capitalism and the guaranteed realisation of rights are incompatible.
For China, realising first-generation rights in the way that they are implemented in the west is incompatible with socialism. The text in emphasis is important because at a theoretical level, first-generation rights are needed to secure political participation. Socialists in China (not all – it is not a homogenous state) would argue that the way that first-generation rights are implemented in China is the only way to secure socialist political participation. Just as westerners often argue that the western model of human rights is the only way to secure bourgeois political participation.
At this point, the problem with relying on legal concepts to define ‘free society’ has been revealed. Law, which provides the language and the mechanism for securing ‘individual freedoms’, does not provide the full answer. A political view is needed instead. Pro-capitalists will argue that the mere act of legislating for individual freedoms is sufficient for a ‘free society’. Socialists will argue that a society can only be free if those rights are realised.
Which side do you fall on? Is legislating for individual freedoms enough? Or should a state try to ensure that those freedoms are realised?
Somebody should let people like Assange, Manning, and Snowden know that they can speak freely.
Ah yes, real democracy is picking between parties owned by the oligarchs. 😂
Imagine believing there are no oligarchs in China.
Imagine thinking oligarchs control China 😂
It’s like you don’t even have a passing familiarity with Chinese politics. The local councils which the average person can actually vote for are notoriously corrupt. Easily as bad as anything you’ll find in the west, and often far more so.
It’s like I linked a whole bunch of scholarly articles from institutions like Harvard explaining Chinese politics. The reality is that people in China have seen their lives consistently improve with each and every decade. Countless studies show that the standard of living in China is improving at an incredible rate, and that people see the government work in their interest.
And yes, China isn’t perfect, there’s corruption, but that’s missing the point entirely. Corruption exists in every human society, the discussion is whose interest the government is working in. In the west the government works in the interest of the capital owning class, in China it works in the interest of the working majority.
Bro, I have family in China and have lived there for a few years. You are completely delusional about how this works in practice. I’ve also seen the real terror on the real face of a real person when you so much as utter some controversial political language in the wrong company.
It’s actually insane to me that you will call the west brainwashed, and then quote satisfaction surveys of the CCP without a hint of self awareness. Come on. You want actual data? China is ranked lower than basically every other developed nation on the global corruption perception index.
https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2022
Bro I have friends from China, and lots of my friends moved back to China after university. Weird how Chinese students keep returning to China because it’s such a hell right. What’s insane is that somebody could live in the west and not see the brainwashing.
Meanwhile, it’s absolutely hilarious how you keep going on about corruption when countries like US have an entire government owned by the oligarchs.
Again, the fact you keep dancing around is that quality of life in China has been improving dramatically by practically every measure, meanwhile the opposite is happening in the west. That’s the elephant in the room mr. transparency index.
A major difference between China and the West re: corruption is that it’s institutionalized in the West and called “lobbying.” Because of this, it’s easy for Westerners to point at China and say local councils are “notoriously corrupt” but not bat an eye at lobbyists, rich donors, and [super]pacs swaying Congressional votes.
From your own damn source.
🤣
oh hey, why don’t you quote the rest of it? 😂
I’m not interested in any political system where I can’t criticize the ruling party without fearing for my or my family’s safety or permanently becoming unable to find employment anywhere except coal/steel plants working 12-14/hours straight 6 days a week for piss wages…
This political system you made up sounds fascinating.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m an anarchist, I’m against the USA model as much as the Chinese model.
But lol, yeah sorry, not interested in being forced to conform by a hierarchy of “leaders” who have no inherent right to do so in the name of “society” or some vague idea of the greater good/social contract.
You let us all know when there’s a successful anarchist experiment that lasts more than a week.
Now do the same for communism (the marxist type, not Leninism/stalinism/maoism.)
What communists accomplished in USSR, China, Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam are all successes of communism, even if they don’t fit with your ideals. All of these revolutions have resulted in huge tangible improvements in the standard of living for the people, and created far more egalitarian societies than anything seen under capitalism.
Not really successes at all if you’ve read your Marx.
All of them followed in Stalins ‘leninistic’ (how ironic) approach. With a single ruler that reeks of old fashioned monarchism rather then the rule of the prolitariat. Some of them even renouncing communism and embracing blatant capitalism (some only embracing capitalism but staying communist in name only).
The only thing they do for pure marxism is accelerating the revolution to come, but actualy condoning repression in other places just for that sake is quite fin de siecle type of marxist thought.
Having read my Marx, I know that Marx realized that Leninistic approach would be necessary to create a socialist state. This is the key disagreement Marx had with anarchists. Furthermore, it’s obvious that when the world is dominated by a capitalist hegemon, socialist states exist under siege. The fact that you equate socialist states with monarchism shows profound lack of understanding of the subject you’re debating.
Fallacious argument. Just because something hasn’t been successful before or people don’t see how to make it work doesn’t justify an existing unethical/immoral system. Plenty of people thought it was crazy to imagine a world where slavery wasn’t a thing. That didn’t justify continuing that system though.
There are many of examples of anarchist or pseudo-anarchist communities that exist. Many Shaolin monastic communities are anarchistic, and egalitarian depending on the sect. Some Mennonite and old world Amish communities are anarchistic also, having only collective property and some personal property, no privatization.
Some first nations tribes were pseudo-anarchist, operating as a collective with egalitarian leadership based largely on life experience and wisdom, they maintained completely voluntary relationships with other tribes in the region and had no private property.
It’s not a fallacious argument at all. When people keep trying to do something for over a century and have nothing to show for it, then the onus is on them to demonstrate that it can work. If you tell me that walking sucks because you can flap your arms and fly much faster, then you have to demonstrate that it’s actually possible to do.
Communists have built successful communist states that liberated millions of people from capitalist oppression, provided them with education, food, housing, and jobs. These are real tangible improvements that are possible following the communist model.
Anarchists have never achieved any sort of liberation at scale, and these pseudo-anarchist communities don’t translate into systemic change in society.
Thanks for these sources.
I’m surprised to see a narrative like this in some of the links, especially the Harvard ones. But I suppose the children of the ruling class need to be taught what the world is actually like if they are to have any hope of continuing to rule it.
It won’t serve a Harvard graduate very well to be lied to about what China is like – once their uncle gets them a cushy job, they’ll be expected to negotiate with Chinese businesses and diplomats, and that won’t go well if all they can repeat is the propaganda line.
It’s amazing how much factual information you can find in western sources when you know where to look. The genius of western propaganda though is that majority of people will not read these sources, and will react the way we see a lot of people in this thread reacting when presented with them. There’s no need for censorship because people censor themselves collectively. This is the ultimate brainwashing the west managed to achieve.
Lmao, what? You can’t be serious.
Wait, are you serious?!
Yeah, I’m as serious as Harvard is. Maybe bother learning about the subject you’re opinion on?
The rally cry of the propagandist.
Ah yes, resorting to name calling when you don’t have any actual point to make.
Careful now, you’ve stirred up the china hawks!
Thanks for the sources! Here’s another one that I read the other day and found pretty insightful https://www.sinification.com/p/why-chinese-democracy-is-better-than