- cross-posted to:
- marxism@hexbear.net
- cross-posted to:
- marxism@hexbear.net
You must log in or register to comment.
Polite warning: the graphics are surprisingly hardware-intensive. This froze up my cheapo phone.
It’s actually a fully 3d thing going on so yeah it’s going to hurt low end hardware.
It’s an intense webpage lol
After revisiting it on a desktop, I was surprised it was possible to even condense it to anything remotely useful on a tiny mobile screen.
That’s the sort of stuff web developers used to really pride themselves on-- a page which really adapted to the screen being used, rather than just “Oh, you have a 27” monitor, let’s continue to hide menus and secondary info as though you were scrolling on a two-inch Nokia featurephone"
President Xi personally remote desktop’d into your phone to show you.
This is a very useful graphic for anyone looking at starting a party and understanding what to aim for.
What I didn’t know was that there was a qualification check for local level delegates. Does this qualification check occur multiple times as someone goes up the chain? It seems useful to have in place to ensure someone isn’t just charismatic and able to get voted up based on popularity.
One thing I will say about the layout of this graphic is that the hover-overs are not very obvious, and could be indicated as such. I was asking myself “it would be nice if it said what the responsibilities of this committee were” because it’s hidden behind hover overs.
What I didn’t know was that there was a qualification check for local level delegates. Does this qualification check occur multiple times as someone goes up the chain? It seems useful to have in place to ensure someone isn’t just charismatic and able to get voted up based on popularity.
Do we support restrictions on who people can vote for? I thought we usually regarded that as a bad thing.
I don’t see a problem with examinations existing for competency. Without it how do you ensure that the committees are elevating people based on merit?
I don’t see it as a restriction on who you can vote for, you can vote for anyone on the committee but they need to be studious enough to pass the qualification check which I assume is like an exam?
I don’t see it as a restriction on who you can vote for, you can vote for anyone on the committee
Don’t give me that. Ultimately the entire thing is meant to restrict candidates to a whitelist, the only question is whether that is a good thing or a bad thing. Saying you can vote for anyone who made the whitelist and therefore the vote is not restricted is silly question-begging and it’s below you.
Huh? No? If you have the capability to pass the test you’re not being restricted to a whitelist? It’s a test, with pass and failure thresholds. Anyone can study to pass a test, particularly if there’s no limit to the number of times you can fail it.
The party has an entrance exam to join as a standard member at the lowest level, why wouldn’t you have further exams for the more advance levels?
“Just pass the test to get on the whitelist, then the whitelist doesn’t impact you”
This is like an alternate version of “meritcratic” academic testing, it’s still a barrier to people who don’t have the same resources as others, which I would dare to assert that is a bad thing.
I’m sorry but if Xi could go from living in a literal cave sleeping on a rock bed to being party leader I have to disagree that it’s presenting a resource-based barrier.
With that said he did fail his first entrance exam into the party multiple times.
Not to downplay Xi’s abilities, but he wasn’t just some random peasant kid who grew up in a cave, he was the son of an incredibly famous revolutionary and politician. His dad was vice-chairman of the NPC for most of Xi Jinping’s early-mid political career.
Also, to be clear, Yaodong “cave houses” aren’t actually caves; Xi probably had a wooden bed.
Literal bootstrapism. I could present you success stories about poor people getting into Ivy League schools, and you’d rightly say that such stories are masking systemic problems.
You have to pass tests to become a Party member in the same way you need to pass tests to become a doctor or an engineer or a teacher. What’s the problem with that? Are people here against having qualified professionals in important jobs that affect people’s lives?
Yes, yes, I am quite familiar with how a petty official needs to often perform legislative bypass surgeries or calculate the drag on a court ruling. Absolute sophistry.
Licensure provides a basis for accountability defined by the government, whose legitimacy is founded on democratic input. Can you spot the contradiction in the government, whose legitimacy is founded on democratic input, handing out licenses that decide who democratic input is permitted to select?
The basis for accountability of an institution that is only legitimized by the popular mandate must also be democracy. The people can decide if their will is being carried out, and if it isn’t they can pick someone else (preferably by recall if it’s really a problem).
It’s great how you left out the teacher example, as if people needing to take tests and get certified in knowledge to practice is only for the elites. Massage therapists need certifications. Drivers need certifications. Why does the job of politician need to be accessible to literally any person at any time just because enough people want it to be so? This is a Communist nation which is designed around Communist, materialist principles, founded in Marxism but applied to the conditions of China. Do you even know what those things mean? Do you have a firm grasp of dialectical materialism? Have you studied and internalized these concepts, the history, the ideology? Would you be able to go out into the world and represent it to people through practicing it?
If so, congratulations, you have done something that is inherently complicated and requiring of a lot of dedication. Most people on this website who claim to follow these things could not pass a test about them; they do not practice it in real life and have never seen it in person. It isn’t something that any random person is going to be able to do and understand just because enough people say “sure you can be in charge of making sure our village is administered correctly.” You have to be able to send useful information up the chain of people who are experts on these things and more, and be able to understand what comes back down. You have to bid for budgets from these bodies to be able to enact what are often large scale operations, an example of which is in OP’s link. Do you think any person can manage these large projects with small teams and limited resources just because they are voted to do so and think “sure why not?” Or do you just assume that whatever is happening in these “petty” offices is catching stray cats?
Licensure provides a basis for accountability defined by the government, whose legitimacy is founded on democratic input. Can you spot the contradiction in the government, whose legitimacy is founded on democratic input, handing out licenses that decide who democratic input is permitted to select? The basis for accountability of an institution that is only legitimized by the popular mandate must also be democracy. The people can decide if their will is being carried out, and if it isn’t they can pick someone else (preferably by recall if it’s really a problem).
You provided the answer to your own proposition. Recalls are possible, and the different candidates who are eligible to run can try it out. If the metric is the people deciding if their will is being carried out, the 75 years of the people recalling and replacing officials in this exact way and the CPC currently having over a 92% approval rating shows clearly that their design has worked better than any ever seen in the modern day for a functional democracy. Just like I can pick my doctor, who teaches my kid, who I get a massage from, where I get my food from, who builds my house or paints my walls, I’d much prefer to be able to pick my elected officials from a pool of candidates who are qualified to do the job that I am trusting them to do. Every role in society now has standards on how things operate. Most things have certifications. It isn’t just some elite thing for life saving doctors and lawyers, the very proposition that this is reasonable is honestly a joke, you should really reflect on this. They need to actually understand how the government works, how economies work, how to talk to and understand civil engineers, agronomists, or any other specialist that is required to operate a functional modern place, or at least be trained in how to get those skills, knowledge, etc rapidly. The CPC clearly gets input from everyone who wants to give it, and these people need to take that and work to develop an actual functional plan to solve everyone’s problems- including being able to know what is incorrect and will actually derail the growth of the community.
You might think they are “petty” local offices but their system seems to be working better than any other example we’ve literally ever had so I’ll trust the Chinese people to keep their democracy going, and correct it along the course as they have been doing for longer than anyone here has been alive.
As of June 5, 2021, there were 4.86 million grassroots CPC organizations across the country.
