this post was submitted on 09 Aug 2023
519 points (92.8% liked)
World News
32315 readers
761 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Billionaires exist as a necessary evil, they're not deities like they are to the west like Gates or Bezos, or a pillar of power like Russian oligarchs. China may not be Marxist as it is, but to completely cut away from the rest of the globe would be suicide. Market socialism relies on being a necessary part of the global economy, and China being able to manufacture in it's current state while being able to raise the conditions of the proletariat makes it either the worst socialist state or the best capitalist state. Neither is worth of the vitriol it has received. If they must exist, better they exist for the benefit of the people rather than own media companies that push right wing agenda.
The fixation with executions comes from the accusation that billionaires are in charge. It they truly were, they wouldn't be subject to the same laws as the common folk, and yet herr they are. Unlike Russia or the west, they are held accountable for their actions to a higher degree. All else equal, the CPC treats billionaires worse than any other form of government, and that's not a bad thing.
For your second point re: elections: Why? The US doesn't even have free elections, an electoral college overrules pupular vote, nor does the UK, the king and house of Lords aren't subject to democracy. The Soviets had a free election in 91, voted to remain socialist,nand it was hijacked by the west. Allende was democratically elected and the west supported the usurper. An election while liberalism exists is just inviting interference. Taiwan didn't have elections for 4 decades and were still beloved by liberalss. The house of Saud doesn't have elections, did 9/11 and is a close US ally.
If the outcome is obvious, why waste time and resources to indulge western sensibilities, as if bourgeoisie democracy is a human norm, when you can skip that step and move on with increasing society? If it just leads to a Chinese Jan 6th, or worse, why would that possibly be on the table? The CPC would win and somehow the losers would obtain US military grade weapons and seize power. And even if there were no interference and the CPC won anyway, guess what? Every paper in the west would claim it was rigged.
Ren Zhengfei, the CEO of Huawei, has had people arrested and thrown into a dungeon. Billionaires here don't have that level of power.
You keep imagining yourself as some communist revolutionary, but you're just another useful idiot that's been fooled by fascist propaganda.
You should know that fascists are liars and will even label themselves as "communist" if it furthers their goals of acquiring power.
After the ruling party of China did the Tiananmen Square massacre (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Tiananmen_Square_protests_and_massacre) and got away with it, they shifted to being fascist thugs whose only goal was to maintain and expand their power.
If you're gonna support fascist thugs, at least be honest about who they are. You look really silly otherwise.
Source? Zhengfei couldn't even keep his own daughter out of prison. Xi has been the one to crack down on billionaires (part of why a lot of my family like him better than Hu) so if it happened ages ago, I don't remember. Even so, he's less wealthy than Jack Ma, who is subject to the CPC's rules, not vice versa.
All I know is the CPC has done more for the working class, lifted more workers out of poverty than any of the government's that have earned your respect.
If all they wanted to do post 1989 was to maintain and expand power why the fuck haven't they? Mongolia is right there, the Qing annexed it, the ROC annexed it, but the PRC can't? Why forgive loans for Africa?
Why exempt Tibetans and Uyghurs and Mongolians from the One Child Policy? What kind of fascism does population control on the Han majority but not the minorities in their country?
If the goal was to acquire power, there are dozens of regimes that have done a better job at seizing absolute power, but instead the CPC open up more? The Juche government of the DPRK has absolute power, why didn't China cloister itself from the world like pre Deng? Or start proxy wars in foreign countries to push nationalist jingoism?
I support my countrymen, no fascist thugs. If you've ever been to China you'd know it's not some Orwellian nightmare state. Listening to the media's portrayal of China when they lie or twist the truth on just about anything else is the brain worm talking. China's fascist like Saddam has WMDs.
Think about where you've gotten your conception of China from and question whether or not they're biased. You're talking to someone with first hand experience in China.
I think you make some excellent points and I was glad to read much of what you wrote. If you don't mind, I am curious about how concerned you are about the points raised above regarding women in positions of power and Xi's unprecedented (to my knowledge) third term?
I'm not an expert on the gender dynamics of the political system, so it's something I'll have to look into, but to address the term limits thing, I kinda have to explain how the political system of the PRC works.
The way the President of China is decided is on the system of the People's Congress. Starting from the lowest, most local level (will refer to as level 1), grassroots civilians will elect a congress representing the village/town. Larger populations elect people to a congress representing whole smaller cities, municipal districts or a county. This is level 2. Then for level 3, it's a congress for cities and prefectures. Level 4 is a congress for provinces and autonomous regions. Level 5 is the National People's Congress.
Depending on where you live and how populated, as a grassroots/civilian voter level, you elect someone to level 1 (more rural areas) or 2 (cities). Then, candidates from 1 & 2 elect someone among them to move up to level 3, level 3 select someone among them to move up to level 4, and so on. Its not possible to "skip" levels, you can't get elected into a position of power unless you've held a lesser position of power and was competent enough for your equals deem you worthy of advancing. Level 5, the National People's Congress consisting of around 3000 delegates, then elects the Central Committee for the PRC as well as the President of China by majority vote. The move to abolish term limits was put forth and passed by the National People's Congress. They must have thought it was inconsequential, or it was more important to consolidate power during rising tensions with the west. Whatever the reason, this did not increase the powers of the office of President. If it was a malicious power grab by Xi, this was a poorly done one since General Secretary (the leader of the executive branch of government) had no term limits to begin with and holds more power (for reference, Deng Xiaoping was never President, but served 3 terms as General Secretary but was the most influential man in China during his active years)
Now, term limits in and of themselves aren't necessarily good or bad. They were never in the original constitution of the PRC to begin with, were added I believe in the 80's and abolished in 2018 since its effectiveness is questionable. German Chancellor's have no term limits, nor most countries with Prime Ministers.
Thanks for answering and for trying to contextualize the answer as well. I think the latter in particular was very helpful. You are very much correct in your assertion that term limits are not a part of many democratic institutions, and I do not see any inherent issue with this. I imagine it might also depend on the particular mechanics and dynamics of the systems in question. Countries such as Germany and those with prime ministers often have a system of representation that allows for smaller political parties, which I think makes it harder for a single candidate to stay as head of state for a prolonged time (though I know of at least one case of this happening even if it isn't necessarily a bad thing).
I did not know about the way you (to me) seem to choose representatives who then iteratively elects further candidates representing them. If my understanding is correct, then I would say that the first election seems to form the basis for the subsequent ones, which I think is a neat idea. However, that would also imply that how the first election is conducted is quite important for the composition of government. What limits are there to who can be a candidate in the first and second stages of the elections? I assume of course you had to make some simplifications, so I might be off track a bit here.
Well instead of minor parties, there are simply different factions in both the CPC (the executive branch) as well as the People's Congress. Although there are actually minor parties in the National People's Congress, but even to me they seem like tokens.
There are more hardline Leninists vs more free market liberals, among other stances for the way China should move forward in both branches. Nanjie, for example is still Maoist because the people chose leadership to remain Maoist, compared to Shenzhen or Shanghai which is far more liberal. Although as a whole, in recent years "centrists" (by Chinese standards) have been more likely to be elected upwards beyond a regional/county level, but that might be due to the fact that the status quo, although not perfect, has been more beneficial than detrimental to the average Chinese.
As far as I'm aware, the lowest levels of election would be the equivalent of like a village council (although villages in China may be considered a small city in other countries), and candidates I believe have to be citizens that have no prior convictions. Relevant background also helps.
Cool! Thanks for sharing :)
where do you even get this nonsense from?