All governments are authoritiarian. They have the authority to tax you and can do that cuz they have a monopoly on violence. But if you have “HUMAN RIGHTS” written on a piece of paper in your capital building that basically makes you a democracy, right?
This argument is essentially “words have no real meaning”. Having authority does not make a government authoritarian. The term authoritarianism is defined. The CCP is authoritarian, by definition, starting with (but not ending with) having only one political party.
maybe if more people voted for them they would be bigger parties does a party stop being a party because it’s smaller than the dominant party? By that measure, Japan is authoritarian as they’ve been run by a single party (the LDP) for nearly 70 years!
Bluntly, the definition of authoritarianism as any exercise of authority is far too broad to be useful, and is not consistent with actual academic discourse regarding political systems.
Excerising authority does not make a government authoritarian. If the law says “thou shalt not commit murder”, and the government enforces this law, would you label that as authoritarianism?
The Chinese government has much higher approval ratings from its people (consent of the governed) than the U.S. and most any other western “democracy”. It uses less violence against its citizens (US has the highest rate of incarceration in the world plus high rates of police murder and brutality) as well as internationally (China hasn’t bombed or invaded anybody in like 40 years while the U.S. does so daily over the same time period). Objectively, for the word to have any meaning at all the US is far more authoritarian. It uses its authority more violently and malevolently. If you can’t admit this you aren’t engaging with reality, you’re just afraid of challenging the propaganda you’ve been indoctrinated with.
What does the enforcement of this law entail? Police, prisons, arrests, all measures you could simply label authoritarian with no context, no matter how much we might agree on murder being bad, and laws against it being good.
America. This is America. It’s the same picture. America does the same thing but in a different fashion. Please at least admit America is authoritiarian. Why not? I’m a principled maoist, but this makes me want to burn down Walmarts
its not whataboutism, Im saying a lake is a pond a pond is a lake. I watched john oliver in high school, but really tho would you have supported the entente in ww1 cuz the axis were “authoritarian”??? I know history, I know this shit is bullshit. I’ll talk to you all day about the shortcomings of the USSR, or the PRC, or the DPRK, whatever the fuck, they all have valid criticism, but fuck if america aint some kinda authoritarian state, then idk what
Whataboutism is when you ignore a criticism of one party and instead say that another party is worse in some way, in order to distract from the original discussion. Hexbear users apparently love this underhanded tactic.
See that’s the fundamental mistake you libs make. You project your childlike black and white worldview onto people with a broader understanding, like the christians who think that atheists hate god.
How much influence do the 6 other parties hold in the us?
Would you think china was more democratic if the 8 parties had a larger share of the votes, or would you find some other way to downcut it? Why would a larger share be better? If it was equal would that then be the best? Is democracy a function of how many parties are in government? Would it be a good thing if the president had a minority share of the vote?
Would you think china was more democratic if the 8 parties had a larger share of the votes
Yes, broader representation would literally be more democratic.
Why would a larger share be better?
Because that’s how democracy works.
Is democracy a function of how many parties are in government?
Democracy is a function of broad representation in government, ideally complete representation, though this is difficult to achieve in practice.
Would it be a good thing if the president had a minority share of the vote?
In the PRC, only local officials are elected, and only candidates which are approved by the ruling party can be nominated for those elections. The president is not subject to direct popular election.
Under the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China, the CCP is guaranteed a leadership role, and the National People’s Congress therefore does not serve as a forum of debate between government and opposition parties as is the case with Western parliaments.[9] At the same time, the Constitution makes the Party subordinate to laws passed by the National People’s Congress, and the NPC has been the forum for debates and conflict resolution between different interest groups. The CCP maintains control over the NPC by controlling delegate selection, maintaining control over the legislative agenda, and controlling the constitutional amendment process.[9]
The ruling party controls delegate selection, the legislative agenda, and constitutional amendments, which ensures that they can maintain their own control indefinitely. This is the opposite of democratic.
Yes, broader representation would literally be more democratic.
Okay so we should just redistribute some of the votes people cast for their choice of candidate? Ignoring who people voted for in order to get a more broad collection of parties would somehow be more democratic than following the will of the people? A broad selection in itself isn’t inherently “more democratic”. A broad representation is a symptom of a vibrant democracy, but it’s not a rule.
Because that’s how democracy works
I’m pretty sure democracy works by people voting for those they believe represent their values, but I guess I’m just misunderstanding things. Apparently the Democracymeter™ counts how many different parties are in a government, and the more there are the better it would be. I guess this at least means you’re admitting China is a better democracy than the US, Canada, Australia and most european countries, which is something.
In the PRC, only local officials are elected, and only candidates which are approved by the ruling party can be nominated for those elections. The president is not subject to direct popular election
Thanks for not answering my question! I do actually already know this, but it’s always nice to retread old ground. I’m gonna ask it again, since the point is to illustrate the absurdity of your statement. Would it be a good thing if the president had a minority share of the vote?
The ruling party controls delegate selection, the legislative agenda, and constitutional amendments, which ensures that they can maintain their own control indefinitely. This is the opposite of democratic.
Dawg you’re quoting wikipedia. Please bring some actual sources if you want me to take this seriously Wikipedia is prone to ideological bias it’s also a nazi cesspool Fact is that China has a very high voter approval - Now I already know what you’re going to say “Oh they lie, oh they repress!” Cope. I have no reason to think that. China isn’t the country with the largest prisoner population in the world. China isn’t the country that is legalising child-workers. China isn’t the country that is disappearing minority leaders China isn’t the country with media constantly housing state employess lying in order to drum up warfervor.
The parties represent interests separate from and under the CPC, which is one of the largest political parties on earth and comprises of a tenth of the eligible population in China. The CPC is the party which represents the majority interests of the population, of which mas multiparty organization would merely atomize and undermine socialization.
He is using it as an insult, and as a way to convey that you do not comprehend the text you are reading. He does not mean it literally, but figuratively. This is really basic-level communication, but sometimes it can be difficult to parse tone - Please indicate if you need tone signifier for communication.
The word authoritarian has no meaning. Any definition that covers the PRC also covers every other country. Unless of course the definition is “non-white people are in the government” but at that point the definition is just madk-off
All governments are authoritiarian. They have the authority to tax you and can do that cuz they have a monopoly on violence. But if you have “HUMAN RIGHTS” written on a piece of paper in your capital building that basically makes you a democracy, right?
Anarchy in the streets, MLM in the sheets
This argument is essentially “words have no real meaning”. Having authority does not make a government authoritarian. The term authoritarianism is defined. The CCP is authoritarian, by definition, starting with (but not ending with) having only one political party.
China has 8 other political parties in its congress
also it’s officially the CPC (Communist Party of China), not the CCP
Mmmhmm, and how many of those tiny parties have any functional political power? When was the last time that a non-CCP member led the PRC?
Oh right, never. These other parties are tokens. Period.
maybe if more people voted for them they would be bigger parties
does a party stop being a party because it’s smaller than the dominant party? By that measure, Japan is authoritarian as they’ve been run by a single party (the LDP) for nearly 70 years!
I mean, maybe? I’m not particularly educated on Japanese politics, but they are a constitutional monarchy.
But as I noted above, being a single-party state is not the entire definition of authoritarianism, just one part of it. The Chinese political system is authoritarian.
Bluntly, the definition of authoritarianism as any exercise of authority is far too broad to be useful, and is not consistent with actual academic discourse regarding political systems.
Excerising authority does not make a government authoritarian. If the law says “thou shalt not commit murder”, and the government enforces this law, would you label that as authoritarianism?
The Chinese government has much higher approval ratings from its people (consent of the governed) than the U.S. and most any other western “democracy”. It uses less violence against its citizens (US has the highest rate of incarceration in the world plus high rates of police murder and brutality) as well as internationally (China hasn’t bombed or invaded anybody in like 40 years while the U.S. does so daily over the same time period). Objectively, for the word to have any meaning at all the US is far more authoritarian. It uses its authority more violently and malevolently. If you can’t admit this you aren’t engaging with reality, you’re just afraid of challenging the propaganda you’ve been indoctrinated with.
What does the enforcement of this law entail? Police, prisons, arrests, all measures you could simply label authoritarian with no context, no matter how much we might agree on murder being bad, and laws against it being good.
Then present a definition that isn’t too broad to be useful, because so far you haven’t.
America. This is America. It’s the same picture. America does the same thing but in a different fashion. Please at least admit America is authoritiarian. Why not? I’m a principled maoist, but this makes me want to burn down Walmarts
I’m not playing whataboutism games right now.
its not whataboutism, Im saying a lake is a pond a pond is a lake. I watched john oliver in high school, but really tho would you have supported the entente in ww1 cuz the axis were “authoritarian”??? I know history, I know this shit is bullshit. I’ll talk to you all day about the shortcomings of the USSR, or the PRC, or the DPRK, whatever the fuck, they all have valid criticism, but fuck if america aint some kinda authoritarian state, then idk what
Whataboutism is when you hold two governments to the same standard.
If capitalist bootlickers didn’t have double standards, they wouldn’t have any standards at all.
Whataboutism is when you ignore a criticism of one party and instead say that another party is worse in some way, in order to distract from the original discussion. Hexbear users apparently love this underhanded tactic.
See that’s the fundamental mistake you libs make. You project your childlike black and white worldview onto people with a broader understanding, like the christians who think that atheists hate god.
These parties also haven’t liftend millions of people out of poverty, that should help them get elected then
How much influence do the 6 other parties hold in the us?
Would you think china was more democratic if the 8 parties had a larger share of the votes, or would you find some other way to downcut it? Why would a larger share be better? If it was equal would that then be the best? Is democracy a function of how many parties are in government? Would it be a good thing if the president had a minority share of the vote?
Yes, broader representation would literally be more democratic.
Because that’s how democracy works.
Democracy is a function of broad representation in government, ideally complete representation, though this is difficult to achieve in practice.
In the PRC, only local officials are elected, and only candidates which are approved by the ruling party can be nominated for those elections. The president is not subject to direct popular election.
ref
The ruling party controls delegate selection, the legislative agenda, and constitutional amendments, which ensures that they can maintain their own control indefinitely. This is the opposite of democratic.
Okay so we should just redistribute some of the votes people cast for their choice of candidate? Ignoring who people voted for in order to get a more broad collection of parties would somehow be more democratic than following the will of the people? A broad selection in itself isn’t inherently “more democratic”. A broad representation is a symptom of a vibrant democracy, but it’s not a rule.
I’m pretty sure democracy works by people voting for those they believe represent their values, but I guess I’m just misunderstanding things. Apparently the Democracymeter™ counts how many different parties are in a government, and the more there are the better it would be. I guess this at least means you’re admitting China is a better democracy than the US, Canada, Australia and most european countries, which is something.
Thanks for not answering my question! I do actually already know this, but it’s always nice to retread old ground. I’m gonna ask it again, since the point is to illustrate the absurdity of your statement. Would it be a good thing if the president had a minority share of the vote?
Dawg you’re quoting wikipedia. Please bring some actual sources if you want me to take this seriously Wikipedia is prone to ideological bias it’s also a nazi cesspool Fact is that China has a very high voter approval - Now I already know what you’re going to say “Oh they lie, oh they repress!” Cope. I have no reason to think that. China isn’t the country with the largest prisoner population in the world. China isn’t the country that is legalising child-workers. China isn’t the country that is disappearing minority leaders China isn’t the country with media constantly housing state employess lying in order to drum up warfervor.
The parties represent interests separate from and under the CPC, which is one of the largest political parties on earth and comprises of a tenth of the eligible population in China. The CPC is the party which represents the majority interests of the population, of which mas multiparty organization would merely atomize and undermine socialization.
Also stop saying ‘CCP’; you are illiterate lmao.
Since this is demonstrably not the case, I have to assume that you don’t know what the word means, which is somewhat ironic…
He is using it as an insult, and as a way to convey that you do not comprehend the text you are reading. He does not mean it literally, but figuratively. This is really basic-level communication, but sometimes it can be difficult to parse tone - Please indicate if you need tone signifier for communication.
What I need is discussion with people who are mature enough to not feel the need to use insults when making their arguments.
“The United States is also a one-party system, but in classic American extravagance, they have two of them”
-Julius Nyerere, first president of Tanzania
The word authoritarian has no meaning. Any definition that covers the PRC also covers every other country. Unless of course the definition is “non-white people are in the government” but at that point the definition is just madk-off