@gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
Post #1668808
2026-04-25 17:23 UTC
Replies (8)
-
@RiverRock@lemmy.ml 2026-04-25 18:02
FYI the thing about a central guy in charge has always been a myth, even since Stalin’s time: What happens with China is essentially you have local committees for things like small towns and villages, where anyone can run for office. Then those many small councils form the pool of candidates for promotion to larger regional and federal committees, forcing would-be bigwigs to work their way up from the bottom. I believe the DPRK uses a similar system. Hopefully this doesn’t come off snide, since I know these conversations can get contentious fast. But you seem like a refreshingly normal person rather than one of the ideologically motivated internet cold warriors we get around here, so I figured I’d try and add constructively, rather than tear down.
-
@HiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml 2026-04-25 18:07
because they don’t have political freedom. there’s no stuff like “you can speak your mind as long as you’re respectful” And the West definitely, absolutely has that
-
@jankforlife@lemmy.ml 2026-04-25 18:38
china gets shit on because they don’t have political freedom; there’s no stuff like “you can speak your mind as long as you’re respectful”. it’s just one committee making all the decisions and you can go to jail for disagreeing. Not even true, common CIA talking point. They don’t disagree with their government because 99% of China’s citizens are extremely happy with their gov, not because they’ll be arrested.
-
@gary_host_laptop@lemmy.ml 2026-04-25 18:47
source:
-
@LeeeroooyJeeenkiiins@hexbear.net 2026-04-25 18:57
p.s. Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights. Albert Einstein, Why Socialism? but no again tell me about how the level of political freedom you have differs meaningfully between western societies and China
-
@dessalines@lemmy.ml 2026-04-25 21:50
You know nothing about China’s political system except the white-supremacist tropes you’ve ingested about it.
-
@rev_up@lemmygrad.ml 2026-04-25 18:59
You did the thing
-
@LeeeroooyJeeenkiiins@hexbear.net 2026-04-25 18:54
> china gets shit on because they don't have political freedom; there's no stuff like "you can speak your mind as long as you're respectful". it's just one committee making all the decisions and you can go to jail for disagreeing. what if actually it's more like you need to know what the fuck you're talking about in order to Be Political (which involves joining the party and by its nature excludes capitalist roaders and compradors attempting to bring back capitalist systems) and then democracy happens within that party instead of like a big nameless Committee made up of a hivemind AI like intelligence that just Dictates maybe that'd be better than having two bourgeois parties (or dozens of bourgeois parties in Europe/etc) owned by bourgeois interests effectively negating the existence of democracy by ensuring that all "democratic" institutions, by consequence of bourgeois influence over parties, operate at their pleasure