7 ms·

What makes people uncomfortable is that the US is a democracy, and the leaders are chosen by the population. China's military and social power is wielded by a v

by boc 6y ago

What makes people uncomfortable is that the US is a democracy, and the leaders are chosen by the population. China's military and social power is wielded by a very small group of elites in the CCP, which makes it hard to trust. The nature of US policy has been shaped over the centuries in the open, whereas China's policies and doctrines are sometimes changed overnight.

wcarss 6y ago
> What makes people uncomfortable is that the US is a democracy, and the leaders are chosen by the population. Well, sort of. They're almost always from very wealthy families with very particular educational, social, and occupational histories, on both sides. We get to choose from within the group that makes it to through the candidate vetting processes controlled by the parties. > China's military and social power is wielded by a very small group of elites in the CCP, which makes it hard to trust. Again, it's pretty similar. The rich and their children have time and money to build the connections that can get them into positions of institutional power. > The nature of US policy has been shaped over the centuries in the open, whereas China's policies and doctrines are sometimes changed overnight. Policy changes in China get voted on too. They might seem like an orchestrated rubber stamp to us -- and they might actually be! But similarly in the US, executive orders, agency decisions, and supreme court orders can happen swiftly and have similarly profound impacts on the people and the system. See for example Citizen's United, or the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine by the FCC. Did any normal people vote for those things? They kind of just... happened, and their impacts are huge. I'm not trying to say I would rather live in China or under its system, rather that our perceptions of the differences between the systems are influenced heavily by our context and our naturally western-oriented media diet, and they may in reality be smaller than we feel. To put it very cynically, our system currently works by allowing average people to feel like we have control over it, while China's doesn't use that tool so much. In truth, average people don't have any real control over either system under normal circumstances.
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  > Again, it's pretty similar. I don't see how... Yes, the US has a classist bias and certainly some mild corruption. That still seems a world apart from a single party system that routinely flouts its own constitution. Also, executive orders and legislation are bound by the constitution in theory and practice. While they may result in abrupt changes from time-to-time, they are limited in scope. That seems materially different to me than a single party system that can pass, overturn, or utterly ignore whatever legislation it likes overnight.
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    Agreed. Let me know when China's equivalent of the Supreme Court rules that something Xi is doing is unconstitutional, and makes it stick.
    - refenestrator 6y ago
      Everything is politics, including Supreme Court rulings. Gay marriage wasn't a constitutional right until politics demanded it. In China it's the Politburo rather than a Supreme Court but the leader must also engage with politics and get buy-in for changes.
      - throwaway894345 6y ago
        Hear, hear! In Anglo-Saxon England, the King too needed support from his lords. Clearly all of these systems are all exactly identical and there has been no progress in the intervening millennium.
        refenestrator 6y ago
        The King needed a varying amount of support from lords, one church or another and a developing parliament depending on when in time it was. And at every step along that journey, it was proclaimed as the best possible way of doing things, ordained by god, etc etc. Not just politics, we actually have the ideal system here.
- xNeil 6y ago
  >To put it very cynically, our system currently works by allowing average people to feel like we have control over it, while China's doesn't use that tool so much. In truth, average people don't have any real control over either system under normal circumstances. I think we do. Voting for Donald Trump or Joe Biden was entirely in the average person's control, and the outcome is that Joe Biden won. Simple. Take, for example, the President. Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan - none of them came from wealthy families. If the most powerful man in the country is chosen entirely by the people, I'd say average people do have control over the system.
pbhjpbhj 6y ago
Hmm, USA isn't governed by a relatively small group of elites? You have elections where the presidency can either go to a slightly right-wing candidate or a much more-right-wing candidate. Until January the president's family were all employed in political positions, weren't they? How's that for a small group of elites?? You've got major political and financial dynasties that seem pretty good at preserving power and keeping it in a small group. >The nature of US policy has been shaped over the centuries in the open, // That really doesn't seem to be true. Do you teach in schools about all the democracies that those in power have chosen to meddle with? Is it in election manifestos? Like "if elected we will depose the democratically elected leaders of country X in order to impose a dictator who is covertly in our employ". >China's policies and doctrines are sometimes changed overnight // Exactly like presidential edicts? How much of the population voted to leave the Paris Agreement on climate change, for example? I'm not saying China ain't bad, their leadership clearly aren't great either.
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  Ignoring the silly Overton window flamebait and the conflation of legislation and executive order, if we can't understand the difference between a de jure single-party system and a two party system with mild corruption, then we're lost.
  - riskneutral 6y ago
    > if we can't understand the difference between a de jure single-party system and a two party system with mild corruption, then we're lost. Lost in translation. "Single party system" is a fancy way of saying "totalitarian dictatorship." "Two party system with mild corruption" is a fancy way of saying "modern plutocracy." I agree that modern plutocracy is better than totalitarian dictatorship. It's not great but it could be worse.
refenestrator 6y ago
The CCP is 100 million people, FYI. This thread is great, OP asks for less reductionist good vs evil viewpoints and gets 20 replies saying 'no its actually that'.
- wassenaar10 6y ago
  > The CCP is 100 million people, FYI. Are you trying to say that all 100 million of them have meaningful influence on CCP policy? Like some sort of great big Athenian democracy?
  - refenestrator 6y ago
    How much meaningful influence do you have on American policy? There are lots of facets and levels of politics -- being a CCP member kind of necessitates being engaged in some way, probably at the local level for the vast majority of them.
    - kingofpandora 6y ago
      > How much meaningful influence do you have on American policy? Very little, that's why we refer to the actions of the American government rather than the actions American people.
      - refenestrator 6y ago
        This thread started with a heartfelt plea from 9th grade civics about how America is an Accountable Democracy, though.
        throwaway894345 6y ago
        It turns out that "corruption" (or choose your metric) isn't a binary proposition, so the argument, "but the US has corruption too!" kind of misses the point.

by boc 6y ago

wcarss 6y ago

> What makes people uncomfortable is that the US is a democracy, and the leaders are chosen by the population. Well, sort of. They're almost always from very wealthy families with very particular educational, social, and occupational histories, on both sides. We get to choose from within the group that makes it to through the candidate vetting processes controlled by the parties. > China's military and social power is wielded by a very small group of elites in the CCP, which makes it hard to trust. Again, it's pretty similar. The rich and their children have time and money to build the connections that can get them into positions of institutional power. > The nature of US policy has been shaped over the centuries in the open, whereas China's policies and doctrines are sometimes changed overnight. Policy changes in China get voted on too. They might seem like an orchestrated rubber stamp to us -- and they might actually be! But similarly in the US, executive orders, agency decisions, and supreme court orders can happen swiftly and have similarly profound impacts on the people and the system. See for example Citizen's United, or the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine by the FCC. Did any normal people vote for those things? They kind of just... happened, and their impacts are huge. I'm not trying to say I would rather live in China or under its system, rather that our perceptions of the differences between the systems are influenced heavily by our context and our naturally western-oriented media diet, and they may in reality be smaller than we feel. To put it very cynically, our system currently works by allowing average people to feel like we have control over it, while China's doesn't use that tool so much. In truth, average people don't have any real control over either system under normal circumstances.

throwaway894345 6y ago
> Again, it's pretty similar. I don't see how... Yes, the US has a classist bias and certainly some mild corruption. That still seems a world apart from a single party system that routinely flouts its own constitution. Also, executive orders and legislation are bound by the constitution in theory and practice. While they may result in abrupt changes from time-to-time, they are limited in scope. That seems materially different to me than a single party system that can pass, overturn, or utterly ignore whatever legislation it likes overnight.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  Agreed. Let me know when China's equivalent of the Supreme Court rules that something Xi is doing is unconstitutional, and makes it stick.
  - refenestrator 6y ago
    Everything is politics, including Supreme Court rulings. Gay marriage wasn't a constitutional right until politics demanded it. In China it's the Politburo rather than a Supreme Court but the leader must also engage with politics and get buy-in for changes.
    - throwaway894345 6y ago
      Hear, hear! In Anglo-Saxon England, the King too needed support from his lords. Clearly all of these systems are all exactly identical and there has been no progress in the intervening millennium.
      - refenestrator 6y ago
        The King needed a varying amount of support from lords, one church or another and a developing parliament depending on when in time it was. And at every step along that journey, it was proclaimed as the best possible way of doing things, ordained by god, etc etc. Not just politics, we actually have the ideal system here.
xNeil 6y ago
>To put it very cynically, our system currently works by allowing average people to feel like we have control over it, while China's doesn't use that tool so much. In truth, average people don't have any real control over either system under normal circumstances. I think we do. Voting for Donald Trump or Joe Biden was entirely in the average person's control, and the outcome is that Joe Biden won. Simple. Take, for example, the President. Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan - none of them came from wealthy families. If the most powerful man in the country is chosen entirely by the people, I'd say average people do have control over the system.

pbhjpbhj 6y ago

Hmm, USA isn't governed by a relatively small group of elites? You have elections where the presidency can either go to a slightly right-wing candidate or a much more-right-wing candidate. Until January the president's family were all employed in political positions, weren't they? How's that for a small group of elites?? You've got major political and financial dynasties that seem pretty good at preserving power and keeping it in a small group. >The nature of US policy has been shaped over the centuries in the open, // That really doesn't seem to be true. Do you teach in schools about all the democracies that those in power have chosen to meddle with? Is it in election manifestos? Like "if elected we will depose the democratically elected leaders of country X in order to impose a dictator who is covertly in our employ". >China's policies and doctrines are sometimes changed overnight // Exactly like presidential edicts? How much of the population voted to leave the Paris Agreement on climate change, for example? I'm not saying China ain't bad, their leadership clearly aren't great either.

throwaway894345 6y ago
Ignoring the silly Overton window flamebait and the conflation of legislation and executive order, if we can't understand the difference between a de jure single-party system and a two party system with mild corruption, then we're lost.
- riskneutral 6y ago
  > if we can't understand the difference between a de jure single-party system and a two party system with mild corruption, then we're lost. Lost in translation. "Single party system" is a fancy way of saying "totalitarian dictatorship." "Two party system with mild corruption" is a fancy way of saying "modern plutocracy." I agree that modern plutocracy is better than totalitarian dictatorship. It's not great but it could be worse.

refenestrator 6y ago

The CCP is 100 million people, FYI. This thread is great, OP asks for less reductionist good vs evil viewpoints and gets 20 replies saying 'no its actually that'.

wassenaar10 6y ago
> The CCP is 100 million people, FYI. Are you trying to say that all 100 million of them have meaningful influence on CCP policy? Like some sort of great big Athenian democracy?
- refenestrator 6y ago
  How much meaningful influence do you have on American policy? There are lots of facets and levels of politics -- being a CCP member kind of necessitates being engaged in some way, probably at the local level for the vast majority of them.
  - kingofpandora 6y ago
    > How much meaningful influence do you have on American policy? Very little, that's why we refer to the actions of the American government rather than the actions American people.
    - refenestrator 6y ago
      This thread started with a heartfelt plea from 9th grade civics about how America is an Accountable Democracy, though.
      - throwaway894345 6y ago
        It turns out that "corruption" (or choose your metric) isn't a binary proposition, so the argument, "but the US has corruption too!" kind of misses the point.