4 ms·

> This is why China makes the claim that it is actually more democratic[1]. This is not merely propaganda. That absolutely is propaganda. The very fact that y

by refurb 1y ago

> This is why China makes the claim that it is actually more democratic[1]. This is not merely propaganda. That absolutely is propaganda. The very fact that you can't have any political party of the CCP makes it undemocratic. However hard China tries to change the definition of "democracy", won't change that fact.

_tik_ 1y ago
"The very fact that you can't have any political party of the CCP makes it undemocratic." This claim is not accurate. I'm currently reading The Search for Modern China, and I was surprised to learn that there are, in fact, eight officially recognized political parties in China — all operating under the leadership of the CCP. One of them is even called the 'Taiwan Democratic Self-Government League.'
SideburnsOfDoom 1y ago
> That absolutely is propaganda. Of course it is, and so is the opposite claim. But that wasn't what the parent post said. The word "merely" does work in that sentence - i.e. "This is not propaganda" has a different meaning to "This is not merely propaganda" "merely" here makes the claim that it is not only propaganda, it is not just propaganda. It has substance beyond being propaganda. It is that and more.
- 1718627440 1y ago
  This is true for every propaganda, otherwise it wouldn't work.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 1y ago
    Nope. These days, most of it is "flood the zone with crap" stuff (1) that's wrong on even a quick inspection, not to mention contradictory to the rest of the crap. It's almost refreshing to see a good old-fashioned well-constructed propaganda edifice, and not a big pile of crap, one that that aims to get people to believe in something rather than nothing at all. 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firehose_of_falsehood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firehose_of_falsehood https://hac.bard.edu/amor-mundi/on-fake-hannah-arendt-quotations-2024-08-04 https://hac.bard.edu/amor-mundi/on-fake-hannah-arendt-quotat... https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/8220792-the-point-of-modern-propaganda-isn-t-only-to-misinform-or https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/8220792-the-point-of-modern...
9rx 1y ago
> The very fact that you can't have any political party of the CCP makes it undemocratic. That is only undemocratic if it is against the will of the population. If the population is choosing to only allow selecting employees from one party, then that is perfectly in line with democracy. A "political party" is just a labor union by another name, after all. Western countries by and large value free and fair elections, but that isn't what defines democracy. Hosting free and fair elections to select the autocrat of your choosing would not make a democracy. What ultimately defines democracy is the population at large having control. How they choose to use that control is up to them. There are plenty of good indicators revealing why China isn't democratic, but that statement in isolation isn't telling. Keep in mind, though, that the claim wasn't being strictly democratic — rather, it claims that on the spectrum it is more democratic than the alternatives in use.
- corimaith 1y ago
  >What ultimately defines democracy is the population at large having control. Politics is the question of how political heterogenity is resolved. The political system is the range of acceptable methods used in that resolution and how power is distrbuted amongst those competing groups. In that restrospect, Democracy and Authoritarianism exist on the same axis. The former resolves things peacefully through voting, the latter has a single interest overriding all others violently. Hence if you say "population at large having control", it's largely a meaningless statement because if a population is in agreement there is no need for politics and thus no need for a political system. In reality, politics always exist, groups are not homogenous, especially not a group on the size of billions. 99% of people don't really care about what OP says, in so much that they would forsake that for more pettier thing. We will all disagree over the tiniest of issues, and thus from there heterogenity springs and a political system is formed. Hence, the issue of "delivering results" is largely tangenital and irrelevant because that occurs after Politics. It's a given after all that a interest group would achieve it's goals without the political restraining it. So no, China isn't "more democratic" because the CCP is effective in achieving it's goals when it already has total political control. That's axiomatic. But there is explicit rejection of plurality, and thus the expression of political heterogenity, there is only one center of power allowed, and political decision-making is resolved violently. So it is Authoritarian, full stop. It is not "Democratic", in the same way it is a oxymoron to state a "Democratic Absolute Monarchy" or a "Democratic Military Dictatorship" even when the latter two can produce results. If you want to call it something, just call Authoritarian Populism.

by refurb 1y ago

_tik_ 1y ago

"The very fact that you can't have any political party of the CCP makes it undemocratic." This claim is not accurate. I'm currently reading The Search for Modern China, and I was surprised to learn that there are, in fact, eight officially recognized political parties in China — all operating under the leadership of the CCP. One of them is even called the 'Taiwan Democratic Self-Government League.'

SideburnsOfDoom 1y ago

> That absolutely is propaganda. Of course it is, and so is the opposite claim. But that wasn't what the parent post said. The word "merely" does work in that sentence - i.e. "This is not propaganda" has a different meaning to "This is not merely propaganda" "merely" here makes the claim that it is not only propaganda, it is not just propaganda. It has substance beyond being propaganda. It is that and more.

1718627440 1y ago
This is true for every propaganda, otherwise it wouldn't work.
- SideburnsOfDoom 1y ago
  Nope. These days, most of it is "flood the zone with crap" stuff (1) that's wrong on even a quick inspection, not to mention contradictory to the rest of the crap. It's almost refreshing to see a good old-fashioned well-constructed propaganda edifice, and not a big pile of crap, one that that aims to get people to believe in something rather than nothing at all. 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firehose_of_falsehood https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firehose_of_falsehood https://hac.bard.edu/amor-mundi/on-fake-hannah-arendt-quotations-2024-08-04 https://hac.bard.edu/amor-mundi/on-fake-hannah-arendt-quotat... https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/8220792-the-point-of-modern-propaganda-isn-t-only-to-misinform-or https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/8220792-the-point-of-modern...

9rx 1y ago

> The very fact that you can't have any political party of the CCP makes it undemocratic. That is only undemocratic if it is against the will of the population. If the population is choosing to only allow selecting employees from one party, then that is perfectly in line with democracy. A "political party" is just a labor union by another name, after all. Western countries by and large value free and fair elections, but that isn't what defines democracy. Hosting free and fair elections to select the autocrat of your choosing would not make a democracy. What ultimately defines democracy is the population at large having control. How they choose to use that control is up to them. There are plenty of good indicators revealing why China isn't democratic, but that statement in isolation isn't telling. Keep in mind, though, that the claim wasn't being strictly democratic — rather, it claims that on the spectrum it is more democratic than the alternatives in use.

corimaith 1y ago
>What ultimately defines democracy is the population at large having control. Politics is the question of how political heterogenity is resolved. The political system is the range of acceptable methods used in that resolution and how power is distrbuted amongst those competing groups. In that restrospect, Democracy and Authoritarianism exist on the same axis. The former resolves things peacefully through voting, the latter has a single interest overriding all others violently. Hence if you say "population at large having control", it's largely a meaningless statement because if a population is in agreement there is no need for politics and thus no need for a political system. In reality, politics always exist, groups are not homogenous, especially not a group on the size of billions. 99% of people don't really care about what OP says, in so much that they would forsake that for more pettier thing. We will all disagree over the tiniest of issues, and thus from there heterogenity springs and a political system is formed. Hence, the issue of "delivering results" is largely tangenital and irrelevant because that occurs after Politics. It's a given after all that a interest group would achieve it's goals without the political restraining it. So no, China isn't "more democratic" because the CCP is effective in achieving it's goals when it already has total political control. That's axiomatic. But there is explicit rejection of plurality, and thus the expression of political heterogenity, there is only one center of power allowed, and political decision-making is resolved violently. So it is Authoritarian, full stop. It is not "Democratic", in the same way it is a oxymoron to state a "Democratic Absolute Monarchy" or a "Democratic Military Dictatorship" even when the latter two can produce results. If you want to call it something, just call Authoritarian Populism.