Maybe you missed the point. Real communist countries have no dictators or any ruling class. But there aren’t any real communist countries. Countries like China that have dictators and claim to be communist aren’t.
Communist countries are called “communist” not because they’ve actually achieved communism but because they’re run by communists who want to achieve communism.
Any country that is run by communists will be called a dictatorship whether or not they actually have a dictator. China is an example of this. You know nothing about how the Chinese government operates. You were just told they were a dictatorship and you believed it. China has better democratic outcomes than most liberal democracies (assuming that actually exists)
An actual communist would first be trying to build socialism. Which is what China is doing.
And it’s perception because you can’t actually quantify how democratic a country is. You can only look at whether or not people feel like their government is representing them. If people don’t feel like their government represents them, then it isn’t democratic and needs to he changed.
No, they’re using a capitalist mode to make the elite extremely wealthy. A communist would be either prioritizing or creating companies that are owned by the state or by employees, which are working to benefit the people, not a wealthy and powerful elite. This is not what China is doing. This is obvious to everyone even remotely willing to question them.
But that IS what China is doing. The number of billionaires reached its peak and is even going down now. 60% or their gdp comes from state owned enterprises.
A good indicator is not having the same leader for decades. Term limits are a democratic safeguard and China has mostly abolished them. That does not bode well.
Because exceptionalism is a poison regardless of your political philosophy - other people can do an equally good job. Why is it necessary for power to be held by a singular person for so long?
Because exceptionalism is a poison regardless of your political philosophy - other people can do an equally good job.
If someone else can do the job equally as well, why must they also do it? So someone can do a thing and someone else can they must swap roles every now and then just because?
Why is it necessary for power to be held by a singular person for so long?
Why is it necessary for a role to be changed on some arbitrary basis?
If I go to the grocery and see the same person running the counter. Am I supposed to go “um excuse me, but you were here last week, and someone equally qualified needs to have a turn”?
It is not merely about doing a good job, it is about the ethics of power. Power corrupts, so the only reasonable recourse is to share it with as many people as possible and wield it for a limited amount of time. And it’s also about ethics, what gives one person the right to have power over others for a limitless amount of time?
Frankly, you seem like you’re about to argue for people just doing as they’re told and not worrying their pretty little heads with this, which is against any sane left wing ideals.
People do have power. That’s literally what China does. The assembly holds all the power and there’s like 2000 members. So they have a guy be the leader to keep things organised. Xi Jinping doesn’t have the power to do whatever he wants he just has the power to guide 2000 people in a room so you don’t have 2000 people all arguing over each other.
I agree it’s stupid to say “let’s give one guy all the power to literally do whatever he wants” but that isn’t the case here. You also can’t give all the power to someone in countries with term limits. There’s checks and balances in place like having a congress or whatever. It’s not like countries with new presidents every few years hand over the keys to the entire country and the president can do whatever the fuck he wants like madating everyone who meets him has to suck him off and the only thing that stops him becoming a full blown dictator and declaring that actually there will be no more elections is that humans are stupid and the thought to do that only crosses a presidents mind after 6 years and this is circumvented by replacing him with a new guy before that happens.
Those same checks and balances that exist in other countries also exist in China. Government power exists in the hands of the assembly not the president. Xi Jinping can’t do whatever the fuck he wants he just the team leader.
You’re just assuming because they don’t have term limits that means they give one guy literally all the power and let him do whatever he wants and they all have to listen to him. Again this is the equivalent of seeing the same person at the grocery counter as last week and screaming at them calling them a dictator. When they’re just in charge of scanning your items and the same power that put them in charge of that role can take them out of that rule of they start being shit at their job. Well actually this analogy runs thin when you bring up that you can’t change who your boss is but that’s not my point.
All European democracies have term limits too. Heck, even ancient civilizations had term limits, and disregarding those has always lead to worse outcomes for the common man.
Being brainwashed doesn’t mean they’re actually democratic. Unless you define a good outcome as being blindly misinformed and happy about it.
China has one leader, who is leader for life. His rule is absolute. Call it what you will.
Are you saying that as a general statement about leadership in the PRC? If so, then you can easily disprove it with the previous leaders:
Jiang Zemin (died 2022) - paramount leader until 2002, retired in the run-up to the 16th National Congress where Jintao had massive support to become the new party General Secretary
Hu Jintao (alive) - paramount leader until 2012, when Xi was elected General Secretary by the 18th National Congress
To remain the party leader, you have to retain the support of the party. It’s not like a monarchy where there’s a right to be leader for life.
Im saying that about now, and with Xi. He’s consolidated power and made it so he can stay as leader as long as he wants. Sure, he might retire. But he’s not getting un-‘elected’. He’s a dictator .
Saying a billion people are actually all just brainwashed is racist cope.
Congress, which has over 1000 members is the one in charge of China and that’s pretty tricky to deal with so it’s no wonder they appoint someone to be the leader to keep things organised.
Of course they’re brainwashed. Well quite a few know what’s up but also know to play along so they don’t get disappeared. I’m not saying western countries are much better, but Winnie the Pooh is a dictator, there’s no denying it.
Honey you’re the one who’s brainwashed. That’s what’s leaving you with racist shit like “oh there’s billions of asians who support their government. Can’t be they actually support their government, they must all be stupid or something”.
Like you’re literally calling the guy winnie the pooh because you think if you hold up a picture of a cartoon you’ll get disappeared. You’re straight up living in la la land.
Which communist states have a dictator?
Maybe you missed the point. Real communist countries have no dictators or any ruling class. But there aren’t any real communist countries. Countries like China that have dictators and claim to be communist aren’t.
Communist countries are called “communist” not because they’ve actually achieved communism but because they’re run by communists who want to achieve communism.
Any country that is run by communists will be called a dictatorship whether or not they actually have a dictator. China is an example of this. You know nothing about how the Chinese government operates. You were just told they were a dictatorship and you believed it. China has better democratic outcomes than most liberal democracies (assuming that actually exists)
I think you missed the point. An actual communist would be trying to give up their power. Meanwhile China is increasingly capitalist.
Also, perception is not reality. I think we all know that. Why did you specifically choose to show the democratic perception index?
An actual communist would first be trying to build socialism. Which is what China is doing.
And it’s perception because you can’t actually quantify how democratic a country is. You can only look at whether or not people feel like their government is representing them. If people don’t feel like their government represents them, then it isn’t democratic and needs to he changed.
China is getting more capitalist day by day. They also do trade with israel
I dont think china is headed in right direction.
What are they doing that makes them a capitalist country? As in run by capitalists not a capitalist mode of production.
Yes and that’s bad.
China is more capitalist than it’s ever been. How the hell is that building socialism?
Unless you think they were supposed to just remain an entirely agricultural society where everyone’s a farmer then sure.
China is using a capitalist mode of production to industrialise as it transitions to socialism.
No, they’re using a capitalist mode to make the elite extremely wealthy. A communist would be either prioritizing or creating companies that are owned by the state or by employees, which are working to benefit the people, not a wealthy and powerful elite. This is not what China is doing. This is obvious to everyone even remotely willing to question them.
But that IS what China is doing. The number of billionaires reached its peak and is even going down now. 60% or their gdp comes from state owned enterprises.
A good indicator is not having the same leader for decades. Term limits are a democratic safeguard and China has mostly abolished them. That does not bode well.
How is term limits a good indicator? If you’re doing a good job why should you br kicked out after an arbitrary amount of time?
Because exceptionalism is a poison regardless of your political philosophy - other people can do an equally good job. Why is it necessary for power to be held by a singular person for so long?
If someone else can do the job equally as well, why must they also do it? So someone can do a thing and someone else can they must swap roles every now and then just because?
Why is it necessary for a role to be changed on some arbitrary basis?
If I go to the grocery and see the same person running the counter. Am I supposed to go “um excuse me, but you were here last week, and someone equally qualified needs to have a turn”?
It is not merely about doing a good job, it is about the ethics of power. Power corrupts, so the only reasonable recourse is to share it with as many people as possible and wield it for a limited amount of time. And it’s also about ethics, what gives one person the right to have power over others for a limitless amount of time?
Frankly, you seem like you’re about to argue for people just doing as they’re told and not worrying their pretty little heads with this, which is against any sane left wing ideals.
People do have power. That’s literally what China does. The assembly holds all the power and there’s like 2000 members. So they have a guy be the leader to keep things organised. Xi Jinping doesn’t have the power to do whatever he wants he just has the power to guide 2000 people in a room so you don’t have 2000 people all arguing over each other.
I agree it’s stupid to say “let’s give one guy all the power to literally do whatever he wants” but that isn’t the case here. You also can’t give all the power to someone in countries with term limits. There’s checks and balances in place like having a congress or whatever. It’s not like countries with new presidents every few years hand over the keys to the entire country and the president can do whatever the fuck he wants like madating everyone who meets him has to suck him off and the only thing that stops him becoming a full blown dictator and declaring that actually there will be no more elections is that humans are stupid and the thought to do that only crosses a presidents mind after 6 years and this is circumvented by replacing him with a new guy before that happens.
Those same checks and balances that exist in other countries also exist in China. Government power exists in the hands of the assembly not the president. Xi Jinping can’t do whatever the fuck he wants he just the team leader.
You’re just assuming because they don’t have term limits that means they give one guy literally all the power and let him do whatever he wants and they all have to listen to him. Again this is the equivalent of seeing the same person at the grocery counter as last week and screaming at them calling them a dictator. When they’re just in charge of scanning your items and the same power that put them in charge of that role can take them out of that rule of they start being shit at their job. Well actually this analogy runs thin when you bring up that you can’t change who your boss is but that’s not my point.
You have fallen prey to American exceptionalism: “It isn’t democracy unless it’s American democracy.”
All European democracies have term limits too. Heck, even ancient civilizations had term limits, and disregarding those has always lead to worse outcomes for the common man.
Being brainwashed doesn’t mean they’re actually democratic. Unless you define a good outcome as being blindly misinformed and happy about it.
China has one leader, who is leader for life. His rule is absolute. Call it what you will.
Are you saying that as a general statement about leadership in the PRC? If so, then you can easily disprove it with the previous leaders:
To remain the party leader, you have to retain the support of the party. It’s not like a monarchy where there’s a right to be leader for life.
Im saying that about now, and with Xi. He’s consolidated power and made it so he can stay as leader as long as he wants. Sure, he might retire. But he’s not getting un-‘elected’. He’s a dictator .
Saying a billion people are actually all just brainwashed is racist cope.
Congress, which has over 1000 members is the one in charge of China and that’s pretty tricky to deal with so it’s no wonder they appoint someone to be the leader to keep things organised.
Of course they’re brainwashed. Well quite a few know what’s up but also know to play along so they don’t get disappeared. I’m not saying western countries are much better, but Winnie the Pooh is a dictator, there’s no denying it.
Honey you’re the one who’s brainwashed. That’s what’s leaving you with racist shit like “oh there’s billions of asians who support their government. Can’t be they actually support their government, they must all be stupid or something”.
Like you’re literally calling the guy winnie the pooh because you think if you hold up a picture of a cartoon you’ll get disappeared. You’re straight up living in la la land.
Dare you to hold up a picture of Winnie the Pooh in China.
Bet
How did you come to this conclusion about the person you are replying to? Please use direct quotes.
Okay.
“Countries like China that have dictators and claim to be communist aren’t.”