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”?
Those aren’t answers to my question - but sure, I’ll answer yours: term limits are a safeguard against one person consolidating power. Having them ensures that there will be political structures subordinate to them that survive a transfer of power, and thus said power can’t be singly consolidated.
Distribution of power is a very basic concept of communism, I think you just don’t know what you’re talking about.
Those structures can still exist without term limits. The power can lay in the hands of the people who put that person into power. The same people who went “this guy’s good at his job we should have him leading things” are the exact same people who can go “hang on this guy is no longer doing a good job leading things, let’s replace him”.
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.
He might not have absolute power in the state but your comparison with a common employee is frankly laughable. He is the agenda setter for the highest tiers of Chinese Government, he has the power to appoint multiple executive positions and he is the supreme military leader. He’s not just a random cog in the machine like the grocery clerk, he has real, actual, abusable power and democratic systems must limit any person’s access to abusable power, even if you believe there hasn’t been abuse yet. The issue is not that, the issue is that some day, a person with ill intent might maneuver themselves into holding Xi Jinping’s office and abusing said power, hence the need for the newcomer’s terms to also be limited.
For the record, though, I think the fact that Xi has managed to remove his term limits is in and of itself an abuse of power, regardless of what else he has done.
he has real, actual, abusable power and democratic systems must limit any person’s access to abusable power, even if you believe there hasn’t been abuse yet.
This is the key part about what I’m saying. People are assuming Xi has absolute power when he doesn’t. His role in the assembly is basically being the figurehead. It’s the assembly that has power and passes laws and shit. But because its politics people use the no term limits thing as evidence that his power is absolute but they’re wrong. That’s why I used the grocer example. No one behaves this way with any other scenario but because it’s politics that must mean he’s a dictator and not that hey maybe if he’s doing a good job running the assembly the assembly should keep him in charge instead of swapping him for someone else to do the exact same shit. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.
The Chairman of the Central Military Commission is the head of the Central Military Commission (CMC) and the commander-in-chief of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA), the People’s Armed Police (PAP) and the Militia. The officeholder is additionally vested with the command authority over China’s nuclear arsenal.
Access to the nuclear arsenal seems like excessive power for a figurehead. Xi Jinping holds that office.
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.
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”?
Those aren’t answers to my question - but sure, I’ll answer yours: term limits are a safeguard against one person consolidating power. Having them ensures that there will be political structures subordinate to them that survive a transfer of power, and thus said power can’t be singly consolidated.
Distribution of power is a very basic concept of communism, I think you just don’t know what you’re talking about.
Those structures can still exist without term limits. The power can lay in the hands of the people who put that person into power. The same people who went “this guy’s good at his job we should have him leading things” are the exact same people who can go “hang on this guy is no longer doing a good job leading things, let’s replace him”.
You’re seriously arguing that cronyism is a self-correcting system?
Congratulations that’s… the worst take I’ve ever seen.
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.
He might not have absolute power in the state but your comparison with a common employee is frankly laughable. He is the agenda setter for the highest tiers of Chinese Government, he has the power to appoint multiple executive positions and he is the supreme military leader. He’s not just a random cog in the machine like the grocery clerk, he has real, actual, abusable power and democratic systems must limit any person’s access to abusable power, even if you believe there hasn’t been abuse yet. The issue is not that, the issue is that some day, a person with ill intent might maneuver themselves into holding Xi Jinping’s office and abusing said power, hence the need for the newcomer’s terms to also be limited.
For the record, though, I think the fact that Xi has managed to remove his term limits is in and of itself an abuse of power, regardless of what else he has done.
This is the key part about what I’m saying. People are assuming Xi has absolute power when he doesn’t. His role in the assembly is basically being the figurehead. It’s the assembly that has power and passes laws and shit. But because its politics people use the no term limits thing as evidence that his power is absolute but they’re wrong. That’s why I used the grocer example. No one behaves this way with any other scenario but because it’s politics that must mean he’s a dictator and not that hey maybe if he’s doing a good job running the assembly the assembly should keep him in charge instead of swapping him for someone else to do the exact same shit. If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.
Access to the nuclear arsenal seems like excessive power for a figurehead. Xi Jinping holds that office.
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.