this post was submitted on 02 Sep 2025
571 points (83.9% liked)
Memes
56633 readers
638 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
But it's also a ban on other socialist parties, not just capitalist ones, and it plays directly into the talking point that socialism is an authoritarian system that is imposed on people, not chosen on its merits. If the CCP really has enjoyed resounding, unwavering support from the proletariat for 75 years straight, why appear so weak by never allowing any competition whatsoever?
There are 8 other minor parties in China.
Oh, c'mon.
The PRC isn't weak for not allowing capitalist and other liberal parties to compete, and socialist democracy has never cared too much about multi-party "democracy." The PRC values cohesion and cooperation, not needless competition. Any competing "socialist" party would, in all reality, be used by the west to undermine the long-term socialist project.
Further, they have 8 minor political parties that cooperate with the CPC.
Yeah, those don't count, if they're required to align with the party then they're just subcommittees or something, not actual political parties.
I promise I'm keeping my mind open, but all of these answers seem indistinguishable from authoritarian rule, which was kinda my original point. The same organization has to rule in perpetuity because foreign influence would subvert the interests of the country if there were other options, quite lucky that they locked in the right one. Practically all one billion people are aligned on this and agree that this system is working for them, but no, they will not be allowing that to be tested at the ballot box or in a media environment where people can speak their mind, it might all fall apart despite how unified they are. It's a party controlled by the workers and acting for their interests, with total control of the levers of power, they just felt like keeping some ultra-rich and ultra-powerful folks around for a laugh, not because they're the ones who actually have the power.
Honestly, shit's so bad in the west that I'm kinda open to the idea that maybe a totalitarian government that recognizes it needs to keep workers decently happy to allow them to rule is, in fact, better than what we've got going on now, but it's really hard to go as far as saying that it's an active, ongoing, consensual choice by the workers to never give themselves a choice.
You keep repeating the idea that the PRC is "totalitarian," despite being broadly democratic with comprehensivs influence being driven from the bottom-up. You're getting too wrapped-up in liberal, multiparty democracy that it's running interference for your understanding of cooperative, socialist democracy.
I'm trying to get to how it's democratic and worker-controlled in your eyes because it's hard to see for me, as people don't seem to get to choose much in the system as designed. What's the mechanism for average people to change a government policy that they disagree with? If the party does start to lose touch with what the workers need or start working against their interests, how do the workers course-correct it?
Here's a good overview of how China's democracy works. The CPC adheres to the mass line, policies come from the people, and the CPC gets support for carrying that out.
But this doesn't answer my question, the only mechanism for people's input seems to be elections and polling, and it conspicuously omits the fact that elections only allow party-approved candidates. Maybe the powers-that-be have a great track record of listening and respecting the will of the people, and are beloved by all as a result, but that doesn't actually put the people in control, it just means the ones actually in control are being nice. When the government and the people have a fundamental disagreement about the path forward, what piece am I missing that makes the government the one to back down?
I'm not sure I follow, what do you imagine would happen? What's an example? COVID is a quick example I can think of of the central government wanting more strict policies, but folding due to public pressure against it (even though the government ended up being correct).
The CPC doesn't have a mandate from heaven, it has 100 million members in a country of 1.4 billion. It's a party thoroughly embedded in production, local jurisdictions, and gets its policies directly from the people. Five Year Plans are the result of mass polling, as an example. When the party sepparates from the masses, it loses support, and mass protest occurs and production halts. This is rare, because the CPC is good at what it does.
Right, that's a good example of it going the way you describe, and I'm curious what would've happened if the government hadn't folded. If the people really are making the decisions, they would get their way eventually, what does that look like?
Like I said, mass protest and huge issues with the economy. The PRC isn't a capitalist country where the state is an extension of the capitalist class, the state in the PRC is an extension of the working class, as public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy. For example, the USSR was dissolved through reform, it wasn't a competing political party that destroyed socialism, it was caused by complex and myriad factors that the CPC has largely learned from.
Ah, I didn't see that edit, apologies, had the page loaded for a while before replying.
Isn't that the same leverage that the earliest labor unions used because it was all they had? It seems to fit very well, actually. There's a smaller but more powerful group in charge of them, workers get little to no direct say in company policy or who they are managed by and have to hope they're listened to when asked how things are going. There certainly isn't a second C-suite waiting in the wings to be put into power if the first one disappoints, the current powers-that-be would be insane to allow something as chaotic as that. If the CEO's got a good track record of listening, the pay's pretty good and satisfaction is high, and they're kept in line with picket lines when it's necessary, is this company an extension of the working class like China's government is?
I'm comparing and contrasting quite a bit with my new job, which fits much more closely with what my idea of something worker-controlled would be. It's fully employee owned, so profits go either back into the business or into our pockets as bonuses. There's as little hierarchy as possible, the closest thing to a manager isn't ever going to "put" you on a project, you're free to find one that you like and wants you to join. Company decisions involve everyone equally, and there's freedom to loudly speak your mind about policies and procedures if you disagree with them. That's closer to the country I'd want to live in, not the one where my influence is akin to answering corporate surveys and getting to choose which of 3 approved managers I want to work under, or go on strike if I'm really not happy.
I think you should go and read through the post I linked a bit more. China has a lot of democratic input from the workers. States are representatives of classes, in the US that class is the capitalist class, but in the PRC that class is the working class. It's why the PRC regularly punishes billionaires for stepping out of line.
Further, the working class in China does control who they elect, and since change is initially pushed from the bottom, they have control over what gets passed and what doesn't. There's also a good degree of local autonomy, councils, etc.
Your example doesn't fit, because it's entirely different. The CPC are not capitalists for the economy. The USPS isn't run for Trump's personal profits, as an example. Multi-Party systems create competition politically, not cooperation and cohesion, which is why they generally don't exist in socialist countries outside of minor, supoortive countries.
It's the difference between merely formal democracy and substantive democracy.