456
Forest of trees
(lemmy.ml)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2024
456 points (93.0% liked)
Memes
45727 readers
661 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 5 years ago
MODERATORS
lmao. I unironically believe this though. The more you concentrate power, the harder it is to keep bad actors from abusing said power.
Most Americans approve of capitalism. Does that make it good too?
What makes you think the power over those billion+ people is all "concentrated"? Could it be (gasp!) that the power is largely distributed among those people who overwhelmingly support that government? This is just capitalist-realism-brained misunderstanding of how communist parties work.
No, but that's certainly not what makes it bad.
Democracy doesn't work when it's top-down. In the West, the capitalist and ruling class is capable of exerting control on public opinion and therefore on elections. The same is true of the CCP, which can influence public opinion as well. The best way to combat this is by emancipating individuals so they are able to resist state propaganda. China has a dogshit score on the press freedom index, so good luck educating the people on the shortcomings of the government. The government is intransparent and oppressive by design.
Oh not the Burger Institute Freedom Fries Index?!?!
It's maintained by Reporters without Borders and is not US affiliated
literally a 10 second search
An anarchist like yourself, how much do you trust a Non-Governmental Organizations that is 52% funded by Western states and the rest comes from big corporations or similar fake non-state-actors?
They literally list the National Endowment for Democracy as a main partner!
(I'll help, the NED is the soft power branch of the CIA)
Can you explain how Whole Process People's Democracy is "top-down?" Further, can you explain why it's a good thing for Capitalists to control the press, and not the public? The inverse of public press is private press, and that means ownership by Capitalists and liberals. Surely it's better for the people to control the press, and not the bourgeoisie?
Further, can you explain how the government is "intransparent and oppressive by design?" Just because you don't speak mandarin doesn't mean the process is mystified and opaque for those who live in and contribute to said system.
Can you explain to me how it's not?
No, because it's not. Nice strawman. Is this public you speak of the government?
You made the claim that the PRC is run from a top-down manner. If you can't substantiate claims you make, then don't make them.
Secondly, if the press is not publicly owned, then it becomes privately owned, and as such is subject to effortless bourgeois domination. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too in order to play the endless contrarion.
Again you construe publicly owned and government-owned
I do not misconstrue anything, here. Public property is accomplished from within the ownership of government, a news organization being a worker coop doesn't mean it is immune to bourgeois influence.
true, and a government being elected also doesn't make it immune to bourgeois influence, and especially not to influence from the politicians themselves
Correct, which is why you need to understand that the class in power in the PRC is the proletariat and the party structure gains its legitimacy and power from the bottom-up.
because "capitalism" and "communism" are loaded words
consider this though:
I don't see what the approval rates of these two countries have to do with anything here. In terms of the economy and infrastructure, China is indeed moving in the right direction. That doesn't mean I think China is a force of good in the world. It's a nation state and should be subject to criticism. And all I'm saying is that there are people who will religiously dogpile you if you try to do that, and I call those people tankies.
Then what would? If the fact that China is doing good in the world is not enough for you to think "it a force for good in the world" then what does it need to do? Oh, I forgot, you think "all nation states are bad by definition" and unironically believe that the more people a government represents, the more evil it is. So in order for China to be "a force for good in the world" China simply has to cease to exist. Got it. Nope, that doesn't align with US interests at all.
Literally no one on lemmy has ever said China is above criticism. I dare you to find a single instance of that ever happening.
That's not quite what I mean, I think we got sidetracked. I'll give you an example:
https://lemmy.ml/post/21941058
This guy posts the worst propaganda article I've ever read, and gets downvoted to oblivion. Take a look and tell me that reading it doesn't feel like wormtongue himself is whispering into your ear. The issue being lamented in the article is real, and I made clear in my first comment that I agree, but the OP goes off, assumes that I don't like the article because a Russian wrote it, calls me a liberal, puts up 100 strawmen without engaging any of my arguments, and then accuses me of not engaging their (nonexistent) arguments. I wasn't even disagreeing with the article just the way it's written lmao