China lifted 800 million people out of poverty by building healthcare, transport, housing, jobs, education and food security? Heh, but what about that time European settlers got richer by genociding Native Americans? Technically that was “poverty reduction” too, commie
Chinese poverty elimination didn’t come on the backs of any of those things you goober. “Well have you considered that sometimes OTHER countries did bad things to reduce domestic poverty, and therefore China doing so is inherently bad actually !?” Grow the fuck up, this isn’t a real argument.
Please watch this documentary co-produced by literally PBS on the poverty alleviation campaign. I’m sure you’ll just dismiss it as all a charade and propaganda, but I hope you approach it with an open mind. What the Chinese have been able to accomplish (through sheer hard work and determination) is nothing short of incredible and it honestly pisses me off you would compare that to the literal genocide of Native Americans.
All governments are authoritiarian. They have the authority to tax you and can do that cuz they have a monopoly on violence. But if you have “HUMAN RIGHTS” written on a piece of paper in your capital building that basically makes you a democracy, right?
This argument is essentially “words have no real meaning”. Having authority does not make a government authoritarian. The term authoritarianism is defined. The CCP is authoritarian, by definition, starting with (but not ending with) having only one political party.
maybe if more people voted for them they would be bigger parties does a party stop being a party because it’s smaller than the dominant party? By that measure, Japan is authoritarian as they’ve been run by a single party (the LDP) for nearly 70 years!
Bluntly, the definition of authoritarianism as any exercise of authority is far too broad to be useful, and is not consistent with actual academic discourse regarding political systems.
Excerising authority does not make a government authoritarian. If the law says “thou shalt not commit murder”, and the government enforces this law, would you label that as authoritarianism?
America. This is America. It’s the same picture. America does the same thing but in a different fashion. Please at least admit America is authoritiarian. Why not? I’m a principled maoist, but this makes me want to burn down Walmarts
its not whataboutism, Im saying a lake is a pond a pond is a lake. I watched john oliver in high school, but really tho would you have supported the entente in ww1 cuz the axis were “authoritarian”??? I know history, I know this shit is bullshit. I’ll talk to you all day about the shortcomings of the USSR, or the PRC, or the DPRK, whatever the fuck, they all have valid criticism, but fuck if america aint some kinda authoritarian state, then idk what
Whataboutism is when you ignore a criticism of one party and instead say that another party is worse in some way, in order to distract from the original discussion. Hexbear users apparently love this underhanded tactic.
How much influence do the 6 other parties hold in the us?
Would you think china was more democratic if the 8 parties had a larger share of the votes, or would you find some other way to downcut it? Why would a larger share be better? If it was equal would that then be the best? Is democracy a function of how many parties are in government? Would it be a good thing if the president had a minority share of the vote?
Would you think china was more democratic if the 8 parties had a larger share of the votes
Yes, broader representation would literally be more democratic.
Why would a larger share be better?
Because that’s how democracy works.
Is democracy a function of how many parties are in government?
Democracy is a function of broad representation in government, ideally complete representation, though this is difficult to achieve in practice.
Would it be a good thing if the president had a minority share of the vote?
In the PRC, only local officials are elected, and only candidates which are approved by the ruling party can be nominated for those elections. The president is not subject to direct popular election.
Under the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China, the CCP is guaranteed a leadership role, and the National People’s Congress therefore does not serve as a forum of debate between government and opposition parties as is the case with Western parliaments.[9] At the same time, the Constitution makes the Party subordinate to laws passed by the National People’s Congress, and the NPC has been the forum for debates and conflict resolution between different interest groups. The CCP maintains control over the NPC by controlling delegate selection, maintaining control over the legislative agenda, and controlling the constitutional amendment process.[9]
The ruling party controls delegate selection, the legislative agenda, and constitutional amendments, which ensures that they can maintain their own control indefinitely. This is the opposite of democratic.
Yes, broader representation would literally be more democratic.
Okay so we should just redistribute some of the votes people cast for their choice of candidate? Ignoring who people voted for in order to get a more broad collection of parties would somehow be more democratic than following the will of the people? A broad selection in itself isn’t inherently “more democratic”. A broad representation is a symptom of a vibrant democracy, but it’s not a rule.
Because that’s how democracy works
I’m pretty sure democracy works by people voting for those they believe represent their values, but I guess I’m just misunderstanding things. Apparently the Democracymeter™ counts how many different parties are in a government, and the more there are the better it would be. I guess this at least means you’re admitting China is a better democracy than the US, Canada, Australia and most european countries, which is something.
In the PRC, only local officials are elected, and only candidates which are approved by the ruling party can be nominated for those elections. The president is not subject to direct popular election
Thanks for not answering my question! I do actually already know this, but it’s always nice to retread old ground. I’m gonna ask it again, since the point is to illustrate the absurdity of your statement. Would it be a good thing if the president had a minority share of the vote?
The ruling party controls delegate selection, the legislative agenda, and constitutional amendments, which ensures that they can maintain their own control indefinitely. This is the opposite of democratic.
Dawg you’re quoting wikipedia. Please bring some actual sources if you want me to take this seriously Wikipedia is prone to ideological bias it’s also a nazi cesspool Fact is that China has a very high voter approval - Now I already know what you’re going to say “Oh they lie, oh they repress!” Cope. I have no reason to think that. China isn’t the country with the largest prisoner population in the world. China isn’t the country that is legalising child-workers. China isn’t the country that is disappearing minority leaders China isn’t the country with media constantly housing state employess lying in order to drum up warfervor.
The parties represent interests separate from and under the CPC, which is one of the largest political parties on earth and comprises of a tenth of the eligible population in China. The CPC is the party which represents the majority interests of the population, of which mas multiparty organization would merely atomize and undermine socialization.
He is using it as an insult, and as a way to convey that you do not comprehend the text you are reading. He does not mean it literally, but figuratively. This is really basic-level communication, but sometimes it can be difficult to parse tone - Please indicate if you need tone signifier for communication.
The word authoritarian has no meaning. Any definition that covers the PRC also covers every other country. Unless of course the definition is “non-white people are in the government” but at that point the definition is just madk-off
Any argument in favor of Ukraine surrendering territory to Russia is pro-Putin. It doesn’t have to explicitly say “I support Putin”. If the comment suggests that the invasion is in any way justified or that the conquest of Ukrainian territory should be legitimized, it is a pro-Putin argument.
It’s only the most brainwashed liberals that turn into this kind of frothing cult of personality turning an entire country of hundreds of millions into a single figurehead.
Evidenced further by the reactionary stance “I’m not listening to a single fucking thing that doesn’t 100% align with the most one sided propaganda that I exclusively seek out”
Real good way to not know a single thing you’re talking about and look like an idiot when you try
Dumb fuck. You literally said that exact thing in your own words. Projection is something you can accuse someone of if you HAVEN’T completely walled yourself off from knowing the nature of their arguments.
My point and calling you a dumb fuck are one in the same. You need to be and deserve to be called a dumb fuck right now. Did you really read past my several valid criticisms of you and absorb nothing more from it than a pissy attitude?
Pro-Putin is when I want there to still be Ukranians after this. Pro-Ukranian is when I cheer on wave after wave of old men and young boys get mulched by artillery while a bald guy with a sonnenrad tattoo points a rifle at their backs to make sure they don’t try to run.
Abstract principles really do matter more than human lives to you libs. Don’t talk about “legitimate interest in fewer Ukrainians dying” when you wouldn’t hesitate to sacrifice every last one of them for one inch of soil.
I don’t actually think. I just know I’m right. Then whenever I’m in an argument I can just link the [word we’re arguing about] wikipedia article. Since I’m right and wikipedia has objective information the argument is over every time and I win.
The conversation was you linking a Wikipedia article, I was at least hoping you’d link like a book or something. Like we could have a discussion if you were trying to argue against authoritarianiam as defined by say Bakunin or some other anarchist thinker.
Then I could respond with On Authority which argues that authority is a natural consequence of any organization and calling something authoritarian just means you’re saying that it’s a system that is able to successfully reproduce itself.
You could also try to link “authoritarianism” to fascism, but again that is pointless because there’s already a term for fascism, which is Fascism.
If you would reread the thread you’d notice it begins with the hexbear user making a simple request, which the user could not fulfill. Any further questions in the discussion were met with derision, which is when the bad-faith behaviour was reciprocrated by the hexbear user. Please do better and hold yourself to at least half the standard you expect of others
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP),[3] officially the Communist Party of China (CPC),[4] is the founding and sole ruling party of the People’s Republic of China (PRC).
I thought this exact thing, but the more I learned about them, it turned out to really not be true. While there is a kind of meme culture there of asking Xi to nuke the town they’re currently residing in, and pointing out all of the white supremacist symbols used by the Ukraine’s army or whatever, there is a deeper context for it.
They don’t necessarily support every move these people make and particularly in regards to Putin there is a lot of criticism towards his social stances.
They’re more looking at this through the lens of what a nato conflict is causing in terms of a more multi-polar world and also Russia turning away from the neoliberalism that has dominated it since the fall of the Soviet Union.
Not saying you have to agree with it. I’m more of a centrist myself, but it’s really not fair to say this as a blanket statement with no context.
Hexbear also has a large number of Putin and CCP apologists. Authoritarian bootlicking isn’t liberalism.
if supporting a project that lifts 800M out of extreme poverty is wrong, I don’t wanna be right
deleted by creator
–
Pushing Native Americans onto reservations lifted a lot of European immigrants out of poverty.
Burning fossil fuels lifted entire nations out of poverty.
Campaigns against the barbarians lifted many Romans out of poverty.
If you think this “lift” is some example of public good in action that hasn’t come at the cost of exploitation, you’re delusional.
Chinese poverty elimination didn’t come on the backs of any of those things you goober. “Well have you considered that sometimes OTHER countries did bad things to reduce domestic poverty, and therefore China doing so is inherently bad actually !?” Grow the fuck up, this isn’t a real argument.
Yes that was a bad thing the us did. What does that have to do with china?
Please watch this documentary co-produced by literally PBS on the poverty alleviation campaign. I’m sure you’ll just dismiss it as all a charade and propaganda, but I hope you approach it with an open mind. What the Chinese have been able to accomplish (through sheer hard work and determination) is nothing short of incredible and it honestly pisses me off you would compare that to the literal genocide of Native Americans.
Typical whataboutism from a centrist liberal tankie!!
All governments are authoritiarian. They have the authority to tax you and can do that cuz they have a monopoly on violence. But if you have “HUMAN RIGHTS” written on a piece of paper in your capital building that basically makes you a democracy, right?
Anarchy in the streets, MLM in the sheets
This argument is essentially “words have no real meaning”. Having authority does not make a government authoritarian. The term authoritarianism is defined. The CCP is authoritarian, by definition, starting with (but not ending with) having only one political party.
China has 8 other political parties in its congress
also it’s officially the CPC (Communist Party of China), not the CCP
Mmmhmm, and how many of those tiny parties have any functional political power? When was the last time that a non-CCP member led the PRC?
Oh right, never. These other parties are tokens. Period.
maybe if more people voted for them they would be bigger parties
does a party stop being a party because it’s smaller than the dominant party? By that measure, Japan is authoritarian as they’ve been run by a single party (the LDP) for nearly 70 years!
I mean, maybe? I’m not particularly educated on Japanese politics, but they are a constitutional monarchy.
But as I noted above, being a single-party state is not the entire definition of authoritarianism, just one part of it. The Chinese political system is authoritarian.
Bluntly, the definition of authoritarianism as any exercise of authority is far too broad to be useful, and is not consistent with actual academic discourse regarding political systems.
Excerising authority does not make a government authoritarian. If the law says “thou shalt not commit murder”, and the government enforces this law, would you label that as authoritarianism?
America. This is America. It’s the same picture. America does the same thing but in a different fashion. Please at least admit America is authoritiarian. Why not? I’m a principled maoist, but this makes me want to burn down Walmarts
I’m not playing whataboutism games right now.
its not whataboutism, Im saying a lake is a pond a pond is a lake. I watched john oliver in high school, but really tho would you have supported the entente in ww1 cuz the axis were “authoritarian”??? I know history, I know this shit is bullshit. I’ll talk to you all day about the shortcomings of the USSR, or the PRC, or the DPRK, whatever the fuck, they all have valid criticism, but fuck if america aint some kinda authoritarian state, then idk what
Whataboutism is when you hold two governments to the same standard.
If capitalist bootlickers didn’t have double standards, they wouldn’t have any standards at all.
Whataboutism is when you ignore a criticism of one party and instead say that another party is worse in some way, in order to distract from the original discussion. Hexbear users apparently love this underhanded tactic.
These parties also haven’t liftend millions of people out of poverty, that should help them get elected then
How much influence do the 6 other parties hold in the us?
Would you think china was more democratic if the 8 parties had a larger share of the votes, or would you find some other way to downcut it? Why would a larger share be better? If it was equal would that then be the best? Is democracy a function of how many parties are in government? Would it be a good thing if the president had a minority share of the vote?
Yes, broader representation would literally be more democratic.
Because that’s how democracy works.
Democracy is a function of broad representation in government, ideally complete representation, though this is difficult to achieve in practice.
In the PRC, only local officials are elected, and only candidates which are approved by the ruling party can be nominated for those elections. The president is not subject to direct popular election.
ref
The ruling party controls delegate selection, the legislative agenda, and constitutional amendments, which ensures that they can maintain their own control indefinitely. This is the opposite of democratic.
Okay so we should just redistribute some of the votes people cast for their choice of candidate? Ignoring who people voted for in order to get a more broad collection of parties would somehow be more democratic than following the will of the people? A broad selection in itself isn’t inherently “more democratic”. A broad representation is a symptom of a vibrant democracy, but it’s not a rule.
I’m pretty sure democracy works by people voting for those they believe represent their values, but I guess I’m just misunderstanding things. Apparently the Democracymeter™ counts how many different parties are in a government, and the more there are the better it would be. I guess this at least means you’re admitting China is a better democracy than the US, Canada, Australia and most european countries, which is something.
Thanks for not answering my question! I do actually already know this, but it’s always nice to retread old ground. I’m gonna ask it again, since the point is to illustrate the absurdity of your statement. Would it be a good thing if the president had a minority share of the vote?
Dawg you’re quoting wikipedia. Please bring some actual sources if you want me to take this seriously Wikipedia is prone to ideological bias it’s also a nazi cesspool Fact is that China has a very high voter approval - Now I already know what you’re going to say “Oh they lie, oh they repress!” Cope. I have no reason to think that. China isn’t the country with the largest prisoner population in the world. China isn’t the country that is legalising child-workers. China isn’t the country that is disappearing minority leaders China isn’t the country with media constantly housing state employess lying in order to drum up warfervor.
The parties represent interests separate from and under the CPC, which is one of the largest political parties on earth and comprises of a tenth of the eligible population in China. The CPC is the party which represents the majority interests of the population, of which mas multiparty organization would merely atomize and undermine socialization.
Also stop saying ‘CCP’; you are illiterate lmao.
Since this is demonstrably not the case, I have to assume that you don’t know what the word means, which is somewhat ironic…
He is using it as an insult, and as a way to convey that you do not comprehend the text you are reading. He does not mean it literally, but figuratively. This is really basic-level communication, but sometimes it can be difficult to parse tone - Please indicate if you need tone signifier for communication.
What I need is discussion with people who are mature enough to not feel the need to use insults when making their arguments.
Apparently there aren’t many such people on hexbear.
“The United States is also a one-party system, but in classic American extravagance, they have two of them”
-Julius Nyerere, first president of Tanzania
The word authoritarian has no meaning. Any definition that covers the PRC also covers every other country. Unless of course the definition is “non-white people are in the government” but at that point the definition is just madk-off
deleted by creator
Only the smug liberals are allowed to ask questions like that.
Any argument in favor of Ukraine surrendering territory to Russia is pro-Putin. It doesn’t have to explicitly say “I support Putin”. If the comment suggests that the invasion is in any way justified or that the conquest of Ukrainian territory should be legitimized, it is a pro-Putin argument.
It’s only the most brainwashed liberals that turn into this kind of frothing cult of personality turning an entire country of hundreds of millions into a single figurehead.
Evidenced further by the reactionary stance “I’m not listening to a single fucking thing that doesn’t 100% align with the most one sided propaganda that I exclusively seek out”
Real good way to not know a single thing you’re talking about and look like an idiot when you try
Careful, your projection is showing.
Dumb fuck. You literally said that exact thing in your own words. Projection is something you can accuse someone of if you HAVEN’T completely walled yourself off from knowing the nature of their arguments.
I’m sorry, are you arguing that the Russian invasion of Ukraine is justified? Is that your point?
Also, if you can’t make your point without insults then your point isn’t worth making.
My point and calling you a dumb fuck are one in the same. You need to be and deserve to be called a dumb fuck right now. Did you really read past my several valid criticisms of you and absorb nothing more from it than a pissy attitude?
Pro-Putin is when I want there to still be Ukranians after this. Pro-Ukranian is when I cheer on wave after wave of old men and young boys get mulched by artillery while a bald guy with a sonnenrad tattoo points a rifle at their backs to make sure they don’t try to run.
“Anyone who doesn’t want to maximise the amount of dead Ukrainians is pro-Putin!”
You know what would keep more Ukrainians alive? If Russia stopped attacking them.
If you were legitimately interested in fewer Ukrainians dying you would be overtly critical of Russia’s invasion.
Abstract principles really do matter more than human lives to you libs. Don’t talk about “legitimate interest in fewer Ukrainians dying” when you wouldn’t hesitate to sacrifice every last one of them for one inch of soil.
There is no “abstract principle” here. Russia started a war.
And that matters more to you than every single Ukrainian life put together.
Define ‘Authoritarian’
How about you do some reading yourself.
I don’t actually think. I just know I’m right. Then whenever I’m in an argument I can just link the [word we’re arguing about] wikipedia article. Since I’m right and wikipedia has objective information the argument is over every time and I win.
Did you have something useful to add to the conversation?
The conversation was you linking a Wikipedia article, I was at least hoping you’d link like a book or something. Like we could have a discussion if you were trying to argue against authoritarianiam as defined by say Bakunin or some other anarchist thinker.
Then I could respond with On Authority which argues that authority is a natural consequence of any organization and calling something authoritarian just means you’re saying that it’s a system that is able to successfully reproduce itself.
You could also try to link “authoritarianism” to fascism, but again that is pointless because there’s already a term for fascism, which is Fascism.
You may as well talk to a wall. It would be about as useful although probably less frustrating.
You man have more luck in talking to ‘walls’ or people in general if you were willing to engage in good faith discussion
Something most hexbear users do not do.
If you would reread the thread you’d notice it begins with the hexbear user making a simple request, which the user could not fulfill. Any further questions in the discussion were met with derision, which is when the bad-faith behaviour was reciprocrated by the hexbear user. Please do better and hold yourself to at least half the standard you expect of others
Lmao they linked to Wikipedia! And the definition is so broad it covers literally every country!
One of these days I hope you learn to be critical of the propaganda you’ve been enmeshed in
It’s CPC you sound like a yokel
And why exactly are you so emotionally attached to CPC vs CCP that you felt the need to throw in a epithet? CCP is the common abbreviation.
Read the first fucking sentence of the link you just sent me
Oh shit it’s a motherfucking Wikipedia link oh noooooooo
POTUS -> TUSP (The United States President)
CIA -> CAI (Central Agency of Intelligence)
FBI -> BFI (Bureau of Federal Investigation)
It’s fun to just change around acronyms for official governing bodies. I’m gonna go edit Wikipedia to include these as common abbreviations too
why are you so emotionally attached to being wrong?
Liberalism is bad, hope that helps clarify
I thought this exact thing, but the more I learned about them, it turned out to really not be true. While there is a kind of meme culture there of asking Xi to nuke the town they’re currently residing in, and pointing out all of the white supremacist symbols used by the Ukraine’s army or whatever, there is a deeper context for it.
They don’t necessarily support every move these people make and particularly in regards to Putin there is a lot of criticism towards his social stances.
They’re more looking at this through the lens of what a nato conflict is causing in terms of a more multi-polar world and also Russia turning away from the neoliberalism that has dominated it since the fall of the Soviet Union.
Not saying you have to agree with it. I’m more of a centrist myself, but it’s really not fair to say this as a blanket statement with no context.
Show me the apologia.
Edit: incredible how asking libs for any proof is like a magic spell to make them disappear
It’s the core of liberalism.