proletarian dictatorships tend to have long-ruling leaders who are symbols of proletarian power that the masses can concentrate around and trust, because they have proven their allegiance in the revolution. Every proletarian state has had long-serving heads of state.
Democracy isn’t “when leader changes a bunch”. That just means a volatile system, or a system where the leader doesn’t matter anyway and is just a rotating door.
Always fun to ask people that were critical of Morales if they knew when that term limit was put into effect. They never know it came in under his presidency.
Im pretty sure the number of parties that can run for election and actually get elected, doesnt say much about democracy. Just look at the eu and their austerity policies, through the decades if you wish. Also i think the multiparty system was tried in Chile in the 70s, they didnt oppress opposition. They got couped. The multiparty system is a western thing, and the chinese dont need to pretend they’re white. I’d say a more accurate way of measuring democracy is to ask: is the government following the interest of the people? In that sense ok theyre not perfect, but give me a multiparty system thats better than china.
the Chinese party system is more complicated than there just being one party. There are multiple political parties but the chinese constitution specifies how powerful each of them are.
the other parties exist as a source of political ideas
There are multiple political parties but the chinese constitution specifies how powerful each of them are.
Generally, it specifies how powerful they can be, i.e. it puts a cap on their power rather than giving them power. It is still up to them to survive among their constituency.
Term limits are actually undemocratic and only exist in America because the American president can do whatever the fuck they want (unless they want to enact policy it’s a very silly system)
Xi’s father was actually purged from the party, and the family was exiled to the countryside to live among the working class. He never finished high school until he was an adult.
Within that context, he went from living in a cave (This is not an exaggeration, he was in a village in Shaanxi, northern China where people live in rooms carved into the side of cliffs and mountains for housing that’s cool in summer and easy to insulate in winter. He literally lived in a man made cave) doing manual labour to the president of a global superpower. He’s had more experience among the working class than most previous Chinese leadership.
deleted by creator
Yes.
Term limits are neutral as far as democracy is concerned
One proletarian party is more democratic then N bourgeois parties.
proletarian dictatorships tend to have long-ruling leaders who are symbols of proletarian power that the masses can concentrate around and trust, because they have proven their allegiance in the revolution. Every proletarian state has had long-serving heads of state.
Democracy isn’t “when leader changes a bunch”. That just means a volatile system, or a system where the leader doesn’t matter anyway and is just a rotating door.
Germany had the same president for 16 years. Canada had the same one for 9.
Maximum term limits in the US is eight years
What the fuck are you talking about? Free democracy is when your leader changes every two years?
I think term limits are kinda bullshit anyway. They were used against Evo Morales as well.
Always fun to ask people that were critical of Morales if they knew when that term limit was put into effect. They never know it came in under his presidency.
What too much EU4 does to an mf (muh republican tradition!)
deleted by creator
Im pretty sure the number of parties that can run for election and actually get elected, doesnt say much about democracy. Just look at the eu and their austerity policies, through the decades if you wish. Also i think the multiparty system was tried in Chile in the 70s, they didnt oppress opposition. They got couped. The multiparty system is a western thing, and the chinese dont need to pretend they’re white. I’d say a more accurate way of measuring democracy is to ask: is the government following the interest of the people? In that sense ok theyre not perfect, but give me a multiparty system thats better than china.
the Chinese party system is more complicated than there just being one party. There are multiple political parties but the chinese constitution specifies how powerful each of them are.
the other parties exist as a source of political ideas
Generally, it specifies how powerful they can be, i.e. it puts a cap on their power rather than giving them power. It is still up to them to survive among their constituency.
Term limits are actually undemocratic and only exist in America because the American president can do whatever the fuck they want (unless they want to enact policy it’s a very silly system)
deleted by creator
An ideal government is a stable one where the people’s needs are met.
The illusion of choice does not make a government serve the working class.
What is a “free” democracy and how would you define one? Where does one exist?
Xi’s father was actually purged from the party, and the family was exiled to the countryside to live among the working class. He never finished high school until he was an adult.
Within that context, he went from living in a cave (This is not an exaggeration, he was in a village in Shaanxi, northern China where people live in rooms carved into the side of cliffs and mountains for housing that’s cool in summer and easy to insulate in winter. He literally lived in a man made cave) doing manual labour to the president of a global superpower. He’s had more experience among the working class than most previous Chinese leadership.
I’ll take one party that serves the working class over two that don’t.
Why would the proletariat need more than one party? Multiple parties are a sign of a sick society
deleted by creator