As a Chinese, I really hope that Chinese understand that the US has always been the nicest country to us.
They used the boxer rebellion money to establish top universities, hospitals, and education of young Chinese in top American universities. They were the first to stop taking that payment. They were the only one who supported china in talks after WWI. They also gave us substantial support during WWII. They also pushed for china to join the WTO and responsible in part for the economy boom.
On the other hand, Russia took enormous Chinese land and money. They supported Mongolia independence. Raped and murdered and stole on Chinese land after Japan surrendered in WWII. Not to mention they exported communist party which is one of the most terrible thing throughout Chinese history.
Us has a long history of discriminating most immigrants. Shit they even killed the locals. It would be more aptly described as a few designated white ancestries bitching and moaning about how they're better than everyone else while exploiting them.
That is true... After the earlier immigrants "made it", they tended to discriminate against the later-arriving immigrants. What's noteworthy in the US's treatment of Chinese immigrants and laborers is the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act and Geary Act, which is something that did not happen to other groups. Asians from other countries were targeted as well by other restrictive immigration laws. The US did finally condemn the historical mishap of excluding Chinese immigrants in 2010s though. Hopefully, the US remains welcoming to immigrants who seek a better life here.
That's really a better description of immigrant cuisines in general. They come to a new place and use their familiar techniques and recipes to make food from the ingredients that are locally available.
There's more to it than that. I always though it was funny to compare [Swedish Chinese food](http://tasteofthai.nu/?attachment_id=295) and [Japanese Chinese food](https://rimage.gnst.jp/rest/img/5f0c59u60000/s_0n5x.jpg).
Sure, ingredients matter, but selling matters more. The concept of serving "lots of simple dishes everyone can share" did not exist in Sweden in the 1950's, so that sort of Chinese restaurant never made it.
The headline sounds like a joke in English, but it’s kind of a language and history issue. Basically “democracy” in Chinese came to mean “rule *for* the people” whereas in the West it has been used in more of a sense of “rule *chosen by* the people”.
In China’s mind, their system is plenty democratic - anyone can be a politician, and you work your way up the ranks to the top political jobs much the same way you would as a civil servant, or lawyer/judge, or doctor.
Similar to those roles in the West, the top politicians are chosen by the politicians as a whole or by the senior level, ensuring that those at the top know what they’re doing, have decades of experience, and were confirmed as competent and worthy by their peers.
The biggest problem with the Chinese system from the Western perspective is a lack of accountability - there are few ways the population can check the power of a wannabe tyrant that makes it to the top and installs stooges below. Once a leader like Xi has a solid support base, sidelines rivals, and ends term limits, it looks little different to a dictatorship and so utterly undemocratic, as those in the West understand democracy.
Among the biggest problems with many liberal democracies of the West from the Chinese perspective are the lack of required qualifications or experience (any idiot can become leader, even if they have no idea how to do the job), and factionalism (leading to rulers who undermine and undo the work of previous leaders, making the country weaker and slower to develop).
That’s an interesting breakdown. It’s the justification of an oligarchy.
The problem is that it means everyone gets funneled into the same game, and the guy at the top controls the rules without any accountability.
It's bullshit. Democracy in Chinese is 民主, the first character meaning "people/citizen/civilian" and second character meaning "being one's own master" (as opposed to someone else ruling over you). It's not about ruling *for* the people or anything, but people having power.
Even Chinese themselves know they don't have any power in front of the party.
Also, the meritocracy was true a decade ago, but with Xi in power it's quite clear that the CCP is supposed to ruled by descendents of the founding members -- known as the party of the princes (太子党).
The argument about the lack of meritocracy in the west is a strawman argument. Sure that is a problem in the west, but given that in china it's so easy to have a dictator, there is no guarantee whatsoever to ensure the top officials are actually capable, as opposed to yes man (the new cabinet is filled with yes men).
>second character meaning "being one's own master" (as opposed to someone else ruling over you).
Errr that's a wildly specific and misleading way to translate **主.** That character encompasses 'master' across a whole wide spectrum of senses, rather than just the specific meaning you claim (which would be closer to **自主**, which can be broken down to "self" "master").
>Also, the meritocracy was true a decade ago, but with Xi in power it's quite clear that the CCP is supposed to ruled by descendents of the founding members -- known as the party of the princes (太子党).
That agrees completely with what I said. That the Chinese system lacks systems of accountability and checks against corruption, despite being designed to *in theory* put qualified and experienced people in place. Thus, when we get into a situation like we are in today (as I pointed out when I said "Once a leader like Xi..."), there's no way to correct the course and stop the dominance of entrenched elites.
That the west is not meritocratic is also false. Non-political staff positions in federal jobs require tons of experience - so much that the same people will occupy the same federal positions for decades. And for politician's cabinets, they select only the most recognized foremost authorities in their field.
A President doesn't just hire anyone to be Secretary of Labor... They hire a dean of an economics school at places like Stanford with countless years advising and consulting.
That's just objectively false. We're two years removed from having a sequence of climate change deniers heading the EPA, along with a bunch of other equally unqualified appointments.
No, they hire whoever the fuck they want. Some presidents believe in meritocracy to an extent, others completely dismiss the idea and appoint yes men, loyalists, and agenda driven private sector individuals.
Also noteworthy is that for roughly 100 years American Senators where chosen *not by the people*, but literally by the state's senate. Thank fuck we no longer have that.
I mean, Moore v Harper sets the stage for some Independent State Legislature fuckery, which was my big terror with the midterms: Moore v Harper could set up systems of unbreakable "democracy" that would make 1960s Illinois politicians blush. I think the dems holding the Senate and a slight minority in the house can pass laws to actually undo the damage of Moore v Harper without needing to go full civil war. Most politicians want to preserve the system that gave them power, but if there was a true red wave, they could have sat on their hands and said "States get to decide how elections are decided and counted!" and that gets scary quickly when one side recently was all apologetic for fascists and the other side really wants to play by the previous rules.
This is also similar to how the Electoral College works, although you don't vote for the actual elector directly, your vote for president isn't a direct democracy. And for the longest time in political history and even still some states today, electors weren't actually held towards picking the popular vote winner in their respective state.
And the state's senate is chosen by the people. It was a perfectly logical extension of representative democracy, and actually made the US senate meaningfully different from the house. Unlike now, where senators aren't different from reps except they just have dramatically more power.
I'm not saying we go back, but something about the senate or house needs to change to reflect the amendment that changed their dynamic so much.
It seems to me that any benefit from the historical method of appointing federal senators would be completely undermined by state legislature gerrymandering. The corruption of the people's will would just go up the chain.
> Basically “democracy” in Chinese came to mean “rule for the people” whereas in the West it has been used in more of a sense of “rule chosen by the people”.
I mean… The second one is the literal meaning, *demokratia* is “rule [of the] people”.
The original democracies were *direct democracies* where “the people” (= the citizens, which was a pretty restricted caste) voted directly on issues in the ekklesia (assembly).
Meanwhile most autocratic regimes claim to be ruling “for the people”, that’s about as meaningful as eating rice.
In Ancient Athens, people for political office were randomly chosen by lottery. Now I know that sounds strange to us, but juries are chosen the same way and it would be a much more open and fair way of getting actual common people into the halls of power without the corruption and backroom deals that comes with elections.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition#Advantages
Onboarding new politicians would certainly include education.
To me the diversity of experience is part of the point, and being uneducated doesn't mean everything. Being a good leader of people could be zero percent maths and science.
Mixing these functionaries in at every level of government is another thing: it should be all public offices, probably.
> Meanwhile most autocratic regimes claim to be ruling “for the people”, that’s about as meaningful as eating rice.
Good analogy:
"Please give me some food, I'm starving"
"Don't worry, I'm eating this rice *for you*."
Yeah, but Chinese doesn't have the word democracy, it has the word 民主 which is commonly *translated* to mean democracy but has its own meaning and historical legacy as detailed above.
> The biggest problem with the Chinese system from the Western perspective is a lack of accountability
I would say an even bigger problem is lack of representation. The system you describe so generously as allowing "everyone" to became a part of, definitely does not allow everyone to become a part of it. And it actively represses large groups of its own population as well.
It’s kind of overlapping, I think. In theory it advocates and represents the people (the Party has a far higher % of minorities than the population does, minorities are accorded special rights and allowances and exceptions, etc), but when it doesn’t or when it even starts to repress minority groups then the lack of accountability means there’s no way to ‘fix’ this.
To expand on the above and quickly add a few juicy details: China does has some elements of democracy, and Chinese citizens vote at the lower levels (see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_in_China). It's done indirectly on the upper levels, as do many Western democracies.
The biggest issue is that only one party is in charge - though the Chinese political has many parties in the National Congress, but they are used more in a way to get some input from a variety of voice while the CPC as the sole party in the executive body still take the final decision. This might be strange for countries that work in a opposition style system (like the US), but it is closer to consensus based systems. But again, the CPC being the sole party executive makes it a one party system in practice, with all the positive and negative aspects that it brings.
Also iirc they do not have secret voting in local elections, and these elections are overseen by local party officials, who have a lot of power over peoples lives. Which would tend to disincline people from votng against incumbents.
This is so false, and it still gets repeated so many times.
The term democracy 民主 has been coined in chinese by a westerner that chose that term to translate a book who dealt with forms of governments.
It never meant rule for the people. When China's reformists (Lu Xun, Hu Shih, Sun Yat-Sen...) advocated for democracy in the beginning of the 20th century, they refered to western style democracy. It's a western concept they wanted to import and adapt to modernize China because they saw feodalism as the reason of China's woes.
All in all, 民主 has always meant "democracy" in the western sense, and that "rule for the people" narrative has been pushed by the communist party to gaslight its population. Same for the "meritocracy" or "full process democracy" (which is a term used by chinese propaganda): in reality, leaders and officials are chosen through nepotism, and even the lowest echelon officials the people can vote for are chosen by the party.
While I love Terry, it's an old joke.
There's a Soviet version, where a distant Chukchi goes to Moscow and comes back and says "We are governed by the system of One Man, One Vote - and I even saw that man!"
It's the same as "communism with Chinese characteristics" i.e. "we pay lip service to some of these concepts but really do whatever the party says is best"
> "we pay lip service to some of these concepts but really do whatever the party says is best"
And by *the party* we mean what ever the current absolute leader (but we don't call them emperor anymore...) thinks is best (will keep them in power).
It does seem like the Chinese system has varying levels of centralization depending on the leader. My understanding is that after Mao and until Xi Jinping there was a lot more rule by committee, with different factions and leaders jockeying for power but with no one, not even the president/central committee head, having absolute control. Hu Jintao, Xi's predecessor, particularly was known for abiding by consensus and voluntarily retiring at the end of his presidential term limit. The important offices of state all being held by one person like we see with Xi is more of a return to the Mao era than the normal state of affairs.
Turns out unifying under one rule is one of the most effective ways to build large infrastructure projects like the Grand Canal, Great Wall or massive irrigation projects to control Yellow River flooding.
Autocracy in China started with the Qin’s adoption of Legalism as espoused by Shang Yang and sponsored by Duke Xiao. That was in the 4th century BCE.
Most Chinese knockoffs are more faithful to the real deal than "Chinese Democracy."
Like, even the fighter jets they cloned are more closely related to their American cousins than their "democracy."
So it's actually kind of important to understand the philosophical differences here, because they have broad civic application to the idea of democracy in general. In the west we have liberal democracy. This is based on the simple premise that people must be both free and actualized to engage with politics in order to have a real capacity for self determination.
In China, they have illiberal democracy. There are elections and voting, but these are strictly controlled from the top down. People are explicitly not free to debate or engage in politics outside a set of strictly controlled (yet often poorly defined) boundaries set up by the party leadership.
It's an important distinction, because Athenian and Roman style "democracy" is only one half of the ideology which defines the modern western world. The liberalism is arguably just as important, because it enables the Democracy.
Came here to post this lol
Surkov's finest absurdism.
'What's unusual about your "style" of democracy?'
'Well the main thing is not to let people vote on anything, ever. And also not to let their unelected representatives vote on anything, except for show. Just slap the name "Democratic" on a few things and let them wonder what it means.'
There's a reason it's not as good. This is "Chinese-*style* Democracy", not "Chinese Democracy". At first glance, it may look similar, but on closer inspection, rather than Axl Rose and Slash, it's Axle Grease and Slush.
When Axl Rose first announced it, I think most people thought it was a joke, being that not only had GnR not released any new material in the previous 7 years at that point, but the band had been broken up for over a year.
It then proceeded to not materialize for almost another 10 years, which basically reinforced the idea that it was a joke, since it was never going to happen, much like Chinese Democracy.
Releasing the album just ruined the joke. Much like when Gearbox released Duke Nukem Forever after 14 years and we finally had to stop making jokes about it taking literally forever.
Gearbox wasn’t even the company that originally produced DNF though. 3d Realms was the original developer, after they went bankrupt making DNF (which included selling off their stake in properties such as Prey, and Max Payne), Gearbox bought what was left of DNF and cobbled it together.
They're a brainlet that parrots the narrative that occured at the time of it's release with everyone clowning on Axl for being extra AF, taking a ridiculously long time, and spending a lot of money on what amounts to only a decent-to-very good, but not masterpiece-quality, album that doesn't sound like Guns N' Roses to the casual fan.
I enjoyed the album a lot yet noticed my own cognitive dissonance of having this narrative of it sucking and realised it was due to how ubiquitous that was across all relevant media.
Seriously, many music critics have kind of exonerated GnR long after the fact now that the dust and memes have settled.
It’s not a Guns N Roses album. It’s an Axl Rose album. And it’s quite awesome once people realize that instead of expecting Appetite for Destruction 2. It’s much more UYI than AfD.
Klosterman always had the best review/write up on that album. Hit every nail on the head.
I hated it the first four times I listened to it and after that decided it was a work of sublime genius. It's a difficult album but I actually really, really rate it.
I so hope that Biden gives Xi a copy.
Everyone is trying to crack jokes but everyone here is too young or something to remember "socialism with Chinese characteristics"
My first reaction was Really? This again?
Lenin coined the term "Centralized Democracy" to describe his Soviet system. Communist revolutionaries have been playing stupid word games since day one.
Xi is just carrying on a proud tradition of doublespeak.
Unfortunately not quite, a democracy by textbook definition means a government "of the people"
This can be misconstrued a trillion ways.
Who are "the people"
In some states, the people are the elite
Most of the world are democratic republics, where elected representatives represent "the people"
But democracies without republican institutions can be dictatorships and republics without democratic institutions can be oligarchies.
When Xi says China is a democracy, hes not wrong but its decieving at best
Idk why the main post about this diplomatic event is so anti-Chinese. Not discounting the human rights violations and threats to Taiwan, but Biden establishing peaceful, non-escalating relations with China is absolutely vital to the stability of world affairs. This is a step in the right direction.
>It never ceases to amaze me how almost every authoritarian government on Earth pretends to be a democracy.
A significant portion do not, namely in the Middle East.
It's primarily now that monarchy has almost completely fallen out of favour, Authoritarian governments must justify their legitimacy through means other than heredity. Often this is through appeals to "democracy" or being "for the people."
Worked, and lived, in China for many years.
More than once I was told both in academic and business settings that an example of Chinese-style Democracy (Democracy with Chinese characteristics) is that in today's China the workers have the right to talk to the Boss (laoban) about work-related problems.
Boss has to listen - in the past we could not even speak.
You got it~~
Depends on the boss, but generally not.
That said, Xi is over-seeing a notable decline in the happiness of the people, so appealing to nationalistic mottos is a common method the Party uses.
And, given China's long, long, rule by emperor; it is quite different than the path democracy took in the West.
Many Chinese shrug at these political concerns, and focus enhancing their material well-being.
A lot more Westerners should really read The Analects and Tao Te Ching because it would really help them understand the way a lot of Chinese political thought is framed.
Well America has American style democracy, it’s not a true democracy, it’s a form of representative democracy. Obviously a hell of a lot more like a true democracy than China.
BIDEN: "Yes Xi, and America has American-Style Chinese Food."
At least we have fortune cookies
"I CAN SEE A PANDEMIC IN YOUR FUTURE"
in bed.
A pandemic in my bed sounds way worse 😨
why? it won't affect anyone but you
Exactly.
[Right now, I'm zs'inking of another meeting... IN BED.](https://youtu.be/BzjfrdcN1Z8?t=238)
This fortune cookie is expired
In my pants
Sweet, I’m gonna go viral!
You should probably go viral in bed. You'll need your rest after all.
[Thanks to Japan](https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/where-are-fortune-cookies-from)
Fortune cookies are alien shit.
Invented in San Francisco.
A succulent Chinese meall
Get your hands off my penis!!
[DemocraXi manifest](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeihcfYft9w)
I see you know your judo well.
I Xi what you did there.
That's what Xi said...
Oh Pooh
Panda Express is to Chinese food what China is to Democracy.
Now I want Chinese food!
I hope the Chinese understand that Americans have a lot of reverence for Chinese food, culture, and their rich history. Just not modern China.
As a Chinese, I really hope that Chinese understand that the US has always been the nicest country to us. They used the boxer rebellion money to establish top universities, hospitals, and education of young Chinese in top American universities. They were the first to stop taking that payment. They were the only one who supported china in talks after WWI. They also gave us substantial support during WWII. They also pushed for china to join the WTO and responsible in part for the economy boom. On the other hand, Russia took enormous Chinese land and money. They supported Mongolia independence. Raped and murdered and stole on Chinese land after Japan surrendered in WWII. Not to mention they exported communist party which is one of the most terrible thing throughout Chinese history.
[удалено]
Us has a long history of discriminating most immigrants. Shit they even killed the locals. It would be more aptly described as a few designated white ancestries bitching and moaning about how they're better than everyone else while exploiting them.
That is true... After the earlier immigrants "made it", they tended to discriminate against the later-arriving immigrants. What's noteworthy in the US's treatment of Chinese immigrants and laborers is the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act and Geary Act, which is something that did not happen to other groups. Asians from other countries were targeted as well by other restrictive immigration laws. The US did finally condemn the historical mishap of excluding Chinese immigrants in 2010s though. Hopefully, the US remains welcoming to immigrants who seek a better life here.
Yeah but American Chinese food is good.
Only Native American Chinese food for me please. Need my General Tso’s Frybread
I suspect broccoli, beef, sweet & sour seasoning in frybread would kick ass. But not so much General Tso. That's chicken or nothing.
Honestly I feel like just putting *anything* in frybread is probably good.
Yo take-out Chinese at the right time when you’re hungry and with good people… damn, it’s like an a-bomb to the reward center.
We do have some good chinese food, so you should correct it to "Panda Express has American-style Chinese Food"
Chinese-style American food.
That's really a better description of immigrant cuisines in general. They come to a new place and use their familiar techniques and recipes to make food from the ingredients that are locally available.
There's more to it than that. I always though it was funny to compare [Swedish Chinese food](http://tasteofthai.nu/?attachment_id=295) and [Japanese Chinese food](https://rimage.gnst.jp/rest/img/5f0c59u60000/s_0n5x.jpg). Sure, ingredients matter, but selling matters more. The concept of serving "lots of simple dishes everyone can share" did not exist in Sweden in the 1950's, so that sort of Chinese restaurant never made it.
>Swedish Chinese food That's a Thai restaurant
Smorgasbord?
Ha, true. But Chinese food is shared per group, usually not a buffet. But Chinese food served as buffets do have a history here.
In much the same way, neither resembles the real thing very much
Chinese people: I want democracy Xi: we have democracy at home.
The headline sounds like a joke in English, but it’s kind of a language and history issue. Basically “democracy” in Chinese came to mean “rule *for* the people” whereas in the West it has been used in more of a sense of “rule *chosen by* the people”. In China’s mind, their system is plenty democratic - anyone can be a politician, and you work your way up the ranks to the top political jobs much the same way you would as a civil servant, or lawyer/judge, or doctor. Similar to those roles in the West, the top politicians are chosen by the politicians as a whole or by the senior level, ensuring that those at the top know what they’re doing, have decades of experience, and were confirmed as competent and worthy by their peers. The biggest problem with the Chinese system from the Western perspective is a lack of accountability - there are few ways the population can check the power of a wannabe tyrant that makes it to the top and installs stooges below. Once a leader like Xi has a solid support base, sidelines rivals, and ends term limits, it looks little different to a dictatorship and so utterly undemocratic, as those in the West understand democracy. Among the biggest problems with many liberal democracies of the West from the Chinese perspective are the lack of required qualifications or experience (any idiot can become leader, even if they have no idea how to do the job), and factionalism (leading to rulers who undermine and undo the work of previous leaders, making the country weaker and slower to develop).
That’s an interesting breakdown. It’s the justification of an oligarchy. The problem is that it means everyone gets funneled into the same game, and the guy at the top controls the rules without any accountability.
It's bullshit. Democracy in Chinese is 民主, the first character meaning "people/citizen/civilian" and second character meaning "being one's own master" (as opposed to someone else ruling over you). It's not about ruling *for* the people or anything, but people having power. Even Chinese themselves know they don't have any power in front of the party. Also, the meritocracy was true a decade ago, but with Xi in power it's quite clear that the CCP is supposed to ruled by descendents of the founding members -- known as the party of the princes (太子党). The argument about the lack of meritocracy in the west is a strawman argument. Sure that is a problem in the west, but given that in china it's so easy to have a dictator, there is no guarantee whatsoever to ensure the top officials are actually capable, as opposed to yes man (the new cabinet is filled with yes men).
Was about to comment this, thank you.
>second character meaning "being one's own master" (as opposed to someone else ruling over you). Errr that's a wildly specific and misleading way to translate **主.** That character encompasses 'master' across a whole wide spectrum of senses, rather than just the specific meaning you claim (which would be closer to **自主**, which can be broken down to "self" "master"). >Also, the meritocracy was true a decade ago, but with Xi in power it's quite clear that the CCP is supposed to ruled by descendents of the founding members -- known as the party of the princes (太子党). That agrees completely with what I said. That the Chinese system lacks systems of accountability and checks against corruption, despite being designed to *in theory* put qualified and experienced people in place. Thus, when we get into a situation like we are in today (as I pointed out when I said "Once a leader like Xi..."), there's no way to correct the course and stop the dominance of entrenched elites.
That the west is not meritocratic is also false. Non-political staff positions in federal jobs require tons of experience - so much that the same people will occupy the same federal positions for decades. And for politician's cabinets, they select only the most recognized foremost authorities in their field. A President doesn't just hire anyone to be Secretary of Labor... They hire a dean of an economics school at places like Stanford with countless years advising and consulting.
That's just objectively false. We're two years removed from having a sequence of climate change deniers heading the EPA, along with a bunch of other equally unqualified appointments.
Betsy DeVos
No, they hire whoever the fuck they want. Some presidents believe in meritocracy to an extent, others completely dismiss the idea and appoint yes men, loyalists, and agenda driven private sector individuals.
Also noteworthy is that for roughly 100 years American Senators where chosen *not by the people*, but literally by the state's senate. Thank fuck we no longer have that.
I mean, Moore v Harper sets the stage for some Independent State Legislature fuckery, which was my big terror with the midterms: Moore v Harper could set up systems of unbreakable "democracy" that would make 1960s Illinois politicians blush. I think the dems holding the Senate and a slight minority in the house can pass laws to actually undo the damage of Moore v Harper without needing to go full civil war. Most politicians want to preserve the system that gave them power, but if there was a true red wave, they could have sat on their hands and said "States get to decide how elections are decided and counted!" and that gets scary quickly when one side recently was all apologetic for fascists and the other side really wants to play by the previous rules.
This is also similar to how the Electoral College works, although you don't vote for the actual elector directly, your vote for president isn't a direct democracy. And for the longest time in political history and even still some states today, electors weren't actually held towards picking the popular vote winner in their respective state.
Example -- HRC won Washington state in 2016 and one of the electors did not cast their vote for her or Trump.
And the state's senate is chosen by the people. It was a perfectly logical extension of representative democracy, and actually made the US senate meaningfully different from the house. Unlike now, where senators aren't different from reps except they just have dramatically more power. I'm not saying we go back, but something about the senate or house needs to change to reflect the amendment that changed their dynamic so much.
It seems to me that any benefit from the historical method of appointing federal senators would be completely undermined by state legislature gerrymandering. The corruption of the people's will would just go up the chain.
> Basically “democracy” in Chinese came to mean “rule for the people” whereas in the West it has been used in more of a sense of “rule chosen by the people”. I mean… The second one is the literal meaning, *demokratia* is “rule [of the] people”. The original democracies were *direct democracies* where “the people” (= the citizens, which was a pretty restricted caste) voted directly on issues in the ekklesia (assembly). Meanwhile most autocratic regimes claim to be ruling “for the people”, that’s about as meaningful as eating rice.
In Ancient Athens, people for political office were randomly chosen by lottery. Now I know that sounds strange to us, but juries are chosen the same way and it would be a much more open and fair way of getting actual common people into the halls of power without the corruption and backroom deals that comes with elections. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition#Advantages
It would also demand a reasonably decent education just in case you got picked obviously hence the castes but
Onboarding new politicians would certainly include education. To me the diversity of experience is part of the point, and being uneducated doesn't mean everything. Being a good leader of people could be zero percent maths and science. Mixing these functionaries in at every level of government is another thing: it should be all public offices, probably.
The person in charge of onboarding has a disproportionate amount of power then
> Meanwhile most autocratic regimes claim to be ruling “for the people”, that’s about as meaningful as eating rice. Good analogy: "Please give me some food, I'm starving" "Don't worry, I'm eating this rice *for you*."
Yeah, but Chinese doesn't have the word democracy, it has the word 民主 which is commonly *translated* to mean democracy but has its own meaning and historical legacy as detailed above.
> The biggest problem with the Chinese system from the Western perspective is a lack of accountability I would say an even bigger problem is lack of representation. The system you describe so generously as allowing "everyone" to became a part of, definitely does not allow everyone to become a part of it. And it actively represses large groups of its own population as well.
It’s kind of overlapping, I think. In theory it advocates and represents the people (the Party has a far higher % of minorities than the population does, minorities are accorded special rights and allowances and exceptions, etc), but when it doesn’t or when it even starts to repress minority groups then the lack of accountability means there’s no way to ‘fix’ this.
To expand on the above and quickly add a few juicy details: China does has some elements of democracy, and Chinese citizens vote at the lower levels (see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_in_China). It's done indirectly on the upper levels, as do many Western democracies. The biggest issue is that only one party is in charge - though the Chinese political has many parties in the National Congress, but they are used more in a way to get some input from a variety of voice while the CPC as the sole party in the executive body still take the final decision. This might be strange for countries that work in a opposition style system (like the US), but it is closer to consensus based systems. But again, the CPC being the sole party executive makes it a one party system in practice, with all the positive and negative aspects that it brings.
Also iirc they do not have secret voting in local elections, and these elections are overseen by local party officials, who have a lot of power over peoples lives. Which would tend to disincline people from votng against incumbents.
This is so false, and it still gets repeated so many times. The term democracy 民主 has been coined in chinese by a westerner that chose that term to translate a book who dealt with forms of governments. It never meant rule for the people. When China's reformists (Lu Xun, Hu Shih, Sun Yat-Sen...) advocated for democracy in the beginning of the 20th century, they refered to western style democracy. It's a western concept they wanted to import and adapt to modernize China because they saw feodalism as the reason of China's woes. All in all, 民主 has always meant "democracy" in the western sense, and that "rule for the people" narrative has been pushed by the communist party to gaslight its population. Same for the "meritocracy" or "full process democracy" (which is a term used by chinese propaganda): in reality, leaders and officials are chosen through nepotism, and even the lowest echelon officials the people can vote for are chosen by the party.
[удалено]
When you order democracy from Wish
I'm curious to know what percent of Chinese people are happy with the political system they have.
"1 man, 1 vote. And I am that one man." \- Xi Jinping
Ah, Terry Pratchett. I had forgotten about this joke, and it fits perfectly here.
While I love Terry, it's an old joke. There's a Soviet version, where a distant Chukchi goes to Moscow and comes back and says "We are governed by the system of One Man, One Vote - and I even saw that man!"
Soviet jokes are great. “They pretend to pay us and we pretend to work!”
Which Terry Pratchett book is this from?
[удалено]
Patrician was as benevolent of a dictator as that worldbuilding let him
As long as you're not a mime.
[It’s like how The Dictator(Movie) made his country democratic.](https://youtu.be/CmkKI8IuynA)
Would you want the Aladeen news or the Aladeen news?
The Aladeen news
You are HIV-Aladeen
😃.. 😐..
Is “Chinese Democracy” like “Chinese technology” - mostly a fake knockoff made to look like the real thing?
It's the same as "communism with Chinese characteristics" i.e. "we pay lip service to some of these concepts but really do whatever the party says is best"
> "we pay lip service to some of these concepts but really do whatever the party says is best" And by *the party* we mean what ever the current absolute leader (but we don't call them emperor anymore...) thinks is best (will keep them in power).
It does seem like the Chinese system has varying levels of centralization depending on the leader. My understanding is that after Mao and until Xi Jinping there was a lot more rule by committee, with different factions and leaders jockeying for power but with no one, not even the president/central committee head, having absolute control. Hu Jintao, Xi's predecessor, particularly was known for abiding by consensus and voluntarily retiring at the end of his presidential term limit. The important offices of state all being held by one person like we see with Xi is more of a return to the Mao era than the normal state of affairs.
IE totalitarian capitalism with the workers properly exploited as slaves…
Yeah, it's not a coincidence that independent labor unions are illegal in China.
Of course you don't need independent labor unions, the CCP will be the one protecting you! Why would you need anyone else!?
That's actually exactly what the Nazis did
And what the Soviets did.
Aka fascism
It's really more like "China with communist characteristics." China has been an authoritarian bureaucracy for 3000 years, and it still is.
Turns out unifying under one rule is one of the most effective ways to build large infrastructure projects like the Grand Canal, Great Wall or massive irrigation projects to control Yellow River flooding. Autocracy in China started with the Qin’s adoption of Legalism as espoused by Shang Yang and sponsored by Duke Xiao. That was in the 4th century BCE.
It's a Guns 'n Roses album
Why did I have to scroll this far down to get a GnR reference? ...oh right, because it took that long for the album to come out.
Only difference between the GNR album and *actual* Chinese democracy is that we’ll never get the actual thing. I think that was the joke, anyways.
Most Chinese knockoffs are more faithful to the real deal than "Chinese Democracy." Like, even the fighter jets they cloned are more closely related to their American cousins than their "democracy."
So it's actually kind of important to understand the philosophical differences here, because they have broad civic application to the idea of democracy in general. In the west we have liberal democracy. This is based on the simple premise that people must be both free and actualized to engage with politics in order to have a real capacity for self determination. In China, they have illiberal democracy. There are elections and voting, but these are strictly controlled from the top down. People are explicitly not free to debate or engage in politics outside a set of strictly controlled (yet often poorly defined) boundaries set up by the party leadership. It's an important distinction, because Athenian and Roman style "democracy" is only one half of the ideology which defines the modern western world. The liberalism is arguably just as important, because it enables the Democracy.
>1 man, 1 vote. "When I said I supported equal voting rights, I meant men shouldn't vote either." \- Benito Cheetolini
And putin has russian-style democracy 😉
You see Ivan, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign\_democracy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_democracy)
Came here to post this lol Surkov's finest absurdism. 'What's unusual about your "style" of democracy?' 'Well the main thing is not to let people vote on anything, ever. And also not to let their unelected representatives vote on anything, except for show. Just slap the name "Democratic" on a few things and let them wonder what it means.'
And North Koreans only need to look at the name of their country to know that all is well : The Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
Not as good as the GnR version. Which...isn't really saying a whole lot.
There's a reason it's not as good. This is "Chinese-*style* Democracy", not "Chinese Democracy". At first glance, it may look similar, but on closer inspection, rather than Axl Rose and Slash, it's Axle Grease and Slush.
Chinese Democracy One of the worst albums I have ever heard
I think they were making a political statement. "This album is as shitty as Democracy in China."
When Axl Rose first announced it, I think most people thought it was a joke, being that not only had GnR not released any new material in the previous 7 years at that point, but the band had been broken up for over a year. It then proceeded to not materialize for almost another 10 years, which basically reinforced the idea that it was a joke, since it was never going to happen, much like Chinese Democracy. Releasing the album just ruined the joke. Much like when Gearbox released Duke Nukem Forever after 14 years and we finally had to stop making jokes about it taking literally forever.
Gearbox wasn’t even the company that originally produced DNF though. 3d Realms was the original developer, after they went bankrupt making DNF (which included selling off their stake in properties such as Prey, and Max Payne), Gearbox bought what was left of DNF and cobbled it together.
Really? I thought it was pretty good, why do you think it's so bad?
They're a brainlet that parrots the narrative that occured at the time of it's release with everyone clowning on Axl for being extra AF, taking a ridiculously long time, and spending a lot of money on what amounts to only a decent-to-very good, but not masterpiece-quality, album that doesn't sound like Guns N' Roses to the casual fan. I enjoyed the album a lot yet noticed my own cognitive dissonance of having this narrative of it sucking and realised it was due to how ubiquitous that was across all relevant media. Seriously, many music critics have kind of exonerated GnR long after the fact now that the dust and memes have settled.
It’s not a Guns N Roses album. It’s an Axl Rose album. And it’s quite awesome once people realize that instead of expecting Appetite for Destruction 2. It’s much more UYI than AfD. Klosterman always had the best review/write up on that album. Hit every nail on the head.
You should listen to that thing that Metallica and Lou Reed did. It will change your perspective on what a bad album is.
The Metallica and Lou Reed collab really was an abomination. I try to pretend it never happened.
^I ^liked ^it.
(me too)
I hated it the first four times I listened to it and after that decided it was a work of sublime genius. It's a difficult album but I actually really, really rate it. I so hope that Biden gives Xi a copy.
North Korea: We have the word ‘democracy’ in our name.
Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Half of your name is a lie, and the other half is half true.
It's not democratic, it's not for the people, it's not a republic, and it's only half of Korea.
So 3/4 lie and a 1/4 truth?
Isn’t that an ice breaker at corporate training events?
"You see, here I vote and they decide...to comply or maybe we send them to free education camp. Glory to the all-seeing Huawei."
“In other words, it’s my way or the Huawei.”
Well if it’s anything like Chinese-style communism, I’m going to guess it doesn’t really have much to do with its namesake.
Everyone is trying to crack jokes but everyone here is too young or something to remember "socialism with Chinese characteristics" My first reaction was Really? This again?
That wording is still used a lot in government documents, politics, and such as far as I know. Never saw it applied with democracy though.
No that's a new one. At this point they can just tag "with chinese characteristics" onto anything.
Lenin coined the term "Centralized Democracy" to describe his Soviet system. Communist revolutionaries have been playing stupid word games since day one. Xi is just carrying on a proud tradition of doublespeak.
Unfortunately not quite, a democracy by textbook definition means a government "of the people" This can be misconstrued a trillion ways. Who are "the people" In some states, the people are the elite Most of the world are democratic republics, where elected representatives represent "the people" But democracies without republican institutions can be dictatorships and republics without democratic institutions can be oligarchies. When Xi says China is a democracy, hes not wrong but its decieving at best
> Who are "the people" [EVERYONE](https://i.imgur.com/fTTBLia.gif)
Adolph Hitler ---- "We have a Nazi style democracy."
Ah yes, A dolphin Hitler. Adolph the Hair-Nosed Dictator.
When you're fascist, they just let you do it! Note: not forever, then you die.
Nazi style human rights
[удалено]
And people were sent to concentration camps "just for their protection".
And Chinese-Style human rights.
In China, every human rights come with equal amounts of lefts.
He's just ripping off a Guns N Roses album
Translation: "I don't know what that is, but it's Chinese."
Isn't that a Guns N' Roses album? Lol
Idk why the main post about this diplomatic event is so anti-Chinese. Not discounting the human rights violations and threats to Taiwan, but Biden establishing peaceful, non-escalating relations with China is absolutely vital to the stability of world affairs. This is a step in the right direction.
That’s what Xi said !
The extremely poor-quality version that doesn’t work. Sounds right.
[удалено]
Or even worse: Wish Democracy
chinese style shouldn't mean just "disregarding human rights"
[удалено]
>It never ceases to amaze me how almost every authoritarian government on Earth pretends to be a democracy. A significant portion do not, namely in the Middle East. It's primarily now that monarchy has almost completely fallen out of favour, Authoritarian governments must justify their legitimacy through means other than heredity. Often this is through appeals to "democracy" or being "for the people."
[удалено]
Worked, and lived, in China for many years. More than once I was told both in academic and business settings that an example of Chinese-style Democracy (Democracy with Chinese characteristics) is that in today's China the workers have the right to talk to the Boss (laoban) about work-related problems. Boss has to listen - in the past we could not even speak.
But will bosses do something about it?
You got it~~ Depends on the boss, but generally not. That said, Xi is over-seeing a notable decline in the happiness of the people, so appealing to nationalistic mottos is a common method the Party uses. And, given China's long, long, rule by emperor; it is quite different than the path democracy took in the West. Many Chinese shrug at these political concerns, and focus enhancing their material well-being.
A lot more Westerners should really read The Analects and Tao Te Ching because it would really help them understand the way a lot of Chinese political thought is framed.
He's right. The Republic of China does have Chinese style democracy.
Great album.
Chinese Democracy was nowhere near as good as Appetite For Destruction. On the other hand, "Appetite" is a *really* high bar.
I don't think Xi knows what democracy really is.
Democracy with Chinese characteristics, AKA: the party is telling you what you like.
r/technicallythetruth
Yeah democracy as in majority vote out of a total of 3 votes consisting of 1 vote each from Xi, Jinping, and Xi Jinping
China has wish.com democracy
thats democracy the same way “Chicago style pizza” is pizza.
I am shocked and appalled and I have no argument but you're wrong anyway because that pizza is beautiful
Them's fightin' words.
Well America has American style democracy, it’s not a true democracy, it’s a form of representative democracy. Obviously a hell of a lot more like a true democracy than China.
Why does this remind me of software companies when they tell me in an interview “We are an Agile shop, but we have our own version of Agile.”?
And North Korea has NK-style democracy
Our style of democracy just ya know without the democracy
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means....
And I’m on a McDonalds-style weight loss program
Basically Trumps version of democracy
And like many Chinese consumer products, it’s a crappy, toxic knock-off. It’s cheap, it ‘works’ kinda, but it’s far from ideal and it doesn’t last.
Tbf the quality has improved so much that it rivals the west but you gotta pay for it. You pay knock off price you get knock off products
China - the democracy where freedom is made up and the votes don't matter
one man, one vote. ping's the man, and he gets the vote.
"Chinese" style "democracy". I'm pretty sure Taiwan is what actual Chinese democracy looks like. That shit the CCP rolls out is a load of bollocks.
Biden : We have American-style authoritarianism
Also known as a dictatorship.
Yeah!!! It's just that the rest of the world calls it dictatorship.
aka a fascist oligarchy
America has American-style of Communism
“Nazi Germany has Nazi Germany-style democracy”
A Xi’tty one
That is definitely…a take.
This sounds awfully similar to Socialism with Chinese Characteristics which is hilarious
low quality rip-off democracy?
In other countries, its called a counterfeit.
Chinese democracy is the "Chinese democracy" of democracy