• QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        9 hours ago

        China has democracy. Just not bourgeois liberal democracy. The Chinese political system is based on whole-process people’s democracy, a form of consultative democracy. The local levels are directly elected, and then these representatives from around the country elect people to higher rungs, meaning any candidate at the top level must have worked their way up from the bottom and directly proved themselves. Also due to the nature of things the vast majority of representatives are among those directly elected by the people. You should research things before you just say things. And we’re very happy with our system. Even Harvard puts the approval rating around 95%.

        • pie_enjoyer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          8 hours ago

          Perception != reality

          Functional democracy needs those things:

          • Opposition
          • Free media
          • Open voting
          • Free and fair electricions
          • Same law for everyone
          • Civil liberties

          As far as I’m aware, China doesn’t have any of those things.

          • QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            8 hours ago

            Perception != reality

            Correct. Which makes it strange that you ignored everything I explained in this reply to you and just went back to the same checklist again.

            Functional democracy needs: Opposition

            No. That is the liberal electoral model, not the universal definition of democracy. Democracy means political authority comes from the people and that they participate in governance.

            China’s system does this through whole-process people’s democracy. People directly elect local People’s Congress deputies, those bodies elect higher congresses, and the system scales upward to the National People’s Congress. Most representatives come from those directly elected levels. Officials advance after years working through those layers.

            It is a different institutional design. Pretending it does not exist because it is not your familiar Western party circus is not an argument.

            Free media

            Again you should read Michael Parenti on “inventing reality.” In the West media is not magically independent. It is owned by a tiny number of massive corporations and billionaires. Those owners decide what gets covered, what narratives dominate, and what perspectives disappear.

            Calling that “free” while pretending ownership power does not shape information is extremely naive.

            Open voting / Free elections

            China holds direct elections at the grassroots level where the majority of representatives originate. Higher levels are elected by the bodies below them. Again, a hierarchical representative system instead of a national campaign spectacle.

            Different design. Not absence.

            Same law for everyone

            This one is especially funny coming from systems where billionaires routinely dodge consequences while corporations treat fines as operating costs.

            Civil liberties

            China prioritizes social stability and development as core measures of legitimacy. Over forty years it lifted hundreds of millions out of extreme poverty and massively expanded infrastructure, education, and living standards.

            You may not like that model. Fine. But dismissing it with slogans while ignoring the outcomes is not serious.

            As far as I’m aware

            Yes, that part was obvious. Your entire argument is basically “it doesn’t look like my system therefore it isn’t democracy,” plus a “citation” from the eagle burger institute of goodness democracy index in your other comment made it abundantly clear.

    • ynthrepic@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      7 hours ago

      My Chinese friends living in New Zealand as dual citizens are afraid to criticize the Chinese government even in private online conversations. That says a lot, I think.

      • Amnesigenic@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 hours ago

        And my aunt living in alabama is scared of muslim inflltrators, sometimes people worry about things that are fictional and/or unfathomably stupid

      • QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 hours ago

        That says a lot, I think.

        It certainly does but mostly about them lmao. If you ever end up living in China you’ll come to realise criticizing and debating about the government is like the second most popular conversation topic. We love it, it’s almost a national pass time.

      • QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        10 hours ago

        Well for a start 996 is illegal so I don’t think I need to justify that.

        And censorship can be annoying but is far less pervasive than you people imagine. The amount that is censored is probably on par with that of the western world, China is just open about where the lines are. Even then it’s entirely confined to the digital domain/media you can still talk about whatever you want which becomes very clear if you ever get a taxi lmao. Some amount of censorship is good anyway, fascists should be censored for example.

      • davel@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        14 hours ago

        Previously:

        No one will deny that China has censorship. We do as well, but it’s more subtle, covert, informal, and sophisticated, which Michael Parenti and Noam Chomsky have explained in great detail. China’s censorship is largely out in the open. It’s made clear where the lines are. The press freedom in bourgeois democracies, A.K.A. social democracies, is the freedom of the media owned by the capitalist class and by the government, a government which is run by the capitalist class.

        “996” was never legal nor pervasive, and the state cracked down on it years ago. Western media will always make a mountain out of a molehill to maximally smear China, because the Cold War never ended.

        • Geobloke@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          12 hours ago

          996 seems like a concept copied from Korean and Japanese workplace culture. It would probably be fairer to look at some underlying common circumstances

          • QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            10 hours ago

            It was a thing in ~40 of the big tech firms during the 2016-2019 tech boom, the supreme people’s court explicitly ruled it illegal in 2021 and with the 2025 consumption boost plan more frameworks for cracking down on excess overtime alongside enforcing rest and vacation rights better alongside many other things is being put in place.

    • IcePee@lemmy.beru.co
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      18
      ·
      16 hours ago

      While I don’t posit that China is uniquely awful here are some low lights:

      • The oppression of the Uyghur Muslims
      • The invasion of Tibet
      • The threatened annexation of Taiwan
      • The Tiananmen Square massacre. Shall I go on?
      • QinShiHuangsShlong@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        10 hours ago

        Their were excesses during the ETIM crackdown no doubt, however much of those have since been rectified and the crackdown was unfortunately necessary. The crackdown was also far more humane and reasonable in response to the terrorism in comparison to the western world that spent decades killing hundreds of thousands to over a million innocents in the middle east (not to mention Abu gharib, Guantanamo and the other black sites).

        Tibetan serfs and slaves requested the PLA’s help in overthrowing their violent theocratic slave state.

        Do you support the reunification of Ireland? Do you support the reunification of Korea (who reunified with who being irrelevant)? Are you a supporter of the American confederacy? Why should China not be allowed to finish it’s civil war? Also invasion is the last resort, peaceful reunification is the ideal.

        A violent clash between police and protesters (who started the violence) over 35 years ago makes China awful? Certainly an interesting perspective.

      • RiverRock@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        12 hours ago

        I’m sure the people of Tibet would much rather have continued living as barefoot slaves under a medieval theocracy of pedophile priests who tortured them, sexually abused them and made arts and crafts out of their body parts.

        CW Insane Leatherface-type Horror Shit, including a flayed toddler skin: https://www.reddit.com/r/China/comments/tvs5pj/remembering_tibet_here_and_there_warning_graphic/

        I can always tell when someone doesn’t know shit about Tibet beyond what they absorbed from 90s pop culture when their reflexive, programmed hatred for China leads them to side with the absolute nightmare kingdom that the PLA liberated people from. If you would have a problem with Mormons taking over all of America and imposing brutal Deseret Law on millions of people, then boy do I have some fucking news for you about Old Tibet.

        Fuck the overlords, fuck the llamas

        Now look up “Taiwan White Terror”.

      • folaht@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        15 hours ago
        • Oppression of Uyghur ISIS terrorist members.
        • Liberation of British-colonized Tibet, run by a local theocrat that enslaved most of its people and by enslaved I mean they had officially been designated as serfs to the state, as human property of the clergy, by law.
        • You can’t annex your own country, but what you can do is support an expelled far-right party of a country that kills the indigenous people of an island and pretend that these murderers are somehow the victims.
        • The Tiananmen square insurgency was a CIA-backed coup attempt where the insurgents murdered 100+ Chinese army choir soldiers that were on their way to the square to sing out the protesters off the square.

        Go on…

      • davel@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        15 hours ago

        You’re the 573rd person to point these out to us. You can go on, but we’ve heard them all before.

        Previously:

        We’re doing this again?

        I’m pretty sure virtually all of the Tibetan people are happy to no longer be suffering under theocratic feudalism. Happy to no longer be illiterate serfs and slaves living in depredation under a god-king. I doubt many of them are sad that CIA asset Dalai “suck my tongue” Lama is in exile.[1]


        Previously:

        Xinjiang/The Uyghurs

        The US tried to foment division in China by funding and organizing terrorist cells in Xinjiang, and once those efforts failed, it concocted and promoted a genocide narrative. Antony Blinken is still pushing this slop, just a few weeks ago.

        .
        The blueprint of regime change operations

        We see here for example the evolution of public opinion in regards to China. In 2019, the ‘Uyghur genocide’ was broken by the media (Buzzfeed, of all outlets). In this story, we saw the machine I described up until now move in real time. Suddenly, newspapers, TV, websites were all flooded with stories about the ‘genocide’, all day, every day. People whom we’d never heard of before were brought in as experts — Adrian Zenz, to name just one; a man who does not even speak a word of Chinese.

        Organizations were suddenly becoming very active and important. The World Uyghur Congress, a very serious-sounding NGO, is actually an NED Front operating out of Germany […]. From their official website, they declare themselves to be the sole legitimate representative of all Uyghurs — presumably not having asked Uyghurs in Xinjiang what they thought about that.

        The WUC also has ties to the Grey Wolves, a fascist paramilitary group in Turkey, through the father of their founder, Isa Yusuf Alptekin.

        Documents came out from NGOs to further legitimize the media reporting. This is how a report from the very professional-sounding China Human Rights Defenders (CHRD) came to exist. They claimed ‘up to 1.3 million’ Uyghurs were imprisoned in camps. What they didn’t say was how they got this number: they interviewed a total of 10 people from rural Xinjiang and asked them to estimate how many people might have been taken away. They then extrapolated the guesstimates they got and arrived at the 1.3 million figure.

        Sanctions were enacted against China — Xinjiang cotton for example had trouble finding buyers after Western companies were pressured into boycotting it. Instead of helping fight against the purported genocide, this act actually made life more difficult for the people of Xinjiang who depend on this trade for their livelihood (as we all do depend on our skills to make a livelihood).

        Any attempt China made to defend itself was met with more suspicion. They invited a UN delegation which was blocked by the US. The delegation eventually made it there, but three years later. The Arab League also visited Xinjiang and actually commended China on their policies — aimed at reducing terrorism through education and social integration, not through bombing like we tend to do in the West.


        Tiananmen riots


        Previously:

        Taiwan claims to be an independent nation ready to resist China

        And yet only a dozen UN member states recognize it as an independent state.

        I’d love to know which Taiwanese say that.

        Pretty much all of them? It’s even in the ROC’s constitution. Both the ROC and the PRC claim all of China, including the island of Formosa.