202
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 22 Jun 2023
202 points (100.0% liked)
World News
32285 readers
532 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
It's as if western style liberal democracy is an inherently unstable political system.
Just stating basic facts bro.
Totalitarians in either China or India are bad.
People in China say it's a democratic country that represents their interests, but I'm sure a western chauvinist who's never been to China knows a lot better than people living there.
Yogthos cited nine sources and summarised the main theme running through them. Those sources included esteemed Western outputs. How is that shilling for China?
You mean to say that the system that led to the Iraq war, the 2007-9 housing crisis, the unpreparedness for a predictable pandemic, and myriad other events of this kind – with no option for the 'represented' publics to prevent said events – is unstable? You might just be on to something.
In unrelated news, the Bank of England has raised interest rates with the stated intention of making homeowners poorer. About 20% poorer, I'm told. The board of the bank is unelected and the electorate have zero control over its decisions. The (unelected) Prime Minister appears to disagree with the decision but also has zero control over the board's decisions.
The bank hopes that by making people poorer, inflation will come down – after two years – and workers will become so desperate that they are too scared to go on strike for a pay rise! This is all public knowledge because several interested parties said the quiet part out loud.
Don't worry, though, Britain is a liberal democracy so the Brits can vote for different representatives in a year's time. Well, those who survive will be able to vote. And nobody will be able to vote for the Bank of England board. But it's still a democracy.
This is more feature than bug in a central bank. Let's say the US president had direct control over fiscal policy. The president says print money and drop the interest rate, the central bank says how much. It gets really tempting when reelection comes around to juice the economy. The negative consequences - inflation - take enough time to do their damage that people will already be going to the polls before they get hit.
The way the Bank of England gets its board does seem less than ideal, but not terrible as these things go. It's kind of a run of the mill technocratic structure.
I'll upvote this as it's fair point, but my point was that liberal democracies cannot claim to be democratic if there is no real democratic oversight over such significant political decisions. The fact that this can be dismissed as part of a technocracy illustrates the point well, I think. So many people will lose their homes and hundreds of thousands/millions will see a dip in their living standards and no amount of the 'democracy' on offer (periodic voting) can change that. It makes a mockery of the concept and, as you say, it's a feature not a bug of liberal democracy. We're in full agreement about that!
As compared to?
Compared to China, Cuba, and Vietnam.
I'll take "unstable" over "authoritarian" thanks.
Adorable that you think west isn't authoritarian. Every government is fundamentally authoritarian because the government has the monopoly on violence, that's where its authority comes from. And when people in western countries don't behave the governments unleash their security forces on them as they did during George Floyd protests in US and they're doing in France right now.
China does keep it's slaves in line more... and their recent pushes for global imperial authority have had a lot of success.
It's always amazing to see the wild fantasies westies believe about other countries.
No, I mean it, they really have taken the models of the British Empire and the American Empires and expanded them in a way neither at their heights could ever justify nor imagine. Surveillance system sales to authoritarian governments? Selling surveillance in other countries?! Like the CIA look like idiots spending money to get surveillance in other countries on that one. Plus they get to support the dictators keeping the peasants sending raw resources to China!
Purposely loaning money to countries with bad credit histories for leverage to get them to build ports for the Chinese empire's trade network?! Britten spent so much time and money fighting wars, and colonizing just to be our shined on that.
And let's not even get to started on the levels of control business have over workers there. The US robber barons use the State here looks like child's play to the anti-union, anti-solidarity work done by the CCP. A giant union ran by the largest capitalist in the country? With authorities able to crack down on grassroots organizing on the opposite side, and the ability to send slaves from regions in need of "reeducation" all around the country. Makes the US look practically socialist on some fronts (we aren't and have a good way to go).
Literally every word of that is a falsehood.
They aren't loaning out money to have ports built? They don't have a state run union? Their government isn't filled with some of their richest? They don't have a program reducate certain peoples that includes shipping them accross the country? Like come on, some of these are just established public facts that even the CCP doesn't deny.
The myth of Chinese debt trap has been thoroughly debunked, just a few examples
It's demonstrably not. The government is predominantly filled with working class people
A weird framing for programs to provide people with jobs and education.
As I said, every single claim you made is disinformation. Also, no idea what CCP is. It's called the Communist Party of China, CPC. The fact that you can't even get that straight says volumes.
Do you think those are sources? Pointing at the National Congress or the Central Committee as if those actually held any power is ludicrous.
Yes, these are actual sources. This whole narrative that official Chinese sources are somehow unreliable isn't actually based on anything other than pure chauvinism. This is no different from linking about a US government site talking about US government. And it's the height of absurdity to claim that National Congress or the Central Committee don't hold any power. I love how you just make things up and state them confidently as a form of argument.
Official Chinese sources are unreliable when they spout bullshit like saying the rubberstamping meetup that happens once every blue moon that solely consists of party selected individuals is who holds the power instead of the much smaller group that actually actively controls legislation.
But I guess political science is also exclusively western propaganda so there's no choice but to believe a choppy power point presentation.
Who told you that official Chinese sources are unreliable, was it the "reliable" western sources that continuously lie about everything regarding China by any chance? 😂
Do you think that the only choices are between Chinese and US state propaganda?
You don't even need independent research to realize that a parliament that only meets once in a while to verify the work of a much smaller group can't be the one that's actually in power.
If you look a bit more into it, you see that the members are replaced in fixed time spans, are all part of the same party, are picked from the top down and so it goes on.
It's not the organ with the actual power.
I'm pretty sure I've looked into it a lot more than you have, but do go on.
Maybe. The issue is that it's not the quantity but the quality of research that matters.
Yes, you really should work on the quality of your research based on your comments.