The ‘myth’ of Western-style democracy is losing its appeal even in the West (China Global Times editorial)

[Hamartia Antidote]

same type of people basically control the party and are ruled by 1 man. The upside is, power is absolute, so there will not be any arguing, which means whether you like it or not, it gets things done.

you can argue it took forever for China to modernize simply because of their "long 1 man rule" (ie Mao) while countries around them upped their standards of living.

So it works both ways.

 

[j_hungary]

you can argue it took forever for China to modernize simply because of their "long 1 man rule" (ie Mao) while countries around them upped their standards of living.

So it works both ways.

Well, there are a lot more issue than that............

 

[Leclerc]

Well, there are a lot more issue than that............

China was Maoist from 1949-78, Maoism is poorly suited for building prosperous societies (although it's excellent at building societies in which everyone is poor and which are destabilized by mass campaigns over ideological purity every 10-15 years).

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

Due to deliberate fabrications by Western English-language media, many foreigners lack a complete understanding of China’s political mechanism.

In the Chinese political system, the most critical, high-level decisions originate from the "Beidaihe meetings"—a unique, informal consultative mechanism.

Whenever major issues require a decision, China’s senior officials—including both those currently in office and those who have retired but are still living—gather in Beidaihe (a small seaside town approximately 300 kilometers from Beijing) for closed-door deliberations.

The sole objective of these meetings is to reach a consensus among all participants. Attendees are encouraged to express their views and opinions freely, engaging in rigorous debate where arguments are settled through reason. Once a decision is reached, it becomes binding; no one is permitted to oppose it in any form, and all are expected to fully support the finalized course of action. ------ The lists of China’s successive top leaders and members of the CCP Politburo Standing Committee are all generated through this meeting.

Following this, a series of public proceedings take place—such as the National Congress of the Communist Party of China (CPC), meetings of the Politburo, and sessions of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference (CPPCC). In reality, these public events are largely procedural; the substantive decisions have already been finalized during the Beidaihe meetings.

Since its inception, the CPC has maintained a highly rigorous internal mechanism. Among its components are "democratic life meetings"—regular sessions held within CPC organizations at all levels. During these meetings, participants engage in intense, direct, and often sharp criticism, cutting straight to the core of the issues at hand. The level of critical scrutiny applied here far exceeds that seen between political parties in Western nations. Yet, in other settings, these same individuals maintain a demeanor of complete cordiality and harmony.

Even Chinese DeepSeek is throwing WTF red flags at much of this.

here's a snippet

...the text you quoted presents a mythologized version of Chinese politics....

You sure you don't want to rewrite it?

 

[j_hungary]

Exactly this.

It can very easily be argued that China is "democratic" and that USA exerts "centralised power".

They are meaningless terms designed for propaganda purposes only.

Political systems should be judged on their actual constituents, merits, and outcomes.

I'm averse to the "right wing" vs "left wing" ecosystem that we are spoonfed here in the west also. The dichotomy simply does not exist in reality, nor is it reasonable to define western political parties as existing "somewhere along a right-left linear spectrum".

That is because 90% of us are apolitical. As in, we don't really care about Politics; that's the politician's job to discuss politics. The term Politics really means nothing to people.
Politics is a tool of governance; it means you rule by politics.

And the left vs right is both a label to control people, make them believe in some value, and form groups. Initially, it's on good faith, because you use that to attract the opposite idea, but now it's basically just a label for you to hate each other.

 

[Michael]

Exactly this.

It can very easily be argued that China is "democratic" and that USA exerts "centralised power".

They are meaningless terms designed for propaganda purposes only.

Political systems should be judged on their actual constituents, merits, and outcomes.

I'm averse to the "right wing" vs "left wing" ecosystem that we are spoonfed here in the west also. The dichotomy simply does not exist in reality, nor is it reasonable to define western political parties as existing "somewhere along a right-left linear spectrum".

As I see it, for any nation or human organization, the balance between "democracy" and "centralization" is dynamic. No organization is inherently or permanently "democratic" or "centralized."

When an organization needs to catch up rapidly or pursue high-speed growth, "centralization" can maximize its potential and accelerate the achievement of its goals. Conversely, once an organization has reached a significant level of maturity and requires stability, "democracy" can better enhance its tolerance for error.

China was Maoist from 1949-78, Maoism is poorly suited for building prosperous societies (although it's excellent at building societies in which everyone is poor and which are destabilized by mass campaigns over ideological purity every 10-15 years).

That is a superficial perspective.

If we delve deeper into the nature of human organizations, a problem emerges: had it not been for the so-called "series of erroneous policies" during the Mao Zedong era, Deng Xiaoping’s policies would have plunged China into an bottomless abyss.

Consider the well-known Hollywood film *Unthinkable*, starring Samuel L. Jackson. If we delve deeply into the philosophical dilemmas regarding humanity that lie at its core, you might just understand what I am talking about.

 

[Leclerc]

That is a superficial perspective.

If we delve deeper into the nature of human organizations, a problem emerges: had it not been for the so-called "series of erroneous policies" during the Mao Zedong era, Deng Xiaoping’s policies would have plunged China into an bottomless abyss.

Let me offer you a Chinese idiom: "矫枉过正" !

Deng Xiaoping and Liu Shaoqi wanted to implement very much the same policies that Deng implemented post 1978 already in the 1960s. Likely in the 1950s already.

Deng himself was purged twice during the Cultural Revolution for being a "revisionist" and Liu Shaoqi died in prison due to being denied medical help for the same reason.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

China was Maoist from 1949-78, Maoism is poorly suited for building prosperous societies (although it's excellent at building societies in which everyone is poor and which are destabilized by mass campaigns over ideological purity every 10-15 years).

This goes back to the one man thing.

In Mao's eyes everything was perfectly fine.
That's the main issue with a strongman rule.

 

[Yellow is Okay]

An often missed upside of China is that decisions are made faster and politics is much less polarized overall. One party rule also lets the Party draw plans for decades ahead, something that hardly happens in western countries.

Faster decisions doesn't mean coherent long-term decisions. Vietnam and Laos are both one-party states too, but we don't have that decades-ahead consistency. Vietnam has collective leadership specifically to avoid one-man rule, yet its plans get revised for years, and in Laos most big plans change as soon as the funding or faction in the LPRP changes. So the long-termism you see in China is about state capacity, not just about having one party.

 

[Zsari]

Deng Xiaoping and Liu Shaoqi wanted to implement very much the same policies that Deng implemented post 1978 already in the 1960s. Likely in the 1950s already.

Deng himself was purged twice during the Cultural Revolution for being a "revisionist" and Liu Shaoqi died in prison due to being denied medical help for the same reason.

I would argue without cultural revolution, the reform would not net today's success.

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com...-cultural-revolution/articleshow/47859168.cms

 

[j_hungary]

China was Maoist from 1949-78, Maoism is poorly suited for building prosperous societies (although it's excellent at building societies in which everyone is poor and which are destabilized by mass campaigns over ideological purity every 10-15 years).

As someone already pointed out, this is an oversimplification of the takes.

Mao is both a saint and a villain, depending on what period of China you are talking about when you talk about him. I will just leave it at that.

 

[Michael]

China was Maoist from 1949-78, Maoism is poorly suited for building prosperous societies (although it's excellent at building societies in which everyone is poor and which are destabilized by mass campaigns over ideological purity every 10-15 years).

To understand this issue, you must carefully study Chinese society as it existed at that time. Evaluating the merits and demerits of Mao Zedong while setting aside the context of that era is inherently biased.

It is a complex matter. If you wish to explore it in greater detail, I suggest consulting relevant source materials.

When the COVID-19 pandemic struck, many national governments found themselves unable to cope with the catastrophe, and their entire healthcare systems collapsed. For a government, however, the critical concern is not merely the number of deaths, but the state of the surviving population. The panic among those who remain alive can trigger social unrest severe enough to completely topple a regime.
When a society lacks the practical capacity to address a crisis, "psychological therapy"—in a broad sense—becomes an effective tool for crisis management. This explains why, in various countries, governments resorted to bizarre rhetoric—such as the suggestion in India that drinking cow urine could cure COVID-19. There are other examples, but I need not list them all here.

While these measures may appear "absurd" to outsiders, they served as an effective instrument when viewed within the specific context of the local national conditions. At the very least, in the short term and within a certain scope, they succeeded in pacifying the public.

Now, are you able to grasp the issue of the "Great Leap Forward"?

As for the "Cultural Revolution," that is a separate matter. To either completely condemn or entirely endorse it would be narrow-minded. Everything has two sides; it all depends on the perspective from which you view it.

Faster decisions doesn't mean coherent long-term decisions. Vietnam and Laos are both one-party states too, but we don't have that decades-ahead consistency. Vietnam has collective leadership specifically to avoid one-man rule, yet its plans get revised for years, and in Laos most big plans change as soon as the funding or faction in the LPRP changes. So the long-termism you see in China is about state capacity, not just about having one party.

Which system should be adopted? There is no right or wrong answer.

A one-party system or a multi-party system? A democracy or an authoritarian regime? The true core of the issue is whether there are effective mechanisms in place to check and constrain power.

=========================

Another question worth considering:

To this day, there are still countries in the world that operate under a system of absolute monarchy. Yet, international public opinion rarely criticizes their political systems.
Take, for example, Vatican City: the Pope holds absolute authority. But have you ever heard any media outlet criticize this arrangement?

Why?

 

[kankan326]

he Chinese system, on the other hand, focuses on central governmental function; everything goes to where the party wants it to go, and the same type of people basically control the party and are ruled by 1 man. The upside is, power is absolute, so there will not be any arguing, which means whether you like it or not, it gets things done. The downside is that the checks and balances system does not exist, which means it will only be good if the leader is competent, and when the person in charge doesn't know what they are doing, then there will be a problem for everyone, because the government has all the power.

For example, we can vote in someone extremely incompetent like Trump, and then we will get nothing done, but then we can repudiate him and his "policy" in the election, and vote him out or make him impotent, which is what just happened 2 days ago. That will limit the damage done to the country; on the other hand, if a Trump-like character emerges as a leader of China, which none of the Chinese have any say in it, the only way you can get rid of him is either to wait for him to die and hope he didn't give his power to someone even less competent or to start a revolution.

So this is to each of their own.

If US presidents average score in competence is 50, China's leaders' average score would be 85. How? Becasue China' politicians have to climb ladder from bottom(junior officials) to top step by step under CCP organization department(组织部）gaze and evaluation. Which guarantees all officials who climbed top positions are super competent in governance. There is a small possibility that the one who climbed top position has low morality. There is zero possiblity that he is stupid. Xi Jinping will be the last leader who has second-generation reds(红二代) background.

 

[kankan326]

Faster decisions doesn't mean coherent long-term decisions. Vietnam and Laos are both one-party states too, but we don't have that decades-ahead consistency. Vietnam has collective leadership specifically to avoid one-man rule, yet its plans get revised for years, and in Laos most big plans change as soon as the funding or faction in the LPRP changes. So the long-termism you see in China is about state capacity, not just about having one party.

If it were South Vietnam who annexed North Vietnam, Vietnam today would be another Philippines. Which is very unfortunate for your country. You should thank Ho Chi Minh who brought communism to Vietnam.

Even Cuba with communism is different than other Latin American countries. Where are full of crimes, voilence, gangsters. Cuba is a like an Asian country in Lantin Ameica. Philippines is like a Lantin American country in Asia.

 

[sutton9999]

If US presidents average score in competence is 50, China's leaders' average score would be 85. How? Becasue China' politicians have to climb ladder from bottom(junior officials) to top step by step under CCP organization department(组织部）gaze and evaluation. Which guarantees all officials who climbed top positions are super competent in governance. There is a small possibility that the one who climbed top position has low morality. There is zero possiblity that he is stupid. Xi Jinping will be the last leader who has second-generation reds(红二代) background.

Are you fxxking kiding me?

How many high-ranking have been removed? The central military committee only has two left, including Xi.

The system is different, still pretty bad.