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.