think this view is both paternalistic and naive. China commands an extremely well oiled state apparatus that has proven time and time again to execute on long term strategy with results in hand. The idea that China is some wide-eyed baby fawn may have passed muster in the 70s — StreetlightX

American corporate strategists were aware in the 70s that China was the last great economic frontier. Westerners have been trying to figure out how to become part of it since then. What did you think the Nixon overture was for?

it certainly has far more strategic vision than anything the West can muster up in response, which has been a confused mix of total economic dependency on China combined with stoking up xenophobia in response to internal failures all around — StreetlightX

Sure. The US sees it's former self in China.

The West as it stands is undergoing a process of regression to juvenilia with respect to China's own maturity of state. — StreetlightX

Yeah, note Itlee's sense that China can take on the US military. He was confused about why the west ignored Chinese provocation.

Like you, he's not clear on what the US actually is:

This song is best listened to while following a bunch of idiots across mexico on a yamaha, but

Democracy is first and foremost about the freedom to make and repeal laws or to elect representatives to do that for you. But even "representatives" can be suppressed for "improper behaviour" and their voting power in the assembly taken away.

Even more so, for such a process to even start to become remotely feasible you need to be able to:

1. assemble in groups
2. access to information
3. freedom of speech

None of these are available.

1. Free assembly? Not allowed; see HK, Tibet, Uighurs, only one political party. A state-mandated union (eg. a union dress-up). State owned media. etc. etc.
2. Access to information. State-controlled.
3. ...

Like you, he's not clear on what the US actually is — frank

A mall cop for corporate interests. Nothing more.

A mall cop for corporate interests. Nothing more. — StreetlightX

For now. Things change.

American corporate strategists were aware in the 70s that China was the last great economic frontier. Westerners have been trying to figure out how to become part of it since then. What did you think the Nixon overture was for? — frank

Correct. The leading strategists were the Rockefellers. David Rockefeller visited China in 1973 and returned full of praise for its “dedicated administration and efficiency”.

From a China Traveller – The New York Times

The Rockefellers at the time were expanding their global oil and banking empire, for which purpose they founded the Trilateral Commission. Their main man in the Nixon administration was Henry Kissinger, another admirer of China. As Secretary of State, Kissinger orchestrated the opening of relations with China.

Kissinger had already visited China in 1971 to prepare the ground, when he announced that after a dinner of Peking duck he would sign anything.

Seeing that Marxism wasn't getting them anywhere, the Chinese introduced Lenin’s concept of communist-controlled state capitalism – funded by Western investment and credit.

Without financial and technical assistance from the Rockefellers and their associates, China would have gone the way of the Soviet Union.

How do you know all this shit?

A Chinese friend told me (over a Peking duck dinner) :wink:

Did you know Kissinger's family escaped from Nazi Germany?

Is there a reason why I shouldn't know? I disagree with his policies and those of the Rockefellers, or corporate groups in general for that matter. But that's another story.

I disagree with his policies and those of the Rockefellers, or corporate groups in general for that matter. But that's another story. — Apollodorus

I'm interested. Maybe another thread?

Maybe.

Look like some in this forum do not think China is democratic.

1. Please distinguish between Democracy and Western Democracy.
China does not claim its version of democracy is Western Democracy. Rather, Wang Yi, China's Foreign Minister, noted, “Democracy is not Coca-Cola, which, with the syrup produced by the United States, tastes the same across the world. The world will be lifeless and dull if there is only one single model and one single civilization.”

2. What is the must have for a system to be must have?
Democracy simply means "rule by the people." To the extent that direct democracy is unworkable and/or not desirable, representative democracy is inevitably. It also means rule or govern according to the will of the people.

3. Is ritualistic voting the ONLY way to access the will of the people?
My answer is "NO". I agree that voting could be a way for a group of people to access the will of the people. But this is not the only way.

As another poster had pointed out, voting for representative is really new. Greeks often did not vote for their representatives for obvious reason. The procedure favor the rich and the powerful. Western style representative government is, a relatively speaking, new invention.

Some background information is in order for those who insist that democracy must be narrowly tied to voting.

"In the early 1990s, the intellectual historian Bernard Manin
described one of the quickest, most striking changes in the history of
constitutional theory: in a matter of decades in the eighteenth
century, elections became universally accepted as the sole strategy
for selecting leaders.39 In Rome, order of voting among the tribes was
partly determined by lottery.40 In Renaissance Florence, simple
lotteries and multistage mixed lottery-election systems were used to
choose leaders.41 Republican Venice continued to use lottery into the
late eighteenth century, when its government finally fell.42
Philosophers in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries—Harrington,
Montesquieu, and Rousseau—all devoted attention to selecting officials
by lottery.43 And yet, in debates after the American and French
Revolutions, lottery is almost completely absent.
Lost in this transformation from lottery to election was an important
argument about economic class. From the Athens of Aristotle to the
eighteenth century, political philosophers believed that elections
were inherently aristocratic, and lotteries inherently democratic.44"
(The CRISIS OF THE MIDDLE CLASS CONSTITUTION)

Doesn't really matter how old anything is. The way you're using "democracy," any functioning government is democratic. That makes the word useless for us.

4. One reason for the rapid ascendancy of voting based representative democracy is that voting confers the government the consent of the governed.

Realty check: During the past 10 years Rasmussen had carried out multiple polls asking likely voters whether the U.S. government had consent of the governed. The following headline is typical.

"Only 21% Say U.S. Government Has Consent of the Governed".

Chinese democracy passes Chinese people's smell test.

In contrast, the US claims to be democratic. Does it pass the American's smell test?

Chinese democracy passes Chinese people's smell test. — ltlee1

That's because you accept dictatorship. We can't do that.

In contrast, the US claims to be democratic. Does it pass the American's smell test? — ltlee1

Not at the moment, but our definition informs our goals.

5. Earned and unearned legitimacy

One may naturally ask, given that U.S. voters had already given their consent to the winning administration, how come only 1/4 said the U.S. government had consent of the governed? If they didn't vote, were they not given implied consent?

Well, the answer lies with how legitimate is legitimate.

The Ash Center policy brief "Understanding CCP Resilience" has the following title for its conclusion:
"Conclusion: Continued Resilience through Earned Legitimacy"

The implication is that CCP resilience is earned by delivery what the people want and desire. As soon as it fails to deliver, it would have no legitimacy.

Popular voting gained rapid ascendancy for one reason. It is supposed to give the government natural legitimacy. Or legitimacy by origin. In contrast to earned legitimacy, legitimacy by origin is in reality unearned but still accepted. We the people create the government not unlike parents give birth to a child. Of course, the government is legitimate by origin. And naturally resilient.

How about a couple of ethnic background E keep having kids of non-E complexion features? Would one or both partners not doubt their kids' legitimacy?

Please tell you conception of dictatorship.
Then ask yourself this question:
If you don't accept dictatorship, what make you think Chinese including me will accept dictatorship, HERE and NOW?

[

Please tell you conception of dictatorship.
Then ask yourself this question:
If you don't accept dictatorship, what make you think Chinese including me will accept dictatorship, HERE and NOW? — ltlee1

Your government is a dictatorship. You accept it because you're used to it. You have no experience with anything else.

We're just different. We have a different histories, but we're locked together now. We rise and fall together. The sooner you realize that westerners are just people, fundamentally just like you, the better.

Of course, everyone can say "Two legs bad, four legs good."
Again, the question is whether such opinion is based on knowledge or expertise. Wishful thinking has no value for anyone.

Jimmy Carter said, "America is not a democracy." I believe him.

I'm not the one who suggested you should look to a western model. That was Banno.

I think China has to make its own path. Continue worrying about the well-being of Americans if you like. We also have to follow our own road.

@ltlee1, sure, there are different forms of democracy. What they have in common is a formal feedback from the governed to the government, such that policies with which folk disagree are removed.

And that is, if not absent, then at least minimal in China.

A demonstration - what dd it take to remove Trump? What would it take to remove Xi Jinping?

I deeply, deeply dislike this definition, — StreetlightX

Lies to children, maybe.

Democracy is a way of evaluating the decisions made by the government, using institutions that feed back information about the populace to the government; and ensuring that the evaluation is acted upon. Elections are one obvious way in which this happens. There are others.

And to some extent @ltlee1 has a point, in that there are some feedback mechanisms in place in China - the Message Board for Leaders is prima facie a positive thing, if you need the bird shit cleaned from your roof.

I'm not the one who suggested you should look to a western model. That was Banno. — frank

Not accurate. China should go it's own way. I am just pointing out that China claiming to be democratic is laughable.

Gotcha.

On the contrary. I think China would lose badly in the beginning IF there is a war between the US and China.

"A demonstration - what dd it take to remove Trump? What would it take to remove Xi Jinping?"

Who in China is comparing Xi to Trump? In addition, Trump might win handily if not for the pandemic. As a matter fact, some three percenters in Trumps rally yesterday had promised future violence unless the presidency is reverted to Trump, the legitimate winner.

Any way, a better comparison would be with FDR. And you have a good point.

I would say settling term limit is a process of trial and error. No reason not to have a great leaders holding on to the job longer. It took the US more than 100 hundred to settle on term limit. Shouldn't one cut China some slack on this issue?

" I am just pointing out that China claiming to be democratic is laughable. "

Many Chinese also think the US is not a democracy. And Trump is the symptom rather than the cause of undemocratic US. Unfortunately, some Americans also agree this assessment.

The difference, China does not criticize American democracy. Yet the US keeps making Chinese democracy an issue as if as long as China is not an America look alike, it must be evil.

I guess population-wise, the US is like one tiny corner of China. Still, democracy is layered here. The closest democracy to a citizen is either their county or city government. We elect judges, city planners, environmental managers, mayors, etc. We vote on how much money to put into the public schools and other local decisions.

Above that we have state governments which deal with bigger issues. Each state has a legislature and a governor who are elected.

Last, there's the federal government. It's not so much that it's not functioning. It's just that we have problems we don't currently know how to solve.

It's odd that you know a lot about Trump's supporters but you don't know what's happening to the Uighurs. You don't have freedom of the press.

y. I think China would lose badly in the beginning — ltlee1

China would lose badly period.