• socsa@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Sorry, you can’t have democracy without basic political agency. You can’t have basic political agency without the ability to speak freely.

    Picking between three party approved technocrats is not sufficient for political self determination.

    • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      you can’t have democracy without … the ability to speak freely.

      In that case, democracy doesn’t exist anywhere in the world and likely could never exist.

      • socsa@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        There are plenty of places where citizens are free to engage in normal discussions about politics, and particularly the history of their own country.

        But yes, nothing is perfect, the world is not your false dichotomy, and every system should seek to iteratively improve. China should seek to grant its citizens more individual freedoms as well, wouldn’t you agree? This is very low hanging fruit for free society, and China has a lot more work to do than the west on this particular issue.

        • redtea@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          There’s no false democracy. I’m simply pointing out what you clarified: there is no perfect. Speech will be restricted everywhere and claiming that democracy cannot exist without fully unfettered speech contradicts a fundamental tenet of liberalism—tolerance, and with it the dilemma of speech that harms and so interfere’s with others’ freedom not to be harmed. See Bentham, Mill, or Isaiah Berlin for more on this topic.

          I suppose you mean first-generation rights (in the language of international human rights law) as these are the ones that flow from the enlightenment and cover the freedom of expression, for instance. While I agree that China should grant its citizens as many rights as possible, the level of our agreement depends on what we each mean by individual freedoms.

          I agree with first-generation rights in principle but they are fundamentally contradictory and their experimental application around the world suggests they cannot be realised because the law cannot resolve those contradictions. There are political economic contradictions, too. Realising first, second-, and third-generation rights is incompatible with capitalism. It is simply not possible to uphold the right of private property and allow workers, for instance, a full right of free expression in the workplace, nor to allow moneyed lobbying in the legislature while granting the same voice to individuals. You can find a good explanation of the law underpinning this argument in International Human Rights by Philip Alston and Ryan Goodman (perhaps in Parts B and C).

          China seems to be rather good at providing what are known as second- and third-generation rights, which are usually given less than lip-service in the west. If we are making a comparison, then China appears to accept a duty to implement these rights, while liberal democracies only accept that legislating for said rights is enough (including for first-generation rights). If we’re talking about the US, it doesn’t even acknowledge many such rights. The argument goes that the constituent states cannot legislate for the federal state and the federal state cannot legislate for the constituent states. There is a similarity with China but there the question is, how should these rights be implemented locally, not should they be implemented?

          The west appears to have to go a lot further to go than China with regard to second- and third-generation rights but China appears to have a lot further to go than the west with regard to first-generation rights. I say ‘appears’ in both cases because neither party can go much further in the suggested directions under existing conditions. There are two insurmountable problems, one for each. The one for the west is explained above: capitalism and the guaranteed realisation of rights are incompatible.

          For China, realising first-generation rights in the way that they are implemented in the west is incompatible with socialism. The text in emphasis is important because at a theoretical level, first-generation rights are needed to secure political participation. Socialists in China (not all – it is not a homogenous state) would argue that the way that first-generation rights are implemented in China is the only way to secure socialist political participation. Just as westerners often argue that the western model of human rights is the only way to secure bourgeois political participation.

          At this point, the problem with relying on legal concepts to define ‘free society’ has been revealed. Law, which provides the language and the mechanism for securing ‘individual freedoms’, does not provide the full answer. A political view is needed instead. Pro-capitalists will argue that the mere act of legislating for individual freedoms is sufficient for a ‘free society’. Socialists will argue that a society can only be free if those rights are realised.

          Which side do you fall on? Is legislating for individual freedoms enough? Or should a state try to ensure that those freedoms are realised?

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Sorry, you can’t have democracy without basic political agency. You can’t have basic political agency without the ability to speak freely.

      Somebody should let people like Assange, Manning, and Snowden know that they can speak freely.

      Picking between three party approved technocrats is not sufficient for political self determination.

      Ah yes, real democracy is picking between parties owned by the oligarchs. 😂

          • socsa@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            It’s like you don’t even have a passing familiarity with Chinese politics. The local councils which the average person can actually vote for are notoriously corrupt. Easily as bad as anything you’ll find in the west, and often far more so.

            • drgltch@lemmy.fmhy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              A major difference between China and the West re: corruption is that it’s institutionalized in the West and called “lobbying.” Because of this, it’s easy for Westerners to point at China and say local councils are “notoriously corrupt” but not bat an eye at lobbyists, rich donors, and [super]pacs swaying Congressional votes.

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              It’s like I linked a whole bunch of scholarly articles from institutions like Harvard explaining Chinese politics. The reality is that people in China have seen their lives consistently improve with each and every decade. Countless studies show that the standard of living in China is improving at an incredible rate, and that people see the government work in their interest.

              And yes, China isn’t perfect, there’s corruption, but that’s missing the point entirely. Corruption exists in every human society, the discussion is whose interest the government is working in. In the west the government works in the interest of the capital owning class, in China it works in the interest of the working majority.

              • socsa@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Bro, I have family in China and have lived there for a few years. You are completely delusional about how this works in practice. I’ve also seen the real terror on the real face of a real person when you so much as utter some controversial political language in the wrong company.

                It’s actually insane to me that you will call the west brainwashed, and then quote satisfaction surveys of the CCP without a hint of self awareness. Come on. You want actual data? China is ranked lower than basically every other developed nation on the global corruption perception index.

                https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2022

                • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Bro I have friends from China, and lots of my friends moved back to China after university. Weird how Chinese students keep returning to China because it’s such a hell right. What’s insane is that somebody could live in the west and not see the brainwashing.

                  Meanwhile, it’s absolutely hilarious how you keep going on about corruption when countries like US have an entire government owned by the oligarchs.

                  Again, the fact you keep dancing around is that quality of life in China has been improving dramatically by practically every measure, meanwhile the opposite is happening in the west. That’s the elephant in the room mr. transparency index.

                  • socsa@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    So what you are saying is that you suddenly aren’t interested in data? Because I was really looking forward to comparing stuff like rural educational attainment, PPP, various human development indices, freedom, democracy indices. There’s like a bunch of stuff which basically backs up what is plainly visible to anyone - that the west has been raising people out of poverty for 200 years and is still doing a pretty decent job of it.

                    Look, we all know that western liberalism has a lot of really fucking dumb shit about it in the current iteration. And I will definitely acknowledge that there are a lot of good ideas in China. China’s economic miracle is laudable, but - and I say this as a person with an actual stake in Chinese society - it’s time for China to do better, and China doesn’t get better when delusional tankies defend its many clear and obvious problems.