The US killed a million innocent people in Iraq just a few years ago, and is *currently * drone bombing several countries in ME and north africa, and is currently supporting the apartheid state of israel with billions of dollars in military aid.
The PRC has not been in a war since its skirmish with Vietnam in 1979.
The US has a network of > 800 military bases across the globe, and has been involved in regime change in nearly every country.
While the transfer of power itself was fine and legal, didn’t they break the basic law they put in by violating people’s rights and freedoms? I do agree that it’s worded badly though
It’s weird to me that this particular law was the one the colour revolutionaries rallied behind.
A Hong Kong resident confessed to having committed a murder on Taiwan. China extradites people summoned for court or with arrest warrants issued by the Taipei rebel government to Taiwan as long as it’s for non-political offences. So they would extradite this murderer to be tried on Taiwan.
Different parts of China have different laws, because it’s a big country with autonomous regions. Hong Kong, not that big, but for historical reasons have their own laws as well. If someone has an arrest warrant issued by one of the other Chinese governments, they will extradite the person to their jurisdiction. If it’s a different country, with which China has an extradition treaty, then they will extradite them to Beijing (the Chinese national government) and Beijing will send them to that other country.
Taiwan is neither a separate country, nor a Chinese government whose arrest warrants Hong Kong respects. But the guy confessed to murder. He should be tried. So new legislation is required to make it legal to extradite him to Taiwan, either directly or through Beijing.
Are you an ML? If so, why are MLs so antagonistic to non-ML lefties? American Democrats, I can understand, but why be so extremely dichotomous about who your allies are?
I don’t know you, you could’ve been a US dem or som EU ‘social democrat’ or whatever calls themselves lefties.
I formulated the general sentiment of that group, overly represented on .world and crying about Trump’s america.
I’m not antagonistic to lefties, only the pseudo-lefties.
If you’re not one of then don’t feel targeted.
You would be part of a small minority here tho.
That’s cool and all but still irrelevant to the original point. You can be authoritarian to your own citizens domestically without invading other nations.
Terms like Authoritarianism and Totalitarianism were defined or entrenched by a lot of western supremacist authors, who needed to twist terminology in such a way that excluded the US (capitalism’s worldwide enforcer and the cause of so much death and destruction) from any wrongdoing, while demonizing the colonial world who fought back against the US for their own sovereignty as “authoritarian”.
I highly suggest reading Losurdo’s - Western Marxism, for an in-depth analysis of some of these white supremacist authors, and how they demonize the anti-colonial struggle.
Nope didn’t say that at all, nice try though. You can be authoritarian and not bomb other countries and you can be authoritarian and bomb other countries.
Foreign affairs dont necessarily effect that determination.
The US I’d say is authoritarian and imperialist.
A country like Saudia Arabia or North Korea is just Authoritarian and tend to at least only meddle with boarding nations.
I feel like this is shifting the focus to imperialism, where the US is overwhelmingly and undeniably worse.
However, domestically, if you wanna pretend that someone as a random citizen, has any chance of receiving political representation in China, well you enjoy your fantasy.
The US and China are both deeply undemocratic places. I’m saying this as someone from neither country.
Anyone who’s actually been to China would know this. It is authoritarian. It’s not even something viewed as bad by most people in China. It’s just the way things are there.
There is pretty strong support for the government there, albeit that could be argued as product of censorship, repression and also genuine support. Many see the CCP as having done a lot of good things which they are grateful for, which in addition to the bad things, in fairness, they have done.
I’m getting kinda tired of some leftists knee jerking “China Good”, just as much as I’m getting kinda tired of the “China Bad” crowd, when the truth is neither wholly good nor wholly bad.
We can be leftists and not have a hard-on for any country claiming to be socialist, you know
“Authoritarian” is largely a meaningless term. All it really means is one group using force against another group, but it doesn’t say anything about which group is which. In the US Empire, the capitalists use the state to crush the workers, and export genocide and chaos to the global south. In the PRC, the working class uses the state to keep the capitalists in check as they progress and develop along socialist lines. This stark difference in which class is in power is shown with immense popular support in the PRC:
Okay, but we are talking about a country where you aren’t allowed to form a political party that opposes the CCP, right? How can we tell the difference between “hell yeah, my country is making my life great” and “there is exactly one answer to this survey question that will not get me in trouble”? I always try to keep in mind that I am not immune to propaganda, but I’ve personally known Chinese people who have very explicitly declined to offer any criticism of the Chinese government or go against the party line, even in private conversation, because they didn’t want trouble.
Yes, capitalists are prevented from undermining socialism. If you read the studies, the reason the people of China support their system is because it supports them and represents their interests.
But it’s also a ban on other socialist parties, not just capitalist ones, and it plays directly into the talking point that socialism is an authoritarian system that is imposed on people, not chosen on its merits. If the CCP really has enjoyed resounding, unwavering support from the proletariat for 75 years straight, why appear so weak by never allowing any competition whatsoever?
You are believing in a fantasy. There are countless countries around the world that are arguably more socialist than China without even calling themselves such. Quite frankly, I trust actions and numbers more than words.
I’m a big defender of China when the “China Bad” crowd comes out, but this graph is meaningless beyond what people’s perceptions are.
Real trade unions are banned. All must be part of the party, workers rights are routinely not enforced, and given the lattitude the government has to act, there isn’t really much of an excuse.
The CCP enjoy massive support, though, this is undeniable. The reasons for this support is debatable and vary from person to person.
I for one, very much enjoy when the Chinese government does things in line with my socialist ideals. But let’s not pretend like they’re actually keeping the capitalists in check. There are many, many billionaires in China, something that ought not be possible under an actual socialist country.
It doesn’t take a genius to look at their system of voting to quickly conclude that you don’t really have a say, the People’s Congress functions as a rubber stamp for what the inner party has already decided.
Again, my opinions aside, people in China generally are supportive of the government at this present time.
The graph shows that people generally feel they have more democratic input in China than peoole do in the US, France, and Britain. That’s a valuable metric.
Secondly, the All-China Federation of Trade Unions is a real union, it fights for worker’s rights against the capitalists that still exist in the primary stage of socialism they are in. Yes, it is affiliated with the CPC, and that’s a good thing. If unions were allowed to be independent, then they would be directly supported by western governments against the socialist system. China exists in a world where capitalism is dominant and constantly undermining socialism.
Third, capitalists are kept in check. They exist, including billionaires, because China is in the primary stage of socialism. The point of socialism isn’t to make everything equal, in the context of the overall economy China is still dramatically improving the rights and well-being of its working class as its core focus. As China develops, private property is sublimated into public property, if the capitalists had control then this wouldn’t really be possible at scale.
Overall, I think you should research more on why China does things you may not agree with on the surface. Usually it’s either for an understandable reason, or is something that is bad, but is improving (like LGBTQIA+ rights).
Although state censorship and propaganda are widespread in China, these findings highlight that citizen perceptions of governmental performance respond most to real, measurable changes in individuals’ material well-being. Satisfaction and support must be consistently reinforced. As a result, the data point to specific areas in which citizen satisfaction could decline in today’s era of slowing economic growth and continued environmental degradation.
The CPC does restrict the speech of capitalists, yes. However, the reason the people support the CPC is because of dramatic improvements in living conditions, not fear of the state.
The data from the source I provided on perceptions of democracy is from 2024. The Ash Center Study proves that this isn’t a recent thing, the CPC has broad support and successfully maintains it. Here are even more sources on the matter.
You have a hypothesis but no evidence that it actually matters.
Alright, you did convince me that the Chinese people report strong support to the CCP and report a strong perception of democracy.
What I am still not convinced of however, is that PRC IS democratic.
In my book, for a country to be democratic it needs to have:
Freedom of speech
Freedom of press
Freedom of reunion
Freedom of protest
Universal access to education
Political plurality
Universal suffrage
Universal respect of human right
My opinion today is that, I highly doubt PRC qualifies to any of this points, but I don’t know for sure. If you convince me with credible evidence that PRC is better than, let’s say, France, Germany or Norway, on all these points, then I am ready to move to China with you next year.
Edit: I forgot a few important point on my democratic list of requirements:
Laicity (division of state and religion and tolerance for all religions)
Division of power (Legislative, Justice, Executive, etc, must be help by different institution regulating each other)
First of all, you have a very liberal-minded understanding of democracy. A lot of these values are really only “valid” in as much as they apply to capitalists in the west. For example:
Freedom of Speech
Freedom of Press
Both of these only exist in the west as far as they can be abused by those with enough money to buy the media narrative. In China, speech of capitalists and misinformation is cracked down on, but the working class is largely left to speak what they want.
Freedom of reunion (I take to mean freedom of assembly) is partially valid. As China is a socialist country, and the class struggle is very much still alive, creating groups opposed to socialism is cracked down on more. However, there exist many specialty groups, in fact there are 8 political parties other than the CPC that work cooperatively with the CPC when it comes to governing.
Freedom of protest is fine. Protests and public backlash are what caused the CPC to back off on COVID restrictions, even though the CPC was correct. You can’t really aim to overthrow socialism or anything, but protests for example are often supported by the CPC against capitalists.
Education is kept extremely cheap in China. Schools are extremely competitive as well, partially because of how many people there are competing for the top universities, but overall education is extremely affordable. It isn’t free as far as I’m aware, but it isn’t a block for the working class.
Regarding political plurality, there’s a saying in China: “let a hundred flowers bloom, a hundred schools of thought contend.” I recommend this article on Roland Boer’s trip to China.
As for universal respect of human rights, China does quite well, and unlike the countries you listed, it isn’t imperialist. France, Germany, Norway, the west in general, all depend on vast looting and plundering of the global south. China doesn’t, it runs on largely its own production, which is why countries in the global south are flocking to China for construction contracts and to join the Belt and Road Initiative.
Imperialist countries in the west use vast exports of capital to super-exploit international labor for super-profits, that’s where western safety nets come from. Essentially, you can think of the west as capitalists in country form, exploiting those under their domination, while China is aligned with the global south and doesn’t have that private domination of finance capital that enables imperialism in the first place.
I’m not moving to China anytime soon. I can’t speak Mandarin, and I have friends and family where I live. I do organize with communists, though, and would love to bring about socialism in my country.
Edit for your edit:
Religion is protected.
As for “separation of powers,” this circles back to you having a thoroughly liberal understanding of politics. Government should cooperate in a functional society, not work against itself. Capitalist countries rely on this instability of government in order to keep capital on top, but there’s no actual reasoning for it. The churn, the competition, it’s all by design to keep society turned against itself instead of cooperating.
I stated that all states are “authoritarian,” all are methods by which one class exerts authority over another. The only way out of “authoritarianism” is to fully collectivize production, eliminating class distinctions. Until then, it’s better for capitalists to be under the thumb of the workers, rather than the inverse. Like I said, it’s a largely meaningless term.
Meta argument: charts like this are basically useless.
I was raised in a very religious town. If you asked, the people in that town would say “my religion is a religion of love” “people should be as free as possible because it’s an extension of personal agency” and all the while they beat their kids and would rather die than let gay or trans people be themselves.
They can quote the scriptures and could likely write some pretty strong rhetoric implying they are loving and kind and caring, but it wouldn’t be anywhere near the truth.
Point is that just because you get phrases pounded into your head doesn’t mean you truly believe them or even know what they imply.
If your country’s rhetoric specifically states that the government serves the people and says it over and over, regardless of the truth of that statement, people will have a tendency to select it. (Like if your government called itself the people’s republic…)
If you asked Americans and Chinese if they think personal freedom is important, you’d likely get the reverse pattern in your graph. Is this because America has more freedom? No, more likely it’s because the historical rhetoric we get exposed to emphasizes “freedom” whereas China’s revolutionary rhetoric was centered around “democracy”
If you asked Americans if they support socialism, you’d get lower bars than if you asked it indirectly. Just using the word socialism skews your metric.
People will say they support or don’t support concepts they don’t understand, or that they view in a different light than others. Does democracy mean more than two political parties? Does democracy mean no capitalism? Does democracy require freedom to spread information freely? Etc.
So once again these metrics are useless because I’d imagine most of these countries’ voters would disagree on what the statements even mean.
You’d have more of a point if the fact that the people of China support their system wasn’t regularly proven in various metrics, not just a single poll.
I redefine authoritarianism to “when people want things”, but when I implement authoritarianism I’ll use the more commonly understood description of authoritarianism.
Fun fact: It’s actually possible for two countries to both be authoritarian!
The US killed a million innocent people in Iraq just a few years ago, and is *currently * drone bombing several countries in ME and north africa, and is currently supporting the apartheid state of israel with billions of dollars in military aid.
The PRC has not been in a war since its skirmish with Vietnam in 1979.
The US has a network of > 800 military bases across the globe, and has been involved in regime change in nearly every country.
Which one is authoritarian?
Uighurs
Tibet
Supporting Russia in Ukraine
Ya and that’s why they don’t let tourists into Tibet without a guide.
Next you’re going to tell me Putin isn’t the aggressor.
Which one is currently genociding Uhygurs? Which one illegally annexed Tibet and Hong Kong? Both countries are authoritarian shit-holes.
Lol Tibet was still cutting off boys genitals to serve the lamas when china ‘invaded’
none of them
the uk, then they gave it back in 97
most historically literate .worlder
what
Like I can get not agreeing with it but illegally annexed how do you expect to be taken even a little seriously
I keep hearing ‘illegal war’ in the media.
What the fuck is a legal war? A war faught by lawyers?
While the transfer of power itself was fine and legal, didn’t they break the basic law they put in by violating people’s rights and freedoms? I do agree that it’s worded badly though
It’s weird to me that this particular law was the one the colour revolutionaries rallied behind.
A Hong Kong resident confessed to having committed a murder on Taiwan. China extradites people summoned for court or with arrest warrants issued by the Taipei rebel government to Taiwan as long as it’s for non-political offences. So they would extradite this murderer to be tried on Taiwan.
Different parts of China have different laws, because it’s a big country with autonomous regions. Hong Kong, not that big, but for historical reasons have their own laws as well. If someone has an arrest warrant issued by one of the other Chinese governments, they will extradite the person to their jurisdiction. If it’s a different country, with which China has an extradition treaty, then they will extradite them to Beijing (the Chinese national government) and Beijing will send them to that other country.
Taiwan is neither a separate country, nor a Chinese government whose arrest warrants Hong Kong respects. But the guy confessed to murder. He should be tried. So new legislation is required to make it legal to extradite him to Taiwan, either directly or through Beijing.
That was the initial controversy.
Only one country is genociding muslins.
“illegally annexed” Hong Kong LMAO
We don’t need anti-American propaganda, we already hate America, my guy
You mean temporarily until Trump is gone so they can bomb brown people democratically
I don’t know you, you could’ve been a US dem or som EU ‘social democrat’ or whatever calls themselves lefties.
I formulated the general sentiment of that group, overly represented on .world and crying about Trump’s america.
I’m not antagonistic to lefties, only the pseudo-lefties.
If you’re not one of then don’t feel targeted.
You would be part of a small minority here tho.
Look up the definition of authoritarianism. Bombing other countries is not the defining feature of an authoritarian government.
You might be interested in a book by Lenin titled: “Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism”.
That’s cool and all but still irrelevant to the original point. You can be authoritarian to your own citizens domestically without invading other nations.
The US is both imperialist and authoritarian.
Terms like Authoritarianism and Totalitarianism were defined or entrenched by a lot of western supremacist authors, who needed to twist terminology in such a way that excluded the US (capitalism’s worldwide enforcer and the cause of so much death and destruction) from any wrongdoing, while demonizing the colonial world who fought back against the US for their own sovereignty as “authoritarian”.
I highly suggest reading Losurdo’s - Western Marxism, for an in-depth analysis of some of these white supremacist authors, and how they demonize the anti-colonial struggle.
So, authoritarian is when they don’t bomb other countries, and libertarian is when they bomb every day?
Nope didn’t say that at all, nice try though. You can be authoritarian and not bomb other countries and you can be authoritarian and bomb other countries.
Foreign affairs dont necessarily effect that determination.
The US I’d say is authoritarian and imperialist.
A country like Saudia Arabia or North Korea is just Authoritarian and tend to at least only meddle with boarding nations.
I feel like this is shifting the focus to imperialism, where the US is overwhelmingly and undeniably worse.
However, domestically, if you wanna pretend that someone as a random citizen, has any chance of receiving political representation in China, well you enjoy your fantasy.
The US and China are both deeply undemocratic places. I’m saying this as someone from neither country.
Anyone who’s actually been to China would know this. It is authoritarian. It’s not even something viewed as bad by most people in China. It’s just the way things are there.
There is pretty strong support for the government there, albeit that could be argued as product of censorship, repression and also genuine support. Many see the CCP as having done a lot of good things which they are grateful for, which in addition to the bad things, in fairness, they have done.
I’m getting kinda tired of some leftists knee jerking “China Good”, just as much as I’m getting kinda tired of the “China Bad” crowd, when the truth is neither wholly good nor wholly bad.
We can be leftists and not have a hard-on for any country claiming to be socialist, you know
“They can both be authoritarian”
“WELL USA INVADED IRAQ”
Lmao
“Authoritarian” is largely a meaningless term. All it really means is one group using force against another group, but it doesn’t say anything about which group is which. In the US Empire, the capitalists use the state to crush the workers, and export genocide and chaos to the global south. In the PRC, the working class uses the state to keep the capitalists in check as they progress and develop along socialist lines. This stark difference in which class is in power is shown with immense popular support in the PRC:
Can you please provide a source for the graphic?
It’s in the bottom left, here’s another bunch of sources.
Okay, but we are talking about a country where you aren’t allowed to form a political party that opposes the CCP, right? How can we tell the difference between “hell yeah, my country is making my life great” and “there is exactly one answer to this survey question that will not get me in trouble”? I always try to keep in mind that I am not immune to propaganda, but I’ve personally known Chinese people who have very explicitly declined to offer any criticism of the Chinese government or go against the party line, even in private conversation, because they didn’t want trouble.
Yes, capitalists are prevented from undermining socialism. If you read the studies, the reason the people of China support their system is because it supports them and represents their interests.
But it’s also a ban on other socialist parties, not just capitalist ones, and it plays directly into the talking point that socialism is an authoritarian system that is imposed on people, not chosen on its merits. If the CCP really has enjoyed resounding, unwavering support from the proletariat for 75 years straight, why appear so weak by never allowing any competition whatsoever?
There are 8 other minor parties in China.
The state used the police to crush the working class when they demanded the money from the banks that invested it in a runaway housing scam.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jul/11/china-violent-clashes-at-protest-over-frozen-rural-bank-accounts
You are believing in a fantasy. There are countless countries around the world that are arguably more socialist than China without even calling themselves such. Quite frankly, I trust actions and numbers more than words.
Using a western, anti-communist news source for a report on how China is supposedly crushing the working class? Color me shocked! You have no points.
I’m a big defender of China when the “China Bad” crowd comes out, but this graph is meaningless beyond what people’s perceptions are.
Real trade unions are banned. All must be part of the party, workers rights are routinely not enforced, and given the lattitude the government has to act, there isn’t really much of an excuse.
The CCP enjoy massive support, though, this is undeniable. The reasons for this support is debatable and vary from person to person.
I for one, very much enjoy when the Chinese government does things in line with my socialist ideals. But let’s not pretend like they’re actually keeping the capitalists in check. There are many, many billionaires in China, something that ought not be possible under an actual socialist country.
It doesn’t take a genius to look at their system of voting to quickly conclude that you don’t really have a say, the People’s Congress functions as a rubber stamp for what the inner party has already decided.
Again, my opinions aside, people in China generally are supportive of the government at this present time.
The graph shows that people generally feel they have more democratic input in China than peoole do in the US, France, and Britain. That’s a valuable metric.
Secondly, the All-China Federation of Trade Unions is a real union, it fights for worker’s rights against the capitalists that still exist in the primary stage of socialism they are in. Yes, it is affiliated with the CPC, and that’s a good thing. If unions were allowed to be independent, then they would be directly supported by western governments against the socialist system. China exists in a world where capitalism is dominant and constantly undermining socialism.
Third, capitalists are kept in check. They exist, including billionaires, because China is in the primary stage of socialism. The point of socialism isn’t to make everything equal, in the context of the overall economy China is still dramatically improving the rights and well-being of its working class as its core focus. As China develops, private property is sublimated into public property, if the capitalists had control then this wouldn’t really be possible at scale.
Overall, I think you should research more on why China does things you may not agree with on the surface. Usually it’s either for an understandable reason, or is something that is bad, but is improving (like LGBTQIA+ rights).
Better answer the survey correctly when you live in a country that has laws like “disagreeing with the government is a crime”
Understanding CPC Resiliance
The CPC does restrict the speech of capitalists, yes. However, the reason the people support the CPC is because of dramatic improvements in living conditions, not fear of the state.
The data from this article is up to 2016. Things have changed quite a bit since the COVID crisis.
The data from the source I provided on perceptions of democracy is from 2024. The Ash Center Study proves that this isn’t a recent thing, the CPC has broad support and successfully maintains it. Here are even more sources on the matter.
You have a hypothesis but no evidence that it actually matters.
Alright, you did convince me that the Chinese people report strong support to the CCP and report a strong perception of democracy. What I am still not convinced of however, is that PRC IS democratic.
In my book, for a country to be democratic it needs to have:
My opinion today is that, I highly doubt PRC qualifies to any of this points, but I don’t know for sure. If you convince me with credible evidence that PRC is better than, let’s say, France, Germany or Norway, on all these points, then I am ready to move to China with you next year.
Edit: I forgot a few important point on my democratic list of requirements:
First of all, you have a very liberal-minded understanding of democracy. A lot of these values are really only “valid” in as much as they apply to capitalists in the west. For example:
Both of these only exist in the west as far as they can be abused by those with enough money to buy the media narrative. In China, speech of capitalists and misinformation is cracked down on, but the working class is largely left to speak what they want.
Freedom of reunion (I take to mean freedom of assembly) is partially valid. As China is a socialist country, and the class struggle is very much still alive, creating groups opposed to socialism is cracked down on more. However, there exist many specialty groups, in fact there are 8 political parties other than the CPC that work cooperatively with the CPC when it comes to governing.
Freedom of protest is fine. Protests and public backlash are what caused the CPC to back off on COVID restrictions, even though the CPC was correct. You can’t really aim to overthrow socialism or anything, but protests for example are often supported by the CPC against capitalists.
Education is kept extremely cheap in China. Schools are extremely competitive as well, partially because of how many people there are competing for the top universities, but overall education is extremely affordable. It isn’t free as far as I’m aware, but it isn’t a block for the working class.
Regarding political plurality, there’s a saying in China: “let a hundred flowers bloom, a hundred schools of thought contend.” I recommend this article on Roland Boer’s trip to China.
As for universal suffrage:
>All citizens of the People’s Republic of China who have reached the age of 18 have the right to vote and stand for election, regardless of ethnic background, race, sex, occupation, family background, religious belief, education level, property status or length of residence. People who have been deprived of their political rights according to law do not have the right to vote and stand for election. One voter has only one vote in each election.
As for universal respect of human rights, China does quite well, and unlike the countries you listed, it isn’t imperialist. France, Germany, Norway, the west in general, all depend on vast looting and plundering of the global south. China doesn’t, it runs on largely its own production, which is why countries in the global south are flocking to China for construction contracts and to join the Belt and Road Initiative.
Imperialist countries in the west use vast exports of capital to super-exploit international labor for super-profits, that’s where western safety nets come from. Essentially, you can think of the west as capitalists in country form, exploiting those under their domination, while China is aligned with the global south and doesn’t have that private domination of finance capital that enables imperialism in the first place.
I’m not moving to China anytime soon. I can’t speak Mandarin, and I have friends and family where I live. I do organize with communists, though, and would love to bring about socialism in my country.
Edit for your edit:
Religion is protected.
As for “separation of powers,” this circles back to you having a thoroughly liberal understanding of politics. Government should cooperate in a functional society, not work against itself. Capitalist countries rely on this instability of government in order to keep capital on top, but there’s no actual reasoning for it. The churn, the competition, it’s all by design to keep society turned against itself instead of cooperating.
Not as well supported by sources as you previous replies, such a shame. But you gave me a good laugh 🤣
So you consider a state censoring all it’s citizens from discussing certain words and topics to not be authoritarian?
I stated that all states are “authoritarian,” all are methods by which one class exerts authority over another. The only way out of “authoritarianism” is to fully collectivize production, eliminating class distinctions. Until then, it’s better for capitalists to be under the thumb of the workers, rather than the inverse. Like I said, it’s a largely meaningless term.
Meta argument: charts like this are basically useless.
I was raised in a very religious town. If you asked, the people in that town would say “my religion is a religion of love” “people should be as free as possible because it’s an extension of personal agency” and all the while they beat their kids and would rather die than let gay or trans people be themselves.
They can quote the scriptures and could likely write some pretty strong rhetoric implying they are loving and kind and caring, but it wouldn’t be anywhere near the truth.
Point is that just because you get phrases pounded into your head doesn’t mean you truly believe them or even know what they imply.
If your country’s rhetoric specifically states that the government serves the people and says it over and over, regardless of the truth of that statement, people will have a tendency to select it. (Like if your government called itself the people’s republic…)
If you asked Americans and Chinese if they think personal freedom is important, you’d likely get the reverse pattern in your graph. Is this because America has more freedom? No, more likely it’s because the historical rhetoric we get exposed to emphasizes “freedom” whereas China’s revolutionary rhetoric was centered around “democracy”
If you asked Americans if they support socialism, you’d get lower bars than if you asked it indirectly. Just using the word socialism skews your metric.
People will say they support or don’t support concepts they don’t understand, or that they view in a different light than others. Does democracy mean more than two political parties? Does democracy mean no capitalism? Does democracy require freedom to spread information freely? Etc.
So once again these metrics are useless because I’d imagine most of these countries’ voters would disagree on what the statements even mean.
You’d have more of a point if the fact that the people of China support their system wasn’t regularly proven in various metrics, not just a single poll.
It’s possible, but it’s objectively not the case. Don’t take my word for it though, it’s what people actually living in China say.
That’s why deepseek refuses to criticize the CCP
🙄 Previously.
I absolutely love how libs have just memorized a handful or talking points they regurgitate like chatbots.
We Need To Talk About “Authoritarianism”
People really need to stop getting their views from the internet.
They should get them from TV and newspapers right!?