Has India ever been free of corruption enough to actually be a democracy? I get that Modi is a fascist and all, but has the “world’s largest democracy” ever been anything but a sham for the average Indian?
Conservatism is a global plague of deception, oppression and death. It always has been.
Who downvoted this? Conservatism has always been an ideology that’s opposed to progress, democracy and freedom. It holds back society to preserve tradition and “family values” while promoting xenophobia, bigotry, and unquestioned submission to authority. The most conservative states in the United States are also some of the poorest, with the lowest standards of living, and also the most backwards. It isn’t much different in other countries. The Nazis were conservative. Islamic countries with Sharia Law are conservative. And right now, American Conservatives are trying to implement a Christian-flavoured Sharia Law.
ConservatismCapitalism has always been an ideology that’s opposed to progress, democracy and freedom.There you go, I fixed that for you.
All political entities serve the needs of capital first and foremost in a capitalist system, people are only a secondary…if that.
Speaking as a Marxist, this is false. Capitalism was once the historical progressive force against feudalism. This was already waning two centuries ago, but it was not always true.
Glad another Marxist said it. The problem isn’t that capitalism was always the wrong choice, it’s that we’re clinging to it long beyond its best before date.
Sure but did capitlism really defeat feudalism? Seems like the other side of the same coin.
Yes, it did, though vestiges still remain. That’s what the French Revolution overwhelmingly was, the bourgeoisie claiming power over the old feudal nobility and the monarchy (as anything but a figurehead). Also the American revolution and many others.
They resemble each other because they are in all cases the “owning class” claiming the seat as the “ruling class”, just as the slaveholders of classical antiquity and the patriarchs of pre-historical agrarian/pastoral societies.
It’s kind of a tangent, but in explaining the concept of equality, Lenin discusses some of the differences between feudalism and liberal capitalism in a letter here.
There are places such as Thailand and Bhutan where the struggle is still alive between the two modes of production, but those are the very rare exceptions to the global order of liberal capitalism (in various forms) vs whatever you want to call the theocratic capitalism of Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. vs the state socialism of the PRC, Cuba, etc.
There are a lot of conservatives here thanks to Reddit. Tankie hysteria allows them to speak in parallel to the radlibs and anarcho-bidenists without too much dispute, so they have blended in. Funny how that works.
When you start talking about “always”, you’re going to need to apply way more rigor. Conservatism is a political philosophy that emerged in reaction to the emergence of liberalism in the age of European enlightenment. Conservatism champions the idea that order tends towards chaos, that order is required for society to function and that chaos destroys everything, that some individuals are more worthy than others by virtue of their birth and hierarchical position, etc. In the 1700s, Tories we’re conservative.
But what we call conservatives in the USA are liberals, and they always have been. Liberal philosophy posits that individual liberty is more important than strict hierarchical order, that society should be organized to limit the power of the state over individual freedoms, etc. Capitalism and market systems are liberal constructions.
Liberalism, however, is still historically situated and emerges during the age of discovery. As such, it is not a moral movement but rather an political one. Specifically, it emerged as the merchant class needed a way to undermine the authority of the nobility. Liberalism birthed all of the bourgeois revolutions across Europe and European holdings. Every tri-color flag came out of this movement. But liberalism couldn’t undermine the entirety of merchant dominance, which means it had to be compatible with slavery, misogyny, racism, genocide, and settler colonialism.
This, liberal philosophers struggled with systems of science and systems of morality that allowed for these things to occur. Race science is a liberal cobstruct. Eugenics is a liberal construct. The belief that black people aren’t fully human is a liberal construct. The idea that white people must civilize the savages is a liberal construct. The Berlin Conference, the professional police force, the state police force, all liberal constructs.
When Haiti was liberated through the successful slave revolt, it was the French monarchy that determined every single person on Haiti that was a newly freed slaves represented a loss of wealth for French slave holders, and they levied a debt on Haiti to recoup the cost of freedom. The liberal capitalist world acknowledged the debt and required Haiti acknowledge it in order to be recognized. This is a liberal financial construction the remains in the hands of liberal democracies to this day, draining Haiti of it’s wealth.
The Nazis, are not Conservatives. They are Liberals. Fascism arises from liberal democracies. It uses specific liberal systems to grow and develop. It is essentially the violence of liberal capitalism turned against liberal capitalists. Prior to the rise of European fascism, the things we attribute to the Nazis are just things that the Europeans had been doing to brown and black people all over the world. There’s a reason the Third Reich studied US settler colonialism systems and industrialized them. There’s a reason why US capitalists, liberals of the highest order who believed in the individual right to private property and access to free markets, supported the Third Reich.
You can’t just go around saying everything bad is conservative and everything good is liberal/progressive. It’s a dogmatic approach to political and historical analysis. Nothing could be further from the truth. Liberalism was a progressive step from mysticism. Conservatism was a reaction to liberalism. And most the ills of the modern era are traceable to liberal philosophy, not conservative. In the USA, we redefined conservative to mean liberal and we redefined liberal to mean liberal progressive. Maintenance of market systems is a liberal project. Maintenance of representative democracy is a liberal project. Eugenics was a liberal project and the US engaged in it through the 1970s and we still have after effects of race science in our discourse. All liberal.
Isn’t democracy collapsing everywhere? The USA’s electoral voting system means democracy doesn’t exist. A vote in California is worth 27% of a vote in Wyoming in terms of representation. Add on blatant gerrymandering and you’ve got a rigged system.
The UK has introduced voter ID laws for a problem that never existed in the past. The UK has also had multiple unelected prime ministers due to the way that the parliamentary system works.
Democracy is on the wane everywhere.
Vote weight is fairly common as it provides minority groups a bit more control of their areas. I find that reasonable. There is no such thing as perfect democracy unless you voted on every single issue regardless of importance and that is simply not practical. Sure things could be designed a bit better but the majority of democratic countries have systems that are working quite well. The biggest destabilizes now likely comes more from social media that spreads every dissatisfaction because it sells and makes people think the world is coming to an end. It’s not. Or at least not because of failing democracies.
.
Seems like the problem isn’t with democracy, but with the western flavor of liberal parliamentary democracy. Democracy is working just fine in China according to people who live there. All the available studies, including ones coming from prominent western institutions such as Harvard, consistently show that China is democratic and that public satisfaction with the government is far higher than in any western country:
- https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/07/long-term-survey-reveals-chinese-government-satisfaction/
- https://ash.harvard.edu/publications/understanding-ccp-resilience-surveying-chinese-public-opinion-through-time
- https://socialistchina.org/2022/01/24/china-is-not-a-democracy-or-is-it-the-chinese-toolkit/
- https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2021/0218/Vilified-abroad-popular-at-home-China-s-Communist-Party-at-100
- https://news.cgtn.com/event/2021/who-runs-the-cpc/index.html
- https://www.marketwatch.com/story/these-numbers-show-just-how-much-the-lives-of-everyday-chinese-have-improved-in-recent-decades-2019-10-02
- https://en.news-front.info/2020/06/27/studies-have-shown-that-china-is-more-democratic-than-the-united-states-russia-is-nearby-and-ukraine-is-at-the-bottom/
- https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2021/0218/Vilified-abroad-popular-at-home-China-s-Communist-Party-at-100
- https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-06-26/which-nations-are-democracies-some-citizens-might-disagree
edit: amazing to see rediquette seep into Lemmy now with people downvoting anything that doesn’t fit with their preconceptions.
It’s also evident that a lot of people here don’t actually understand what democracy actually is. Democracy is when the government implements the will of the majority. What the links I’ve provided show is that the government in China consistently works in the interest of the people of China, and this is reflected in consistently high public satisfaction with the government. Furthermore, the links show that public participation in the governance of China is far higher than it is in the western countries. The party has 15 million members, and consists largely of working class people. Meanwhile, western parties are filled with rich career politicians with practically no working class representation.
The sheer amount of political illiteracy in the west is equal parts depressing and hilarious.
Thanks for these sources.
I’m surprised to see a narrative like this in some of the links, especially the Harvard ones. But I suppose the children of the ruling class need to be taught what the world is actually like if they are to have any hope of continuing to rule it.
It won’t serve a Harvard graduate very well to be lied to about what China is like – once their uncle gets them a cushy job, they’ll be expected to negotiate with Chinese businesses and diplomats, and that won’t go well if all they can repeat is the propaganda line.
It’s amazing how much factual information you can find in western sources when you know where to look. The genius of western propaganda though is that majority of people will not read these sources, and will react the way we see a lot of people in this thread reacting when presented with them. There’s no need for censorship because people censor themselves collectively. This is the ultimate brainwashing the west managed to achieve.
Thanks for the sources! Here’s another one that I read the other day and found pretty insightful https://www.sinification.com/p/why-chinese-democracy-is-better-than
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.
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.
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.
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?
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. 😂
Imagine believing there are no oligarchs in China.
Imagine thinking oligarchs control China 😂
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.
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.
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.
From your own damn source.
Although state censorship and propaganda are widespread [in China]
🤣
oh hey, why don’t you quote the rest of it? 😂
Democracy is working just fine in China according to people who live there.
Lmao, what? You can’t be serious.
Wait, are you serious?!
Yeah, I’m as serious as Harvard is. Maybe bother learning about the subject you’re opinion on?
Maybe bother learning about the subject you’re opinion on?
The rally cry of the propagandist.
Ah yes, resorting to name calling when you don’t have any actual point to make.
Careful now, you’ve stirred up the china hawks!
Well it is Bourgeois democracy that’s slowly been consumed by corporate power. Globally
Yeah literally, this same thing can be said about every country on earth. The only places where corporations haven’t infected the government are ones like Afghanistan that have no strong corporations.
Cuba would like to have a word with you
Haha true that. This was inevitable btw, the further capitalism develops the more its will absorb everything. Religion is done for, community is done for, bourgie democracy is dying, next come nationality I guess, the environment is already compromised. It truly is a vampiric black hole.
Religion is done for
This is not because of capitalism. Religion has been used as a justification to extort money - look at the Catholic church in the Medieval times. If capitalists could make you believe that giving them money had any correlation with the afterlife they would gladly do so.
One plenary indulgence, please.
It’s as if western style liberal democracy is an inherently unstable political system.
You mean to say that the system that led to the Iraq war, the 2007-9 housing crisis, the unpreparedness for a predictable pandemic, and myriad other events of this kind – with no option for the ‘represented’ publics to prevent said events – is unstable? You might just be on to something.
In unrelated news, the Bank of England has raised interest rates with the stated intention of making homeowners poorer. About 20% poorer, I’m told. The board of the bank is unelected and the electorate have zero control over its decisions. The (unelected) Prime Minister appears to disagree with the decision but also has zero control over the board’s decisions.
The bank hopes that by making people poorer, inflation will come down – after two years – and workers will become so desperate that they are too scared to go on strike for a pay rise! This is all public knowledge because several interested parties said the quiet part out loud.
Don’t worry, though, Britain is a liberal democracy so the Brits can vote for different representatives in a year’s time. Well, those who survive will be able to vote. And nobody will be able to vote for the Bank of England board. But it’s still a democracy.
The board of the bank is unelected and the electorate have zero control over its decisions. The (unelected) Prime Minister appears to disagree with the decision but also has zero control over the board’s decisions.
This is more feature than bug in a central bank. Let’s say the US president had direct control over fiscal policy. The president says print money and drop the interest rate, the central bank says how much. It gets really tempting when reelection comes around to juice the economy. The negative consequences - inflation - take enough time to do their damage that people will already be going to the polls before they get hit.
The way the Bank of England gets its board does seem less than ideal, but not terrible as these things go. It’s kind of a run of the mill technocratic structure.
I’ll upvote this as it’s fair point, but my point was that liberal democracies cannot claim to be democratic if there is no real democratic oversight over such significant political decisions. The fact that this can be dismissed as part of a technocracy illustrates the point well, I think. So many people will lose their homes and hundreds of thousands/millions will see a dip in their living standards and no amount of the ‘democracy’ on offer (periodic voting) can change that. It makes a mockery of the concept and, as you say, it’s a feature not a bug of liberal democracy. We’re in full agreement about that!
Bro you are literally shilling for China in another reply in this thread.
Yogthos cited nine sources and summarised the main theme running through them. Those sources included esteemed Western outputs. How is that shilling for China?
Just stating basic facts bro.
Totalitarians in either China or India are bad.
People in China say it’s a democratic country that represents their interests, but I’m sure a western chauvinist who’s never been to China knows a lot better than people living there.
As compared to?
Compared to China, Cuba, and Vietnam.
I’ll take “unstable” over “authoritarian” thanks.
Adorable that you think west isn’t authoritarian. Every government is fundamentally authoritarian because the government has the monopoly on violence, that’s where its authority comes from. And when people in western countries don’t behave the governments unleash their security forces on them as they did during George Floyd protests in US and they’re doing in France right now.
China does keep it’s slaves in line more… and their recent pushes for global imperial authority have had a lot of success.
It’s always amazing to see the wild fantasies westies believe about other countries.
No, I mean it, they really have taken the models of the British Empire and the American Empires and expanded them in a way neither at their heights could ever justify nor imagine. Surveillance system sales to authoritarian governments? Selling surveillance in other countries?! Like the CIA look like idiots spending money to get surveillance in other countries on that one. Plus they get to support the dictators keeping the peasants sending raw resources to China!
Purposely loaning money to countries with bad credit histories for leverage to get them to build ports for the Chinese empire’s trade network?! Britten spent so much time and money fighting wars, and colonizing just to be our shined on that.
And let’s not even get to started on the levels of control business have over workers there. The US robber barons use the State here looks like child’s play to the anti-union, anti-solidarity work done by the CCP. A giant union ran by the largest capitalist in the country? With authorities able to crack down on grassroots organizing on the opposite side, and the ability to send slaves from regions in need of “reeducation” all around the country. Makes the US look practically socialist on some fronts (we aren’t and have a good way to go).
Literally every word of that is a falsehood.
They aren’t loaning out money to have ports built? They don’t have a state run union? Their government isn’t filled with some of their richest? They don’t have a program reducate certain peoples that includes shipping them accross the country? Like come on, some of these are just established public facts that even the CCP doesn’t deny.
You want to know what’s truly disturbing? The previous Australian Federal government did many of these same things too, or worse.
It seems true democracy has fallen out of favour.
The politicians and corporations think it’s too hard to get their agendas implemented with the will of the people in the way.
When a party form a government on its own i.e without any coalition partners, they tend to target the opposition with all the arsenal be it CBI , ED and sometimes even the Judiciary. However the elections are fair and impartial for the most part. Just recently, BJP got its ass handed to it in a state election in Karnataka. They may win the federal election again but it is hardly a death of democracy. Their grip on states have been slipping and once it goes out, they will most likely lose the federal government as well. The same happened during Indira Gandhi era. The same is happening now. Democracy survived then and will survive now. I am not saying there is no assault on democratic institutions in India. But they have proved resilient enough to prevent a democratic collapse as portrayed in this article.
And it’s already been pointed out that the actions of Trump and Bolsonaro mirror the same undermining strategy but failed. Still, Modi controls nearly all the media now so it’s going to be stronger propaganda than Fox News.
and just look at what happened to Fox News: finally knocked off of their pedestal after decades of being #1-- by MSNBC
MSNBC which does only marginally better reporting than Fox News. I have mixed feelings about this.
I haven’t looked at the numbers but I wonder if this is driven by the consolidation of media consumption by left-leaning consumers and the fracturing of media consumption by right-leaning consumers.
oh, don’t get me wrong, I’m not simping for MSNBC-- nor any corporate news conglomerate. I was just commenting on Fox News’s fall from… well, whatever it was. the top.
Yes, I feel the same. So while I do enjoy watching their decline I’m not sure this represents an improvement in the media ecosystem as a whole. I suspect a lot of former Fox News viewers have now been sucked into far right or even fascist media sources.
