Is the pro-China M-L position that the CPC leadership is merely an independent vanguard class benevolently working for the good of the proletariat to transition the state to a socialist mode of production, or is it that the CPC themselves form a dictatorship of the proletariat?
-
If the former, what material motivation does the CPC have to side with the proletariat when classes come into conflict? Does their socialist movement ultimately just hinge on the good will of those selected by the party to lead the party? Is this system simply benevolent class collaboration with a disempowered bourgeoisie, thus distinguishing it from past class collaboration failures?
-
Otherwise, if the latter, what makes the CPC's dictatorship 'of the proletariat'?
- Does this imply the CPC must be a democratic organization? In most provinces, direct voting by the masses exists only at the local level, but only between candidates pre-approved by the CPC. The proletariat is therefore not in control of these local candidates, and therefore not in control of the subsequent levels of elections. Surely, this would make it as much of a democracy of the proletariat as a liberal democracy is.
- What power does the proletariat itself hold over the party's rule? If the proletariat truly does not approve of their representation, do they have the power to reject it?
The results speak for themselves, but is the PRC at this point in time ultimately a victory over capitalism, without the proletarian dictatorship that Marx assumed necessary, instead forming a stable non-bourgeois state?
Yep, I agree. I wasn't stating that as a standalone argument, but as a premise for the next sentence, which you addressed later on: the candidates aren't restricted just to the CPC candidates (I had forgotten that other parties existed in the National People's Congress) so there is a reasonably diverse democratic election at the local levels, therefore allowing localities to be adequately collectively represented at higher levels of government.
Thanks for linking that white paper, I'll read through it now.
My next part is a bit off-topic, but I think it might be interesting to discuss. (I want to make it clear that I completely agree with the overall point about capitalist mass media effectively being able to select viable candidates despite the idealistic freedom to vote freely.)
There are nationalized media channels in many countries, and I think they both support and challenge this claim. Ultimately, in any system, some group or groups will control communications, and everyone has bias in some sense, and looking at the BBC in the UK, the ABC/SBS in Australia, the CBC in Canada, etc., state ownership doesn't fully remove that, even if it's much better than the commercial alternatives. The only way I've come across which could confidently avoid this issues is the town of Cherán in Mexico, which outlawed political campaigns and parties. I wonder if that contradicts M-L or not..
The other strategy I've seen is Japan (or at least Tokyo, I haven't been able to find a good source to confirm) where all candidates are entitled to a short televised campaign statement. That's how this fringe nihilist managed to get famous. A problem with that is that, even if there is some mandatory representation of all candidates, there's still going to be pay-to-win advertising campaigns unless those are also restricted (no), so it hardly solves the problem.
I think a lot of the things you seem to be looking for in what makes the CPC "good or bad" are derived from more ideas than a material analysis. This is understandable if you are from the west. Its something that is pushed a lot. The focus on systemic posturing and rhetoric over material analysis of the effects of the system. It can be hard to break out of this mindset.
Personally i would reccomend looking elsewhere. For example: How has CPC rule effected the lives of working class Chinese? Are the conditions and quality of life improving? Are any groups being left behind or treated worse than others?
To strive for specific types of idealistic government is a liberalized way of thinking. They want "freedom and democracy" as an idea, but do not consider material effects of the system they advocate for. To strive for "the most proletarian dictatorship" as an idea is no different. The reason we advocate for proletarian rule is because it improves the lives of the most people. When examining a government we must look at its effect on its people. We cannot judge a systems success by looking only at the system itself. We must look at the effects of that system on the lives of the people living under it.
China raising 800 million people out of extreme poverty for example says much more about the success of its system of government than any amount of voting would.
This isnt my trying to critisize you and make you feel bad. I think its a good opportunity to examine the way you judge systems and try to break yourself out of some lingering westernized and liberalized ways of thinking that anyone who grew up around those systems are constantly exposed to, and transition more to a materialist way of thinking. I myself am still working on this too.
While the outcomes achieved by the government undoubtedly deserve attention, it is equally important to examine whether these positive results come from the actions of benevolent individuals in positions of power or from the system itself. For this reason, a thorough analysis of the system is essential. Otherwise, applying the system in other contexts may not result in same positives
I understand what you are saying but i do not think it is possible to judge a system at all just by looking at the system without having prior knowledge of how these systems operate over long periods of time.
We know for example that monarchism is bad because of all the historical examples of it going horribly wrong. We can speculate on if a system is going to work well or not and try to design it to be so, but to actually confirm it we must put it into practice.
You are right that the system doing good once does not prove the system itself is good, but the system doing consistent good over a long period of time and in various different localities with various different cultures and under various different managers does go a long way to prove this.
Putting it into practice in other places is the only way to find out if it will work in those other places. We cannot simply examine a system and know how it will function without putting it into practice many times and examining the material outcomes.
Its a scientific approach. You cant just hypothesize and be done with it. You must do experiements. Many of them. And get the same result.
Socialism has been put into practice in various different "flavors" SwCC - Chinese Socialism - is one of these. It built upon lessons learned from the USSR and is arguably the most successful and refined socialist model to date.
It is an experiment that has had positive results. To find out if it can be repeated we must attempt to repeat it elsewhere. No amount of examination of the system can give us a definitive answer as to if it will work elsewhere or not. The only way we can find out is to repeat the experiment. Many times. And see if it ever fails.
I found YouTube links in your comment. Here are links to the same videos on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
Link 1:
Link 2: