this post was submitted on 11 Mar 2025
21 points (100.0% liked)

Ask Lemmygrad

908 readers
115 users here now

A place to ask questions of Lemmygrad's best and brightest

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

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?

top 8 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] pcalau12i@lemmygrad.ml 31 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Does this imply the CPC must be a democratic organization?

CPC practices democratic centralism, but why does it even matter? CPC members still have to win their election to actually become a member of the government, and it's an election everyone has the right to vote in, not just CPC members. Technically, you don't even need to be a CPC member to run for office, there are independents and members of other parties in China's government, even in the National People's Congress. If they had no connection to the people then they would not be voted into office.

In most provinces, direct voting by the masses exists only at the local level

Nation-wide direct voting doesn't work for a big country, it's literally physically impossible and always produces oligarchy/autocracy in practice.

Take something like the US national presidential election, most Americans can only name like 2 candidates who run for their national presidential election, and in rare instances 3-4, despite often hundreds running. Why? It's not physically possible to come to organically know candidates on a national level, if Biden personally talked to every eligible voter for 1 minute it would take over 300 years. That means the only way people can actually learn about candidates is through some sort of media infrastructure, they learn about people like Biden and Trump from the television.

But the problem with this system is that you obviously cannot vote for someone you don't know who they are, so the television really gets to decide who is actually electable in the first place. The candidates people are more likely to know about can be predicted most accurately based on how much money they raise, because that's what they use to pay for media slots, and therefore the slate of candidates you get to pick from will always ultimately be decided by the television and it is physically impossible for it to be any other way.

Of course, in capitalist countries, the media is privately controlled, and so money comes from private enterprise, and so the slate of candidates is always pro-capitalist. But you can't solve this problem just by nationalizing media because then you'd end up handing over who picks the slate of candidates to a shadow government deep state esque clique.

A much better system is a system which always tries to keep elections small-scale. You have local elections in your local area that elect a representative to a higher body, such as a county's government, and then each of the representatives in the county government elects a representative to the provincial government, and then all the representatives of the provincial government elect candidates to the national government, and then the national government elects the president.

At no point do you end up with a single election that involves hundreds of millions of people or the whole nation simultaneously, so it is always something an individual can grasp what is going on organically, so it more accurately can capture the desires of the actual population and not just the whims of whatever happens to be on television at the time.

only between candidates pre-approved by the CPC

You need CPC approval to join the CPC, you don't have to join the CPC to run for the government. And the CPC is not a party like in western countries where you just join and do nothing but show up to vote every few years. If you join the CPC you are expected to do real work, they send CPC members out to help during natural disaster relief, they send out CPC members to help with poverty alleviation drives, you sometimes see signs up with phone numbers of your local CPC member to call if you need assistance with anything. They are expected to be actually be active community organizations that help out the public and so obviously you need an approval process for the CPC, it wouldn't function without it.

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?

Yes. Don't vote for them. In fact, you have more democratic choice in China than in liberal democracies.

Imagine if you had a system where the CPC really did just pre-pick every candidate and then you had "competitive" elections between their pre-chosen candidates. Would that be democracy? Of course not, but why? Because the same institution picked all the candidates so no matter what the institution wins. That's how liberal democracy works: the corporate media ultimately nominates all the candidates and so no matter what private corporations always win. There is no "out."

In China candidates have to get 50%+1 of the votes to win so you can just straight-up reject the nominee.

There is a white paper here that talks in more detail about the whole topic of what people can do to hold the government and party accountable in general.

[–] comfy@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

In most provinces, direct voting by the masses exists only at the local level

Nation-wide direct voting doesn’t work for a big country, it’s literally physically impossible and always produces oligarchy/autocracy in practice. [snip]

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.)

Of course, in capitalist countries, the media is privately controlled, and so money comes from private enterprise, and so the slate of candidates is always pro-capitalist. But you can’t solve this problem just by nationalizing media because then you’d end up handing over who picks the slate of candidates to a shadow government deep state esque clique.

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.

[–] Xiisadaddy@lemmygrad.ml 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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.

[–] markinov@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

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

[–] Xiisadaddy@lemmygrad.ml 8 points 1 day ago

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.

[–] TankieReplyBot@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

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:

[–] Dengalicious@lemmygrad.ml 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The CPC as a vanguard party directly constitutes a dictatorship of the proletariat.

1.) The CPC is democratic. Officials within the CPC are elected through democratic systems that ensures that the needs and wants of the people are represented. Direct elections result in issues, is the average person educated enough of every issue for that to be a sensible system? Democracy means that the people lead and the CPC is run by the people through these indirect democratic systems and institutions. The government controls the means of production through direct control and indirect control of companies (as was said in a recent thread, a private owner may own a ball factory but they have no power if the state owns the rubber factory). Secondly, we see the government able to exert control over private business through systems of CPC officials in company boards for example.

2.) The social contract theory explains what power the people have. The people are not lead by a government they reject in democratic systems. If the people are unsatisfied then change can occur within the CPC to fix these issues.

Here are three articles to read on the issue for deeper understanding: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/07/long-term-survey-reveals-chinese-government-satisfaction/

https://news.cgtn.com/news/2024-11-13/China-a-unique-model-of-democracy-for-the-world-1yuLXjKGnyU/p.html

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202503/1329436.shtml

[–] comfy@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 day ago

Thanks, for also providing those articles. I've only read one of them before.

Democracy means that the people lead and the CPC is run by the people through these indirect democratic systems and institutions.

Can you give examples of how the CPC is run by the proletariat through these institutions? I've only had time to look at the second and third article, so I'm guessing this is referring to both the electoral and consultative methods. Unfortunately the two articles skim over this and make assertions or give a very high-level outline, so I'll have to look into this more to see how (and which) people are represented in consultation and how electoral candidates are selected - are they selected by the people and filtered by the party to ensure competence or overall ideological alignment, or are they selected by the party?

The social contract theory explains what power the people have.

I believe the social contract theory is liberalist idealism; the assumption of consent and the threats used to enforce it are illegitimate. I believe it parallels the capitalist argument of "don't like your job, just find another one", suggesting that the theory empowers and liberates you with choice, but ignoring the material conditions which make this supposed freedom an unreal ideal.