politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
What a weird way to define a dictator.
Not "he has been in power for an extended period of time in a country with a single ruling party."
But "he runs a communist country that has a different government than ours"?
I'm not a big fan of President Biden after some consideration I've decided I do like his answer. It's nuanced, which means the Internet won't understand it, but it answered the question correctly (Yes he is) while making it clear that other countries have different styles of Government that we may not like but must accept if we want to have relations with them.
Countries with Liberal Democracies, like the United States, have no responsibility to lie about another countries style of Government to spare their feelings but we also don't need to let our distaste preclude us from talking to them.
But that's just not what Biden said, at all. Here's what Biden actually said: "he’s a dictator in the sense that he is a guy who runs a country that is a communist country that’s based on a form of government totally different than ours."
This isn't nuanced, it's an ignorant and belligerent hot-take. He clearly indicated that either having a different form of government from ours, or being communist, or perhaps the combination of those two things (which is redundant), makes a country a dictatorship. That's not a straw man reading, it's what he said, in pretty clear terms. He didn't say, or even approach saying, any of the things you suggested, except the "yes he is" bit.
Biden spews toxic nonsense almost as badly as Trump, sometimes. Thankfully, not as constantly.
What a weird take.
Care to share yours?
In China you can vote for 1 party but in America you can for for 2 (and 80% of their policies are the same) . Wow!
There are multiple parties in China.
But political parties play a different role in socialist/communist countries. It’s not similar to how it works in most western countries.
Nah its a p good take methinks
It’s as good a take as some news in the US saying everyone in Scandinavian countries are unemployed and lazy, collecting welfare money while doing nothing other than selling cupcakes.
That was an actual (fake) news published in the US. And cupcakes aren’t even a thing in these countries. The person creating the fake news didn’t even research local sweets. They just used whatever they know from the US, because they don’t care to make it look real, just want to spread lies.
The same is true for most things you read about China/Cuba/Korea/etc in the US and similar countries.
What makes it weird?
Everything. Its fully loaded with fake news from the biggest propaganda machine in the world: the US.
There’s no dictatorship in China. But the US spends A LOT of money to make every socialist country look bad, because if people knew there was an alternative to capitalism, most of the ruling class in the US would fall. They can’t let that happen.
China is effectively a dictatorship. It has one political party and Xi Jinping ended the two term limit so he could stay in power. What form of government would you say they have?
It has nine political parties, not one. But also, political parties work differently in a socialist country. You can’t expect other systems to be a 1-to-1 mapping of what you have in your country.
Even in a socialist country with a single party (which is not the case of China), there is competition for leadership.
The leader of China is elected. Really elected, without rigged elections like you see in countries like Russia. That effectively makes it not a dictatorship.
All this talk of China being a dictatorship comes from US propaganda.
So let me try and break a few of the misconceptions created by the US propaganda machine: the leader is elected. People can complain about the government, and they do. Not only that, but the government is regularly reading criticism and using that to make things better. There is no social credit score.
Edit: Actually, the US propaganda is weird. China has been getting flak for its social credit system for years, but they don't have a social credit system. On the other hand, Italy DOES HAVE a social credit system, but since it's a western country nobody talks about it.
There may be other political parties but none of them have anywhere near the power of the CPC. They are all subordinate. For example, all election candidates must be approved by the CPC.
Also, the only direct elections in China are at the local level. At higher levels of government everything is chosen by local congresses. This results in a system where the people at the top are very removed from the votes of citizens.
Also, the national Congress largely exists to rubber-stamp whatever Xi Jinping wants. Any opposition would be swiftly stamped out.
Probably aiming for the elderly votes or something. Then again, the guy is old himself so I don’t know.
The core problem, sadly. Millennials and younger can't relate to his worldview without doing a generational-history deep dive.
I'll still vote for him if he's the frontrunner, because I don't enjoy the thought of the fascist alternative, and he's done a better job than I expected in a lot of areas, but he won't get my vote in the primaries.
In what sense is modern China a communist country?
They insist very much that they’re communist. Like, a lot. It’s even on their letterhead and business cards and website!
like the USA likes to imagine it is democratic rather than an oligarchy.
I’d argue that we’re way more democratic than they are communist. But that would be a very long and tedious argument.
This is basically the Democratic Socialist argument against China. If democracy is a prerequisite for "true socialism", then the USA is actually closer to achieving that than China.
A few things:
Democratic Socialism isn't necessarily the only democratic form of Socialism. DemSoc refers to a Socialist system with Liberal Democracy, as opposed to forms like ParEcon, Council Communism, Syndicalism, Soviet Democracy, etc.
Secondly, technically China subscribes to a form of Democracy, based on the concept of Democratic Centralism.
I personally don't think the US or China is actually very Democratic, neither are truly accountable to the will of the people. The US is slightly more democratic, but it isn't saying much.
Agree with almost everything you said, didn't mean to come off like I was saying Democratic Socialism is the only form of Socialism with Democracy. I used democratic socialism use DemSocs are a bit more prevalent.
I am always dubious of "Democratic Centralism" though, at least in mainstream ML parties. Always seems to be a way to ban factionalism and therefore any opinion dissenting from the party line.
Fair and based.
We are still actually an Oligarchy though lol just, like you said, closer to what we claim we are then China is
They think that they are. Part of marxist theory, at least traditional 'orthodox' marxist theory is that the development of a capitalist mode of production is essential to development of revolutionary consciousness in the proletariat. The CCP keeps its oligarchs on a leash. They have been allowed to prosper only as part of the rapid modernization of the Chinese economy over the last 30-40 years.
Why is that weird? Seems fairly commonplace to me. Like, not that it's necessarily correct, just not weird at all.
Because it is fundamentally wrong.
Wrong != weird.
The US president being wrong about something isn’t weird. I wish it were, but it isn’t. 
Not really. They have a kind of controlled capitalism where they don't allow the rich to be too greedy or corrupt. The theory is that you can't go directly from feudalism to communism, you need capitalism first for rapid development.
I think it's more accurate to say that they don't allow the rich to be become too powerful, which is very different from allowing them to be overly greedy or corrupt.
For example Jack Ma, he's no more greedy or corrupt than many other ultra successful Chinese business people and China didn't care about him until he got too popular and he started speaking negatively about the CCP in public. He was popular, rich, and criticizing the CCP so they took him down.
Ren Zhiqiang is another example. The CCP was fine with him being stupid wealthy and corrupt as hell but then he started getting popular by criticizing the CCP and that they wouldn't tolerate so "Big Cannon Ren" went to prison.
You don't need Oligarch status to draw their ire. Remember Peng Shuai? She was popular and became a threat to the CCP after making sexual assault allegations against a high ranking official. They do it to famous people of all types but only after they start criticizing the CCP.
The other way to get in trouble is if your greed and corruption become a threat to the Government. This is why the people behind Evergrande, Country Gardens, Zhongzhi, and other companies got away with INSANE levels of greed and corruption for so long. The CCP knew it was happening and didn't care until that Greed and Corruption was threatening to topple the economy and thus the CCP itself.
Greed and Corruption? The CCP simply doesn't care unless it threatens their power.
and what is the destination of late-stage capitalism?