They could do it. But they don't want to. The difference here is that in the west the financial elite are the ruling class and the proletariat are under the boot. In China the proletariat are the ruling class and the bourgeoisie are under the boot.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (4 children)

In China the proletariat are the ruling class

Slightly unrelated but your comment makes me wonder, are they though? The President of China hasn't changed in ten years and while that in of itself doesn't imply wrongdoing, China DOES have a one party election system. Can we really call that the rule of the working class, or even a free democracy for that matter?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Yes.

Term limits are neutral as far as democracy is concerned

One proletarian party is more democratic then N bourgeois parties.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

proletarian dictatorships tend to have long-ruling leaders who are symbols of proletarian power that the masses can concentrate around and trust, because they have proven their allegiance in the revolution. Every proletarian state has had long-serving heads of state.

Democracy isn't "when leader changes a bunch". That just means a volatile system, or a system where the leader doesn't matter anyway and is just a rotating door.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The President of China hasn't changed in ten years

Germany had the same president for 16 years. Canada had the same one for 9.

Maximum term limits in the US is eight years

What the fuck are you talking about? Free democracy is when your leader changes every two years?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

I think you didn't read the whole comment. My point was that a one party system can't be called a free democracy. While eight other minor parties exist in China, they must

accept the "leading role" of the CCP as a condition of their continued existence

Free democracy is when anybody can make a political party and they have an equal change of winning or losing, ie no 'special privileges' like the CCP has.

Look I know we like to simp for China here on hexbear, but we shouldn't blatantly ignore it's flaws. Anyway hope this answered atleast some of your questions. Peace ✌️

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I think term limits are kinda bullshit anyway. They were used against Evo Morales as well.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Im pretty sure the number of parties that can run for election and actually get elected, doesnt say much about democracy. Just look at the eu and their austerity policies, through the decades if you wish. Also i think the multiparty system was tried in Chile in the 70s, they didnt oppress opposition. They got couped. The multiparty system is a western thing, and the chinese dont need to pretend they're white. I'd say a more accurate way of measuring democracy is to ask: is the government following the interest of the people? In that sense ok theyre not perfect, but give me a multiparty system thats better than china.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

the Chinese party system is more complicated than there just being one party. There are multiple political parties but the chinese constitution specifies how powerful each of them are.

the other parties exist as a source of political ideas