But this doesn’t answer my question, the only mechanism for people’s input seems to be elections and polling, and it conspicuously omits the fact that elections only allow party-approved candidates. Maybe the powers-that-be have a great track record of listening and respecting the will of the people, and are beloved by all as a result, but that doesn’t actually put the people in control, it just means the ones actually in control are being nice. When the government and the people have a fundamental disagreement about the path forward, what piece am I missing that makes the government the one to back down?
I’m not sure I follow, what do you imagine would happen? What’s an example? COVID is a quick example I can think of of the central government wanting more strict policies, but folding due to public pressure against it (even though the government ended up being correct).
The CPC doesn’t have a mandate from heaven, it has 100 million members in a country of 1.4 billion. It’s a party thoroughly embedded in production, local jurisdictions, and gets its policies directly from the people. Five Year Plans are the result of mass polling, as an example. When the party sepparates from the masses, it loses support, and mass protest occurs and production halts. This is rare, because the CPC is good at what it does.
Right, that’s a good example of it going the way you describe, and I’m curious what would’ve happened if the government hadn’t folded. If the people really are making the decisions, they would get their way eventually, what does that look like?
Like I said, mass protest and huge issues with the economy. The PRC isn’t a capitalist country where the state is an extension of the capitalist class, the state in the PRC is an extension of the working class, as public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy. For example, the USSR was dissolved through reform, it wasn’t a competing political party that destroyed socialism, it was caused by complex and myriad factors that the CPC has largely learned from.
Ah, I didn’t see that edit, apologies, had the page loaded for a while before replying.
Isn’t that the same leverage that the earliest labor unions used because it was all they had? It seems to fit very well, actually. There’s a smaller but more powerful group in charge of them, workers get little to no direct say in company policy or who they are managed by and have to hope they’re listened to when asked how things are going. There certainly isn’t a second C-suite waiting in the wings to be put into power if the first one disappoints, the current powers-that-be would be insane to allow something as chaotic as that. If the CEO’s got a good track record of listening, the pay’s pretty good and satisfaction is high, and they’re kept in line with picket lines when it’s necessary, is this company an extension of the working class like China’s government is?
I’m comparing and contrasting quite a bit with my new job, which fits much more closely with what my idea of something worker-controlled would be. It’s fully employee owned, so profits go either back into the business or into our pockets as bonuses. There’s as little hierarchy as possible, the closest thing to a manager isn’t ever going to “put” you on a project, you’re free to find one that you like and wants you to join. Company decisions involve everyone equally, and there’s freedom to loudly speak your mind about policies and procedures if you disagree with them. That’s closer to the country I’d want to live in, not the one where my influence is akin to answering corporate surveys and getting to choose which of 3 approved managers I want to work under, or go on strike if I’m really not happy.
I think you should go and read through the post I linked a bit more. China has a lot of democratic input from the workers. States are representatives of classes, in the US that class is the capitalist class, but in the PRC that class is the working class. It’s why the PRC regularly punishes billionaires for stepping out of line.
Further, the working class in China does control who they elect, and since change is initially pushed from the bottom, they have control over what gets passed and what doesn’t. There’s also a good degree of local autonomy, councils, etc.
Your example doesn’t fit, because it’s entirely different. The CPC are not capitalists for the economy. The USPS isn’t run for Trump’s personal profits, as an example. Multi-Party systems create competition politically, not cooperation and cohesion, which is why they generally don’t exist in socialist countries outside of minor, supoortive countries.
It’s the difference between merely formal democracy and substantive democracy.
But this doesn’t answer my question, the only mechanism for people’s input seems to be elections and polling, and it conspicuously omits the fact that elections only allow party-approved candidates. Maybe the powers-that-be have a great track record of listening and respecting the will of the people, and are beloved by all as a result, but that doesn’t actually put the people in control, it just means the ones actually in control are being nice. When the government and the people have a fundamental disagreement about the path forward, what piece am I missing that makes the government the one to back down?
I’m not sure I follow, what do you imagine would happen? What’s an example? COVID is a quick example I can think of of the central government wanting more strict policies, but folding due to public pressure against it (even though the government ended up being correct).
The CPC doesn’t have a mandate from heaven, it has 100 million members in a country of 1.4 billion. It’s a party thoroughly embedded in production, local jurisdictions, and gets its policies directly from the people. Five Year Plans are the result of mass polling, as an example. When the party sepparates from the masses, it loses support, and mass protest occurs and production halts. This is rare, because the CPC is good at what it does.
Right, that’s a good example of it going the way you describe, and I’m curious what would’ve happened if the government hadn’t folded. If the people really are making the decisions, they would get their way eventually, what does that look like?
Like I said, mass protest and huge issues with the economy. The PRC isn’t a capitalist country where the state is an extension of the capitalist class, the state in the PRC is an extension of the working class, as public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy. For example, the USSR was dissolved through reform, it wasn’t a competing political party that destroyed socialism, it was caused by complex and myriad factors that the CPC has largely learned from.
Ah, I didn’t see that edit, apologies, had the page loaded for a while before replying.
Isn’t that the same leverage that the earliest labor unions used because it was all they had? It seems to fit very well, actually. There’s a smaller but more powerful group in charge of them, workers get little to no direct say in company policy or who they are managed by and have to hope they’re listened to when asked how things are going. There certainly isn’t a second C-suite waiting in the wings to be put into power if the first one disappoints, the current powers-that-be would be insane to allow something as chaotic as that. If the CEO’s got a good track record of listening, the pay’s pretty good and satisfaction is high, and they’re kept in line with picket lines when it’s necessary, is this company an extension of the working class like China’s government is?
I’m comparing and contrasting quite a bit with my new job, which fits much more closely with what my idea of something worker-controlled would be. It’s fully employee owned, so profits go either back into the business or into our pockets as bonuses. There’s as little hierarchy as possible, the closest thing to a manager isn’t ever going to “put” you on a project, you’re free to find one that you like and wants you to join. Company decisions involve everyone equally, and there’s freedom to loudly speak your mind about policies and procedures if you disagree with them. That’s closer to the country I’d want to live in, not the one where my influence is akin to answering corporate surveys and getting to choose which of 3 approved managers I want to work under, or go on strike if I’m really not happy.
I think you should go and read through the post I linked a bit more. China has a lot of democratic input from the workers. States are representatives of classes, in the US that class is the capitalist class, but in the PRC that class is the working class. It’s why the PRC regularly punishes billionaires for stepping out of line.
Further, the working class in China does control who they elect, and since change is initially pushed from the bottom, they have control over what gets passed and what doesn’t. There’s also a good degree of local autonomy, councils, etc.
Your example doesn’t fit, because it’s entirely different. The CPC are not capitalists for the economy. The USPS isn’t run for Trump’s personal profits, as an example. Multi-Party systems create competition politically, not cooperation and cohesion, which is why they generally don’t exist in socialist countries outside of minor, supoortive countries.
It’s the difference between merely formal democracy and substantive democracy.