[B0ycey]

@Rancid

If the republicans have their way and turn the U.S. into a Putin like dictatorship with Trump or somebody like Trump as dictator, the world will be a much more dangerous place.

Honestly PO, even the Republicans want Democracy in America given they are very pro "The Declaration of Independence". Only Trump was anti Democracy given he was willing to steal power. I doubt America is ever in danger of losing its Democracy and we need a few more elections before the equilibrium returns to normality given Trump rocked the shitfest too much.

[Rugoz]

China isn't only concerned with profits. Their motivation for profits is to fund their visions of regaining the glory of China on the international stage or whatever.

"or whatever" .

In the west, profit is the end not the means to the end.

Nonsense.

Couple that with a hyper-individualist culture, and there's a lot to expose. So yes, they can certainly expose all sorts of flaws. They don't have to do better (or worse) in those areas to expose it.

Absolutely they have to do better to expose it. How else would it work . You could argue they handled Covid better, at least for a time.

[Rancid]

"or whatever" .



Nonsense.



Absolutely they have to do better to expose it. How else would it work . You could argue they handled Covid better, at least for a time.

I don't see why "doing better" is a prereq to expose someone else's flaws/issues. This makes no sense.

If you are a wife beater, and I'm a wife beater, I can still for example, post video online of you beating your wife to expose. I don't have to prove i"m not a wife beater to do it.

[Rugoz]

I literally did.

What are you even talking about? Provide the name and data.

One of Xi's hallmark policy goals is to expand party membership, which he has, and increase democratic mechanisms at the local level - including opening up zoning and development issues to even non-party discussion through town halls and referendums. This is stuff I have personally witnessed in Qingdao and Hangzhou, even as a foreigner.

Furthermore, there is an internal democracy in the CCP - this is simply fact. Party members vote for local representatives, they elect city/province representatives, and so on. No doubt there is backroom political dealing going on, but the mechanism is democratic and there are democratic mechanisms inherent within CCP party work. Even national executive power is held by a group of nine individuals, many of which have a lot of power independent of Xi.

Xi's concentration of power is worrisome, and one of the fundamental rules any democratic system has should be "one person, one title" and China fails in this aspect, but even that is controversial within the CCP and Xi's extension of a term in 2022 is by no means guaranteed.

AFAIK Xi has made it more difficult to get party membership.

Also, am I supposed to be impressed with this pseudo-democratic nonsense? It's like some Western countries making experiments with citizen councils that have no real power whatsoever. Ask yourself in all of those cases: Who sets the agenda? Who decides who's allowed to run for election? Who has the ultimate decisionmaking power? Is it those higher up in the CCP's hierarchy? I bet.

[Rugoz]

I don't see why "doing better" is a prereq to expose someone else's flaws/issues. This makes no sense.

If you are a wife beater, and I'm a wife beater, I can still for example, post video online of you beating your wife to expose. I don't have to prove i"m not a wife beater to do it.

Eh..that's not how it works. China doesn't expose anything people in the West don't already know. It only becomes relevant if China presents a credible alternative.

[Fasces]

What are you even talking about? Provide the name and data.

My post is very clear on what I prefer about the Chinese system.

AFAIK Xi has made it more difficult to get party membership.

I guess 'what you know' is fallible. CCP membership has increased by 20% in the last decade, and a higher share of new applicants are accepted under Xi than previous administrations.

[Rugoz]

:eh: My post is very clear on what I prefer about the Chinese system.

I was asking for some measurable benchmark other than income and wealth inequality. You said you provided one. You did not.

I guess 'what you know' is fallible. CCP membership has increased by 20% in the last decade, and a higher share of new applicants are accepted under Xi than previous administrations.

membership growth has clearly slowed down under Xi. Are you suggesting the drop is due to less applications?

[Fasces]

I was asking for some measurable benchmark other than income and wealth inequality. You said you provided one. You did not.

I don't agree with your premise that measurable benchmarks are necessary for the Chinese system to challenge the West and expose its systemic failings. You haven't proved otherwise.

China is a developing state. Of course, on most material benchmarks, it will perform worse.

Despite that, their investments in green energy, disease prevention and control, and next generation technologies far outpace anything done in the West. Their ability to connect the most rural and underdeveloped peripheral regions to the central hubs far outpace anything done in the West. They are exposing that a profit motive is inefficient, and that devolving power to non-democratic, non-state entities is bad for the people, especially marginalized communities.

Are you suggesting the drop is due to less applications?

According to the COD, yes, applications have dropped.

[Politics_Observer]

@Rugoz

Honestly PO, even the Republicans want Democracy in America given they are very pro "The Declaration of Independence". Only Trump was anti Democracy given he was willing to steal power. I doubt America is ever in danger of losing its Democracy and we need a few more elections before the equilibrium returns to normality given Trump rocked the shitfest too much.

I don't know that's not what I have been hearing from republican voters and politicians. I take them at their word. They act and talk about wanting a dictatorship that is ruled by rich white folks. Their actions demonstrate they are serious about destroying democracy given they are engaging in passing voter suppression laws. Let's not delude or kid ourselves about the nature of the threat that today's republican party presents to the American constitution with it's current actions and rhetoric. Their actions demonstrate it by acting as accomplices to Trump trying to steal power and by passing voter suppression laws. Democracies have in the past turned into tyrannies which is what Greek philosophers have always been wary of in regards to democracy. Don't take democracy for granted ever. It can be destroyed.

What happened in places that had democracies and then were turned into tyrannies can happen anywhere. It can happen here in the U.S. I see people like Tucker Carlson praising that Hungarian autocrat and many republicans look to dictatorships and tyrannies today and admire them. So, no, I don't buy that. Today's republicans have demonstrated through their actions and words that they are threat to the U.S. constitution and our democracy. They need to change course and start fighting for our constitution and our democracy. Otherwise, there is going to be some big problems. I don't give the republicans a free pass.

[Fasces]

I don't know that's not what I have been hearing from republicans and republican politicians.

Or their followers - remember the uproar when NPR started quoting the Declaration of Independence?

[Rancid]

Eh..that's not how it works. China doesn't expose anything people in the West don't already know. It only becomes relevant if China presents a credible alternative.

Meh, many uncredible people and systems raise to the top.

[Politics_Observer]

@Rugoz

I made several edits to my post that replied to you above. Just so you don't misread what I was trying to write.

[Rugoz]

I don't agree with your premise that measurable benchmarks are necessary for the Chinese system to challenge the West and expose its systemic failings. You haven't proved otherwise.

Then don't pretend you have provided such a benchmark.

Moreover, China can only challenge the West in terms of outcome. It has nothing to offer ideologically to people other than ex-Fascists. Hence such measurable indicators are important.

According to the COD, yes, applications have dropped.

Again it's up to me to provide sources, because you never do:

The ratio of new members to new applications, the best proxy for the CCP’s “acceptance rate” given its multi-year application process, held steady at around 14.5% in the Hu era. That rate dropped precipitously under Xi, to 8.8% in 2015, and is still lower today than under Hu, at 12.3% in 2019.

https://macropolo.org/analysis/members- ... ist-party/

The acceptance rate dropped. And of course the more stringent criteria likely contributed to the drop in applications as well.

[Fasces]

Then don't pretend you have provided such a benchmark.

You asked me why I thought China was exposing Western failures. I provided my reasoning.

oreover, China can only challenge the West in terms of outcome.

You can write that a hundred times more and you'll still have failed to prove the premise.

Your biases and assumed premises are not my business. You don't get to set the parameters for my claims.

because you never do:

Literally did - I said according to the COD. You can go look at the COD figures if you want - Google is right over there.

Here's a pretty graph for you.

And of course the more stringent criteria likely contributed to the drop in applications as well.

\

Speculation.

[Rugoz]

Meh, many uncredible people and systems raise to the top.

Fair enough. In fact I don't think China poses a threat to the West because the people in the West want to be more like it. Most likely Western elites will be co-opted. Technocrats or populists, you name it. As long as they can rule undisturbed.

[Rugoz]

You asked me why I thought China was exposing Western failures. I provided my reasoning.

You can write that a hundred times more and you'll still have failed to prove the premise.

Your biases and assumed premises are not my business. You don't get to set the parameters for my claims.

Straw men and other nonsense. Basic logic is not your strength as usual.

Here's a pretty graph for you.

Why roll your face? It's your job.

In any case, your source directly and strongly contradicts the two sources I provided. Not in the number of applications, but the number admitted. In fact the admittance rate would be almost 50% according to your source.

[Fasces]

In any case, your source directly and strongly contradicts the two sources I provided.

The fact you cited the COD as an authoritative and credible source when it agreed with you, but say this garbage when it disagrees with you, is precisely why doing link dumps with you is a waste of time.

You view debate as something to win, and your parameters shift post to post. It makes the whole discussion pointless.

If you google long enough, you'll find a graph that "proves" the flat earth and anti-vax too.

[Rugoz]

The fact you cited the COD as an authoritative and credibly source when it agreed with you, but say this garbage when it disagrees with you, is precisely why doing link dumps with you is a waste of time.

You view debate as something to win, and your parameters shift post to post. It makes the whole discussion pointless.

Jesus Christ, what is your fucking problem? I said both contradict each other. That's a fact.

Look at the admitted members in your plot and the number of CCP members in my plot. Clearly they are not compatible at all with 9m new members every year.

[Fasces]

Look at the admitted members in your plot and the number of CCP members in my plot. Clearly they are not compatible at all with 9m new members every year.

Confirmed Rugoz believes that the CCP discovered the recipe for immortality.

Psst, you can also not renew your membership or renounce it, too.

[Rugoz]

Confirmed Rugoz believes that the CCP discovered the recipe for immortality.

Psst, you can also not renew your membership or renounce it, too.

That's a good point. I'm so proud of you.

It still contradicts the second source but I think they made the same mistake when computing the acceptance rate.

So I would say its the number of applications that dropped, for whatever reason.