you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] 21 points 9 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (11 children)
  • [+] -7 points 9 months ago (11 children)
  • [–] 15 points 9 months ago (7 children)

    US has term limits and doesn’t even permit a “leader for life.”

    Lol. Lmao even.

    US has a broader international identity

    I would say "lol, lmao even," but the horrors inflicted on all the non-whites in the US is not a laughing matter.

    and is much less isolationist.

    Sure would be better if it was.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [+] -10 points 9 months ago (6 children)

    Everything I said is true and you didn't refute any of it. You do realize that, if you have nothing to say, you don't have to post, right?

    Trump has been leader for 5 years, and will cease leadership in 3 years. Xi has been in power since 2012 and can be leader for the rest of his life.

    Now please explain how US is NOT less isolationist than China. This should be good. 🤣

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (5 children)

    You imply that it is good to have term limits, despite the fact that it is clearly un-democractic to limit who the people can vote for. If the people like someone and think they should continue their work, they should be allowed to do so. [EDIT:] And if China did have term limits... what would it change? Xi ends his terms and then what? Someone else will simply step up.

    I didn't say it wasn't. I said it would be better if it was.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -9 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    No. I implied that it's not fascistic to have term limits (or less fascistic). I don't think I said anything was good or bad.

    You're implying that being un-democratic is a bad thing. The US Constitution is also un-democratic, as it doesn't permit the voting majority to violate the rights of the minority. And I doubt you would consider such mob rule of the majority to be a good thing. Or do you?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (3 children)

    being un-democratic is a bad thing

    Do you think so?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 9 months ago* (2 children)

    So not allowing the majority to enslave the minority is bad? It's clearly un-democratic.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] 2 points 9 months ago* (2 children)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [+] 17 points 9 months ago* (1 child)
  • [+] -10 points 9 months ago*

    Term limits are anti-democratic, and are put in place in bourgeois democracy to prevent left-wing leaders from lasting long enough to overhaul the system, effectively gutting any radical change. Mao and Xi are both examples of extremely popular leaders, far moreso than Trump, Macron, Starmer, etc.

    First part is true. Though it's ironic considering people are calling it fascism for Trump to hint at a third term, while Xi removed constitutional term limits so he could stay in power.

    While term limits restrict voter choice, the complete absence of opposition parties restricts it far more. "Popularity" is functionally unmeasurable in a system without free press or competitive elections. You cannot accurately gauge approval ratings when disapproval is criminalized. Removing term limits without adding checks and balances historically leads to autocracy, not "radical change" as it entrenches a specific elite rather than the working class.

    The Great Firewall isn't censorship, it's to promote domestic internet production and infrastructure so as to not be reliant on the west. The CPC does censor liberals, capitalists, and fascists, whereas the west censors communists and the working classes.

    The "protectionism" argument fails because the Firewall blocks information, not just competitors. Blocking Wikipedia, news regarding 1989, or criticisms of the leadership has zero economic benefit. It is strictly political thought control.

    Conversely, Communist parties are legal in the US. They run candidates and publish newspapers. In China, advocating for independent Marxist unions (like the Jasic Incident student group) gets you arrested. The state suppresses unauthorized leftists just as harshly as liberals.

    This is where you highlight how little you understand fascism. The US Empire is driven by private ownership, corporations dominate the state. This is fascism. In the PRC, private property is subservient to the public sector and to the state. The CPC controls what capitalists can do, not the other way around, because the CPC is communist.

    You are confusing Fascism with Plutocracy or Oligarchy. Fascism, by definition (as articulated by Mussolini and Gentile, or practiced by the Nazis), is the State dominating the corporation, not the other way around. Fascism seeks to merge corporate and state power under the direction of the state to serve national interests. This describes the Chinese model (statist control of capital) far more accurately than the US model (capitalist influence over the state). If the state commands the corporation, that aligns with the structural mechanics of fascism, regardless of whether the state calls itself "Communist."

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 11 points 9 months ago

    Since people here seem to disagree

    Since people here have seen all this sinophobic propaganda countless times already and thoroughly debunked it all, you're going to go ahead and confidently spew tired, gullible U.S. State Department talking points and lies to be debunked yet again for the umpteenth time because you're either painfully naive and depressingly uneducated or you have an explicit pro-U.S. anti-China agenda you're desperately trying to spread.

    Yeah, we know, dronie.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-2 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)