this post was submitted on 13 May 2025
98 points (97.1% liked)

Futurology

2580 readers
320 users here now

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee 1 points 1 day ago (6 children)

China is authoritarian, but if you look only at the material conditions for democracy like prosperity, peace, education they are better than the US. People fundamentally want to exist and raise families in peace without constant terror, confusion and economic hardship. That is because even they are authoritarian, they can still "afford" to have pro-human or pro-national ideology. In the neoliberal countries choosing that over profit gets you fired or sidelined.

[–] Korkki@lemmy.ml 4 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

China is authoritarian

"Authoritarian" doesn't even mean anything as a word, beside being maybe vaguely synonymous with "enemy". Any actual attempt definition of the word is either hypocritical and/or so wide and universally applicable to every state, making it useless.

Also why positive view of US in places like Eu and Canada is sliding is not because people really think America is sliding into non-democracy, or because people see US no longer as an shining example of prosperity, or have people really awoken the reality that US is the worlds largest rogue state and sponsor of terror (Israel, etc.). nor is china really seen as an better alternative.

Those people who most espouse having lost faith into US since 2024 are mainly the liberal-internationalists who are in power in these places (and in the media) would love nothing more than return to the pre-war status quo where EU is the junior partner in the American enterprise called west. They hate Trump and everything he represents, not America. They hate Trump not because he is incompetent or giving bad leadership per se, but because he makes people in places like Brussels and London nervous and makes "the west" look bad or atleast give it a look that more mask off and undignified look than they would like.

[–] LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee 1 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

What I meant is "having much power / authority without being accountable to some third party". And yeah, taking the mask off is the only good thing about Trump. The US will never get their image back.

PS: The other good thing might be crashing the global economy might be positive for lowering GHG - but at what cost??? (haha)

[–] Korkki@lemmy.ml 2 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (1 children)

“having much power / authority without being accountable to some third party”

A useless definition. Truly useless. You are going for the "But we can voot the bad people out of the system, so we are better than Chyna" shtick, aren't you? A liberal narrative of democracy vs authoritarianism that has nothing to do with reality. Any sure way for people only can get accountability even in the west if they protest and riot on the streets. Otherwise the interest of the rulers will always overrule the interests of the people when there is a conflict between the two. And when talking change I'm not talking about promises or shuffling one talking head out to be replaced with another, I'm saying that real systemic change within the system has become nearly impossible, much less having accountability. The politicians, party machinery, institutions, the media and the 1% funding all of them are so deep in bed with each other.

[–] LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee 0 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

I'm more interested in the evolution of systems or game theory than ideology. Or nitpicking about word definitions, after all most words have different meanings depending on context (how authoritarian of you to try to deny the meaning of my words haha).

And yeah you'd need a large scale purge in the US. Nationalize all news and social media and turn them into democratic cooperatives with regulations and some kind of fund backing them, removing state control again. And maybe sortition to bypass the mechanisms in elections and politics that filters for those who are selfish and best at gaining power, but generally not good for other people. Getting money out of politics isn't enough, you need to get politics out of elections.

I believe the general myopia in these times is partially because we're out of ideas in what to try. While a respect China's achievements, I wouldn't want to live there - and can't anyway because they just don't allow any immigration. Partially the CCPs success is because their and the people's goals are aligned (prosperity, education). So while I'm a socialist at heart, I don't believe in any of the various types of socialism or anarchism as a panacea either. Basically we're running out of time until climate change leads to global collapse and we do not even have any new system to try for after yet.

I guess I'm mostly interested in "harm reduction" based on specific rules of a system, and based on new technology. E.g. a planned economy using modern IT, crowd polling, AI would be infinitely easier, more efficient and more democratic.

[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 hours ago

how authoritarian of you to try to deny the meaning of my words haha

If you needed more proof that 'authoritarian' is meaningless.

[–] Z_Poster365@hexbear.net 3 points 14 hours ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 children)

America is the biggest police state in human history that breaches more other nations' sovereignty than anyone in history. you are out of your gourd saying "China is authoritarian" compared to the US, the biggest bully of all time with kill counts in the tens of millions

What you are calling "authoritarianism" in China is actually the power of the proletariat, a radical and unrelenting democracy.

[–] LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee 0 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Western democracy has revealed glaring problems with selecting governance, especially if the majority of the media is captured like in the US, and if elected officials have to beg special interest for money or be chosen / filtered through that process, or has to lie to the electorate. That China is doing relatively well despite being authoritarian, not having to be corrupted through that mechanism of election (an alternative might be sortition to prevent filtering for the worst vipers). But it's also lucky in that it's a "benign" authority still based on socialism and that it's not an enemy or plaything of the US. But even though it works for the people (for the people) it's not democratic (by the people)

Partially that is because China derives it's treasure from the people so education and productivity are important and with that some quality of life. There are plenty of pro forma socialist governments that only care to enrich themselves based on natural resources and can just brutalize and neglect it's population. So it's not just because of socialist ideology, it's where the money is for China. And afaik China still has it's corruption problems.

[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 1 points 4 hours ago

But even though it works for the people (for the people) it’s not democratic (by the people)

More Democratic than the US

[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 13 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

The US is more authoritarian, if anything, especially if you live in a country that's been on the receiving end of its foreign policy.

[–] LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee 0 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

I agree but using it that way just creates confusion. Just call it imperialist or terrorist state. Or even outwardly fascist / nationalist. Authoritarian is used to denote how they treat their own citizens.

[–] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 hours ago

The concept that treating people differently based on whether or not the government decides they are "citizens" or not is authoritarian in its own right; it's an ideological position being unilaterally forced on people by the government, with lethal violence if needed.

Not that the USA isn't authoritarian towards its own citizens, it has the largest prison population on the planet - comparable to the gulags at the height of Stalin's rule - for a reason.

[–] bennieandthez@lemmygrad.ml 9 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (1 children)

Being authoritarian is exactly what makes them good. When media talks about China authoritarianism, they're talking from the perspective of capitalists, not average people. Capitalists hold no political power in China and that's why western media it's upset, because they can't influence their policy through money. If western media cared about the material conditions of the average Chinese people, they would be chanting praise for the massive uplifting that China has went through the last 50 years.

[–] Maeve@kbin.earth 2 points 18 hours ago

I mean, it's pretty rich USA talking to anyone about authoritarianism, regardless of who's in office. I mentioned yellow journalism in another thread that began with the Spanish - American war, but even before then, we've always had death-labor camps. The authoritarianism waxes and wanes, depending on who's on the Hill, but we're supposed to evolve, rather than devolving and forcing stagnation/devolution on the rest of the world. And for all their faults, it's part of the reason our revolutionary founders urged isolationist policy. The Great Wars changed the equation a bit, but only because our burgeoning hegemony was threatened. And yes, this is oversimplifying, but the gist.

[–] match@pawb.social 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

if I'm from, say, Ghana, I'm judging China based on how China affects Ghanaian people, not on how China affects Chinese people

[–] LarmyOfLone@lemm.ee 1 points 6 hours ago

That's important too, but that isn't just moving the goalpost, it's a completely different metric. But even if you're a staunch nationalist you might look at how Chinese people feel about the system and if you could replicate that system in Ghana.

[–] 01011@monero.town 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] BaroqueInMind@lemmy.one 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)