>So, while it doesn't claim to be democratic, it is saying that on the spectrum it is closer to being democratic by at least trying to serve the interests of the population at large rather than, say, "corporations".

What I'm trying to point out here that a democracy is going to try to serve, or rather balance the interests of everyone involved. And that means the corporations do have a seat on the table. Along with HOAs, Investors, Religious Groups, Farmers, Foreign lobbysits, Internet Advocates, Feminists, Minority Advocates, White Collar Workers, Blue Collar Workers etc. There isn't really something called the "interests of the population at large" here, populations in reality are heavily heterogenous with often conflicting interests.

If we talk about the lack of safety or train networks, etc, it's not because of a lack of competence, it's because the sum of vested interests of not having that exceeds the sum of interests that want it, and neither side is willing to compromise that nothing happens. Fustrating, but it's not "idiocracy" as OP says, that is what it means to cooperate in reality. Getting nothing done is very much what it means to be a democracy. If you choose not do, you can end up like Somalia or Syria in total chaos.

When it comes to the CCP, the nuanced but important distinction here is that the CCP is only seat on the table, and they explicitly prevent others from sitting. Their pejorative objective is power for it's own sake, and the action of "caring for the citizens" is more akin to a owner caring for it's pets in accordance to it's own particular perspective than everyone having a seat on the table with metaphorical guns pointed at another. Those other interest groups I mentioned, they cannot coerce the CCP in the same way that they can in USA.

After all, the State of China dosen't have a official military, the PLA is explicitly the armed wing of the CCP that declares loyalty to the party first and foremost. That's a key distinction here from the US Military that serves the Constitution, not the Democrats or Republicans.

Of course, there is inter-party heterogenity, and also the fact that acting like a totalitarian dictator dosen't work well economically, so of course the CCP has to concede a bit. But claiming you are "more democratic" because aren't the most extreme version of authoritiariaism and far less pluralistic than most liberal democracies then it's a awfully banal statement, and more of a propaganda term really with retrospect to OP.

▲

9rx 7 days ago | parent [-]

> There isn't really something called the "interests of the population at large" here, populations in reality are heavily heterogenous with often conflicting interests.

Incorrect. In a democracy, the people gather, present ideas, discuss, argue, and eventually reach agreement. That agreement may not be exactly what any individual wants, but the population at large does reach an agreement as to what is in its interest as a whole group.

> What I'm trying to point out here that a democracy is going to try to serve, or rather balance the interests of everyone involved.

Whereas in reality the interests don't show up. In fact, in the USA, showing up to the table (a.k.a. lobbying) has come to be considered abhorrent behaviour, even though that's technically the civic duty of all citizens in a democracy. Lobbying (i.e. gathering, presenting ideas, discussing, arguing, and eventually reaching agreement — and passing that result onto the massager, in the case of representative democracy) is the only way a democracy can function, fundamentally.

China isn't cut off from the rest of the world. They notice just as well as we do that even if these places are democratic on paper, the people don't actually practice it, instead leaving control to a small group of figureheads and the few people who do show up to (i.e. the 'evil' lobbyists). Their claim is that leaving control to that small group of people who are pushing their own personal interests, is, on the spectrum, ultimately less democratic than an equally small group that ostensibly takes in all the considerations of the population at large.

I infer that what you are trying to say is that in a place like the USA, the social environment would allow people to change their ways, kick the small group to the curb, and start practicing democracy, if for some reason they wanted to in the future, without tremendous pushback, whereas the CCP would not be so accepting. That is no doubt a fair assessment, but completely talking past the original point. It wasn't said based on some kind of future hypothetical.

▲

corimaith 7 days ago | parent [-]

>Their claim is that leaving control to that small group of people who are pushing their own personal interests, is, on the spectrum, ultimately less democratic than an equally small group that ostensibly takes in all the considerations of the population at large.

Well then it's important then actually to undertand what the CCP itself believes here. This is not what they are claiming explicitly. Wang Huning's critique of America isn't because it is poor or mismanaged, it's because it accepts heterogenity, in multiculturalism and diversity that he believes leads to social decay, loss of cohesion, and weak stability. And National Sovereignity and Powerful State is Paramount, not the livelihood of the people. To that extent, heterogenity is suppressed in favour of enforced homogenization all through a powerful central party. Dissent, Historical "Nihilism", Postmodernism, Plurality, cannot be tolerated because they weaken National Direction.

They don't find the idea of small group of corporates leading as problematic because it still provides a single coherent direction. No, what they fear is when everyone goes to table and starts pushing their own opinion.

If you understand this, that their rejection of liberal democracy comes from fundamental point through influence of figures like Carl Schmitt and Marx, the idea that they are "democratic" is just largely just rhetoric for foreign audiences. And it's worldview that quite close to American Postliberals like JD Vance or Peter Thiel. Whether you agree with it or not is another thing, but this is not democracy in any sense of the word. You need to know at least what side you're speaking for, because many posters in HN certainly are displaying irony in supporting China while simultaneously opposing Trump, when Trump's authoritarian actions of cracking down on minorities and opposition are very much what the CCP would be endorsing. And by Trump's own words, he is justified by the "Will of the People".

▲

9rx 7 days ago | parent [-]

> the idea that they are "democratic" is just largely just rhetoric for foreign audiences.

They don't claim to be democratic, only more democratic. The alternatives compared against aren't democratic either, so the hypothetical possibility of the CCP being, on the spectrum, more democratic is theoretically sound. Reality isn't, though. The trouble with the claim is that what makes something more or less democratic in the real world is completely nebulous, allowing anyone to pick arbitrary criteria to make the claim.

> You need to know at least what side you're speaking for

Information can be inaccurate, but it doesn't have a side, fundamentally.

	▲	corimaith 7 days ago \| parent [-]
		>They don't claim to be democratic, only more democratic. No. As shown in Wang Huning's Neo-Authoritarianism, being more democratic is bad. Ideally they'd be operating on greater homogenization. >Information can be inaccurate, but it doesn't have a side, fundamentally. You need to seperate foreign rhetoric from actual political beliefs. Do you understand here what are the implications of Huning's beliefs, and lineage they draw from Schmitt? Or are you going to make the claim that Trump is more "democratic", which is banal it's meaningless.