China's political system is more flexible than US democracy

[JustForFun]

Democracy in theory is better than a one party system, but t.b.h. it depends on the setting.
For democracy to flourish certain conditions need to be met:
1. good education
2. quality press
3. engaged electorate

Besides those criteria there are some other situations in which a one party system can be better than a democracy:
4. defacto 2 party democracies
5. distance between electorate and politicians

Lets look at the points:
1. If the population lack good education, democracy becomes a joke. Things in this day and age are becoming so complicated that gut feeling is getting counter productive. A non (poorly) educated electorate is therefore far easier to make the wrong choise for the wrong reasons. E.g. in the Netherlands there is a part of the electorate that wants to get out of the EU, because the country pays more to EU than it receives directly. They however fail to see that the vast majority of dutch trade is with EU partners and as a whole the country profits from being part of the EU.
2. A quality press is a big part of the checks and balances that make up a functional democracy. If the most profitable media are those that care more about lady gaga's dress than institutional corruption, then this part of the democratic equation is failing. Worse yet are the daily polls on party popularity. They actualy and actively derail democracy, because some decision makers now are to scared to make unpopular (but in the long term right) decisions.
3. An electorate which is not engaged in the democratic proces is more a hindrance to democracy than help. They are voting for parties without knowing (that is because of lack of engagement not lack of education) why. Traditional parties tend to get a big base because of these type of voters, which gives them an unfair advantage.

4. Defacto 2 party democracies can be split is 2 tyes. The first is type in which 2 traditional parties dominate the political landscape, the type seen in most European countries. There are however a lot of smaller parties in parliament that need to be taken in consideration and sometimes they are part of a coalition that can make or break a government. On lower level of government these parties can actualy be the ones holding power. The second type of 2 defacto 2 party democracies are mostly seen in Anglo-saxon countries. Mostly because of a winner takes all district type setup, minority views are being squashed. With those smaller parties taken out of the equation for the 2 parties that make up such a system there is only one opponent, THE OTHER PARTY. This can lead to situations (see the US) in which politicians do not do what is good for the country, but only aim to derail the other party.

5. If the politicians are in such different situations as the general population (what is the ratio between $ millionair/non-millionair in your parliament?) some can not see what is important and what is not.

So in the end it is possible that the Chinese political system is more flexible or outright better than the American. Just ask yourself: who did you vote on last time, why and did it make a difference?

 

[Hussein]

The day USA will be bankrupt,whole world will be bankrupt.

when is it for Greece? in a few days? weeks?

 

[gambit]

Wrong, it's Lenin reform idea , read again if you know Nothing about communism , have you ever raed something about Lenin reform idea ??


Many methods , my English is not good in banking , but if you ask all American you will know if they can control banking bussiness or not.

give me example about communism consistently failed in VN-China now.Don't forget we're not a real communist yet

Then how do you know when communism has arrived or not? This lame argument has failed over and over and over. If your attempts at the communist experiment consistently failed, stop experimenting.

---------- Post added at 04:07 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:05 AM ----------

Democracy in theory is better than a one party system, but t.b.h. it depends on the setting.
For democracy to flourish certain conditions need to be met:
1. good education
2. quality press
3. engaged electorate

Besides those criteria there are some other situations in which a one party system can be better than a democracy:
4. defacto 2 party democracies
5. distance between electorate and politicians

Lets look at the points:
1. If the population lack good education, democracy becomes a joke. Things in this day and age are becoming so complicated that gut feeling is getting counter productive. A non (poorly) educated electorate is therefore far easier to make the wrong choise for the wrong reasons. E.g. in the Netherlands there is a part of the electorate that wants to get out of the EU, because the country pays more to EU than it receives directly. They however fail to see that the vast majority of dutch trade is with EU partners and as a whole the country profits from being part of the EU.
2. A quality press is a big part of the checks and balances that make up a functional democracy. If the most profitable media are those that care more about lady gaga's dress than institutional corruption, then this part of the democratic equation is failing. Worse yet are the daily polls on party popularity. They actualy and actively derail democracy, because some decision makers now are to scared to make unpopular (but in the long term right) decisions.
3. An electorate which is not engaged in the democratic proces is more a hindrance to democracy than help. They are voting for parties without knowing (that is because of lack of engagement not lack of education) why. Traditional parties tend to get a big base because of these type of voters, which gives them an unfair advantage.

4. Defacto 2 party democracies can be split is 2 tyes. The first is type in which 2 traditional parties dominate the political landscape, the type seen in most European countries. There are however a lot of smaller parties in parliament that need to be taken in consideration and sometimes they are part of a coalition that can make or break a government. On lower level of government these parties can actualy be the ones holding power. The second type of 2 defacto 2 party democracies are mostly seen in Anglo-saxon countries. Mostly because of a winner takes all district type setup, minority views are being squashed. With those smaller parties taken out of the equation for the 2 parties that make up such a system there is only one opponent, THE OTHER PARTY. This can lead to situations (see the US) in which politicians do not do what is good for the country, but only aim to derail the other party.

5. If the politicians are in such different situations as the general population (what is the ratio between $ millionair/non-millionair in your parliament?) some can not see what is important and what is not.

Can you show everyone where does it say a functional democracy is restricted to only two parties?

So in the end it is possible that the Chinese political system is more flexible or outright better than the American. Just ask yourself: who did you vote on last time, why and did it make a difference?

More like those who yearn for a single party system, would you matter at all?

 

[NiceGuy]

Then how do you know when communism has arrived or not? This lame argument has failed over and over and over. If your attempts at the communist experiment consistently failed, stop experimenting.

Marx said: ' communism will begin when class revolution happen in rich industrialized country ;. if those protester overthrow Wal st successfuly, and take back their house from those Rober, then it's time for communist

 

[gambit]

Marx: communism will begin when class revolution happen in rich industrialized country , if those protester overthrow Wal st successfuly, and take back their house from those Rober, then it's time for communist

Again, this is why your arguments should not be taken seriously. Why do you need protesters anyway? South Viet Nam was wealthier than North Viet Nam. You may not know that but I do. More likely you were borned after the war ended. Anyway, what is the difference between protesters and a communist government when both of them want to take away from the rich. North Viet Nam took wealth away from 'the rich' of South Viet Nam. In Chile, communist protesters took wealth away from 'the rich' and nationalize companies. The results of all these experiments were: Failures.

Not only are you ignorant of the basics of communism but of history as well.

 

[NiceGuy]

Again, this is why your arguments should not be taken seriously. Why do you need protesters anyway? .

Why do I need protesters ??they're American , bro, I don't care. I just simply discuss about Capitalist and communist only , and I see a Protest against Wall st seem like Communist revolt base on Marx's theory, that's all

South Viet Nam was wealthier than North Viet Nam. You may not know that but I do. More likely you were borned after the war ended. Anyway, what is the difference between protesters and a communist government when both of them want to take away from the rich. North Viet Nam took wealth away from 'the rich' of South Viet Nam. In Chile, communist protesters took wealth away from 'the rich' and nationalize companies. The results of all these experiments were: Failures.

Not only are you ignorant of the basics of communism but of history as well.

But it have Nothing related to Capitalist and Communist . USSR-CHina-VietNam were not communist nation and even untill now still not. It's simply the war against the invader- imperial USA

Don't try to forces Vn-USSR-China become Communist nations, we're not bcz we're not a rich industrialized nations .We just on the way to go to communist and unluckily USSR failed.

 

[gambit]

Why do I need protesters ??they're American , bro, I don't care. I just simply discuss about Capitalist and communist only , and I see a Protest against Wall st seem like Communist revolt base on Marx's theory, that's all


But it have Nothing related to Capitalist and Communist . USSR-CHina-VietNam were not communist nation and even untill now still not. It's simply the war against the invader- imperial USA

Don't try to forces Vn-USSR-China become Communist nations, we're not bcz we're not a rich industrialized nations .We just on the way to go to communist and unluckily USSR failed.

Right...So the best defense for communism that ANY communist can bring to the table that is covered from edge to edge with the failed attempts at creating paradise is: They were not 'real' communist countries.

 

[Hussein]

Right...So the best defense for communism that ANY communist can bring to the table that is covered from edge to edge with the failed attempts at creating paradise is: They were not 'real' communist countries.

as explained by him, it can work only in industrialized country
so Marx was thinking it would happen in Western Europe
He never thought about Russia

 

[harpoon]

as explained by him, it can work only in industrialized country
so Marx was thinking it would happen in Western Europe
He never thought about Russia

Then why the hell are Communists are clinging on to relatively less industrialized countries like China & Vietnam knowing fully well that their ideology will not work there while none of the industrialized countries show any interest in going the Communist way.

 

[JustForFun]

Can you show everyone where does it say a functional democracy is restricted to only two parties?

English is not my native language but I thought it was very clear I did not say a functional democracy is restricted to 2 parties, nor claimed anyone else say it. So what part of my comment are you having a problem with?

More like those who yearn for a single party system, would you matter at all?

Look at the machinations of the American 2 party system. The choise is party A of party B. A vote on any other party is wasted the way elections are set up.
Politician of party A: "politician of party B is a gay!".
Politician of party B: "I'm not gay, he is gay!"
Politician of party A: "I want to propose a new law"
Politician of party B: "I'm against it. Don't know what you proposed but since it is you that proposed it, I'm against it!"
And this ladies and gentlemen is a multi billion circus that comes to you every 4 years for presidential elections and multiple times for congressional elections.
So yes, there are some advantages to a single party system as opposed to a 2 party system as seen in a lot of anlo-saxon countries.
Want to have your voice heard in single party systems? Become member of that party. Your voice has the weight of almost nill, but so does it in a 2 party system.
Want to have real democracy? Split all those countries in city states and now you can have real democracy with real influence.
All other forms will dilute the weight of your vote to almost none.
A 2 party system as seen in the us, is just like a single party system but with the added cost of the media circus and the lack of decision making if the parties are equal in size.

 

[Hussein]

Then why the hell are Communists are clinging on to relatively less industrialized countries like China & Vietnam knowing fully well that their ideology will not work there while none of the industrialized countries show any interest in going the Communist way.

they are two different subjects
i am just saying the Marx thought about it would be in Western

Why it didnd't work in Europe? i guess there could be many reasons. i am sure there are references on the net you can find but what i believe:
world war II put a front between west and east and USA considered soviet to be the ennemy
communists in western countries were controlled activities
as well the dictatorship and the bloody wars of soviets and all dictators worldwide helped by them: they didn't help to make it popular
here they say it was not communism. but still people think in western society (i mean most people) that it was miss of communism (ideology, economy)

 

[gambit]

English is not my native language but I thought it was very clear I did not say a functional democracy is restricted to 2 parties, nor claimed anyone else say it. So what part of my comment are you having a problem with?

Look at the machinations of the American 2 party system. The choise is party A of party B. A vote on any other party is wasted the way elections are set up.
Politician of party A: "politician of party B is a gay!".
Politician of party B: "I'm not gay, he is gay!"
Politician of party A: "I want to propose a new law"
Politician of party B: "I'm against it. Don't know what you proposed but since it is you that proposed it, I'm against it!"
And this ladies and gentlemen is a multi billion circus that comes to you every 4 years for presidential elections and multiple times for congressional elections.
So yes, there are some advantages to a single party system as opposed to a 2 party system as seen in a lot of anlo-saxon countries.
Want to have your voice heard in single party systems? Become member of that party. Your voice has the weight of almost nill, but so does it in a 2 party system.
Want to have real democracy? Split all those countries in city states and now you can have real democracy with real influence.
All other forms will dilute the weight of your vote to almost none.
A 2 party system as seen in the us, is just like a single party system but with the added cost of the media circus and the lack of decision making if the parties are equal in size.

Everything. Yours is not any credible criticisms of how functional democracies develop the different mechanisms that each believe is appropriate for their needs. Yours is nothing more than a mindless rant more of your dissatisfaction with the belief that you do not matter than of any real understanding of democracy in general. Am willing to bet you do not even know why, despite the diverse opinions in America, we have a two-party system. See if you can find out why, then I will take you seriously.

 

[NiceGuy]

Then why the hell are Communists are clinging on to relatively less industrialized countries like China & Vietnam knowing fully well that their ideology will not work there while none of the industrialized countries show any interest in going the Communist way.

Bcz USSR helped liberating countries dominated by those greedy Western colony .you can see how USSR help China-N.Korea-VietNam-Cuba etc....we did not have independence that time , and we needed USSR support.

USSR also wanted to expand her influent to ASian to counter NATO-US also

as explained by him, it can work only in industrialized country
so Marx was thinking it would happen in Western Europe
He never thought about Russia

Correct bro, that why Marx thought it would happen in UK first ^^

 

[gambit]

Then why the hell are Communists are clinging on to relatively less industrialized countries like China & Vietnam knowing fully well that their ideology will not work there while none of the industrialized countries show any interest in going the Communist way.

Communism will not evolve from industrialized countries because what we are seeing in the US and Europe are not real capitalism. We must have real capitalism first before we can evolve into real communism. See how that 'real' argument can work both ways...???

 

[Hussein]

Communism will not evolve from industrialized countries because what we are seeing in the US and Europe are not real capitalism. We must have real capitalism first before we can evolve into real communism. See how that 'real' argument can work both ways...???

the reason is that you don't understand the ideas of Marx
read him then comment

capitalism? they are, as you know i am sure, many ideas in capitalism
Democrats and the Death of Keynesian Economics | Truthout
i was listening a discussion about it not long time ago here.. about the liberal anti keynesian
so yes they are many kind of capitalism policy