I canāt even imagine the depths of arrogance necessary to say this. Youāre so convinced youāre right, so dogmatic in your belief that reformism is a realistic strategy, that your first response to a person doubting its possibility is to question their vocabulary. Itās almost funny.
Ok, Iām very sorry. I somehow read the comment as āTo me, whatās utopic is reformism doing something, but sliding back to where it startedā and that was clearly someone that didnāt know āutopicā means something that would be good if achievable. Iāve argued with a lot of people with vocabulary issues so I erroneously assumed the worst, my mistake.
The Chinese revolution achieved proletarian rule through the Mass Line.
Thatās still not the Proletariat in charge. Thatās one single person in power, which may or may not accept suggestions from the Proletariat filtered through his cadres who are all trained to follow his ideals. If the entire population decided Mao had to die, he still wouldnāt have killed himself. Thatās not what ābeing in chargeā means.
Itās aimed at it, but it will be woefully ineffective. Donāt get me wrong, if itās proposed, Iād back it. Iām for the idea, not against it. But if you think the bourgeois state will allow a genuinely radical party into the system, youāre living in a dreamland.
It canāt be ineffective at bringing democracy. In that utopic hypothesis that a coup in the US actually happens and the new government is all on board with making RCV work, thereās nothing stopping democracy from doing its course.
But letās not forget that this was all a gigantic what-if to explain what would have to happen to actually have an option thatās better than āvote for Least Bad Partyā, I donāt think itās feasible either.
Thatās still not the Proletariat in charge. Thatās one single person in power, which may or may not accept suggestions from the Proletariat filtered through his cadres who are all trained to follow his ideals.
You donāt know what the Mass Line is, then. Just google it.
In that utopic hypothesis that a coup in the US actually happens and the new government is all on board with making RCV work, thereās nothing stopping democracy from doing its course.
Yes there is. The exact thing thatās stopping it now: the neoliberal capitalist state. Changing how you vote for bourgeois parties doesnāt change the fact that you are voting for bourgeois parties.
If you want to get rid of the corruption that erodes our democracy, you have to get money out of politics. And to do that, you have to get rid of capitalism.
You donāt know what the Mass Line is, then. Just google it.
Thatās exactly what I did. One thing is what the Mass Line is in theory, and another is how it was executed. Again, if the entire population decided Mao had to die, he wouldnāt have cared. He always was the final judge of every decision. Link me to a better source if you think that isnāt true, but considering all the dissidents he had to murder, I donāt think he was that popular among the whole country.
Yes there is. The exact thing thatās stopping it now: the neoliberal capitalist state. Changing how you vote for bourgeois parties doesnāt change the fact that you are voting for bourgeois parties.
Iām saying you overthrow the entire political class. The hypothetical resulting state would allow radical parties in the RCV pool, because it is only composed of people whose goal is to have the masses actually vote for what they want.
Iām not a native speaker so itās probably my fault, but I read the first 4/5 pages plus the titles of every section and I didnāt really get which part is supposed to refute my assumption. If you can point me to a specific section that details how the interests of the masses are obtained and conveyed to authorities Iād appreciate it.
Yes, and Iām saying this is politically naive
Again, itās a hypothetical, it wasnāt meant to be realistic. And why would your idea be able to work if it involves an even deeper change in the system?
The core function of the mass line is to the masses, from the masses, back to the masses.
The party take the peopleās ideas, try to turn those ideas into policies, and present these policies to the people. The people voice their opinions on the policies, and these new ideas are taken and systematised into new policies. On an on, with the ideas becoming more correct with time.
The revolutionary approach is more likely because it is more democratic (it is literally from the people) and precisely because it is a more fundamental change to the system. It is the system that is the problem, and it was designed to oppress the working class.
It doesnāt matter who you put in charge of a system designed to oppress. Unless that person then goes on to invite a popular revolt to overthrow the state in the peopleās own interests, the system will not allow itself to be fundamentally challenged. And how likely will it be for a leader to incite a revolt against themselves? Not very. But the Mass Line indeed allows that, and in facy invited it. Withon the Mass Line there is possibility for the people to ābombard the headquarters of the Communist Partyā, in Maoās own words, of the party ever loses touch with its people.
Iāve read the basics on how the mass line is supposed to work, but how does it actually work? What does it mean ātake the peopleās ideasā, through which means does that happen? Because Xi Jingpin is also applying the mass line according to him, but the people are clearly not happy with it.
What does it mean ātake the peopleās ideasā, through which means does that happen?
Just speaking to them. Ask thrm what their concerns are and how they feel they should be addressed. Then try to draw up plans to address them, present these plans, and repeat the process.
Hereās a research paper that explores its evolution from Mao to today:
Just speaking to them. Ask thrm what their concerns are and how they feel they should be addressed. Then try to draw up plans to address them, present these plans, and repeat the process.
That doesnāt really answer my questions. First, Mao definitely didnāt do that by himself, so he mustāve had an array of people to do that. Are these not the cadres I was talking about earlier?
And then, what do you mean āspeaking to themā? Did those people go door-to-door and ask for every single citizenās opinion? Did they have organized meetings? Itās not really clear in anything Iāve read.
Hereās a research paper that explores its evolution from Mao to today:
That doesnāt really paint it in a good light. Just the fact that a party is āauthoritarianā means thereās authorities that enforce strict rules from above, that are not to be challenged by the people. Itās after Maoās death, but it says Deng also employed āmass movementsā, and then when talking about Tiananmen Square protests it says āDeng and other party members viewed compromise with protestors as
untenable, as it could lead to the weakening of the nationās foundational principles, and more
importantly to the CCPās loss of complete control over the nationā. That does NOT sound like a government that listens to the will of its people.
Ok, Iām very sorry. I somehow read the comment as āTo me, whatās utopic is reformism doing something, but sliding back to where it startedā and that was clearly someone that didnāt know āutopicā means something that would be good if achievable. Iāve argued with a lot of people with vocabulary issues so I erroneously assumed the worst, my mistake.
Thatās still not the Proletariat in charge. Thatās one single person in power, which may or may not accept suggestions from the Proletariat filtered through his cadres who are all trained to follow his ideals. If the entire population decided Mao had to die, he still wouldnāt have killed himself. Thatās not what ābeing in chargeā means.
It canāt be ineffective at bringing democracy. In that utopic hypothesis that a coup in the US actually happens and the new government is all on board with making RCV work, thereās nothing stopping democracy from doing its course.
But letās not forget that this was all a gigantic what-if to explain what would have to happen to actually have an option thatās better than āvote for Least Bad Partyā, I donāt think itās feasible either.
You donāt know what the Mass Line is, then. Just google it.
Yes there is. The exact thing thatās stopping it now: the neoliberal capitalist state. Changing how you vote for bourgeois parties doesnāt change the fact that you are voting for bourgeois parties.
If you want to get rid of the corruption that erodes our democracy, you have to get money out of politics. And to do that, you have to get rid of capitalism.
Thatās exactly what I did. One thing is what the Mass Line is in theory, and another is how it was executed. Again, if the entire population decided Mao had to die, he wouldnāt have cared. He always was the final judge of every decision. Link me to a better source if you think that isnāt true, but considering all the dissidents he had to murder, I donāt think he was that popular among the whole country.
Iām saying you overthrow the entire political class. The hypothetical resulting state would allow radical parties in the RCV pool, because it is only composed of people whose goal is to have the masses actually vote for what they want.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/188965
Yes, and Iām saying this is politically naive
Iām not a native speaker so itās probably my fault, but I read the first 4/5 pages plus the titles of every section and I didnāt really get which part is supposed to refute my assumption. If you can point me to a specific section that details how the interests of the masses are obtained and conveyed to authorities Iād appreciate it.
Again, itās a hypothetical, it wasnāt meant to be realistic. And why would your idea be able to work if it involves an even deeper change in the system?
The core function of the mass line is to the masses, from the masses, back to the masses.
The party take the peopleās ideas, try to turn those ideas into policies, and present these policies to the people. The people voice their opinions on the policies, and these new ideas are taken and systematised into new policies. On an on, with the ideas becoming more correct with time.
The revolutionary approach is more likely because it is more democratic (it is literally from the people) and precisely because it is a more fundamental change to the system. It is the system that is the problem, and it was designed to oppress the working class.
It doesnāt matter who you put in charge of a system designed to oppress. Unless that person then goes on to invite a popular revolt to overthrow the state in the peopleās own interests, the system will not allow itself to be fundamentally challenged. And how likely will it be for a leader to incite a revolt against themselves? Not very. But the Mass Line indeed allows that, and in facy invited it. Withon the Mass Line there is possibility for the people to ābombard the headquarters of the Communist Partyā, in Maoās own words, of the party ever loses touch with its people.
Iāve read the basics on how the mass line is supposed to work, but how does it actually work? What does it mean ātake the peopleās ideasā, through which means does that happen? Because Xi Jingpin is also applying the mass line according to him, but the people are clearly not happy with it.
Just speaking to them. Ask thrm what their concerns are and how they feel they should be addressed. Then try to draw up plans to address them, present these plans, and repeat the process.
Hereās a research paper that explores its evolution from Mao to today:
Patriotism and the Mass Line: CCP Ideology from Mao to Xi https://research.library.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1118&context=international_senior
That doesnāt really answer my questions. First, Mao definitely didnāt do that by himself, so he mustāve had an array of people to do that. Are these not the cadres I was talking about earlier?
And then, what do you mean āspeaking to themā? Did those people go door-to-door and ask for every single citizenās opinion? Did they have organized meetings? Itās not really clear in anything Iāve read.
That doesnāt really paint it in a good light. Just the fact that a party is āauthoritarianā means thereās authorities that enforce strict rules from above, that are not to be challenged by the people. Itās after Maoās death, but it says Deng also employed āmass movementsā, and then when talking about Tiananmen Square protests it says āDeng and other party members viewed compromise with protestors as untenable, as it could lead to the weakening of the nationās foundational principles, and more importantly to the CCPās loss of complete control over the nationā. That does NOT sound like a government that listens to the will of its people.