You're viewing part of a thread.
…you don’t know what utopic means, do you?
I can't even imagine the depths of arrogance necessary to say this. You're so convinced you're 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. It's almost funny.
Give me one example of a country that actually did that then. I’m curious.
The Chinese revolution achieved proletarian rule through the Mass Line.
…I’m literally saying that’s bad. Breaking the two-party system and implementing RCV is LITERALLY aimed at obtaining actual democracy instead of the farce we call so.
It's aimed at it, but it will be woefully ineffective. Don't get me wrong, if it's proposed, I'd back it. I'm for the idea, not against it. But if you think the bourgeois state will allow a genuinely radical party into the system, you're living in a dreamland.
But we don’t necessarily need communism to do that.
I'm not necessarily talking about communism.
I can’t even imagine the depths of arrogance necessary to say this. You’re so convinced you’re 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. It’s almost funny.
Ok, I’m very sorry. I somehow read the comment as “To me, what’s utopic is reformism doing something, but sliding back to where it started” and that was clearly someone that didn’t know “utopic” means something that would be good if achievable. I’ve 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.
That’s still not the Proletariat in charge. That’s 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 wouldn’t have killed himself. That’s not what “being in charge” means.
It’s aimed at it, but it will be woefully ineffective. Don’t get me wrong, if it’s proposed, I’d back it. I’m for the idea, not against it. But if you think the bourgeois state will allow a genuinely radical party into the system, you’re living in a dreamland.
It can’t 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, there’s nothing stopping democracy from doing its course.
But let’s not forget that this was all a gigantic what-if to explain what would have to happen to actually have an option that’s better than “vote for Least Bad Party”, I don’t think it’s feasible either.
That’s still not the Proletariat in charge. That’s 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 don't 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, there’s nothing stopping democracy from doing its course.
Yes there is. The exact thing that's stopping it now: the neoliberal capitalist state. Changing how you vote for bourgeois parties doesn't 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 don’t know what the Mass Line is, then. Just google it.
That’s 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 wouldn’t have cared. He always was the final judge of every decision. Link me to a better source if you think that isn’t true, but considering all the dissidents he had to murder, I don’t think he was that popular among the whole country.
Yes there is. The exact thing that’s stopping it now: the neoliberal capitalist state. Changing how you vote for bourgeois parties doesn’t change the fact that you are voting for bourgeois parties.
I’m 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.
Link me to a better source
https://www.jstor.org/stable/188965
I’m saying you overthrow the entire political class. The hypothetical resulting state would allow radical parties in the RCV pool
Yes, and I'm saying this is politically naive
I’m not a native speaker so it’s probably my fault, but I read the first 4/5 pages plus the titles of every section and I didn’t 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 I’d appreciate it.
Yes, and I’m saying this is politically naive
Again, it’s a hypothetical, it wasn’t 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 people's 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 doesn't 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 people's 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 "bombard the headquarters of the Communist Party", in Mao's own words, of the party ever loses touch with its people.
I’ve read the basics on how the mass line is supposed to work, but how does it actually work? What does it mean “take the people’s ideas”, 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 “take the people’s ideas”, 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.
Here's 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
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 doesn’t really answer my questions. First, Mao definitely didn’t do that by himself, so he must’ve had an array of people to do that. Are these not the cadres I was talking about earlier?
And then, what do you mean “speaking to them”? Did those people go door-to-door and ask for every single citizen’s opinion? Did they have organized meetings? It’s not really clear in anything I’ve read.
Here’s 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 doesn’t really paint it in a good light. Just the fact that a party is “authoritarian” means there’s authorities that enforce strict rules from above, that are not to be challenged by the people. It’s after Mao’s death, but it says Deng also employed “mass movements”, and then when talking about Tiananmen Square protests it says “Deng and other party members viewed compromise with protestors as untenable, as it could lead to the weakening of the nation's foundational principles, and more importantly to the CCP's loss of complete control over the nation”. That does NOT sound like a government that listens to the will of its people.