What about the UK and Australia?
- Posts
- 1
- Comments
- 243
- Joined
- 5 mo. ago
- Posts
- 1
- Comments
- 243
- Joined
- 5 mo. ago
Your entire argument hinges on it just not being necessary, but you've never provided a reason beyond "well what if they're doing a good job"?
Right that is the reason.
You've a great case for why we do need a variety of structures to check one person obtaining too much power, but you're arguing against term limits because "what if one person happens to be really good at their job?"
Those structures are still there. You haven't given a reason why term limits are also one of those necessary structures.
You're not engaging with the answer here, which has been repeatedly given (arguably by marx) but I'll happily reiterate it in more plain language: "no one person is so good at their job that they should be unwilling to step down from power".
But that's the thing. He CAN step down. That's what I've been saying. He got into his position from the assembly who voted him in. If he starts being shit at his job the same assembly that voted him in will vote him out.
Nobody is so unique that an equally competent person cannot be found - but many people are so corrupt that they will remain in power as long as possible unless there are hard checks to prevent them from doing so.
You're assuming that being in power is the problem when the problem is abusing power. Xi can't do literally whatever they hell he wants. He can't pass the "give me the power to do literally whatever I want" law and if he for whatever reason tried to be a dick he would be replaced.
Term limits aren't necessary. We don't have term limits for anything else. If someone is doing a good job doing whatever that means they should keep doing their job. The instant they stop doing their job that's when you replace them. Not just replace them every few years because someone else might be able to do that job just as good.
Buy me a plane ticket to China and I'll do it.
Even countries that have term limits don't give all the power to whoever is in charge. If they did then that person could just declare there being no more term limits and themselves the god emperor or whatever to start abusing their power. It's not like the thought to abuse power never crosses someone's mind until after they've been in charge for 6 years so if we replace them before that happens we prevent people abusing power. They can't do that because they can't. There are already structures in place that prevent abusing power. Things like distributing power across multiple people and only being in charge of what's necessary. Things like a constitution, things like a senate, having a process for laws to be reviewed and signed off before they can be put into effect.
No that's a separate role. That's power he has because he's in charge of the military. Every country has a guy in charge of the military is that guy the dictator of every country?
Yes it is.
Those structures can still exist without term limits. The power can lay in the hands of the people who put that person into power. The same people who went "this guy's good at his job we should have him leading things" are the exact same people who can go "hang on this guy is no longer doing a good job leading things, let's replace him".
he has real, actual, abusable power and democratic systems must limit any person's access to abusable power, even if you believe there hasn't been abuse yet.
This is the key part about what I'm saying. People are assuming Xi has absolute power when he doesn't. His role in the assembly is basically being the figurehead. It's the assembly that has power and passes laws and shit. But because its politics people use the no term limits thing as evidence that his power is absolute but they're wrong. That's why I used the grocer example. No one behaves this way with any other scenario but because it's politics that must mean he's a dictator and not that hey maybe if he's doing a good job running the assembly the assembly should keep him in charge instead of swapping him for someone else to do the exact same shit. If it ain't broke don't fix it.
So when I say term limits aren't necessary if the people have the power and therefore the same power putting someone into a role is the same power that can remove them, your response is "but what if people don't have power". If they don't have power then they don't have power. You didn't address what I said.
You're seriously arguing that *cronyism is a self-correcting system?
Could you please explain to me how you managed to get that from what I said?
People do have power. That's literally what China does. The assembly holds all the power and there's like 2000 members. So they have a guy be the leader to keep things organised. Xi Jinping doesn't have the power to do whatever he wants he just has the power to guide 2000 people in a room so you don't have 2000 people all arguing over each other.
I agree it's stupid to say "let's give one guy all the power to literally do whatever he wants" but that isn't the case here. You also can't give all the power to someone in countries with term limits. There's checks and balances in place like having a congress or whatever. It's not like countries with new presidents every few years hand over the keys to the entire country and the president can do whatever the fuck he wants like madating everyone who meets him has to suck him off and the only thing that stops him becoming a full blown dictator and declaring that actually there will be no more elections is that humans are stupid and the thought to do that only crosses a presidents mind after 6 years and this is circumvented by replacing him with a new guy before that happens.
Those same checks and balances that exist in other countries also exist in China. Government power exists in the hands of the assembly not the president. Xi Jinping can't do whatever the fuck he wants he just the team leader.
You're just assuming because they don't have term limits that means they give one guy literally all the power and let him do whatever he wants and they all have to listen to him. Again this is the equivalent of seeing the same person at the grocery counter as last week and screaming at them calling them a dictator. When they're just in charge of scanning your items and the same power that put them in charge of that role can take them out of that rule of they start being shit at their job. Well actually this analogy runs thin when you bring up that you can't change who your boss is but that's not my point.
Honey you're the one who's brainwashed. That's what's leaving you with racist shit like "oh there's billions of asians who support their government. Can't be they actually support their government, they must all be stupid or something".
Like you're literally calling the guy winnie the pooh because you think if you hold up a picture of a cartoon you'll get disappeared. You're straight up living in la la land.
Those structures can still exist without term limits. The power can lay in the hands of the people who put that person into power. The same people who went "this guy's good at his job we should have him leading things" are the exact same people who can go "hang on this guy is no longer doing a good job leading things, let's replace him".
Because exceptionalism is a poison regardless of your political philosophy - other people can do an equally good job.
If someone else can do the job equally as well, why must they also do it? So someone can do a thing and someone else can they must swap roles every now and then just because?
Why is it necessary for power to be held by a singular person for so long?
Why is it necessary for a role to be changed on some arbitrary basis?
If I go to the grocery and see the same person running the counter. Am I supposed to go "um excuse me, but you were here last week, and someone equally qualified needs to have a turn"?
China is getting more capitalist day by day.
What are they doing that makes them a capitalist country? As in run by capitalists not a capitalist mode of production.
They also do trade with israel
Yes and that's bad.
- You're delusional
No u
- Your entire belief here relies on the good intentions of the CCP to willingly give up power to the proletariat one day.
The proletariat are IN POWER. How do explain billionaires getting executed for committing crimes as opposed to a slap on the wrist and loads of photos of then celebrating it up with other asshole rich politicians? That's not a capitalist country where capitalists are in charge of the government, that's a government run by the people in charge of the capitalists.
Things like Tianamen Square or Hong Kong prove they're only going to ever want to remain as the autocratic dictators they are, thus abandoning socialism/communism.
You're just deep throating western propaganda. If a country was actually a dictatorship and an enemy of the west it would be described as a dictatorship, and if it wasn't a dictatorship, it would still be described as a dictatorship. So you've actually got to do a little more thinking and research into the topic instead of parroting what you heard from western media. Like the Tiananmen square protest where people where straight up lynching cops and setting ablaze military vehicles. But I suppose you only understand it as the place where people were squashed by tanks running everyone over even though the famous tankman pictures comes from a video of tanks leaving the square where this supposed massacre happened. Tanks that apparently had just got done squishing hundreds of people suddenly stopping for one guy and letting that one guy climb up top of a tank, talk to the guy inside it, and leave. You even bring up Hong Kong for fucks sakes. As EVIDENCE. A straight up colony being returned is evidence in your eyes of a country being an autocratic dictatorship. You are not someone who knows anything about China. You were told China was bad because of western propaganda and believed that completely and so literally anything China does is evidence for it. Xi Jinping could take a shit in the toilet tomorrow and if you were there to see it, you would take a photo of it and send it to me with a smug look on your face saying "see, I told you they were an autocratic dictatorship".
- You still don't understand what socialism nor communism is. I highly recommend you actually read the Communist Manifesto instead of whatever tankie bullshit you've been reading.
I really think you need a read of the communist manifesto. And don't stop there eitherm read up on some shit about China that doesn't involve western media intentionally villainising them. And read up on what imperialism is because...
- China is objectively imperial. Again and in no order: Vietnam, Taiwan, Tibet, Neo-Colonialism, Khemer Rouge (kinda mixes into Neo Colonialism), Kashmir, etc.
You clearly have no fucking clue what that is either. Imperialism is when profits can't be maintained at the rate they are under capitalism so the capitalist class resorts to measures like colonialism to expand markets and get access to cheaper resources which raises profits. Imperialism isn't just when a country does things I don't like. Like China attacking Vietnam was bad, but that was because of the sino-soviet split and China fearing a vietnam-soviet alliance not imperialism. Tibet was a part of China, they were a literal slave state and now they enjoy the same rights as everyone else does in China.
And Taiwan. Oh my god I can't dude. You're killing me. Taiwan is an example of Chinese imperialism??? My guy Taiwan exists because of a civil war that never ended. Not just any civil war either but one where one side was communist. In your enlightened "umm I think you need to read the communist manifesto buddy" eyes if a civil war erupts in a country because communists what a communist government, then that makes them imperialist. Wow.
Saying a billion people are actually all just brainwashed is racist cope.
Congress, which has over 1000 members is the one in charge of China and that's pretty tricky to deal with so it's no wonder they appoint someone to be the leader to keep things organised.
They aren't against the concept of having pets themselves they just don't like that pets are specifically bred for domestication when millions of pets are put down in shelters because they couldn't find homes.
https://www.peta.org/about-peta/why-peta/pets/
And sheep do get hurt being shared because the industry focuses on the end result of as many fleeces as fast as possible rather than the well being of the animals not to mention the fact they have to be shared or else they overheat because we bred them into wool producing machines.
https://www.peta.org/issues/animals-used-for-clothing/wool-industry/
Peta very much are what they say they are. There's just a lot of smear campaigns at them because "haha these crazy vegoons say they're against animal cruelty but they actually kill heaps of animals themselves" is a narrative that drives engagement.