My main reasons are they limit free speech/expression and they chose to centralize power instead of giving the power to the people, both in the government and in the workplace.
I’m a socialist myself, but a big part of the reason why I’m a socialist is I’m very anti-corruption. I believe that the centralization of power allows for corruption (and the passing of unjust laws) to occur, as we have seen in the USA and USSR especially, but also basically everywhere else on Earth throughout recorded human history.
The definition of socialism is defined as workers owning the means if production, which I interpret as workers also getting a say in how the means of production are handled. This idea is incompatible with centralizing power by the way I interpret the definition of socialism.
Basically, check out Richard Wolff, who is an economic historian and covers this topic very well.
Every society puts limit on freedom of speech and expression. There’s nothing unique about China in this regard. What makes you think that the west got this balance fundamentally right while everyone else got it wrong aside from the anchoring bias you experience by virtue of growing up in a particular society? It’s certainly clear that China’s approach results in far more social stability than western approach.
Also, the fact that you think China centralizes power instead of giving it to the people shows that you don’t actually understand how Chinese system works. I urge you to spend a bit of time educating yourself on a subject you’re stating opinions on here. Here’s a western article for you explaining that Chinese system actually encourages decentralized governance and grassroots organization. https://www.noemamag.com/what-the-west-misunderstands-about-power-in-china/
Meanwhile, corruption has little to do with centralization. Corruption comes from lack of means to hold people in authority
to account. This problem exists within flat structures just as much as it does in centralized ones. In fact, it can be far more pronounced in cases where there are no formal methods for creating power structures https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm
Also, centralization is not at odds with workers owning means of production in any way. That’s a really naive understanding of the problem. For example, you can have cooperative ownership of the industry where the workers are in control of how their workplaces operate, while having central governance structures that direct overall efforts to make sure they align with larger societal goals. These types of structures are necessary in large societies for the same reason complex organisms evolve things like nervous systems and brains. The brain doesn’t micromanage the function of the body, but rather focuses on the high level goals beneficial to the organism as a whole.
I’m also well familiar with Wolff, and he has lots good ideas. If you actually pay attention to what he says then you’ll see that he views Chinese system quite positively overall.
My main reasons are they limit free speech/expression and they chose to centralize power instead of giving the power to the people, both in the government and in the workplace.
I’m a socialist myself, but a big part of the reason why I’m a socialist is I’m very anti-corruption. I believe that the centralization of power allows for corruption (and the passing of unjust laws) to occur, as we have seen in the USA and USSR especially, but also basically everywhere else on Earth throughout recorded human history.
The definition of socialism is defined as workers owning the means if production, which I interpret as workers also getting a say in how the means of production are handled. This idea is incompatible with centralizing power by the way I interpret the definition of socialism.
Basically, check out Richard Wolff, who is an economic historian and covers this topic very well.
Every society puts limit on freedom of speech and expression. There’s nothing unique about China in this regard. What makes you think that the west got this balance fundamentally right while everyone else got it wrong aside from the anchoring bias you experience by virtue of growing up in a particular society? It’s certainly clear that China’s approach results in far more social stability than western approach.
Also, the fact that you think China centralizes power instead of giving it to the people shows that you don’t actually understand how Chinese system works. I urge you to spend a bit of time educating yourself on a subject you’re stating opinions on here. Here’s a western article for you explaining that Chinese system actually encourages decentralized governance and grassroots organization. https://www.noemamag.com/what-the-west-misunderstands-about-power-in-china/
Similarly, the government is also organized based on using grassroots structures as its foundation https://news.cgtn.com/event/2021/who-runs-the-cpc/index.html
Meanwhile, corruption has little to do with centralization. Corruption comes from lack of means to hold people in authority to account. This problem exists within flat structures just as much as it does in centralized ones. In fact, it can be far more pronounced in cases where there are no formal methods for creating power structures https://www.jofreeman.com/joreen/tyranny.htm
Also, centralization is not at odds with workers owning means of production in any way. That’s a really naive understanding of the problem. For example, you can have cooperative ownership of the industry where the workers are in control of how their workplaces operate, while having central governance structures that direct overall efforts to make sure they align with larger societal goals. These types of structures are necessary in large societies for the same reason complex organisms evolve things like nervous systems and brains. The brain doesn’t micromanage the function of the body, but rather focuses on the high level goals beneficial to the organism as a whole.
I’m also well familiar with Wolff, and he has lots good ideas. If you actually pay attention to what he says then you’ll see that he views Chinese system quite positively overall.