I think part of it is that they can actually do anything long-term. Even the most altruistic president in for example the US will get four, at most eight years to do what they’re planning. That’s not enough time to do anything meaningful, all the while they’re dealing with flak from the consequences of the last presidency, and their successor will at best take credit for their achievements, at worst destroy them before they succeed. And that’s assuming the citizens didn’t elect a self-serving megalomaniac.
Winnie the pooh, I’m pretty sure, actually cares about his country. He’s by no means benevolent, but he has the power, resources, and time to build proper infrastructure and reshape the country as he sees fit.
Socially they’re way behind from what I, as an outsider, can tell. Women’s rights at least seem somewhat acceptable with definite room for improvement, but queer rights are even worse. Oh and there’s a literal genocide of Uyghurs so that’s pretty fucking bad.
But the benefits of China’s dictatorship lie in the fact that they can actually think in the long-term and not just until the next election (the politician’s equivalent of the next financial quarter) so they can wield their powers and resources to achieve these goals. The glorious leader must be praised for centuries to come, that can’t happen if the earth becomes uninhabitable due to climate change or the country crumbles in on itself due to failing education and a failing economy.
I’m not American, but my understanding of the system is that the long term plan for the country isn’t meant to be set by the president, but by the legislature - passing laws and creating federal bodies that steer the country.
Instead, there’s absolutely no laws being agreed upon, only presidents that try to impose their view for a while until they’re replaced by whoever’s next who then breaks everything.
The courts are then thrown on to the spotlight and asked by the country to fill up a role who’s not actually theirs, and I don’t even want to go into the issues with appointment of judges.
Not that the system in China is any better, they just happen to have a guy who’s ruthless enough to hold onto power with no opposition, and seems to actually care about his country - but he isn’t gonna last for ever, and there’s zero guarantee that the power struggles after he’s gone won’t tear the country to shreds, or that the next up isn’t a fucked up moron like the orange…
I also with two of you. I also think, personally, that us, humans, are really bad at taking decisions.
We are not seeing the long term vision of things or the whole. Someone having a lot of resources will not be eager to share those with its less fortunate neighbor. In the US, doing so would be called socialism. On the long term it would be the most profitable option for everyone though.
Governments in democracies should totally have those steering bodies composed of people having a long term vision of things. Maybe engineers, scientists, lawyers… But also with objectiveness about matters presented to them.
That vision cans be projected in dictatorships but you are right. The whole thing will crumble when the person at the top will die. Be it a king, president or anyone else at a position of power being nearly venerated.
I would support a mix of both personally. A government represented by its institutions and not people. Taking information from the population itself and processing happening at the top. Information is a weapon by itself too, many insider groups would try to steer the whole or a part of it for themselves and profit from it.
The human component is a variable component here. It seems there is no outcome to that equation as long humans aren’t aware how people are different around them and accept those differences. Plus being able to share when one as a lot and another nothing.
I think part of it is that they can actually do anything long-term. Even the most altruistic president in for example the US will get four, at most eight years to do what they’re planning. That’s not enough time to do anything meaningful, all the while they’re dealing with flak from the consequences of the last presidency, and their successor will at best take credit for their achievements, at worst destroy them before they succeed. And that’s assuming the citizens didn’t elect a self-serving megalomaniac.
Winnie the pooh, I’m pretty sure, actually cares about his country. He’s by no means benevolent, but he has the power, resources, and time to build proper infrastructure and reshape the country as he sees fit.
Socially they’re way behind from what I, as an outsider, can tell. Women’s rights at least seem somewhat acceptable with definite room for improvement, but queer rights are even worse. Oh and there’s a literal genocide of Uyghurs so that’s pretty fucking bad.
But the benefits of China’s dictatorship lie in the fact that they can actually think in the long-term and not just until the next election (the politician’s equivalent of the next financial quarter) so they can wield their powers and resources to achieve these goals. The glorious leader must be praised for centuries to come, that can’t happen if the earth becomes uninhabitable due to climate change or the country crumbles in on itself due to failing education and a failing economy.
Now if only that applied to citizen’s rights…
Yeah, I agree with all of your points.
I’m not American, but my understanding of the system is that the long term plan for the country isn’t meant to be set by the president, but by the legislature - passing laws and creating federal bodies that steer the country.
Instead, there’s absolutely no laws being agreed upon, only presidents that try to impose their view for a while until they’re replaced by whoever’s next who then breaks everything.
The courts are then thrown on to the spotlight and asked by the country to fill up a role who’s not actually theirs, and I don’t even want to go into the issues with appointment of judges.
Not that the system in China is any better, they just happen to have a guy who’s ruthless enough to hold onto power with no opposition, and seems to actually care about his country - but he isn’t gonna last for ever, and there’s zero guarantee that the power struggles after he’s gone won’t tear the country to shreds, or that the next up isn’t a fucked up moron like the orange…
I also with two of you. I also think, personally, that us, humans, are really bad at taking decisions.
We are not seeing the long term vision of things or the whole. Someone having a lot of resources will not be eager to share those with its less fortunate neighbor. In the US, doing so would be called socialism. On the long term it would be the most profitable option for everyone though.
Governments in democracies should totally have those steering bodies composed of people having a long term vision of things. Maybe engineers, scientists, lawyers… But also with objectiveness about matters presented to them.
That vision cans be projected in dictatorships but you are right. The whole thing will crumble when the person at the top will die. Be it a king, president or anyone else at a position of power being nearly venerated.
I would support a mix of both personally. A government represented by its institutions and not people. Taking information from the population itself and processing happening at the top. Information is a weapon by itself too, many insider groups would try to steer the whole or a part of it for themselves and profit from it.
The human component is a variable component here. It seems there is no outcome to that equation as long humans aren’t aware how people are different around them and accept those differences. Plus being able to share when one as a lot and another nothing.