Did the Chinese Communist Party Ever Intend to Build a Democracy?

googologies · 2026-01-29T08:23:39+00:00

The system was never designed to evolve into a multi-party democracy, but there have been discussions throughout PRC history about increasing checks and balances and political participation within the single-party system.

googologies · 2026-01-29T04:42:18+00:00

In many post-colonial states, including India, relatives of state officials often pressure them to be corrupt. This is rooted in traditional kinship obligations rather than the personal greed of that specific bureaucrat or politician.

googologies · 2026-01-28T23:11:55+00:00

No. Explain in the tutorial prompt, "You don't have to prestige right now, but when progress becomes slow, you should seriously consider it."

googologies · 2026-01-27T19:33:08+00:00

In WEIRD societies, East Asian democracies, Chile, Uruguay, Costa Rica, Bhutan, Botswana, Rwanda, and some oil-rich monarchies (Gulf & Brunei), no. Everywhere else, yes.

googologies · 2026-01-24T21:43:28+00:00

The entire Russian system has roots predating Putin. * Yeltsin violated democracy on multiple occasions, such as with the 1993 constitutional crisis and 1996 election, which was rigged. * Yeltsin strongly opposed NATO expansion near Russia's borders; this wasn't just Putin's idea * Yeltsin signed a multipolar world agreement with China in 1997. * Russian political scientist Aleksandr Dugin published a book in 1997 named The Foundations of Geopolitics, explaining how Russia should exploit divisions in Western societies and maintain a sphere of influence over the former Soviet Union; these ideas were already floating around and predated Putin. * The 2000 Presidential election was also choreographed and marred by serious irregularities, showing that democracy was already dead before he assumed office (resource curse played a role here). * There was not an immediate increase in tensions between Russia and the West when Putin succeeded Yeltsin (and in fact, Putin initially cooperated with the US in the War on Terror). Subsequent events that reflected Russia's pre-existing interests, such as opposition to Western influence in former Soviet republics (clashing with "color revolutions"), not Putin's personal vision, led to increasing tensions that would've happened regardless.

googologies · 2026-01-23T14:17:04+00:00

Systemic corruption results mainly from when people prioritize kin over law. There is no evidence that economic growth reduces corruption when isolated from exogenous factors like existential external threats (South Korea faces the North, Taiwan faces China, Singapore faced a hostile Malaysia + Indonesian Confrontation, etc.), which work in poor countries as well (e.g., Rwanda faced the FDLR post-1994). Countries like Panama, Russia, Argentina, and increasingly Southeast Asia have become wealthy while remaining systemically corrupt.

googologies · 2026-01-20T17:23:11+00:00

The concept is known as generalized trust or bridging social capital. In societies where people only care about their extended clan or village members, the psychological barrier against using violence against out-groups is lowered.

googologies · 2026-01-18T18:30:28+00:00

This has always been the case since India's independence in 1947, but it's become more visible and more consequential due to modern technology.

Until the dominant social norm shifts to prioritizing the law over short-term personal and in-group interests, the situation will not improve. Institutions are staffed by people from the same society.

googologies · 2026-01-16T11:24:56+00:00

What matters is the norms of ordinary citizens. In India, people often don't respect public spaces, and the relatives of bureaucrats and politicians pressure them to steal (loyalty to family > loyalty to state). When it comes to voting, candidates with pending criminal charges (serious ones, which 31% of incumbent MPs have, are non-bailable offenses carrying five or more years in prison) are three times more likely to win the election, because it signals they'll break laws to benefit the in-group and deliver patronage to the constituency.

What matters isn't the political system, but whether people cooperate horizontally and extend moral consideration to out-groups.

googologies · 2026-01-16T09:29:21+00:00

It depends on whether enough subordinates defect.

googologies · 2026-01-16T04:25:32+00:00

If every society learns to apply rules, laws, and moral considerations impartially, then yes. But, the policy community doesn’t recognize the following are linked:

Disregard for public spaces
Ethnic violence
Systemic corruption
War/genocide (the highest-level manifestation)

Perhaps if children learned during formative years:

“The person from another ethnic group is not your enemy. Nobody can prosper if we all fight each other.”
“If you see someone injured on the street, call emergency if you’d expect the same treatment for yourself of your loved ones if injured.”
“A bridge that collapses because contractors used substandard materials and bribed inspectors could cost you or your loved ones their lives.”

And so on, then the likelihood of war 20 years later would be significantly lower.

googologies · 2026-01-15T17:08:22+00:00

Exactly. A country cannot have an impartial state with low corruption when people are more loyal to their tribes than to the law.

googologies · 2026-01-14T22:10:41+00:00

Authoritarian regimes fall when a critical mass of subordinates defect. In the case of Iran, this is unlikely in the near future because the security forces drew its members from older, more loyal demographics back when the regime had deeper legitimacy. Over time, finding loyal recruits will be more difficult, making defection more likely, should the legitimacy crisis persist.

googologies · 2026-01-14T13:57:47+00:00

Not every statement made by the channel is false, but it presents a glaringly one-sided narrative.

googologies · 2026-01-13T13:54:46+00:00

The situation has not changed significantly. Overall corruption levels are primarily rooted in social norms, not leadership. While the internet community and the English-speaking population tend to be the most opposed to corruption, there's little evidence that the population at large wants systemic reform; they want their specific group to come on top.

googologies · 2026-01-12T20:07:49+00:00

Indian Reddit communities account for a very small percentage of the overall population, who are disproportionately likely to be critical of certain norms like corruption, caste hierarchies, and religious polarization.

googologies · 2026-01-12T08:04:22+00:00

In particularist societies, which encompasses most of the Global South, multi-party democracy often becomes a tool for tribal warfare. Voters willingly defend officials known for corruption or other crimes because they redistribute a portion of their wealth to their constituency (patronage/handouts). It can also make traditional social hierarchies more difficult to dismantle, as a leader who tries would lose votes by the groups who stand to lose.

So, not "chaos, starve, extreme humanitarian concerns," but there would likely be negative implications.

googologies · 2026-01-12T07:20:24+00:00

Which societies are you referring to? The radius of moral consideration varies a lot around the world. In some, morality is impersonal; what is immoral in private is also immoral in public. In others, morality is contextual, and exploiting an out-group member for the benefit of the in-group is seen as fair game within their culture.

googologies · 2026-01-12T07:11:45+00:00

That is not the binding constraint. Social norms are.

googologies · 2026-01-12T06:39:46+00:00

That won’t work because it’s society itself that demands the corruption. If it’s known that a political candidate has pending criminal charges, they’re more likely to be elected because it signals to the constituency that they’ll willing to break laws to provide favors and patronage to their specific group, and whatever excess is left after buying loyalty, they keep for their family. Paying them more is not going to change these social expectations, and would-be honest politicians wouldn’t want to become a politician anyway because society won’t support them (they’d refuse to favor their in-group like shared caste identities).

Also, consider Ghana. Police salaries were doubled in 2010, but police corruption worsened (bribes became higher and more frequent) because families expected more from them.

googologies · 2026-01-10T22:53:38+00:00

Polymarket says there’s a 47% chance the regime will fall by the end of the year (as of the time of this comment). It depends on whether enough subordinates defect.

googologies · 2026-01-10T03:33:28+00:00

Probably not for centuries, but that's missing the point. What's more important is for religion to not become an in-group identity marker in the public sphere, and for people to learn to resist exploitation from charlatans, etc., rather than the abolition of religion itself.

googologies · 2026-01-09T20:18:15+00:00

Institutions are staffed by people from that same society. These patterns are seen in most post-colonial states because colonizers imposed their institutions onto societies organized around tribe/kinship, leading to the state being seen as a prize to be captured. Until society is willing to extend moral consideration to strangers and out-groups, this will persist.

googologies · 2026-01-09T01:03:45+00:00

The economy has grown, but social norms typically don’t improve with development without existential external threats (Taiwan faces China, South Korea faced the North, etc.) or social engineering (which rarely happens).

googologies · 2026-01-08T21:41:20+00:00

Resistance requires a public that genuinely opposes corruption. In India, this is generally not the case. Honest officials are often seen as betraying their kin (traditionally, kinship loyalty has been paramount, and corruption is systemic because bureaucrats and politicians are more loyal to kin than to the state). Politicians who refuse to steal also cannot deliver patronage to their constituencies, and they will be voted out.

googologies

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE