Holy shit you meant autocracy lmao. I wish I had half the ego you types do, to run my mouth about the governance of a specific country when I dont even know the difference between autocracy and aristrocracy. The hubris you have, goddamn. What a fucking idiot you are.
Anyway China is a democracy, one of very few in the modern world. People are elected on the basis of their merit, which is why you see most Chinese politicians arent lawyers from Ivy League schools, but people with real experience and more practically oriented educations. Because they’re actually elected, instead of hand-picked by a small group of rich people that then support them.
And these people are able to govern 1.4 billion in the largest socialist country in the world, as opposed to whatever anarchist tendency you subscribe to which can boast of… Probably a decent soup kitchen or some funny internet drama.
No aristocracy can coincide with nobility but the term itself just means a small privileged ruling class hold all the power. Yes in the middle ages this was inherited, but that’s not a requirement.
How I which what you say is true, that they had soviets or some form of direct representation. But like the west they have a ruling class. It’s just the CCP instead of bourgeois, though admittedly they strip away the pretensions of merrit by direct appointment. Workers at best have representations in the form of trade unions.
I’d cite some american university papers but you’d just call it propaganda. I which you could discard your rose tinted glasses and were able to criticise china. I mean their planned economy is way better than the west’s economy based on greed driven decisions. Nontheless the decisions are ultimately made by a ruling class.
“Aristrocracy” as a system of governance is one where a noble elite pass on government positions through inheritance.
In practical application this never has such a clean-cut look, just like every other structure of governance. “Democracy” means rulership of the people and yet no modern “democracy” has all people show up and all vote on everything.
A “monarchy” is a rule of a singular dictator who inherited the position, yet in practice every monarchy was not just one guy deciding everything with absolute power and the ability to discount other powerful nobles. Yet we still describe them as monarchies.
That actual aristocracies don’t fit neatly with the absolute description, does not mean that that is not what “aristrocracy” as a form of governance is.
Because yes, in practice, you had to become a noble somehow. And sometimes you didnt inherit stuff. Just like how in democracies functionaries aren’t directly elected and laws are passed by representatives rather than all the people and some of those representatives might not even be elected, yet we still designated the system as a democracy.
An aristrocracy is not just “a small ruling class holding all the power”. If that were the case then every parliamentary or representative democracy would be considered an aristrocracy. The inheritance of title and position is key, you absolute moron.
If you wanted something you could have made a very bad argument for oligarchy. But really you should just shut the fuck up on things you dont know and learn instead.
My response is far more civil and respectful than the initial comment or any of their responses. Civility and respect is not just tone, but also action, and goddamn it is disrespectful to show up and spread shit everywhere like they did. Have the basic decency to not run your mouth on things you have fuck all understanding of. Me responding to you like this is in fact because they broke rule 1.
Holy shit you meant autocracy lmao. I wish I had half the ego you types do, to run my mouth about the governance of a specific country when I dont even know the difference between autocracy and aristrocracy. The hubris you have, goddamn. What a fucking idiot you are.
Anyway China is a democracy, one of very few in the modern world. People are elected on the basis of their merit, which is why you see most Chinese politicians arent lawyers from Ivy League schools, but people with real experience and more practically oriented educations. Because they’re actually elected, instead of hand-picked by a small group of rich people that then support them.
And these people are able to govern 1.4 billion in the largest socialist country in the world, as opposed to whatever anarchist tendency you subscribe to which can boast of… Probably a decent soup kitchen or some funny internet drama.
No aristocracy can coincide with nobility but the term itself just means a small privileged ruling class hold all the power. Yes in the middle ages this was inherited, but that’s not a requirement.
How I which what you say is true, that they had soviets or some form of direct representation. But like the west they have a ruling class. It’s just the CCP instead of bourgeois, though admittedly they strip away the pretensions of merrit by direct appointment. Workers at best have representations in the form of trade unions.
I’d cite some american university papers but you’d just call it propaganda. I which you could discard your rose tinted glasses and were able to criticise china. I mean their planned economy is way better than the west’s economy based on greed driven decisions. Nontheless the decisions are ultimately made by a ruling class.
“Aristrocracy” as a system of governance is one where a noble elite pass on government positions through inheritance.
In practical application this never has such a clean-cut look, just like every other structure of governance. “Democracy” means rulership of the people and yet no modern “democracy” has all people show up and all vote on everything.
A “monarchy” is a rule of a singular dictator who inherited the position, yet in practice every monarchy was not just one guy deciding everything with absolute power and the ability to discount other powerful nobles. Yet we still describe them as monarchies.
That actual aristocracies don’t fit neatly with the absolute description, does not mean that that is not what “aristrocracy” as a form of governance is.
Because yes, in practice, you had to become a noble somehow. And sometimes you didnt inherit stuff. Just like how in democracies functionaries aren’t directly elected and laws are passed by representatives rather than all the people and some of those representatives might not even be elected, yet we still designated the system as a democracy.
An aristrocracy is not just “a small ruling class holding all the power”. If that were the case then every parliamentary or representative democracy would be considered an aristrocracy. The inheritance of title and position is key, you absolute moron.
If you wanted something you could have made a very bad argument for oligarchy. But really you should just shut the fuck up on things you dont know and learn instead.
Rule one please
The image does not load sadly :(
My response is far more civil and respectful than the initial comment or any of their responses. Civility and respect is not just tone, but also action, and goddamn it is disrespectful to show up and spread shit everywhere like they did. Have the basic decency to not run your mouth on things you have fuck all understanding of. Me responding to you like this is in fact because they broke rule 1.