I don't see a problem with examinations existing for competency. Without it how do you ensure that the committees are elevating people based on merit?
I don't see it as a restriction on who you can vote for, you can vote for anyone on the committee but they need to be studious enough to pass the qualification check which I assume is like an exam?
I don't see it as a restriction on who you can vote for, you can vote for anyone on the committee
Don't give me that. Ultimately the entire thing is meant to restrict candidates to a whitelist, the only question is whether that is a good thing or a bad thing. Saying you can vote for anyone who made the whitelist and therefore the vote is not restricted is silly question-begging and it's below you.
Huh? No? If you have the capability to pass the test you're not being restricted to a whitelist? It's a test, with pass and failure thresholds. Anyone can study to pass a test, particularly if there's no limit to the number of times you can fail it.
The party has an entrance exam to join as a standard member at the lowest level, why wouldn't you have further exams for the more advance levels?
"Just pass the test to get on the whitelist, then the whitelist doesn't impact you"
This is like an alternate version of "meritcratic" academic testing, it's still a barrier to people who don't have the same resources as others, which I would dare to assert that is a bad thing.
I'm sorry but if Xi could go from living in a literal cave sleeping on a rock bed to being party leader I have to disagree that it's presenting a resource-based barrier.
With that said he did fail his first entrance exam into the party multiple times.
Literal bootstrapism. I could present you success stories about poor people getting into Ivy League schools, and you'd rightly say that such stories are masking systemic problems.
What do you propose instead? This exists to prevent what occurred with the party in the USSR which ultimately led to the biggest standard of living disaster in history.
Is that true? Is that how you get people in there who propose that risk is a type of labor? I am pretty sure Xi was involved in things by 2006 as a comparatively petty official, which is not to say that this is his view, but that this shit was allowed in the Party in a relevant timeframe and exams didn't stop it.
I'm sure that politicians being uneducated was a problem in the Soviet Union, but there were people who would at least turn revisionist who were among the Soviet vanguard since before the October Revolution. The problem fundamentally isn't ignorance, or it is somehow that many years of schooling are needed not to trip and fall into being a reactionary. The former means that education won't solve it, the latter is basically an excuse for having a party of the elite who the plebians can't hope to understand the intellectual workings of, who they must sit passively by and approve or disapprove from the short procession of learned individuals who had the privilege to go through all this political grooming.
But that's a counterfactual, I think the main problem wasn't a lack of education a failure to guard against the ability to be a revisionist based on choice rather than mistake. Given that, I think imposing these educational barriers, most of all ones that weren't decided on a direct democratic basis, is just enabling the party to be insular without doing a thing to protect it from intentional revisionism, the much greater threat if we're worried about an autopsy of the Soviet Union.
but that this shit was allowed in the Party in a relevant timeframe and exams didn't stop it.
Yes but how long did it take to get to that point? It took an incredibly large amount of time for the party to become corrupted enough to require the corruption crackdowns, which were essentially purges of this.
The goal is not necessarily to expect this to stop it entirely, but to function as one of many things that reduce or slow it so that other actions can be taken before things are too bad.
I'm sure that politicians being uneducated was a problem in the Soviet Union, but there were people who would at least turn revisionist who were among the Soviet vanguard since before the October Revolution.
Post ww2 the party became a "party of the people" and Kruschev deemed it was of the people because the people were participants. All ideology became muddled. It was a mess. This was because no enforcement of party line, no prevention of those uneducated in marxism was undertaken.
You can not have a marxist party if your members are not marxists.
You must undertake some measure to ensure they are. Either you're doing that through marxism exams or you're doing it through purges, which are just the same as preventing people from rising up that others want to democratically elect is it not?
If you exercise no authority, the party discipline will cease to exist.
You make a very interesting point: is it possible to understand Marxism, lead a party, and make a deliberate choice towards revisionism on purpose?
I think the answer is no. Liberalism is self-defeating. It destroys itself. The entire European project is self-destructive. If one doesn't understand that, it's possible to say "I choose to be rich through revisionism", but it is, fundamentally, a mistake. The USSR proved it. The leaders wanted liberalism and most of them lost their shirts or their lives. Only a few made it out rich, and they've been dealing with the fall out for a long time. It's all coming to a head for them now, and they will end up in a situation within the next generation where the choice will be socialism or barbarism.
I think it's possible that the Chinese Marxist education requirements are based on this belief. There is no way to choose liberalism without it being a mistake, and educating people on this is critical. Anyone who chooses to maliciously pursue liberalism is doing it for some motivation - usually "a better life for me and mine" - and the education can and should correctly show that liberalism will guarantee the opposite to occur.
I'm sure that politicians being uneducated was a problem in the Soviet Union, but there were people who would at least turn revisionist who were among the Soviet vanguard since before the October Revolution. The problem fundamentally isn't ignorance, or it is somehow that many years of schooling are needed not to trip and fall into being a reactionary. The former means that education won't solve it, the latter is basically an excuse for having a party of the elite who the plebians can't hope to understand the intellectual workings of, who they must sit passively by and approve or disapprove from the short procession of learned individuals who had the privilege to go through all this political grooming.
I don't see a problem with examinations existing for competency. Without it how do you ensure that the committees are elevating people based on merit?
I don't see it as a restriction on who you can vote for, you can vote for anyone on the committee but they need to be studious enough to pass the qualification check which I assume is like an exam?
Don't give me that. Ultimately the entire thing is meant to restrict candidates to a whitelist, the only question is whether that is a good thing or a bad thing. Saying you can vote for anyone who made the whitelist and therefore the vote is not restricted is silly question-begging and it's below you.
Huh? No? If you have the capability to pass the test you're not being restricted to a whitelist? It's a test, with pass and failure thresholds. Anyone can study to pass a test, particularly if there's no limit to the number of times you can fail it.
The party has an entrance exam to join as a standard member at the lowest level, why wouldn't you have further exams for the more advance levels?
"Just pass the test to get on the whitelist, then the whitelist doesn't impact you"
This is like an alternate version of "meritcratic" academic testing, it's still a barrier to people who don't have the same resources as others, which I would dare to assert that is a bad thing.
I'm sorry but if Xi could go from living in a literal cave sleeping on a rock bed to being party leader I have to disagree that it's presenting a resource-based barrier.
With that said he did fail his first entrance exam into the party multiple times.
deleted by creator
It's a stone bed with mats on it, and it was shared with 3 people.
deleted by creator
Oh hey, I didn't know it was a 2 in 1. That is pretty cool.
Literal bootstrapism. I could present you success stories about poor people getting into Ivy League schools, and you'd rightly say that such stories are masking systemic problems.
What do you propose instead? This exists to prevent what occurred with the party in the USSR which ultimately led to the biggest standard of living disaster in history.
Is that true? Is that how you get people in there who propose that risk is a type of labor? I am pretty sure Xi was involved in things by 2006 as a comparatively petty official, which is not to say that this is his view, but that this shit was allowed in the Party in a relevant timeframe and exams didn't stop it.
I'm sure that politicians being uneducated was a problem in the Soviet Union, but there were people who would at least turn revisionist who were among the Soviet vanguard since before the October Revolution. The problem fundamentally isn't ignorance, or it is somehow that many years of schooling are needed not to trip and fall into being a reactionary. The former means that education won't solve it, the latter is basically an excuse for having a party of the elite who the plebians can't hope to understand the intellectual workings of, who they must sit passively by and approve or disapprove from the short procession of learned individuals who had the privilege to go through all this political grooming.
But that's a counterfactual, I think the main problem wasn't a lack of education a failure to guard against the ability to be a revisionist based on choice rather than mistake. Given that, I think imposing these educational barriers, most of all ones that weren't decided on a direct democratic basis, is just enabling the party to be insular without doing a thing to protect it from intentional revisionism, the much greater threat if we're worried about an autopsy of the Soviet Union.
Yes but how long did it take to get to that point? It took an incredibly large amount of time for the party to become corrupted enough to require the corruption crackdowns, which were essentially purges of this.
The goal is not necessarily to expect this to stop it entirely, but to function as one of many things that reduce or slow it so that other actions can be taken before things are too bad.
Post ww2 the party became a "party of the people" and Kruschev deemed it was of the people because the people were participants. All ideology became muddled. It was a mess. This was because no enforcement of party line, no prevention of those uneducated in marxism was undertaken.
You can not have a marxist party if your members are not marxists.
You must undertake some measure to ensure they are. Either you're doing that through marxism exams or you're doing it through purges, which are just the same as preventing people from rising up that others want to democratically elect is it not?
If you exercise no authority, the party discipline will cease to exist.
You have not proposed alternatives?
You make a very interesting point: is it possible to understand Marxism, lead a party, and make a deliberate choice towards revisionism on purpose?
I think the answer is no. Liberalism is self-defeating. It destroys itself. The entire European project is self-destructive. If one doesn't understand that, it's possible to say "I choose to be rich through revisionism", but it is, fundamentally, a mistake. The USSR proved it. The leaders wanted liberalism and most of them lost their shirts or their lives. Only a few made it out rich, and they've been dealing with the fall out for a long time. It's all coming to a head for them now, and they will end up in a situation within the next generation where the choice will be socialism or barbarism.
I think it's possible that the Chinese Marxist education requirements are based on this belief. There is no way to choose liberalism without it being a mistake, and educating people on this is critical. Anyone who chooses to maliciously pursue liberalism is doing it for some motivation - usually "a better life for me and mine" - and the education can and should correctly show that liberalism will guarantee the opposite to occur.
what
Can you define what the vanguard party is please?