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.
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.
Depending how you count it, it took about 30 years, but really longer because Dengist-types preceded Deng's turn at the reins (they brought him from being in informal exile to toppling the Gang of Four, after all). I wouldn't know where to count to get an accurate estimate, but perhaps it would be 50 years, since the Hundred Flowers campaign's subsequent crackdown probably got rid of a lot of the ones who were festering from even during the Civil War. How old are these measures, anyway? Does this even apply?
Anyway, I think that overwhelmingly the corruption crackdowns were against people who were actually corrupt rather than ideologically compromised, and you happen to mention someone who is the inverse next.
Post ww2 the party became a "party of the people" and Kruschev deemed it was of the people because the people were participants.
It's actually worse than that. He actually said the Dictatorship of the Proletariat was over and they were now running a "Whole People's Party" as in supposedly representing the interests of the entire population, and he used this as cover for beginning the restoration of the bourgeoisie.
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.
I would argue, based on the above and on the history of destalinization, that it was not just muddled but in fact deliberately revisionist. I don't really know where Khrushchev thought he was going with doing that while continuing to fight the west (seems like the perfect opportunity to be a compradore), maybe he just bought into pro-market propaganda. Of course, by the end of his time in office it certainly was also muddled because that's why he got ousted: for being directionless.
But part of my point is that even this dingbat revisionist and what was ultimately his substantial backing were all in the Party prior to the death of Stalin. Others, like Bukharin, were Old Bolsheviks themselves! This was a problem that wasn't started by some freak accident letting Khrushchev through, it was already consuming the Party before Khrushchev did anything and perhaps even before Stalin did.
You have not proposed alternatives?
I'm actually fine with gatekeeping a vanguard party if policy decisions are made by the people, even if that means they wouldn't do something as wise as the vanguard could wish of them. Ironically, Xi writes about just that scenario in a document that I have been looking for for like 2 years called something like "We Must Follow the People into the Fire". This is ironic, in my opinion, but we don't need to get into that and really probably shouldn't. My view is basically that of the primacy of democracy: either you give the people the ability to decide policy or you give them the ability to choose policy deciders (or vote for the people who vote, as I don't have a problem with that part of China's system).
I mean, come on, China's already got compulsory education requirements. If it's so important to have your definition of a good Marxist education, give it to people! Not that this answers the issue, since in many rural places people don't get all that much schooling still, which means this would still put privileged people on top (or further on top) politically.
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 really think the SU was condemned before Stalin even died. There was a grand window for selling out and dying comfortably, and every head of state after Stalin took it and did just that, all the way up to Yeltsin. Of course, it's very likely that you know things I don't. Did Yeltsin butcher the political class to a degree exceeding even the Ezovshchina? That would make a good case for questioning the small fries knowing the terms of the game.
But honestly, I think your line of reasoning is Enlightenment-style idealism that assumes people are rational actors. Even if there was substantial risk and a strong likelihood of that risk being realized, would there not still be a good number of takers? Everything I know about humanity says that a meaningful segment of the population is easily enticed by great rewards at great risk, especially if it's not a very difficult risk to take (however dangerous it might be). Perhaps I don't know anything, in which case I would appreciate you returning me to Socratic ignorance by telling me so.
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.
Historically, I am referring to the Bolsheviks and then the Communist Party of the Soviet Union
Generally, a vanguard party is the forward segment of the population that is educated on and dedicated to the project of social revolution and agitates and organizes among the general population towards this end, and though it becomes something more administrative when it has control of the state, those two functions remain, as does the need to not (try to) compel the masses into something they don't want to do. There can be no benevolent tyrants, just educators who operate with the popular mandate.
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?
Depending how you count it, it took about 30 years, but really longer because Dengist-types preceded Deng's turn at the reins (they brought him from being in informal exile to toppling the Gang of Four, after all). I wouldn't know where to count to get an accurate estimate, but perhaps it would be 50 years, since the Hundred Flowers campaign's subsequent crackdown probably got rid of a lot of the ones who were festering from even during the Civil War. How old are these measures, anyway? Does this even apply?
Anyway, I think that overwhelmingly the corruption crackdowns were against people who were actually corrupt rather than ideologically compromised, and you happen to mention someone who is the inverse next.
It's actually worse than that. He actually said the Dictatorship of the Proletariat was over and they were now running a "Whole People's Party" as in supposedly representing the interests of the entire population, and he used this as cover for beginning the restoration of the bourgeoisie.
I would argue, based on the above and on the history of destalinization, that it was not just muddled but in fact deliberately revisionist. I don't really know where Khrushchev thought he was going with doing that while continuing to fight the west (seems like the perfect opportunity to be a compradore), maybe he just bought into pro-market propaganda. Of course, by the end of his time in office it certainly was also muddled because that's why he got ousted: for being directionless.
But part of my point is that even this dingbat revisionist and what was ultimately his substantial backing were all in the Party prior to the death of Stalin. Others, like Bukharin, were Old Bolsheviks themselves! This was a problem that wasn't started by some freak accident letting Khrushchev through, it was already consuming the Party before Khrushchev did anything and perhaps even before Stalin did.
I'm actually fine with gatekeeping a vanguard party if policy decisions are made by the people, even if that means they wouldn't do something as wise as the vanguard could wish of them. Ironically, Xi writes about just that scenario in a document that I have been looking for for like 2 years called something like "We Must Follow the People into the Fire". This is ironic, in my opinion, but we don't need to get into that and really probably shouldn't. My view is basically that of the primacy of democracy: either you give the people the ability to decide policy or you give them the ability to choose policy deciders (or vote for the people who vote, as I don't have a problem with that part of China's system).
I mean, come on, China's already got compulsory education requirements. If it's so important to have your definition of a good Marxist education, give it to people! Not that this answers the issue, since in many rural places people don't get all that much schooling still, which means this would still put privileged people on top (or further on top) politically.
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 really think the SU was condemned before Stalin even died. There was a grand window for selling out and dying comfortably, and every head of state after Stalin took it and did just that, all the way up to Yeltsin. Of course, it's very likely that you know things I don't. Did Yeltsin butcher the political class to a degree exceeding even the Ezovshchina? That would make a good case for questioning the small fries knowing the terms of the game.
But honestly, I think your line of reasoning is Enlightenment-style idealism that assumes people are rational actors. Even if there was substantial risk and a strong likelihood of that risk being realized, would there not still be a good number of takers? Everything I know about humanity says that a meaningful segment of the population is easily enticed by great rewards at great risk, especially if it's not a very difficult risk to take (however dangerous it might be). Perhaps I don't know anything, in which case I would appreciate you returning me to Socratic ignorance by telling me so.
what
Can you define what the vanguard party is please?
Historically, I am referring to the Bolsheviks and then the Communist Party of the Soviet Union
Generally, a vanguard party is the forward segment of the population that is educated on and dedicated to the project of social revolution and agitates and organizes among the general population towards this end, and though it becomes something more administrative when it has control of the state, those two functions remain, as does the need to not (try to) compel the masses into something they don't want to do. There can be no benevolent tyrants, just educators who operate with the popular mandate.