Didn’t he change term limits. The previous two presidents quit after 10 years. But Xi is holding on indefinitely as of now. Doesn’t that make him a dictator even if they claim one party democracy?
Yup, he didn’t just change them, he abolished term limits for himself, which were in effect up until that point since Mao died.
Plus(among many other dictator-y things) he enacted indefinitely retroactive remote treason laws against a separate, sovereign country (hk), so that if you were 12 years old and once wrote on a message board " why Communism?"(Even though China’s capitalist) you can be extradited from Hong Kong to mainland China at any point for the rest of your life and held indefinitely in mainland Chinese prison without appeal.
communism is defined as classless, stateless, moneyless. the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ is meant to imply working class collective ownership and control of the means of production, not a ‘people’s autocrat.’ If you’re paying attention, this means that state-capitalist (a term used by lenin) socialist regimes waving a red flag can not be considered communist, any more than the dprk could be considered democratic.
Didn’t he change term limits. The previous two presidents quit after 10 years. But Xi is holding on indefinitely as of now. Doesn’t that make him a dictator even if they claim one party democracy?
Yup, he didn’t just change them, he abolished term limits for himself, which were in effect up until that point since Mao died.
Plus(among many other dictator-y things) he enacted indefinitely retroactive remote treason laws against a separate, sovereign country (hk), so that if you were 12 years old and once wrote on a message board " why Communism?"(Even though China’s capitalist) you can be extradited from Hong Kong to mainland China at any point for the rest of your life and held indefinitely in mainland Chinese prison without appeal.
One party democracy that is meant to be the implementation of the dictatorship of the proletariat over the capitalists, no?
I’m failing to see insult in the message’s content compared to it’s delivery.
communism is defined as classless, stateless, moneyless. the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ is meant to imply working class collective ownership and control of the means of production, not a ‘people’s autocrat.’ If you’re paying attention, this means that state-capitalist (a term used by lenin) socialist regimes waving a red flag can not be considered communist, any more than the dprk could be considered democratic.
So it a figurative dictatorship, more of a means to an end. Hence, calling the leader an autocrat - is an insult to the ideology at play.
Thank you for clearing up my misconception!