The CCP is an institution. Your argument implies that belonging to an institution means agreeing 100% with every single decision of the institution.
As, an example, imagine we are talking about a specific action Google took. While you could argue that all Google employees have some kind of responsibility in action s the company takes, would you argue that the millions of the company employees agree with every decision the institution takes?
One can be offended for anything. I fail to see what is arrogant or condescending about criticising an institution (even if millions of people belong to it).
P.S. I am ignoring the dynamics/incentives of being a member of an institution, which could be many more than agreeing with everything the institution does or say.
No, the CCP is the governing body of China which is a sovereign entity. CCP contains multiple factions representing all facets of society hence 90M+ membership who do not all agree and have agendas.
What distinguishes CCP from western governments is that party membership and advancement is based on meritocracy not populism resulting in only the most qualified/accomplished rising to positions of leadership.
> What distinguishes CCP from western governments is that party membership and advancement is based on meritocracy not populism
What makes the CCP like the West, though it's different in other ways, is that advancement in the CCP is based largely on the convenience of your views and actions to the established elites, which is only “meritocracy” to the extent that “advancing the interests of the established elites” is “merit”.
No, the meritocracy is actually defined by performance/KPIs which determine advancement. For example all party members must first pass 2 tests before acceptance as members than work at local rural level to advance from there.
There is no concept of 'established elites' because even the poorest can rise to top as President Xi has.
The CCP is an institution. Your argument implies that belonging to an institution means agreeing 100% with every single decision of the institution.
As, an example, imagine we are talking about a specific action Google took. While you could argue that all Google employees have some kind of responsibility in action s the company takes, would you argue that the millions of the company employees agree with every decision the institution takes?
One can be offended for anything. I fail to see what is arrogant or condescending about criticising an institution (even if millions of people belong to it).
P.S. I am ignoring the dynamics/incentives of being a member of an institution, which could be many more than agreeing with everything the institution does or say.