r/PoliticalScience

Democracy Without Education Is Dangerous
▲ 192 r/PoliticalScience+1 crossposts

Democracy Without Education Is Dangerous

Socrates argued that just giving everyone an equal say without ensuring they are educated, rational, and morally trained, would eventually lead to chaos and poor leadership.

His student Plato explored this idea further in The Republic, where he compared governing a state to steering a ship:

"Would you let just anyone steer a ship or would you choose someone trained and knowledgeable?”

(– Plato’s Republic, Book VI)

> My view is simple:

“Democracy is the best form of government only when people are educated and aware.”

And honestly, this issue becomes even more relevant when we look at the behavior and statements of many MPs and MLAs in India. (Just remember that Karnataka Congress MLA incident 🤡)

People responsible for making laws and representing millions should at least meet basic standards of education, civic understanding, and public conduct.

Democracy gives everyone the right to vote but those who govern should also undergo proper political training, ethical orientation, and accountability. Leadership is not just about winning elections; it is about wisdom, responsibility, and public character.

Citizen education is equally important in a democracy because people can choose better leaders only when they are politically aware, informed, and capable of critical thinking. In countries like India, where many people still struggle with poverty, inequality, and poor access to quality education, voting often becomes influenced by short-term incentives such as money, caste loyalties, religious polarization, or populist promises. In such conditions, democracy risks becoming a game of manipulation rather than informed public participation. This is why education is not just important for economic growth, but also essential for building a healthier and more responsible democracy.

u/AnneShirleyCuthbert_ — 23 hours ago

Would you agree with liberal democracy has failed(economically)?

Firstly, I must admit that liberal democracies have generally been the most effective at preserving civil liberties and political accountability(even if that is starting to slide).

Looking at the recent failures of America and other anglosphere countries to construct infrastructure quickly and without large cost overruns, the partisan political conflict that has become a staple of politics in liberal democracies for decades, as well as the severe housing crises in these liberal democracies, I have been more convinced that liberal democracy has failed economically.

Firstly, liberal democracies are generally unable to construct infrastructure quickly and inexpensively due to legislative gridlock. The planning and construction of infrastructure in liberal democracies involves multiple layers of bureaucracy where the government first enters lengthy negotiations with wealthy landowners on compensation and whether they can even acquire their land in the first place is never guaranteed. There are also lengthy environmental impact surveys that must be conducted. In addition, couple all this with lobbying by certain groups(such as affluent homeowners or private corporations) and the completion of infrastructure projects can be delayed for years as a result of constant revisions to the plan and large cost overruns. Then partisan division means that political parties often differ greatly on how particular infrastructure should be built or if it should even be built at all, further delaying projects as politicians get caught in a relentless cycle of bickering. And in the end politicians usually do nothing but blame the other party for such failures.

Compare this with South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and China where the state, with its vast overarching control of land and resources could simply bulldoze through acres of land without a care in the world to construct large amounts of highways, railways, factories, and public housing in order to drive ludicrous export-oriented economic growth and development. No NIMBYs or affluent landowners to stand in the way, no opposition party to be vetoed by, and no significant bureaucratic or legislative red tape to delay or cancel such projects. As a result these countries have built out large amounts of infrastructure within short period of time(helping to drive their ludicrous economic growth), with China having the longest high speed rail network in the world and with most Singaporeans living in public housing spread over more than 20 new towns. In 1967 the Gyeongbu expressway was first proposed and by 1970 it was completed.

Secondly, the housing crisis has become one of the greatest failures of both liberal democracy and neoliberal capitalism. As a result of the largely unregulated buying and selling of property which has turned housing into a luxury investment, rental and house prices have skyrocketed well beyond the income of the average consumer. In many liberal democracies there exists a chronic issue of either a shortage of housing, housing being too expensive, or both. This is further exacerbated by the fact that , because of the aforementioned problems with building infrastructure and the treatment of public housing as welfare for the impoverished, public housing projects usually fail miserably.

Meanwhile Singapore from the get go realized that providing state subsidized housing for the masses is a key instrument for social stability, and the government using its powerful land aqusition abilities built large amounts of subsidized, affordable housing that people were encouraged to own, and sold at affordable prices. The satillite towns built were also government-planned to the last detail to ensure inhabitants had easy access to food, leisure, religious and commercial spaces as well as transportation. Strict restrictions on reselling HDB flats were also imposed to prevent public housing from becoming a speculative asset on the free market to the extent that property is in liberal democracies. Such extensive state intervention in housing can only be dreamed of in liberal democracies where the emphasis on free market capitalism and property rights prevent such intervention from being acceptable to most people.

Thirdly, liberal democracies are just worse at getting anything done in general, specifically when it comes to long-term socio-economic planning and development. As a result of election cycles candidates often prioritize short-term policies with immediate results over long-term policies and initiatives with lasting effects in order to win votes, and in the case where long-term policies are implemented the opposition simply scraps them upon winning the next election. This results in a back-and-forth battle between political parties who differ greatly on their vision for the country and struggle to impose that vision on the country. As a result meaningful, long lasting reform and economic growth is often hard to come by, stagnating social and economic development.

Look at the 4 Asian tigers, they transitioned from impoverished, low-income states into developed, high-income industrial and commercial powerhouses by compressing 150 years of industrialization into only 30. This was only possible because most, if not all of this growth was done under the strong hand of the state who, unfettered by a weak and suppressed opposition, and by denying people the avenues and rights to stagnate this progress implemented sweeping , far-reaching policies in industry, infrastructure, and education that helped achieve economic growth and development throughout the 1960s, 70s, and 80s. In a liberal democracy, try suppressing wages, seizing people's land, implementing policies that others may disagree with, building in places against the wishes of others, intervening extensively in the economy, and you'll be met with massive labor strikes, press criticism, protests, legislative blocking, etc.

Not a single liberal democracy in history has ever replicated this same rapid transition from almost nothing to a high-income developed economy in less than 40 years. Botswana does not count because it is still stuck in the middle income trap, Japan does not count because it was already industrialized pre-war, and Ireland does not count because it was already partially industrialized and wasn't that far behind the rest of western Europe by the 1960s.

Sure, autocracy may have its flaws(South Korea and Taiwan were forced to liberalize because protests got out of hand as social stability was not really prioritized), but if managed by competent individuals is a more effective model for socio-economic development and change. Anglosphere politicians look up to the success stories of the 4 Asian tigers and dream of replicating their success, yet only continue to blame the other party when the government cannot get things done instead of acknowledging that the root cause of their inability to get things done is a structural failure of liberal democracy.

reddit.com
u/First-Line9807 — 1 day ago

What do you think about WWIII fearmongering?

Considering:

- MAD.

- Proxy wars.

- Interdependence.

- Multilateralism.

- Money.

- Capitalist Peace theory.

- Multinational companies.

- Global organizations, treaties, and diplomatic norms structurally reducing the likelihood.

- Even a small direct confrontation between the major powers would have effects so big that none of the parts would want.

- Fear and UN actually helped to prevent direct battles or escalating.

- Current detection and prevention technology.

- Polarization.

- Hacking, cyberattacks and informatics.

- Competence on influence and economy.

- Shadow war theories.

- Russia-Ukraine is already showing the effects of an attempt of expansion.

- Cold War having changed warfare theory forever.

- There are no two main blocks, battles are contained and the support isn't direct.

From my POV, though the fear and attention is necessary to prevent, the fearmongering is just an useless extreme that shock people. Heck, why do we still think that, if it happens, it would be traditional or use nukes in first place when for decades indirect battles showed to work?

"We are closer than ever", uh, do you know Cuban Missile Crisis or Able Archer 83? Like, yeah, we are in a serious situation, but not like that. A "global civil war" is actually more likely.

reddit.com
u/TheToledoMan — 2 days ago

Anyone else?

Hello Everyone,
Two years ago, I graduated with degrees in political science and public relations. I aimed to eventually become a campaign manager, and I achieved that goal, although the campaign ultimately failed. Now, I’m pursuing a master's degree in communications because I feel I didn’t get the best experience from my PR degree. Currently, I am on a path to become chief of staff to a president in the distant future. I know it’s a pretty ambitious goal, but I would really appreciate some tips on how I should work towards achieving it. I understand it’s more than just running campaigns; it’s about policy and public administration. But I truly want this role because I believe it would be the best fit for me. Maybe I’ll even try for vice president someday lol. I just need some guidance.

For context: I’m based in Colorado, 24 years old, moderate Democrat.

reddit.com
u/TankBig8746 — 2 days ago

For PhD students/grads: What did you guys do in between undergrad and grad school?

I'm in my 3rd year of undergrad pursing a degree in political science. I've taken a few methods & research courses and I love them. I'm very passionate about research involving political behavior/psychology. I've talked to a few poli sci PhD students at my uni and most of them are in their late 20s - mid 30s. So, I'm wondering if anyone can share their experience with me.

Firstly, when did you know you wanted to pursue a PhD?

What jobs, internships, or other forms of employment did you have before grad school, and how did they help you prepare for your PhD?

Lastly, where did you get your letters of recs from? Employers or did you keep in contact with your professors after graduating?

Thanks in advance!

reddit.com
u/Substantial-Talk-228 — 2 days ago

What are some great YouTube channels about politics, economics, history and law?

I want to study political science. I know some channels like William Spaniel and Anders Puck Nielsen (which I both like a lot and they feel trustworthy) but I would also like to find videos about these other topics because I think they're interesting and important in understanding politics. So what are some educational and trustworthy YouTube channels about politics, economics, history and law that you watch?

reddit.com
u/Recent_Statement_222 — 2 days ago

How do I choose the right PhD programs in American Studies, Culture, or Politics, and how can I strengthen my application?

Hi, everyone! I’m just wrapping up my freshman year in my BA program, double-majoring in History and Political Science with a double minor in African American Studies and Women’s and Gender Studies, plus a certificate in Legal Studies. I’m posting this in a few subreddits for the most help since I am a first-generation university student. 

My academic research centers on political theory, socialist and Marxist theory, radical intersectional feminist framework, and liberation and revolutionary movements in the United States. I’m very passionate and really drawn to studying organizing and activist work and how those movements challenge systems of oppression and power. 

As for my background, I am an activist and organizer in my area, and my work focuses on intersectional feminist organizing, socialist groups, abolitionist networks, political education, and community mutual aid networks. I’m currently 18, and I have been doing organizing work for the past three years. Much of my research draws on this work, and I’m really interested in studying how U.S. institutions maintain systems of oppression and how communities resist this oppression, build collective power and support, and fight for their own justice or liberation. 

My dream is to apply to PhD programs for Fall 2029 (after I finish my undergraduate degree), and I am currently considering American Studies, Culture Studies, Politics, and Political Science as possible fields. I’m still super early in my undergraduate degree, and I want to prepare and plan as much as I can, so I’d like advice on anything and everything!

Here are my main focuses right now:

  • What programs align best with my research goals? (Are these attainable research ideas?)
  • How can I strengthen my application over the next few years? (How can I get more research experience? What are these fields looking for in applicants?)
  • What do admissions committees value in applicants with activist and community organizing backgrounds? 
  • Which field is the best fit for studying U.S. revolutionary movements, political theory, and structures of power? (Should I be opting for a History PhD instead?)
  • Many of the programs I am looking into are reaches. How do I create a stronger admissions profile for those programs?

 

The current schools and programs I am heavily looking into are these, though I know they are incredibly selective: 

  • University of Michigan - Ann Arbor - Joint PhD in Women’s and Gender Studies and History
  • University of California - Santa Barbara - PhD in Feminist Studies
  • New York University - PhD in American Studies
  • University of Southern California - PhD in American Studies and Ethnicity
  • Brown University - PhD in American Studies
  • University of California - Berkeley - PhD in Ethnic Studies
  • The New School for Social Research - PhD in Politics
  • Princeton University - PhD in Political Philosophy; MA in Politics
  • University of Pennsylvania - PhD in Political Science
  • New York University - PhD in Politics
  • Columbia University - PhD in Political Science
  • Yale University - PhD in American Studies
  • Harvard University - PhD in American Studies
  • George Washington University - PhD in American Studies
  • University of Maryland - PhD in American Studies
  • University of Michigan - Ann Arbor - PhD in American Culture
  • University of California - Irvine - PhD in Culture and Theory
  • City University of New York (CUNY) - PhD in Political Science
  • Morgan State University - PhD in Applied Sociology and Social Justice
  • Arizona State University - PhD in Justice Studies
  • Arizona State University - MA in Social Justice and Human Rights

I have super huge dreams of continuing my research in a PhD program; it’s genuinely such a blessing to even be in my undergraduate program, and I am so passionate about the work I do and the subjects I currently study. If anyone has advice or help on building a strong profile for PhD applications, I’d really appreciate it! I'd be happy with any advice you are willing to offer!

Thank you so much!

reddit.com
u/No-Load-5090 — 2 days ago

Laptop or Tablet for Poli Sci?

Hi! I'm the only humanities girly in our circle of friends since almost all of my friends will be taking nursing. I'm an incoming BA Poli Sci freshie and most of my friends already got their ipads and tablets but on my behalf, i am still torn between choosing a tablet or laptop.

What gadget do u guys recommend for this program? I want something that's flexible and for long-term use.

reddit.com
u/Anxious_Business8024 — 3 days ago

What is fascism and why is it considered morally reprehensible?

I’m not sure if this is the right sub but I’m not sure where else to ask this question since it’s a touchy subject and may come off as politically charged which isn’t my intention but…I’ve been reading a bit on it online and I’m still not sure what it actually means or why it’s considered 100% bad 100% of the time with the definitions I’ve read. From what I’ve gathered it essentially comes down to:

1: involving a dictator
2: an ideology that places race above yourself(not just race like color of your skin but ethnicity, religion, culture or nation)
3: strong government control

Now I’m not suggesting fascism is good, but I fail to see how it is different to past governments like the British Royal family or any country that had a king/queen. Or how it’s different than any person having a stronger sense of loyalty toward their country, culture, or religion than other countries cultures or religions.

I’m also not trying to start a debate nor do I have any agenda with this post I’m just genuinely confused

reddit.com
u/Separate_Sky_7372 — 4 days ago

Profile Evaluation for Political Science PhD

Hi all,

I'm an international student applying for US poli sci PhD programs and would like to gain some feedback on my application.

Below is my background:

  • Currently a full-time politics & public policy researcher in a local think tank.
  • BA in political science (GPA 3.96/4.3) & MA in public management(GPA 4.15/4.3) from an Asian university( No. 1 university in the country)
  • Research article*1 under review at Q1 political science journal.
  • ASPA (Public administration, NOT APSA!) conference presentation*1
  • RA for 4 yrs, including database management, survey design, statistical analysis, web-scraping, topic modeling, lit review etc.
  • TA for methods course*1, political science course*1, public policy course*2, gender studies course*1
  • GRE: V160 Q168 A4.0
  • TOEFL: 104 (Expire in July😭 Will retake.)
  • LORs: Only from the university I studied so not from globally renowned scholars, but pretty sure they'll be strong. 2 from my MA thesis advisors and 1 from a professor I co-authored with.

I'm interested in behavioral studies of populism and gender politics, so I probably will apply to AP or CP (depending on the best faculty fit in the department).
Currently my school list is: Princeton, Yale, Michigan, UC Berkeley, Duke, UW-Madison, Ohio State, Vanderbilt, WashU, UMN, UC Davis, UC Irvine. Also I'm considering Oxford and LSE since I saw some faculty who align with my interest, but am concerned about funding.

I would be thankful on your thoughts on the following:

  1. Is my GRE score strong enough? Should I retake for a higher Verbal score?

  2. Will the committee might flag me for not having a MA in political science instead of public management? This reflects a change in career aspirations - I wanted to do more practical work but later on decided that my passion is in doing political science research.

  3. Is my school list reasonable(a bit worried it's too top-heavy)? Any schools I should add/ avoid? Particularly, any suggestions on applying to UK schools as well?

Thanks for everyone contributing!!

reddit.com
u/Ok_Cartographer_553 — 3 days ago
▲ 51 r/PoliticalScience+4 crossposts

The 60th Anniversary of the Cultural Revolution: Forgetting, Criticism, and Praise of That Historical Period Intertwined, Reflecting China’s Contemporary Contradictions

May 16, 2026 marked the 60th anniversary of China’s Cultural Revolution(文革). On this day in 1966, the Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China issued the “May 16 Notification” (五一六通知) nationwide, and Mao Zedong (毛泽东) announced the launch of the “Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution” (无产阶级文化大革命). During the following ten years, violent political campaigns and armed factional struggles broke out across China. Millions died unnatural deaths, even more people suffered public denunciation and persecution, large amounts of cultural relics were destroyed, schools were closed, production stagnated, and social order fell into chaos. It was not until 1976, when Mao Zedong died and the “Gang of Four” (四人帮) was arrested, that the Cultural Revolution came to an end.

After Reform and Opening Up, the authorities officially defined the Cultural Revolution as a “serious mistake,” rehabilitated many victims of the Cultural Revolution, and implemented policies to rectify past mistakes and restore order. Subsequent generations of Communist Party leadership continued this official assessment. However, regarding the detailed history of the Cultural Revolution — such as its causes, process, and specific victims — the authorities maintained a long-term low-profile approach, with little reflection or commemoration, disproportionate to the event’s significance and enormous impact.

Especially during the past decade, the authorities have almost entirely avoided mentioning the Cultural Revolution and have also suppressed civil commemorations of it. For example, in 2016, the only Cultural Revolution museum in China, located in Shantou, was closed. On the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the Cultural Revolution, official Chinese public opinion channels and major domestic media carried no related reports, reflection, or commemoration.

Among the public, however, there are two sharply contrasting attitudes toward the Cultural Revolution. One, represented by liberal intellectuals, views the Cultural Revolution as an extremely disastrous national catastrophe, blaming it and its initiators for causing immense suffering and severe damage to many individuals and to the entire nation and society. They also connect many contemporary social problems with the Cultural Revolution and warn against another “Cultural Revolution” occurring. People within the system and vested-interest groups likewise do not wish to see the Cultural Revolution reappear, lest their own privileged status and interests suffer.

Another perspective comes from the far-left supporters and worshippers of Mao Zedong (Maoists), as well as some other frustrated and strongly dissatisfied individuals. Such people often praise the Cultural Revolution, regarding it as a means to oppose bureaucrats, overthrow bad people, and realize “mass democracy.” These people are also dissatisfied with today’s reality. Rather than placing their hopes on achieving democracy and improving the rule of law, they instead hope for another “Cultural Revolution” to “sweep away all ‘monsters and demons’” (a political label for enemies).

In addition, some foreign leftists also hold romanticized fantasies about the Cultural Revolution, believing that it was a great revolution against oppression and for liberation. This is far removed from historical reality. On the contrary, the Cultural Revolution intensified the persecution of vulnerable groups, strengthened the constraints imposed on the oppressed, and did not eliminate privilege. Some foreigners who visited China at the time, such as Italian director Antonio Antonioni (安东尼奥尼), witnessed aspects of its darker reality. Yet even today, some foreigners still do not understand the true nature of the Cultural Revolution.

The authorities’ low-profile approach toward the Cultural Revolution, the mixed praise and criticism among the public, and differing views held by different people all arise from their respective positions, perceptions, and purposes. They also reflect today’s social contradictions and China’s complex reality.

Simply put, the ruling Communist Party of China cares deeply about maintaining political legitimacy and institutional continuity as well as current social stability. It wishes both to defend Reform and Opening Up and to avoid excessively emphasizing the errors and tragedies of the Mao era, thereby preventing further dissatisfaction and instability. Intellectual elites and liberals, especially Cultural Revolution victims and their descendants, strongly detest the Cultural Revolution because of traumatic experiences and value systems.

Some marginalized people at the bottom of society, however, envy the Cultural Revolution’s destruction of existing order and hope for another political movement through which they could “rebel” and rise up and overturn their status. Many ordinary people also know little about the Cultural Revolution or remain indifferent, and may be influenced by the above narratives,
developing only a partial understanding and wavering attitudes.

First of all, the Cultural Revolution was indeed a disaster. At that time, China was engulfed in political violence and turmoil. Law and order disappeared, many innocent people were publicly denounced and imprisoned, and large numbers of innocent people were killed or driven to suicide. This included former Nationalist Party members, intellectuals, industrialists and merchants, those labeled as “landlords, rich peasants, counterrevolutionaries, bad elements, and rightists,” Communist Party cadres, and ordinary people from all walks of life. Among those persecuted to death were Communist Party leaders Liu Shaoqi (刘少奇) and Peng Dehuai (彭德怀), former Nationalist generals who had surrendered such as Huang Shaohong (黄绍竑) and Chen Changjie (陈长捷), scholars Chen Yinke (陈寅恪) and Lao She (老舍), and scientists Yao Tongbin (姚桐斌) and Zhao Jiuzhang (赵九章).

Under the turmoil and the principle of “taking class struggle as the key link” during the Cultural Revolution, national economic and technological development was also severely disrupted, causing China to fall behind most countries in the world. At that time, China’s per capita GDP was not only far lower than that of Europe, the United States, Japan, and the Soviet Union, but was also below that of most developing countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Most people, especially peasants, lived in extreme poverty, and even basic food and clothing needs remained unresolved. Informing and reporting on others were encouraged during the Cultural Revolution, with relatives and friends reporting one another and everyone living in fear. Anti-intellectualism, personality cults, and extremism also flourished, leaving deep scars on people, casting shadows over society, and continuing to cause harm today.

If the causes and consequences of the Cultural Revolution disaster cannot be honestly confronted, discussed, and reflected upon, it would not only fail those who suffered at the time, but would also plant the seeds for the tragedy of the Cultural Revolution to reappear in various forms. For example, several years ago during COVID-19, various extreme “Zero-COVID(清零)” measures caused livelihood crises — especially restrictions on travel, shopping, and medical treatment, nucleic-acid testing for goods, and large-scale compulsory quarantine. Such epidemic-control measures, which violated scientific principles and infringed upon citizens’ rights, bear similarities in both motivation and consequences to the anti-intellectual policies under the principle of “politics in command” during the Cultural Revolution.

Another tragedy of the Cultural Revolution lay in personality cults and a system where one voice dominates all decisions, the absence of democracy and the rule of law, and the inability to constrain power. The accumulation of social problems and the difficulty of protecting civil rights in today’s China are similarly related to insufficient democracy and rule of law.

At the same time, those who praise the Cultural Revolution and even hope for its return should also be understood with sympathy. This too is a necessary requirement for honestly confronting history and reality. The causes of the Cultural Revolution were complex. It was not simply the result of Mao Zedong’s temporary impulse, but was also related to severe social contradictions, rigid bureaucratic systems, and estrangement and conflict between elites and the masses.

According to the views of Peking University scholar Qian Liqun (钱理群) and others, antagonism between officials and the public before the Cultural Revolution was already very serious. The masses were dissatisfied with the Party and government, and society resembled a pressure cooker. Mao’s issuance of the “May 16 Notification” merely lit the fuse that ignited these contradictions.

China in recent years has become politically rigid and conservative, with widening wealth gaps and increasing social stratification, while vested-interest groups monopolize resources. At the same time, reform has stagnated and public discourse has tightened. Coupled with economic decline, social contradictions have intensified significantly. Many lower- and middle-class people, educated but unemployed individuals, and marginalized groups live in poverty, see no hope, and lack proper channels for expression. Driven by resentment and their limited understanding of the Cultural Revolution, they long for another violent political movement that would overthrow those they hate and enable themselves to become masters of their own fate.

For example, many university students and young teachers resent the monopolization of resources and exploitation by academic oligarchs and hope to use methods like the “copper-buckled belt” (铜头皮带), a tool used for beating people during the Cultural Revolution, to publicly denounce teachers and academic oligarchs;

Workers exploited by sweatshops hope to overthrow capitalists and redistribute wealth equally;

Citizens who believe they have suffered unjust imprisonment, facing the power and indifference of Party and government institutions — especially the police, procuratorate, and courts — find considerable resonance in the Cultural Revolution slogan “Smash the Public Security, Procuratorate, and Courts” (砸烂公检法);

The poor struggling at the bottom of society wish to smash the existing order and vent their frustrations like the “rebel factions” (造反派) during the Cultural Revolution…

Such psychological paths and motivations can be understood and sympathized with. However, whether viewed from the perspective of society as a whole or most individuals, political movements like the Cultural Revolution are disastrous. To some extent, they did attack certain problems in ordinary society and damage some bad actors, but they simultaneously brought even greater consequences. Under social disorder, human-rights violations became more widespread and severe, and many innocent people lost their families and lives. The Cultural Revolution also destroyed trust between people and damaged social morality, worsening interpersonal relationships and social conditions. Even political opportunists who benefited temporarily often ended up suffering consequences themselves.

Nor was the Cultural Revolution truly equal. Cadres, workers, and rebel factions possessed privileges, whereas peasants and those categorized among the “Five Black Categories” (黑五类) were treated as social inferiors in both status and rights.

Although the early-stage “rebellion” of the Cultural Revolution did indeed challenge privileged cadres, its targets gradually shifted toward vulnerable groups such as the “Five Black Categories” while radical rebels and anti-privilege activists among the masses were also suppressed. Those who openly opposed Mao Zedong and criticized the Communist Party, such as Lin Zhao (林昭), Zhang Zhixin (张志新), Yu Luoke (遇罗克), and Huang Lizhong (黄立众), faced severe repression and were executed. Meanwhile, some senior Communist Party leaders were overthrown primarily due to the needs of power struggles rather than anti-privilege objectives, and this did not fundamentally change the unfair and unjust ruling system or social structure.

However, some disillusioned Chinese people embrace a mentality resembling, “If these days must perish, let you and me perish together,” seeking mutual destruction. Even knowing that the Cultural Revolution was destructive, they still attempt to overthrow the current order through radical means and vent dissatisfaction.
The rise of global populism in recent years has likewise been driven by public dissatisfaction with existing systems and hatred toward elite vested interests. The Cultural Revolution itself was also China’s manifestation of the global wave of left-wing populism several decades ago.

Although today’s China appears relatively calm on the streets under strict political control, it cannot remain untouched amid rising global populism and has accumulated even greater dissatisfaction and hidden dangers. Frequently occurring incidents involving class, ethnicity, gender, and other tensions are manifestations of populism bubbling beneath a political pressure cooker. Frequent tragedies involving indiscriminate attacks causing casualties, along with large amounts of extreme online rhetoric praising the Cultural Revolution and fascism, are also signs of worsening social contradictions and warnings of national crisis.

Most people do not understand the full picture of the Cultural Revolution and its historical background. Instead, they often possess selective understandings resembling the blind men and the elephant phenomenon, projecting their own circumstances and intentions onto the era of the Cultural Revolution, and then using people and events from that period to reflect and influence today’s realities.

Therefore, many people’s views of the Cultural Revolution are one-sided. Official suppression of commemoration and reflection prevents a more complex and realistic picture of the Cultural Revolution from being shown. Its cruelty has not been sufficiently exposed, resulting in even greater misunderstanding and distortion. Whether people praise or oppose the Cultural Revolution, they ultimately struggle to truly learn lessons from it and prevent the return of tragedy.

Therefore, whether regarding the history of the Cultural Revolution or China’s realities today, one cannot avoid them through a self-deceptive approach of “covering one’s ears while stealing a bell,” but instead must confront and sincerely understand their origins and development. Those in power and those at higher levels should also listen to the people’s demands and understand public difficulties, rather than remaining arrogant and indifferent or simply blaming the public’s ignorance and enemy manipulation.

Only by reforming institutions and distribution systems, promoting democracy and the rule of law, relaxing controls on public discourse, and allowing controversies to be openly debated can social contradictions be alleviated, harmony increased, and hostility reduced. Building an inclusive order, maintaining social fairness and justice, and eliminating motivations for social destruction are the fundamental ways to prevent another Cultural Revolution from reoccurring.

(The author of this article is Wang Qingmin(王庆民), a Chinese writer living in Europe and a researcher of international politics.)

u/Slow-Property5895 — 4 days ago

What jobs do you have as a poli sci major?

What jobs do you have as a political science major, and how long did it take you to get a job offer?

I am considering pre-law, but I am not sure if I would want to be a lawyer in the future.

reddit.com
u/CityBusStop — 4 days ago
▲ 4 r/PoliticalScience+1 crossposts

Why do US election polls focus solely on who people plan to vote for? Why not address people’s preferences?

I mean like potentially ranking candidates without regard for voting strategy. Or choosing a favorite disregarding electability. Presumably we’d like to track if our voting tracks with voter preferences

Edit for clarification: i mean pre-election polls that dont count toward election

reddit.com
u/RamenPantalones — 5 days ago

Are forms of anarchism forms of political ideology?

Recently in my political science class my teacher claimed liberals and libertarians were the ones who defended "less state", to which I asked "what about anarchists". Her answer was that no form of anarchism is an ideology and when I asked why she dismissed my question.

I'm just confused cuz I don't think she is right but ig she could be? I'm just confused.

Just to clarify, I'm not saying anarchist ideologies work or that they don't in practice my question has nothing to do with that.

reddit.com
u/Wise_Temporary_5367 — 5 days ago

Great Tragedy?

For the last twelve years of my academic and professional engagement with political science and international relations, The Tragedy of Great Power Politics has remained one of the most foundational and intellectually transformative books I have encountered. What makes the book indispensable is not merely its theory of offensive realism, but the analytical discipline it develops in the reader. It teaches one to look beyond idealistic rhetoric, moral posturing, and diplomatic language, and instead examine how power, security, fear, geography, and survival shape state behaviour in the international system.

Mearsheimer’s realism provides a durable framework for understanding why conflicts persist, why alliances shift, and why even cooperative states eventually pursue relative advantage. In many ways, the book gives a structural lens through which world politics begins to appear patterned rather than chaotic. Whether analysing the rise of China, the strategic behaviour of United States, the security dilemmas surrounding Russia, or regional balancing in the Indo-Pacific, the realist framework repeatedly demonstrates explanatory depth.

For anyone pursuing a career in governance, diplomacy, policy, journalism, academia, security studies, or public affairs, this text builds strategic thinking and analytical maturity. It trains the mind to identify recurring historical patterns and long-term geopolitical incentives rather than reacting only to surface-level events.

As Hans Morgenthau wrote, “International politics, like all politics, is a struggle for power.” Mearsheimer modernises this insight for the contemporary world. Similarly, Kenneth Waltz argued that the structure of the international system compels states to prioritise survival. Together, these realist traditions provide one of the strongest intellectual foundations for understanding global politics with clarity, realism, and strategic depth.

u/DiploPolitik — 5 days ago

I’m amazed how so many young people think communism was a good thing who’s teaching them?

I’m 28M I’m not some hardcore right wing capitalist. I actually voted for Bernie sanders in 2016 In the primaries. I’m actually very left leaning I support universal healthcare, and debt free college, and I believe all workers should be allowed to Join a Union if they want to. I support raising taxes on the rich up to like 63% Back in the 1940s and in the 50s and 60s it was about 90%. That was the golden age of prosperity for the middle class. But it’s not just democratic socialism which pretty much countries in Europe have. Which I wouldn’t even really call socialism I’d say it’s Socal democracy, or certain services like education, housing and healthcare, are provided. But you still have private businesses and private property rights. But people get benefits for their work like paid family leave and six week paid vacations. That’s the system I think is beneficial a mixed economy, capitalism, and Socialism combined.

But it seems like there’s a lot of hard lefties that are wokists. That seem to be rewriting history about what life was like under communism. Let me give you this example, A couple weeks ago. I was coming home from work and this girl who is driving me. She was in her late 20s same age as me. And whatever we were talking about. I started talking about the Soviet Union, and how people have very limited freedom, of movement people couldn’t travel to wherever they wanted to go unless they got a permit and even then they could only travel to countries in the eastern bloc. And how people waited in the cold snow for hours just to buy food and many times things like meat and milk will be in short supply and people just had to take whatever they could get. And then she interrupted, and then she said well look, it was a needs based system she said that was the goal. She said things like travel, high-quality consumer goods she says those are luxuries. She said the Soviets weren’t trying to focus on that. She said they were trying to focus and make sure everybody had the basics that they needed. This is what she said “ Yeah, people might not have had everything but they had a roof over their head. They had free healthcare. They had guaranteed employment that they couldn’t get fired from.” And then I made it clear you couldn’t pick your job. They would give kids tests when they were only seven years old. And whatever their skill sets were, at the time. You get like 5 to 6 jobs that they would approve you for. It didn’t matter whether you liked it or not that was it. Didn’t matter whether someone wanted to be a scientist or an engineer. Based on a test that you took as a young child, they’d send you to go work in a diamond mind, or work on a farm or be a bus driver. And her response was when I told her that was “ I don’t know I kind of feel it would be better to have jobs given to you that were actually things you could do. Then literally have to work my ass of for 5 to 12 years trying to make my way into a corporate position when there 70 others that are trying to get that job. She said, “ I think it’s more realistic to have someone get a job that fits their skill set but they can be guaranteed benefits. Then, if somebody is terrible at things like math, and then they’re trying to make their way into being a computer scientist.” Well, here’s the thing that’s how our system works. You have the right to succeed, and to fail on your own terms. it’s not the government’s job or societies job to decide what’s best for you and what your needs are that’s on us.

And also in the Soviet Russia under communism people would be living in an apartment with three other families. And they be forced to take care of the elderly grandparents who lived with them, even if they didn’t even know them. Plus people who think communism was a better system, I’ll tell you this Joseph Stalin caused the worst man-made famine in human history. And he murdered so many people through his purges. And all the people that were tortured and killed in the gulags. And in China under Mao Zedong another person who I’ve heard some leftists say, was a great philosopher. Well, he launched the great leap forward. Which he thought, was an effort to make the Chinese people better off by leading China into a modern world economy. But he said it would create equality for the Chinese people. It did create equality everybody became equally poor because of it. Everybody starved to death. And then with his cultural revolution many more people were killed. Cuba under Fidel Castro people literally swam to Miami risking their own lives. Somewhere even eaten by sharks because they were trying to flee Castro’s tyranny. And an East Germany, people were literally murdered by the Stazi which was east Germany‘s version of the KGB. They would shoot people for trying to climb over the wall. Look at countries like North Korea, where if you speak out against the government not just that person can be thrown into prison camp. Their entire family’s parents grandparents, even their friends can all be rounded up. Thrown in prison camps and forced to do hard labor, and then we starve to death. In North Korea, the vast majority of their population does not even have enough food to survive.

So I really wanna know what the hell is going on the systems that we were taught for decades were the wrong systems, That’s not just my opinion it’s backed up by data and statistics. Even to this day, nobody is trying to move to Russia China or North Korea. People are trying to come here to America. To live in freedom to raise their kids so that they could have a better life than they did. And it’s always been that way.

reddit.com
u/Funny_Preference_916 — 6 days ago

Student elections disappearing from colleges quietly changed an entire generation

I genuinely think one of the most underrated political changes happened inside colleges when student elections and political culture started disappearing.

Previous generations learned politics on campuses:

  • debating ideas
  • organizing people
  • speaking publicly
  • negotiating with authorities
  • building groups and movements

College politics wasn’t just “drama.” It was real-world democratic training.

Today most colleges feel politically dead. Everything revolves around attendance, exams, placements, internships, and staying out of trouble. Students are trained to become employees first, citizens second.

And because of that, many young people now engage with politics only through social media outrage instead of actual participation or organization.

Yes, student politics can become messy, toxic, and influenced by larger political parties. But democracy itself is messy. Removing participation doesn’t create better citizens — it creates politically disconnected ones.

A student who contests an election, leads a union, organizes an event, or negotiates with administration probably learns more about power, leadership, and society than someone who only studies theory in classrooms.

Sometimes I feel colleges became less about creating leaders and more about producing safe, employable people.

Am I overthinking this, or has the decline of student political culture actually weakened democratic engagement among young people?

reddit.com
u/pistachiopg — 4 days ago

Is RCV really harder to audit and more prone to fraud?

I have heard that claim multiple times.
Butt:

For ballot counting for RCV, couldnt you assign a ballot id to each permmutation so that its like you’re counting votes for n! candidates (each “candidate” in this case is a preferential ordering)? In principle is it really that different to audit?

Either way you’re just trusting a count (but n vs n! effective candidates) and the counts are published. With RCV you would need an additional algorithm to get final result, but everyone would have the data to check the results themselves (assuming data is accurate). Could publish a video each year executing RCV demonstrating how the results are gotten.

Some problems:
n! gets large fast - could have a filtering round using approval voting and use the top 3 or 4 candidates for RCV round. Approval voting first pass would get rid of spoiler effect. Also, I believe mixing voting systems with different strategic voting vulnerabilities makes strategic voting much harder.

RCV may be difficult to understand for voters, and people may just vote a single candidate - can implement the ballot in flowchart form where you repeatedly ask “what is your favorite candidate among the following list”. One bubble for each preferential ordering.

That forces everyone that made it to the second round to be ranked in every ballot.

Monotonicity criterion and Condorcet criterion violation in RCV stage: well i dont really have an answer for this. Using the same ballot i described, you can use condorcet voting by default and if no condorcet winner you can resort to RCV. Approval voting violates condorcet criterion but can at least guarantee condorcet criterion for finalists.

For condorcet-RCV strategic voting:
Individually, both have standard strategies of burying. In condorcet voting individually, the standard strategy is to place a strong opponent artificially low. In RCV, you may push your favorite down. These are contradictory strategies.

Is there a strategy that works well against the combo, by ensuring the election goes to RCV stage or stays in condorcet? Idk.

reddit.com
u/RamenPantalones — 5 days ago