Democracy vs. Plutocracy

American political thought is fundamentally atomistic, rooted in the belief that individuals are autonomous beings endowed with inalienable rights to pursue their own self-interest. This philosophical foundation normalizes intense competition, where a few emerge as winners while the majority are left behind. Those who succeed in this system often consolidate their power by forming political parties, which claim to represent the public but primarily compete for influence and control.

Elections serve as the formal mechanism through which these parties alternate power. Over time, practices such as political donations, lobbying, and media campaigning have been redefined as forms of free speech, allowing those with greater resources to dominate the political arena. As a result, elections become increasingly ideological and media-driven, shaped by those who have the means to sway public opinion. Ultimately, this dynamic fosters a political landscape in which policies tend to favor the wealthy, deepening social and economic inequality.

With elections increasingly vulnerable to financial influence, misinformation, and character attacks, American politics has become deeply contentious. Elected officials often prioritize performative rhetoric and media attention over effective governance, focusing more on pleasing donors and securing re-election than advancing the public good. The frequent shifts in party control lead to erratic policy reversals, undermining long-term planning and institutional stability. Each administration tends to overspend, accumulate debt, and resort to printing money to inflate short-term approval—leaving the economic consequences to future governments. Meanwhile, partisan gridlock paralyzes decision-making and intensifies social division.

Despite these dysfunctions, many Americans still regard the current system as the only legitimate form of democracy. In practice, however, the U.S. political system operates more as a partisan democracy than a people’s democracy. Increasingly, scholars argue that it has morphed into a plutocracy—rule by the wealthy and well-connected. Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz famously characterized the United States as a nation “of the 1%, by the 1%, and for the 1%.” Backed by powerful special interests, political elites often sideline the needs and voices of the broader population.

The consequences of this distorted system are stark. The U.S. has the highest levels of inequality among developed nations, and during the COVID-19 pandemic, it suffered a death toll over 170 times higher than China’s and an infection rate 1,600 times greater. Decades of financial mismanagement have pushed the national debt beyond $30 trillion, much of it channeled into private contractors, defense budgets, and corporate subsidies. Meanwhile, deep-rooted social problems—ranging from racial conflict and poverty to drug addiction and gun violence—continue to plague the nation.

With less than a quarter of the population of China or India, the U.S. nonetheless has the world’s largest prison population. Its healthcare system is the most expensive globally, yet millions remain uninsured or underinsured. Retirement ages have steadily climbed, placing increasing burdens on the elderly. According to the U.S. Life Insurance Guide, the average retirement age is 67.9 for men and 66.5 for women, compared to China’s 60 for men, 55 for women. Public education is in decline, infrastructure is aging, and the country has been at war for 229 of its 245-year history. These conflicts, often justified in the name of “American values,” perpetuate high military spending, weapons exports, and global dominance—primarily serving entrenched economic and political interests.

Although this system is labeled a democracy, the average American has increasingly little influence over the decisions that shape their daily lives.

In contrast, Chinese political thought is fundamentally holistic, emphasizing the interdependence of individuals within the broader social fabric. Human rights in China are framed in terms of collective well-being rather than individual autonomy. These rights encompass not only personal freedom but also values such as coexistence, equality, cooperation, and social harmony. Whereas American thought tends to view individuals as independent actors pursuing self-interest, Chinese thought sees people as intrinsically connected, with mutual obligations to family, community, and society. Rooted in Confucian tradition, this perspective prioritizes ethical behavior, consensus-building, and the pursuit of communal interests as essential to maintaining social stability and order. (See Understanding China: Geography, Confucianism, and Chinese-Style Modernization.)

China adopts a model of people’s democracy, prioritizing collective governance over partisan competition. While individual interests vary, leadership is expected to represent the broader will of the population. With a 5,000-year tradition of governance, China has historically recognized both the risks of factionalism and the importance of unified political leadership. The Communist Party of China (CPC), comprising nearly 100 million members, positions national interest above partisan agendas. Leadership selection occurs every five years through the CPC National Congress and the National People’s Congress, with candidates evaluated based on character, competence, and proven achievement, rather than rhetoric or ideology. Policy development involves extensive research, public consultation, and meticulous planning to balance short-term priorities with long-term national goals. Unlike the U.S., where governance often reflects special interest influence, China’s system seeks to foster a just and harmonious society rooted in shared prosperity. Institutional safeguards—including collective leadership, term limits, anti-corruption measures, public supervision, and internal discipline—aim to enhance accountability and prevent authoritarianism.

Differences in human rights perspectives shape how each country approaches key issues. In the U.S., COVID-19 precautions were largely seen as a matter of personal choice, with individual liberty prioritized over collective protection. In contrast, China placed public health first, with temporary restrictions widely accepted for the greater good. Similarly, Americans often view gun control as an infringement on personal freedom, whereas the Chinese regard strict firearm laws as essential for public safety. In the U.S., business regulation is frequently seen as a constraint on economic freedom, while in China, such oversight is viewed as necessary to reduce inequality. Intellectual property in the U.S. is tightly protected, often limit accessibility and innovation, while China promotes shared technological advancement to accelerate national development. And while the U.S. frequently invokes individual rights to justify foreign interventions, China considers such actions—including the instigation of color revolutions and conflicts under the banner of democracy—as violations of national sovereignty and human rights.

No political system is immune to failure. History teaches that if a nation fails to confront its ideological, institutional, and systemic flaws, decline is inevitable. The dominance of special interests—such as corporate lobbies and the military-industrial complex—erodes democratic legitimacy and public trust. Drawing from China’s long history, the collapse of a democracy under the weight of corruption and plutocracy may take less than three centuries (see The Vicious Circle of Regime Change). This is why Chinese political culture values collectivism and egalitarianism over individualism. As China rises, Confucian values are poised to play a larger role in shaping global political thought—an evolution worth noting and, perhaps, celebrating. (See Pluralism vs. Monism.)