Yes but the difference is in totalitarian regimes, theirs is the only narrative. No one or nothing else's story is permitted, while theirs is made to flourish.

On the positive side, when you have an undivided narrative like that you can get a lot done (sometimes bad, sometimes good) without impeding distractions.

In non-totalitarian regimes, you only get your career threatened[1], in totalitarian regimes, you could be imprisoned.

[1] http://gawker.com/this-is-how-hillary-clinton-gets-the-cover...

The CCP isn't unified in their narrative, and there is definitely infighting from time to time out of public view (though you can sense hints of it via editorials talking about bizarre ideological topics).

The story they are trying to control/guide is much more reactive, like preventing social unrest, rioting, exploding financial scams, etc...often very local.

You can get books in the Shanghai library with a lot of narratives of world history different than the CCP's.

Totalitarian is probably not the most fitting word to describe the current state of Chinese society, insofar as it connotates an environment of constant fear of unwarranted state intrustion into everyday life. The only environment I've been in that could be said to be "totalitarian" in that sense would be the south side of Chicago.

I think you're parsing things a bit. We could all say there are at least as many narratives as there are people...

The point is only one narrative is allowed success any usurper with too much notice would get suppressed.

Sure, you can find, if you look hard enough, you can find like minded people, just don't make it obvious, don't appear as if you could pose an ideological threat incompatible with the goals of the CCP or PLA.

DPRK and Eritrea are pretty darn close to totalitarian. Even at its worst in the 60s/70s, China was just barely there, it is just too big to control likes that.

It is difficulty it to describe China's political system using existing terms. Maybe authoritarian, but that doesn't feel right either. It isn't transparent in how the power flows, could even be an oligarchy or aristocracy.

In practice, and in name, China is a republic. The leadership of the CCP are elected by it's 80+ million members. [1] Power resides in elected individuals representing the party members. Party membership is not easy, but not too difficult either. [2] One could make the analogy, joining the party is the PRC's version of enrolling to vote, which happens to be a much more complicated process than in the U.S. Not everyone is allowed to become a party member, but that is also true in the U.S and other countries, where some or all prisoners have no right to vote.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_the_People%27s_Re...

[2] https://www.quora.com/How-do-I-join-the-Chinese-Communist-Pa...

We get to vote for local representatives in our trade union. I mean, the trade union organizes the voting, but us non-citizen members aren't allowed to participate. They give you one name to vote for, BUT IT IS STILL DEMOCRATIC because you can write someone else's name in if you want. You get one name to vote for, but you can vote for anyone - so wise!

Likewise, when party members vote for congress party members, the decisions are often pre-determined. Ironically enough, Xi Jinping actually lost a vote once:

> Xi held posts in the Fuzhou Municipal Party Committee and became the president of the Party School in Fuzhou in 1990. In 1997, Xi was named an alternate member of the 15th Central Committee of the Communist Party of China. However, out of the 151 alternate members of the Central Committee elected at the 15th Party Congress, Xi received the lowest number of votes in favour, placing him in last place in the rankings of members, ostensibly due to his status as a Princeling.[a][20]

Of course, it didn't matter much, because votes are..well..even under the perverted Chinese system where outcomes are almost always predetermined, if they are not what is wanted, they are just fudged anyways.

And everyone knew Xi Jinping would get elected even before the first vote was cast by the party. There wasn't like any suspense, there were no odds in London. This year in the US, it is not certain that Clinton or Trump will will the POTUS election...we have hunches, but there is no certainty.

Calling China a republic is like calling North Korea a republic. Technically true, but ultimately meaningless.

Does Xi have full control of China? Does he have the power to do things like, give cities away to foreign nations? Is his term unlimited? Is it inherited?

In the U.S., you've had Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, and strong chance of Clinton and Bush again next term. It's a Republic in name, but it is also where a political system where political power is often inherited, arguable even more so than in China. If U.S. qualifies as a republic, I'd say China does too. We might know Xi was going to be president before the election was going to happen, but that happens in Westminster parliaments too - we are only electing our local representative, but everyone knows there are only two candidates. Same is true for China, where it was Xi and Bo Xilai. The latter lost.

>You can get books in the Shanghai library with a lot of narratives of world history different than the CCP's.

Yeah, get too many of those and see what happens.

Some try a little bit harder than others.