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.
[1] http://gawker.com/this-is-how-hillary-clinton-gets-the-cover...
The story they are trying to control/guide is much more reactive, like preventing social unrest, rioting, exploding financial scams, etc...often very local.
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.
Yeah, get too many of those and see what happens.
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.
[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...
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.
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.
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.