I basically disagree with any left or right wing person that want to destroy, through revolution or any other means, democratic system with it's checks and balances. Basically if your desired political system implies that there is no separation of power, I consider it authoritarian. And of course freedom of press, respecting human rights and not persecuting opposition is also an important part of it.

[–] areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

How can a society without a state - anarchism - possibly be authoritarian? There are no police or military to enforce any authoritarian policies is many forms of anarchism. What you are saying doesn't make sense.

I actually agree with you that MLs can be authoritarian. That's part of why I left those ideologies behind. What I don't agree with is painting all socialist ideologies with the same brush. Some are based on direct democracy which is always going to be more democratic than representative democracy, weather you think that's a good thing or not.

I also don't believe we live in a true democracy as it's controlled through political and economic corruption including lobbying, as well as the two-party system created through FPTP voting systems. Not to mention manufactured consent. So to me those checks and balances aren't that effective, especially compared to real direct democracy.

Edit: also MLs believe in checks and balances last I checked. The USSR was full of bureaucracy for this very reason.

[–] MoonJellyfish@lemmy.today 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Generally, anarchism seems to me like a dysfunctional mess or just a state with extra steps. And I don't see direct democracy working for any society with big population without leading to tyranny of majority, which I see as an authoritarian form of government. Not even mentioning that through direct democracy could rise some tyrant.

To clarify everything, by using democracy I mainly mean representative democratic republic. Direct democracy could be reasonably incorporated in democratic process, like it's done in Switzerland.

Imho, modern democratic systems have a lot of problems but in no way as much and as grave as its alternatives.

And no, ML do not believe in checks and balances. Having a lot of bureaucracy doesn't mean you have implemented the system of checks and balances. Marxism-Leninism presupposes creation of one party state controlled by the communist party, where the communist party is the supreme authority. Doesn't sound like a system with checks and balances.

[–] areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Generally, anarchism seems to me like a dysfunctional mess or just a state with extra steps. And I don’t see direct democracy working for any society with big population without leading to tyranny of majority, which I see as an authoritarian form of government. Not even mentioning that through direct democracy could rise some tyrant.

So you don't actually care about being democratic as end in itself then.

And no, ML do not believe in checks and balances. Having a lot of bureaucracy doesn’t mean you have implemented the system of checks and balances. Marxism-Leninism presupposes creation of one party state controlled by the communist party, where the communist party is the supreme authority. Doesn’t sound like a system with checks and balances.

There are systems like Cuba which have multiple houses which vote on issues - just like USA and UK have multiples voting bodies. These people are representatives elected by the people. Grouping them into distinct parties doesn't make it more democratic and I can't see how it adds checks and balances.

[–] MoonJellyfish@lemmy.today 1 points 8 months ago (1 children)

So you don’t actually care about being democratic as end in itself then.

I care about representative democratic republic with system of check and balances. Basically the system majority of people imagine when someone mentions democratic countries. I think it's the best system that showed itself to provide prosperity, stability, respect for human rights and so on.

Grouping them into distinct parties doesn’t make it more democratic and I can’t see how it adds checks and balances.

The problem there is with checks and balances. Allowing other political parties to take your place if you f up, is an important part of it.

[–] areyouevenreal@lemm.ee 1 points 8 months ago

The problem there is with checks and balances. Allowing other political parties to take your place if you f up, is an important part of it.

In most modern democracies there are only two parties that actually matter. So this argument doesn't hold water to me.

I care about representative democratic republic with system of check and balances. Basically the system majority of people imagine when someone mentions democratic countries. I think it's the best system that showed itself to provide prosperity, stability, respect for human rights and so on.

Said system doesn't work. It's led to people starving on the streets, exploitation of poorer countries, and is propped up largely by war and suffering. Sure it's better than feudalism I guess, but feudalism was itself better than slave society. It's time to build something better.