48
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2023
48 points (77.9% liked)
Comradeship // Freechat
2124 readers
124 users here now
Talk about whatever, respecting the rules established by Lemmygrad. Failing to comply with the rules will grant you a few warnings, insisting on breaking them will grant you a beautiful shiny banwall.
A community for comrades to chat and talk about whatever doesn't fit other communities
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
By that definition every state would be "authoritarian". Try overthrowing your government and see how that goes.
Are you actually listening to what you are saying? Because it really doesn't sound like you've thought this definition through.
You're almost there!
Why do you think that a government will oppose a complete system change, but will allow a party change? You're a pol-sci student, you can get this one!
If a government had two socialist parties, would that make it more democratic and less authoritarian? But if both parties had the same goals, what would even be the point of having two of them? Would it actually be more democratic to have two parties, or would that just be a means of enabling the people to feel like things are more democratic, because they get to vote between two parties (but both parties ultimately have the same goals.)
Now imagine say...a capitalist country that does that. That has two parties, but both parties represent the capitalist class, not the people in general. Is that actually democratic? The people get to choose after all! But they only get a choice between two parties that don't actually represent them.
What is a democracy if not a government built around the representation of the people? If the people are feeling represented by their government, does it matter how many parties their are? More parties doesn't mean more democratic. What matters is that those parties represent the people. Even if there is just a single party, as long as the people have proper representation, it is democratic.
That is ahistorical. As a polisci major you should have learned about McCarthyism.
Buddy, you really think that was condescending? Ooh boy.
You aren't the one calling the shots here champ. This is a Marxist Leninist instance. That means that you should try and understand the Marxist Leninist point of view before smugly telling us we're all wrong.
I've given you sources, I've told you about trying to understand that your perspective isn't the only one, and you call me condescending, that's an awful big word there slugger, well done!
You clearly aren't actually interested in learning, so please take your smug elsewhere, it isn't welcome here. I'm not interested in a "debate" with someone who demands I be "civil" by not calling them out when they say bullshit. You've been trying to shove multiple different societies into simplistic labels rather than trying to understand any of them. It's a shame you took Pol-Sci instead of Anthropology, you'd probably have a better set of tools to understand this stuff that way.
You accuse me of saying a triangle has more than three sides, but have you considered that maybe I'm talking about squares and pentagons as well as triangles? And you're the only one here insisting every shape is triangular?
This is for the lurkers, an essay on how this sort of thinking is so prevalent in yankees:
https://www.qiaocollective.com/articles/american-revolution-tu-zhuxi/
I've repeatedly tried to tell you that your worldview isn't the only one, and your only response is to assume malice on my part, rather than consider that you are not in fact the arbiter of all that is True and Good in the world.
It's kind of outrageous that a simple concept: "There are more points of view than your own" is apparently lost on you. Just because you can't understand that concept doesn't mean you are correct. Get your head out of your own ass. Though obviously, you never will, because you love the smell of your own farts too much. You clearly aren't here in good faith, you're just here to lecture us about how we should all sniff our own assholes and call that political theory.
The issue is that capitalism has made itself indissoluble. Capitalism is very good at co-opting any threat and integrating it into it. Like how you can buy Leninade in the US (which I hear is just mid). Well, except fascism lol (cf 1945).
Any revolutionary message can be made into a commodity to be bought and sold, reduced to its simple exchange value -- which is something Marx talked about extensively.
Capitalism doesn't need to jail people for speaking up against it. It can defang them completely and integrate their message in the pursuit of profit. Like how Just Stop Oil is being funded by an oil heiress. Was the USSR at a same developmental stage that they could allow people to "suggest" a completely different system?
And the proof this mechanism is working... is that we're having this conversation. Vocal disagreement with capitalism is useless. It does not materially do anything against capitalism. Whenever we turn that disagreement into action and get slightly too close, that's when the arm of the state comes up to ban our parties (authoritarian by your definition), jail us (authoritarian by your definition), close down our media outlets (authoritarian by your definition) and even sometimes team up with fascists to assassinate us (authoritarian by your definition).
But try suggesting in 1790s France that you should have a king again.
The DPRK is led by a coalition of three parties; the Social-Democrats, the Chongdu party (religious), and the Workers' Party. I dread to see what they teach you in your polisci degree because this is pretty fundamental stuff about the DPRK, even Wikipedia talks about it, it's not like it's some super obscure factoid.