The Democratic People's™ Republic of Tankiejerk

700 readers

116 users here now

Dunking on Tankies from a leftist, anti-capitalist perspective.

Rules:

Be civil and no bigotry of any kind.
No tankies or right-wingers. Liberals are allowed so long as they are aware of this
No genocide denial

We allow posts about tankie behavior even off fedi, shitposts, and rational, leftist discussion. For a more general community !meanwhileongrad@sh.itjust.works is recommended.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

CarbonBasedNPU@lemm.ee

PugJesus@lemmy.world

481

Simple guide to socialism (lemmy.dbzer0.com)

submitted 3 days ago by fxomt@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/tankiejerk@lemmy.world

120 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 10 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Are bourgeoisie liberal states democratic? Curious your thoughts.

To varying degrees. Certainly more than the USSR. Not really sure why anyone thinks "You can vote for the Party Approved candidate or not vote" is a real vote, other than a deep desire to throat authoritarian boots.

[–] cqst@lemmy.blahaj.zone -3 points 2 days ago (2 children)

“You can vote for the Party Approved candidate or not vote”

I don't really think its functionally different in the USA (or other liberal states). Democrats and Republicans are quite literally "Party Approved Candidates". The presence of independents is incidental, and the USSR had independents in its parliament as well. This is why I view both the USA and USSR as "democratic", but I would view neither as socialist.

[–] PugJesus@lemmy.world 7 points 2 days ago

I don’t really think its functionally different in the USA (or other liberal states). Democrats and Republicans are quite literally “Party Approved Candidates”.

Independents run in the US all the time. Democrats and Republicans both have party primaries, in which the 'party-approved' candidates are voted for and ran. I don't even remember the last time there was an uncontested national election.

The presence of independents is incidental,

Why? Because it's inconvenient to the point?

and the USSR had independents in its parliament as well.

The 'independents' were party-approved, and almost always elected uncontested as well. Contested elections, to my memory, were not even allowed between independents and Communist candidates until 8 fucking 9.

This is why I view both the USA and USSR as “democratic”, but I would view neither as socialist.

Neither the US nor the USSR are socialist, but the USA is much more democratic than the USSR. Fuck's sake, 19th century Britain was more democratic than the USSR, and 19th century Britain was not very fucking democratic.

[–] MothmanDelorian@lemmy.world 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The difference is the state does not choose who their opposition is and you are actually allowed to replace the governing system as a whole in liberal states which was not permitted in the USSR.

[–] cqst@lemmy.blahaj.zone -1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The difference is the state does not choose who their opposition is

Are you sure about that?

and you are actually allowed to replace the governing system as a whole in liberal states which was not permitted in the USSR.

What does "replacing the governing system as a whole", look like, in practice, exactly? How is this different from the USSR?

[–] MothmanDelorian@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago

Yes, there is no branch of the government that chooses the opposing candidate to the state party candidate.

In theory in most liberal countries candidates can run on scrapping the current system and replacing it. For example you can run a socialist candidate in US elections that wants to legally and non-violently remove capitalist democracy and replace it with a socialist autocracy. You cannot run a candidate in Chinese elections that wants to remove the Chinese Communist party from power.

This is one of the most critical freedoms that the USSR lacked and China lacks.