0
They aren't even trying to hide the propaganda
(www.cbc.ca)
This is a Dengist community in favor of Bashar al-Assad with no information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton, our fellow liberal and queen. This community is not ironic. We are Marxists-Leninists.
This community is for posts about Marxism and geopolitics (including shitposts to some extent). Serious posts can be posted here or in /c/GenZhou. Reactionary or ultra-leftist cringe posts belong in /c/shitreactionariessay or /c/shitultrassay respectively.
We have a Matrix homeserver and a Matrix space. See this thread for more information. If you believe the server may be down, check the status on status.elara.ws.
Rules:
I honestly struggle to wrap my mind around the idea of term limits = democracy. Here in the US the only reason we have them is one president did the bare minimum and gave the working class some crumbs and kept winning so they implemented term limits. It seems to almost always be implemented as a way to stop democracy.
In theory, I think in certain cases term limits can be a check for those in power.
Its not a blanket solution, but when I think of Gorbachev, Khruschev, Yeltsin, term limits might have helped stop their corruption.
I also think that term limits could help provide fresh faces to a socialist state that add new perspectives.
But this is me being charitable as possible, and I do see that term limits could cause or exacerbate corruption as well.
They wouldn't though. Gorbachev was in power for not even 6 years, that's barely more than one term. Yeltsin 8 years, so not even the commonly allowed two terms, during which he completely trampled all semblances and pretences of democracy anyway (three times at least), so what would the mere term matter for him? Khrushchev 11 years so that's also not much longer than 2 terms. Not to mention he came to power in literal military-assisted coup. And he ultimately did not even tried to resist when he was ousted.