49
submitted 6 months ago by yogthos@lemmy.ml to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] pulaskiwasright@lemmy.ml 2 points 6 months ago
[-] KoboldKomrade@hexbear.net 19 points 6 months ago
[-] BurgerPunk@hexbear.net 19 points 6 months ago

What they do in Cuba, or the PRC, or the former USSR

[-] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml 13 points 6 months ago
[-] pulaskiwasright@lemmy.ml 0 points 6 months ago

What definition of proletarian democracy? It’s not well defined and means vastly different things to different people.

[-] OurToothbrush@lemmy.ml 18 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Democracy in which the bourgeoisie are denied political agency as class relations are in the process of being dissolved. The problem isn't actually democracy, the problem is that in a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie (democracy where capitalists are in control) capitalist interests override democracy.

Not that democracy doesn't have problems inherently, but they're pretty minor compared to the problems we are facing.

[-] GarbageShoot@hexbear.net 18 points 6 months ago

A brutal crackdown on the ability of the bourgeoisie to influence elections, buy politicians, and hold office, such that liberals will crow about "human rights" and "freedom" being violated. We can draw fine distinctions between different systems, but fundamentally they still fall on the same side of the fence.

[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 months ago
[-] pulaskiwasright@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 months ago

That’s not a political system at all. It’s a process that could be implemented in many styles of government. It is not incompatible with representative democracy either. It is a bad idea though. It means that a government has a hard time changing course, even when it needs to. Because it silences people from questioning decisions.

[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 months ago

It's literally how communist states are organized, how is it not a political system?

[-] pulaskiwasright@lemmy.ml -2 points 6 months ago

It’s it though. It’s a principle applied to Chinese communism. It’s not a required part of communism and it isn’t form of government on its own. It’s not even the most major part of a government system.

[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml 8 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

It's not required for communism per se, but it's certainly a form of government organization. It's how the People's Congress works?

[-] davel@lemmy.ml 9 points 6 months ago

It seems this person is just going to keep repeating that it isn’t a form of government no matter what.

At this point the onus is on @pulaskiwasright@lemmy.ml to specify what criteria need be met for something to be considered “a form of government.”

[-] BurgerPunk@hexbear.net 11 points 6 months ago

I'm not holding my breath on a lib getting into specifics

[-] pulaskiwasright@lemmy.ml -3 points 6 months ago

It doesn’t define how leaders are chosen or how laws are enacted. It can’t be a system of government. Unless you have selected a specific implementation of government that uses it and are conflating the term with that government system. If that’s the case, then I agree that arguing over the definition is pointless. So what implementation or design do you think is better.

[-] davel@lemmy.ml 13 points 6 months ago

The current government structures of Cuba, China, Laos, and Vietnam aren’t a secret, nor is the Soviet Union’s. From a declassified CIA document (PDF):

Even in Stalin's time there was collective leadership. The Western idea of a dictator within the Communist setup is exaggerated. Misunderstandings on that subject are caused by lack of comprehension of the real nature and organization of the Communist power structure. Stalin, although holding wide powers, was merely the captain of a team and it seems obvious that Khrushchev will be the new captain.

[-] Infamousblt@hexbear.net 3 points 6 months ago

Almost any other kind of democracy. Representative democracy is better than fascism but it is the worst form of democracy

[-] pulaskiwasright@lemmy.ml -1 points 6 months ago

Worse than what form of democracy exactly?

[-] Alsephina@lemmy.ml 8 points 6 months ago

Everything else people have mentioned in the comments. Proletarian democracy, democratic centralism, participatory democracy, etc.

Well, the first two are really just a way of saying socialism.

[-] pulaskiwasright@lemmy.ml -2 points 6 months ago

Democratic centrism is more of a rule or process or principle. It isn’t even a form of government and it’s compatible with many forms of government.

Proletarian democracy isn’t well defined so I can’t say anything since it means 1000 different things to 1000 different people and often does include representative democracy.

Participatory democracy similarly is a spectrum and is compatible with representative democracy.

So to actually talk about this you would need to be more specific about how the “better” form of government would work.

[-] krolden@lemmy.ml 5 points 6 months ago
[-] pulaskiwasright@lemmy.ml -2 points 6 months ago

Name one. One actually concrete form of democracy that would work better.

[-] Infamousblt@hexbear.net 12 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

How do you define "working"? Otherwise I don't know how you're measuring it. Would you say that a system that allows for literally one of the most unpopular genocides in history is "working"? Or a system that is working overtime to increase income and wealth disparity rather than reduce it? Is that working? I certainly wouldn't but I'm guessing you think that's working swell

[-] krolden@lemmy.ml 9 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Whatever its called that cuba does where national representation is organized and chosen at the local level. Idk im not a political scientist.

But also name ten that are worse

[-] pulaskiwasright@lemmy.ml -5 points 6 months ago

Bu what metric does that system work though? It’s hard to judge it because the info is all unreliable and the government doesn’t share data. We don’t know how bad or good wealth inequality is there.

[-] krolden@lemmy.ml 14 points 6 months ago

I answered your question but you didn't answer mine.

[-] BurgerPunk@hexbear.net 7 points 6 months ago

By what metric does the US system work?

[-] pulaskiwasright@lemmy.ml -1 points 6 months ago

Standard of living is relatively high in the U.S.

[-] BurgerPunk@hexbear.net 3 points 6 months ago

Is that because of bourgeois representative democracy, or because of the imperialist exploitation of the global south?

[-] sadschmuck@hexbear.net 2 points 6 months ago

Participatory democracy

[-] sandman@lemmy.ca -4 points 6 months ago

Ask the people of El Salvador, and they'll say having a dictator is better because democracy has demonstrably failed them.

El Salvador under a dictator actually has less gang violence than Mexico under a democracy.

Westerners will blind themselves to this reality, though. They always do.

[-] pulaskiwasright@lemmy.ml -1 points 6 months ago

When dictatorships go badly, they go extremely badly. Far more badly than even a broken representative democracy. The odd of having a sold string of reasonably good dictators are vanishingly small. A good dictator is the best form of government. Good luck maintaining that though.

[-] davel@lemmy.ml 6 points 6 months ago

When a bourgeois democratic state goes badly, it tears off its liberal mask and reveals the fascism beneath. The capitalist class dispenses with democratic theater and rules by naked dictatorship. Western liberals shouldn’t wonder why fascism is on the rise in the West: it’s because Western monopoly capitalism is increasingly going mask-off. Monthly Review, 2014: The Return of Fascism in Contemporary Capitalism

this post was submitted on 13 Apr 2024
49 points (91.5% liked)

World News

32218 readers
548 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS