Interesting that the nations that touted popular representation as an aspect of enlightenment also deprived other nations of it for so long.
this post was submitted on 08 Oct 2025
70 points (90.7% liked)
Socialism
6407 readers
44 users here now
Rules TBD.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
all 19 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
Liberalism has always been the ideological justification for capitalism and free flow of capital, nothing more and nothing less. Whatever best supported the profit motive. Capitalist countries are inherently anti-democratic, it's been socialist countries that have brought genuine democracy to the people.
I can't know for sure which nations you're referring to, but the only nations that claim to exist in a form of popular representation are electoral democracies. Marxist-Leninist states like the Soviet Union or China claim that their state is a part of the working class. That a Vanguard party of especially class conscious workers should manage the state with the end goal of implementating a true egalitarian Marxist communist society.
I don't agree with them, especially not with the soviet union itself. I'm only saying this in disagreement over the term "touted". Marxist-Leninist states are dictatorships by design. They do not claim popular representation, they actually claim to have to impose socialism on the masses until it is accepted. They claim that workers have been conditioned to accept and endorse capitalism, and in a more historical sense monarchism, even at their own expense (this I believe to be true). The vanguard party must therefore prevent those workers from overthrowing the party and reinstituting capitalism. Hence why they preoccupied themselves a lot with the threat of dissent. At least that is their ideological justification for mass surveillance and restriction of civil liberties.
To say that they tout popular representation just isnt true. They actually claim to "know whats good for the workers better than the workers know what's good for themselves" and that they must therefore force the workers to embrace socialism. I do agree that socialism is objectively better than capitalism, and that a way of spreading that idea and deprogramming capitalist conditioning is necessary. I do not agree that a dictatorship is necessary to do those things, nor that any vanguard party could be an actual part of the proletariat.
Marxist-Leninist states are dictatorships by design. They do not claim popular representation,
They claim both. The point is a dictatorship of the proletariat, which is why they have popular elections. That was the whole point of the soviets after all!
Your first paragraph was correct, the latter two incorrect. The vanguard is the solidified and organized segment of the most politically advanced of the working class, which exists whether or not you formalize it. It's much better to formalize it, though, as you can make it more accountable, visible, and democratic that way. MLs believe in mass democracy for and by the working class, not a dictatorship over the working class. All socialist states have had comprehensive democratic organs designed specifically for such a purpose.
There's a pretty big difference between a unitary socialist democracy, where policy is more important than party, and liberal multiparty democracy, which is more about competing parties. The former is much more effective in socialist systems, the latter is abused by capitalists to put on a show for the working class within capitalism. That'e why MLs say socialist states have been more democratic than capitalist states, we aren't comparing the number of parties that can be voted on but instead how effective the system is at putting in action the will of the people.
I see. The use of the term dictatorship is kinda misleading in this sense then. I'll admit some ignorance on my behalf on the "democracy by policy" functions within ML states. I am aware of the party congress but always understood that this did not include all matters of state. I do think that multiparty electoral democracies are largely misdirections to protect the interests of the ruling class. I am somewhat confused about what the actual extent of democracy by policy could be? Or how this relates to the state monopoly of violence, agents of the state like police and military forces.
You touched on it earlier, the state in Marxism is only the political arm of the ruling class. In socialism, that means the working class, and it entails things like direct local councils or electing representatives. The party is beholden to its line, but within the party there is diverse discussion as long as it doesn't involve wrecker behavior.
Different states have had different forms of democracy, from the soviet model to China's whole-process people's democracy, to Korea's taean system, etc. Some have approval voting, some have more standard voting, etc. The biggest difference is that opposition parties that can easily be taken advantage of by foreign powers typically are minimized.
Dictatorship of the X refers to absolute rule by the class X, ie in capitalism it is the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie over the proletariat, in socialism it's the dictatorship of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie. Bourgeois political power is removed and suppressed. Someone recently asked about the withering of the state over in Lemmygrad, if you want to see some answers regarding that. It can be a bit confusing without a solid understanding of Marxist economics and the theory of the state.
I'm curious how the party could simultaneously be a part of the proletariat and also a distinct entity in its own right? In intersectional feminism a great deal of discussion goes into the idea of classes existing within complex frameworks of political and social power. All classes are created based on some distinguishing characteristics. Economic characteristics, racial characteristics, characteristics of ability, sexuality, gender, etc. Classes are not generally self assigned they are assigned by others in response to perceived characteristics, there's exceptions but not generally. Classes are hierarchal, always. That is that none of them exist in isolation. Some classes are privileged to the disadvantage of some other classes.
Unless you existed within a single class system, which would have no distinguishing characteristics, and all people would belong to it. I think in socialist theory this would be the end goal of a communist revolution, the creation of a classless society where everyone holds the same social and political power.
The reason I want to layout my understanding of class is specifically to say, I do not understand how the vanguard can be a part of the working class. It does not make sense that a state entity that is characteristically distinguishable from the working class could also be a part of that working class. Many ML nations have even employed literal signifiers that someone is a member of the party. The amount of political power of general secretaries / chairmen / councilmen is also just not the same as the political power of any worker within those nations. There's a hierarchy of political power that would privilege members of the party over workers themselves. How do you believe this inherent contradiction can be rectified?
I have qualms over what constitutes "wrecker behavior" or bourgeois power, and more importantly who determines what constitutes those things, but I'll table that over this discussion which I think has more potential to be productive.
Put simply, the way you're describing class isn't the same as the way Marxists describe it. These differing views on class leads to differing views on how to address class. That isn't to say that there isn't overlap, of course, but as a quick example Marxists do not consider class to be intrinsically hierarchial, as in classes can have hierarchy within themselves while being the same class.
Managers are proletarians, generally, though usually among the more well-paid stratum of the working class. Classes are social groups, generally, and as everyone is an individual with our own characteristics, no two people are the same. A class consists of definite social relations that apply as an average, common to all who fit in that class, though edge cases and outliers will inevitably exist.
If we compare socialist officials, party members, etc with non-party members, there is indeed typically higher material benefits and political power. However, this doesn't mean that production is run for their personal enrichment, or under their sole discretion. Marxists consider administration to be a necessary role, and don't generally consider equalitarianism to be a useful pursuit, instead moving towards "from each according to their ability to each according to their work," and later into "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs." Administration doesn't mean production is run for their benefit, and ownership of production is still shared collectively.
Moving onto the vanguard, just like some workers are plumbers, some are engineers, some are industrial fabricators, all of these groups fall under the "working class" generally. The vanguard isn't different from that, rather than being professional doctors, teachers, etc, they are professional revolutionaries. Post-revolution, this involves the state, and the means by which the state and class are eroded lies in collectivizing all of production and distribution along a common plan. The vanguard is a matter of practical necessity, proven historically by successful revolution.
Since you're coming from the feminist framework, I recommend the essay The Tyranny of Structurelessness by Jo Freeman, using lessons of practical experience from feminist movements in organizing. Formalizing structure and organizing allows you to form a mass movement with accountability against bad actors, and come up with cohesive plans and agendas without falling into the traps of endless discussion and lack of action. It also avoids the problems of uncontestable elites, that cannot be challenged because no formal checks exist.
[removed by mod]
The Soviet Union had public ownership as the principle aspect of its economy, it was by definition socialist. Further, production was run to satisfy the needs of the people, not for the profits of privledged few. The working class was in control of the state.
As for the DPRK, it is democratic, elections for the Supreme People's Assembly occur every 5 years, while local assemblies are voted for 4 year terms. The government is primarily held by the WPK, but there are 2 other parties that hold seats, a social democratic party and a religious party.
Mfs who never visited easten bloc and idealise life during ussr need to visit romania , moldova , kyrgystan etc
Yup, mfs should visit them now to see what sort of hell capitalism created there.
[removed by mod]
No, this is wildly incorrect. The Soviet Union had no colonies, nor did it run its economy based on extraction and foreign plundering. It was an economy where public ownership was the principle aspect of the economy, and production was focused primarily on meeting people's needs, which is why life expectancy doubled, literacy rates tripled, homelessness was at or near 0 (outside of critical periods like World War II), education and healthcare were free and high quality, etc.
I've visited them. Capitalism sure did wreck them.
Mfs who never visited easten bloc and idealise life during ussr need to visit romania , moldova , kyrgystan etc
You say life under socialism was good yet in those same countries right now after the collapse of socialism and 30+ years of capitalism life is not good, curious... 
The fall of the soviet union resulted in a massive downgrade in the standard of living for every former soviet nation, you don't need to travel there in person to figure that out