The Democratic People's™ Republic of Tankiejerk

701 readers

575 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 [email protected] is recommended.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

PugJesus

480

Simple guide to socialism (lemmy.dbzer0.com)

submitted 2 days ago by [email protected] to c/tankiejerk

91 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

[–] PugJesus 9 points 20 hours 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.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 20 hours 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.

[–] MothmanDelorian 1 points 8 hours ago

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.

[–] PugJesus 7 points 19 hours 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.