You kinda cope in there by saying that the governments that called themselves socialist in the past were democratic, which is kind of not true for a lot of them. There's degrees to it but for the most part they weren't.

I think it's smarter for us to distance ourselves from those governments as they ultimately didn't really represent our views, not mine at least.

The other problem is the Engels On Authority ass first paragraph, equating use of violence with authoritarianism.

When you do thay you kinda just come off as an authoritarian if people aren't already familiar with your definitions (similar to using the phrase dictatorship of the proletariat.)

The argument is also just silly and I wish I could go back in time and stop it from entering the material world but I am too lazy to write about it. A lot of libertarian communists have written about it over the past century so you can probably fish something up if you look.

[+] SSJMarx@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

[deleted]

[–] trashgirlfriend@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago (6 children)

I would love some examples here. The Soviets conducted elections. The Chinese conduct elections. The Koreans conduct elections. The Cubans conduct elections. The Vietnamese conduct elections.

Comrades in this election you may democratically vote for the one candidate from our party, as the opponent tragically fell out of a window.

And I pointedly disagree with this. When you say "I am a socialist but every other socialist government was bad" you are severely undercutting your own argument right out of the gate.

When you associate yourself with authoritarian hellholes you become an unhinged weirdo to 90% of the population.

It's not the 1960s anymore, we know what these countries are/were like and if you really want to simp for them then don't be surprised people think you hate democracy.

load more comments (6 replies)

[–] Vilian@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

bourgeois election influence ie PACs, donations, mass media campaigns, etc.

you talk about bourgeois influence/propaganda, why you don't care abut goverment propaganda?

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 22 points 3 months ago (2 children)

What if I told you we could vote ourselves into socialism?

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

What if I told you every time that happens the bourgeoisie takes control of the military and starts a civil war to maintain their power?

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

I'm not sure that holds without the CIA coming in to facilitate that in a relatively new democracy. If a large country with good institutions voted that way it would be a lot harder to pull off a military coup.

[–] kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone 19 points 3 months ago (2 children)

That depends on if you believe in Stalin's ideas of a vanguard or Trotskys ideas of a vanguard. According to Trotsky the vanguard of the workers should be democratically elected.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 27 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Or, hear me out, you can be a non-Marxist socialist, because socialism does not only mean Marxism.

[–] kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I'm aware, however I assume the person was specifically referring to Stalinism.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 7 points 3 months ago

Then the assumptions they forwarded as absolutes need to be addressed instead of accepted.

[+] SSJMarx@lemm.ee 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Of course, I was taught that Liberal capitalist ran democracy is somehow the only legitimate form of democracy. The question is how should democracy be implemented in a way that ensures the workers have power.

[+] SSJMarx@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

[deleted]

[–] Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It couldn't possibly be that people are too scared to criticize the CCP, right? ... right?

[+] SSJMarx@lemm.ee 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

[deleted]

[–] Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I'm not suggesting study bias, but I am suggesting that Chinese citizens' social media and internet use is now so closely monitored by the CPP that it has a chilling effect on free speech, and this may have influenced the results even if they were told the study was anonymous.

Secondly, since Xi took power, according to that same report, he has "effectively sidelined functional and professional institutions of party and state", in addition to removing term limits. These are all classic authoritarian strongman moves. The study goes on to point out that having an effective authoritarian as leader - one who has helped improve the lives of many Chinese citizens - is of course going to be popular. The old saying goes that a benevolent dictatorship is the best form of government, and that may be true in some regards, right up until the point it isn't benevolent anymore. Which is more or less inevitable imo.

[–] kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

What the hell are you talking about? China is using "communism" to mask the fact that they're a state capitalist dictatorship. Nothing about China is socialist and in many ways corporations in China face even less regulations and restrictions then the west. I would also like to see the source of that statistic because outside observers have been banned from making any statistics about the Chinese government and economy.

[–] buddascrayon@lemmy.world 15 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Authoritarian governments never allow themselves to be temporary. Generally speaking, they usually have to be forcibly removed.

[–] suction@lemmy.world 12 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

You’ve seen them on the telly, those authoritarian governments that resign peacefully when their work is done.

[–] abbotsbury@lemmy.world 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Theoretically, amendments could be passed to alter the Constitution into anything, if they have support from enough states. Then again, if (theoretically) enough people support a radical change that is prevented because of the outsized influence of some states, how is that democratic?

[–] Vilian@lemmy.ca 4 points 3 months ago

Understood, thanks!

[–] randoot@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago

No, if enough people vote for socialist candidates and they pass a law that says all property now belongs to the state, then it'd be enforced just like any other current law.

The transition could be gradual. If we started nationalizing companies that get too big, and do that for a few generations then the state would own 99% of the economy.

If we keep raising property tax, you'd effectively get to the point where people are leasing the land rather than owning it.

[–] Emmie@lemm.ee 6 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Communism brain rot is trendy nowadays. It’s the last refuge for the tortured mind of the permanently online doomers. It’s almost non existent in real life thankfully

[–] mindbleach@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 months ago (1 children)

It's not strictly necessary, but it sure does seem to keep happening.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 5 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Unless China does something very funny to their billionaire class and starts pushing the perpetual revolution, I think it's fairly safe to assume traditional Marxist thought is no longer the most dominant socialist school, and when the resource wars start in earnest there will be some genuine shifts in what kind of government a socialist revolution seeks to enact.

That or the fascists just win this time.

[–] pyre@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago

that usually ends in disaster. never mind the fact that authoritarian governments like the power and wouldn't want to give it back, which defeats the entire point of socialism...

but even if you have a completely benign dictator (usually just a fantasy but for the sake of argument let's say we had one) people, especially in democracies, don't like the idea of a coup, unless it's them doing it but then it's a revolution. but that could also lead to reactionary sentiment.

we've seen this happen in Iran. democracy gets fucked with by a US coup, people react with a revolution but unfortunately reactionary forces use the anger to their advantage and devolve into a different kind of authoritarian regime anyway.

[–] RizzRustbolt@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago

Dude Coyote'ed himself.

[–] kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone 5 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Socialism replaces Liberal democracy with something else (depends on the specific ideology).

[–] pewgar_seemsimandroid@lemmy.blahaj.zone 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

lib dems mad.

[–] kittenzrulz123@lemmy.blahaj.zone 12 points 3 months ago (1 children)

LibDems (and Liberals in general) get pissed when I remind them that Liberalism isnt a left wing ideology.

[–] pewgar_seemsimandroid@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 3 months ago

i meant the British political party