Why do you think that a government will oppose a complete system change, but will allow a party change? You’re a pol-sci student, you can get this one!
If a government had two socialist parties, would that make it more democratic and less authoritarian? But if both parties had the same goals, what would even be the point of having two of them?
Would it actually be more democratic to have two parties, or would that just be a means of enabling the people to feel like things are more democratic, because they get to vote between two parties (but both parties ultimately have the same goals.)
Now imagine say…a capitalist country that does that. That has two parties, but both parties represent the capitalist class, not the people in general. Is that actually democratic? The people get to choose after all! But they only get a choice between two parties that don’t actually represent them.
What is a democracy if not a government built around the representation of the people? If the people are feeling represented by their government, does it matter how many parties their are? More parties doesn’t mean more democratic. What matters is that those parties represent the people. Even if there is just a single party, as long as the people have proper representation, it is democratic.
First off let us not be condescending here at no point have I spoken down to you. If you are unable to conduct yourself appropriately you can stop right now.
There are hundreds of parties in the USA. The fact that only two are viable is because of how our electoral system works. The fact remains you can start new parties that aren’t capitalist and advocate their views as long as you are not advocating violence.
Contrast that with the DPRK which has a hereditary monarchy. You cannot have anyone other than a Kim and so far no one other than a Kim stood a chance. That’s a near-absolute monarchy. It isn’t even close to communist.
The PRC permits only other communist parties the main party approves of. The fact that you cannot advocate for a return to monarchy, for a buddhist theocracy, or a capitalist democratic republic means it is authoritarian as the only opposition is the opposition the state approves of. They are authoritarian.
The Islamic Republic of Iran has elections whose parties aren’t in strict political agreement but all candidates must accede to the powers of the Supreme Leader which again means they are authoritarian.
You’re arguing that a triangle has more than three sides again.
Buddy, you really think that was condescending? Ooh boy.
You aren’t the one calling the shots here champ. This is a Marxist Leninist instance. That means that you should try and understand the Marxist Leninist point of view before smugly telling us we’re all wrong.
I’ve given you sources, I’ve told you about trying to understand that your perspective isn’t the only one, and you call me condescending, that’s an awful big word there slugger, well done!
You clearly aren’t actually interested in learning, so please take your smug elsewhere, it isn’t welcome here. I’m not interested in a “debate” with someone who demands I be “civil” by not calling them out when they say bullshit. You’ve been trying to shove multiple different societies into simplistic labels rather than trying to understand any of them. It’s a shame you took Pol-Sci instead of Anthropology, you’d probably have a better set of tools to understand this stuff that way.
You accuse me of saying a triangle has more than three sides, but have you considered that maybe I’m talking about squares and pentagons as well as triangles? And you’re the only one here insisting every shape is triangular?
This is for the lurkers, an essay on how this sort of thinking is so prevalent in yankees:
You are factually wrong about a concept that is not Marxist Leninist namely what an authoritarian state is. China is authoritarian. DPRK is authoritarian, Cuba is authoritarian and that is by the very definition of the phrase. The sources you have provided are not good quality ones.
You very much come across like someone who has no education in political philosophy, anthro, and obviously economics. That’s probably why you are so arrogantly incorrect in your understanding. It is like talking to someone who only learned part if a bit about a philosophy and only on reddit.
Finally what kind of fool thinks the DPRK is aligned with Marx at all? Seriously you might as well be a Pol Pot apologist. Their monarch is the third in line to hold the title. He is treated as a king. He is not limited in his authority by any part of the party and they are making no attempts to transition to communism.
I’ve repeatedly tried to tell you that your worldview isn’t the only one, and your only response is to assume malice on my part, rather than consider that you are not in fact the arbiter of all that is True and Good in the world.
It’s kind of outrageous that a simple concept: “There are more points of view than your own” is apparently lost on you. Just because you can’t understand that concept doesn’t mean you are correct. Get your head out of your own ass. Though obviously, you never will, because you love the smell of your own farts too much. You clearly aren’t here in good faith, you’re just here to lecture us about how we should all sniff our own assholes and call that political theory.
You’re almost there!
Why do you think that a government will oppose a complete system change, but will allow a party change? You’re a pol-sci student, you can get this one!
If a government had two socialist parties, would that make it more democratic and less authoritarian? But if both parties had the same goals, what would even be the point of having two of them? Would it actually be more democratic to have two parties, or would that just be a means of enabling the people to feel like things are more democratic, because they get to vote between two parties (but both parties ultimately have the same goals.)
Now imagine say…a capitalist country that does that. That has two parties, but both parties represent the capitalist class, not the people in general. Is that actually democratic? The people get to choose after all! But they only get a choice between two parties that don’t actually represent them.
What is a democracy if not a government built around the representation of the people? If the people are feeling represented by their government, does it matter how many parties their are? More parties doesn’t mean more democratic. What matters is that those parties represent the people. Even if there is just a single party, as long as the people have proper representation, it is democratic.
First off let us not be condescending here at no point have I spoken down to you. If you are unable to conduct yourself appropriately you can stop right now.
There are hundreds of parties in the USA. The fact that only two are viable is because of how our electoral system works. The fact remains you can start new parties that aren’t capitalist and advocate their views as long as you are not advocating violence.
Contrast that with the DPRK which has a hereditary monarchy. You cannot have anyone other than a Kim and so far no one other than a Kim stood a chance. That’s a near-absolute monarchy. It isn’t even close to communist.
The PRC permits only other communist parties the main party approves of. The fact that you cannot advocate for a return to monarchy, for a buddhist theocracy, or a capitalist democratic republic means it is authoritarian as the only opposition is the opposition the state approves of. They are authoritarian.
The Islamic Republic of Iran has elections whose parties aren’t in strict political agreement but all candidates must accede to the powers of the Supreme Leader which again means they are authoritarian.
You’re arguing that a triangle has more than three sides again.
That is ahistorical. As a polisci major you should have learned about McCarthyism.
Buddy, you really think that was condescending? Ooh boy.
You aren’t the one calling the shots here champ. This is a Marxist Leninist instance. That means that you should try and understand the Marxist Leninist point of view before smugly telling us we’re all wrong.
I’ve given you sources, I’ve told you about trying to understand that your perspective isn’t the only one, and you call me condescending, that’s an awful big word there slugger, well done!
You clearly aren’t actually interested in learning, so please take your smug elsewhere, it isn’t welcome here. I’m not interested in a “debate” with someone who demands I be “civil” by not calling them out when they say bullshit. You’ve been trying to shove multiple different societies into simplistic labels rather than trying to understand any of them. It’s a shame you took Pol-Sci instead of Anthropology, you’d probably have a better set of tools to understand this stuff that way.
You accuse me of saying a triangle has more than three sides, but have you considered that maybe I’m talking about squares and pentagons as well as triangles? And you’re the only one here insisting every shape is triangular?
This is for the lurkers, an essay on how this sort of thinking is so prevalent in yankees:
https://www.qiaocollective.com/articles/american-revolution-tu-zhuxi/
You are factually wrong about a concept that is not Marxist Leninist namely what an authoritarian state is. China is authoritarian. DPRK is authoritarian, Cuba is authoritarian and that is by the very definition of the phrase. The sources you have provided are not good quality ones.
You very much come across like someone who has no education in political philosophy, anthro, and obviously economics. That’s probably why you are so arrogantly incorrect in your understanding. It is like talking to someone who only learned part if a bit about a philosophy and only on reddit.
Finally what kind of fool thinks the DPRK is aligned with Marx at all? Seriously you might as well be a Pol Pot apologist. Their monarch is the third in line to hold the title. He is treated as a king. He is not limited in his authority by any part of the party and they are making no attempts to transition to communism.
I’ve repeatedly tried to tell you that your worldview isn’t the only one, and your only response is to assume malice on my part, rather than consider that you are not in fact the arbiter of all that is True and Good in the world.
It’s kind of outrageous that a simple concept: “There are more points of view than your own” is apparently lost on you. Just because you can’t understand that concept doesn’t mean you are correct. Get your head out of your own ass. Though obviously, you never will, because you love the smell of your own farts too much. You clearly aren’t here in good faith, you’re just here to lecture us about how we should all sniff our own assholes and call that political theory.