Tell me why I should be in favour of a true one party system, when it has only brought about dictators? Has there every been a true one party system without a dictatorship?
Questions for real socialists tm
Other urls found in this thread:
most pacific island countries are nonpartisan democracies or only have one political party alongside independents.
And how big do they become?
Every state is a dictatorship by definition.
Found the ancunt.
Real socialists are democrats; they don't accept one-party rule any more than democracy for the bourgeois.
Have you considered a zero-party system?
Parties are a SPOOK!
This is a goofy Ted talk but it's basically a representative of the Chinese system making a case for itself over the Western one: youtube.com
Basically his argument is that instead of being rigid, politically closed or immoral, the Chinese system has proven to be adaptable, meritocratic and while enjoying popular support – and one of the main reasons it does that is through the massive Organization Department (see attached chart) which is how people rise within the party's ranks.
And if it's corruption you're worried about, there is a lot of corruption in China but it's getting better, and corruption rankings are much worse in many more developing multi-party democracies (India being the main one).
You shouldn't be in favor of a one party system. Hell, we shouldn't be in favor of our current US two party system as it currently works.
Sage and ignore. This is a cursed boomer thread.
Are you the same guy who used to namefag as "user"?
So like the Clitons?
What is a zero party system?
Ok, so does that mean you'd rather live in China than America?
No, democrats with a small D. The fundamental critique of capitalism is a lack of democracy for all people. The American Democratic Party is a bourgeois party only concerned with a democracy for the powerful.
They're probably referring to rule by direct referenda and bureaucracy by sortition, where there would be no need for political parties because people aren't elected to offices.
China… probably many others.
There are actually more ideological differences within China's Communist Party than between the Democrats and Republicans in the United States. This was also true in the USSR as made evident by the fact that many former members of the Communist party split into various political extremes when allowed to do so.
Not that I'm defending those countries. Just saying.
it pretty much is though.
Try new 'JUST DON'T CALL IT A STATE!' same refreshing taste with exciting redefined ingredients!
It comes from Marx and was used to say that Anarchists wanted a state by having armed mem resist capitalists. Read a book you retard.
Marx didn't say the state full stop was a capitalist invention, but that the modern state was a tool of capitalist power. Not the same as anarchists who play word games to define their own planned social authorities as a not-state.
Marx and Engles maintained that the state was an organ of class rule, given that classes existed prior to capitalism we can assume the previous states existed for the class rule of previously dominant classes. The disagreement between marx and anarchists of what constitutes a state hinged upon armed forces, with anarchists saying it wasn't a state while marx and engles argued such was a state. If you think any sort of societal organization is a state you're an idiot that failed to understand the marxist or anarchist positions on the state.
aka mob rule
Ah yes, that classic piece of propaganda used by aristocrats afraid of peasant rule.
From the graph (but not the video which i haven't finished) it vaguely makes me think of the tripartite system of capital/state/labour you get under social democracy (assuming social organisations are trade unions and similar groups.) albeit in a much more openly stated and official fashion than under social democracy where you get a lot of de-facto relationships. (i.e. though all 3 interact, trade unionists are by-and-large outside the legislature even if parliamentarians have a trade union backing and perhaps even membership.)
not saying china is socdem though. in particular it's noteworthy that state owned enterprises are in the space of capital, where under actually-existing social democracy it would be more apt to put them under the wing of the state and have private enterprise occupy that place. just an interesting reminder.
Honestly tempted. A friend of mine moved there. Something like 70 percent of Chinese millennials are homeowners. In the U.S. the number is 35 percent.
This isn't to say I'm rushing off to move to China. It's not that simple. I have roots where I live and family and so on. But if all that just disappeared, I'd at least think hard about it. The main point in the video that the U.S. system (at least) is unable to deal with its problems seems correct to me though. The Chinese argument is that capital has too much power – whereas in China even if it's not socialist, the political system does constrain capital in ways that it does not here.
>true one party system
china numba won
It’s funny how you could research all of this stuff yourself and realize how dumb you are