Was every 20th century socialist country undemocratic?

Democracy is good though, just not bourgeois democracy

No, democracy is always stupid. Because the average person is stupid, and democracy goes to the lowest common denominator. You need smart benevolent dictators making good decisions, not stupid masses of retards making bad decisions

How about you suck a cock faggot?

Hmmmmmmmmm………

you by yourself make a more compelling argument against democracy than any argument you could ever field

This line of thought is immediately self-defeating.
If the efficacy of your dictatorship depends on intelligent, "good" leaders, and put no enduring mechanisms in place to secure these qualities among them, and put mechanisms in place - in the form of absolute vested authority - to actively frustrate "good" and intelligent people becoming leaders wherever a stupid or "evil" person should control the machinery, your system fails outright. It is broken at the level of its basic assumptions no less than capitalism.

"Dictatorship of the proletariat" means a class dictatorship. A rule of one class over the obsolete and objectively unnecessary vestigal classes.

People have shown time and time again their uncanny ability to allow others to rule them. Class society has generated such stupid specimens that even socialist organizations are always dominated by a leadership. Socialists are against the status quo. Fighting it in any real fashion requires an organization to embody the mass movement, like a party. When put under stress the party's leadership must necessarily centralize or break. Thus, a party-state is born.

this

there is no need for democrashit

Human nature is profoundly imperfect. Given any significant amount of power over other men, even the most benevolent revolutionary becomes a tyrant.

Election in socialist countries don't work the same way as other countries. Even in western democracies, election are all very diferent.
Look at England, where Cameron resign and There May became prime minister without elections, look at USA and it's electoral college, etc.

Yes. Comrade Dubcek tried to change it in CzechoSlovak Socialist Republic (aka socialism with human face) but was buttfucked by the Moscow.

The masses are stupid, because your precious dictator prefer to use all the resources and people for the army instead of propper education. Retard.

Britain is arguably the least democratic of the Western 'democracies'. We have what's often called an elective dictatorship, because we have no written constitution and the House of Commons can basically do whatever it wants by simple majority vote - even cancel elections, like it did in WW2. Not to disparage democracy, but bourgeois democracy at least is pretty shit when you look into it.

The USSR democratised and then collapsed within a couple of years, vindicating all other socialist governments of the 20th century

Because they're not democratic either, getting to choose between a small number of people (two in the US) who are chosen by the political elite every few years isn't a democracy.

When did leftypol stop reading? Where are the pdf drops?
Anyways, because no one else has done it yet, I defend the democratic nature of the soviet system (so I can't speak for every 20th century socialist country, but at the least for the USSR).
While Stalin may have had a certain level of executive power beyond that of other leaders of the time, he was no Augustus who could replace and circumvent senators with ease. I cannot say how the General Secretary was elected in the USSR, but I do know that according to the soviet system workers were able to vote freely on issues and send delegates here and there to convene on the problems and their proposed solutions or to discuss progress in method/technique. Wish I had the exact details on hand, but essentially this system worked in a similar way up to the highest positions, such that the state itself therefore reflected the conscious desires of the people.
I'll post some more pdfs when I get a chance

Yugoslavia had one election to determine if Tito would become prez4lyfe

I don't think there were any Socialist countries in the 20th century, except very short lived ones like the Communes in Spain during the civil war

retarded tankie from here, what was the USSR if not socialist? I'd be willing to say proto-socialist (in the sense they had not achieved it, but at the least were in active pursuit).
Catalonia in Revolutionary Spain, while professing anarcho-syndicalism, still without a doubt had "non-socialistic" policies, such as compulsory military service, a policing force, and others.

That's not what dictatorship means

Anyone posting that .pdf should be permabanned. It reads like some bullshit from an insane Trot trying to describe the USSR as some new post-capitalist production mode that mortals can't even comprehend. Even those who clutch at straws with the Soviet capitalism thesis make a more coherent point.

hi reddit

You are one of the worst kind of anons here tbh. "Read a Book" flag, permaban X, ad hom argument, whatever. At least give me something like an argument or a pdf

Democratic socialism:

Chile, under Allende.
Nicaragua under Daniel Ortega, eventually after the Contras were BTFO
Guatemala until the CIA and United fruit BTTFO
Many others
You have to understand that the undemocratic socialists were almost never fighting against democracy, in fact I can't really think of one example where they are, but against Monarchists or Fascists.

Most of the time also, 'democratic' western states subverted the elections of democratic socialist countries, again Chile, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Honduras.

After the Contra War didn't Nicaragua become capitalist?

Tell me about Guatemala

...

You are what's wrong with /eftypol/. Read nigga.