One party states

Next time there’s a revolution how do we avoid one party states. I think direct democracy is the way to go, but tell me your thoughts. Reminder this was one of the reasons the Soviets fell.

Other urls found in this thread:

" Multi party parlamentarism is good"
Yeah why dont we go to all those multi party democracies and ask how they are doing?


Direct democracy and multi party states dont work becouse generaly what hapends is that the burgeoi will use these things as a way to highjack the state and put capitalism back in power.

The only way to make sure this woudent hapen is that if the state had a central party that had other parties in check so that they woudent help the burgeoisie back in power. Like east Germany and the DPRK

Google Bookchin

direct democracy is inherently separate from parties, what are you smonking? besides, everyone knows a combination of deliberation and democratic consensus with direct democracy is the way to go

When the fuck did bourgies hijack direct democracies to restore capitalism? They've almost always decided to just use direct violence instead.

What the USSR should have done is have TWO(2) Communist parties. A pro-abortion and an anti-abortion one!
Truly this would have made soviet socialism as success and stopped it being couped!

I know that you are joking, but I believe it would. Two party dictatorship would ensure that slight reforms requested from population are made, which would pacify proles and if one party fails, other take control.

Soviet Democracy. Lenin was a R ed F ascist.

Both multi party parliamentarism and one party parliamentarism suck ass.

Multi party states are for states that have more classes and need to try to represent the interests of both.. so how about we stick with the whole interests of the proletariat thing

have you ever met a person in your life?

what it's needed is a system so that different ideas can compete without porky being able to take advantage of that, honestly this was one of the problem of the ussr, they had a fixed conception of marxism, other were not allowed to take form, so for example a transition towards input output planning was possible, however it didn't happen because that's just not how "marxism" was


Multi party democracy except only Communist parties are allowed. Any party that advocates capitalism is subject to prosecution. There’s a jillion different tendencies so it could work.

Man, just shut up

Grow up

yeah no

Capitalism is the biggest enablers of muh democracy which is why they are willing to take out legitimate leaders like gaddafi in order to prop up porky's democracy

t. high school kid

You’re right. The bourgeois NEVER ever hijack one-party states and use them to reimplemt capitalism.

One party states are all corrupt shitholes, DotP was by far the worst idea Marx ever had. I like the idea of having multiple gommie parties that differ on less systemic issues such as social problems, immigration, defense, etc. Dictatorahips suck and are how you get Stalin and Pol Pot. It's not 1930 anymore, you don't need to suck Stalin's cock for legitimacy on the left so let's stop LARPing as if he were a good peacetime leader

Just do what Nepal does innit.

Can't we just have Caucuses as parties with in the party ? As well places like the us and uk where the communist are split and don't have that much power alone can form a general party to use their combine strength and get people into offices.

Why not create a no party state that bans the formation official political parties and force everyone to compete as individuals?

Someone has played Kr…

What's Kr?

A dictatorship of the proletariat isn't a literal dictatorship.


How are we supposed to oppress the bourgeoisie if they have a say in what our state does?

t. artstudent

Im a plumber.


it was in history

There the minority

Thats idealistic. Communism may or may not look like a one party state.

They also will still have part of the means of production and a shitton of resources in the first days of the revolution, paving the way for capitalist restauration. See: Paris Commune, Sandinista Nicaragua.

The concept of "one-party state" was invented by liberals who can't imagine democracy beyond the parliamentary farces that plague the world, all of which in reality have the purpose of resolving conflicts between different strata of the bourgeoisie. The only valid form of democracy we should strive for is that brought by the organs of dual power that are to overthrow the bourgeois state. For instance, the Soviets in Russia were very much a democratic decision organ of the workers:

What we need is a free association of producers not some spooky democracy.

that has always been the case, but it's never stopped rednecks and other working poor from voting against their own interests.

They'll be fucking dead lmao


Makes pooping on religious institutions rather difficult.

they are tho

I second this. Perhaps the two parties could represent different work, so one would be urban and one would be rural. Or they could represent different sectors, one being industrial and the other being service. Or maybe just divide them along social lines, with one being progressive and one being conservative. Lots of possibilities for a two-party communist state if you think about it.

The US is a two party dictatorship that has shown far less ability to reform than China or the SU.

Mate I'm not a fan of capitalism but all of Western Europe in that period was much more democratic and free than either of these two repressive shitholes has ever been. Stop being a mindless ☭TANKIE☭, not every socialist state in history was a utopia.

We should be more concerned about preserving the revolution than achieving fast results. The US is a two party dictatorship that reforms slowly over generations, but never truly deviates from capitalism and has more successfully suppressed socialism than any other country. One party states seem to be victims of their own success, with their ability to swiftly reform leaving them open to revisionism and counterrevolution within the party.

The early-stage socialist countries were democratic. There is no reason for multiple parties, since policy in a country building scientific socialism will decided using scientific methodology.

Multi-party parliamentarism is by definition a bourgeoisie concept. It adheres to the idealist bourgeoisie notion that "all opinions should be heard", "there is no one objective truth" etc etc. It's simply smoke and mirrors, since in the end all political parties within the accepted political spectrum practice the same policies with minor differences, the ones that change are simply the figureheads

stealthy liberal shilling there

haha nice one. Only heard that one a couple times before.

you've probably heard that a lot more times with the type of shilling you're doing


I thought the proles were oppressed in the USSR? You can't have it both ways. Either the proletariat had meaningful control of the Soviet Union or it was a repressive dictatorship dominated by the nomenklatura.

i don't have to accuse you of anything when you literally wrote that capitalist countries were more democratic than socialist ones. that's literally the proper liberal position, not some crypto-liberal trotposting or some subtle stalin myth.

So you believe that even the worst socialist state in history has been more democratic than the best capitalist states? And despite hardly anyone agreeing with you outside of underground/hardline communist circles, you still feel justified to put the burden of proof on others? Mindblowing ☭TANKIE☭ levels here

what you described would be considered a dotp, brainlet.

i'll dignify your ridiculous liberal b8 with a response if you admit you're a liberal who's b8ing.


but i have proven my statement, which was that you are a liberal. the proof that you're a liberal is that you're promoting the proper liberal historical view as a historical fact. if you acknowledge this i'll go into why you're wrong, but only if you acknowledge you're a liberal so that i know you have the intention to have an honest dialogue and aren't simply trolling. if you don't acknowledge i'm right in my first statement (that you're a liberal) after being provided with proof, then you most likely won't acknowledge my second statement as true (or any further ones) no matter how much proof i provide, hence starting a dialogue would be futile

Honestly though, why would I need to be a liberal? I can't accept the "proper liberal historical view" (held by basically all historians) without endorsing one specific political position?
Stealthy move user

because you promote the liberal historical view as fact. this is equivalent to saying "why do i have to be a nazi to promote eugenics?". promoting the liberal view of history makes you a liberal. the fact that you repeatedly mention that your view is the one accepted by neoliberal academia as a way to legitimize it not only is an appeal to authority, but shows that you actually consider the neoliberal apologia machine to hold scientific authority to begin with (further showing you are in fact, a liberal).

i'm still waiting

well, you don't need to go in details if you don't want to but please tell me what kind of sources you would bring up instead. East German ones? Which obviously aren't likely to be even more flawed at all?

By saying that the liberal democracies were more "free" and "democratic" you implicitly accept the liberal idea that freedom is a concrete thing that can be guaranteed by governments, and that democracy can properly function under the dictatorship of capital. Thats why the bookposter is calling you a liberal.

pure ideology

the former socialist countries have all their internal archives studied and declassified, as opposed to the bourgeoisie countries of the period. if you believe the party falsified their own internal archives, you're a conspiracy theory looney.

the point here is that simply claiming that a workers' state (no matter how corrupt) can be less democratic than a plutocratic capitalist one shows that you either don't understand marxism at all, or are purposefully agitating for neoliberalism.

By not creating a state?

how do you defend the revolution against the counter-revolution then

what revolution, the spontaneously occurring individualist smashie revolution? lmao

Direct democracy =/= multi-party parlamentarism

Comrade, please…

How about we don't have parties after the revolution

revolution is a party

Multi party democracy after a dictatorship of the proletariat has purged the bourgeoise and reactionaries so there's no threat of counter revolutionaries reestablishing capitalism.Once you have built a stable dictatorship of the proletariat multi party proportionally representitive elections could take place as for what to do next. Remember that communism isn't the end of history in some Fukuyamist sense but mearly the begining, there will still be things to debate and deliberate over even if we abolish capital worldwide

No parties, but multi-industry groups coming together to coordinate with the central government as to the necessities of their labor. For larger countries like the US this should be done at the state level for local issues, and assuming a federal government still exists, should coordinate with other groups in the US to plan with the partyless, neutral, bureaucratic federal government.

I feel thats still too utopian though

Thinking of possible tools and forms of organization for the future is not utopian. Fetischizing any one form of social organisation as the only alternative is.

The last thing we want is getting into power and stand their with our dicks in our hands with no sense of direction what so ever. We need a plethora of ideas and a readiness to "kill our darlings" as the situation demands. Outright refusing to think about what to do on the day after and figuring things will just workk out is Utopian in itself.

ehhh I think we shouldn't be divided on what we're gonna do, there needs to be an immediate program enacted, if the situation is settled (revolution is safe) maybe, but certainly not at the head.

but yeah at this point thinking about it certainly is very good

Oh I agree with that sentiment. All I'm saying is that people need to fucking stop using utopian as an excuse to simply stop using their brain. What I'm saying is that If you cannot be sure of how your going to keep people fed, clothed, warm, educated and content on the day after there simply is no fucking reason for anyone to trust you with power. Anyone calling themselves a communist who doesn't think about how we should keep society organized to provide for the needs of people is less than useless. People simply will not listen if we do not have well thought out ideas on what exactly to do differently. That being said we should not forget that its a question of learning by doing and things will have to be revised and updated as we go along. Reality will not conform to our ready made ideas, that is why flexibility is a must and That is what it should mean to be a non-utopian in tiiis day and age.