And once again, the immaterial enshrinements placed by the law provide nothing more than a literary obstacle for the powerful to abuse their power. “Checks and Balances” is nothing if not for material backing of such laws, which are enforced by the very people they aim to contain

It’s contradictory

This was the political system under the Stalin era USSR, and was probably the best system the USSR had over the course of its existence

Sure there were more steps than what we see in our own political systems here in Parliament town, but power was directly enshrined upon unions and local councils who could hold elections and recall officials at will

I don’t know much about Cuba but I don’t think many people look at the USSR and China as being proletarian states.

Compare this to our own electoral system where you are given a single vote every four years and your representative has no obligation to vote alongside your local interests because they are within a party that controls them which you have no agency within

The CIA certainly did

and in those circumstances the material conditions for everyone becomes worse. i just don’t see how this could ever be worth the risk.

The thing is that if workers saw that a vanguard party wasn’t holding their interests at heart, what power could they possibly hold? Vanguard parties can only succeed at a revolution with the support of its workers and people aren’t so dumb that they’d allow a vanguard party to openly take advantage of them in such a way, especially when there’s no enforcement of a party line without a supportive population

I’m not super well-read on these topics but didn’t China ban unions independent of the government sponsored union? Didn’t the bolsheviks desolve the Constituent Assembly and ban oppositional parties?

i would imagine it depends on the model of government.

The point of a socialist revolution is to establish a one party state. Unequivocally.

The point of any revolution is to establish a single party. And the Bolsheviks treats listed their own parties regardless

You can’t have a government without people supportive of the government

that’s where i disagree. I think you can have multiple parties pushing policies in accordance to a socialist constitution.

you can have a government with complacent people.

Complacency comes from support my guy

That’s just a reestablishment of electoral parliamentarian politics and completely dumbs down the entire point of a socialist revolt

bad wording.

complacency as in people that have been conditioned to believing the state acts in their best interest. you can call it “support” but i think that’s being too charitable.

It’s not like having a single party means everyone is voting for the same thing either

The point of a single party is that the establishment of a single common goal becomes far easier. There will always be disagreements and division within the single party and that how it should be, because it’ll be democratic

You don’t get complacency from a class conscious population that just completed a revolution that required a knowledge of political theory

I don’t think history looks to kindly upon the single-party government’s of the past. What’s different here? It’s representative of the people? Howso? What happens when the party evolves and no longer represents what it was intended for?

Sorry guys. I made a thread about the recent win the comrades had but a mod locked it.

I thought the projection of a symbol of unity between the CCP and IRI on a national monument was worthy of political news and that it would bring ktt2 comrades some joy.

God damn capitalists thinking they own everything including the internet

i’m speaking about places like North Korea

Remember my guy, this is socialism. The party is specifically organized to be run by people and it’s head members are appointed by the people under the party, who are then entrusted to construct the party alongside mass interests

Current political parties are NOT organized by their members democratically. They are presented as choices to vote for based upon the will of party heads who exist there through financial security.

Neither of us know enough about the public attitudes towards the North Korean government to speak towards the relations of the people with their state

The US has been fighting a 70 year long propaganda war against them and the sheer amount of misinformation I’ve discovered on my own time has led to myself disengaging from any criticisms about NK because I simply do not know the truth

And you don’t imagine any room for corruption within this model? Because it sounds nice & dandy but I don’t really think this happens in the way you just described it.

The CPC has sifted out corruption pretty effectively from its party in the past 20 years if you’ve followed their news Opoortunism and cronyism is what led to the downfall of the USSR and corruption is an everpresent issue in every political party

Fragmentation and implementation of parliamentarian political structure only makes corruption easier to manifest