Democratic Centralism is a sort of many perspectives under 1 umbrella sort of system. There's 1 party, but that 1 party is made up of elected representatives from multiple different cultures and areas, making 1 party with wide and various perspectives and preventing party politicking. - ThreadSky

therealmothman.bsky.social • 20 days ago

Democratic Centralism is a sort of many perspectives under 1 umbrella sort of system. There's 1 party, but that 1 party is made up of elected representatives from multiple different cultures and areas, making 1 party with wide and various perspectives and preventing party politicking.

Comments

christosyal.bsky.social•20 days ago

What you described is communism. Please read more on what makes a communist state. Your spin on it as “democratic centralism” is code for that

therealmothman.bsky.social•20 days ago

Democratic Centralism was the system in the Soviet Union but it is not in and of itself communism. Communism is a much broader structural and economic change from basically anything we currently have. It's also not a spin, it's literally what the system is called.

christosyal.bsky.social•20 days ago

The wiki starts by stating it is used by communist countries. This is like telling me that North Korea is democratic because its name is Democratic People’s Republic of Korea

ancompadre.bsky.social•20 days ago

You're spreading CCP propaganda my dude https://thediplomat.com/2019/12/exploring-chinas-new-narrative-on-democracy/

therealmothman.bsky.social•20 days ago

"What the leadership seeks is for the world to stop assessing China based on its progress toward a liberal democracy, but instead to acknowledge that China also has a legitimate system that aims to improve the well-being of people." That's the line it ends on.

therealmothman.bsky.social•20 days ago

I know you've been propagandized to see any other form of governance as illegitimate by neo-liberal thought leaders and western propaganda, but other systems can and do exist and can and do work.

christosyal.bsky.social•20 days ago

I don’t think that communism is an illegitimate form of government. I do think, though, that it’s harmful to society

barrhavenist.bsky.social•20 days ago

What about communism makes it harmful to society

therealmothman.bsky.social•20 days ago

I think the same of capitalism, but what I was responding to was about China being undemocratic, which it isn't, it's just a very different form of democracy than what we're used to.

christosyal.bsky.social•20 days ago

I don’t think we’re going to agree or even come to a consensus

therealmothman.bsky.social•20 days ago

Its actual flaw is that since there's really no party, it can get locked up in burocracy as the party debates course among itself, and frequently votes need a 60% majority to go through.

christosyal.bsky.social•20 days ago

I guess it’s too bad that it’s not a real democracy that can have another party replace it. Because it’s a communist state.
Also, there’s a party and it’s called the CCP. Don’t pretend it’s a no-party state.

barrhavenist.bsky.social•20 days ago

If you don’t want to engage in good faith just say so and stop wasting everyone’s time

christosyal.bsky.social•20 days ago

I’m engaging in good faith. I’m being asked to believe something is one thing when it’s actually something else. I’m reading what I believe is spin. I’m expected to believe China’s one party system is on par with Nunavut’s no-party legislature. The two are not the same

barrhavenist.bsky.social•20 days ago

Now is a great time to question the 70-year-long, US-led demonization of democracies that challenge capitalism

therealmothman.bsky.social•20 days ago

I know nothing of Nunavut's no-party legislature, so I can't say one way or the other on that, but I can say that the word "effectively" means "not literally but in effect", so when I say "There's effectively no party" I mean there is a party, but it being a party has no effect on things.

therealmothman.bsky.social•20 days ago

I realize now I said "There's really no party". Misphrasing on my part.

therealmothman.bsky.social•20 days ago

Effectively with one party there is no party. The party is just the government. Due to the way democratic centralism works, if the people wanted a new party, they could elect representatives that opposed the direction the party was going and that would change it into a new party.

christosyal.bsky.social•20 days ago

You’re asking me to believe that one party = zero parties? That’s some mental gymnastics

therealmothman.bsky.social•20 days ago

S'not really. The party is the government, the government is the party, but the party has no unified voice when it's in chamber. After a motion passes their voice unifies, but until that point the party is basically 2-5 masses of dissenting voices debating amongst each other.

therealmothman.bsky.social•20 days ago

TBH you could both say it's a no party system or an infinite party system; it's just all under one umbrella so that when a matter is resolved it's resolved and they don't stretch the problem out ad infinitum.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply