You're viewing part of a thread.
From the very article you linked:
There, Lenin argued that the soviets and the principle of democratic centralism within the Bolshevik party still assured democracy. However, faced with support for Kronstadt within Bolshevik ranks, Lenin also issued a "temporary" ban on factions in the Russian Communist Party. This ban remained until the revolutions of 1989 and, according to some critics, made the democratic procedures within the party an empty formality, and helped Stalin to consolidate much more authority under the party. Soviets were transformed into the bureaucratic structure that existed for the rest of the history of the Soviet Union and were completely under the control of party officials and the politburo.
Very democratic indeed lol. Can't wait how they ensure democracy in North Korea next.
according to some critics
Hey look at what the core of the quote you pulled is
I wonder what the ideology of those critics is
Very democratic indeed lol. Can’t wait how they ensure democracy in North Korea next.
Objectively more democratic than the US. In the US you vote for president and they appoint the ministers of every executive agency. In Korea they vote for those directly.
Can’t wait how they ensure democracy in North Korea next
Objectively more democratic than the US.
In Korea they vote for those directly.
They certainly have an interesting method.
Each candidate is preselected by the North Korean government and there is no option to write in a different name, meaning that voters may either submit the ballot unaltered as a "yes" vote or request a pen to cross out the name on the ballot.
A person's vote is not secret
Uhhum.
Wow you sure did copy and paste from a wikipedia article that doesn't even bother to source the claim to any of the overtly state propaganda articles at the bottom of the page it uses as a bibliography.
And you didn't even bother mentioning where you got it so we're 2 levels of lack of citations deep.
Gee I wonder why leftists constantly criticize anti-communists for being intellectually lazy and dishonest...
I mean I assumed (correctly) you'd figure it was from Wikipedia. How does the North Korean government describe their elections process?
https://manoa.hawaii.edu/koreanstudies/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/DPRK-Constitution-2019-EN.pdf
Article 6.
The organs of State power at all levels, from the county People’s Assembly to the Supreme People’s Assembly, are elected on the principle of universal, equal and direct suffrage by secret ballot.
There's no excuse for you not being able or willing to find this yourself and yet being more than willing to spout off as you have.
The organs of State power at all levels, from the county People’s Assembly to the Supreme People’s Assembly, are elected on the principle of universal, equal and direct suffrage by secret ballot
It seems it is the secret ballot one that is conflict with the earlier quote. Do we know if they follow that principle, that their elections are what they say?
There’s no excuse for you not being able or willing to find this yourself and yet being more than willing to spout off as you have.
Laziness, really.
It seems it is the secret ballot one that is conflict with the earlier quote. Do we know if they follow that principle, that their elections are what they say?
You can't beg the question like this and blame it on laziness. You're a deliberate bad faith actor.
Who can we believe? The constitution that defines how that government works or a completely unattributed claim?
I mean the US constitution has lots of fancy stuff in it that I'm not sure I take to be so in reality. So I'd definitely prefer if we had some sort of confirmation.
So if we don't have confirmation is not true? But the article on wikipedia without confirmation must be true because is on the internet?
Why you doubt only what is not constructed in your mind?
So if we don’t have confirmation is not true?
No, it's just unconfirmed
But the article on wikipedia without confirmation must be true because is on the internet?
The constitution was online too though.
Why you doubt only what is not constructed in your mind?
I don't know what you mean, could you rephrase this one?
I linked the absolute most liberal friendly source for you. Banning factionalism didn't mean they banned democracy. Banning of factionalism was done when there were literal fascists and Capitalists trying to infiltrate the party and reinstate Tsarism for their profits. You were allowed to have different ifeas, voice them, and vote on them.
It's very kind of you to have chosen that as a source but it seems to have been an unfortunate pick.
Banning of factionalism was done when there were literal fascists and Capitalists trying to infiltrate the party and reinstate Tsarism for their profits.
It just happens that that was claimed to happen always, so you know, ban was only liften in 1989 as the article mentions lol. Funny how that happens.
You were allowed to have different ifeas, voice them, and vote on them.
Not even mentioning the lack of press freedom but Stalin famously purged a shitload of people on the basis of their political opinions. And voting in a strictly controlled single-party state, it does have the sound of a empty formality as the article had it.
It just happens that that was claimed to happen always, so you know, ban was only liften in 1989 as the article mentions lol. Funny how that happens.
Looks like it was true! Millions of people died when the USSR was illegally dissolved afterwards, and the majority of living former-soviets say they prefered the Soviet System.
Not even mentioning the lack of press freedom but Stalin famously purged a shitload of people on the basis of their political opinions. And voting in a strictly controlled single-party state, it does have the sound of a empty formality as the article had it.
Liberalism and fascism were banned. Additionally, it is not at all an empty formality, unless you think every human being in a political party shares the exact same opinions, which is laughably false.
It's always the case that authoritarian countries use a foreign threat as the reasoning for being so authoritarian. Tale as old as time.
Liberalism and fascism were banned.
So you think capitalist countries banning communist parties is all fine and dandy? Because that's not terribly democratic if you ask me.
Additionally, it is not at all an empty formality, unless you think every human being in a political party shares the exact same opinions, which is laughably false.
It's an empty formality when it's a single party, loyalty to is is demanded and any real criticism can lead you to be fucking killed. Stalin did not take this shit lightly and lots of people died as a result.
It's always the case that authoritarian countries use a foreign threat as the reasoning for being so authoritarian. Tale as old as time.
Indeed, Socialism has been deemed "authoritarian" by foreign countries.
So you think capitalist countries banning communist parties is all fine and dandy? Because that's not terribly democratic if you ask me.
Of course not. The difference is that Capitalism and fascism are antidemocratic and get lots of innocents killed. You don't have to defend fascism. It's the paradox of tolerance.
It's an empty formality when it's a single party, loyalty to is is demanded and any real criticism can lead you to be fucking killed. Stalin did not take this shit lightly and lots of people died as a result.
This is ahisorical and silly. Even 2 people with the same views are different in numerous other ways, and there is an entire history of change and diverse viewpoints in the USSR.
Indeed, Socialism has been deemed “authoritarian” by foreign countries.
I wonder why something like the Soviet Union under Stalin would be called authoritarian. It's preposterous!
Of course not. The difference is that Capitalism and fascism are antidemocratic and get lots of innocents killed. You don’t have to defend fascism. It’s the paradox of tolerance.
It's just that they banned every other party.
This is ahisorical and silly. Even 2 people with the same views are different in numerous other ways, and there is an entire history of change and diverse viewpoints in the USSR.
Not so much tolerance for those viewpoints under Stalin.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge
Weirdly even this site puts it very bluntly: https://www.marxists.org/history/ussr/events/terror/index.htm
Based on the link I would've expected something else, but they are pretty upfront about it. Interesting website.
I urge you to pick up a history book on the Soviet Union if you think Stalin made up the entire political apparatus. Even the CIA disagrees with you there, because it was obvious.
Initially governing as part of a collective leadership, Stalin consolidated power to become dictator by the 1930s; he formalized his Leninist interpretation of Marxism as Marxism-Leninism, while the totalitarian political system he established became known as Stalinism.
Stalin's Soviet Union has been characterised as a totalitarian state,[673] with Stalin its authoritarian leader.[674] Various biographers have described him as a dictator,[675] an autocrat,[676] or accused him of practising Caesarism.[677] Montefiore argued that while Stalin initially ruled as part of a Communist Party oligarchy, the Soviet government transformed from this oligarchy into a personal dictatorship in 1934,[678] with Stalin only becoming "absolute dictator" between March and June 1937, when senior military and NKVD figures were eliminated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin
I mean we talked if it was a totalitarian dictatorship or not. Sure does seem like it was.
Can you explain mechanically how he was a totalitarian dictator, yet did not have totalitarian control nor was he the sole director?
But he does seem to have had a total control of the state through his position, control of tools such as NKVD, fear, intimidation, cult of personality, purging of opponents and so on. Unless you think it doesn't count unless you have an official position of dictator and has been named as such by the Roman senate, of course.
Looks like it was true! Millions of people died when the USSR was illegally dissolved afterwards, and the majority of living former-soviets say they prefered the Soviet System.
What a bunch of fucking nonsense, holy shit...
Which part, specifically? Around 7 million people died during the years following the dissolution of the USSR, and it's well-documented that most former soviets prefered that system.
Ah yes, that's why so many former soviet countries wanted and now have independence and prosperity.
You fucking moron, soviets literally killed people by deporting to Siberia, quelling any sparks of independency, and starvation.
USSR was a shithole, and what's left of it is still a shithole.
Kindly, a person who was born in the absolute ass-hair dingleberry that was the USSR.
Ah yes, that’s why so many former soviet countries wanted and now have independence and prosperity.
Child sex slave stocks are through the roof!
prosperity
Nearly all of the post-Soviet states suffered deep and prolonged recessions after shock therapy, with poverty increasing more than tenfold. Catastrophic drops in caloric intake followed the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_Soviet_Union#Consequences
Kindly, a person who was born in the absolute ass-hair dingleberry that was the USSR.
How old are you, if I may ask?
https://www.worldometers.info/demographics/life-expectancy/
I'm glad you brought up life expectancy. (For the lazy: terrorist russia is 111, while nearly all post-soviet europe countries are above)
How old are you, if I may ask?
You may not, commie.
Edit: commies: angry downvote
Yeah, many of the post-socialist states are in rough shape thanks to the imperial core’s shock therapy plundering of them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nostalgia_for_the_Soviet_Union#Polling_history
In 2017, another poll conducted by Pew Research Center found that 69% of Russians, 54% of Belarusians, 70% of Moldovans and 79% of Armenians claimed that the breakup of the Soviet Union was a bad thing for their country. With the exception of Estonia, the percentage of people who agreed with the statement was higher amongst people aged 35 or over. 57% of Georgians and 58% of Russians also said that Joseph Stalin played a very/mostly positive role in history.
Meanwhile in still-socialist states:
- Newsweek: Americans Can Now Expect to Live Three Years Less than Cubans
- Reuters, 2018: China overtakes U.S. for healthy lifespan: WHO data
- United Nations, 2019: Helping 800 Million People Escape Poverty Was Greatest Such Effort in History, Says Secretary-General, on Seventieth Anniversary of China’s Founding
- The Economist, 2021: At 54, China’s average retirement age is too low For most men in China the age is 60, much lower than the average of 64.2 in the OECD, a club mostly of rich countries. For female civil servants the age is 55; for blue-collar women it is 50.
You were allowed to have different ifeas, voice them, and vote on them.
There's an entire wiki page dedicated to how the USSR repressed scientific ideas and promoted absolute idiocracy (such as Lysenkoism) because of politics. If something as (relatively) objective as science wasn't allowing different ideas you can only imagine what was happening in areas that are far more subjective.
And I can tell you that the "democratic voting" was also just a farce. I can't find the source anymore but voting didn't really have oversight. It's in their voting guidebook, the people counting the votes are also the people who verify the votes. That means the voting committee gets to assign votes however they want because they're also the ones verifying the votes. From a certain political level onwards the political elite chose who gets what political position. Lysenko is actually excellent example of that because the scientific community hated him, but Stalin loved him and so Lysenko got to fuck up science for multiple decades.
There's an entire wiki page dedicated to how the USSR repressed scientific ideas and promoted absolute idiocracy (such as Lysenkoism) because of politics. If something as (relatively) objective as science wasn't allowing different ideas you can only imagine what was happening in areas that are far more subjective.
The USSR was overall very pro-science. In it's early years, it went through growing pains, as their number one task was centered around instilling Marxism in the population. Marxism itself is founded on Dialectical and Historical Materialism. Certain liberal sciences had been, at the time, focused on Idealism, such as Race Science.
And I can tell you that the "democratic voting" was also just a farce. I can't find the source anymore but voting didn't really have oversight. It's in their voting guidebook, the people counting the votes are also the people who verify the votes. That means the voting committee gets to assign votes however they want because they're also the ones verifying the votes. From a certain political level onwards the political elite chose who gets what political position. Lysenko is actually excellent example of that because the scientific community hated him, but Stalin loved him and so Lysenko got to fuck up science for multiple decades.
Do you have evidence that the Soviets were assigning votes?
In it’s early years, it went through growing pains, as their number one task was centered around instilling Marxism in the population.
So like the first 3-4 decades? Because they didn't really turn towards pro-science until the 50s when their ideological science interfered with the nuclear program. And the charlatan Lysenko remained as the director of the Institute of Genetics until 1965.
Do you have evidence that the Soviets were assigning votes?
Of course not. None of the voting results exist, at least I haven't found any and I did search for them. In fact searching for them is how I stumbled upon the official voting guidebook where it's written that the voting committee counts and verifies the votes, which leaves the door open for vote manipulation.
Just as I can't prove they were manipulating votes you can't prove they weren't and it comes down to whether you want to believe it or not. Personally I think if they have an official loophole to fudge results then the people in power would use it to stay in power.
So like the first 3-4 decades? Because they didn't really turn towards pro-science until the 50s when their ideological science interfered with the nuclear program. And the charlatan Lysenko remained as the director of the Institute of Genetics until 1965.
Yes, growing pains take time to overcome. The USSR also made a great many advancements in the early years as well, being the first Socialist country comes with numerous growing pains.
Of course not. None of the voting results exist, at least I haven't found any and I did search for them. In fact searching for them is how I stumbled upon the official voting guidebook where it's written that the voting committee counts and verifies the votes, which leaves the door open for vote manipulation.
Got it, so no evidence, and pure mythology.
Just as I can't prove they were manipulating votes you can't prove they weren't and it comes down to whether you want to believe it or not. Personally I think if they have an official loophole to fudge results then the people in power would use it to stay in power.
Ah, the "God is real because you can't disprove him" argument. This is Idealism, and you are inventing reality to suit your personal narrative.
Ah, the “God is real because you can’t disprove him” argument. This is Idealism, and you are inventing reality to suit your personal narrative.
Except my argument stands on the fact that there's an official loophole. Do you have any actual argument to back up the votes weren't fudged beyond "I want to believe the soviets were nice people"?
You're free to go find the official voting information yourself, I'm not going to dig into that materials again just to find a document you most likely can't read because you can't read Russian.
Except my argument stands on the fact that there's an official loophole. Do you have any actual argument to back up the votes weren't fudged beyond "I want to believe the soviets were nice people"?
So does the "God is real because you can't disprove him" argument. It stands that you have precisely no evidence and yet fully believe what you made up.
You're free to go find the official voting information yourself, I'm not going to dig into that materials again just to find a document you most likely can't read because you can't read Russian.
Google translate exists, go for it. Find evidence for your claims and beliefs.
Right. I misremembered, it wasn't in Russian. Here you go
Viimased kanded lõplikku nimekirja tegi jaoskonnakomisjon valimispäeval, fikseerides valimissedelite väljaandmise. Vahemärkusena väärib selle toimingu juures mainimist seik, et valijailt kinnitust sedeli kättesaamise kohta ei võetud, seda asendas komisjonipoolne märge. Valimismäärustikud kõnealust detaili ei kajasta, kuid viite kirjeldatud toimimisviisile võib leida nimekirjade koostamise tehnilisest juhendist. (7) Esmapilgul võib asi paista vähetähtis, kuid see andis jaoskonnakomisjonide käsutusse lihtsa viisi ise „hääli kasti pannes” nõutav valimistulemus tagada. Selle kohta võib mälestustes viiteid leida juba alates Riigivolikogu valimistest 1940. a. suvel
The (7) reference there is for "ERA, f. R-437, n. 1, s. 1." which is the official document that isn't digitized. However you can take a trip to the Estonian national archives and you can request access to it. You can do that here
Now, where is your proof?