I ask because the qualifications seem to be more idealistic and aspirational than mechanistic. None of the descriptions I've seen present significant obstacles to the corruption that plagues our current system. A "solemn declaration" doesn't do much against emergent behavior. The founding fathers were against political parties too, that didn't prevent them.

Every system is corruptible. The form of corruption changes to suit the underlying system, but given enough time every system can be compromised. Even pure direct democracy can be manipulated by popular demagogues.

I'm asking, specifically, what part of whichever variation of a "people's democracy" you specifically have in mind makes that democracy invulnerable to corruption and manipulation? Not intentions, but actual structural features.

That's not smug or rhetorical, I'm legitimately curious. If I'm mistaken, and there is some fundamental property that achieves what I'm asking, I'd like nothing more than to know what it is.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 7 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

You're asking a question with a loaded premise, no system is immune to problems like corruption. At the same time, the various systems of socialist democracy have been far better than capitalist democracy, and the reasoning common to all is that the working class is in control, rather than capitalists. Structure varies from state to state, but having a system where the input and direction of the working class is paramount is far superior to capitalist democracy.

In capitalism, it's democracy for the capitalists, dictatorship for the workers, in socialism it's democracy for the workers, dictatorship for the capitalists.

There's a lot of research and reading you can do on how socialist states function, and a lot we can learn from them.