this post was submitted on 09 Jun 2026
73 points (64.4% liked)
Memes
56445 readers
939 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The number of parties has fuck all to do with how democratic a particular system is. It's whose interests the parties represent that matters. In capitalist societies, parties serve the interests of the ruling capital owning class, and the working majority simply gets to pick which member of the exploiting class will rule over them and repress them.
Would you say that extend to elected representatives and from what background they come? E.g. elected representatives not coming from worker class?
On one hand you do recognize it's the class domination that is the actual problem, the root of all evil, and that a socialist injected into said government is socialist in words, not in deeds (if the class domination is not stopped),
but on the other hand every time I read a post from you, you seem to refuse to notice said class domination, blinded by their government words, in selected countries of your choice (or even acknowledge possibility of said class domination, throwing "whataboutism").
It is hard to take you seriously.
Do give a concrete example of me ignoring class dominance. It's hard to take people who just make up unsubstantiated personal attacks instead of engaging in honest discussion seriously. Perhaps, you should actually spend the time to learn about these countries instead of making a clown of yourself in public.
When talking about sham democracies (capitalist "democracies"):
You:
(Crossed out Vietnam, Cuba and DPRK because I do not know enough about them).
How is that not ignoring class dominance happening in those countries is beyond me (e.g. https://spectrejournal.com/one-should-not-camouflage-capitalist-and-imperialist-china-as-socialist/ , ).
Gig economy? Up and rising. Literally industrial reserve army of low paid workers whose renumeration is artificially kept low, straight from what Marx foretold. Hukou? Used for the same, rural workers migrating to urban centers where they are not registered and exploited as low wage proletariat. Ownership? Vast majority of business in China, according to China, is privately owned. 80% of urban employment, totally private businesses. Technological cartels, like Pinduoduo. Like this fuckery: https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/chinese-regulator-fines-confiscates-36-billion-yuan-food-delivery-platforms-2026-04-17/
Food delivery platform was scamming people, was actively acting like a damn mafia, was combatative against the police and judiciary, and did not cooperate with the government ... and was fined 1.5% of the profit. No person holding actual power in the company C-level suit suffered any consequences. This shit happened in China, as if it was USA.
How can you be so blind is beyond any rational person.
Oh wow, you really think you've discovered something groundbreaking here. Yup, nobody has ever heard of contradictions or commodity production under socialism. You're the first genius to point out that private ownership and wage labor still exist in China. Truly a revelation that would make Marx weep with joy!
The fact that you think socialism means the immediate abolition of every bourgeois relation overnight tells me your understanding of the subject comes from memes and a cursory skimming of a single Wikipedia paragraph. Socialism is not some sort of an utopia handed down from the heavens. It is a transitional society that emerges from capitalism and is therefore stamped with all the birthmarks of the old society. Commodity production, wage differentials, and even the market economy persist precisely because you cannot wave a magic wand and instantaneously create abundance and perfect class consciousness.
China's gig economy and the hukou system are real problems and nobody with a functioning brain denies that. But the difference between China and a capitalist country is that the state, led by the Communist Party representing the working class, is actively intervening to regulate, reform, and suppress these contradictions. Hokou reforms are a perfect example of this. The food delivery fine you cited, a mere 1.5% of profit, is indeed insufficient and that is a legitimate criticism. But to present that as evidence that China is simply capitalist is to ignore the fact that the government has the legal and political power to improve the situation which is precisely what they are doing. The very fact that the regulator fined them at all, that the public outcry is taken seriously, that the party openly discusses the need to break monopoly capital, is something no bourgeois state would even pretend to do.
You want a socialist society with zero exploitation, zero inequality, and zero contradictions. That is called communism, and it will take a long time to get there. In the meantime, socialist societies are messy, uneven, and full of tensions just like every human society that has ever existed. That is an argument against socialism that only a person with an utterly infantile understanding of politics and economics could make. Your gotcha list just proves you have the analytical depth of a child.
Nah, he's a Polish nationalist and a debate pervert troll, he want all socialism crash and burn, he just adopts ultra rhetorics because it make him appear as if he was on the left.
ah so an edgy 12 years old
You sir, are an idiot. This happens in every damn country.
My point is this: If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and looks looks like a duck, then its a duck. Might be a slightly different duck, but duck nonetheless.
Wow amazing counterpoint there truly worthy of an edgy 12 year old. Incredible how you can't comprehend that a socialist society will still have contradictions, but the nature of the government is fundamentally different from one ruled by capitalists. The fact that you reposted that Luxemburg quote shows that you don't actually understand what she's saying.
My point is this: you are utterly clueless on the subject you're attempting to discuss, and you should spend the time to actually learn about it instead of flaunting your ignorance in public and embarrassing yourself.
Amazing contribution to the discussion there. Using google translate to make sure we know you're clown really is a cherry on top.
You sir, are an idiot. This happens in every damn country.
My point is this: If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and looks looks like a duck, then its a duck. Might be a slightly different duck, but duck nonetheless.
Edit: https://www.reuters.com/business/china-market-regulator-boosts-food-delivery-worker-protections-2021-07-26/ This is 5 yo. The scandal I mentioned happened recently, and in the same scandal it became known that the gig workers are more exploited than 5 years ago.
Ah yes, immediately descending into personal attacks once faced with actual counterpoints to your drivel. Bravo.
The number of parties influences the percentual result.
You could say that in a 51/49 outcome 49% of the people isn't represented but it's still democratic.
I'm Belgian. We hold the world record in government foundations. I know how small percentages work and am pretty sure it's democracy at work.
Do I like it? Not really, but it still democracy.
Pluralism has nothing to do with whether or not the will of the people is accurately reflected. One party states often have higher democratic representation because the people can more directly influence policy.
Last elections in Poland seen a whooping 17 parties and over 40 independents elected to sejm. However, you could not find a single socialist among them, not to mention communist, all 17 parties and over 40 independents are representing various flavours of liberalism
Excellent point to make. Pluralism isn't bad in every case, though it can lead to factionalism of course, but the idea that it's democratic itself is horribly wrong.
Sure. But, the Polish people seem to be happy with a far right representation.
I really don't care about left or right. I've been working with politicians the last 15 years and I've met socialist people on the far right and extremely liberal people on the left. The boring centrist seem to get it right more often but they don't get elected.
You make no sense. Please elaborate.
Democracy is a compromise. The irony is that by representing everybody partially you'll never represent anyone fully.
Democracy is rule by the majority, which really means in practice a country where the working classes are in control. Bourgeois "democracy" guises capitalist control in a cloak of electoralism, obscuring unpopular candidates with positive wins in the realm of capitalist controlled elections.
Dude, half of my country has been ruled by elected socialist for 70 years now. Socialists have been part of the federal government since the 2nd World War and in their prime they formed a purple government together with the liberals.
Our most liberal party is struggling to get enough votes to participate in tge elections. What you're on about?
PTB has a decent and growing foothold in Belgium, which is fantastic, but that's about as good as it gets in bourgeois democracy, and speaks more to the effectiveness of parties like the PTB than the effectiveness of bourgeois democracy.