• Dessalines@lemmy.mlOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    5 days ago

    You’ll need to educate yourself on the history of socialist states yourself, I can’t do that for you.

    A good place to start is the PRC’s five dont’s, a list of things to avoid at all costs from bourgeois democracy.

    • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      5 days ago

      You’ll need to educate yourself on the history of socialist states yourself, I can’t do that for you.

      I asked because you said there were multiple variations.

      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.