They were economically socialists, politically authoritarians - and, for better or worse, communism and the Leninist concept of the vanguard party are inextricably linked. At the end of the day, the question is: can a state democratically become socialist? The answer is clearly no, hence the vanguard party, hence Lenin, hence Ho Chi Minh, hence Mao. I’m not talking about a mixed economy, I’m talking about socualism.
By their own admission, the economy of the Soviet Union was “state capitalism”. Means of production were not owned by private individuals and companies (as in capitalism) but also not by the people or workers (as in socialism). They were owned by the state, and since the state was not democratic, this does not count as shared or public ownership. This may have been meant or justified as temporary at the start, but it did not change.
How do you define “democratic?” Because the “soviet” of “soviet union” is a type of council which was directly elected by citizens. The USSR was a democratic republic in that each soviet usually voted for a higher level soviet. Not that unusual, especially back then.
Now, I’m not suggesting that the books were never cooked. We know that Stalin rigged at least some higher level elections at the very least.
But “democratic” does not mean multi-party. It can also be “no party” or “three parties” or anything. In the USSR you could run for your local soviet or petition them to vote for you. Yes, you’d have to be a party member. But that doesn’t mean blind allegiance and no differing thought. I’ve brought it up before, but you had severe infighting in the party because of the diversity of opinions and thought, not lack of it. Sure, they were all communists or some flavor thereof at least superficially. But there’s a hell of a difference between Stalin and Kruschev and Gorbachev as examples.
And, Stalin aside given his prominence in the early years of the nation, the other prominent leaders were very dependant on entities like the Supreme Soviet which was elected by your elected representatives.
Uhh… I might be wrong, and do correct me because I’m not good at politics or geography or stuff, but isn’t The Republic of Ireland a democratic socialist country?
The ROI is I think a social democracy rather democratic socialist. It is economically capitalist though with state intervention.
When we are talking political science ‘state’ is political entity that exerts legal power over a territory. They may be federalised like in the USA or they may be independant (or a few other things.) It can also refer to the systems of this power, like government, legal system, and civil service including entities like police and military forces.
![The Whole Fediverse is Wholesome [fixed]](https://media.kbin.social/media/75/34/7534fdd6766a8bc7f83436386577e62a42333384f5e0e25621c1ee00ac70f675.jpg){kind=link}
They were economically socialists, politically authoritarians - and, for better or worse, communism and the Leninist concept of the vanguard party are inextricably linked. At the end of the day, the question is: can a state democratically become socialist? The answer is clearly no, hence the vanguard party, hence Lenin, hence Ho Chi Minh, hence Mao. I’m not talking about a mixed economy, I’m talking about socualism.
By their own admission, the economy of the Soviet Union was “state capitalism”. Means of production were not owned by private individuals and companies (as in capitalism) but also not by the people or workers (as in socialism). They were owned by the state, and since the state was not democratic, this does not count as shared or public ownership. This may have been meant or justified as temporary at the start, but it did not change.
How do you define “democratic?” Because the “soviet” of “soviet union” is a type of council which was directly elected by citizens. The USSR was a democratic republic in that each soviet usually voted for a higher level soviet. Not that unusual, especially back then.
Now, I’m not suggesting that the books were never cooked. We know that Stalin rigged at least some higher level elections at the very least.
But “democratic” does not mean multi-party. It can also be “no party” or “three parties” or anything. In the USSR you could run for your local soviet or petition them to vote for you. Yes, you’d have to be a party member. But that doesn’t mean blind allegiance and no differing thought. I’ve brought it up before, but you had severe infighting in the party because of the diversity of opinions and thought, not lack of it. Sure, they were all communists or some flavor thereof at least superficially. But there’s a hell of a difference between Stalin and Kruschev and Gorbachev as examples.
And, Stalin aside given his prominence in the early years of the nation, the other prominent leaders were very dependant on entities like the Supreme Soviet which was elected by your elected representatives.
Different != undemocratic.
deleted by creator
That’s basically what the entire philosophy of democratic socialism attempts to answer.
Uhh… I might be wrong, and do correct me because I’m not good at politics or geography or stuff, but isn’t The Republic of Ireland a democratic socialist country?
EDIT: Wait, by state do you mean American State?
The ROI is I think a social democracy rather democratic socialist. It is economically capitalist though with state intervention.
When we are talking political science ‘state’ is political entity that exerts legal power over a territory. They may be federalised like in the USA or they may be independant (or a few other things.) It can also refer to the systems of this power, like government, legal system, and civil service including entities like police and military forces.
Ireland is very much capitalist. Where did you get that idea? Free healthcare is not socialism.
Honestly? Someone I know once mentioned it was socialist and I know they vote there. That’s it. All 100% of my knowledge.
I did say I was bad at this stuff. :')
You sparked a little curiosity in me, by asking with earnest; so ya did good by at least one person here
They mean a sovereign territory which you would probably call a country.