• pulaskiwasright@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    edit-2
    6 months ago

    It’s still the best way even if it’s bad. Ranked choice voting would make it better.

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      6 months ago

      It’s demonstrably not, but westerners just keep clinging to their failed system lacking the courage and imagination to try anything different.

          • pulaskiwasright@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            14
            ·
            6 months ago

            That’s not a political system at all. It’s a process that could be implemented in many styles of government. It is not incompatible with representative democracy either. It is a bad idea though. It means that a government has a hard time changing course, even when it needs to. Because it silences people from questioning decisions.

              • pulaskiwasright@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                6 months ago

                It’s it though. It’s a principle applied to Chinese communism. It’s not a required part of communism and it isn’t form of government on its own. It’s not even the most major part of a government system.

                • queermunist she/her@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  6 months ago

                  It’s not required for communism per se, but it’s certainly a form of government organization. It’s how the People’s Congress works?

                  • davel [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    8
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    6 months ago

                    It seems this person is just going to keep repeating that it isn’t a form of government no matter what.

                    At this point the onus is on @[email protected] to specify what criteria need be met for something to be considered “a form of government.”

        • sandman@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          6 months ago

          Ask the people of El Salvador, and they’ll say having a dictator is better because democracy has demonstrably failed them.

          El Salvador under a dictator actually has less gang violence than Mexico under a democracy.

          Westerners will blind themselves to this reality, though. They always do.

          • pulaskiwasright@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            6 months ago

            When dictatorships go badly, they go extremely badly. Far more badly than even a broken representative democracy. The odd of having a sold string of reasonably good dictators are vanishingly small. A good dictator is the best form of government. Good luck maintaining that though.

            • davel [he/him]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              6 months ago

              When a bourgeois democratic state goes badly, it tears off its liberal mask and reveals the fascism beneath. The capitalist class dispenses with democratic theater and rules by naked dictatorship. Western liberals shouldn’t wonder why fascism is on the rise in the West: it’s because Western monopoly capitalism is increasingly going mask-off. Monthly Review, 2014: The Return of Fascism in Contemporary Capitalism

                • davel [he/him]@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  6 months ago

                  Of course we’re told that: it’s a given that the US will call a country it wants to browbeat or regime change “authoritarian,” and corporate media will repeat it.

                  The Western concept of “totalitarianism” was constructed by Hannah Arendt, who came from a wealthy family and so unsurprisingly was anticommunist. Her work was financially supported and promoted by the CIA. It’s a bourgeois liberal, intentionally anticommunist construct that lumps fascism and communism in the same bucket.

                  Monthly Review, The CIA and the Cultural Cold War Revisited

                  U.S. and European anticommunist publications receiving direct or indirect funding included Partisan Review, Kenyon Review, New Leader, Encounter and many others. Among the intellectuals who were funded and promoted by the CIA were Irving Kristol, Melvin Lasky, Isaiah Berlin, Stephen Spender, Sidney Hook, Daniel Bell, Dwight MacDonald, Robert Lowell, Hannah Arendt, Mary McCarthy, and numerous others in the United States and Europe. In Europe, the CIA was particularly interested in and promoted the “Democratic Left” and ex-leftists, including Ignacio Silone, Stephen Spender, Arthur Koestler, Raymond Aron, Anthony Crosland, Michael Josselson, and George Orwell.