this post was submitted on 07 May 2026
242 points (84.2% liked)

Late Stage Capitalism

3199 readers
115 users here now

A place for for news, discussion, memes, and links criticizing capitalism and advancing viewpoints that challenge liberal capitalist ideology. That means any support for any liberal capitalist political party (like the Democrats) is strictly prohibited.

A zero-tolerance policy for bigotry of any kind. Failure to respect this will result in a ban.

RULES:

1 Understand the left starts at anti-capitalism.

2 No Trolling

3 No capitalist apologia, anti-socialism, or liberalism, liberalism is in direct conflict with the left. Support for capitalism or for the parties or ideologies that uphold it are not welcome or tolerated.

4 No imperialism, conservatism, reactionism or Zionism, lessor evil rhetoric. Dismissing 3rd party votes or 'wasted votes on 3rd party' is lessor evil rhetoric.

5 No bigotry, no racism, sexism, antisemitism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, or any type of prejudice.

6 Be civil in comments and no accusations of being a bot, 'paid by Putin,' Tankie, etc. This includes instance shaming.

Introduction to Socialism (external links)

Wiki

Marxism-Leninism Study Guide: Advanced Course

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] PhenomenalPancake@lemmy.world 7 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (2 children)

So the Bolsheviks weren't the dominant party that eliminated all the others after they won the Civil War?

And remind me what happened to public figures who spoke against the premier in any way? I'm sure nobody complained because they loved the government so much that they'd never say a bad word about it...

[–] davetortoise@reddthat.com 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Yes, that's right. The point I'm making is that elections worked very differently to the party politics people are used to, with an emphasis on people personally knowing their representatives. To the average voter, the bolshevik party wasn't very relevant when they were choosing between two guys who lived on their street.

[–] PhenomenalPancake@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

And what happened when those representatives disagreed with the inner circle?

[–] mathemachristian@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

They in turn elected candidates to put forth their disagreement

[–] PhenomenalPancake@lemmy.world 5 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Again, what happened to high-ranking politicians who openly expressed disagreement with the premier and his cabinet?

[–] mathemachristian@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Could you cite some specific examples of what you lre talking about?

[–] PhenomenalPancake@lemmy.world 4 points 4 days ago

Can you find any records of USSR politicians criticizing high-level government figures without consequence?

[–] sukhmel@programming.dev 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

I think, there were some more events, and maybe they involved elections, too. And after that all the other parties were eliminated, because it turned out that it's easier to rule when there's no other options

[–] PhenomenalPancake@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Because eliminating representatives who might disagree with you is much more democratic than allowing a multiple party system.

[–] K1nsey6@lemmy.world 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I've never seen anyone arguing more for their own oppression than you. Multiple parties is completely undemocratic, which is the authoritarian government you claim single party countries have.

[–] PhenomenalPancake@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago

So why is having one party better?