SlAvA UkrAnI!
this post was submitted on 20 May 2026
51 points (62.1% liked)
Memes
55837 readers
1002 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
Elections are not indicative of democracy. The fact that capital is what determines which parties are viable, what candidates are allowed to run, and controls the entire economy means that elections in capitalism are more of a pressure valve than an actual way to get your voice across. Capitalism is incompatible with working class democracy.
How the hell are elections not indicative of democracy? I mean, just because you have elections doesn't mean you have a proper democracy (e.g. if there is only one party available), but how those elections are run says a lot. They're the core of any democracy. Democracy is, by definition, the people being ruled by the people. So you need some form of governance that is accountable to the people.
And capital is far from the only thing that determines if parties are viable. Yes, it plays too much of a role (especially in the US, but there are many western countries that aren't the US), but let's not pretend it's some mysterious being that decides everything. That ignores so many important factors.
Elections aren't democracy, as you said democracy is rule by the majority. Pluralism, the ability to choose between parties, isn't actually democracy either. A single party system can be more democratic if it's a consultative democracy and reflects the will of the majority, like how it works in China (though China obviously has many, many elections). That also doesn't mean pluralism is inherently antidemocratic, countries like the DPRK have multiple political parties with seats (even if the majority are held by the WPK), just that the will of the majority be upheld.
In capitalism, a tiny class of people controls the most essential means of production and distribution for society. The state represents their interests, and any parties that exist must represent them, or instead have strong grassroots support and work against the state (such as the Bolsheviks). Choosing between any number of capitalist parties doesn't mean workers are going to be represented. No western country represents the will of the majority.
Oh really? How do you hold the people in power accountable, then, if they're part of the only party that is allowed to exist (which that party itself decided, what a coincidence!)?
False, that is the result of capitalism when it goes unchecked, not the definition. And different countries have different levels of checks on capitalism.
Yeah, no, that's not the case. Otherwise explain to me how many western countries have leftist parties and even marxist-leninist parties. It's just not the will of the majority. Which leads me back to the point: your (or even my) satisfaction with the results don't measure how democratic a country is, despite the FUD spread by authoritarians and wannabe authoritarians to destabilize democracies by encouraging people to not participate.
Recall elections, consultative democracy, electing candidates, etc.
Capitalism cannot be "checked." Capitalism inevitably tends towards centralization of the essential means of production and distribution into fewer and fewer hands, but even in the earliest stages capitalists were far outnumbered by workers.
Very few leftist parties can get anything done in western countries because the media is largely controlled by capitalists, and the state itself serves capitalists. Taking PSL as an example, a great deal more people agree with their positions than the ~1% of the vote they receive, but they are either actually barred from running, or receive a tiny portion of the vote due to not wanting to spoil your vote, as well as a lack of positive publicity from media (or any publicity, for that matter).
And if PSL or any other socialist party ever becomes large enough to receive a substantial percentage of the vote, we'll see the mask of humanity fall from the face of capital. Not that that should stop us from organizing.
Yep, more naked repression will happen, but on the flip side size is also a strength. It protects people.
Yes, but who enforces the consulting and the usage of the information gathered from consulting? Without accountability, that's just fantasy and/or simping for authoritarianism. Let's not forget, every authoritarian leader, party or Organisation has its supporters who will claim they're not authoritarian.
Except when it doesn't. There are plenty of examples where countries that have capitalism based economies moved significantly to the left. Look at Nordic countries, for instance.
What about all the public broadcasters? There are many countries where they're quite strong. And as to parties getting things done, what about:
I could go on and on, but that's not the point. The point is that fascists are trying to weaken the electoral system because they know how effective it can be. Otherwise, they wouldn't give a fuck. And part of the way they do that is by downplaying its efficacy in order to wear it down and eventually get rid of it.
The people hold them accountable, through the mechanisms I described previously. "Authoritarianism" is not a thing, all states are tools of the ruling class to oppress the rest, they are necessarily uplifting one class and oppressing the rest. Socialist states have the working classes as the ruling class.
Nordic countries offer sizable concessions to their working classes because the Soviets were right next to them, and already offered better safety nets. These are concessions, to prevent revolution, and are funded through imperialism and neocolonialism. The working classes do not actually hold state power. These countries are still highly centralized, dominated by finance capital, and rely on the export of capital to the global south along with huge megacorps plundering the global south to persist as they are. To get rid of imperialism and keep safery nets requires socialism.
The state serves private interests in capitalism, this is why nationalizing within a capitalist economy is not socialism, and privatization within a socialist economy is not necessarily a restoration or capitalism. Public broadcasters are not representatives of the working classes, and you're again giving examples of concessions given largely because of working class organization, not through the "democratic processes."
Fascism is a result of the decay in capitalism and imperialism, and is where neocolonial methods are turned inwards. That's what causes fascism to rise.
The electorate through their votes at the town/city and county levels, participation in unions and other groups like ethnic advocacy groups etc, and participation in the CPPCC, and protests directed over over real issues instead of broad colour revolution tier nonsense, to name a few avenues.
May have moved left at home (if you ignore the rising austerity, racism and general shifting right they are experiencing alongside the rest of Europe) but they are more than happy to join in imperialism and neocolonialism abroad to finance what little compromises remain.
Could you please define this. As it stands authoritarian is the thought terminating cliche of choice for the unintelligent and uneducated to avoid having to investigate and reckon with the questions of substance such as class content of the state, state form, satisfaction of the people with the government etc.
Capitalism is not some mysterious being, its a phenomenon and it is fundamentally incompatible with democracy. If the workplace was democratized then you would not have capitalism.