dessalines

Bourgeios "democracy" isn't actually a people's democracy, even though its sold as one. Its really an oligarchy/aristocracy/capitalist dictatorship.

We shouldn't allow capitalists to define democracy as bourgeios parliamentarism, especially when that form of government works against the interests of the vast majority of people.

Participation in the electoral pulpit as a platform for agitation is a larger topic, but Marx advocated for the revolutionary overthrow of bourgeios republics his entire adult life.

Both plato and aristotle, but aristotle thought that any election-based state turned out in practice, to be an oligarchy or aristocracy, not a democracy (which he define as rule by the poor, with random selection by lot).

Aristotle's politics books 4-6 talk a lot about this:

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.4.four.html

True. After years of letdowns, some might accept that electoralism is a rigged game, but then the next generation completely forgets everything.

And for all of them, the socialist road is demonized and kept hidden, so no alternative seems possible.

how not voting is going against or dismantling the system.

Its refusing to play their rigged game, and spending your energies elsewhere.

Every single positive change from the US came not through voting or participation in the electoral process, but from force or the threat of force from below, usually in the form of mass protests, or enemies of the US empire defeating them militarily.

Political philosophers in the year 300 BC:

"Hey, so electoralism is a rigged game, because only wealthy and prestigious families have enough money to finance the popularity contest to get themselves or their puppet candidates elected."

Marxists in the 1800s, with the rise of representative governments:

"Hey, this system is proving to be the safest shell for capitalist rule, because wealthy capitalists are able to stack every election to get their puppets elected, and people have the illusion that they live in democracies"

Goldfish-brained liberals in the 2020s:

"Electoralism is gonna work this time, we just didn't vote hard enough before!"

The fact that you've ingested years of anti-dprk yeonmi park level slop, that you think anyone must be crazy to support them, and it's some kind of a 3d chess pro-dprk psyop, is a level of propaganda I've never seen.

When all of us were asking: who's dumb enough to believe these propagandized racist caracatures? You were thinking, yes all of its true, and anyone who questions this must be a psyop.

It's like the someone told you older women are all baby-eating witches, and now you think it's actually a plot when someone doesn't demonize them with equal severity.

What on earth are you talking about. Operation gladio was a cold-war program to demonize and destroy leftist / communist formations, just as the US has consistently done against the DPRK and against countless other anti-imperialist projects in the 20th century.

The CIA did so many dirty tricks against the DPRK during the special period, and committed countless atrocities against them.

How are you people twisting your brains around to think that support for targets of the US empire is somehow a US program??? This isn't complicated.

I'm not exactly sure what the question is, but if its that "power always corrupts", this might be true for capitalist countries, which allow private ownership of capital, and creates a system that encourages and incentivizes accumulation of power.

But In a socialist state, where the heights of the economy are controlled not by private capitalist dictators, but by collective decision-making, and production decisions are controlled at the collective political level, then no one person can accumulate that much power, and they would be (and are) punished when they try to subvert the collective authority.

Taking the example of police, the important question is who commands them, and for whose benefit? In proletarian states, police are commanded not by capitalists who use them to protect their private property, but by the socialist state who commands them to protect the people. Socialist states are going to be receptive to accusations of abuses, because that means they're harming the people.

That's a key distinction between proletarian cops and capitalist ones.

China is not moving away from communism. I don't know what you're referring to with tesla, but tesla has almost no sales in the PRC, and is considered a laughing stock. They stopped presenting at electric car shows in the PRC years ago because they're too far behind.

Is China State Capitalist?

• The backbone of the economy is state ownership and socialist planning. 24 / 25 of the top revenue companies are state-owned and planned. 70% of the top 500 companies are State-owned. 1, 2 The largest bank, construction, electricity, and energy companies in the world, are CPC controlled entities, subject to the 5 year plans laid out by the central committee.
• Workplace democracy in action in the CPC.
• Is modern day china communist? Is it staying true to communist values?
• Didn't China go Capitalist with Deng Xiaoping? Didn't it liberalize its economy? Is China's drastic decrease in poverty a result of the increase in free market capitalist policies?
• Is the CPC committed to communism?
• The Long Game and Its Contradictions. Audiobook
• The myth of Chinese state capitalism. Did Deng really betray Chinese socialism?
• Tsinghua University- Is Socialism with Chinese Characteristics real socialism, or is it state Capitalism?
• Isn't China revisionist for having a capitalist sector of the economy, and working with capitalists? Why isn't it fully planned like the USSR was?
• Castro on why both China and Vietnam are socialist countries.
• Roderic Day - China has billionaires.
• What is socialism with Chinese characteristics (SWCC)?
• How is SWCC not revisionist? How is it any different from Gorbachev's market reforms?, 2
• Domenico Losurdo - is China state capitalist?, 2
• Did Lenin say anything about Market Socialism, or productivism?
• Vijay Prashad - Is China capitalist?
• Why do Chinese billionaires keep ending up in prison? Why are many billionaires and CEOs going missing? China sentences Ex-Chairman of a major bank, guilty of embezzling ~$100M USD, to death in 2019.
• China cracks down on billionaires - Ben Norton interviews Ian Goodrum
• Do capitalists control the communist party? No, pic
• How the State runs business in China.

China, Cuba, Vietnam. The first two have a higher life expectancy than the US, the richest country in world history.

From here

Once the proletarian state possesses political power and controls the means of production, it will “wither away” over time as it suppresses the bourgeoisie and moves toward a classless society. While the state must exist while class distinctions remain, it becomes superfluous in a classless society. The use of force is no longer necessary to suppress class antagonisms, because there are no classes. Lenin includes a long quote from Engels to explain this phenomenon, a portion of which is sampled below:

As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection, as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon the present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from this struggle, are removed, nothing more remains to be held in subjection — nothing necessitating a special coercive force, a state. The first act by which the state really comes forward as the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — is also its last independent act as a state. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies down of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The state is not ‘abolished’. It withers away. This gives the measure of the value of the phrase ‘a free people’s state’, both as to its justifiable use for a long time from an agitational point of view, and as to its ultimate scientific insufficiency; and also of the so-called anarchists’ demand that the state be abolished overnight.” (From Anti-Düring)

If you agree with the premises behind this argument, the conclusion must follow. If the state arises from class antagonisms in society and exists for the purpose of class suppression, it must therefore exist while there are classes (even during a proletarian revolution!) and start to die off once class is abolished. Engels’ description, “the government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production,” explains the change in the nature of the State very well. Lenin points out that under the dictatorship of the proletariat, the State is no longer “the State” proper, but a different kind of institution altogether.