For example, one person might say that it looks like a government, representing all workers on a national scale and making decisions based on votes or elected representatives, owning all the means of production.
That might be relevant if the USSR was actually democratic.
Is there any physical reality in which it would be impossible to reasonably argue that the workers do not collectively control the means of production, because of a disagreement on which means of production should be owned by which workers? It seems like a very vague definition when you start looking beyond slogans into what it actually looks like.
Are bourgeoisie liberal states democratic? Curious your thoughts.
To varying degrees. Certainly more than the USSR. Not really sure why anyone thinks “You can vote for the Party Approved candidate or not vote” is a real vote, other than a deep desire to throat authoritarian boots.
“You can vote for the Party Approved candidate or not vote”
I don’t really think its functionally different in the USA (or other liberal states). Democrats and Republicans are quite literally “Party Approved Candidates”. The presence of independents is incidental, and the USSR had independents in its parliament as well. This is why I view both the USA and USSR as “democratic”, but I would view neither as socialist.
The difference is the state does not choose who their opposition is and you are actually allowed to replace the governing system as a whole in liberal states which was not permitted in the USSR.
Yes, there is no branch of the government that chooses the opposing candidate to the state party candidate.
In theory in most liberal countries candidates can run on scrapping the current system and replacing it. For example you can run a socialist candidate in US elections that wants to legally and non-violently remove capitalist democracy and replace it with a socialist autocracy. You cannot run a candidate in Chinese elections that wants to remove the Chinese Communist party from power.
This is one of the most critical freedoms that the USSR lacked and China lacks.
I don’t really think its functionally different in the USA (or other liberal states). Democrats and Republicans are quite literally “Party Approved Candidates”.
Independents run in the US all the time. Democrats and Republicans both have party primaries, in which the ‘party-approved’ candidates are voted for and ran. I don’t even remember the last time there was an uncontested national election.
The presence of independents is incidental,
Why? Because it’s inconvenient to the point?
and the USSR had independents in its parliament as well.
The ‘independents’ were party-approved, and almost always elected uncontested as well. Contested elections, to my memory, were not even allowed between independents and Communist candidates until 8 fucking 9.
This is why I view both the USA and USSR as “democratic”, but I would view neither as socialist.
Neither the US nor the USSR are socialist, but the USA is much more democratic than the USSR. Fuck’s sake, 19th century Britain was more democratic than the USSR, and 19th century Britain was not very fucking democratic.
That might be relevant if the USSR was actually democratic.
"Does socialism really MEAN anything?
"
Really showing the libs, I see.
Are bourgeoisie liberal states democratic? Curious your thoughts.
To varying degrees. Certainly more than the USSR. Not really sure why anyone thinks “You can vote for the Party Approved candidate or not vote” is a real vote, other than a deep desire to throat authoritarian boots.
I don’t really think its functionally different in the USA (or other liberal states). Democrats and Republicans are quite literally “Party Approved Candidates”. The presence of independents is incidental, and the USSR had independents in its parliament as well. This is why I view both the USA and USSR as “democratic”, but I would view neither as socialist.
The difference is the state does not choose who their opposition is and you are actually allowed to replace the governing system as a whole in liberal states which was not permitted in the USSR.
Are you sure about that?
What does “replacing the governing system as a whole”, look like, in practice, exactly? How is this different from the USSR?
Yes, there is no branch of the government that chooses the opposing candidate to the state party candidate.
In theory in most liberal countries candidates can run on scrapping the current system and replacing it. For example you can run a socialist candidate in US elections that wants to legally and non-violently remove capitalist democracy and replace it with a socialist autocracy. You cannot run a candidate in Chinese elections that wants to remove the Chinese Communist party from power.
This is one of the most critical freedoms that the USSR lacked and China lacks.
Independents run in the US all the time. Democrats and Republicans both have party primaries, in which the ‘party-approved’ candidates are voted for and ran. I don’t even remember the last time there was an uncontested national election.
Why? Because it’s inconvenient to the point?
The ‘independents’ were party-approved, and almost always elected uncontested as well. Contested elections, to my memory, were not even allowed between independents and Communist candidates until 8 fucking 9.
Neither the US nor the USSR are socialist, but the USA is much more democratic than the USSR. Fuck’s sake, 19th century Britain was more democratic than the USSR, and 19th century Britain was not very fucking democratic.