• FreeAZ@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    8 days ago

    Yes, under a dictatorship, it’s literally happened before. Are you being serious or is this supposed to be some sort of gotcha where you go “socialism can’t exist without democracy so the label is pedantic”?

    Socialism under one party governments have happened, that is not democracy, even if democratic elements exist within. You can’t have democracy under one party, the people need the ability to form an opposition party if the need arises.

    • NauticalNoodle@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      if we’re going on about pedants then I might as well add that a democracy can’t exist with only two parties, either.

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          8 days ago

          Having a single party simply means that the society as a whole agreed on a single collective vision. There can be plenty of debate within the framework of a party on how to actually implement this vision. Meanwhile, any class society will be a dictatorship of the class that holds power. Given that socialist society would arise from an existing capitalist society, it would necessarily inherit existing class relationships. What changes is which class holds power. That’s the difference between the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie and the dictatorship of the proletariat.

          Finally, the notion of dictatorship in a sense of a single person running things is infantile beyond belief. People who peddle this notion are the ones who should truly be ashamed of themselves. As Anna Louise Strong puts it in This Soviet World: