That’s certainly hard to directly claim either way, but the concept of “voting for the lesser of two evils” is partially responsible for what got us here.

The lesser of two evils is voting for a working class party like PSL.

No? The goal of communists is to establish communism. Whether the DNC or GOP wins, fascism remains in the US Empire.

Communists are left, the democrats are right, along with the republicans.

The important thing is to organize, and recognize the futility of relying on voting within bourgeois “democracy” to bring about positive change.

I have done so already. There is no such thing as a supernatural corrupting force, as I already stated. Instead, people’s lived existence, how they live, work, produce, revieve, etc. is what shapes their thoughts and thinking. How else can you explain that some people seem “immune” to this corrupting force you speak of? You leap to supernatural explanation, though unintentional, rather than engaging with a materialist explanation.

I do recommend you research socialist systems run by communist parties. They do not operate the way you have assumed.

You’re treating it like a supernatural force, though, and further socialist countries do have public transparency and oversight, so you’re drawing a false comparison. People’s lived existence determines their thought, there isn’t an inherent aspect of having managerial duties that turns people evil or “corrupt.”

PJ and caping for settler-colonialism and fascism, name a better duo lmao

The people of China are taught about class struggle, as class struggle continues under socialism. China is socialist, as public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy, and the working classes in control of the state. It isn’t a miraculous wonderland, as socialism isn’t some mystical and impossible state of being, but a really existing mode of production.

I don’t mean idealist as in having ideals, I mean it as you using supernatural causes for explanation. Power is not a supernatural corrupting force. Of course, everyone seeks to act in their own interest, but organization does not turn people evil.

I disagree with your conclusion that replacing leadership is a bad thing.

The ability to replace individual leaders is a good thing, and is a common factor in socialist countries. Having high turnover in leadership is a bad thing, as it means dissatisfaction and instability.

Administration is not a class in and of itself, either capitalists control the state or the working classes control the state. Power isn’t some supernatural corruptive force, either. Further, socialist countries are the only genuinely democratic countries, replacing leadership isn’t a sign of democracy, but instability and dissatisfaction with government. I don’t think you actually know what we communists are talking about, and you’re trapped in idealist and metaphysical thinking.

You might want a /s there, lol.

Really just means “supports existing socialism,” but as a pejorative.

Either you subscribed to our meme community, or were browsing by All, either one would show you this. It isn’t really “your feed.”

Pretty much!

All states are authoritarian, as all are instruments by which one class asserts its authority. That doesn’t decouple it from democracy either, it’s important to understand that working class states by necessity employ broad participation.

The Zapatistas are an example of “authoritarian” socialism, as you already explained. Democracy in socialism comes in many different forms, usually involving a combination of local voting and consensus gathering.

For China, public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy, and the CPC, a working class party, dominates the state. At a democratic level, local elections are direct, while higher levels are elected by lower rungs. At the top, constant opinion gathering and polling occurs, gathering public opinion, driving gradual change. This system is better elaborated on in Professor Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance.

For the USSR, it was quite similar. First-hand accounts from Statesian journalist Anna Louise Strong in her book This Soviet World describe soviet elections and factory councils in action. Statesian Pat Sloan even wrote Soviet Democracy to describe in detail the system the soviets had built for curious Statesians to read about.

These are just 2 examples, but it extends to other socialist countries like Nicaragua, Venezuela, Cuba, the DPRK, Vietnam, Laos, etc, which all have their own unique conditions and systems in place. All use their systems of democracy to keep the working classes on top, while exerting authority to suppress capitalists, sabateurs, fascists, etc.

How much have you studied Marxist-Leninist democracy? Accountability is core to socialist countries, both in theory and practice.

This is both the use of authority, and not dissimilar to what socialist countries often deemed “authoritarian” practice.

Then that definition doesn’t apply to the socialist states that “tankies” support, so the original comment doesn’t make sense.