You say “socialist democracy” as distinct from bourgeois elections but socialism describes an economic ideology, not a system of voting. It’s not a meaningful differentiator to show how your system is different. That alone makes me get the feeling you’re kinda just tossing word salads here. But, I would like you to explain what you mean before I dismiss it as such— perhaps it has a meaning I’m unfamiliar with.
precondition you wait for, it is forged through struggle. The 90% figure is wrong for a start, even in the US communist sympathys are quickly growing
Rapidly growing, part of why I’m optimistic in a peaceful solution. But I would say that’s much more for socialism than communism.
Bourgeois democracy won’t let you vote through its own abolition.
The beautiful part of democracy, even flawed ones, is that it can’t stop you once you gather enough support, it will bend to your will
It does have a meaning you’re unfamiliar with, and it’s not word salad. Through a materialist analysis, looking at the concrete material conditions of history and the present, you see that superstructures like voting systems are subordinate to the mode of production. That is my entire point. Changing the ballot mechanism is irrelevant so long as the mode of production that maintains the current superstructure remains intact.
In capitalist countries under the dictatorship of capital, you have bourgeois democracy. Your vote is limited to those who work for capital, who will never permit a challenge to private ownership or imperialist power. Under a socialist mode of production, where the means of production are socially owned, your vote carries real weight over the direction of society. That is what I call socialist democracy. As it flows from the different class content of the state.
Socialism is the transitionary period towards communism, not a stable endpoint. Contradictions remain, but now under the dictatorship of the proletariat they can be analyzed and synthesized through collective practice, not hidden behind the fiction of neutral institutions.
The beautiful part of democracy, even flawed ones, is that it can’t stop you once you gather enough support, it will bend to your will
Democracy as a form cannot stop you, but the capitalist superstructure absolutely can and will. Look at how even centrist Bernie was contained and defeated within the US party machine. Look at what was done to Mossadeq in Iran, Lumumba in Congo, Allende in Chile. All democratically elected, all pursuing reforms within the system, all removed by coups, assassinations, or imperial sabotage the moment they threatened capital’s core interests. The ballot box does not disarm the ruling class. They hold the state, the media, the courts, the police, and the economy. When votes threaten those, the mask comes off.
Peaceful transition is a hopeful thought, but it assumes capital will accept its own expropriation if enough people ask nicely. History shows the opposite. Capital concedes only when forced, and takes back when it can. Growing communist sympathy in the imperial core is great, but the question is whether that energy will be channeled into building independent working-class power or diluted into electoral cycles that change faces, not foundations.
You say “socialist democracy” as distinct from bourgeois elections but socialism describes an economic ideology, not a system of voting. It’s not a meaningful differentiator to show how your system is different. That alone makes me get the feeling you’re kinda just tossing word salads here. But, I would like you to explain what you mean before I dismiss it as such— perhaps it has a meaning I’m unfamiliar with.
Rapidly growing, part of why I’m optimistic in a peaceful solution. But I would say that’s much more for socialism than communism.
The beautiful part of democracy, even flawed ones, is that it can’t stop you once you gather enough support, it will bend to your will
It does have a meaning you’re unfamiliar with, and it’s not word salad. Through a materialist analysis, looking at the concrete material conditions of history and the present, you see that superstructures like voting systems are subordinate to the mode of production. That is my entire point. Changing the ballot mechanism is irrelevant so long as the mode of production that maintains the current superstructure remains intact.
In capitalist countries under the dictatorship of capital, you have bourgeois democracy. Your vote is limited to those who work for capital, who will never permit a challenge to private ownership or imperialist power. Under a socialist mode of production, where the means of production are socially owned, your vote carries real weight over the direction of society. That is what I call socialist democracy. As it flows from the different class content of the state.
Socialism is the transitionary period towards communism, not a stable endpoint. Contradictions remain, but now under the dictatorship of the proletariat they can be analyzed and synthesized through collective practice, not hidden behind the fiction of neutral institutions.
Democracy as a form cannot stop you, but the capitalist superstructure absolutely can and will. Look at how even centrist Bernie was contained and defeated within the US party machine. Look at what was done to Mossadeq in Iran, Lumumba in Congo, Allende in Chile. All democratically elected, all pursuing reforms within the system, all removed by coups, assassinations, or imperial sabotage the moment they threatened capital’s core interests. The ballot box does not disarm the ruling class. They hold the state, the media, the courts, the police, and the economy. When votes threaten those, the mask comes off.
Peaceful transition is a hopeful thought, but it assumes capital will accept its own expropriation if enough people ask nicely. History shows the opposite. Capital concedes only when forced, and takes back when it can. Growing communist sympathy in the imperial core is great, but the question is whether that energy will be channeled into building independent working-class power or diluted into electoral cycles that change faces, not foundations.