• cracksmoke2020 [none/use name]
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 years ago

      As much as I agree with you in theory, my own experience with democratic centralist organizations has shown minorities on particular issues can be shown the door quickly without debate even when a full floor democratic decision had not been made prior, and even when both sides are supporting the existing party line.

      Power absolutely does corrupt, even when the amount of power wielded is irrelevant, just look at how far towards neoliberalism Vietnam has gone, look at how the USSR was even able to fail as it did. The only good features of modern liberal democracy is a very powerful and politically independent judiciary, the lacks of checks and balances to reenforce a socialist vision has absolutely contributed to the failures of past socialist projects.

      • frompeaches [she/her,they/them]
        ·
        edit-2
        4 years ago

        I mean modding reddit or discord for a medium sized community is no meaningful power and yet power corrupts lol. Anyone unable to buy this analysis did not go outside in the before times

    • DivineChaos100 [none/use name]
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      4 years ago

      There are accountable to the party of the working class and have risen to a higher position by getting democratically voted to do so through their activity inside the party

      So can you cite some examples when a marxist-leninist leader was actually held accountable for shit that they've done?

        • cracksmoke2020 [none/use name]
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 years ago

          You cannot say that there weren't failures in the democratic centralist form of governing when many of these countries no longer exist as socialist states, with many of the ones that still existing turning towards neoliberalism.

          One of the key enforcement mechanisms of liberal capitalist democracy in the US is the judiciary existing as an independent entity, and I think that many of these countries would've heeded better if they didn't entirely rely on democratic centralism among the politiburo for decision making. They needed independent groups to make sure they were always living up to constitutional desires.

        • DivineChaos100 [none/use name]
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 years ago

          It's vague because i am not looking for a gotcha, i want to understand the mechanism that ensures that in an ml state the members of the party, who are clearly above the proletariat, no matter how much of this is only for coordinational or organizational reasons can be removed when they stray from the revolutionary path. Much like the USSR did in it's later stages.

      • Awoo [she/her]
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 years ago

        Eh? Constituents can recall their representatives with a simple vote, at literally any time. That by itself provides incredible power that nobody in existing democracies currently has. It forces representatives to be constantly seeking to actually represent their area, especially as their is very high local transparency of government and a requirement for constant updates on their activities.

        If constituents could recall their reps at any time in liberal democracies they would be under an endless threat of repeated votes for all the shit they don't actually represent their constituents for.