If we examine the president of the United States; they can appoint judges and their cabinet. The president is the executive so they execute the laws made by legislators. The president is, on top of head executive, also the party leader. The president is the commander in chief and so makes them the head person in charge of the military. These were the “powers” Stalin also had as General Secretary so in many ways his position was the Socialist version of the heads of state in liberal democracies.
Now consider how the executive branch has been slowly consolidating it’s power since the founding of America and definitely post WW2. Consider also Congress who are the only ones who can formally declare war which supposedly is part of that ‘checks and balances’ thing. Ever since ww2 the president has ignored Congress without their approval or even consulting with Congress in matters of war; unaccountable to almost no one. Almost every conflict has been adventurism by the president in order to further not only his own goals but his party’s goals. On top of this there is NATO which gives the president even more power internationally and away from Congress’ authority.
What’s more insane is when you think about it it’s strange that the president is the face of the country because they aren’t the policy makers or law makers, that’s the legislators job. If America were truly democratic the president would be a neutral actor who simply executes the laws of a party in the legislative branch based on a popular vote. Instead the president of America acts as the international enforcer answerable to no one, while being a party “cheerleader” domestically; “leader of the free world” indeed.
In truth Stalin held no more power than any other modern party leader in the 1930s and executive that puts his signature on policies proposed by law makers. Heck Stalin never held the same kind of power the president holds with NATO. Stalin’s power was a “consequence” of the material conditions of the time. Any modern Socialist head of State would more or less be similar to heads of state of today except of course with a more progressive and democratic government. But to liberals democracy is only, “free” market democracy.
One of the myths that’s taught in the US, accepted by everyone from middle schoolers to liberal constitution nerds, is that it has a system of “checks and balances” so that separate branches of government can’t “wield supreme authority”. That there are different branches who each have their separate functions is seen as a “check on power”, but, much like the two-party system in the US, all branches and every side of those checks is controlled by capitalists for their interests.
Even the supreme court is no different from the ancient roman augurs and pontifex maximus; they give legal sanction to slavery and the westward conquest that divvied up stolen land, and are the final interpreters of property rights… and who doesn’t get to have much of it, if any.
The US has no democratic decision-making body, it has 3 elected ones (one consul / war-making one, one big and one small law-making, and all elected bodies end up being popularity campaign / money contests ), and another set of “experts” appointed by the other 3. Funnily enough even ancient rome had a non-elected one, the centuriate assembly, but being made up of ex-soldiers it was just one to make sure they could get their needs met and for the state to keep them happy.
The delusion of “checks and balances” is what you get when you’re ignorant of class struggle and the role of the state. Its really insidious propo that happens to work really well by hiding the ruling class behind a layer of seemingly contradictory groups. It kinda reminds me how a lot of people don’t realize that when they go to the grocery store, you’re only buying stuff from less than 6 companies, although it looks like there’s hundreds of brands.