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.

  • @chad1234
    link
    7
    edit-2
    4 years ago

    Yes it is hypocritical,

    In addition, recently, more liberals have openly stated that “democracy” means neoliberal capitalism, revealing what they really believed all along

    • @TeethOrCoat
      link
      54 years ago

      Which ones? I’m sure the war hawk, econ 101 type you see on r/neoliberal are, but are they generally? I think an average lib reddit user probably still only has some vague notion of personal freedom in their head that makes them feel good and not much more when it comes to the word.

      • @chad1234
        link
        54 years ago

        Yes, most still say the old line that democracy is when there is an election

        Many senior politicians of major parties and government officials have stated definitions of democracy being neoliberal capitalism in various speeches or policy documents but it is not currently the dominant definition in public discussion