I’m watching the DNC, and it’s made me even more aware of the power of liberal bourgeois democracies to let out a little revolutionary energy whenever it gets close to the edge, through concessional policies, like New Deal policies or whatever Kamala might do if she wins, or even the act of voting and campaigning itself. Do they have to go through a fascism phase first, or has there been a liberal bourgeois democracy that has successfully had a socialist revolution? Will it take new theory to figure it out?

  • darkernations
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    3 months ago

    So far it appears, around the world, self-proclaimed communist parties that engage in electoralism subsequently are hampered by the constraints of bourgois democracy. I would be happy to be given examples that prove otherwise.

    • letranger (he/him)
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      3 months ago

      chile? venezula? (while i hear venezula isn’t a full out socialist, they are defying the us hegemony with a tint of communism because to be communist/full socialist would scare the national bougiouse [what i hear atleast])

      • darkernations
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        In those countries the lack of democratic centralism is plain to see and if one is fearing bourgois sentiments then a significant authority of power still resides in the parasitic classes with all the failings that structure brings. The dictatorship of the proleteriat is a necessity to advance social development; it is hard enough battling imperialist and fascist forces let alone concede space for their “freedom of expression” with the weight of brutalising capital behind them.

        Edit: clarity/grammar

      • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Chile got owned for reasons connected to being demsoc and venezuela isn’t even nominally socialist, it’s just progressive.

          • GarbageShoot [he/him]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            16
            ·
            3 months ago

            They got owned because they didn’t have control of the state, they just had elected office and, iirc, even took measures towards civilian disarmament on top of that, so when the military, which was just the same military as before Allende took office, did a coup, of course they succeeded.

            As Lenin repeated many times (quoting I believe Marx), socialists cannot merely lay hold of the ready-made state machinery. That’s exactly what Allende did and it would have been very difficult for it to produce any other outcome.

          • bobs_guns
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 months ago

            The whole reason why you need a vanguard party and a revolution is so you can marshal enough strength to keep your project from being toppled down just like that.