Recently I posted a pretty harmless meme in my DSA chapter’s Discord (see image). It was in response to South Korea’s recent spate of Fascism.

In response I had comrades jump down my throat, attacking me for critical support of AES states like DPRK and China. According to these comrades “there is no real Socialist nation.”


As tempting as it is to quit DSA I think I should stay and try to educate.


Comrades also jumped on me for a comment I made months ago in response to some right wing BS where I said “maybe Democracy isn’t always a great idea”. The point I was trying to make was that Trans rights and other basic freedoms should never be put up to a popularity contest… I’m ok with a state that defends these rights and doesn’t allow a reactionary majority to vote them away!

During this thread, people brought up multiple times that DPRK isn’t Democratic because the Kim’s have always been the figurehead, China isn’t Democratic because “reasons” (racism), China lies about their suicide rates to WHO, etc.

Frustrating. I’ll post more details in the comments.


My question: What constitutes a “real” Democracy? Is it leadership changing hands every few years? We don’t have that in the U.S. Is it secret ballots? All the nationa above have that. Is it that the people’s votes and voices actually change the government actions? We saw this in China unfortunately when people demanded ending the COVID lock downs early. It was the wrong thing to do but done for the right reason.

And is there any hope for these people in my chapter? One of them was basically racist against Chinese people and they seem very set in this “not real Socialism” mindset.

  • Sodium_nitride
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    6 days ago

    What constitutes a “real” Democracy?

    In ML theory, and pre-liberal classical political theory, a “democracy” would be a state ruled by the lower classes/poor. A “democracy” would be very close in meaning to “dictatorship of the proletariat” (or you could say that DotP is democracy in the age of capital). That’s basically how most elite political theorists used the word for a long time. They considered it synonymous with “mob rule” and looked down upon it.

    The exact details of how the lower classes maintain their power or make decisions is irrelevant. That changes based on situation to situation.