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.
The Libertarian-Authoritarian divide is anti-authority bullshit built on very thin distinctions and very little actual theory, which ultimately just allows the anti-communist left to feel morally superior to the “tankies” while themselves proposing systems not unlike existing “authoritarian” systems.
The Anarchists built for themselves in the Spanish civil war, a system more authoritarian than the USSR ever was. One with forced labour, forced union membership, etc. They used their militias to force the will of their leadership. The Democratic Socialists wish to utilize the already established rule of law to implement socialist reform, utilizing the state and the military to ensure a transition from capitalism to socialism. Both are equally as Authoritarian as Lenin winning the democratic election in Russia, then demanding civil war after the-powers-that-be denied his legal right to assume control. Yet, those who believe in the theories of Lenin are the “authoritarians” and those who believe they won’t get Allende’d are somehow not.
Liberal “democracy” is built on the same thinly distinctive bullshit. For them, as long as there’s a democratic system (of any form) and it happens to be a capitalist economy, it’s not authoritarianism. And, they only go back on that when a current leader isn’t perfectly to their liking. Trump and Obama were both voted in by the same body, utilizing the same political establishment. But, Obama’s seen as a saint and Trump’s a tyrant, simply because liberals love one and hate the other.
So really, don’t sweat their bullshit. They’re not using logic or theory to construct their worldview, they’re using idealism. And it’s impossible to argue with an idealist in direct terms.
[also, every time someone says “heck” in any context, my ears perk up like I’m being spoken to. For a moment I thought you were informing specifically me that Stalin’s powers were less than that of western leaders.]
[also, every time someone says “heck” in any context, my ears perk up like I’m being spoken to.
Well, your ears better perk up, comrade! It’s a gosh darn curse word, and if they didn’t perk up, I’d know you were listening to that sinful rap music and becoming desensitized to foul language!
heck da police comin straight from da underground.
Thank you comrade Kastanza! lol
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.
Yes it is hypocritical,
In addition, recently, more liberals have openly stated that “democracy” means neoliberal capitalism, revealing what they really believed all along
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.
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
deleted by creator
