Others have commented here telling you more about China’s system (technically not a one party state, though CPC rule is constitutionally protected; Russia also has multiple parties).
I encourage you to continue interrogating your own understanding of democracy beyond what the US insists democracy is. Is it democratic to allow voting in a system that only has real room for two corrupt bourgeois parties that only serve the billionaire class while its citizens have no functional say in the matters that actual affect them? What about all of the people living in the vassal states and colonies of US empire? Do they get a vote? Does it make sense for the “leader of the free world” to have the largest prison population in the entire world, a heavily racialized one at that? How can you honestly and confidently claim that the US is democratic when you look beyond the theatre that happens every 4 years? (I’m not saying you’re claiming this, I’m just confronting you with the question).
What about the Nordic-model countries that the Western left loves to point to as “democratic socialism”? They have multiple parties, even explicitly fascist/white nationalist parties that participate in the legislature. Is it democratic to allow explicitly fascist political forces a say in the political system? Is it democratic for Nordic countires to support their welfare states using the spoils of imperialism while the US, Britain and France do the dirty work of military occupations and regime change operations?
Going back to the US, do you think the founding fathers would have allowed a monarchist party a say when establishing the expectations of the liberal democratic system? Of course not. If we are to understand socialism as a progressive economic system that will supplant capitalism, then why should China, a socialist country, allow a liberal capitalist party a say in their politics either?
Lastly, why do you think democracy is totally impossible within the confines of a one-party state? Have you thought that maybe without designated factions, that one party would not have any other party to blame things on when things go poorly? Have you considered that there might actually be more incentive for a one-party state to remain accountable to the people?
To the answer of your “is it democratic to allow X”, well yes. Isn’t that the point of democracy? To give power to the people. I don’t think any state truly does that. They all want to hold power and power stays with a few selected rather than truly “the people”. Some states give the illusion of democracy, with power flipping between multiple parties with largely similar goals and aspirations. Rather some buck that trend and just say 100% voted on Y.
But to your answer of “is it democratic”? Yes. A truly democractic society should welcome any political ideology, regardless of the incumbants current ideology. If a party had enough popularity and votes to change the political system, then so be it.
I’m not American, and I’m as ignorant to American politics as to Chinese, so I dunno what the founding fathers would of wanted. Maybe I can read about that another day. Thanks for your input.
I’m sorry if it came off like I was just assuming you were American. That wasn’t my intention. I use America as the example because America is the major upholder of the imperialist system and Western democracies are inspired by the American model, so I assumed it’d likely be familiar.
A truly democractic society should welcome any political ideology, regardless of the incumbants current ideology.
Any political ideology opens a can of worms.
The “liberal democratic” country of Obristan has two ethnic groups: the Korai (70% of population) and the Mirai (30% of population). The Korai get together and form the Satsujin Party, whose ideology is simple: to kill all Mirai.
Is the society still a democratic society if the Satsujin Party gains a majority and passes laws ordering execution of all the Mirai? Is that society in the interests of all its people? Surely, we can understand that any reasonable society cannot allow the Satsujin Party’s ideology.
some buck that trend and just say 100% voted on Y.
I’d encourage you to read on democratic centralism. The idea is that instead of engaging in dramatic political stunts, we could have a genuine effort on all sides to listen to the differing perspectives, try to come up with the best solution, and then agree together on that best solution. That sure sounds like what democracy is supposed to be in my opinion.
Others have commented here telling you more about China’s system (technically not a one party state, though CPC rule is constitutionally protected; Russia also has multiple parties).
I encourage you to continue interrogating your own understanding of democracy beyond what the US insists democracy is. Is it democratic to allow voting in a system that only has real room for two corrupt bourgeois parties that only serve the billionaire class while its citizens have no functional say in the matters that actual affect them? What about all of the people living in the vassal states and colonies of US empire? Do they get a vote? Does it make sense for the “leader of the free world” to have the largest prison population in the entire world, a heavily racialized one at that? How can you honestly and confidently claim that the US is democratic when you look beyond the theatre that happens every 4 years? (I’m not saying you’re claiming this, I’m just confronting you with the question).
What about the Nordic-model countries that the Western left loves to point to as “democratic socialism”? They have multiple parties, even explicitly fascist/white nationalist parties that participate in the legislature. Is it democratic to allow explicitly fascist political forces a say in the political system? Is it democratic for Nordic countires to support their welfare states using the spoils of imperialism while the US, Britain and France do the dirty work of military occupations and regime change operations?
Going back to the US, do you think the founding fathers would have allowed a monarchist party a say when establishing the expectations of the liberal democratic system? Of course not. If we are to understand socialism as a progressive economic system that will supplant capitalism, then why should China, a socialist country, allow a liberal capitalist party a say in their politics either?
Lastly, why do you think democracy is totally impossible within the confines of a one-party state? Have you thought that maybe without designated factions, that one party would not have any other party to blame things on when things go poorly? Have you considered that there might actually be more incentive for a one-party state to remain accountable to the people?
To the answer of your “is it democratic to allow X”, well yes. Isn’t that the point of democracy? To give power to the people. I don’t think any state truly does that. They all want to hold power and power stays with a few selected rather than truly “the people”. Some states give the illusion of democracy, with power flipping between multiple parties with largely similar goals and aspirations. Rather some buck that trend and just say 100% voted on Y.
But to your answer of “is it democratic”? Yes. A truly democractic society should welcome any political ideology, regardless of the incumbants current ideology. If a party had enough popularity and votes to change the political system, then so be it.
I’m not American, and I’m as ignorant to American politics as to Chinese, so I dunno what the founding fathers would of wanted. Maybe I can read about that another day. Thanks for your input.
I’m sorry if it came off like I was just assuming you were American. That wasn’t my intention. I use America as the example because America is the major upholder of the imperialist system and Western democracies are inspired by the American model, so I assumed it’d likely be familiar.
Any political ideology opens a can of worms.
The “liberal democratic” country of Obristan has two ethnic groups: the Korai (70% of population) and the Mirai (30% of population). The Korai get together and form the Satsujin Party, whose ideology is simple: to kill all Mirai.
Is the society still a democratic society if the Satsujin Party gains a majority and passes laws ordering execution of all the Mirai? Is that society in the interests of all its people? Surely, we can understand that any reasonable society cannot allow the Satsujin Party’s ideology.
I’d encourage you to read on democratic centralism. The idea is that instead of engaging in dramatic political stunts, we could have a genuine effort on all sides to listen to the differing perspectives, try to come up with the best solution, and then agree together on that best solution. That sure sounds like what democracy is supposed to be in my opinion.