Democracy vs. Autocracy: An Unproductive Dichotomy 

We have plenty One dollar is one vote. If you dislike the system feel free to start a cooperative.

@@The_Engie Using that logic, that simply means Billionaires and millionaires have more votes than everyone else

@@Moosemoose1 correct

@@The_Engie People like Elon musk are some what autocrats and do not care about if you have one dollar but want to force you to have none or little dollars. so this a phantasy at this point.

@@gamervox1707 I think billionaires care very little about the wealth of others and are generally ambivalent to the success or failure of others in society

You're government system is objectively authoritarian according to political science

The current government is ALLIED with the USA. It is a country in the western sphere of influence RIGHT NOW, except with even less democracy.

That's sad. Western propaganda has long tentacles.

So be it, in a democratic society they should have the Freedom to express stupid opinions

@@muxijim6442democratic societies ban speech all the time, why is Assange still in house arrest and jail?

Yeah once you learn to actually look at things beyond ideology you see the west is hypocritical as shit. Democracy to them means the ability to choose between neoliberal figureheads

My favorite bit of American history is that George Washington essentially wanted the establishment of a one party state.

@@robert9016 I mean, the two parties in the US (Democrat and Republican) are just two Liberal Parties, just one staking the claim of Social Liberalism and the other Social Conservatism as their primary dividing line; they rarely disagree on Economics for the most part, though, the Republican Party is moving more and more into a Fascist direction due to its failing popular base for Social Conservatism.

@@noheroespublishing1907 I would also say that multiple parties means multiple avenues of attack against workers by Porky. As with sheep, sometimes it takes two shepherds of different types coming from two directions to move the herd to where you ultimately want them... 🐏

Exactly! Multiple parties just divide the working class. Preventing solidarity. At best they impede pr restrict progression and at worst you've created an environment for reactionary forces to spread, thus risking fascist overthrow of the workers state. The bolsheviks recognised this over 100 yrs ago. It's part of the reason democratic centralism became the form of governance. It allows direct action, whereas the government is beholden only to the people. One of the many key differences between communists and fascists is communists seize the state against the corporations, against the big landowners and private industrialists. Fascists seize state power to preserve and expand the capitalist exploitation with the government working hand in hand with big businesses to oppress the working class by convincing them that they're part of the same group as the rich. They're the same religion/ethnicity/race etc. IF WE COMMUNISTS, IF WE LEFTISTS, IF WE MARXISTS, IF WE REVOLUTIONARIES IF WE PROGRESSIVES. IF ALL WE WANT IS TO HUNGER FOR POWER, THEN WHY DO WE SIDE WITH THE POWERLESS? -MICHAEL PARENTI

@@fun_ghoul Right, the false sense of 'Choice" creates the illusion of agency, when in fact the advocacy is the same in the end result.

While I have no particular love for our current western systems, one could hardly decribe nations such as the USSR or China as more democratic than bourgeois capitalist nations. In fact, calling the USSR "democratic" in any given context is just utter delusion and gives weapons to defenders of capitalist nations.

​@@alioshax7797 seriously, why is that so obvious? why, specially for Westerners, is evident that despite its flaws liberal democracy is at least more democratic than the USSR, Cuba or China? I don't know what do you understand by "democracy", but I try to conceive it the way Aristotle did, basically as power for the "demos", the masses, which, according to him, were the poor. That means, in a democratric state, no matter the formalities taking place, what does matter is that the will of the masses translates into policy. The mechanisms employed to do this is another topic. (@Serpov0711 did post a comment in this section about this topic, look for it and read it if you want). Given that notion of democracy, I think that with all its imperfections, socialist states do more for the masses than capitalist ones (given their economic capabilities of course. Cuba can't do much because of the blockade, but countries much poorer thatn the US such as socialist Bulgaria had universal healthcare and public housing for all). And that has a lot to do with the way they're structured, the mechanism for representation. Another critique, which I share, is that these countries, specially during the 20th century, weren't democratic enough. Nonetheless, liberal democracy, as a specific kind of democracy and not a universal one, doesn't do this. You could see examples of this every day. So, stating if a country is democratic or not depending of the mechanism for the representation, is disingenuous at best. China or Cuba actually don't even pretend to be liberal democracies, and they acknowledge this. So try to think, do you even know how these countrie's mechanisms of representation actually work? what do people there think about them? if you want to know more I can even recommend you some books or videos

I think liberal democracy is an oligarchy with a veneer of democracy. @@PC42190

I've been saying similar stuff for a while...but nowhere near that precise and succinct. Thanks.

Excellent quote from an excellent book. Thank you

some mechainicsm of so called bourgoies democracies are used and can be used productively that doesnt mean copy bourgoise democracy sistem but search for sistem whcih will best ensure input from populaion and satifsyt their needs and keep sistem in check for good of populaion.in many of falied socialist experiments it was privliged parts of biraucracy whcih fucked up sistem and emerged as new so called democrats often among the first in plundering public resources.

Facts no democracy under capitalism

That's what I wanna tell regarding his vid about Belarus. You don't need a democratic revolution in it, no matter how white-red-whiters try to tell they aren't Maidan. Belarus IS already as democratic as the West, despite rigging the elections more blatantly.

👍 regarding the words "tried to" (With apologies to your sibling for my words denying him the full use of his agency)

@@merbst Thanks.

Ultra based pfp and banner holy shit

@@tetra. Thanks...comrade. ✊

Very interesting. Thanks for your thoughts and the reading rec!

Nationalising industries will ultimately result in worsening relationships with the US/West. However, quite frankly, as a 3rd world country odds are you will perform much better under a nationalised economy compared to one provided by Corporations. You will likely still receive sanctions, but that's fine, continue to trade with your local partners and develop your economy free from outside influence. This will indeed remove the dominance of the US dollar from your country.

@@merlinsbeard5210 0 successful revolutions, anarchism is merely a dogma and tool of western reaction.

Correct We're a Republic

We're a Democratic Republic the electoral college is anti-democratic as it gives over representation for smaller states while leaving more populated states underrepresented but over all the system is still a democracy.

@@The_Engie Sigh... If I hear 1 more person say "We're not a democracy, we're a republic" i'm going to end it all. A Republic is a system by which voting is done to decide policies, you can think of roman senates, order of the 12 etc. There is no guarantee of who can vote, how you can vote etc, it is simply that. A Democracy is a system by which political power originates from the people, the legitimacy of ones position exists by their election from the people. Essentially, it's one where people get to vote and if you ask the Leader "Why should YOU lead" they will respond "Because I was elected by the people" not "Because I was elected by aristocrats" and not "Because God chose me". The United States of America is a Democratic Republic. All democracies are republics.

Actually, those are the topics in which Marx and Engels show a high degree of eurocentrism, and we can't really blame them because they were products of their time. Zak Cope has written a bit about this. Also, it shows Marx's extreme commitment to teleological thinking derived from Hegel, which, at least in my opinion, was correctly critizised by Althusser. History has proven to be much more aleatory than teleological. Nevertheless, indeed talking about "civilization" entails a deeply colonialist sense, because always has a very Western perspective behind it. As an example, Venezuela's system is much more democratic than a common liberal democracy (chavistas call it "participatory democracy", and even ex American president Jimmy Carter has admitted that it has the most reliable electoral system in the world), but it's still derided as "authoritarian" even by Western leftist. And I could say similar things even about countries without a leftist governments, like all Westerners think Russian's political system isn't very democratic (I personally agree) but think otherwise in the case of Poland or Latvia, which I think is nonesense. How progressive a country is or isn't is complex to determine, although possible. But that doesn't mean the criteria should be fulfilling a liberal democratic structure according to what Western think tanks think it should be

@@PC42190 Venezuelan here. Just saying that Venezuela is no way shape or form a democracy since at least 2015, and the system could be criticized even before that, as the Tascón list incident shows

@@idonnow2 Why is that? And yes, it can be absolutely criticized. I never said it was perfect, just that it was more democratic than a standard liberal democracy, and I still think it is. Btw, for me the fact you're Venezuelan is no real argument at all. Trust me, I've talked with many foreigners who think my country's economy during the times of Pinochet was good because other Chilean people told them so.

@@PC42190 Right before losing the 2015 parlamentarian elections by a landslide, the first electoral loss of chavism in 8 years, the government stacked the supreme court (Tribunal Supremo de Justicia) and utilized it to essentially make the parliament completely useless. The actual circus of 2016 was one in which basically every single law passed by the parliament was shot down as "unconstitutional" by the supreme court, making it completely harmless. During that year the opposition tried to recollect enough signatures for a recall referendum, but halfway through the CNE (consejo nacional electoral, a literal centralized body that manages elections, controlled by the government), just suspended the process citing vague irregularities. The parliamente nominally had an opposition supermajority, but at the very beggining of the whole show the TSJ inhabilitated a few deputies from Amazonas state to ensure they couldn't actually use the supermajority. Over this issue eventually in early 2017 the TSJ literally proclaimed a few sentences that equated to dissolving the parliament, the democratically elected parliament, that was trying through lawful constitutional processes, to get Maduro out, as per the will of the people who had literally gone through the greatest economic catastrophe of the continent's history (the begginings of it, ominously for us back then), which at that point in time was 100% exclusively and only the fault of the government, as the American financial sanctions only came in late 2017 (the ones in 2014 were only freezing assets of public functionaries implicated in human rights violations during the 2014 protests). THIS is what caused the protests of 2017, in which over 150 protesters, mostly young students, were murdered by the national guard, and several hundred others dissapeared till today. And you know the way the American government co-opted "defund the police" into "fund MORE the police, to ensure better standards ofc ;)"? well the government here did the same. They announce the creation of a "national constitutional assembly", as per "the will of the people who wanted change", to draw up a new constitution. This was just a move to rule supra constitutionally, as the opposition parties couldn't run for deputies in that assembly, and upon its dissolution in 2020 the ANC had not produced a new constitution, which was the reason it was apparently created in the first place And since people love quoting that Jimmy Carter stuff, which was in 2012, let me lend you this quote from the chief executive of Smartmatic in 2017, the company which provided the machines and network infrastructure for nearly all elections during Chavism up to that point, including those which Carter refered to in his quote: "We know, without any doubt, that the turnout of the recent election for a National Constituent Assembly was manipulated. We estimate the difference between the actual participation and the one announced by authorities is at least 1 million votes" Smartmatic left Venezuela after that debacle, and later stated that it could not verify theresults of the 2018 presidential election, in which the most popular opposition parties were also barred from participating. The last free and fair elections were in 2015, and it clearly shows, cuz the government lost so hard it had to damage control until its democratic mask completely fell off. A true free and fair election today would result in the immediate ousting of Maduro, but if you ask the average Venezuelan, nobody really beliefs in the democratic process anymore and those who do are usually mocked for their idealism, an idealism that for many of us was (literally) shot down in 2017. Lastly, the ANC proclaimed the "blockade law" in 2020, obsviously citing some bs excuse related to the American sanctions, to give Maduro special powers for privatizing state assets without any public records. So at this point Venezuela is not only not democratic, its also not been socialist for a long while either As for the last thing you mention, i'm in the complete opposite side, i've been for nearly a decade more than sick and tired of foreigners trying to tell me how my country works, without them having ANY Venezuelan input at all. It's really a challenge being a leftist when tankies on the internet love to tell me that i live in a democratic socialist paradise (not talking about you) when that couldn't be further from the truth, Venezuela's government coopts anti imperialist and socialist rhetoric in the exact same way that countries like Russia and Iran, our fellow oil rentier geopolitical pariahs, do

This was the early Marx, Marx later on changed his view on the stagist progressive view of history, and he acknowledged that capitalism was horrific for the colonized ppl as opposed to the colonizers.

What should I call all those idiots in North America then

​@@robert9016 idiots, you said it yourself

@@robert9016 Europeans. You can recognize us as your kin because we act as dumb as you.

@@sasho_b. Two points for a good comeback.

its a spectrum as most things

I don't think you could apply the concept of Orientalism to the - flawed - divide between autocracies and democracies. I don't know about the US, but in Europe, autocracy is less a foreign system than a very material and tangible part of our national histories. And for most countries, democracy isn't that old. 1949 in Germany. 1975 in Spain. 1990 in Poland and Hungary. In Eastern Europe, autocracy has been the structure of the political and social system for most of their past. It is democracy that is a new, foreign and strange concept.

If you don’t want bias you shouldn’t be watching an openly communist RU-vid channel. They obviously are going to be biased towards the left

how is a video espousing democratic values "authoritarian" 😭😭

> critique of the failure of liberal democracies to fulfill their stated democratic ideals, that goes as far as to acknowledge instances where liberal democracies were more democratic or egalitarian than more overtly autocratic counter parts "is this an endorsement of authoritarianism?"

Wtf did you just puke out???

"Nations with a one party state" like China and Cuba are infinitely more democratic than the US, so in that sense I agree, but I suspect that's not what you're getting at lol

Uh...what about if you protest it at Standing Rock, Poindexter?

What results Just because ppl in america went out on the streets and expressed what they want it doesnt mean that they will get it Or that they will stay unaffected by their decision later on

Have you ever been to Pyongyang?

kneel at a football game in Washington

Yes because people "protest communism" and "protest capitalism" and not specific policies. I assume you're referring to the 0 COVID protest which was far less brutal than the several dead from the BLM protests.

*utopian socialist

Where is the Union of Voluntarist Socialist Republics? How utopians idealize post-capitalism yet slander successful socialist revolutions is beyond me. Where is the criticism for the CPUSA for not having a revolution yet? Or for the CPGB for being revisionists? Or for all of anarchism in the 20th century? If you slander every successful opposition to capitalism ever, you are a tool for capitalism, even if you like queer and workers rights and hate racial and class oppression, if you oppose their abolition then whats the support even meanm You are a tool even if you make up a nice sounding ideology to hide behind.

That's because you're an idealist. It's fun to have neat ideas about how you'd like the world to be but if you don't have a scientific, proven approach for bringing your desired world about then you might as well be a liberal, or a rock for that matter lol

@@jeremiahbaxter6887 where is the science if Karl popper just use falsification of historical materialism and so called scientific socialism but in turn it is pseudoscientific shit Marx is an evil person a racist which destroy the name of socialism because of him most of socialist today like Stalin,mao,Kim,and many others That kills a million of people combined same as capitalism killed 10 millions but Marxist socialism killed 100 million Socialism with the ricardian and the utopian is the good socialism

@@jeremiahbaxter6887all Marxist socialist is not socialist at all they are cultist of marx as there messiah The true socialist are the ricardian, Lysander spooner,Thomas hodgskin and many others