• mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    5 months ago

    True democratic socialism is impossible as long as the United States exists as an imperialist force.

    1, That’s silly, there’s tons of democratic socialist countries that are doing just fine - today! Bolivia, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Canada, the Netherlands, Spain, Ireland, Belgium, Switzerland, Australia, New Zealand - think the US fucks with their way of governing?

    2, the USSR was never a type of democratic socialism. Period. They literally called it ‘soviet democracy’ distinctly, and it meant something WILDLY different that the kinds of democratic socialism we see in the above listed countries.

    Your premise is faulty, built upon an imagined soviet union that did not practice the tenants you’re endorsing.

    • uis@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Canada

      Ok, how did Canada managed to get on this list? And Switszerland?

      They literally called it ‘soviet democracy’

      Parlamentary democracy is real thing. Usually it is called parlamentary republic. Nothing special, most of Europe works this way.

        • uis@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          yeah, it is, and it’s not what the soviets were doing.

          Even article you linked says it was parlament with delegates.

          • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            few parliaments are made out of soviets - worker delegations - lol.

            but if you’d actually read the article I linked you’d have seen:

            In contrast to earlier democratic models à la John Locke and Montesquieu, no separation of powers exists in soviet democracy.

            show me where that’s a thing. no, actually, don’t bother.

            you’re too stupid to continue engaging, I’m not going to enlighten you, and you aren’t going to bullshit me any further.

            • uis@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              5 months ago

              In contrast to earlier democratic models à la John Locke and Montesquieu, no separation of powers exists in soviet democracy.

              And I’m didn’t say parlament should be strictly legislative body.

      • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        I guess you can stick your head into the ground and pretend democratic socialism isn’t a thing.

        https://finance.yahoo.com/news/top-15-democratic-socialist-countries-181857008.html

        it’s stupid, but stupidity is always an option.

        Of course, if you just toss these countries’ accomplishments away, you’re really just undermining the entire premise, because without these successes the record of ‘socialism’ gets a whole fucking lot worse.

        lol

        • Filthmontane@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          You’re citing a capitalist finance website to prove your point about socialism. You seem to be confused between social democracy and democratic socialism. I understand because they seem so similar that they must be basically the same thing, right? Nope.

          The Nordic model is a form of social democracy. They take many of the benefits that socialism provides and builds them into a capitalist economy. Democratic socialism is an actual form of a worker owned an operated economy.

          If you’re ever in doubt, ask the question, “who owns the means of production?” If the answer is huge megacorporations and wealthy billionaires, then it’s a capitalist economy. If the answer is the working class, it’s socialist.

          • mojofrododojo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            if you just toss these countries’ accomplishments away, you’re really just undermining the entire premise, because without these successes the record of ‘socialism’ gets a whole fucking lot worse.

            Ok, then.