The main difference in a multiparty system is that people still haven’t figured out what the right way to run the economy is, and each time a different party gets elected they pull things in a different direction

If the party dictates "the right way to run the economy" as you say, then doesn't that blunt people's ability to reform the direction of their leader's policies because of the framework enforced by the party?

I'm not arguing that Western democracy provides superior remedies to public disatisfaction or that socialism is not the correct path for prosperity but, if the argument is about allowing people to meaningfully oppose the policies of their elected representatives, then, in a one party system, changing those policies also requires reforming the ideology of the party, which is an additional barrier. Multi-party systems are by no means perfect but at least they provide some alternative path where an outside party can be formed with radically different ideas that can challenge the larger parties and try to pick off support.

And, yes, there is always the threat of smaller parties being squashed using political/financial power, but that, to me, seems like more a product of corruption than an inherent aspect of a democratic system. Not to mention, the same could be done to factions within a party trying to facilitate similar reforms, no?

[–] redtea@lemmygrad.ml 7 points 2 years ago

You seem to be on the right track, but your comment is idealist (in the sense that it's not materialist) and you may be missing a class analysis.

Are there any examples of where a multiparty system has led to a change in ideology away from capitalism?

The two major parties in every liberal democracy that I can think of are capitalist parties. While fringe parties could theoretically win power and change the state's ideology it could only do so by becoming major parties. Otherwise they could not win power or, if they formed a coalition, they would have to share power (with capitalist parties).

The crushing of small parties is an inherent feature of liberal democracies as a matter of fact. Whether it's a corruption of the ideal of liberal democracy seems to be beside the point.

Even if the argument is accepted that small parties get crushed in liberal democracies because of corruption, the fact remains that these states are therefore corrupted (I don't think they are corrupt, but I'll ignore this semantic issue for now). The 'corrupt' rulers will never not be corrupt because they will not willingly rescind power. To not crush socialist parties is to invite socialism, which means the current ruling class must agree to having it's own power abolished. Why would it ever do that? Capitalists will never let the people vote away their power.

Even major political parties have been kept away from power for the mere suggestion of curbing (not even abolishing) capitalism: Sanders was not allowed to lead the Dems; Corbyn was not allowed to lead a majority Labour party government; Syriza was not allowed to enact it's promised reforms when it won power. It doesn't matter how many parties there are in a bourgeois state, the only acceptable option is capitalism (otherwise it wouldn't be a bourgeois state).

Liberal democracies are not meaningfully democratic. The working class(es) have no real say over policies, laws, or the economy. Whether they could do so by forming a party (it would have to become a big party before it could achieve anything, so any talk about small parties is a red herring), the fact remains that they have never been allowed to (unless you can give me an example).

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The only principle is that the economy should be publicly owned and work in the interests of the majority. I think that's a pretty reasonable framework to start with.

I really don't see what multiple parties actually add in practice. You can handle all the disagreements and arguments within a single party. The argument that a single party approach somehow restricts development isn't really supported by any real world evidence I'm aware of.

[–] if_you_can_keep_it@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

The only principle is that the economy should be publicly owned and work in the interests of the majority.

I think it's reasonable to argue that the almost every democratic party has this principle. Even those that argue for unfettered capitalism can see that as working in the interest of the majority and the only way the economy can be truly "publicly owned". You can argue that they are wrong but that doesn't mean they don't believe they are following those principles just as faithfully.

If the single party's ideology is so broad that it basically encompasses "don't be evil" then I'm not sure I even understand the distinction between having one party and having a "partiless" state (which would effectively make factions within the party defacto parties in and of themselves).

[–] redtea@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 2 years ago

This is quite misrepresentative of what was said. 'Publicly owned' refers to some flavour of common ownership of the means of production. It's dishonest to pretend that public ownership only requires that (some) members of the public are 'owners'. It could mean that, but it doesn't.

Even if you're referring to something like stakeholder capitalism, where workers own shares, it's packaged as private ownership, not public.

Bourgeois parties themselves try to distance themselves from any hint of public ownership. Any politician within the party who supports anything that looks like public ownership will be disciplined or kicked out. All the major and most of the minor political parties in almost all liberal democracies vigorously argue that if they get elected they will not move towards public ownership of anything. They don't want to spook the bourgeoisie.

The mere whisper of nationalisation makes bourgeois politicians come out in hives. If they mention it at all, it's to promise to privatise any remaining nationalised industries. This is the essence of neoliberalism; everything moved to the realm of the private market.

If the single party’s ideology is so broad that it basically encompasses “don’t be evil” then …

It's only this broad if you change the accepted meaning of public ownership to something that nobody would seriously accept.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago

I think it’s reasonable to argue that the almost every democratic party has this principle.

Then the question is why multiple parties are necessary?

You can argue that they are wrong but that doesn’t mean they don’t believe they are following those principles just as faithfully.

We have concrete real world evidence backed by theory that this is in fact a fallacious idea.

If the single party’s ideology is so broad that it basically encompasses “don’t be evil” then I’m not sure I even understand the distinction between having one party and having a “partiless” state (which would effectively make factions within the party defacto parties in and of themselves).

The ideology, once again, is that the means of production should be publicly owned. This is not nearly as broad as what you wrote here.