That comment shows such an infantile understanding of democracy. Having a single party simply means that Cuba decided on the approach how to do things, which is communism. There are lots of different approaches you can take towards achieving the goals within that scope.

Elections with one party have exact same purpose as elections with multiple parties. The citizens select candidates based on their ideas and proposals. 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. This is why it's practically impossible to do any large scale projects in the west.

[–] if_you_can_keep_it@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago (5 children)

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?

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 years ago (3 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.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (16 replies)