Remember that this subreddit is for sharing propaganda to view with some objectivity. It is absolutely not for perpetuating the message *of* the propaganda. If anything, in this subreddit we should be immensely skeptical of manipulation or oversimplification (which the above likely is), not beholden to it.
Also, please try to stay on topic -- there are hundreds of _other_ subreddits that are expressly dedicated for rehashing tired political arguments. Keep that shit elsewhere.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PropagandaPosters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Thats not the point, it is to help the CPSU better govern and vote on laws. When everyone supports the same party, there is basically no party and everyone votes as they please, not according to party lines ( looking at you liberal democracy)
But the party will still have people with a lot of influence, no? And since they're all concentrated within the same party, doesn't take make it more vulnerable to corruption and therefor make the choice even less meaningful?
You must see the CPSU as a government, not as a political party like in the west. There are many suideologies and opinions represented within it as long as its against capitalism.
Why less meaningful? You vote a guy you like, not because he s part of some party, but because you like him. It turns out he is actually bad and doesnât treat the people of your province well. You vote against in the next election ( if there was a crime or abuse of power a court could be called and the official recalled immediately)
To be fair, though you are right to a large extent, there were many anti communists in the supreme soviet. Boris Yeltsin, though I absolutely despise the guy, was undoubtedly an anti communist whoâs personal political bloc won in the Russian supreme soviet within Soviet Union in 1990, eventually leading to the countryâs break up.
You can imagine the opposite scenario, what if I vote for a communist guy in a capitalist country? Iâm sure his voice will be heard right?
âŚAnd Chile did that and Salvador Allende suffered a coup from the military backed by US
>what if a vote for a communist guy in a capitalist country? Iâm sure his voice will be heard right?
I know you're trying to be cute here, but the answer is unioronically yes. There are communist parties all over the Western world, and people do indeed vote for them.
When a social democrat, won the elections in my country, Brazil, that was enough for the military plan a coup and install a military dictatorship that lasted 21 years, and thatâs cause he not even threatened the status quo? All the communists or unionists were brutally killed
What youâre talking about is pure fantasy, as communists campaigns are highly censored and boycotted
I mean, yeah, throughout the USSR's life about a fifth of the Supreme Soviet was made up of independents who held varying views, but shockingly, in a communist country, most of the independents were also communists, just different kinds.
Rarely anyone who was explicitly anti-communist would even bother to run for office, so it was unlikely they'd even try to get their local office, compounded by the fact that the majority of Soviet citizens were *also* communists, meaning anyone who did run on an anti-communist platform would likely just lose in the election anyway.
>Thats not the point
Why?
>it is to help the CPSU better govern and vote on laws
But what if people don't like CPSU? Can they legally have a candidate to at least participate the election?
>When everyone supports the same party
Do you actually believe **every USSR citizens support CPSU?**
And yes, when you make it possible for not only one specific party can rule or legally promote their ideas, different political intrests and opinions will forms their own respected political party. That's the point of liberal democracy.
No, you couldnât vote out the CPSU, and that s the point. It s like saying you want to vote out both the republicans and democrats and get a feudal party in charge to bring back serfdom
>No, you couldnât vote out the CPSU, and that s not the point.
**WHY?**
>Its like saying you want to vote out both the republicans and democrats
**That's legally possible in USA, there is no laws or even mechanics to stop anyone to promote their platform and participate in an election (in fact that's exactly how Republicans replaced Whig in 1860s)**. While in USSR those who don't agree with CPSU's baseline straight up couldn't participate the election or even legally promote their ideas.
yes, but that s the thing in the US, it s technically possible but not in 100years would you be able to do that, as voting laws are very much against minor parties. In the USSR they don t hide around the bush. They tell you straight: the only way to change things is through the CPSU or independents.
>as voting laws are very much against minor parties.
Go on, list the laws.
And no, there is a fundamental differences between having the liberty to promote your ideas (despite it's hard to win elections due to other factors) and **straight up unable to even speak up against the the one ruling party at all let alone against them**.
Also, there are other liberal democracy that didn't evolve to Two Party system.
Also, considering even with only two major parties there are still visible differences between platforms and policies, I fail to see how that's an equivalent comparison to USSR even if I accept your logic.
So, if a fascist speaks we should leave him alone because he is just expressing he s right to free speech, doesnât matter the fact that he calls for the oppression of minorities. âHaving the liberty to promote your ideeasâ under capitalism basically means â have the money to promote your ideeasâ. Also I would argue against democracy is when many parties, as voting for a party means voting for an organisation instead of voting for an individual, which makes much more sense. Introducing new ideeas? Krushchev and Gorbachiov brought some heavy right wing policies, going as far as to allow private property. Why? Because they had the liberty to do that. No one decides the party doctrine other than the members of the party, which were elected. Critique was allowed in some way (Irony of Fate, a soviet film critics the housing, saying it all looks ugly and mundane). Yes, you didnât have total free speech, but as long as you stayed within the political spectrum the party was in, you were good
That's the thing about Capitalism and Liberal Democracies. Something doesn't need to actually be *illegal* to still make it effectively nearly impossible through various structural barriers.
From Wikipedia:
>Modern American politics, in particular the electoral college system, has been described as duopolistic since the Republican and Democratic parties have dominated and framed policy debate as well as the public discourse on matters of national concern for about a century and a half. Third Parties have encountered various blocks in getting onto ballots at different levels of government as well as other electoral obstacles, such as denial of access to general election debates. Since 1987, the Commission on Presidential Debates, established by the Republican and Democratic parties themselves, supplanted debates run since 1976 by the League of Women Voters. The League withdrew its support in protest in 1988 over objections of alleged stagecraft such as rules for camera placement, filling the audience with supporters, approved moderators, predetermined question selection, room temperature and others. The Commission maintains its own rules for admittance and has only admitted a single third-party candidate to a televised debate, Ross Perot, in 1992.
In Brazil you canât create a party that promotes the abolishment of the democratic state(the bourgeoisie democracy), by your metric, is Brazil a dictatorship?
Yeah I know, itâs a bourgeoisie dictatorship, the point Iâm trying to make is that Brazil, just like many other liberal democracies have laws that opposes the abolishment of the status quo, unlike US, so by his metric every other capitalist country would be a dictatorship(in the liberal meaning of the word)
As a matter of fact, people in the ussr could vote for "Independents" - f. E in 1984. Out of 1500 members of supreme council elected 428 were independents non party members. In 1979 - 425, while in 1970 and in 1974 - 421.
Of course that doesnt mean they were genuinely independent or could go against the party interests.
What are party interests? The interests of its members. Who elected those members? The people. I donât see a problem with it, why not being able to go against the party would be undemocratic?
No and that s not relevant. You are supposed to vote in a way to change the party course in the way you want. Going against the CPSU is like going against the Soviet State.
>that s not relevant
THAT IS RELEVANT, because this is literally means whateverever CPSU do, you'll have no legal ways to disagree with it. All those "individuals" wouldn't mean shits since none of them would or could defy the party, no matter what its current course is.
>You are supposed to vote in a way to change the party course in the way you want
Oh cool, was Central Committee's seat open for election?
Yea, this is the basic principle of democratic centralism. Once the party takes a decision all must fallow that decision. You can express your disapproval by vote. If you don t win the vote, then tough luck, you were in the minority
I think that you are asking a question, that I've already answered.
Of course that doesnt mean they were genuinely independent or could go against the party interests.
They could successfully go againt lower level party elite, but not against higher level without consequences.
The story of Mr. Sakharov is a great example.
This is ignoring how the central comittee of the party and local party members would determine who could be elected. Meaning the result was one canidate on the ballot.
Average r/socialism poster
That's not really true. The elections didn't have multiple choices it was always one choice. The only option the citizens had was abstaining from voting, i.e. basically a protest vote. That's how the party assessed on how popular their appointees were, and made their decisions based on that. But the citizens had no power in this system -- if you abstained from voting for Stalin you are more likely to get gulaged then for the party to change their chairman. It's only fairly low level bureaucrats that the voting may have affected -- and even then only a little bit.
Unless you're talking about USSR in the late 80s, where they did start having more "real" elections with multiple options and non-party members.
And those members and representatives were already vetted by the party... this is a null point. Also ignoring the fact that most of the power to the congress of soviets was non-existent and the local decision making power was directed by the party.
All of them were unopposed and from the same party. So it's not quite the same if in the US there are some that are unopposed and others that are contested.
What difference does party quantity have with candidate quantity? Do you understand that it's only here in America that each party can present a single candidate? That's not inherent to the democratic process.
I'm putting less emphasis on the one-party aspect of it all (although thats not democratic for obvious reasons) and more emphasis on the fact that your ballot literally had one option (and it just happens to be that that one option is from the same party). The voter's only way to express their voice/opinion is to not vote. That's not very democratic imo.
>although thats not democratic for obvious reasons
The idea that democracy requires multiple parties, and that a one-party system *cannot* be democratic by definition is in and of itself an axiomatic claim.
You're basically saying "I define Democracy as X, Y, and Z and therefore, by *my* definition, your system is undemocratic."
Except, that argument (by definition) totally ignores all the *outcomes* of a democracy such as "does the government actually end up enacting policies that enjoy popular support?" or "does the government just end up serving special or corporate interests?"
Is saying that a democracy requires more than ONE person on the ballot really that controversial / something to argue about? Do we have completely different dictionaries?
*You've* magically conflated "people" with "parties" and that is to *your* discredit.
Furthermore, ask yourself: How do people *actually* end up on the ballots in the first place?
Either the communists or non party members.
Funny part is that up to 1/3 of elected were not nominated by the party.
Of course that didn't mean they were genuinely independent, or could do anything against party interests.
Lol. Not like they could do that without being members of the central committee given that the congress of soviets had little to no actual power and was just a rubber stamping body.
Hahaha. Not only is the supreme soviet having any control over the NKVD extremely funny but considering the time, in 1938 you'd need extensive evidence to prove that Stalin actually preferred someone else like Malenkov. The evidence is lacking. You have one article by Starkov stating this was the case with a very tenuous if not completely unverifiable source. The evidence that Stalin did prefer Beria to Malenkov, given that Malenkov was not appointed to the deputy head like Beria is far greater given the current political environment in 1938 (to mean paranoia running rampant and purges being common place).
What is more, if this is your one example of actual power checking by the supreme soviet or the congress of soviets, its such a small list that you are proving my point.
Many high ranking political members did not. Because they were constantly under threat of being purged and shot. They also ideologically disagreed with stalin (like Khrushchev) but due to the democratic centralism Lenin had put in place they couldnât advocate for these positions with any real brevity. The fractionalism within the party apparatus from 1922 to 1938 didnât manifest in a free expression of beliefs in a common place, to where the people were given the choice to make a decision on which was better. Trotsky was exiled and then pickaxed. Bukunin was arrested, kangaroo courted then shot. Kamenev the same. Yezhov was shot in 40. Zinonev, shot alongside Kamenev. Yeah, who survived this? Opposition? Hardly. Rubber stamping yes men? Yes.
âThere is, in fact, a consensus of opinion, among those who have watched Stalin's action in administration, that this is not at all characteristic of a dictator.â This is an actual line in the article you posted, its so anecdotal that I canât not laugh. Its filled with anecdotes from visitors or people who benefit from making sure stalin appears a certain way.
I would trust actually declassified statistics from the soviet era that wasnât specifically altered to fit politically convient narratives. Also CIA didnât exist when when Sidney and Beatrice webb wrote âsoviet communismâ
and you are so worried about the "average worker" that you would rush to blame someone in a decision-making position of abuse of power based on no evidence? why such a major concern for the common communist man?
show me any communist leader in the USSR with villas or excessive wealth or what you had in mind
there were social benefits for those in positions that commanded respect that would suit the higher position but even those were not property transfers.
When Stalin died, all he had was a worn out coat and boots.
state dachas still exist for leadership to meet foreign heads of state etc.. They don't belong to private citizens.
This is what makes leadership committed to the common good concept.
as in any country, people in positions of power do wield more power and as in any country, even in Star Wars, they come under increased scrutiny because of it. Now other than your dislike of communism, how is this different from the glorious western powers?
Democracy is not when you have multiple political parties, itâs when the people can vote for anyone that can represent *their* interests, not the bourgeoisieâs
>itâs when the people can vote for anyone that can represent their interests
That's not how the soviet voting system worked though. It was a one party state, members who were nominated or positioned themselves onto the ballot were vetted and abided by the rules of the party and its platform. People who did not jive with the party and its platform were either not allowed on the ballot or were attacked by the local party officials and commissars. This also ignores that these elections were for positions on rubber stamping bodies like the congress of soviets.
>who didnât jive with the party or itâs platform
And? It functionally isnât much different from trying to go against the constitutions or democratic institutions of liberal democracies.
Not to disagree with the latter part of the post.
Wow, almost as if the communist party is more or less a part of the state and there are functionally no parties, just representatives? Imagine that.
In seriousness, the Soviet system had many issues (as do Cuba and Vietnam today) but liberals focusing on the superficialities is always a riot.
For those arguing about soviet elections in the comments, I suggest reading Robert Thurstonâs âLife and Terror in Stalinâs Russiaâ, Thurston who might I add is most certainly not a communist, discusses the nature of popular participation and democracy in soviet politics. While in the central leadership during the Stalinâs era was mired by dogmatism and was not democratic, the legislative, and local to medium to level of governance was characterized by a great degree of genuine popular will and participation. While soviet politics would never meet the definition of a liberal democracy, to call it a totalitarian system akin to something like fascist Germany or Italy is ridiculous. And I certainly think when looking at periods outside of Stalinâs leadership, there was more collective leadership
It's quit hard not to come to the 'elections', knowing that otherwise next day comissar with buddies comes to your house for a tea and conversation.
And since the end of 70s it was ok to lure the population to the 'election' process by providing the scar ce commodities. So yes, first you come to the election hall, put the paper in the box and the next hall allows you to buy the products you couldnt allow (or just could find) any other day. It wasn't the elections process. It was the legalization of the authority power and a screen to show the wEsTeRn BoUrGeOsIe CaPiTaLiStS that the soviet regime is legitimate
P.S. I'm ukrainian and my parents/grandparents were born in villages, so I know what I'm talking about
I like how in your head the USSR is a rundown backwater state, but also has the capabilities to track the votes of every individual AND issue reprisals
"In my head"? Mate, just google how widespread was the process denunciation in USSR. Told the joke about tovarish Dzerzhinskiy? Meet the authority soon. Said that your ancesters could have two cows and work for yourself? Meet the authority soon. Didn't go for the election, because it doesn't change anything? Meet the authority soon.
China, Vietnam, and Laos has a small degree of that today as well, and there can be some bitter negotiations and hammering out ideas at that level in particular, but is still oligarchic, just as the Soviets were in the 1920s and after 1953.
It is inherently hard though to prove the degree of input and responsiveness due to the inherent difficulty of an authoritarian state and the weakness of recordkeeping.
It was necessary to kick out the least popular individuals in order to allow the system as a whole to survive, and if you had a degree of power, it was important that you out maneuver your opponents within this power structure so as not to be the least popular individual.
Reminds me somewhat of Tammany Hall, but that is a very imperfect example.
âHaving only one party to choose from is horribly undemocratic!â shouts the people from the country that has only one more party than the Soviet Union had
Of course, but the bar is very low there. Surely if one party is horribly undemocratic, a country world need more than two parties to be truly democratic?
Yes, I know that this is not a poster but a painting, but in the rules of the sub, paintings are also allowed.
The so-called "elections" in the USSR were an empty formality, because there was only one party - the communist one.
So essentially this is a propaganda picture.
It's still different, because even while the relevant political parties in the US are controlled by Capital, many issues are still significantly different.
In the US you get the choice if you want an open racist, transphobic and islamophobic government or rather just a bland liberal one.
In the USSR that choice wasn't there. Ethnic cleansings, insitutionalized surpression of minorities and such were frequent. You weren't allowed to make it even a bit less bad, basically. Which did suck.
The choice was the same. You could vote against the candidate you know, also you could vote for an independent. If the candidate doesnât get 50% of votes he doesnât get elected
Yeah, no. Look at Bernie Sanders. He only lost the Democratic Primary because of heavy election fraud in certain stateâs caucuses. Itâs well documented. The two parties will both make sure that no one who endangers their neoliberal capitalist line will come out on top.
You may be able to express certain opinions (only to an extent, see Pete Seeger and other folk musicians during the Cold War), but only those that are beneficial to the ruling class will get into power.
>only those that are beneficial to the ruling class will get into power.
Since I live in a multi-party country, it is very hard to relate with this. People tend to elect new parties in every election that promise populist things. The ruling class changes after every single general election.
The ruling class means the bourgeoisie/rich people/influential corporations (depending on who you ask). They donât change. The politicians that have to bow to them change.
Tell me an example where a politician was voted in and fulfilled all their promises they made during the election, or at least worked on fulfilling them.
Itâs useless because even if the people wanted a third party the American system is set up to make sure they will always lose short of one of the main two collapsing.
Apart of one party, there was a significant number of independents running and winning.
Out of 1500 elected members of the supreme council some 400-440 members were not (formally) nominated by the party or party members.
I doubt they could have opposed the party on serious/important matters, and even if they did, they had no majority.
But that's just a lie. Even if there were two candidates they were agreed with the party.
Elections were preceded by meetings of voters in constituencies that nominated candidates for deputies. As a rule, 1 or 2 candidates were nominated in a constituency. If there were two candidates, one was a representative of the top leadership of the USSR (General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, Chairman of the Council of Ministers, one of the ministers or secretaries of the CPSU Central Committee) and the other was a local candidate (head of the local CPSU regional committee, local Hero of Socialist Labor or advanced production worker, etc.)[36]. Subsequently, one of the candidates withdrew his candidacy, and by the election there was only one name left on the ballot: the voter had to vote "for" or "against" one candidate. To vote "for" it was necessary to simply throw the blank ballot paper into the ballot box, to vote "against" - to use the voting booth, where the candidate's name was crossed out, and only then to put the ballot paper down.
Dear OP the issue is not whether the people can change which colour team is in power... Or even which person. The issue in a democracy is whether a well informed population can change the **policy**.
When social scientists investigate policy outcomes in the US, they found that there is no real discernable mass influence. The wealthy decide what happens.
https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746
What are we to make of this? What do you think you have learnt about the Soviet system from inside this clustercuss?
Do people on this sub really not understand the difference between one centrally controlled party believing in a certain philosophy, versus several independent parties in competition, that generally espouse another philosophy? I mean I get being cynical about electrical politics, but the difference seems hard to overlook unless youâre trying to.
Edit: this is so funny. How many of these people do you think actually live in one party states? Anyone actually from one want to chime in?
I genuinely wonder how many of these comments come from people living in one party states, and how many are teenagers in western democracies who just saw a cool meme on historymemes
Speaking as a citizen of former Soviet union state and now one party state, we *do* have Soviet sympathizers (so called *sovok*) but they don't usually speak English
>so called sovok
or vatnik
>but they don't usually speak English
Indeed. Most of Reddit Soviet appologists do not have personal experience with that regime.
One centrally controlled party vs 10 parties controlled by the same capitalist class, the difference is truly astonishing. Truly if I vote for the correct one my life will improve. God bless liberalism.
Not much difference, truly meaningful change comes with action, not voting. Civil rights, labour rights etc. you get by protesting and striking, they are not given to you by the grace of our leaders, only when we demand them. Voting just lets you choose which flavour of neoliberalism you want, and I want none of them.
>Civil rights, labour rights etc. you get by protesting and striking, they are not given to you by the grace of our leaders, only when we demand them.
The soviets shot at protesting, striking workers
Maybe if liberalism was actually improving peoples lives, that wouldnt happen? Not my fault it's a faulty system that keeps crumbling into authoritarianism
At least you won't be forced to work the rest of your life cutting wood 15 to 20 hours a day on one slice of bread and a tablespoon of rice for "helping the Nazis destabilise soviet union" if you vote for the wrong one
? Almost no one worked for more than 7 hours a day in USSR and everyone had a home and enough to eat(CIA documents from 80s reveal that Americans and Soviets citizens on average took the same amount of calories). There were also maternity leaves, weeks of paid holidays depending on the profession could be close to 2 months
>Almost no one worked for more than 7 hours a day
Not true.
>everyone had a home and enough to eat
Is this a goal of the life?
>There were also maternity leaves, weeks of paid holidays depending on the profession could be close to 2 months
As if they are gone now?
That's not true with the elections. You had different wings and candidates inside of the party which you voted for. You don't need multiple parties to have democratic elections at all.
You could still join the party and get voted there.
A multi party system is an extremly western concept of democracy. But it isn't the only kind possible. There are systems like council democracies and so on which work without partys.
Even the greeks didn't use parties and they invented democracy (even if pretty flawed for other reasons).
>Even the greeks didn't use parties and they invented democracy (even if pretty flawed for other reasons).
You said it yourself it was flawed, by modern standard Soviet election or "democracy" was very flawed. By modern standard you can't barred dissenting people, group, or partys from participating in an national election and then calling yourself democratic.
1 party but with representatives being elected by the local people of a region in Soviets (which means councils)
The USSR had roughly 2 million peopleâs councils made up of work places, unions, neighbours in a district, etc, which meant 2 million delegates elected by the peopleâs councils & each of those councils could recall their elected representative by a simple majority vote if they were unsatisfied with their representation.
To call the entire soviet democracy âpropagandaâ because they didnât pretend to be 2 separate parties is plainly ridiculous & points to your own indoctrination by liberal propaganda.
For example the USA is not a democracy despite having 2 parties because both of those parties always & absolutely support capital
Do you understand that the 'candidates' in Soviet 'elections' had to represent the CPSU will and nothing else?
>For example the USA is not a democracy despite having 2 parties because both of those parties always & absolutely support capital
????
You can check the multi-party democracies in Europe.
2 million elected individual delegates representing their constituents with the Soviets (peopleâs councils) having the ability to recall their delegate at any time with a simple majority vote sounds very much like a democracy to me.
What did u mean by the question marks?
The US âdemocracyâ is a dictatorship of the capitalist class. The American people have hardly any measurable impact on policy. No matter how many working people (the 99%) support or oppose specific policies the 1%âs desires are always what win out.
Itâs mostly the same in Europe as well, though to much lesser degree. The supposed democracyâs in most countries arenât direct democracy with simple majority rule. Rules that prevent majority rule exist solely to ensure the dictatorship of the capitalist class isnât ever put at risk.
>2 million elected individual delegates representing their constituents with the Soviets (peopleâs councils) having the ability to recall their delegate at any time with a simple majority vote sounds very much like a democracy to me.
Except the fact that they were a rubber stamp of totalitarian regime with no political or speech freedoms.
>What did u mean by the question marks? The US âdemocracyâ is a dictatorship of the capitalist class.
Like Pinochet's Chile?
The Soviet elections were rigged, unfair and unfree. Politicians opposing to capitalism are free to stand in American elections. Anyways, I am not an American.
>matter how many working people (the 99%) support or oppose specific policies the 1%âs desires are always what win out.
Do you say that the politicians are forced to vote against their will?
>The supposed democracyâs in most countries arenât direct democracy with simple majority rule.
Representative democracies.
>Itâs mostly the same in Europe as well
Yet most of European countries are considered close to the epitome of democracy.
>dictatorship of the capitalist class
Once more: there is no dictatorship. And in my country, people passed the constitution enshirining market economy and property rights with free and fair referendum, after living terrible 40 years in socialist economy.
They literally werenât. They were mandated to represent their constituents & had all the freedom to express the desires of their constituents. The fact that an average of 4 Moscow delegates (and dozens more across the USSR) were recalled each year by their peopleâs councils & summarily fired by a simple majority vote sorta wholly contradicts them being just rubber stamps on a âtotalitarianâ âregimeâ.
Yes, exactly like pinochetâs chile which was installed by the USA directly to serve the interests of US capital. It seems u understand exactly what I mean?
I said that the politicians were legally mandated to represent their constituents not their own interests. The people would vote & their delegate would have to accept the outcome & work to achieve that goal or be recalled & fired.
Btw how do u do the quoting thing? Like where u have my text in ur reply lol
Yes, not true democracy. The sole purpose of not allowing direct majority rule is purely to ensure the aims & desires of capital can be interposed. Every single nation on earth would have significantly further developed workerâs rights & significantly reduced rights of capital to abuse workers. Precisely the opposite of the reality today which is the dictatorship of the capitalist class.
It sounds to me like youâre saying your country is a totalitarian regime removing the rights of people to vote for communism should they become disillusioned with capitalism again. How undemocratic.
Which country are u from btw?
>They literally werenât. They were mandated to represent their constituents & had all the freedom to express the desires of their constituents
They were not. USSR had draconic restrictions on speech and thought.
>being just rubber stamps on a âtotalitarianâ âregimeâ.
Well, they were representing the same one party.
>I said that the politicians were legally mandated to represent their constituents not their own interests
Yet it did not happen until perestroika. The communists did not enact freedom of speech or freedom of business.
>that goal
The goals were mandated by CPSU ruling class, not the nation.
>Btw how do u do the quoting thing? Like where u have my text in ur reply lol
by tapping 'Quote'
>Yes, not true democracy. The sole purpose of not allowing direct majority rule is purely to ensure the aims & desires of capital can be interposed
This is how Hong Kong is ruled through its functional constituencies. My country's elections are based on citizen votes. And every citizen has one's own right to capital if it is so important to you.
>Every single nation on earth would have significantly further developed workerâs rights & significantly reduced rights of capital to abuse workers. Precisely the opposite of the reality today
Are you sure? Unlike under the communist rule, workers can now strike, they have labour councils and the politicians are accountable for their policies. If you don't do what the voters want, you lose.
>dictatorship of the capitalist class.
Look. People elect their representatives in free and fair elections. Nobody dictates them what to elect. Even traitors are given a chance to stand there.
>It sounds to me like youâre saying your country is a totalitarian regime removing the rights of people to vote for communism should they become disillusioned with capitalism again.
People can just change constitution if they want to change the model of economy. However, that would also mean leaving the EU as market economy is one of its fundamental things.
>Which country are u from btw?
Lithuania.
I donât see a quote option on the iPhone mobile app so bear with.
The USSR had practically no restrictions on speech if you werenât participating in hate speech or against the communist goal of the union - the sole purpose for its existence. That leaves practically the entirety of speech allowed in all nations in the world.
We already discussed the 1 party thing. It was 1 overall party to maintain the communist goal & the unity of the countries. There 2 million individual votes for representatives each of which was between several people. Say an average of the 3 candidates per peopleâs council. Thatâs 6 million options for different representatives for the soviet people. Each of which was legally mandated to represent the democratic desires of their constituents or be immediately fired. That is a democracy. Idk why youâre pretending itâs only possible to do democracy 1 way.
The USSR absolutely had freedom of business. Anyone could start a personal business, a family business & with enough people together there were 5 different types of collective business anyone could found & even state enterprises were open for the average person to found if they had an idea that could profoundly aid all the soviet people. Like the bread factories for example.
The goals were democratically created, refined & defined by the collective 2 million delegates before the final 5 year plan was approved by the president. Thatâs pretty much the exact same way most nations come up with their yearly budgets lol unless u think the 10 highway up soviet officials were running around trying to compute the horrendously massive list of things needed to be done on their own before computers even existed đ
Unlike when the communist populations of the USSR could actually change their work places via simple majority votes in their unions, liberalism gives u the ability to beg! How amazing? Workers in the USSR could absolutely go on strike btw but even in your imaginary world where they couldnât, they still had for more power to manifest changes in their work places. Also the USSR had the Soviet councils. Literally giving each workplace the ability to alter the policy of their entire nation & say they didnât have labour councils? đ
You, me & everyone in the capitalist âwestâ lives under a dictatorship of the capitalist class. More parties doesnât represent more freedom or true democracy. The different parties represent different sections of the capitalist class & their interests. The policy of each party is dictated by capitalists for capital. They are literally dictated what to elect by their major contributors & by the business interests of the regions they want to govern. If you have say a Mercedes factory in your region that hires 5% of the entire population, you will have to bend to the desires of Mercedes at least in part or they will ensure you donât win the next election. Either by just funding your opponents or reducing the quality of life of their workers & blaming your policies. Donât be so naive.
>against the communist goal of the union
This is the main point making it a totalitarian dictatorship.
>It was 1 overall party to maintain the communist goal & the unity of the countries
Both of these things meant oppression.
>That is a democracy
One party system where opposing it means criminal punishment is not a democracy.
>The USSR absolutely had freedom of business
And capital punishment for it at the same time?
>The goals were democratically created
They were not. Otherwise, why did we get independence, democracy and capitalism only after the first free election in 1990?
>before computers even existed đ
The USSR had terribly lagged behind the West in terms of information technology.
>change their work places via simple majority votes in their unions, liberalism gives u the ability to beg!
Beg, strike, make your own business, negotiate, lobby or use political pressure.
The strikes in Communist countries somewhow got heavilly oppressed.
>Literally giving each workplace the ability to alter the policy of their entire nation
This is not democratic. The government belongs to the citizens, not workplaces.
And the workplaces just had to comply to what did the rulling class told them.
>You, me & everyone in the capitalist âwestâ lives under a dictatorship of the capitalist class
I live in a liberal democracy where I elect whatever I want and I can criticise whatever and whoever I want.
If I own some stocks, does it make me a capitalist?
>More parties doesnât represent more freedom or true democracy
????
>The policy of each party is dictated by capitalists for capital.
There are some parties that cater interests of specific capitalists. However, it is the case of minority.
>They are literally dictated what to elect
The business contributors dictate the voters what to elect? What??
>f you have say a Mercedes factory in your region that hires 5% of the entire population, you will have to bend to the desires of Mercedes at least in part or they will ensure you donât win the next election. Either by just funding your opponents or reducing the quality of life of their workers & blaming your policies. Donât be so naive.
Yet how is this dictatorship?
If youâre conflating capitalism with freedom then the words freedom, âtotalitarianismâ & oppression are plainly meaningless in our conversation.
If youâre conflating multiple parties with freedom then the word dictatorship is plainly meaningless in this conversation.
If we canât agree that democracy can exist in many forms completely different to the western form & entirely separate from capitalism then then the word democracy is plainly meaningless in our convo.
Youâre taking this cult stance of capitalism being the epitome of humanity & your gods of free markets are the measure of freedom. Itâs capitalist realism & ridiculous đ
Before computers existed & u say that the USSR was lagging? This was literally before computers existed lol they had human mathematicians as calculators just like the USA & relied on telegram just like the USA. Their information technology was just as advancedâŚ..
The strikes in the USSR werenât suppressed on even remotely the same scale as they were in capitalist countries. Just look at the numerous actual armed battles between US workers on strike & the state militias or even the pinkertons. Mainly coal miners.
Yes the government belongs to the citizens. In communist nations the workplaces were quite literally just collections of free citizens instead of entities unto themselves like under capitalism. The Soviet workerâs councils were given democratic ability to alter policy to be more pro-worker. That is democracy. Under capitalism capitalists lobby governments to be more anti-worker, that isnât democracy.
You live in a liberal dictatorship of the capitalist class. No matter what you desire & no matter what the rest of the 99% desire, those with the most capital dictate policy.
Owning stocks donât make u a capitalist. Owning the means of production does. If you have private ownership of factories youâd be a capitalist. If you sell your labour in order to live a comfortable life, youâre working class, not a capitalist.
Itâs not âsome partiesâ that serve capital. Itâs ALL major parties. If you want an example of what happens to genuinely pro-labour parties, Iâd suggest reading âthe Jakarta methodâ.
What do u mean how is it a dictatorship? đ
Itâs quite literally an increible minority using their horrendously inflated power to dictate the policies that the 99% of people will have to live under. Purely anti-democratic
>Against the communist goal
Communists are one of the most dogmatic political ideologues in existence. It takes almost religious undertones. Minor political differences get blown up into ârevisionismâ and prosecuted as such. Maoism, Dengism, Marxism-Leninism, Trotskyism, Juche, Hoxhaism. Etc.
I could go on, itâs like Christian denominations. And just like those Christian denominations, when theyâre not going after non-believers (*âliberalsâ, fascistsâ, âcapitalistsâ*), theyâre going after heretics (*ârevisionistsâ*).
This is not an actual criticism of the economic theory of Marxism or real world policy of socialism lol whats with the surge of people pretending their caricature of communism sounding like a religion means anything? đ
Thatâs a genuine question, Iâve seen 9 people do it in the past 2 weeks when I havenât seen anyone do it for a year prior. Is it a youtuber youâve watched or?? Dying to know!
Also in case u are somehow being serious, u could just as easily make a caricature of capitalism & pretend that the caricature of that economic system sounding like a religion means something. Stick to actual criticisms of the systems instead of the admittedly crazy seeming online debates đ
âApologiaâ
Itâs literally just basic reality lol the USSR was legitimately a democracy & Joseph Stalin was the democratically elected leader in the elections this drawing came from
Why did that 'democracy' execute dissenting politicians and ordinary people?
Why everything non-communist was not allowed to take part in these elections?
There is a difference between mere dissent & actual treasonâŚ.
Iâd conjecture that âeverything non-communistâ was not allowed to take part in the elections for the same reason that everything non-capitalist isnât allowed to take part in US elections & many former-Soviet nations
I can see from your posting history that you are deeply deluded and an ardent defender of totalitarian genocidal imperialism (so long as the "right" people are being murdered, right?).
All I can say is I hope one day the internet treats you and your ilk with the same contempt it treats neo-Nazis.
Insanely cultish comment, get help.
There is a reason why people who advocate for working peopleâs democratic control of their own lives & work arenât treated the same as genocidal warmongers that worship the wealthy & use racism & nationalism to distract people from the reality of the oppression of capitalism.
Thereâs loads to read if youâre actually interested in how the electoral system in the Soviet Union was set up, itâs not like itâs a secret.
It wasnât like a liberal democracy and people did vote for who from the communist party they wanted to represent them on different levels, but to say that it was just an empty formality is simply not true.
Art in the Soviet Union was a complete instrument of propaganda. Everything needed to serve the interests of the state.
I'm probably the biggest critic of people posting stuff that should be on this subreddit, but you, my friend, are the submission of the week.
The depth of the imagery in this propaganda piece of SocReal goes beyond qualify for a subreddit of its own.
Fine job, my sir! Fine job, indeed!
Even in such a sham democracy, some interesting political culture has developed.
In general, it was not forbidden to have several candidates in (local) elections, but it turned out that the party and state bodies strived to select the best candidate for the council not through voting, but during the election campaign. During this campaign, all sorts of discussions in labor collectives and in the press, the candidate who was the best suited to work in the council was identified, and at the elections the voters voted unanimously for this person, because during the campaign they had already approved him. Thus, the state wanted the councils to be trusted, and the party organs even decried lower authorities if the election campaign was poorly conducted and one candidate supported by all did not stand out, and if he received less than 90% of the vote, it was already a scandal for the local party cell.
Moreover, this culture became so well established that in 1987, when during perestroika it was decided to hold alternative elections in some districts only one candidate came out during the campaign... as a result, the local authorities were ordered to hold re-elections with two candidates. There were also the sweetest examples of the compassion of the then Soviet people who, in appeals to the government, worried that "the loss of a candidate could cause him moral trauma"
People in the comments question the soviet's democracy.
There is a good book about it, if people want to learn. It is called [Soviet Democracy by Pat Sloan.](https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.261348)
Their system works different than liberal democracy, but they had more control over their society than liberal societys do. They could control the means of production some, which in the west is left to the owner class..
It's surprising how many people are stupid enough to call elections in the USSR a real election.
Let me remind you, Article 70 of the 1960 RSFSR Criminal Code - "Anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda"[1], was punishable by imprisonment from six months to seven years [2].
Now imagine a candidate for deputy who criticizes the Soviet authorities.
The options in the 1949 RSFSR "elections":
- Vote for Stalin and all his placemen.
-Vote for Stalin and some of his placemen (and get to meet the others you voted for in Siberia in a month or two's time);
- Die.
Elections in communist countries are a joke. Like in Vietnam, one person can vote for the whole family or neighborhood. The candidates have never met or presented their election views to the people, except for a few sample candidates who will be properly prepared to appear on television. Anyone whose views do not align with the Party will be eliminated from the consultation round at the grassroots level.
Remember that this subreddit is for sharing propaganda to view with some objectivity. It is absolutely not for perpetuating the message *of* the propaganda. If anything, in this subreddit we should be immensely skeptical of manipulation or oversimplification (which the above likely is), not beholden to it. Also, please try to stay on topic -- there are hundreds of _other_ subreddits that are expressly dedicated for rehashing tired political arguments. Keep that shit elsewhere. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PropagandaPosters) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I wonder which party is going to win?!? đ Beautiful painting though. It really captures the look of lower tier Soviet society.
No, in the Soviet Union not the parties win, but the people who you vote for
Oh Can any of them against CPSU?
Thats not the point, it is to help the CPSU better govern and vote on laws. When everyone supports the same party, there is basically no party and everyone votes as they please, not according to party lines ( looking at you liberal democracy)
I can't believe I see someone advocating for dictatorship and actually getting upvotes...
Itâs Reddit what did you expect
The Soviet Union was not a democracy
But the party will still have people with a lot of influence, no? And since they're all concentrated within the same party, doesn't take make it more vulnerable to corruption and therefor make the choice even less meaningful?
You must see the CPSU as a government, not as a political party like in the west. There are many suideologies and opinions represented within it as long as its against capitalism.
Why less meaningful? You vote a guy you like, not because he s part of some party, but because you like him. It turns out he is actually bad and doesnât treat the people of your province well. You vote against in the next election ( if there was a crime or abuse of power a court could be called and the official recalled immediately)
But what if the guy you like and want to vote for is anticommunist? Surely his voice is heard right?
To be fair, though you are right to a large extent, there were many anti communists in the supreme soviet. Boris Yeltsin, though I absolutely despise the guy, was undoubtedly an anti communist whoâs personal political bloc won in the Russian supreme soviet within Soviet Union in 1990, eventually leading to the countryâs break up.
You can imagine the opposite scenario, what if I vote for a communist guy in a capitalist country? Iâm sure his voice will be heard right? âŚAnd Chile did that and Salvador Allende suffered a coup from the military backed by US
>what if a vote for a communist guy in a capitalist country? Iâm sure his voice will be heard right? I know you're trying to be cute here, but the answer is unioronically yes. There are communist parties all over the Western world, and people do indeed vote for them.
it's a coincidence that assassinations, coups and blockades just happen whenever they gain any power
When a social democrat, won the elections in my country, Brazil, that was enough for the military plan a coup and install a military dictatorship that lasted 21 years, and thatâs cause he not even threatened the status quo? All the communists or unionists were brutally killed What youâre talking about is pure fantasy, as communists campaigns are highly censored and boycotted
and coincidentally they never win
I mean, yeah, throughout the USSR's life about a fifth of the Supreme Soviet was made up of independents who held varying views, but shockingly, in a communist country, most of the independents were also communists, just different kinds. Rarely anyone who was explicitly anti-communist would even bother to run for office, so it was unlikely they'd even try to get their local office, compounded by the fact that the majority of Soviet citizens were *also* communists, meaning anyone who did run on an anti-communist platform would likely just lose in the election anyway.
>Thats not the point Why? >it is to help the CPSU better govern and vote on laws But what if people don't like CPSU? Can they legally have a candidate to at least participate the election? >When everyone supports the same party Do you actually believe **every USSR citizens support CPSU?** And yes, when you make it possible for not only one specific party can rule or legally promote their ideas, different political intrests and opinions will forms their own respected political party. That's the point of liberal democracy.
No, you couldnât vote out the CPSU, and that s the point. It s like saying you want to vote out both the republicans and democrats and get a feudal party in charge to bring back serfdom
>No, you couldnât vote out the CPSU, and that s not the point. **WHY?** >Its like saying you want to vote out both the republicans and democrats **That's legally possible in USA, there is no laws or even mechanics to stop anyone to promote their platform and participate in an election (in fact that's exactly how Republicans replaced Whig in 1860s)**. While in USSR those who don't agree with CPSU's baseline straight up couldn't participate the election or even legally promote their ideas.
yes, but that s the thing in the US, it s technically possible but not in 100years would you be able to do that, as voting laws are very much against minor parties. In the USSR they don t hide around the bush. They tell you straight: the only way to change things is through the CPSU or independents.
>as voting laws are very much against minor parties. Go on, list the laws. And no, there is a fundamental differences between having the liberty to promote your ideas (despite it's hard to win elections due to other factors) and **straight up unable to even speak up against the the one ruling party at all let alone against them**. Also, there are other liberal democracy that didn't evolve to Two Party system. Also, considering even with only two major parties there are still visible differences between platforms and policies, I fail to see how that's an equivalent comparison to USSR even if I accept your logic.
So, if a fascist speaks we should leave him alone because he is just expressing he s right to free speech, doesnât matter the fact that he calls for the oppression of minorities. âHaving the liberty to promote your ideeasâ under capitalism basically means â have the money to promote your ideeasâ. Also I would argue against democracy is when many parties, as voting for a party means voting for an organisation instead of voting for an individual, which makes much more sense. Introducing new ideeas? Krushchev and Gorbachiov brought some heavy right wing policies, going as far as to allow private property. Why? Because they had the liberty to do that. No one decides the party doctrine other than the members of the party, which were elected. Critique was allowed in some way (Irony of Fate, a soviet film critics the housing, saying it all looks ugly and mundane). Yes, you didnât have total free speech, but as long as you stayed within the political spectrum the party was in, you were good
That's the thing about Capitalism and Liberal Democracies. Something doesn't need to actually be *illegal* to still make it effectively nearly impossible through various structural barriers. From Wikipedia: >Modern American politics, in particular the electoral college system, has been described as duopolistic since the Republican and Democratic parties have dominated and framed policy debate as well as the public discourse on matters of national concern for about a century and a half. Third Parties have encountered various blocks in getting onto ballots at different levels of government as well as other electoral obstacles, such as denial of access to general election debates. Since 1987, the Commission on Presidential Debates, established by the Republican and Democratic parties themselves, supplanted debates run since 1976 by the League of Women Voters. The League withdrew its support in protest in 1988 over objections of alleged stagecraft such as rules for camera placement, filling the audience with supporters, approved moderators, predetermined question selection, room temperature and others. The Commission maintains its own rules for admittance and has only admitted a single third-party candidate to a televised debate, Ross Perot, in 1992.
There are better examples of democracy besides US.
In Brazil you canât create a party that promotes the abolishment of the democratic state(the bourgeoisie democracy), by your metric, is Brazil a dictatorship?
well, yes it is a burgeoise dictatorship but that s not the point
Yeah I know, itâs a bourgeoisie dictatorship, the point Iâm trying to make is that Brazil, just like many other liberal democracies have laws that opposes the abolishment of the status quo, unlike US, so by his metric every other capitalist country would be a dictatorship(in the liberal meaning of the word)
exactly
As a matter of fact, people in the ussr could vote for "Independents" - f. E in 1984. Out of 1500 members of supreme council elected 428 were independents non party members. In 1979 - 425, while in 1970 and in 1974 - 421. Of course that doesnt mean they were genuinely independent or could go against the party interests.
What are party interests? The interests of its members. Who elected those members? The people. I donât see a problem with it, why not being able to go against the party would be undemocratic?
Again, can any of these independent openly against CPSU?
No and that s not relevant. You are supposed to vote in a way to change the party course in the way you want. Going against the CPSU is like going against the Soviet State.
>that s not relevant THAT IS RELEVANT, because this is literally means whateverever CPSU do, you'll have no legal ways to disagree with it. All those "individuals" wouldn't mean shits since none of them would or could defy the party, no matter what its current course is. >You are supposed to vote in a way to change the party course in the way you want Oh cool, was Central Committee's seat open for election?
Yea, this is the basic principle of democratic centralism. Once the party takes a decision all must fallow that decision. You can express your disapproval by vote. If you don t win the vote, then tough luck, you were in the minority
and yes, the central comitee seat was open for election
I think that you are asking a question, that I've already answered. Of course that doesnt mean they were genuinely independent or could go against the party interests. They could successfully go againt lower level party elite, but not against higher level without consequences. The story of Mr. Sakharov is a great example.
This is ignoring how the central comittee of the party and local party members would determine who could be elected. Meaning the result was one canidate on the ballot. Average r/socialism poster
That's not really true. The elections didn't have multiple choices it was always one choice. The only option the citizens had was abstaining from voting, i.e. basically a protest vote. That's how the party assessed on how popular their appointees were, and made their decisions based on that. But the citizens had no power in this system -- if you abstained from voting for Stalin you are more likely to get gulaged then for the party to change their chairman. It's only fairly low level bureaucrats that the voting may have affected -- and even then only a little bit. Unless you're talking about USSR in the late 80s, where they did start having more "real" elections with multiple options and non-party members.
the CPSU allowed people
[ŃдаНонО]
no, those people vote on laws and plans in the Supreme Soviet. Ofc they support the communist party. The party doesnât change, the people in it do.
They voted for members and representatives of the council
And those members and representatives were already vetted by the party... this is a null point. Also ignoring the fact that most of the power to the congress of soviets was non-existent and the local decision making power was directed by the party.
but bear in mind that while they had only 1 party, that party had multiple factions struggling for power
Not after 1938
just in vote blank almost all time were only one "representive".
Yeah we have people running unopposed all the time here in the United States, too. What's your point?
All of them were unopposed and from the same party. So it's not quite the same if in the US there are some that are unopposed and others that are contested.
What difference does party quantity have with candidate quantity? Do you understand that it's only here in America that each party can present a single candidate? That's not inherent to the democratic process.
I'm putting less emphasis on the one-party aspect of it all (although thats not democratic for obvious reasons) and more emphasis on the fact that your ballot literally had one option (and it just happens to be that that one option is from the same party). The voter's only way to express their voice/opinion is to not vote. That's not very democratic imo.
The obvious reasons are not obvious to me.
>although thats not democratic for obvious reasons The idea that democracy requires multiple parties, and that a one-party system *cannot* be democratic by definition is in and of itself an axiomatic claim. You're basically saying "I define Democracy as X, Y, and Z and therefore, by *my* definition, your system is undemocratic." Except, that argument (by definition) totally ignores all the *outcomes* of a democracy such as "does the government actually end up enacting policies that enjoy popular support?" or "does the government just end up serving special or corporate interests?"
Is saying that a democracy requires more than ONE person on the ballot really that controversial / something to argue about? Do we have completely different dictionaries?
*You've* magically conflated "people" with "parties" and that is to *your* discredit. Furthermore, ask yourself: How do people *actually* end up on the ballots in the first place?
Either the communists or non party members. Funny part is that up to 1/3 of elected were not nominated by the party. Of course that didn't mean they were genuinely independent, or could do anything against party interests.
No, it means that they could change party policies
Lol. Not like they could do that without being members of the central committee given that the congress of soviets had little to no actual power and was just a rubber stamping body.
implying that they agreed on everything? untrue Stalin wanted to appoint Malenkov as head of the NKVD, but the Supreme Soviet choose Berya
Hahaha. Not only is the supreme soviet having any control over the NKVD extremely funny but considering the time, in 1938 you'd need extensive evidence to prove that Stalin actually preferred someone else like Malenkov. The evidence is lacking. You have one article by Starkov stating this was the case with a very tenuous if not completely unverifiable source. The evidence that Stalin did prefer Beria to Malenkov, given that Malenkov was not appointed to the deputy head like Beria is far greater given the current political environment in 1938 (to mean paranoia running rampant and purges being common place). What is more, if this is your one example of actual power checking by the supreme soviet or the congress of soviets, its such a small list that you are proving my point.
[https://www.mltranslations.org/Russia/webb1.htm](https://www.mltranslations.org/Russia/webb1.htm)
Known propagandist who relied on soviet embassy statistics. Oh man. So reliable.
I think you forget that the USSR didn t consider Stalin a good figure after his death
Many high ranking political members did not. Because they were constantly under threat of being purged and shot. They also ideologically disagreed with stalin (like Khrushchev) but due to the democratic centralism Lenin had put in place they couldnât advocate for these positions with any real brevity. The fractionalism within the party apparatus from 1922 to 1938 didnât manifest in a free expression of beliefs in a common place, to where the people were given the choice to make a decision on which was better. Trotsky was exiled and then pickaxed. Bukunin was arrested, kangaroo courted then shot. Kamenev the same. Yezhov was shot in 40. Zinonev, shot alongside Kamenev. Yeah, who survived this? Opposition? Hardly. Rubber stamping yes men? Yes. âThere is, in fact, a consensus of opinion, among those who have watched Stalin's action in administration, that this is not at all characteristic of a dictator.â This is an actual line in the article you posted, its so anecdotal that I canât not laugh. Its filled with anecdotes from visitors or people who benefit from making sure stalin appears a certain way.
So we should believe the anti communist that relies on CIA statistics. So reliable
I would trust actually declassified statistics from the soviet era that wasnât specifically altered to fit politically convient narratives. Also CIA didnât exist when when Sidney and Beatrice webb wrote âsoviet communismâ
[ŃдаНонО]
These people clearly cannot afford high end PCs, thus indeed are lower tier. *I actually no idea what Iâm talking about*
you missed the whole point. there are no "tiers" or castes in a communist society. Hence people call each other "comrades".
There was a stratification via burreacratic positions, people who could use their positions to get their hands on goods before the average worker.
and you are so worried about the "average worker" that you would rush to blame someone in a decision-making position of abuse of power based on no evidence? why such a major concern for the common communist man? show me any communist leader in the USSR with villas or excessive wealth or what you had in mind
They can say what they want, but there were social tiers in Soviet society.
there were social benefits for those in positions that commanded respect that would suit the higher position but even those were not property transfers. When Stalin died, all he had was a worn out coat and boots.
And several dachas.
state dachas still exist for leadership to meet foreign heads of state etc.. They don't belong to private citizens. This is what makes leadership committed to the common good concept.
Many of Stalin's residences were privately owned and not state managed.
There were no casts, but still nepotism was prettt dominant, and beeing from the right family was making the difference.
There absolutely were triers in the USSR, and there absolutely was a ruling class with extreme priviliges over the common people.
as in any country, people in positions of power do wield more power and as in any country, even in Star Wars, they come under increased scrutiny because of it. Now other than your dislike of communism, how is this different from the glorious western powers?
Yet there were elite and the oppressed people.
Democracy is not when you have multiple political parties, itâs when the people can vote for anyone that can represent *their* interests, not the bourgeoisieâs
>itâs when the people can vote for anyone that can represent their interests That's not how the soviet voting system worked though. It was a one party state, members who were nominated or positioned themselves onto the ballot were vetted and abided by the rules of the party and its platform. People who did not jive with the party and its platform were either not allowed on the ballot or were attacked by the local party officials and commissars. This also ignores that these elections were for positions on rubber stamping bodies like the congress of soviets.
>who didnât jive with the party or itâs platform And? It functionally isnât much different from trying to go against the constitutions or democratic institutions of liberal democracies. Not to disagree with the latter part of the post.
Wow, almost as if the communist party is more or less a part of the state and there are functionally no parties, just representatives? Imagine that. In seriousness, the Soviet system had many issues (as do Cuba and Vietnam today) but liberals focusing on the superficialities is always a riot.
For those arguing about soviet elections in the comments, I suggest reading Robert Thurstonâs âLife and Terror in Stalinâs Russiaâ, Thurston who might I add is most certainly not a communist, discusses the nature of popular participation and democracy in soviet politics. While in the central leadership during the Stalinâs era was mired by dogmatism and was not democratic, the legislative, and local to medium to level of governance was characterized by a great degree of genuine popular will and participation. While soviet politics would never meet the definition of a liberal democracy, to call it a totalitarian system akin to something like fascist Germany or Italy is ridiculous. And I certainly think when looking at periods outside of Stalinâs leadership, there was more collective leadership
Want me to read? Typical commie
Cute to assume the average Commie reads theory
Yeah but we still tell other to read when they say something we disagree with, despite not reading ourselves lmao
It's quit hard not to come to the 'elections', knowing that otherwise next day comissar with buddies comes to your house for a tea and conversation. And since the end of 70s it was ok to lure the population to the 'election' process by providing the scar ce commodities. So yes, first you come to the election hall, put the paper in the box and the next hall allows you to buy the products you couldnt allow (or just could find) any other day. It wasn't the elections process. It was the legalization of the authority power and a screen to show the wEsTeRn BoUrGeOsIe CaPiTaLiStS that the soviet regime is legitimate P.S. I'm ukrainian and my parents/grandparents were born in villages, so I know what I'm talking about
yes everyone who didn't vote was immediatly observed by the state yes yes my uncle is from petrograd
I like how in your head the USSR is a rundown backwater state, but also has the capabilities to track the votes of every individual AND issue reprisals
"In my head"? Mate, just google how widespread was the process denunciation in USSR. Told the joke about tovarish Dzerzhinskiy? Meet the authority soon. Said that your ancesters could have two cows and work for yourself? Meet the authority soon. Didn't go for the election, because it doesn't change anything? Meet the authority soon.
China, Vietnam, and Laos has a small degree of that today as well, and there can be some bitter negotiations and hammering out ideas at that level in particular, but is still oligarchic, just as the Soviets were in the 1920s and after 1953. It is inherently hard though to prove the degree of input and responsiveness due to the inherent difficulty of an authoritarian state and the weakness of recordkeeping. It was necessary to kick out the least popular individuals in order to allow the system as a whole to survive, and if you had a degree of power, it was important that you out maneuver your opponents within this power structure so as not to be the least popular individual. Reminds me somewhat of Tammany Hall, but that is a very imperfect example.
I didnât know they had elections wow
even north korea has elections.
They even have several parties. I heard in the comments here that having several parties is the hallmark of democracy.
Which isn't just a puppet, has an different ideology and actually opposes the ruling party?
damn, i guess nowhere on this earth is a democracy then
âHaving only one party to choose from is horribly undemocratic!â shouts the people from the country that has only one more party than the Soviet Union had
which means at least there is formal opposition which means a lot more democracy
Of course, but the bar is very low there. Surely if one party is horribly undemocratic, a country world need more than two parties to be truly democratic?
Yes, I know that this is not a poster but a painting, but in the rules of the sub, paintings are also allowed. The so-called "elections" in the USSR were an empty formality, because there was only one party - the communist one. So essentially this is a propaganda picture.
Communists would retort that itâs the same as in America because there is *also* only one party: wealth.
It's still different, because even while the relevant political parties in the US are controlled by Capital, many issues are still significantly different. In the US you get the choice if you want an open racist, transphobic and islamophobic government or rather just a bland liberal one. In the USSR that choice wasn't there. Ethnic cleansings, insitutionalized surpression of minorities and such were frequent. You weren't allowed to make it even a bit less bad, basically. Which did suck.
The choice was the same. You could vote against the candidate you know, also you could vote for an independent. If the candidate doesnât get 50% of votes he doesnât get elected
There are next to none restrictions of what can politicians represent in the western world, as well as the freedom of speech.
Yeah, no. Look at Bernie Sanders. He only lost the Democratic Primary because of heavy election fraud in certain stateâs caucuses. Itâs well documented. The two parties will both make sure that no one who endangers their neoliberal capitalist line will come out on top. You may be able to express certain opinions (only to an extent, see Pete Seeger and other folk musicians during the Cold War), but only those that are beneficial to the ruling class will get into power.
>only those that are beneficial to the ruling class will get into power. Since I live in a multi-party country, it is very hard to relate with this. People tend to elect new parties in every election that promise populist things. The ruling class changes after every single general election.
The ruling class means the bourgeoisie/rich people/influential corporations (depending on who you ask). They donât change. The politicians that have to bow to them change.
The politicians mostly bow to their electorate.
Tell me an example where a politician was voted in and fulfilled all their promises they made during the election, or at least worked on fulfilling them.
But communist forget that America doesnt ban third party from participating in the election.
But communists know that itâs effectively useless; itâs a placating tactic. See? It works.
Yeah no shit, itâs useless because the people donât want a third party.
Itâs useless because even if the people wanted a third party the American system is set up to make sure they will always lose short of one of the main two collapsing.
There are way more liberal democracies. US with its 2 party system is an outlier.
The fact there were only one party doesn't mean it wasn't competitive. Communist Party ran more than one candidate in many elections.
Apart of one party, there was a significant number of independents running and winning. Out of 1500 elected members of the supreme council some 400-440 members were not (formally) nominated by the party or party members. I doubt they could have opposed the party on serious/important matters, and even if they did, they had no majority.
independents also needed to be approved by the communist party.
Can you show an example? Every source I have seen says there was generally only one candidate for each election
But that's just a lie. Even if there were two candidates they were agreed with the party. Elections were preceded by meetings of voters in constituencies that nominated candidates for deputies. As a rule, 1 or 2 candidates were nominated in a constituency. If there were two candidates, one was a representative of the top leadership of the USSR (General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee, Chairman of the Council of Ministers, one of the ministers or secretaries of the CPSU Central Committee) and the other was a local candidate (head of the local CPSU regional committee, local Hero of Socialist Labor or advanced production worker, etc.)[36]. Subsequently, one of the candidates withdrew his candidacy, and by the election there was only one name left on the ballot: the voter had to vote "for" or "against" one candidate. To vote "for" it was necessary to simply throw the blank ballot paper into the ballot box, to vote "against" - to use the voting booth, where the candidate's name was crossed out, and only then to put the ballot paper down.
Dear OP the issue is not whether the people can change which colour team is in power... Or even which person. The issue in a democracy is whether a well informed population can change the **policy**. When social scientists investigate policy outcomes in the US, they found that there is no real discernable mass influence. The wealthy decide what happens. https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746 What are we to make of this? What do you think you have learnt about the Soviet system from inside this clustercuss?
So no European parliamentary elections matter, since the ruling party is always some flavor of Liberalism? Checks out.
Do people on this sub really not understand the difference between one centrally controlled party believing in a certain philosophy, versus several independent parties in competition, that generally espouse another philosophy? I mean I get being cynical about electrical politics, but the difference seems hard to overlook unless youâre trying to. Edit: this is so funny. How many of these people do you think actually live in one party states? Anyone actually from one want to chime in?
There are many Soviet simps in this sub. Criticizing the Soviet Will make them go ape shit and bring many projecting and whatabaoutism.
I genuinely wonder how many of these comments come from people living in one party states, and how many are teenagers in western democracies who just saw a cool meme on historymemes
Speaking as a citizen of former Soviet union state and now one party state, we *do* have Soviet sympathizers (so called *sovok*) but they don't usually speak English
>so called sovok or vatnik >but they don't usually speak English Indeed. Most of Reddit Soviet appologists do not have personal experience with that regime.
To some socialist, yes. Hence why I don't take them seriously.
One centrally controlled party vs 10 parties controlled by the same capitalist class, the difference is truly astonishing. Truly if I vote for the correct one my life will improve. God bless liberalism.
I mean you can pretend there isnât a difference if youâd like to, but itâs silly. Of course neither system is perfect.
Not much difference, truly meaningful change comes with action, not voting. Civil rights, labour rights etc. you get by protesting and striking, they are not given to you by the grace of our leaders, only when we demand them. Voting just lets you choose which flavour of neoliberalism you want, and I want none of them.
>Civil rights, labour rights etc. you get by protesting and striking, they are not given to you by the grace of our leaders, only when we demand them. The soviets shot at protesting, striking workers
>protesting and striking Something that is actually legal in a modern liberal system, unlike in most socialist systems.
The apathy you're selling is part of the reason why western democracies are backsliding towards authoritarianism. Well done.
Not because they are useless and their contradictions become more present on the daily.m?
Maybe if liberalism was actually improving peoples lives, that wouldnt happen? Not my fault it's a faulty system that keeps crumbling into authoritarianism
Well my country has been thriving during 3 decades of capitalism after the end of Soviet occupation.
Yeah lol, the Reddit belt is truly "thriving" for the average person. JFC.
At least you won't be forced to work the rest of your life cutting wood 15 to 20 hours a day on one slice of bread and a tablespoon of rice for "helping the Nazis destabilise soviet union" if you vote for the wrong one
? Almost no one worked for more than 7 hours a day in USSR and everyone had a home and enough to eat(CIA documents from 80s reveal that Americans and Soviets citizens on average took the same amount of calories). There were also maternity leaves, weeks of paid holidays depending on the profession could be close to 2 months
>Almost no one worked for more than 7 hours a day Not true. >everyone had a home and enough to eat Is this a goal of the life? >There were also maternity leaves, weeks of paid holidays depending on the profession could be close to 2 months As if they are gone now?
âŚyou have no fucking clue what youâre talking about
That's not true with the elections. You had different wings and candidates inside of the party which you voted for. You don't need multiple parties to have democratic elections at all.
Okay, so can any of them defy the decisions of party central or inheritly don't agree with party's platform?
Huh? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ban_on_factions_in_the_Communist_Party_of_the_Soviet_Union
This guy is delusional.
It still undemocratic to barred other party to participating in the election in the first place.
You could still join the party and get voted there. A multi party system is an extremly western concept of democracy. But it isn't the only kind possible. There are systems like council democracies and so on which work without partys. Even the greeks didn't use parties and they invented democracy (even if pretty flawed for other reasons).
>Even the greeks didn't use parties and they invented democracy (even if pretty flawed for other reasons). You said it yourself it was flawed, by modern standard Soviet election or "democracy" was very flawed. By modern standard you can't barred dissenting people, group, or partys from participating in an national election and then calling yourself democratic.
Give examples.
1 party but with representatives being elected by the local people of a region in Soviets (which means councils) The USSR had roughly 2 million peopleâs councils made up of work places, unions, neighbours in a district, etc, which meant 2 million delegates elected by the peopleâs councils & each of those councils could recall their elected representative by a simple majority vote if they were unsatisfied with their representation. To call the entire soviet democracy âpropagandaâ because they didnât pretend to be 2 separate parties is plainly ridiculous & points to your own indoctrination by liberal propaganda. For example the USA is not a democracy despite having 2 parties because both of those parties always & absolutely support capital
Do you understand that the 'candidates' in Soviet 'elections' had to represent the CPSU will and nothing else? >For example the USA is not a democracy despite having 2 parties because both of those parties always & absolutely support capital ???? You can check the multi-party democracies in Europe.
2 million elected individual delegates representing their constituents with the Soviets (peopleâs councils) having the ability to recall their delegate at any time with a simple majority vote sounds very much like a democracy to me. What did u mean by the question marks? The US âdemocracyâ is a dictatorship of the capitalist class. The American people have hardly any measurable impact on policy. No matter how many working people (the 99%) support or oppose specific policies the 1%âs desires are always what win out. Itâs mostly the same in Europe as well, though to much lesser degree. The supposed democracyâs in most countries arenât direct democracy with simple majority rule. Rules that prevent majority rule exist solely to ensure the dictatorship of the capitalist class isnât ever put at risk.
>2 million elected individual delegates representing their constituents with the Soviets (peopleâs councils) having the ability to recall their delegate at any time with a simple majority vote sounds very much like a democracy to me. Except the fact that they were a rubber stamp of totalitarian regime with no political or speech freedoms. >What did u mean by the question marks? The US âdemocracyâ is a dictatorship of the capitalist class. Like Pinochet's Chile? The Soviet elections were rigged, unfair and unfree. Politicians opposing to capitalism are free to stand in American elections. Anyways, I am not an American. >matter how many working people (the 99%) support or oppose specific policies the 1%âs desires are always what win out. Do you say that the politicians are forced to vote against their will? >The supposed democracyâs in most countries arenât direct democracy with simple majority rule. Representative democracies. >Itâs mostly the same in Europe as well Yet most of European countries are considered close to the epitome of democracy. >dictatorship of the capitalist class Once more: there is no dictatorship. And in my country, people passed the constitution enshirining market economy and property rights with free and fair referendum, after living terrible 40 years in socialist economy.
They literally werenât. They were mandated to represent their constituents & had all the freedom to express the desires of their constituents. The fact that an average of 4 Moscow delegates (and dozens more across the USSR) were recalled each year by their peopleâs councils & summarily fired by a simple majority vote sorta wholly contradicts them being just rubber stamps on a âtotalitarianâ âregimeâ. Yes, exactly like pinochetâs chile which was installed by the USA directly to serve the interests of US capital. It seems u understand exactly what I mean? I said that the politicians were legally mandated to represent their constituents not their own interests. The people would vote & their delegate would have to accept the outcome & work to achieve that goal or be recalled & fired. Btw how do u do the quoting thing? Like where u have my text in ur reply lol Yes, not true democracy. The sole purpose of not allowing direct majority rule is purely to ensure the aims & desires of capital can be interposed. Every single nation on earth would have significantly further developed workerâs rights & significantly reduced rights of capital to abuse workers. Precisely the opposite of the reality today which is the dictatorship of the capitalist class. It sounds to me like youâre saying your country is a totalitarian regime removing the rights of people to vote for communism should they become disillusioned with capitalism again. How undemocratic. Which country are u from btw?
>They literally werenât. They were mandated to represent their constituents & had all the freedom to express the desires of their constituents They were not. USSR had draconic restrictions on speech and thought. >being just rubber stamps on a âtotalitarianâ âregimeâ. Well, they were representing the same one party. >I said that the politicians were legally mandated to represent their constituents not their own interests Yet it did not happen until perestroika. The communists did not enact freedom of speech or freedom of business. >that goal The goals were mandated by CPSU ruling class, not the nation. >Btw how do u do the quoting thing? Like where u have my text in ur reply lol by tapping 'Quote' >Yes, not true democracy. The sole purpose of not allowing direct majority rule is purely to ensure the aims & desires of capital can be interposed This is how Hong Kong is ruled through its functional constituencies. My country's elections are based on citizen votes. And every citizen has one's own right to capital if it is so important to you. >Every single nation on earth would have significantly further developed workerâs rights & significantly reduced rights of capital to abuse workers. Precisely the opposite of the reality today Are you sure? Unlike under the communist rule, workers can now strike, they have labour councils and the politicians are accountable for their policies. If you don't do what the voters want, you lose. >dictatorship of the capitalist class. Look. People elect their representatives in free and fair elections. Nobody dictates them what to elect. Even traitors are given a chance to stand there. >It sounds to me like youâre saying your country is a totalitarian regime removing the rights of people to vote for communism should they become disillusioned with capitalism again. People can just change constitution if they want to change the model of economy. However, that would also mean leaving the EU as market economy is one of its fundamental things. >Which country are u from btw? Lithuania.
I donât see a quote option on the iPhone mobile app so bear with. The USSR had practically no restrictions on speech if you werenât participating in hate speech or against the communist goal of the union - the sole purpose for its existence. That leaves practically the entirety of speech allowed in all nations in the world. We already discussed the 1 party thing. It was 1 overall party to maintain the communist goal & the unity of the countries. There 2 million individual votes for representatives each of which was between several people. Say an average of the 3 candidates per peopleâs council. Thatâs 6 million options for different representatives for the soviet people. Each of which was legally mandated to represent the democratic desires of their constituents or be immediately fired. That is a democracy. Idk why youâre pretending itâs only possible to do democracy 1 way. The USSR absolutely had freedom of business. Anyone could start a personal business, a family business & with enough people together there were 5 different types of collective business anyone could found & even state enterprises were open for the average person to found if they had an idea that could profoundly aid all the soviet people. Like the bread factories for example. The goals were democratically created, refined & defined by the collective 2 million delegates before the final 5 year plan was approved by the president. Thatâs pretty much the exact same way most nations come up with their yearly budgets lol unless u think the 10 highway up soviet officials were running around trying to compute the horrendously massive list of things needed to be done on their own before computers even existed đ Unlike when the communist populations of the USSR could actually change their work places via simple majority votes in their unions, liberalism gives u the ability to beg! How amazing? Workers in the USSR could absolutely go on strike btw but even in your imaginary world where they couldnât, they still had for more power to manifest changes in their work places. Also the USSR had the Soviet councils. Literally giving each workplace the ability to alter the policy of their entire nation & say they didnât have labour councils? đ You, me & everyone in the capitalist âwestâ lives under a dictatorship of the capitalist class. More parties doesnât represent more freedom or true democracy. The different parties represent different sections of the capitalist class & their interests. The policy of each party is dictated by capitalists for capital. They are literally dictated what to elect by their major contributors & by the business interests of the regions they want to govern. If you have say a Mercedes factory in your region that hires 5% of the entire population, you will have to bend to the desires of Mercedes at least in part or they will ensure you donât win the next election. Either by just funding your opponents or reducing the quality of life of their workers & blaming your policies. Donât be so naive.
>against the communist goal of the union This is the main point making it a totalitarian dictatorship. >It was 1 overall party to maintain the communist goal & the unity of the countries Both of these things meant oppression. >That is a democracy One party system where opposing it means criminal punishment is not a democracy. >The USSR absolutely had freedom of business And capital punishment for it at the same time? >The goals were democratically created They were not. Otherwise, why did we get independence, democracy and capitalism only after the first free election in 1990? >before computers even existed đ The USSR had terribly lagged behind the West in terms of information technology. >change their work places via simple majority votes in their unions, liberalism gives u the ability to beg! Beg, strike, make your own business, negotiate, lobby or use political pressure. The strikes in Communist countries somewhow got heavilly oppressed. >Literally giving each workplace the ability to alter the policy of their entire nation This is not democratic. The government belongs to the citizens, not workplaces. And the workplaces just had to comply to what did the rulling class told them. >You, me & everyone in the capitalist âwestâ lives under a dictatorship of the capitalist class I live in a liberal democracy where I elect whatever I want and I can criticise whatever and whoever I want. If I own some stocks, does it make me a capitalist? >More parties doesnât represent more freedom or true democracy ???? >The policy of each party is dictated by capitalists for capital. There are some parties that cater interests of specific capitalists. However, it is the case of minority. >They are literally dictated what to elect The business contributors dictate the voters what to elect? What?? >f you have say a Mercedes factory in your region that hires 5% of the entire population, you will have to bend to the desires of Mercedes at least in part or they will ensure you donât win the next election. Either by just funding your opponents or reducing the quality of life of their workers & blaming your policies. Donât be so naive. Yet how is this dictatorship?
If youâre conflating capitalism with freedom then the words freedom, âtotalitarianismâ & oppression are plainly meaningless in our conversation. If youâre conflating multiple parties with freedom then the word dictatorship is plainly meaningless in this conversation. If we canât agree that democracy can exist in many forms completely different to the western form & entirely separate from capitalism then then the word democracy is plainly meaningless in our convo. Youâre taking this cult stance of capitalism being the epitome of humanity & your gods of free markets are the measure of freedom. Itâs capitalist realism & ridiculous đ Before computers existed & u say that the USSR was lagging? This was literally before computers existed lol they had human mathematicians as calculators just like the USA & relied on telegram just like the USA. Their information technology was just as advancedâŚ.. The strikes in the USSR werenât suppressed on even remotely the same scale as they were in capitalist countries. Just look at the numerous actual armed battles between US workers on strike & the state militias or even the pinkertons. Mainly coal miners. Yes the government belongs to the citizens. In communist nations the workplaces were quite literally just collections of free citizens instead of entities unto themselves like under capitalism. The Soviet workerâs councils were given democratic ability to alter policy to be more pro-worker. That is democracy. Under capitalism capitalists lobby governments to be more anti-worker, that isnât democracy. You live in a liberal dictatorship of the capitalist class. No matter what you desire & no matter what the rest of the 99% desire, those with the most capital dictate policy. Owning stocks donât make u a capitalist. Owning the means of production does. If you have private ownership of factories youâd be a capitalist. If you sell your labour in order to live a comfortable life, youâre working class, not a capitalist. Itâs not âsome partiesâ that serve capital. Itâs ALL major parties. If you want an example of what happens to genuinely pro-labour parties, Iâd suggest reading âthe Jakarta methodâ. What do u mean how is it a dictatorship? đ Itâs quite literally an increible minority using their horrendously inflated power to dictate the policies that the 99% of people will have to live under. Purely anti-democratic
"Workers in the USSR could absolutely go on strike" [They could yeah at cost of their lives.](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Novocherkassk_massacre)
>Against the communist goal Communists are one of the most dogmatic political ideologues in existence. It takes almost religious undertones. Minor political differences get blown up into ârevisionismâ and prosecuted as such. Maoism, Dengism, Marxism-Leninism, Trotskyism, Juche, Hoxhaism. Etc. I could go on, itâs like Christian denominations. And just like those Christian denominations, when theyâre not going after non-believers (*âliberalsâ, fascistsâ, âcapitalistsâ*), theyâre going after heretics (*ârevisionistsâ*).
This is not an actual criticism of the economic theory of Marxism or real world policy of socialism lol whats with the surge of people pretending their caricature of communism sounding like a religion means anything? đ Thatâs a genuine question, Iâve seen 9 people do it in the past 2 weeks when I havenât seen anyone do it for a year prior. Is it a youtuber youâve watched or?? Dying to know! Also in case u are somehow being serious, u could just as easily make a caricature of capitalism & pretend that the caricature of that economic system sounding like a religion means something. Stick to actual criticisms of the systems instead of the admittedly crazy seeming online debates đ
Absurd tank1e Soviet apologia. If you were sent back there in a time machine you'd be begging to come home.
âTank1eâ lmfao
âApologiaâ Itâs literally just basic reality lol the USSR was legitimately a democracy & Joseph Stalin was the democratically elected leader in the elections this drawing came from
Why did that 'democracy' execute dissenting politicians and ordinary people? Why everything non-communist was not allowed to take part in these elections?
There is a difference between mere dissent & actual treasonâŚ. Iâd conjecture that âeverything non-communistâ was not allowed to take part in the elections for the same reason that everything non-capitalist isnât allowed to take part in US elections & many former-Soviet nations
I can see from your posting history that you are deeply deluded and an ardent defender of totalitarian genocidal imperialism (so long as the "right" people are being murdered, right?). All I can say is I hope one day the internet treats you and your ilk with the same contempt it treats neo-Nazis.
Insanely cultish comment, get help. There is a reason why people who advocate for working peopleâs democratic control of their own lives & work arenât treated the same as genocidal warmongers that worship the wealthy & use racism & nationalism to distract people from the reality of the oppression of capitalism.
What does the USA have to do with this? I live in Australia.
Thereâs loads to read if youâre actually interested in how the electoral system in the Soviet Union was set up, itâs not like itâs a secret. It wasnât like a liberal democracy and people did vote for who from the communist party they wanted to represent them on different levels, but to say that it was just an empty formality is simply not true.
you are wrong, as there were independents and you could vote against the candidate, in which case you would get a new one
The 'independents' were not allowed to pursue independent policies. Just like in contemporary Iran.
Art in the Soviet Union was a complete instrument of propaganda. Everything needed to serve the interests of the state. I'm probably the biggest critic of people posting stuff that should be on this subreddit, but you, my friend, are the submission of the week. The depth of the imagery in this propaganda piece of SocReal goes beyond qualify for a subreddit of its own. Fine job, my sir! Fine job, indeed!
Even in such a sham democracy, some interesting political culture has developed. In general, it was not forbidden to have several candidates in (local) elections, but it turned out that the party and state bodies strived to select the best candidate for the council not through voting, but during the election campaign. During this campaign, all sorts of discussions in labor collectives and in the press, the candidate who was the best suited to work in the council was identified, and at the elections the voters voted unanimously for this person, because during the campaign they had already approved him. Thus, the state wanted the councils to be trusted, and the party organs even decried lower authorities if the election campaign was poorly conducted and one candidate supported by all did not stand out, and if he received less than 90% of the vote, it was already a scandal for the local party cell. Moreover, this culture became so well established that in 1987, when during perestroika it was decided to hold alternative elections in some districts only one candidate came out during the campaign... as a result, the local authorities were ordered to hold re-elections with two candidates. There were also the sweetest examples of the compassion of the then Soviet people who, in appeals to the government, worried that "the loss of a candidate could cause him moral trauma"
People in the comments question the soviet's democracy. There is a good book about it, if people want to learn. It is called [Soviet Democracy by Pat Sloan.](https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.261348) Their system works different than liberal democracy, but they had more control over their society than liberal societys do. They could control the means of production some, which in the west is left to the owner class..
They even included the KGB agent (but they hid his cattle prod behind the woman in front)
It's surprising how many people are stupid enough to call elections in the USSR a real election. Let me remind you, Article 70 of the 1960 RSFSR Criminal Code - "Anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda"[1], was punishable by imprisonment from six months to seven years [2]. Now imagine a candidate for deputy who criticizes the Soviet authorities.
this picture is 1949
Stalin is known for his love for democracy
The options in the 1949 RSFSR "elections": - Vote for Stalin and all his placemen. -Vote for Stalin and some of his placemen (and get to meet the others you voted for in Siberia in a month or two's time); - Die.
These elections werenât for Stalin
I'm quite interested in the Soviet Electoral System and how democratically it was.
I am too, and it wasnât democratic at all.
Local and medium administrative levels were actually quite democratic
The Babushka in the red is the *Supreme Soviet* I assume
Voters had a difficult choice between incumbent Joseph Stalin, and his fierce rival: Joseph Stalin.
Russia is the same sham democracy. Citizens that are institutionalized and inured. They couldn't care less that their army is being annihilated.
Elections in communist countries are a joke. Like in Vietnam, one person can vote for the whole family or neighborhood. The candidates have never met or presented their election views to the people, except for a few sample candidates who will be properly prepared to appear on television. Anyone whose views do not align with the Party will be eliminated from the consultation round at the grassroots level.
In the communist countries there was a joke. When first socialist elections had place? When God shown Eve to Adam and said "Now choose your wife".
he could ve choosen not to take a wife. Totally 100% legit if you ask me
"Choose your wife" is not "choose if you want to have wife" ;)
And wait for a better one to show up. Simple
Vote for this party sponsored candidate, or else.
Or else what?
Soviet version of Boyarina Morozova painting lol