I never said multiparty means democracy. But okay.
Who said it was hogwash? Who said it presents no threat to status quo?
We are talking about how the nazis weren’t socialist, or social Democrats. And how you don’t know the difference between social democracy and democratic socialism. And to say that you are a tankie after saying that socialism is capitalism, is wild.
You certainly implied that saying leninist revolutions (like in china and russia) led to single party systems which arent democratic
I mean you are not able to give single example of what you would consider “democratic” socialism, neither of present nor historic and the way these terms are used interchangeably in modern discourse its easy to conclude that democratic socialism is the same as social democracy.
They aren’t used interchangeably? Unless you are talking about people who also use communism and socialism interchangeably, then sure but i don’t think we should have a discussion on nazi politics based on utter lack of knowledge what words mean.
I implied that historically speaking Leninist Revolution led to single party systems? I mean yeah. That is just fact.
But you understand how saying “1 party systems aren’t democratic” doesn’t mean “multiparty systems are democratic”? If anything, it means “multiparty is one of the requirements of a democracy”.
e.g. i don’t think America is a proper democracy. Technically speaking, a person with 21% of the votes could win the presidential election. Yes, even if the other candidate has 79% of the votes. The obvious corruption and Oligarchy is another issue. I would argue that the use of voting computers makes them undemocratic. And there are probably more reasons but I am lazy.
Exactly so not being multiparty doesnt make one necessarily undemocratic even by your standards because being multipart is just one of the requirements
If something fails to fulfill 1 requirement, It can’t pass anymore, otherwise it is not a requirement.
If you are not a woman, you can’t be a 186cm tall woman. You can be 186cm tall, but you aren’t a woman, so you can’t be a 186cm tall woman.
So if being multiparty is a requirement for being a democracy, then not being multiparty, makes you not a democracy. Even if you pass all other requirements.
What is the connection to your claims that nazis are social Democrats or that democratic socialism is fascism?
Why can’t you just google things for once?
I think a division of power is important, as are: fair and free elections, multiple options in the elections, social programs to ensure the population has the resources to take part in the process, low corruption (ideally none but that is unrealistic). There is probably more but I am done doing your homework.
I will block you now, as you are the most clueless tankie that I have met to an embarrassing degree, so I think you are full of shit and not a tankie. I mean calling yourself a tankie and calling socialism fascistic is wild. Calling nazis social Democrats is more believable for a tankie but I am fairly certain they would realise that murdering disabled people isn’t fulfilling the “social” part in social democracy and e.g. the lack of fair and free elections doesn’t really match with the “democracy” part.
Lol, you didnt even define democratic socialism or even gave single example for it because you know nothing like that exists in real life so it doesnt threaten the existing bourgeosie state apparatus so parties who claim to follow that ideology are allowed to operate freely.
Its just a CIA developed ideology to sheepdog people away from revolution
I never said multiparty means democracy. But okay.
Who said it was hogwash? Who said it presents no threat to status quo?
We are talking about how the nazis weren’t socialist, or social Democrats. And how you don’t know the difference between social democracy and democratic socialism. And to say that you are a tankie after saying that socialism is capitalism, is wild.
You certainly implied that saying leninist revolutions (like in china and russia) led to single party systems which arent democratic
I mean you are not able to give single example of what you would consider “democratic” socialism, neither of present nor historic and the way these terms are used interchangeably in modern discourse its easy to conclude that democratic socialism is the same as social democracy.
They aren’t used interchangeably? Unless you are talking about people who also use communism and socialism interchangeably, then sure but i don’t think we should have a discussion on nazi politics based on utter lack of knowledge what words mean.
I implied that historically speaking Leninist Revolution led to single party systems? I mean yeah. That is just fact.
But you understand how saying “1 party systems aren’t democratic” doesn’t mean “multiparty systems are democratic”? If anything, it means “multiparty is one of the requirements of a democracy”.
e.g. i don’t think America is a proper democracy. Technically speaking, a person with 21% of the votes could win the presidential election. Yes, even if the other candidate has 79% of the votes. The obvious corruption and Oligarchy is another issue. I would argue that the use of voting computers makes them undemocratic. And there are probably more reasons but I am lazy.
Exactly so not being multiparty doesnt make one necessarily undemocratic even by your standards because being multipart is just one of the requirements
What? Do you understand logic?
If something fails to fulfill 1 requirement, It can’t pass anymore, otherwise it is not a requirement.
If you are not a woman, you can’t be a 186cm tall woman. You can be 186cm tall, but you aren’t a woman, so you can’t be a 186cm tall woman.
So if being multiparty is a requirement for being a democracy, then not being multiparty, makes you not a democracy. Even if you pass all other requirements.
so for any country to be democratic they have to fulfil all “requirements” what other requirements are there
What is the connection to your claims that nazis are social Democrats or that democratic socialism is fascism?
Why can’t you just google things for once?
I think a division of power is important, as are: fair and free elections, multiple options in the elections, social programs to ensure the population has the resources to take part in the process, low corruption (ideally none but that is unrealistic). There is probably more but I am done doing your homework.
I will block you now, as you are the most clueless tankie that I have met to an embarrassing degree, so I think you are full of shit and not a tankie. I mean calling yourself a tankie and calling socialism fascistic is wild. Calling nazis social Democrats is more believable for a tankie but I am fairly certain they would realise that murdering disabled people isn’t fulfilling the “social” part in social democracy and e.g. the lack of fair and free elections doesn’t really match with the “democracy” part.
Lol, you didnt even define democratic socialism or even gave single example for it because you know nothing like that exists in real life so it doesnt threaten the existing bourgeosie state apparatus so parties who claim to follow that ideology are allowed to operate freely. Its just a CIA developed ideology to sheepdog people away from revolution