Administration is not a class in and of itself, either capitalists control the state or the working classes control the state. Power isn’t some supernatural corruptive force, either. Further, socialist countries are the only genuinely democratic countries, replacing leadership isn’t a sign of democracy, but instability and dissatisfaction with government. I don’t think you actually know what we communists are talking about, and you’re trapped in idealist and metaphysical thinking.

You might want a /s there, lol.

Really just means “supports existing socialism,” but as a pejorative.

Either you subscribed to our meme community, or were browsing by All, either one would show you this. It isn’t really “your feed.”

Pretty much!

All states are authoritarian, as all are instruments by which one class asserts its authority. That doesn’t decouple it from democracy either, it’s important to understand that working class states by necessity employ broad participation.

The Zapatistas are an example of “authoritarian” socialism, as you already explained. Democracy in socialism comes in many different forms, usually involving a combination of local voting and consensus gathering.

For China, public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy, and the CPC, a working class party, dominates the state. At a democratic level, local elections are direct, while higher levels are elected by lower rungs. At the top, constant opinion gathering and polling occurs, gathering public opinion, driving gradual change. This system is better elaborated on in Professor Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance.

For the USSR, it was quite similar. First-hand accounts from Statesian journalist Anna Louise Strong in her book This Soviet World describe soviet elections and factory councils in action. Statesian Pat Sloan even wrote Soviet Democracy to describe in detail the system the soviets had built for curious Statesians to read about.

These are just 2 examples, but it extends to other socialist countries like Nicaragua, Venezuela, Cuba, the DPRK, Vietnam, Laos, etc, which all have their own unique conditions and systems in place. All use their systems of democracy to keep the working classes on top, while exerting authority to suppress capitalists, sabateurs, fascists, etc.

How much have you studied Marxist-Leninist democracy? Accountability is core to socialist countries, both in theory and practice.

This is both the use of authority, and not dissimilar to what socialist countries often deemed “authoritarian” practice.

Then that definition doesn’t apply to the socialist states that “tankies” support, so the original comment doesn’t make sense.

Their point is essentially that it just means “has a government,” but is treated like it’s a strict condemnation of some governments over others.

Is it not better for the working classes to institutionally dominate capitalists?

I never said that I was a liberal. If anything, I consider myself a market socialist since anything needed to survive shouldn’t be comdified for capital.

If I were to be cheeky, I’d say that market socialism is still liberalism. There’s a difference between a Socialist Market Economy, like the PRC, and market socialism. In a socialist market economy, public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy, while diverse forms of ownership account for small and medium firms, including cooperatives and private ownership. In market socialism, cooperatives form the principle aspect, and as such it is largely weak to the same mechanisms as capitalism.

I’m simply saying that giving one man absolute power whether it be political or through wealth will inevitably lead to corruption. After all, the meme states that tankies are “always right”, and I’m assuming that by tankie they mean the authoritarian left like Stalinism, Maoism, etc.

Neither Stalin nor Mao had absolute power, though. Both the USSR and China under Mao were democratic. For China, public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy, and the CPC, a working class party, dominates the state. At a democratic level, local elections are direct, while higher levels are elected by lower rungs. At the top, constant opinion gathering and polling occurs, gathering public opinion, driving gradual change. This system is better elaborated on in Professor Roland Boer’s Socialism in Power: On the History and Theory of Socialist Governance.

For the USSR, it was quite similar. First-hand accounts from Statesian journalist Anna Louise Strong in her book This Soviet World describe soviet elections and factory councils in action. Statesian Pat Sloan even wrote Soviet Democracy to describe in detail the system the soviets had built for curious Statesians to read about.

By “tankie,” OP essentially means anyone that recognizes existing socialist states as valid. This includes the majority of Marxists.

It’s better for the working classes to control the state, even if corruption exists and must be actively suppressed.

Having a strong central government under the control of the working classes is possible, though, as exists in socialist countries. It indeed uses this absolute power against enemies of the state, but in this case the enemies are capitalists, fascists, sabateurs, etc, and the state truly democratic in the sense that it represents the majority. The state can only be under the control of a definite class, it does not exist outside of class struggle but within it.

Yep, thank you.

Communism is post-socialist, and has not existed yet.

.epub version of This Soviet World.

No matter how much you hate the US Empire, I don’t think it’s possible not to hate it more after reading Settlers.

I don’t see why you believe socialist democracies to be inherently more corrupt than capitalist “democracies.”