To be clear I am not a leninist or a marxist anymore. From what I understand something called democratic centralism is used. In democratic centralism there are elections for individual politicians instead of political parties. So while you can argue it’s only one party, you can actually elect whoever you want to your local seat, and presumably whoever you want for the president. That or the elected MPs select a leader as president, I am not really clear on this bit. Either way it’s not that different to how UK elections are run currently with individual MPs, just without that party bit. A bit like if every candidate was an independent.
The problem in the USSR and China being they restricted party membership and persecuted political enemies well beyond landlords and fascists, so that “anyone can be elected” bit simply did not happen.
Democratic Centralism is “diversity of thought, unity in action.” It essentially means that open discussion and election on where to go is key, but that members should not act against the decisions made, ie the results of elections are binding.
Anarchists criticize this because they argue it disregards minority opinions, though this is where the Soviet System came in and had “tiers,” so there were local elections and local decisions allowed, kinda like a local, state, federal split.
MLs argue that it gets far more done and that’s important when combatting something as strong as Imperialism and Capitalism.
To be clear I am not a leninist or a marxist anymore. From what I understand something called democratic centralism is used. In democratic centralism there are elections for individual politicians instead of political parties. So while you can argue it’s only one party, you can actually elect whoever you want to your local seat, and presumably whoever you want for the president. That or the elected MPs select a leader as president, I am not really clear on this bit. Either way it’s not that different to how UK elections are run currently with individual MPs, just without that party bit. A bit like if every candidate was an independent.
The problem in the USSR and China being they restricted party membership and persecuted political enemies well beyond landlords and fascists, so that “anyone can be elected” bit simply did not happen.
I was talking more about the theory than the practice. I imagine that under Stalin in particular the democratic process was not followed properly.
Sure, any political system is only as good as the society enforcing its rules.
Democratic Centralism is “diversity of thought, unity in action.” It essentially means that open discussion and election on where to go is key, but that members should not act against the decisions made, ie the results of elections are binding.
Anarchists criticize this because they argue it disregards minority opinions, though this is where the Soviet System came in and had “tiers,” so there were local elections and local decisions allowed, kinda like a local, state, federal split.
MLs argue that it gets far more done and that’s important when combatting something as strong as Imperialism and Capitalism.