Correction: by the need to disarm and pacify the proletariat, when class rule becomes too threatened. German Empire is a good example. Nobody would dare to call Bismarck’s rule “democratic”

You have managed to miss both the point of the joke and my explanation of it. I was being sarcastic in my comment and not writing a thesis on democracy. The joke was never meant to accurately define democracy. As for my explanation, you have somehow missed the fact that I explicitly say that welfare is an indicator for the strength of democratic forces, and not "proof" that a country is a democracy.

I agree, MLs have long abandoned what communism was supposed to mean.

Are you being purposefully obtuse?

However fascists often define “democracy” as the ruler following the will of the people, which is shown through fulfilling certain needs of the population, like food, healthcare, housing

Oh, was the USSR under Stalin fascist then? Was it simply "placating" and "disarming" the working population? Or was it liberal or monarchist? Because that is the original topic I replied to. Nobody but the most dumbass of ultras can pretend that the USSR under Stalin was not socialist. Certainly did not achieve higher stage communism as it still had a large peasant class.

[–] hrosts@lemm.ee 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (9 children)

You have managed to miss both the point of the joke and my explanation of it

I know you were sarcastic in the original comment, which is why I asked you to make an actual point.

They key points of your response were:

A state only does welfare policies when it is compelled to by democratic forces.

The USSR [did a lot of welfare]

these policies ... are certainly a strong indicator [of democracy]

The first point you're wrong on, as I have explained.

The second point I agree on.

The third point you are again wrong on, as examples I've provided demonstrate.

Both proofs and indicators serve similar goals rhetorically, I don't see the point of your distinction here. I also didn't say "proof" when criticizing your point:

Your “welfare implies democracy” take

Now going further.

Oh, was the USSR under Stalin fascist then?

I have no idea what led you to think I'm saying this, stop being defensive. It did do some things that, if were done by a western liberal government, would've lead to accusations of fascism, but that is beside the point.

Was it simply “placating” and “disarming” the working population?

That is correct, however; both figuratively and literally.

Nobody but the most dumbass of ultras can pretend

Now you're just posturing. Please stop.

[–] Sodium_nitride@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 6 months ago (8 children)

The first point you're wrong on, as I have explained.

No you haven't. Bismark only implemented his policies to placate a working class as you yourself claim. You only need to placate and disarm a class if they become a threat to your power. Your examples only further reinforce my point that states in general have to be compelled to provide welfare policies. It takes some level of success in class conflict to win concessions.

Both proofs and indicators serve similar goals rhetorically, I don't see the point of your distinction here. I also didn't say "proof" when criticizing your point:

They do not at all. If you drank a soda that tasted sweet, that would be an indicator that it had fructose in it. But it would not be proof as the soda could have artificial sweetners like sacharine instead. The implementation of welfare policies are the result of an intermingling of factors, and each country has its own circumstances.

That is correct, however; both figuratively and literally.

So far, you have yet to explain how exactly the USSR under Stalin was not democratic, which was the whole thing I was mocking your views over.

load more comments (7 replies)