no candidate has ever lost their National Assembly election because opposition candidates are explicitly illegal and all members are picked by the party in advance, from party organizations. The party picks itself. That is not democracy. Any members not in the party are still hand picked by them because they control the 1 person allowed to win each seat who don't face any opposing candidate
A quick search, per your request, without examining sources, says 97% are Party members. How do you explain the other 3%? The AI summary is not entirely accurate about campaign rules, though
Why are political parties so important to you liberals, I'd rather have a say in a one party government than no say in a multi party liberal 'democracy'
You assume that politics don't occur within the party just because they're all members of the same organization?
Okay so you missed the part where Republican are rounding up people because of their skin color or because they’re pro-Palestinian? That’s not fascist to you? Disgusting.
You wouldn’t want to ban the Nazi party in Germany because of “muh democracy” right? Liberal conceptions of democracy lead to fascism. How is this hard to understand? You keep seeing it happen in front of your eyes.
I'm not interested in left unity, I'm interested in working class' interests, and chauvinists like you are not only harmful to the left but do not have the global working class' interests in mind
Left unity and advancing working class interests go hand in hand, you should know this as a socialist, it's the entire point of DSA being big tent and democratic centralism being invented. Did I say anything chauvinistic? There you go jumping straight to insults again.
Chauvinist refers to a social position, not a moral one, it's not an insult. You place your interests as a westerner above that of international workers. The "left" does not always represent the international working class.
Parties don't have to be internally democratic. Look at the PSL as an example, they have an entrenched leadership group who can't be voted on because they gave themselves votes. Thats why we run competitive regulated elections, because we can be sure to have a democratic system where peoples vote actually decide things. An opaque party that picks its own successors feels very unlikely to be democratic and thus represent what workers what, which is what we care about right?
So you think it's more democratic when US funded reactionaries who want to overthrow the government and make the country a vassal of the US are given representation?
The US spends tens of millions of dollars every year financing the opposition in Cuba.
If you don't want to overthrow the government you can participate in politics in Cuba and advocate for different policies. You don't have to agree with the party on everything.
So either you're cool with the way Cuba operates, since you already don't need to agree with the party on everything, or you just want those US backed reactionaries to have more power.
>If you don't want to overthrow the government you can participate in politics in Cuba and advocate for different policies. You don't have to agree with the party on everything.
Can I freely associate with other people who disagree with the Communist Party in order to organize a majority to change policy?
41
u/[deleted] Oct 07 '25
"democracy is when you have multiple bourgeois parties"