Recently I posted a pretty harmless meme in my DSA chapter’s Discord (see image). It was in response to South Korea’s recent spate of Fascism.

In response I had comrades jump down my throat, attacking me for critical support of AES states like DPRK and China. According to these comrades “there is no real Socialist nation.”

As tempting as it is to quit DSA I think I should stay and try to educate.

Comrades also jumped on me for a comment I made months ago in response to some right wing BS where I said “maybe Democracy isn’t always a great idea”. The point I was trying to make was that Trans rights and other basic freedoms should never be put up to a popularity contest… I’m ok with a state that defends these rights and doesn’t allow a reactionary majority to vote them away!

During this thread, people brought up multiple times that DPRK isn’t Democratic because the Kim’s have always been the figurehead, China isn’t Democratic because “reasons” (racism), China lies about their suicide rates to WHO, etc.

Frustrating. I’ll post more details in the comments.

My question: What constitutes a “real” Democracy? Is it leadership changing hands every few years? We don’t have that in the U.S. Is it secret ballots? All the nationa above have that. Is it that the people’s votes and voices actually change the government actions? We saw this in China unfortunately when people demanded ending the COVID lock downs early. It was the wrong thing to do but done for the right reason.

And is there any hope for these people in my chapter? One of them was basically racist against Chinese people and they seem very set in this “not real Socialism” mindset.

  • miz [any, any]@hexbear.netEnglish
    21·
    20 days ago

    Many westerners come to socialism not out of necessity, but out of disillusionment. We are raised with the idea that Liberal Democracy is the best system of political expression humanity has devised. When confronted with the reality of its shortcomings, rather than narrowly discard liberalism or electoralism, the western anti-capitalist tends to draw sweeping conclusions about the inadequacy of all existing systems. Curiously, though it would at first seem that such denunciations are more principled and severe, they are in fact more compatible with existing and widespread beliefs about the supremacy of the western system. That is to say, when a Marxist-Leninist asserts the superiority of existing socialist experiments, they are directly challenging the idea that westerners are at the forefront of political development. By contrast, the assertions from anarchists and social democrats that we need to build a more utopian future out of our current apex are compatible not only with each other, as discussed earlier, but also do not really offend bourgeois society at large. They in fact end up not sounding too different from the arch-imperialist Winston Churchill holding forth on how ours is the worst system, except for all the others which have been tried. Western chauvinists, consciously or unconsciously, struggle with the idea that they should study and humbly take lessons from the imperial periphery. [15] It is much easier for the chauvinist, psychologically, to position oneself as at the very front of a new vanguard.

    from https://redsails.org/why-marxism/