Elections in Proletariat Dictorships?
- Thread starter Lenin Cat
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Soviet Union was based on same democratical principles as Ankh-Morpork. One man, one vote. And I am very sure that Stalin was that man so he got that vote. I am also sure, that he "rejected" a whole lot of people...
As cruel as it sounds, this is indeed correct.
The "proletariat dictatorship" exists in theory and theory only. It has never actually happened.
And in some communist dictatorships you even have multiparty elections! Like North Korea or DDR, iirc. Not that it means much.
Just an idea to make to dictatorships more interesting. Actually, I think the idea of a non-dictatorship communist state (or fascist state) is a bit odd. If you want a social democracry, why not just have a Socialist party get elected?
As I thought, nothing but communist lies about even a ¨reject¨ option existing. Exactly what was to be expected.
Yeah, and I don't believe in lassez faire economics, but I frequently use such parties when playing. What's your point?
There are many short lived examples of Democratic Communism, Germany is the best example where it almost became the legitimate government but for half an hour. BUT the point is IN game its unrepresntable, for the same reason as Swiss direct democracy is unrepresentable in the game, because their more or less the same situtation.
Not having elections but just one party in central government doesnt make the state not democratic. IF all laws are passed by local governments which are voted on directly by the people. Which they would be.
Maybe a system could be worked out whereby every reform change and law had to pass a popular vote, instead of parties, actions were voted for. but thatd probably take some work.
And so Prol.Dict. works to represent it.
Not having elections but just one party in central government doesnt make the state not democratic. IF all laws are passed by local governments which are voted on directly by the people. Which they would be.
Maybe a system could be worked out whereby every reform change and law had to pass a popular vote, instead of parties, actions were voted for. but thatd probably take some work.
And so Prol.Dict. works to represent it.
If Top Cat were still around, he would tell you that using pistols or swords puts you at an immediate disadvantage.
In Vic1, I did once encountered the US being an one-party anarcho-liberal dictatorship with universal suffrage and elections.
In Vic1, I did once encountered the US being an one-party anarcho-liberal dictatorship with universal suffrage and elections.
Are you sure it just hadn't rolled over to the next month yet after the anarcho-liberals came in?
No, it stayed that way for quite some time. I even made use of it by whooping the US' asses in the Spanish-American war (I was playing Spain), since the country was in constant turmoil with all the revolts that were going on
Yes, still non-existent constitution. I tell you what. Czechoslovakia also allowed christian party to exist. But it did not mean anything. That party was still 100% controled by communists and because of effective back-room politics got only like 3% of votes. Outsider could have told you that it means democracy and elections, while everyone living Czechoslovakia new very well that it was dictatorship.
That might be neat and easy in a game, but how would it actually work in practice? "Landed" status is easy to check/prove - either you own title to real property or you don't. How do you prove you are a "worker"? By having some government guy give you a job with the title "worker's job" on it? I can't see how that would work as anything but a sham. Proving that you don't own (and don't intend to own) shares (Capitalist) would be just as tricky. The most obvious "solution" is to ban ownership of land and businesses - so everyone is a "worker". But then you have to ban all "non-acceptable" parties because some folk will not want to live that way (that's just human nature - for any way of life there are those that don't want it...).
Sorry - not only has it never worked, I don't see that it ever could.
... and for the truth:
The German Democratic Republic held exact ONE multi-party election.
It was the last election and the parliament dissolved itself by declaring
their union with the Federal Republic of Germany in 1990.
The choice before was like "do you want the communists, the communists or the communists to rule you?". If all parties are communist it's very easy to make 'free' elections
The German Democratic Republic held exact ONE multi-party election.
It was the last election and the parliament dissolved itself by declaring
their union with the Federal Republic of Germany in 1990.
The choice before was like "do you want the communists, the communists or the communists to rule you?". If all parties are communist it's very easy to make 'free' elections
But all Paradox games since EU3 are about *Ba dum ching!* Plausible Alternative History (TM)!
Before Stalin & co took power in about 1927, the Communist Party of the USSR was true to Lenin's idea of democratic centralism. Even Lenin wasn't a dictator, he too got overruled by party majority at times. If Stalin would have lost to Trotsky, it is entirely possible that the SU would have become a totalitarian democracy, with a democratic structure within the one and only legal party. Not quite multi-party liberal democracy, but not Stalinist dictatorship either.