There are three options here, leftist which is anarchist or communist, but the anarchists don’t vote so they’re functionally irrelevant. The other options are neoliberal or tory. There aren’t any others, pretending there are is absolute nonsense and your unwillingness to just speak straight instead of in riddles makes you sus from the outset.
Why do you say that? The electoral structure is almost identical to Cuba, although significantly larger in scale (due to obvious population differences), both systems were derivative of the USSR’s system.
What unique structural feature makes you call one fascist over the other? I at least assume you don’t consider Cuba fascist. And what exactly is your take on the USSR? You are aware that the electoral system of Yugoslavia under Tito was also extremely similar right? I mention this since you implied you were fond of titoism.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it’s related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).
If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to [email protected]!
Rules
Posts must be on topic.
Be respectful of others.
Cite the sources used for graphs and other statistics.
There are three options here, leftist which is anarchist or communist, but the anarchists don’t vote so they’re functionally irrelevant. The other options are neoliberal or tory. There aren’t any others, pretending there are is absolute nonsense and your unwillingness to just speak straight instead of in riddles makes you sus from the outset.
There’s a lot of room on the left between communism and neoliberalism. Have you heard of non-communist socialism (e.g. Titoist market socialism)?
I think Salvador Allende tried that. The west couped him and installed a fascist dictator who threw leftists out of helicopters.
Claiming Tito was not a communist is getting kinda weird given the party was called the League of Communists of Yugoslavia
I’m personally closer to social democracy, but relatively on the left of that area, towards market socialism.
Why Tito’s market socialism and not SWCC then?
Because I prefer my ideology with less authoritarianism. SWCC is borderline fascist.
Why do you say that? The electoral structure is almost identical to Cuba, although significantly larger in scale (due to obvious population differences), both systems were derivative of the USSR’s system.
What unique structural feature makes you call one fascist over the other? I at least assume you don’t consider Cuba fascist. And what exactly is your take on the USSR? You are aware that the electoral system of Yugoslavia under Tito was also extremely similar right? I mention this since you implied you were fond of titoism.