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.
My view is that the most important definition of democracy is the one that highlights why people value it in the first place: the majority of people getting most of what they want, most of the time.
I think the way I’ve phrased it is quite generous, and allows a democracy to be pretty badly flawed and still count. As far as I see it, without most people getting what they want most of the time, democracy is basically the worst form of government. You as a citizen have more work to do, just to still not get the shit you want!
To me, that implies a consequentialist attitude towards it. Basically, democratic systems and processes are only valuable to the extent that they produce democratic outcomes (most people getting what they want). Maybe I’m losing my own thread, but as I’m defining it, a literal monarchy could be a better democracy that one with a “democratic system,” if the monarch in question was better about pursuing the interests of the majority of citizens. But, it would still be desirable to have a democratic system in place rather than one that will change with the whims of the next ruler, on the basis that it could more reliably produce democratic results.
I think it’s also important to consider the “ranking” of democracy compared to other values. To me, it seems clear that democracy (most people getting what they want) is good, but democracy doesn’t validate every shitty thing a bunch of people want to do. Consider a bigoted population democratically deciding to purge a minority population, or the citizens of an imperialist country democratically backing a war.