I can’t speak for every party adhering to this perfectly, but Marxist-Leninists are Democratic Centralists, ie diversity of discussion, Unity in Action. In most cases, the Party Lines are decided either through direct democracy or through elected Cadre discussing it openly and the party adopting it as such. The concept of an unaccountable leadership is antithetical to Marxism-Leninism, ergo it is reasonable to assume that party members side with the party line, otherwise they wouldn’t be a part of the org.
The article you linked as a demonstration of the party line looks like it was only one person’s editorial, Mick Kelly. Could you link something that was democracy decided?
Here’s the Party Program. At this point, though, you appear to be trying to find semantical holes, rather than acknowledging that official statements by the party are agreed upon by the party.
To me it’s fascinating seeing people in the US try to act like ‘democracy’ is their highest value when the US and liberal manifestations of ‘democracy’ are often manifestly antidemocratic. I can see a line of argument from an anarchist angle about the lack of total consensus and tyranny of the majority, but in practice some of the most oppressed groups in China are going to be newly wealthy businesses owners who are unable to translate their wealth into political power -something which would be ultimately antidemocratic, but normal under liberal ‘democracy’.
Exactly! Excellent point. Honestly, Xi Jinping’s Democracy is Not an Ornament is genuinely a great read on the subject. What matters is if a system is achieving positive results for the people in a manner they support, regardless of whether or not each individual policy was voted on by the masses.
I can’t speak for every party adhering to this perfectly, but Marxist-Leninists are Democratic Centralists, ie diversity of discussion, Unity in Action. In most cases, the Party Lines are decided either through direct democracy or through elected Cadre discussing it openly and the party adopting it as such. The concept of an unaccountable leadership is antithetical to Marxism-Leninism, ergo it is reasonable to assume that party members side with the party line, otherwise they wouldn’t be a part of the org.
The article you linked as a demonstration of the party line looks like it was only one person’s editorial, Mick Kelly. Could you link something that was democracy decided?
Here’s the Party Program. At this point, though, you appear to be trying to find semantical holes, rather than acknowledging that official statements by the party are agreed upon by the party.
To me it’s fascinating seeing people in the US try to act like ‘democracy’ is their highest value when the US and liberal manifestations of ‘democracy’ are often manifestly antidemocratic. I can see a line of argument from an anarchist angle about the lack of total consensus and tyranny of the majority, but in practice some of the most oppressed groups in China are going to be newly wealthy businesses owners who are unable to translate their wealth into political power -something which would be ultimately antidemocratic, but normal under liberal ‘democracy’.
Exactly! Excellent point. Honestly, Xi Jinping’s Democracy is Not an Ornament is genuinely a great read on the subject. What matters is if a system is achieving positive results for the people in a manner they support, regardless of whether or not each individual policy was voted on by the masses.