Two parties is bad enough. I will never, ever trust a one-party government. That’s like — what if conspiracy theories, but they are just public policy? Frankly not unlike our government currently, but I’d prefer more parties than fewer.
It depends on the party. Being able to pick from of a dozen different parties of capital is no different from picking from a dozen brands of peanut butter that came out of the same factory.
Depends on how democratic the mechanisms of the party is. Cuba’s party has only become more democratic as time has gone on, and resulted in better outcomes for the people and enshrining gay rights in a constitutional referendum, which passed with 90%+ in favor. China’s party has certainly became more democratic than in the 2000s when politicians were openly controlled by business.
It’s not useful to analyze parties and states in a vacuum independent of each other, the ultimate proof of how democratic a system is is whether its results favor the people or capital.
Yea when one of the “became more democratic” also involve persecution and incarceration of ethnic groups, it has failed. Again, authoritarianism doesn’t work. You may have stints where it seems okay from the outside but it won’t end in the favor of the people.
More parties is a disaster. The Netherlands is a prime example. Hundreds of parties so no one ever has majority which means they always have to do a coalition. And if course that means hardly anything gets done because there is never consensus. And you can count how many times in the last decade, the Dutch government either resigned or fell.
That is why it’s a bit of mess and people have totally lost faith in politics in the Netherlands.
The Dutch actually have a real pedophile party - much smaller than the Republican party in the US - but still. There is a pirate party, animal party, party against citizens.
At least in China, shit gets done. There are 5,10, 15 and 25 year plans and generally the government doesn’t deviate from it. Of course every year they discuss and make adjustments but the main points remain. In China’s case it’s self reliance, green energy, technology, infrastructure and social security and services.
Makes it easier for business to better anticipate and innovate as you know what the goals are.
That photo shows a paper with all eligible representatives for all eligible parties for that election. We don’t have “hundreds of parties” (although we have, IMO, too many — but a fair few of them are splinter fractions on the right).
One-party is awesome for you if who you like is in power (or you don’t even think about it). But when they aren’t and/or times are not good, the only way to change is through coup or civil war…not fun, especially in complex societies.
Two parties is bad enough. I will never, ever trust a one-party government. That’s like — what if conspiracy theories, but they are just public policy? Frankly not unlike our government currently, but I’d prefer more parties than fewer.
It depends on the party. Being able to pick from of a dozen different parties of capital is no different from picking from a dozen brands of peanut butter that came out of the same factory.
No single party won’t eventually turn into a mess. Authoritarianism is never going to end well for the population.
Depends on how democratic the mechanisms of the party is. Cuba’s party has only become more democratic as time has gone on, and resulted in better outcomes for the people and enshrining gay rights in a constitutional referendum, which passed with 90%+ in favor. China’s party has certainly became more democratic than in the 2000s when politicians were openly controlled by business.
It’s not useful to analyze parties and states in a vacuum independent of each other, the ultimate proof of how democratic a system is is whether its results favor the people or capital.
Yea when one of the “became more democratic” also involve persecution and incarceration of ethnic groups, it has failed. Again, authoritarianism doesn’t work. You may have stints where it seems okay from the outside but it won’t end in the favor of the people.
No system that challenges Western hegemony could ever “work” so long as your perspective is grounded in its propaganda.
Two wings of the same bird of prey, unfortunately.
More parties is a disaster. The Netherlands is a prime example. Hundreds of parties so no one ever has majority which means they always have to do a coalition. And if course that means hardly anything gets done because there is never consensus. And you can count how many times in the last decade, the Dutch government either resigned or fell. That is why it’s a bit of mess and people have totally lost faith in politics in the Netherlands. The Dutch actually have a real pedophile party - much smaller than the Republican party in the US - but still. There is a pirate party, animal party, party against citizens.
At least in China, shit gets done. There are 5,10, 15 and 25 year plans and generally the government doesn’t deviate from it. Of course every year they discuss and make adjustments but the main points remain. In China’s case it’s self reliance, green energy, technology, infrastructure and social security and services. Makes it easier for business to better anticipate and innovate as you know what the goals are.
Dutch voting form the size of a newspaper
That photo shows a paper with all eligible representatives for all eligible parties for that election. We don’t have “hundreds of parties” (although we have, IMO, too many — but a fair few of them are splinter fractions on the right).
Don’t spread bullshit, please.
One-party is awesome for you if who you like is in power (or you don’t even think about it). But when they aren’t and/or times are not good, the only way to change is through coup or civil war…not fun, especially in complex societies.