One-Party states actualy work?

[ReD_ReBeL]

so my question is Do one-party states actualy work? because so far they have shown to be quite repressive, too controlling and always deem critics as 'counter revolutionaries.' Yea sure not everything done is bad but why does everything end up in massive death tolls usualy? i'm certainly not a pascifist but surely there some level you don't cross is there? also you think seem to tink one-party states often turn out very beauracratic?

For example In Cuba today you are not allowed to be an independant journalist you are only aloud to work for state newspapers and everything has to be checked before published(in case of counter-revolutionary content). here's something what sounds to strict to me....Source (http://www.praguemonitor.com/ctk/?id=20060126E00481)

In former East Germany a music band would have to perform there set infront of party officials(or sumthing of tht sort) before thy played infront of an audience , to make sure there lyrics didn't contained anti-socialism content.

Authors have to have there work checked before it is published to make sure it is suitable and not anti-socialism.

Also Russia under Stalin seemed very beauracratic, he's some paragraphs which prove it. "It is necessary above everything to strengthen one-man management. It is necessary to proceed from the basic assumption that the Director is the supreme chief in the factory. All the employees in the factory must be completely subordinated to him.” (Za Industrializatsiu, Moscow, April 16, 1934.)"

"If a private in national service dies his family gets a pension of between 40 and 240 roubles a month (I.I. Ectikhiev and V.A. Vlassov, Administrative Law of the USSR (Russian), Moscow 1946, p.164), but the family of a deceased colonel gets 1,920 roubles a month (Ibid., p.418). And when Colonel-General V.A. Yuskevich died, his widow was granted a lump sum of 50,000 roubles and a pension of 2,000 roubles a month for life (Pravda, March 17, 1949)."

The list goes on... btw im not a capitalist im a leftist jst not sure weather One-party states actualy work. i'm not pro or anti one party states yet , just trying to make my mind up weather there the best solution or not.
thoughts people?

[Sankara1983]

There is almost always repression in one-party states, but there are some in history that were much more democratic than others. There are some examples (Angola, Afghanistan, DRV, South Yemen) where a fair assessment can not be reached because the state was constantly at war.

The most successful and innovative one-party states, in my opinion (measured by level of popular participation and general effectiveness), were Mozambique (1975-1984), Grenada (1979-1983), and Guinea-Bissau (1974-1980). The governments of Seychelles (1977-1994) and Ghana (1957-1966) were not as democratic but achieved great things.

I would also consider Yugoslavia under Tito a success.

In general I retain skepticism toward one-party states.

[LA GUERRA OLVIDADA]

Anyone who denies that a paranoid and repressive one-party state fucking blows has something mentally wrong with them and needs to be re the fuck educated.

[Rockfan]

Good point LA GUERRA OLVIDADA, and well, eventually, all going well there won't be a party and there wont be a state, Really it's about makeing sure the workers have power during the dictatorship of the Proliteriat, not beauracrats.

[rebelworker]

The point is that who has the right to deceide what freedoom is.
Communism is the collective will, one party state is the rule of a minority.
Absolute Power corrupts absolutely, you dont need a big scientific formula to see this is the case.

we must not replace one set of bosses for another.

[LA GUERRA OLVIDADA]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 06:27 AM
Good point LA GUERRA OLVIDADA, and well, eventually, all going well there won't be a party and there wont be a state, Really it's about makeing sure the workers have power during the dictatorship of the Proliteriat, not beauracrats.
We can hope that at one point in time there won't be a party or state, but how logical is it? History is simply repeating class struggles, nothing is permanent, not even "Communism" or any sort of utopia. The mission of the party (which should be entirely led by workers and should be under sole control of only workers) should be to empower workers, not intellectuals or anyone else. namean?

[jaster]

hypothiticly it could work as, but alas, one has never worked as far as i can remember. in the majority of history the "one-party system" has been nothing but a fancy embellishment on the form of DICTATOR

[Technocrates]

And that is the reason we should oppose it, but a coalition could do.

[Catch22]

One party states don’t make sense when you get right down to it. In any revolutionary struggle there will be multiple organizations working towards the realization of a new political/economic/social order. No revolution has ever witnessed a uniform struggle in which there is only one revolutionary faction. Thus it seems awfully foolish and incredibly arrogant to proclaim the creation of “one revolution, one party”. Such claims are never to inaugurate change, but to justify the repression of other revolutionaries who don’t agree with such an ideal.

[Rockfan]

Originally posted by LA GUERRA OLVIDADA+Jan 28 2006, 07:39 AM--> (LA GUERRA OLVIDADA @ Jan 28 2006, 07:39 AM)
[email protected] 27 2006, 06:27 AM
Good point LA GUERRA OLVIDADA, and well, eventually, all going well there won't be a party and there wont be a state, Really it's about makeing sure the workers have power during the dictatorship of the Proliteriat, not beauracrats.
We can hope that at one point in time there won't be a party or state, but how logical is it? History is simply repeating class struggles, nothing is permanent, not even "Communism" or any sort of utopia. The mission of the party (which should be entirely led by workers and should be under sole control of only workers) should be to empower workers, not intellectuals or anyone else. namean? [/b]
We need to do mor than hope, progressivly working towards it is the only way it will be achived, if we just hope any revolution would end uip stagnating and eventurally fade into the pages of history books.