• if_you_can_keep_it@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    2 years ago

    The only principle is that the economy should be publicly owned and work in the interests of the majority.

    I think it’s reasonable to argue that the almost every democratic party has this principle. Even those that argue for unfettered capitalism can see that as working in the interest of the majority and the only way the economy can be truly “publicly owned”. You can argue that they are wrong but that doesn’t mean they don’t believe they are following those principles just as faithfully.

    If the single party’s ideology is so broad that it basically encompasses “don’t be evil” then I’m not sure I even understand the distinction between having one party and having a “partiless” state (which would effectively make factions within the party defacto parties in and of themselves).

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      I think it’s reasonable to argue that the almost every democratic party has this principle.

      Then the question is why multiple parties are necessary?

      You can argue that they are wrong but that doesn’t mean they don’t believe they are following those principles just as faithfully.

      We have concrete real world evidence backed by theory that this is in fact a fallacious idea.

      If the single party’s ideology is so broad that it basically encompasses “don’t be evil” then I’m not sure I even understand the distinction between having one party and having a “partiless” state (which would effectively make factions within the party defacto parties in and of themselves).

      The ideology, once again, is that the means of production should be publicly owned. This is not nearly as broad as what you wrote here.