• OrganicMustard@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    There is no distinction. A socialist/communist party with a majority in a parliament forms a government, and there are examples of those elected. Even a lot of the authoritarian ones established in a revolution had a parliament with non communist parties having representatives.

    • realitista@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      Of course there’s a distinction. A partial socialist/communist government has never implement full communism (seize the means of production and guarantee equal distribution of resources). That’s only ever been done by force.

      They have achieved things like universal health care and education, however, and for that we should all be grateful. IMHO the best case scenario really is a parliamentary system with a socialist majority to get these kind of things passed but leave a heavily regulated capitalist economic system in place.

      • OrganicMustard@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        You are repeating false statements. There have been fully communist elected governments in Nepal, India, San Marino and probably more. In Spain we had a elected republican government run mainly by socialists and even an anarchist president.

        The reason why most of them have been through a revolution is because they were declared illegal.

        • realitista@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          Nepal: Installed by force in the armed uprising against Rana rule in 1951

          India: Never seized the means of production (or really got very powerful IMO)

          San Marino: Attemped a coup and never seized the means of production.