39
CA Gov Gavin Newsom "Completely Aligns" With Charlie Kirk On Trans Issues In Podcast
(www.erininthemorning.com)
this post was submitted on 06 Mar 2025
39 points (86.8% liked)
politics
20722 readers
4357 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
How about one party, the Communist Party USA and multiple opinions.
You lost this anarchist at “central authority”
To each their own.
You say that, but it's not "to each his own" under one party rule. It's "even fewer means to express dissent and curb corruption."
It keeps the bad opinions out while keeping flexibility when it comes to socialist policies and allows proper discussions relating how to manage a socialist economy, workers rights, and social laws, etc.
How does it work in practice?
I personally recommend a system where there are multi candidate elections but all candidates have to be part of the same party. This will essentially turn the socialist party into a big tent party albeit the party will have the single goal of progressing towards socialism. Factions in the party will essentially act as a miniature parliament as factions could also create coalitions between each other.
There are two times this happened.
The Early USSR before Stalin took power with there being the right wing of the party who advocated for a market socialist economy and the continuation of voluntary collectivization, the center wing of the party (Stalin’s faction) who advocated for a centrally planned economy and forced collectivization, and finally the left wing of the party who were Trotskyists. There was nothing necessarily wrong with system except that Stalin was given a position which had too much power. The position of General Secretary was too powerful to exist in any democratic government and allowed him to destroy the separation of powers between the different factions (similar to what Trump is doing).
Late USSR under Gorbachev who allowed multi candidate elections albeit almost all candidates had to be party of the CPSU but failed because of the deterioration of the authority of the CPSU caused by the August Coup which strengthened the authority of the government of the RSFSR which was controlled by Yeltsin and friends who destroyed the USSR in support for Russian nationalism (they didn’t want Russia to subsidize its poorer republics and wanted Russia out of the CPSU/Soviet government’s authority).
So not a great track record. Ideals to Trumpism much faster than two party US democracy.
The problem isn’t the two party or one party system. Both provide stability. The problem is the lack of the separation of powers.
The position of General Secretary allowed Stalin to appoint his allies into key positions without any vote from the other factions of the government.
I will admit what occurred under Gorbachev is very similar to what is occurring under the US with Yeltsin essentially being Russia’s Trump who appealed to Russian nationalism and who claimed that he will make Russia great again by getting rid of what he viewed as welfare queens that was the other Soviet republics and getting rid of Soviet authority. But I would also like to point out that the CPSU would have been capable of fighting off this Russian “trumpist” if it wasn’t for the August Coup which deteriorated the CPSU’s authority giving the Soviet government no means to fight back against right-wing nationalism.
Another problem was that Gorbachev did allow some independents to run for government meaning democracy was not kept within the party where factions would have been able to unite against a right wing nationalist.