Is because communists seek consensus, not just majority.

Voting in liberalism (the ideology of capitalism) is like everything else you experience in capitalism; it’s alienating and alienated.

We’ll focus on the alienated part. The liberal vote goes like this: here’s the question, you can answer yes or no, knock yourself out.

They don’t care about anything else. They don’t care if you’re educated or not about the question, or the reasons you might have to be voting one way or the other. All they care about is the box checked on the ballot, and then whichever option gets the most votes, even if it’s one single extra vote, wins.

The communist vote goes like that: here’s the question, why do you want to vote yes or no?

We build consensus. Build is the keyword here: consensus is not reached by random luck or letting enough time pass, it’s a conscious effort that you have to make.

We educate people about the question and their choices, we try to understand why they lean one way or the other, and then we talk with them to give them all the facts they need to make an informed decision.

It’s something we naturally started doing on ProleWiki, we try to reach a consensus for most decisions (the most common ones being account requests). If someone votes no, we want to know their arguments for it, and that’s why most account requests end up with a pure 9-0 result or similar; we talk and convince people to reach one decision or the other. We motivate our own decisions as well; whether you vote yes or no, you’re encouraged to explain why – votes are not yet anonymous in our case.

But there is debate happening, which is healthy and helps reach a better solution.

It’s also what Cuba did for their new constitution. The way these votes happen in liberal democracies is, again, they give you the question, they give you the changes that would happen, and they ask you yes or no and that’s it. The way Cuba did it was to first talk with communities and their citizens, before any vote even took place. Then they refined a proposal based on these discussions, submit drafts for auditing by the population, and then finally the vote happened.

  • mister_monster@monero.town
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    49
    ·
    1 year ago

    You’re fucking delusional if you think communists don’t silence dissent once in power. I’ll prove it to you, right now.

    99% votes are the result of intimidation.

    • Black AOC@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      34
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Now you can’t just walk onto someone else’s federation, be confidently wrong/ignorant/crackerish, and then use the resultant dogpile as “SEE! SEE! I’M BEING SILENCED! I’M BEING SUPPRESSED!” There was literally a Monty Python bit about your kind of punkassed sealionry.

          • DamarcusArt@lemmygrad.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            18
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Don’t you see? By not tolerating this guy’s asshattery, you’ve proved that communism doesn’t work!

            I don’t know how exactly, or why “not tolerating people flinging shit everywhere” is a mark against communism, but it is somehow. Gommunism destroyed.

    • MarxMadness@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      33
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Communists do repress some types of dissent once in power (as capitalists also do). But you know what? Fascists shouldn’t get to vote. I don’t give a damn what a climate change denier thinks about energy policy. Some car dealer wants to hack away at worker protections? Don’t care.

      “But is there free speech for the fascists?” is not actually a measure of good governance.

    • CriticalResist8@lemmygrad.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      To silence dissent there must be actual criticism. Your weirdo comment is only a troll, it has no substance or goal beyond “dare you to ban me”. Therefore banning you is not silencing dissent, it’s more akin to taking out the trash.

      And we all want to live in clean spaces.

    • RedClouds@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Lol what a fucking nut job… As if liberals don’t silence opponents.

      You know how many instances have “people from lemmygrad better watch your shit” posted in their wiki? Yeah fuck you, you silence us so the fucking time.

      Coming from a fucking crypto grifter too. Pathetic.

    • DamarcusArt@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      “Ha! You restaurant claims to allow service for anyone, yet you have a sign that says you can refuse service to anyone! And I just took a big shit on the floor and you’re asking me to leave! I’ve proven my point that you’re all hypocrites!”

    • albigu@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’ll prove it to you, that you don’t know what you’re talking about right now: Source?

    • Iknt@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Write some paragraphs explaining your case. The length about the same as @CriticalResist8 . No, half would do, or even a third, with extra points for sources. Then your post would be taken more seriously.

      • DamarcusArt@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Aha, I’ve made the analogy to how libs react to communist ideas with creationist style rhetoric before. Good to see I’m not the only one who noticed this.