Like allowing multiple political parties, full freedom of speech and assembly, abolishing the police, ownership of weapons, direct democracy etc.

The common justification is that they were in a dire situation where allowing too much freedom would allow counterrevolutionaries and foreign imperialists to sabotage and destroy them. I find this unconvincing, to what extent is security better than freedom? To what extent can the current leadership be trusted to "protect the revolution" than possible others better suited who couldnt take power?

Even then, why did the Soviet Union and other communist countries not democratize after WW2 when they arguably established sovereignty with their nuclear weapons?

Just as the capitalist ruling class preferred fascism to losing their power to communists, it seems the Marxist-Leninist rulers preferred capitalism to a more democratic form of socialism.

We see this happen now in Cuba, the last bastion of Marxism-Leninism, where the ruling class has been gradually introducing privatization and market reforms rather than allowing things like open elections, freedom of speech etc. Under capitalism, they can still rule.

      • Churnthrow123 [none/use name]
        ·
        4 years ago

        Places like China get a reputation as dictatorships because they treat """respectable""" people like bankers, business owners, and their propaganda arms (journalists, think tanks, "intellectuals") in the same way that the US treats the poor, racial minorities, etc.

    • GVAGUY3 [he/him]
      ·
      4 years ago

      Xi really did numbers to end a lot of corruption.

    • Churnthrow123 [none/use name]
      ·
      4 years ago

      The US imprisons proportionally about as many people as the USSR did in the GULAG system. Then add in a the people on parole and probation, the NSA, CIA, and FBI, and our tyranny would frankly make Stalin blush.

      The difference is that the US "justice" system targets poor and working people while the Soviets imprisoned a lot more members of the intelligentsia and reminants of the bourgeoisie. No shit the media loves to crow about the "tyranny". It's tyranny because places like the USSR targeted the people who rule our society now. Naturally the wealthy and their lapdogs and voices (most "journalists" and "policy wonks" in the West) freak the fuck out when a system treats them like they treat the so-called lazy poor.

      China is similar. A lot of the people who get executed or imprisoned are corrupt business leaders. Would it really be tyrannical if the CEO of Wells Fargo was perp walked in primetime, or people like Larry Summers disappeared into a van?