Many countries include 'Democratic' or 'People's' in their names, even though they are not democratic and do not serve their people. Examples: Democratic People's Republic of Korea Lao People's Democratic Republic People's Democratic Republic of Algeria Democratic Republic of the Congo And German Democratic Republic (East Side) in 1949–1990. None of these states are democratic, power and wealth are concentrated in the hands of a small ruling elite. Who are they fooling with these names?

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 2 points 18 minutes ago

For the same reason the Republicans and the Democrats are named that way I guess

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 42 minutes ago

    Hey get this, evil people lie. On purpose

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 1 hour ago (1 child)

    Can't believe you'd ask this question and leave out the People's Republic of China.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 43 minutes ago*

    Tbf I'm not excusing the CCP but they seem to be a lot better about practicing democracy / voting in council and ability to advance in politics than the others on the list, as long as your Han Chinese. Still authoritarian though.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 43 minutes ago

    Authoritarians love nothing more than to deny others the correct language to make progress and to write history.

    They're fraudsters.

  • source
  • [–] 77 points 3 hours ago (1 child)

    Same reason nazis put socialist in name but promptly killed off socialists and trade unions.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 hour ago

    There was a point where the National Socialist Party was actually socialist. But Hitler and his ilk saw a party with popular momentum, joined it, co-opted it, and betrayed the socialist ideals.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 1 hour ago

    The people are democratic.

    The government, not so much.

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 2 hours ago

    Like Citizens United bringing the division and destruction

  • source
  • [–] 34 points 3 hours ago (11 children)

    Same reason the USA has 'United' in its name.

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • load more comments (10 replies)
    [–] 29 points 3 hours ago

    The more corrupt the leaders of a country are, the harder they protest that the country is anything but.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 1 hour ago

    Because it's funny

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 1 hour ago

    Because they're too cowardly to own what they are

  • source
  • [–] 23 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

    It’s a reflection of the state’s earlier aspirations—the justification it used to overthrow the preceding authoritarian state.

    The problem is, the more drastic the social and political changes are that the new regime is trying to enact—and the more entrenched the preceding regime was—the more tempting it is to lean on authoritarian vanguardist methods to cut through the pushback. But once they start down that path, the means inevitably become the ends and everything winds up back where it started.

  • source
  • [–] 21 points 3 hours ago* (1 child)

    You can just say whatever you want, words dont mean anything and people will just go with it. Its just marketing

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 1 hour ago

    "Neither democratic, nor the people's, nor a republic."

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 2 hours ago

    Same reason so many US Republican-created laws that restrict freedom are named after Freedom.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 1 hour ago

    Because revolutions are unreliable. A communist revolution happened, the revolutionaries were flying red flags and fighting to end the old order and bring in a communist utopia. But someone who wanted power and didn't care about the ideals took charge, probably murdered the communist leadership and set up an authoritarian government under the name given by the communist revolutionaries.

    The people's republic of China is different - the communists won and named their country revolutionary style, but found themselves in charge of a massive high population empire. They became authoritarian to manage the country (because communism isn't able to manage even a small country)

  • source
  • Because lying is overpowered.

  • source
  • [–] 1 point 1 hour ago

    So that absolute morons can say stuff like "the Nazis were socialist, it's right there in their name"

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 3 hours ago

    Is all part of the narrative. More they control it, more they look like the "good guys".

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 2 hours ago

    Probably for the same reasons you do not visit the forum, do not own slaves, and let women vote. You have a different understanding of democracy than the ancient Greeks. That is how it is with them too.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 3 hours ago
    [–] 9 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

    Because they started off as communist revolutions

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 hours ago* (1 child)

    A revolution without a solid, detailed plan for how to actually run the country afterword is just teenage angst exercised at a larger scale.

    "We're going to be a social anarchist commune!" does not count as a plan. It's an aspiration at best.

    If there is no plan laid out, with strong community buy-in, then what always happens is that the "revolution" gets co-opted by someone to serve their own power-hungry ambitions.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 5 points 3 hours ago

    It's an introductory lie. It supposed to get you used to lying.

    It doesn't work on everybody. You must be one of "THOSE".

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 2 hours ago

    same as why maga says its going to make things great or make bills they call beutiful.

  • source
  • [–] 3 points 2 hours ago (2 children)

    Cause you expect the west hegemonic definition of democratic.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 hour ago (1 child)

    Is there a competing definition of democratic?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 44 minutes ago* (1 child)

    The Marxist view is that capitalist countries are anti-democratic because the bourgeois class has the power to both sway elections and exert influence over people's lives outside of the political sphere. True democracy means a state that actually represents the people's interests, which in turn requires suppressing the political influence wielded by the rich.

    The liberal view is that the state's capacity for repression is uniquely dangerous, and so freedom just means being able to act without interference from the state (not from private entities), and what determines whether a state is free or not is whether it adheres to certain principles. In that view, a Marxist state that represses the bourgeoisie is violating the principle against political repression, and is therefore not democratic.

    On the other hand, Marxists point to things like capitalist states repressing strikes to show that in those countries, the state is also willing to act on behalf of the people who control it, and that that this whole idea of a state being constrained by "principles" or "norms" and somehow being independent of class conflict is nonsense and just not how politics works. This is because Marxists view ideas as being the products of material conditions and material interests, and so any such "norms" or "principles" are only as strong as whatever class interests are invested in upholding them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 28 minutes ago (1 child)

    bourgeois class has the power to both sway elections and exert influence over people's lives outside of the political sphere.

    That is absolutely a fair criticism.

    But is there anywhere doing or attempting democracy by your definition?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 hours ago (2 children)

    In the West we've been getting 50/50 splits on voting, whereas out east it's all 99/sent for re-education. Which of these seems more hegemonic to you?

    Edit @+2hrs & change: At time of edit, the votes I see on my response here are 6/5, which is pretty close to 50/50. I can't tell whether that's been deliberately engineered by naysayers or the most juicy of ironies. Either way. Bravo. That's hilarious.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 27 minutes ago

    In the West we’ve been getting 50/50 splits on voting

    Close elections are a fairly meaningless metric, especially when all candidates agree on certain key issues.

    whereas out east

    "Out east?" Where? There's tons of different countries with all kinds of different governments in what's classically considered the East. There isn't even a Comintern to generalize about, but it doesn't seem to slow you down at all.

    Have you actually studied the government structure of, say, Laos? I doubt it. So, where did you get this information you're confidently repeating about it? Mind-boggling how liberals will just say shit. Lazy stereotyping at best.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 hours ago (2 children)

    Elections≠Democracy. Again, you are expecting liberal west (or hegemonic) "democracy". I am not making a moral judgement of either, just trying to explain that the definition of democracy that has been shoved to the people's brain of the global north (hegemony) is not the only or the correct one.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 1 hour ago (1 child)

    What does hegemony mean here? And what would a non-hegemonic democracy look like?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 55 minutes ago

    I mean it in Gramsci's terms. For the second question I would say the ones cited by OP are good examples but horizontal organization is my preferred one, look about EZLN ways of horizontal democracy. Again not saying they are the correct or morally good ones either.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›