• PhenomenalPancake@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    9 days ago

    So the Bolsheviks weren’t the dominant party that eliminated all the others after they won the Civil War?

    And remind me what happened to public figures who spoke against the premier in any way? I’m sure nobody complained because they loved the government so much that they’d never say a bad word about it…

    • davetortoise@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      9 days ago

      Yes, that’s right. The point I’m making is that elections worked very differently to the party politics people are used to, with an emphasis on people personally knowing their representatives. To the average voter, the bolshevik party wasn’t very relevant when they were choosing between two guys who lived on their street.

    • lad@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 days ago

      I think, there were some more events, and maybe they involved elections, too. And after that all the other parties were eliminated, because it turned out that it’s easier to rule when there’s no other options

      • PhenomenalPancake@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        9 days ago

        Because eliminating representatives who might disagree with you is much more democratic than allowing a multiple party system.

        • GodlessCommie@lemmy.worldOPM
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          9 days ago

          I’ve never seen anyone arguing more for their own oppression than you. Multiple parties is completely undemocratic, which is the authoritarian government you claim single party countries have.