The Khmer Rouge was never socialist
They weren't socialist bc they took a step past socialism and into communism directly. They abolished money, replaced army with armed militia, achieved direct democracy, abolished institution of family, replaced farmers with agrarian proletariat, achieved 100% public housing. USSR is a capitalist shithole compared to Democratic Kampuchea.
I'm not a communist bro.
Dunno. Dropping friends due to politics seems totally cringe. Civilized people should have the option of "let's not talk about politics" instead of breaking up relationships.
Considering I don't know any democracy that laster longer than 200-300 years and there are a lot of monarchies that lasted for many hundreds or even thousands of years.
Easy: democracies don't last long compared to the other forms government. So they can't be better than other forms of government.
What's the longest lifespan of a democratic state in human history? Now compare it to the average lifespan of monarchies, for example.
Yes. Obviously.
No. Both are shit.
No.
Democracy and dictatorship is not a dichotomy.
There is no practical alternative to this
An alternative would be to stop trying to overthrow some classes and touch grass
Soviet Union bureaucracy was not the proletariat, they didn't use the mop to produce commodities, so they didn't have proletarian class consciousness. Whatever interests they had, it was not working class interests. Lenin, Trotsky and Sverdlov were one nobleman and two petty bourgeoisie.
Looking at today's monarchies, the conditions are about the same as in today's democracies.
The same?
The same average amount of suffering.
It's obviously the most important parameter. If the govt system can't even sustain itself for long enough, then it's not even worth considering it.
Thanks for sharing your opinion.