There are three options here, leftist which is anarchist or communist, but the anarchists don't vote so they're functionally irrelevant. The other options are neoliberal or tory. There aren't any others, pretending there are is absolute nonsense and your unwillingness to just speak straight instead of in riddles makes you sus from the outset.

[–] jerdle_lemmy@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

There's a lot of room on the left between communism and neoliberalism. Have you heard of non-communist socialism (e.g. Titoist market socialism)?

[–] Lenins2ndCat@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Claiming Tito was not a communist is getting kinda weird given the party was called the League of Communists of Yugoslavia

[–] jerdle_lemmy@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm personally closer to social democracy, but relatively on the left of that area, towards market socialism.

[–] Lenins2ndCat@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Why Tito's market socialism and not SWCC then?

[–] jerdle_lemmy@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because I prefer my ideology with less authoritarianism. SWCC is borderline fascist.

[–] Lenins2ndCat@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

SWCC is borderline fascist.

Why do you say that? The electoral structure is almost identical to Cuba, although significantly larger in scale (due to obvious population differences), both systems were derivative of the USSR's system.

What unique structural feature makes you call one fascist over the other? I at least assume you don't consider Cuba fascist. And what exactly is your take on the USSR? You are aware that the electoral system of Yugoslavia under Tito was also extremely similar right? I mention this since you implied you were fond of titoism.

[–] mycorrhiza@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago

I think Salvador Allende tried that. The west couped him and installed a fascist dictator who threw leftists out of helicopters.