# People's Republic of Tyranny - why bother with the name or show elections? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [October 28, 2014, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peoples-republic-of-tyranny-why-bother-with-the-name-or-show-elections/702767 "2014-10-28T15:56:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Hector\_St\_Clare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b5ac83/32.png) [@Hector\_St\_Clare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hector_St_Clare)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2014, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peoples-republic-of-tyranny-why-bother-with-the-name-or-show-elections/702767/21 "2014-10-29T02:43:55Z")
> [@UDS](#): > > After the war, the satellite states established by the Soviet Union in Eastern Europe tended to be called "People’s Republic of . . . ". This is because the states they were succeeding had themselves commonly been republics, and styled as such. E.g. prewar Poland was the “Republic of Poland”; postwar it became the “Polish People’s Republic”. In the Soviet view, while the prewar states had indeed been republics, they had been bourgeois republics, dominated by the bourgeoisie. The new states would be true popular republics; hence the name. For the same reason the Republic of China became the People’s Republic of China in 1949. > > A similar evolution explains such constructions as “Democratic Republic” and “Socialist Republic”; the intention is usually to distinguish a new regime from the preceding bourgeois “Republic”. Or, in cases like North Vietnam, North Korea and East Germany, to distinguish it from an adjacent bourgeois republic for the same nation. > > I suspect constructions like “People’s Democratic Socialist Republic” result either from an excess of enthusiasm, or from one supposedly communist state being succeeded by another even more communist state. This is right. The claim of communists and socialists is that their regimes are more genuinely ‘democratic’- not in the sense of ‘the people ruling’, but in the sense of ‘ruling on behalf of the people, and for their own good’- than bourgeois-liberal regimes, which rule in the interests of the bourgeoisie. ---
**Author:** ![jtur88](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e9c0ed/32.png) [@jtur88](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jtur88)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2014, 2:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peoples-republic-of-tyranny-why-bother-with-the-name-or-show-elections/702767/22 "2014-10-29T02:55:05Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > And what? > > He was still elected to office. > > He didn’t inherit office by royal blood. By whom? 28,000 people (in a nation of 3-million), running unopposed, with only one name on the ballot. Hitler and Stalin were also “elected”. Here’s the bottom line – Every country , no exceptions, claims to be more democratic than it actually is. International observers who monitor elections put the USA about the middle of the pack in terms of fairness of elections. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2014, 4:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peoples-republic-of-tyranny-why-bother-with-the-name-or-show-elections/702767/23 "2014-10-29T04:40:41Z")
Most tyrannies are propped by a minority, of various sizes. Even if the majority opposes the regime, there are still various levels of disgruntlement and revolt for that matter. For both active and passive supporters, propaganda can make a difference. It is effective whether a minority believe that they believe it or whether passive supporters figure it’s partly true. ---
**Author:** ![Nava](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/da6949/32.png) [@Nava](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nava)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2014, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peoples-republic-of-tyranny-why-bother-with-the-name-or-show-elections/702767/24 "2014-10-29T05:01:05Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > And what? > > He was still elected to office. > > He didn’t inherit office by royal blood. The Holy Roman Emperors were elected. That doesn’t make them democrats. ---
**Author:** ![Schnitte](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/schnitte/32/9033_2.png) [@Schnitte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Schnitte)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2014, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peoples-republic-of-tyranny-why-bother-with-the-name-or-show-elections/702767/25 "2014-10-29T18:36:56Z")
> [@njtt](#): > > This is nonsense on stilts, except inasmuch as there is some resemblance between any two things in the world that you can point to or name. > > Nazi practice and Communist _practice_, during the 20th century, had some similarities, in that both resulted in brutal totalitarian regimes, but Nazi/Fascist and Communist _ideology_ are about as far apart as two political ideologies could possibly be. Furthermore, although the Nazis and Fascists were presumably quite comfortable with the totalitarian, regimented and top-down structure of their regimes (which was in accord with their ideology of strength, human inequality, national solidarity, and charismatic leadership), Communists never were. The major Communist governments always justified their totalitarianism, not just to their subjects but to themselves, as being an unfortunate, temporary expedient, necessary only because they were both trying to impose rapid social change on their societies, and were surrounded and under severe threat from hostile capitalist (and, later, fascist) powers. Totalitarianism was never supposed to be the end-game for Communism, indeed, according to the ideology, the state (and all semblance of nations and nationalism) was supposed, eventually, to “whither away”. > > These radically different ideologies explain why Communists and Nazis/fascists passionately hated each other, and why the Nazis and fascist routes to power were often facilitated by wealthy capitalists, who saw them, quite accurately, as a powerful countervailing political movement with the potential to stem the rise of Communism. > > This, to some extent, also answers the OP question. Communist regimes call themselves democratic because this is what they aspire to be (once - per impossible, perhaps - they have created a stable and well functioning communistic economic system). **mbh** beat me providing a link to the 25 point programme, which remained the official NSDAP party manifesto right until the end. Extensive parts of it look pretty socialist to me. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Kobayashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4af34b/32.png) [@Mr.Kobayashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Kobayashi)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2014, 7:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peoples-republic-of-tyranny-why-bother-with-the-name-or-show-elections/702767/26 "2014-10-29T19:06:19Z")
He was actually asked what was up with the whole ‘socialism’ part of the NSDAP, in 1923. > [@http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2007/sep/17/greatinterviews1](#): > > “Why,” I asked Hitler, “do you call yourself a National Socialist, since your party programme is the very antithesis of that commonly accredited to socialism?” > > “Socialism,” he retorted, putting down his cup of tea, pugnaciously, "is the science of dealing with the common weal. Communism is not Socialism. Marxism is not Socialism. The Marxians have stolen the term and confused its meaning. I shall take Socialism away from the Socialists. > > "Socialism is an ancient Aryan, Germanic institution. Our German ancestors held certain lands in common. They cultivated the idea of the common weal. Marxism has no right to disguise itself as socialism. Socialism, unlike Marxism, does not repudiate private property. Unlike Marxism, it involves no negation of personality, and unlike Marxism, it is patriotic. > > “We might have called ourselves the Liberal Party. We chose to call ourselves the National Socialists. We are not internationalists. Our socialism is national. We demand the fulfilment of the just claims of the productive classes by the state on the basis of race solidarity. To us state and race are one.” ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2014, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peoples-republic-of-tyranny-why-bother-with-the-name-or-show-elections/702767/27 "2014-10-29T19:28:33Z")
> [@jtur88](#): > > The USA called itself and and its elections democratic, when George Washington was re-elected to a second term with fewer than 2% of the citizenry casting a vote for him. [Wow](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1788%E2%80%931789#Popular_vote). I never knew that. > [@Velocity](#): > > And what? > > He was still elected to office. > > He didn’t inherit office by royal blood. He was elected by a tiny fraction of white males with significant land holdings. And 4 of 10 states did not choose their electors by popular vote, so he wasn’t really elected to office in any meaningful sense. You might as well say that the Speaker of the House is elected to that office (obviously he _is_ elected to his House seat.) ---
**Author:** ![GreasyJack](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/df705f/32.png) [@GreasyJack](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreasyJack)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2014, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peoples-republic-of-tyranny-why-bother-with-the-name-or-show-elections/702767/28 "2014-10-29T20:27:05Z")
One other thing is that even if being a putative democracy isn’t fooling anyone into thinking _you’re_ actually a functioning democracy, you can still use it to imply that every other democracy is also a farce, and perhaps that your farce democracy is one of the least farcical. ---
**Author:** ![Leo\_Bloom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leo_bloom/32/10377_2.png) [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2014, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peoples-republic-of-tyranny-why-bother-with-the-name-or-show-elections/702767/29 "2014-10-29T20:52:21Z")
This is obviously careening out of forum, but before it does, kudos to **Donnerwetter** for “Despocy.” Now I’m going to go look it up to see if it’s a real word to anyone else. If not, it is now. ---
**Author:** ![Leo\_Bloom](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leo_bloom/32/10377_2.png) [@Leo\_Bloom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leo_Bloom)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2014, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peoples-republic-of-tyranny-why-bother-with-the-name-or-show-elections/702767/30 "2014-10-29T20:54:35Z")
All I got is “a neologism of Karsavin.” Did he steal it from you? ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2014, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peoples-republic-of-tyranny-why-bother-with-the-name-or-show-elections/702767/31 "2014-10-29T21:49:13Z")
> [@Schnitte](#): > > **mbh** beat me providing a link to the 25 point programme, which remained the official NSDAP party manifesto right until the end. Extensive parts of it look pretty socialist to me. Oh, honestly. I don’t know how many times we’ve gone through this on this board. The NSDAP was originally a socialist party. But as Hitler was coming to power, he began relying on various industrialists and land-owning families for monetary support. In order to keep their backing, he purged the socialists from the party. Additionally, once in power, Hitler quickly outlawed the German Socialist party, rounded up its leaders and threw them in prison or had them executed. Then he busted the unions, depressed worker wages and tied them to their jobs in a system of industrial serfdom. The NSDAP never changed its platform, but by 1934, it was only paying lip-service to what we commonly think of as socialism. You and **mbh** are being extremely misleading. ---
**Author:** ![LSLGuy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lslguy/32/5813_2.png) [@LSLGuy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LSLGuy)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2014, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peoples-republic-of-tyranny-why-bother-with-the-name-or-show-elections/702767/32 "2014-10-30T00:59:48Z")
> [@Leo\_Bloom](#): > > This is obviously careening out of forum, but before it does, kudos to **Donnerwetter** for “Despocy.” > > Now I’m going to go look it up to see if it’s a real word to anyone else. If not, it is now. I’d like to add my congrats for **Donnerwetter** ’s “Totalitarian State of San Seriffe”. I wonder if Seriffe should rhyme with “sheriff” or sound more like “suh-REEF-Ay”? ---
**Author:** ![handsomeharry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e9c0ed/32.png) [@handsomeharry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/handsomeharry)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2014, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peoples-republic-of-tyranny-why-bother-with-the-name-or-show-elections/702767/33 "2014-10-30T04:55:59Z")
> [@jtur88](#): > > By whom? 28,000 people (in a nation of 3-million), running unopposed, with only one name on the ballot. Hitler and Stalin were also “elected”. Hitler was appointed, legally, by Pres. Hindenberg under the Weimar Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![handsomeharry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e9c0ed/32.png) [@handsomeharry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/handsomeharry)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2014, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peoples-republic-of-tyranny-why-bother-with-the-name-or-show-elections/702767/34 "2014-10-30T04:57:07Z")
> [@BrightNShiny](#): > > Oh, honestly. I don’t know how many times we’ve gone through this on this board. The NSDAP was originally a socialist party. But as Hitler was coming to power, he began relying on various industrialists and land-owning families for monetary support. In order to keep their backing, he purged the socialists from the party. > > Additionally, once in power, Hitler quickly outlawed the German Socialist party, rounded up its leaders and threw them in prison or had them executed. Then he busted the unions, depressed worker wages and tied them to their jobs in a system of industrial serfdom. Yes, but, let’s be real…he had his flaws, too. ---
**Author:** ![handsomeharry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e9c0ed/32.png) [@handsomeharry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/handsomeharry)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2014, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peoples-republic-of-tyranny-why-bother-with-the-name-or-show-elections/702767/35 "2014-10-30T04:59:11Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > [Wow](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1788%E2%80%931789#Popular_vote). I never knew that. > > He was elected by a tiny fraction of white males with significant land holdings. And 4 of 10 states did not choose their electors by popular vote, so he wasn’t really elected to office in any meaningful sense. Except that he was elected, using the qualifications for the electorate then extant. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2014, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peoples-republic-of-tyranny-why-bother-with-the-name-or-show-elections/702767/36 "2014-10-30T05:06:07Z")
> [@handsomeharry](#): > > Except that he was elected, using the qualifications for the electorate then extant. Sure. And the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China is elected using the qualification for the electorate for that office now extant. And the pope is elected using the qualifications for the electorate for that office now extant. But none of these elections could justifiably be called “democratic”, which was jtur88’s point. ---
**Author:** ![Schnitte](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/schnitte/32/9033_2.png) [@Schnitte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Schnitte)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2014, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peoples-republic-of-tyranny-why-bother-with-the-name-or-show-elections/702767/37 "2014-10-30T18:28:27Z")
> [@BrightNShiny](#): > > Oh, honestly. I don’t know how many times we’ve gone through this on this board. The NSDAP was originally a socialist party. But as Hitler was coming to power, he began relying on various industrialists and land-owning families for monetary support. In order to keep their backing, he purged the socialists from the party. > > Additionally, once in power, Hitler quickly outlawed the German Socialist party, rounded up its leaders and threw them in prison or had them executed. Then he busted the unions, depressed worker wages and tied them to their jobs in a system of industrial serfdom. > > The NSDAP never changed its platform, but by 1934, it was only paying lip-service to what we commonly think of as socialism. You and **mbh** are being extremely misleading. **njtt** , who claimed that any likening of Nazi and socialist ideology was nonsense on stilts, himself conceded that in terms of what the regimes turned out to be in actual practice is not so different (and honestly, a lot of what you described as post-_Machtergreifung_ policies are not too different from what, e.g., the Communists did in East Germany post-1945: They forcibly merged the SPD party into the SED; rounded up, banned unions that were not under SED control, depressed real purchasing-power wages to a standard of living far below the capitalist West, and introcuded a system that effectively abolished people’s freedom to choose which profession to take up). Now we’re discussing whether there are parallels between what the Nazis and the socialists _claimed_ they would do, at lo behold, there are parallels. I’m not saying national socialism and socialism are the same thing, but to deny that there are considerable ideological overlaps, as you appear to be doing, is, to use your words, extremely misleading. ---
**Author:** ![BrightNShiny](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7bcc69/32.png) [@BrightNShiny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrightNShiny)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2014, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peoples-republic-of-tyranny-why-bother-with-the-name-or-show-elections/702767/38 "2014-10-30T19:04:38Z")
> [@Schnitte](#): > > **njtt** , who claimed that any likening of Nazi and socialist ideology was nonsense on stilts, himself conceded that in terms of what the regimes turned out to be in actual practice is not so different (and honestly, a lot of what you described as post-_Machtergreifung_ policies are not too different from what, e.g., the Communists did in East Germany post-1945: They forcibly merged the SPD party into the SED; rounded up, banned unions that were not under SED control, depressed real purchasing-power wages to a standard of living far below the capitalist West, and introcuded a system that effectively abolished people’s freedom to choose which profession to take up). Well, which is it? Were the Nazis socialists or communists? Why not throw in anarchist and libertarian in there as well while you’re at it? We can just keep comparing the Nazis to each and every single ideology under the sun. > [@](#): > > Now we’re discussing whether there are parallels between what the Nazis and the socialists _claimed_ they would do, at lo behold, there are parallels. I’m not saying national socialism and socialism are the same thing, but to deny that there are considerable ideological overlaps, as you appear to be doing, is, to use your words, extremely misleading. Nope, I’m not the one who’s being misleading. The Nazis set up a crony-capitalist cartel system. It’s true, that once they were on war-footing, they economy took on a lot of central planning, but all war economies do that, and that’s not indicative of the underlying structure. The Nazis abandoned pretty much anything that could be termed socialist in that 25 point plan once Hitler took over the party. You are simply ignorant of Nazi economic policies. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2014, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peoples-republic-of-tyranny-why-bother-with-the-name-or-show-elections/702767/39 "2014-10-30T19:05:36Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > I’d like to add my congrats for **Donnerwetter** ’s “Totalitarian State of San Seriffe”. Its capital is the lovely city of Verdana. ---
**Author:** ![Schnitte](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/schnitte/32/9033_2.png) [@Schnitte](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Schnitte)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2014, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peoples-republic-of-tyranny-why-bother-with-the-name-or-show-elections/702767/40 "2014-10-30T19:55:01Z")
> [@BrightNShiny](#): > > Well, which is it? Were the Nazis socialists or communists? Why not throw in anarchist and libertarian in there as well while you’re at it? We can just keep comparing the Nazis to each and every single ideology under the sun. Sorry, but I fail to see the argument there. > [@](#): > > Nope, I’m not the one who’s being misleading. The Nazis set up a crony-capitalist cartel system. It’s true, that once they were on war-footing, they economy took on a lot of central planning, but all war economies do that, and that’s not indicative of the underlying structure. They set up their central planning long before the war. My impression is that you’re trying to pass off Nazi ideology as a capitalist-driven system, which is precisely what socialist propaganda tried to do for decades without ever advancing convincing arguments. The only thing that even remotely resembles an argument in this context is the fact that in the early 1930s, some entrepreneurs provided funding for the Nazi party, but that’s hardly indicative of the underlying structures. Post-1933 Nazi policies were certainly far from being in line with free enterprise. > [@](#): > > The Nazis abandoned pretty much anything that could be termed socialist in that 25 point plan once Hitler took over the party. You are simply ignorant of Nazi economic policies. Go then. Tell me what, exactly, I am ignorant about. I’m excited to hear. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peoples-republic-of-tyranny-why-bother-with-the-name-or-show-elections/702767.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/peoples-republic-of-tyranny-why-bother-with-the-name-or-show-elections/702767.md?page=3)