The simple reason is that electoralism alone will never be able to bring about revolutionary change.
Thoughts that make this true no matter how you nuance it:
-
Note that comrade says “electoralism alone”. We have seen many times, especially in Latin America, the important role liberal democracy can play in advancing revolution, but it only gets the goods when there’s a credible, present, active, militant, revolutionary mass movement who plays a role in the electoral process and gets to help write a new constitution AT MINIMUM.
-
After socialist revolution eventually starts knocking down the bourgeois ‘democracies’ of the imperial core, you’ll probably see national bourgeoisies accept peaceful transitions of power through democratic means. Meaning, if France, Spain, Italy, Greece, the Slavic republics, etc go through a revolutionary process, at some point the remaining capitalist states will buckle to global pressure and take a national compromise that transitions to socialism through peaceful and electoral means to avoid well-established head chopping.
-
Within the bourgeois republics, the ruling class has demonstrated an absolute and unwavering willingness to break their own rules whenever and wherever it is convenient to them. That’s the nature of a class state. It serves its class, not the rules it creates.
Disagree. The propaganda is much more nuanced and insidious than this and relies fundamentally on anti-communism. Most liberals in capitalist republics, I think, will argue that the existing system is not fair. Rich people have obvious, unequal advantages. Things will probably not get substantially better. But they defend the system with a few arguments:
The system is not fair, but it’s not structurally unfair. It’s a specific set of laws and politicians and bad actors who have made the system ineffective, and we can restore an older, more functional form of ‘democracy’ if we utilize the remaining democratic rights available to us to right the ship. That’s what the Blunami ™ is all about.
The system is not fair, but it’s still the best we can do. Any alternative you propose is a failure on its face. Monarchy? No, it’s outmoded. Fascism? No, that’s Nazis. Communism? No, that’s the worst dictatorship of all. There can be no forward progress from capitalism because everybody knows that socialism and communism are dictatorship. You can’t argue with this. Everybody knows it! That’s the whole argument needed, the religious and idealist fervor that requires no evidence because everybody knows.
Your version would fail immediately in the face of reality, and so the bourgeoisie has constructed a much more complex and stable worldview to uphold liberal democracy.