Disclaimer: states are bad

As I understand, the basic structure of the USSR was a solid basis for a government. It wasn't perfect, but no human project is. The biggest flaw outside of extreme centralization was the one-party system, and the stifling of dissenting opinions. 1/

The idea that a one-party govt is effectively a no-party govt is a fallacy. Power ends up only in the hands of the party, which assumes the role of the bourgeoisie. Mechanisms meant for all are turned to serve the party. In theory, because the party is comprised of the 2/

people, those mechanisms serve the people. The histories of the USSR and other ML states show otherwise, with party corruption and abandonment of leftist ideals becoming issues.

If, however, multiple parties were to exist within the basic Soviet government architecture, that 3/

would allow for continual progress and change. Reactionary and counterrevoltionary actions would have to be fought and defeated as never to permit the return of capitalist oppression, with degrees of force as necessary (preferably none physical, but...). Diversity of thought 4/

has a long history of benefit for a population; it's one of the better traits of liberalism. Democratization of all aspects of society is the end goal. Why would we want to ruin that with a single party? /5