Liberals: "At least we have rule of law in our country!" The rule of law in their country:

Many westerners come to socialism not out of necessity, but out of disillusionment. We are raised with the idea that Liberal Democracy is the best system of political expression humanity has devised. When confronted with the reality of its shortcomings, rather than narrowly discard liberalism or electoralism, the western anti-capitalist tends to draw sweeping conclusions about the inadequacy of all existing systems. Curiously, though it would at first seem that such denunciations are more principled and severe, they are in fact more compatible with existing and widespread beliefs about the supremacy of the western system. That is to say, when a Marxist-Leninist asserts the superiority of existing socialist experiments, they are directly challenging the idea that westerners are at the forefront of political development. By contrast, the assertions from anarchists and social democrats that we need to build a more utopian future out of our current apex are compatible not only with each other, as discussed earlier, but also do not really offend bourgeois society at large. They in fact end up not sounding too different from the arch-imperialist Winston Churchill holding forth on how ours is the worst system, except for all the others which have been tried. Western chauvinists, consciously or unconsciously, struggle with the idea that they should study and humbly take lessons from the imperial periphery. [15] It is much easier for the chauvinist, psychologically, to position oneself as at the very front of a new vanguard.

from https://redsails.org/why-marxism/

Philosophically, which is more democratic?

• A system where you cannot vote for the leadership, but policy and outcome is responsive to public interest and opinion: or
• A system where you can vote for the leadership, but said leaders do what they want after being elected and policy and outcome does not correspond to public interest or opinion.

I'm not saying that there's an objectively correct answer, but it's worth considering whether democracy begins at ends at the procedure of elections or whether democratic outcomes are just as/more important.

As an example, when China had its only fatal HSR crash in history, it dissolved the Ministry of Railways and the Minister responsible was given a death sentence (later commuted to life in prison). When a company was found to be selling milk tainted with melamine, two of its executives were executed and one got a death sentence commuted to life in prison.

The Chinese system might not allow you to vote for who sits on the Politburo, but it's repeatedly demonstrated that it's willing to hold the rich and powerful accountable in a way the American system has repeatedly demonstrated that it cannot.

your "democracy" is a sham and here's why

"Democracy is the worst form of Government except for all the others"

What democracy? None of this shit is democratic. Give me a fucking People's Court with a guillotine on the front steps and then tell me about the relative merits of democracy.