Are people too stupid for Democracy?

[Chicano Shamrock]

I have been thinking about this a lot lately. Libertarian ideas hang on the thought that people can come around to agree on a just way of society. I just don't know if the human being is smart enough for democracy.

Should stupid people get a vote when they would likely vote against their self interest?

I don't know if a different schooling system or something untainted by our current propaganda would help any. I think the majority of humans might not have the propensity to be involved in abstract thought about future political paradigms.

Is an authoritarian approach needed to bring justice to society because people can't be trusted to be in their own corner?

[roy]

even cavemen were able to effectively organise their societies according to self- and collective (can't have one without the other) interest. if people are 'stupid', then communism is useless, whether it be authoritarian or libertarian. i think people are a lot smarter than people give people credit for anyway, people.

[Manic Impressive]

I have been thinking about this a lot lately. Libertarian ideas hang on the thought that people can come around to agree on a just way of society. I just don't know if the human being is smart enough for democracy.

Should stupid people get a vote when they would likely vote against their self interest?

I don't know if a different schooling system or something untainted by our current propaganda would help any. I think the majority of humans might not have the propensity to be involved in abstract thought about future political paradigms.

Is an authoritarian approach needed to bring justice to society because people can't be trusted to be in their own corner?
That's what Lenin thought when he said that the working class will only ever be able to attain trade union consciousness.

[MustCrushCapitalism]

There is a pretty good argument that the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is not maintained due to a lack of democracy, but because of it. The basis of this argument is correct and undeniable.

The issue is this - liberal democracy in itself a fraud. The real issues aren't even discussed, no one in DC, even if they began well intentioned, cares to speak out against that. The difference between that and workers' democracy (eg, "primitive democracy" as described by Lenin in the State and Revolution) is that workers' democracy, like liberal democracy is used to preserve the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, will be used to preserve the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Anyway, another thing regarding technocracy in specific is that we need to distinguish between democracy in deciding how things are administrated by majority rule, and deciding in whose favor are they are administrated. The latter, through the use of workers' councils, would be a way of keeping state power (acknowledging the primary purpose of any state is to maintain a class-dictatorship) in the hands of the proletariat.

[Positivist]

And you're an anarchist...

[MustCrushCapitalism]

And you're an anarchist...
I point you here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=39).

[Lynx]

The vote is a blunt instrument invented by the elite to keep the mass of people in their place. It is designed to prevent them from participating in policy making. The right to vote does not constitute a democracy.
Ignorance is a larger obstacle. Busy people don't always have the time to be informed on issues of the day, while others remain apathetic. It's not because they're stupid.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

If we mean democracy to mean "the rule of all people" then all of us are anti-democracy. If society is broken into 2 separate and antagonistic classes, then we seek only the rule of the proletariat class.

[RedSonRising]

Stupidity is not inherent. People are made stupid and are structurally denied consciousness. Those of us who slip through the cracks of the bourgeoisie's brainwashing are the ones who are supposed to help others achieve it and act on it, not smugly look down upon them from the high horse of political intellectualism.

[Lynx]

If people from all walks of life decided on policy, the voice of the exploiting class would be small. We seek to abolish the exploitative nature of capitalism, hence the exploiters would no longer exist.

[Mr. Natural]

People are plenty smart enough for democracy, and anarchism/communism are forms of natural democracy.

However, we all now think within the confines of a triumphant global capitalism that provides the mental arena--the institutions and values--within which we live and think, and people are becoming ignorant as hell. This is a systemic mindfuck. There has also been a corresponding decline in left theory and spirit, and a resort to rummaging through the classics to find a "missing link" that is not there. Revolutionary organizing theory must engage the new sciences of organization the left has so carefully ignored.

I know the above paragraph is essentially correct, but I have yet to receive a single comment on my numerous posts pointing to the intellectual capture of humanity by The System. The new sciences of organizational relations that inform my observations are also ignored by a left that cannot organize.

Engels at Marx's funeral: "Science was for Marx a historically dynamic, revolutionary force."

My red-green best.

[Sea]

There is a pretty good argument that the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is not maintained due to a lack of democracy, but because of it. The basis of this argument is correct and undeniable.

No.

There's an extremely good argument that the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is maintained because of having a democratic republic, not a democracy. What do you think happens when the ideas of the masses have to be filtered through the ones so wrongfully above?

When you elect a president or a prime minister, or a senator or an MP, the only "democracy" is that you're picking a bourgie out of a hat!

Republics serve the ruling class. A democratic republic is a farce to make the masses think they have a say and to pit them against each other like a savage dogfight. Unfortunately, it also has the effect of making some people think that the problem lies with a democracy they don't have.

[Ocean Seal]

I have been thinking about this a lot lately. Libertarian ideas hang on the thought that people can come around to agree on a just way of society. I just don't know if the human being is smart enough for democracy.

Should stupid people get a vote when they would likely vote against their self interest?

I don't know if a different schooling system or something untainted by our current propaganda would help any. I think the majority of humans might not have the propensity to be involved in abstract thought about future political paradigms.

Is an authoritarian approach needed to bring justice to society because people can't be trusted to be in their own corner?
No libertarians are against democracy because they think that people are stupid and that they need liberty to separate themselves from the tyranny of the masses. Anyway, no they aren't. And you don't need very abstract thought for democracy or managing problems. I don't care much for democracy though as it probably won't be implemented (in the strict anarchist sense) in the post-revolutionary world at least for a while.

[Chicano Shamrock]

And you're an anarchist...
I think anarchism is preferable but I don't let it confine my political thought/evolution.


Stupidity is not inherent. People are made stupid and are structurally denied consciousness. Those of us who slip through the cracks of the bourgeoisie's brainwashing are the ones who are supposed to help others achieve it and act on it, not smugly look down upon them from the high horse of political intellectualism.
So why are we the only ones who slip through the cracks? Do the others not have the ability of critical thinking?

I know it all sounds so pompous but these are honest thoughts.

[Prometeo liberado]

I would suggest that Democracy, as we currently know it, is too stupid for Humans.

[Chicano Shamrock]

I would suggest that Democracy, as we currently know it, is too stupid for Humans.

Yeah but that's not what I was getting at. I mean true direct democracy. What about that?

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Yeah but that's not what I was getting at. I mean true direct democracy. What about that?

I think a better question is whether "true direct democracy" is efficient or not.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I point you here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=39).

What are you saying?

[Prometeo liberado]

I think a better question is whether "true direct democracy" is efficient or not.
As the material conditions change, so to will our outlook and needs. Then so to will the institutions and systems in which we choose to govern ourselves. Direct Democracy or whatever it will be called will be so much more empowering so as to assist in the transformation of society. So to answer the OP question, no we are only as stupid as our aspirations.

[GPDP]

The idea that people are too stupid for democracy is pure misanthropic, elitist claptrap from people who hold themselves as being above the "sheeple."

[Ostrinski]

Those that engage in productive labor are more equipped for democracy than those of us that don't so I don't see where this question is even legitimized.

[helot]

I think a better question is whether "true direct democracy" is efficient or not.


I think a better question is what is a superior principle; equity or efficiency?

You could argue decision-making would be most efficient if it were one person making the decisions for everyone yet is there a single person that exists who would not take advantage of such a privilege? I think it's obvious there isn't and to claim otherwise is to attribute to someone super human ability, to claim a living god walking this earth.


Having said that, you could also argue that direct democracy in itself is efficient. When confronted with a problem those that are directly and immediately affected by it are generally in the best position to solve the problem as soon as is possible.

I'd also maintain that socialism necessitates forms of direct democracy.

[Regicollis]

In the current bourgeois democracies the voters do really stupid things - like supporting right-wing parties that are going to rob them even more but I don't think that is because they are stupid. I can understand why people would think that since the current system is a cynical capitalist one the ones best fitted for running it and getting their country the biggest slice of the cake will be cynical capitalists. The social democratic alternative that is offered is also so pathetic that nobody can be enthusiastic about it.

If people had actual choices, if the media were free and diverse, if bourgeois views were not being given preference across the board, if we had a real democratic debate then I don't think people would be stupid.

One should also not forget that our culture encourages us to be stupid. Instead of contemplating real problems we are told that we should be preoccupied with stupid things like buying stuff, TV shows, jobs, religion etc. If that entire apparatus of propaganda was removed I think the average IQ would rise immensely.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I think a better question is what is a superior principle; equity or efficiency?

Both are equally important.


You could argue decision-making would be most efficient if it were one person making the decisions for everyone yet is there a single person that exists who would not take advantage of such a privilege? I think it's obvious there isn't and to claim otherwise is to attribute to someone super human ability, to claim a living god walking this earth.

I never argued for a one-man dictatorship. What I was saying was that we aren't for the liberation of "the people". Here is a quote by Bordiga on this.


If the word democracy means power of the majority, the democrats should stand on our class side. But this word both in its literal sense ("power of the people") as well as in the dirty use that is more and more being made of it, means "power belonging not to one but to all classes". For this historical reason, just as we reject "bourgeois democracy" and "democracy in general" (as Lenin also did), we must politically and theoretically exclude, as a contradiction in terms, "class democracy" and "workers' democracy".

If there are two opposed and antagonistic classes, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, I seek the liberation of the proletariat and the suppression the the bourgeoisie.


Having said that, you could also argue that direct democracy in itself is efficient. When confronted with a problem those that are directly and immediately affected by it are generally in the best position to solve the problem as soon as is possible.

I'd also maintain that socialism necessitates forms of direct democracy.

Socialism has nothing to do with "direct democracy". It is about the abolition of classes, abolition of the capitalist anarchy of production, etc. While democracy can be an effective means to that end, it is not an end in itself.

[helot]

Both are equally important.



I never argued for a one-man dictatorship. What I was saying was that we aren't for the liberation of "the people". Here is a quote by Bordiga on this.



If there are two opposed and antagonistic classes, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, I seek the liberation of the proletariat and the suppression the the bourgeoisie.



Socialism has nothing to do with "direct democracy". It is about the abolition of classes, abolition of the capitalist anarchy of production, etc. While democracy can be an effective means to that end, it is not an end in itself.

Fair enough i don't really disagree with you then. I do think though that the workers need forms of direct democracy amongst ourselves in our struggles now, during the revolution and after the abolition of classes both to counter any rising bureaucracy trying to create their own niche in the exploitation of labour and to make sure it is the proletariat as a whole in power. Of course the bourgeoisie aren't entitled to any sort of voting rights in any of this because there aim will only be to protect themselves as a class.

[Yuppie Grinder]

I would suggest that Democracy, as we currently know it, is too stupid for Humans.
spot on

That's what Lenin thought when he said that the working class will only ever be able to attain trade union consciousness.
huh wow

[roy]

If we mean democracy to mean "the rule of all people" then all of us are anti-democracy. If society is broken into 2 separate and antagonistic classes, then we seek only the rule of the proletariat class.

we do want to see an end to class society, though. that's kinda the whole point.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

we do want to see an end to class society, though. that's kinda the whole point.

Yes, we do. That is the point of the proletariat dictatorship.

[Zealot]

Even if true, all it means is that education has failed. It's no secret that politics is barely touched in the school systems which is a fucking disgrace for societies that claim to be ruled by the people.

[Chicano Shamrock]

Those that engage in productive labor are more equipped for democracy than those of us that don't so I don't see where this question is even legitimized.

The question is posed by someone who does productive labor for a living.

[I.Drink.Your.Milkshake]

No. People are uninformed, either wilfully or structurally.

It's telling, to me, that politics are not taught in state schools as part of the national curriculum (at least not in England. Can't speak for anywhere else). I was taught woodwork, electronics, design and technology and all manner of other things designed to turn me into a good prole link on the production line. Yet in private schools politics are taught as part of the curriculum. It's almost as if, unless you are willing to pay for it, you're not supposed to take part in the political discourse.

Politics should be taught in schools. People will feel less alienated. Whether they pursue it is up to them, but at least it will seem like less of a monolithic challenge when you get to, say, 25 and you realise you havnt got a clue so you just think "fuck it - nothing you can do about it" so just spend your days watching sky sports instead.

One vote every year or so is a pisstake.

[Q]

Just pointing out that we're not living in a democracy, but in an oligarchy that is put there by aristocratic principles. Read this thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/lecture-democracy-video-t172673/index.html) if you want to know what democracy is actually about.

Within an oligarchy there is obviously a vested interest in keeping the masses stupid and keeping politics elitist.

[Thirsty Crow]

B
If there are two opposed and antagonistic classes, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, I seek the liberation of the proletariat and the suppression the the bourgeoisie.

But this is just quibbling over words. It's very much clear what the term "workers' democracy" entails - just that what you mention, alongside the potential and possibility of broad layers of the working class to participate in the political process. In this sense, the notion of demos is shifted onto class terrain - the borugeois class isn't recognized as part of the demos, and bouregoies interests are not to be provided with a political platform (in the form of parties or any other form). So why this rant against a term?



Politics should be taught in schools. People will feel less alienated.
You do realize that the education system is part of the state, and functions as one of its ideological facets?
In other words, I can't see how would this class be organized so as not to reflect the dominant viewpoint - that being the viewpoint of the bourgeois society.

In fact, I can testify to that fact since I've had a politcs and economy class in high school. The potential for formenting critical attitudes was vritually zero as the curriculum enforced all sorts of bourgeois prejudice.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

But this is just quibbling over words.
Not exactly. It depends on how we describe the word. If it is described a certain way (as it is in bourgeois society) then we should be deeply opposed to any form of democracy. I will explain better below.

It's very much clear what the term "workers' democracy" entails
No, it is not for a few reasons. In the common usage of the word means "the rule of all people" and implies "the rule of all classes". As a communist, I do not seek the rule of all classes and of all people, I seek only the rule of the proletariat, the proletariat setting up it's class dictatorship, and transitioning to a classless and stateless society. If we are to describe democracy as simply voting or decision making, then you are correct and the term "workers' democracy" is clear.

just that what you mention, alongside the potential and possibility of broad layers of the working class to participate in the political process. In this sense, the notion of demos is shifted onto class terrain - the borugeois class isn't recognized as part of the demos, and bouregoies interests are not to be provided with a political platform (in the form of parties or any other form).
If this is how we are describing "workers' democracy" then I completely agree with it as all communists would.

So why this rant against a term?
I explained above.

[Q]

No, it is not for a few reasons. In the common usage of the word means "the rule of all people" and implies "the rule of all classes". As a communist, I do not seek the rule of all classes and of all people, I seek only the rule of the proletariat, the proletariat setting up it's class dictatorship, and transitioning to a classless and stateless society. If we are to describe democracy as simply voting or decision making, then you are correct and the term "workers' democracy" is clear.

I'm picking this post to respond to, not to start a personal quarrel, but because this is perhaps the best worded version of a strong current in the communist movement.

Within our world we basically have two type of societies:
1. A society where the working class constitutes the majority of society. This is the case in all core-capitalist countries ("first world" countries).
2. A society where the working class does not constitute a majority within society. This is the case in some periphery countries ("third world" countries).

So, objectively, fighting for democracy (that is, the rule of all, as you put it) will bring the working class to power in the core capitalist countries by virtue of being the majority and, thus, is the "dictatorship of the proletariat" and the semi-state that communists seek to establish in the post-capitalist class society that can only but "wither away" as class society dies off.

This raises a question: Do we fight for democracy where the working class is not yet a majority? This question is rapidly becoming obsoleted by the very development of capitalism (since 2008 half of the population is living in cities (http://www.unfpa.org/pds/urbanization.htm), an indicator of the proletarian / peasantry ratio). But where the question still arises, there are several answers to it. The classic answer, by the Bolsheviks, was a joined proletarian-peasant dictatorship, which led to nothing. Our very own DNZ of course proposes the third world Caesarian dictatorship model as an alternative. This is still an open question really and I'm personally unswayed either way.

But for the capitalist core, where the proletariat clearly does form a majority of society, the only way forward is the most thorough form of democracy possible: Athenian democracy, otherwise known as demarchy or lottery-democracy.

And since no party can rule in a demarchy, as there is no state in the traditional sense of the word that a party can obtain, this implies again a vast party-movement that is really the working class that constitutes itself as a class-collective fighting for socialist change. This is how Marx and Engels incidentally saw "parties": As currents of political thought. Thus, I strive for a one-party dictatorship, but not in the Stalinist sense of the word.

So, your view of "partial democracy" (maybe based on the 1918 RSFSR constitution?) is really a non-starter and starts from the negative assumption that communist views will not attain a majority of the population (that is, that we would be unable to organise the working class to liberate itself). Such a view is thus in reality non-communist and may only be applicable in societies where the working class has yet to attain a majority (such societies will not be able to develop a communist level of development anyway, without help of the core).

Conclusion/summary: Communism can only be obtained through the fight for democracy.

[Thirsty Crow]

No, it is not for a few reasons. In the common usage of the word means "the rule of all people" and implies "the rule of all classes". As a communist, I do not seek the rule of all classes and of all people, I seek only the rule of the proletariat, the proletariat setting up it's class dictatorship, and transitioning to a classless and stateless society.
But it is precisely the modifier "workers'" which makes this definition moot. You should observe the term in its entirety and not focus exclusively on one of its components. The other component vitally modifies the other, up to the point when this second component (democracy) is to be recognized as implying exactly what I wrote - a mass participation of the greater number of proleatrians in the political process, as opposed to what we could call a technocratic dictatorship or a party-state dictatorship which implies that the political power is exclusively bound to the intelligentsia (the experts) and party officials (to the point when the party loses its historical and political function and merges with the state apparatus).



If this is how we are describing "workers' democracy" then I completely agree with it as all communists would. I don't think any self-describes communist or commnusit organization has something other in mind (disregarding the often vague character of their actual thoguhts on concrete organization of this political structure) when using the term. That's why I think it's more or less clear. Though, I might be naive actually, when considering the experience with some organizations which are revolutuionary only in self-description.


I explained above.I think that the opposition to the term might derive more from its privileged position in bourgeois rhetorical discourse. Then, the question would be whether there is merit to an attemt at recuperation in the form of a term denoting a democracy for one class - for the global working class.

[I.Drink.Your.Milkshake]

You do realize that the education system is part of the state, and functions as one of its ideological facets?
In other words, I can't see how would this class be organized so as not to reflect the dominant viewpoint - that being the viewpoint of the bourgeois society.

In fact, I can testify to that fact since I've had a politcs and economy class in high school. The potential for formenting critical attitudes was vritually zero as the curriculum enforced all sorts of bourgeois prejudice.

Yes, I understand that. However, I think that basic political ideas could be incorporated into the education system, in much the same way that Religious Education is(/was?) taught. Whatever the pitfalls are, it is still better than nothing at all.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

I'm picking this post to respond to, not to start a personal quarrel, but because this is perhaps the best worded version of a strong current in the communist movement.
Well, I never take this stuff personally, so don't worry about that :D I will respond to this though, just because I think you characterized some things I stand for wrongly, to defend my position, etc.


Within our world we basically have two type of societies:
1. A society where the working class constitutes the majority of society. This is the case in all core-capitalist countries ("first world" countries).
2. A society where the working class does not constitute a majority within society. This is the case in some periphery countries ("third world" countries).

So, objectively, fighting for democracy (that is, the rule of all, as you put it) will bring the working class to power in the core capitalist countries by virtue of being the majority and, thus, is the "dictatorship of the proletariat" and the semi-state that communists seek to establish in the post-capitalist class society that can only but "wither away" as class society dies off.

Well, yes it would bring the working class to power. I didn't argue otherwise. In fact, the Bordiga quote that I put in this thread in an earlier post said the following.


If the word democracy means power of the majority, the democrats should stand on our class side.

What I am saying is that, if we describe democracy as the "rule of all people" and, consequently, the "rule of all classes" then we as communists, standing for the liberation of the proletariat and the suppression of the bourgeoisie, are anti-democracy because we stand for the rule of one class over another until we can reach a classless and stateless society.


This raises a question: Do we fight for democracy where the working class is not yet a majority? This question is rapidly becoming obsoleted by the very development of capitalism (since 2008 half of the population is living in cities (http://www.unfpa.org/pds/urbanization.htm), an indicator of the proletarian / peasantry ratio). But where the question still arises, there are several answers to it. The classic answer, by the Bolsheviks, was a joined proletarian-peasant dictatorship, which led to nothing. Our very own DNZ of course proposes the third world Caesarian dictatorship model as an alternative. This is still an open question really and I'm personally unswayed either way.
Yes, I myself am very undecided on how the revolution in a backwards country should take place.


So, your view of "partial democracy" (maybe based on the 1918 RSFSR constitution?) is really a non-starter and starts from the negative assumption that communist views will not attain a majority of the population (that is, that we would be unable to organise the working class to liberate itself).
I never claimed that and I don't know how me claiming to uphold the proletariat dictatorship and the suppression of the bourgeoisie would show that I believe that communist views will not attain a majority of the population. In fact, I figured that would show the opposite if anything.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

But it is precisely the modifier "workers'" which makes this definition moot.
Well, you can take this approach, but I would argue that actually the terms are contradictory because democracy is the rule of all, and therefore you cannot chose one group for "democracy". This is why, instead of using the term "workers' democracy" I use the terms "workers' dictatorship" or "proletariat dictatorship" because there is no question with those terms that we advocate the exclusion of the bourgeoisie. Again, this really is just semantics. I was just trying to make the point in the thread that, as communists, we do not seek the rule of all.

[Thirsty Crow]

Yes, I understand that. However, I think that basic political ideas could be incorporated into the education system, in much the same way that Religious Education is(/was?) taught. Whatever the pitfalls are, it is still better than nothing at all.
I don't think that this is a real possibility. It's another matter for the secular borugeois state, with its division from religion, to uphold any and all organized religion as equal, first before the law, and second in a possible inter-religious classes in school.
But it's something entirely different with political doctrines and economics. Here the existing state will no doubt purseu ideological justification of its own foundations, those being bourgeois parliamentary democracy (or someting apart from it in different societies) and capitalist relations of production. Again, from personal experience, and judging by the fact that the current Minister of Labor here pushes forward the plan for a "civil education" class in school whereby students would be taught the rules and vritues of participation in civil society and the role of entrepreneurship - I cannot conclude anything but that there is structural necessity for the education system to preserve the existing social relations.

[Deliverous]

i think people are a lot smarter than people give people credit for anyway, people.

This is quite optimistic. If you are fighting for such a radical form of change requiring revolution, you should be a little more confident in people’s ability to work together than simply saying; ‘I think people are a lot more smarter than people give credit people for anyway’. Otherwise, it is playing with people's lives.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

That's what Lenin thought when he said that the working class will only ever be able to attain trade union consciousness.

The profit disarmed, boom.

Oops, I meant prophet. Too busy thinking about State Capitalism, silly me.

[MuscularTophFan]

The founding fathers where terrified of the concept of a direct democracy which is why the USA is a constitutional republic not a democracy. A true direct democracy can only only exist in a society that is highly educated and true equality has been achieved. The average person doesn't care that much about politics and most don't really don't understand it. In Ancient Greek where direct democracy existed, politicians would use lies and propaganda in order to get the people to support what they wanted.

I'm very critical of and very much oppose direct democracy. People vote in their own self interests and not for the common good. For example when gay marriage was put up to a popular vote it lost 33 out of 34 times. That's a prime example of the tranny of the majority in action.

[Lynx]

Gay marriage is legal in Canada and has nothing to do with the vote.

[MuscularTophFan]

Gay marriage is legal in Canada and has nothing to do with the vote.
No it was voted on. It was voted on by the Canadian parliament. It was voted on by elected politicians.

It should be left to elected legislators and judges to obtain marriage equality in the USA and not left to a vote of the majority. People's civil rights should not be left to a popular vote.

[Lynx]

No it was voted on. It was voted on by the Canadian parliament. It was voted on by elected politicians.

It should be left to elected legislators and judges to obtain marriage equality in the USA and not left to a vote of the majority. People's civil rights should not be left to a popular vote.
They aren't. They are decided by the charter of rights as interpreted by the Supreme Court. And Canada is not a republic.

[MuscularTophFan]

They aren't. They are decided by the charter of rights as interpreted by the Supreme Court.
Oh my mistake. But that's still gets to the point I was getting at. Legalization for civil rights like gay marriage should be left to elected legislators and judges and not left to a popular vote.



And Canada is not a republic.
Yes I know.

[Lynx]

Oh my mistake. But that's still gets to the point I was getting at. Legalization for civil rights like gay marriage should be left to elected legislators and judges and not left to a popular vote.
Legislation has to abide the Charter or it will be struck down. I don't see the problem with having popular votes as opposed to having elected representatives make our decisions for us. Laws are a reflection of society.

Besides, direct democracy is not equivalent to holding popular votes or referendums.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I have been thinking about this a lot lately. Libertarian ideas hang on the thought that people can come around to agree on a just way of society. I just don't know if the human being is smart enough for democracy.

Should stupid people get a vote when they would likely vote against their self interest?

I don't know if a different schooling system or something untainted by our current propaganda would help any. I think the majority of humans might not have the propensity to be involved in abstract thought about future political paradigms.

Is an authoritarian approach needed to bring justice to society because people can't be trusted to be in their own corner?

Certainty not! If people were just stupid, why would ruling classes throughout history spend so much energy and resources trying to justify their rule? Why build temples and cathedrals to try and make people believe that your group is the powerful representative of god? Why would modern ruling groups fund the Tea-Party and think tanks and fund loyal intellectuals and academics to justify your rule as "natural"?

In fact the thing that most ruling groups have done is to say to the population: you're too stupid to rule, that's why you actually need us over you.

People are not stupid, the system and the ways our rulers try and justify it is stupid... most of the time though people don't think there's an alternative so they have to pick between a handful of stupid "realistic" options. If someone thinks the only choice they have is to sleep in mud, a pile of rocks or a pile of shit, are they really "stupid" for sleeping on some rocks or mud?

[roy]

This is quite optimistic. If you are fighting for such a radical form of change requiring revolution, you should be a little more confident in people’s ability to work together than simply saying; ‘I think people are a lot more smarter than people give credit people for anyway’. Otherwise, it is playing with people's lives.

what are you trying to say? that i'm too optimistic or i need to be more confident in people's ability? by making a statement i am playing with people's lives? i was simply giving my opinion with regard to this 'people are stupid, the ignorant masses will never awaken, etc.' attitude.

[#FF0000]

I don't think people are too stupid.

Too busy. Too apathetic. Too beaten down to want to defend an opinion. Maybe.

[Rafiq]

It doesn't matter how "Smart" people are, because in our case, a proletarian demonstrates his interest and the interest of his class as a whole, and that's about enough.

[Rafiq]

That's what Lenin thought when he said that the working class will only ever be able to attain trade union consciousness.

Don't be a fool. That's not "stupidity", it's just an unfortunate occurance: that the proletariat was divorced from the intelligentisa or non worker intellectuals.

[Manic Impressive]

Don't be a fool. That's not "stupidity", it's just an unfortunate occurance: that the proletariat was divorced from the intelligentisa or non worker intellectuals.
Well how do you define stupid? non-intellectual seems like just another way of saying just that. It is literrally saying the workers do not have the education to be able to become socialists. So they must be led by the nose by the glorious vanguard made up of INTELLECTUALS because we're too fucking thick to know what's good for us. This is Leninism. A patronizing paternalistic petit-bourgeouis inspired ideology masquerading as socialism.

[Rafiq]

Well how do you define stupid? non-intellectual seems like just another way of saying just that. It is literrally saying the workers do not have the education to be able to become socialists. So they must be led by the nose by the glorious vanguard made up of INTELLECTUALS because we're too fucking thick to know what's good for us. This is Leninism. A patronizing paternalistic petit-bourgeouis inspired ideology masquerading as socialism.

Shut the hell up. It's not Lenin, nor any other Marxists fault that capitalism at the time lacked the sufficiency to sufficiently educate the majority of the proletarian class. Or do you want to play the "proletarian worship" card game and hold them up as some sort of super human species? Now listen, the point of Communists is to destroy the concept of the proletarian, that is to say, a Proletarian is not a good thing to be, just as a slave is not a good thing to be.

No one would suggest workers were "stupid", just divorced from the intelligentsia, modern sciences, strategy, etc.

But in regards to pragmatic action, they are certainly more knowledgeable and not "sheep". Fuck, I really hate Zizek to some extent now but I remember him talking about how some shit bag came to a factory and said "Listen, workers, I want to hear what I can learn from you" and one of the workers called him out saying something along the lines of "fuck off, you've been educated and pampered, we want to hear what you can offer us".

[Jimmie Higgins]

Well how do you define stupid? non-intellectual seems like just another way of saying just that. It is literrally saying the workers do not have the education to be able to become socialists. So they must be led by the nose by the glorious vanguard made up of INTELLECTUALS because we're too fucking thick to know what's good for us. This is Leninism. A patronizing paternalistic petit-bourgeouis inspired ideology masquerading as socialism.No, this is a manipulation of quotes to "prove" a pre-determined conclusion. This is also written a dozen years before the Russian Revolution, and years before Lenin would talk about the amazing ability of workers to spontaneously radicalize in periods of intense conflict.

Even in this same chapter from "What is to Be Done" with this infamous quote Lenin explains the reason why spontaneous movements alone can not be relied on to develop revolutionary consciousness... and it's NOT the stupidity of the population:


But why, the reader will ask, does the spontaneous movement, the movement along the line of least resistance, lead to the domination of bourgeois ideology? For the simple reason that bourgeois ideology is far older in origin than socialist ideology, that it is more fully developed, and that it has at its disposal immeasurably more means of dissemination.

In other (Marx's) words: the ruling ideas of any age are the ideas of the ruling class. What's the implication? That most people are going to view things within the confines of the system and this is what Lenin was talking about in that infamous quote - that the trade union movement, will not just leap right into revolutionary consciousness but will be stuck in reformism unless the already convinced revolutionaries try and win people over.

Additionally, did you know this infamous quote you use from Lenin is his paraphrase of a Kautsky argument? That he begins this quote with "We have said...". This is not a formulation unique to Lenin, it was a common assumption of the time. The tradition represented by Lenin historically did more to break away from some of the elitism and intellectual-centric tendencies of the 2nd international. Lenin never FAVORED intellectualls, even in this early period, he just recognized that the socialist movement as it was in Russia had been developed and dominated by intellectuals, he wanted to break away from that and try and unite the spontaneous workers movements with the at that point disconnected socialist movement.

In fact it was Lenin's socialist Opponents (the positions he was arguing against in "What is to be done") who arguably believed that workers were too dumb for socialist ideas. They were arguing for "economism" that the socialist movement should only talk to workers about economic struggles and support the existing strike wave as it was:


What sort of struggle is it desirable for the workers to conduct? Isn’t the desirable struggle the only one which they are able to conduct in present circumstances?

In other words, workers couldn't fight against the Tzar, but only what they were already spontaneously doing. It's the old: liberals can lead the political fight, workers only care about bread and butter. Lenin said this would cause the spontaneous worker's movement to tail the liberal movement.

He never argued that workers were too, stupid. That's a total historical inversion of everything he argued and fought for - regardless if one thinks he was successful or caused a disaster ultimately.

[JPSartre12]

My favorite thread so far :lol:

A friend of mine (who is absolutely in love with Allende, Chile, etc) came up with a nice little theory that all anti-capitalists, socialists, communists, etc shouldn't be supporters of democracy because democracy is inherently oppressive (the tyranny of the majority, the majority can impose its will on the helpless minority, and all that good stuff) and that we should support an egalitarian system instead (where the opinion of the whole rules, rather than that of the majority).

But I get the feeling that such egalitarianism wouldn't function well, if at all, in practice.

But then again I'm sort of a fan of democracy ;)

[Book O'Dead]

I have been thinking about this a lot lately. Libertarian ideas hang on the thought that people can come around to agree on a just way of society. I just don't know if the human being is smart enough for democracy.

Should stupid people get a vote when they would likely vote against their self interest?

I don't know if a different schooling system or something untainted by our current propaganda would help any. I think the majority of humans might not have the propensity to be involved in abstract thought about future political paradigms.

Is an authoritarian approach needed to bring justice to society because people can't be trusted to be in their own corner?

You have to test your assumptions first. Are people too stupid for democracy?

Some people are. But never the majority.

[The Intransigent Faction]

My favorite thread so far :lol:

A friend of mine (who is absolutely in love with Allende, Chile, etc) came up with a nice little theory that all anti-capitalists, socialists, communists, etc shouldn't be supporters of democracy because democracy is inherently oppressive (the tyranny of the majority, the majority can impose its will on the helpless minority, and all that good stuff) and that we should support an egalitarian system instead (where the opinion of the whole rules, rather than that of the majority).

But I get the feeling that such egalitarianism wouldn't function well, if at all, in practice.

But then again I'm sort of a fan of democracy ;)

I have to wonder why you'd say that egalitarianism wouldn't work (granted that is kind of a vague term), but let's leave that aside for a moment.

The "tyranny of the majority" is based on the false dichotomy between majority rule and minority rights, which is essentially a liberal idea that puts those two concepts down on two distant, almost irreconcilable poles. If you're into the political philosophy of democracy, Jean-Jacques Rousseau (although not a communist) had some interesting things to say about this. Genuine democracy does not treat the interests of a society and of individuals as opposites to be balanced, but rather as mutually necessary, because in a democratic society the individual liberty of each relies on the collective liberty of all (a.k.a the "general will").

In short, in a capitalist society, majority rule will always be framed as opposed to minority rights, but in an egalitarian society, the interests of each individual person are brought into alignment with those of the community, because what benefits one does not deprive from another, but rather benefits all as well ("all for one, and one for all" as they say).

As for the original question, people aren't "too stupid" to recognize that the interests of a small rich minority are opposed to their interests as a dispossessed majority. Fascists, Republicans and other assorted right-wingers, as well as a few liberals who jump on the fashionable bandwagon of misanthropy, may be "too stupid" for democracy, but not most people. Even reactionary workers who've been taken in by right-wing anti-immigrant rhetoric, etc., can wake up to their real interests (/lose their false consciousness).

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

I just don't know if the human being is smart enough for democracy.
What a fucking reactionary statement.


Should stupid people get a vote when they would likely vote against their self interest?
When people vote against their class interests under bourgeois democracy, it's not because they're stupid, it's because bourgeois ideology produces false consciousness.