Democracy for the Rich

[Jason]

The formerly state capitalist Soviet Union and China (and Cuba and North Korea today) claimed they were democratic, and that the western nations were only "Democracies for the Rich".

However, a cynic would claim that communist nations were not democracies because you were forbidden to challenge socialism.

So anyhow, what is real democracy? What is the best type of democracy for people?

[Yuppie Grinder]

The Jeffersonian conception of popular government is removed from material reality. It's an un-achievable ideal. The Democratic Republican idea of having a government accountable to and representative of the whole of its citizens is impossible. The state is the executive branch of the ruling class, it uses it's monopoly on the perceived legitimate use of violence and coercion to reconcile conflict, most importantly class conflict. It is necessary for preserving any class order.
Because Marxists recognize that no state can ever be anything other than a Class Dictatorship, no matter how inclusive suffrage or citizenship is, we don't worry about having a government accountable to the whole of its citizenship. This means we abandon the democratic principle. For us, their can be no liberty while their is a state, and the democratic idea of the state as a means of insuring liberty is nonsense.
It'd be foolish to not recognize the efficiency of the democratic mechanism as a means of political organization, but to trust in the democratic process absolutely and not recognize it's limits, and especially to make it totally inclusive, would be betraying the emancipatory movement.

[Rafiq]

A democracy in the Aristotelian sense is not only mob rule, it is the violent dictatorship of 'the poor'. Democracy is merely rhetoric, countries we call democracies are simply countries with a hegemonic bourgeois-liberal ideological tendency. Democracy and Communism in this sense were merely forms of capital's dictatorship, though, that isn't to say democracy and communism should be opposed, we are simply attributing characteristics to actually-existing or previously existing phenomena which took that very specific form.

[EdgyandOriginal]

To me democracy means participation and choice. We currently have very little of either. Most developed nations you have the "freedom" to chose between two very similar parties, composed of individuals from similarly privileged backgrounds, and your vote cast every political cycle is essentially the only say you have.

We need a system that allows for greater participation in matters that affect the public. I personally envisage some sort of "nested council" system. In which local councils of say 50 people meet and debate an issue, they then vote on said issue and elect a delegate to represent their council at the regional level. This process continues upwards until the views of everyone affected by the issue have been considered. It would only take 6 meetings to represent the views of over 1.5 billion people (if my calculations are correct).

[l'Enfermé]

OP:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1922/democratic-principle.htm


A democracy in the Aristotelian sense is not only mob rule, it is the violent dictatorship of 'the poor'. Democracy is merely rhetoric, countries we call democracies are simply countries with a hegemonic bourgeois-liberal ideological tendency. Democracy and Communism in this sense were merely forms of capital's dictatorship, though, that isn't to say democracy and communism should be opposed, we are simply attributing characteristics to actually-existing or previously existing phenomena which took that very specific form.
Aristotle's argument was that since the poor greatly outnumber the rich, they will completely dominate the popular assemblies, or something like that, right? I've always wanted to read his Politics, they have the full text on Project Gutenberg, never got around to it though.

[Jason]

It seems like some opponents would have some strong words for this topic. I mean, obviously, on the surface, it SEEMS like state capitalist (falsely labeled communist) nations are dictatorships.



We need a system that allows for greater participation in matters that affect the public. I personally envisage some sort of "nested council" system. In which local councils of say 50 people meet and debate an issue, they then vote on said issue and elect a delegate to represent their council at the regional level. This process continues upwards until the views of everyone affected by the issue have been considered. It would only take 6 meetings to represent the views of over 1.5 billion people (if my calculations are correct).


This won't work nowadays, because the capital sector controls the media. Therefore, the masses can distracted from thier real interests (ex: distracting people away from the Iraq War by focusing on gay marriage). Additionally, the private sector media can paint radical candidates as "wackos", discredit thier platforms, and refuse TV, print or radio time.

[Lowtech]

democracy is not "mob rule," this is just a popular term for anyone that is anti-government . modern democracies, especially that in the US, is more of the model first developed in the earliest examples of modern government, notably that of the ancient roman empire. these really just amounted to a management scheme allowing a plutocratic class to manage it's wage slaves, not anything representing the actual concept. now, we can have a consensus based participation between citizens that does not follow the ancient roman model, especially with the advent of the internet, it is possible for a completely flat governing body where the people directly govern themselves. the internet and information technologies required protocols in a kind of "flat" governing system to manage interaction of internet devices, as practically the entire system runs autonomously. we could apply this same concept to interactions between humans. moreover, municipal systems should be reduced to protocols, as humans are more fallible than consensual established policy.

[Jason]

modern democracies, especially that in the US, is more of the model first developed in the earliest examples of modern government, notably that of the ancient roman empire.

I disagree. I think it's possible for American democracy to work, under certain conditions. However, those conditions cannot be met, because the capitalist class controls the media and campaigns (because only they have enough cash to do so). So, as you've heard a million times before, the US is a one party state. This is ironic, because Americans have been raised to think of Communism as tyrannical.