Democratic revolution and a political coup: the difference.

[Nicholas Popov]

Libya, Egypt, Syria... ? Are they "democratic revolutions" or they are just more "political coups" in favour of the old-new power elite and an old-new tyranny?

The "Russian October Revolution", Comandante Che, the Arab revolutions - they have all been surrounded by a golden aura of epic heroism and romance; however an outdated governance paradigm dooms true freedom fighters to failure before they even start, and yet again everything turns full circle. But why? And were they really democratic revolutions?

The political revolution is not so much about kalashnikovs and passionate rhetoric. A democratic revolution should be seen as a new stage of humanity's development, primarily a new way of thinking and innovation in a system of social relations and governance. If it fails to do that then it is merely yet another ‘palace coup’ bringing grist to someone else's mill. In the absence of the new revolutionary governance model arab democratic revolutions ("Arab spring") were doomed to failure even before they started. Replacing leaders doesn't alters the system allowing arbitrariness.

First it is necessary to understand that the chief nemesis of democracy and liberty is not so much capitalism, communism or any other ideology, but rather their monopolism and the outdated paradigm of authoritarian rule that gives unlimited power and possibilities to "supreme" and makes other people their slaves. In any of its masked forms, including the Libyan jamahiriya (so-called "direct democracy": 'Brownian ferment' of non-professionals under a professional 'puppet master').

The dominant age-old paradigm of one-person management continues to allow the powers that use to be global resources, tyranny and oppression without control or restraints, causing populations all across the world to political protest. Global eco- nomic crises and the deterioration of the quality of life of ordinary people, provoked by political and economic speculations of 'be in clover' and not burdened with con- science egoists increase the scale of protests to a critical limit.
The so-called "democratic revolutions" which support popular discontent put forth new idols and "fighters for majority freedom" with a "opposite" ideology. But with keeping old governance paradigm, the 'palace coups' that they instigate lead to the "revolution change" of the ruling top only. And now, a new power elite who began as "liberators of the people" once again impose their authority and bind the very same people hand and foot to rid themselves of any opposition and all potential rivals in order to strengthening their own monopoly and supremacism. The same impels ex-"liberators" to lower the "Iron Curtain", depriving the inmates of "the Reservation" of freedom of communication and of dangerous comparisons with the rest of the world. As a rule, in the struggle for influence and power, many 'freedom fighters' themselves were becoming the 'enemies of the revolution' as were the cases in the baiting of Girondins by Marat, the social revolutionaries and Trotskyists in Stalin's Russia and in the Cultural Revolution in China, just to name a few. Ideological speculations "in the interests of the majority" does not bring freedom for this majority and stable equilibrium for the whole of society; the autocracy and oppression come back again. Were god-like "revolutionaries"-emperors Stalin, Mao and Ghaddafi "conductors" and garants of people's freedom? Or their own ambitions and egoism?

The ideological monopolism and masterfulness of any ruler oppress the democratic freedom and creative spirit within a society. And essentially, the coups d'etat that are part of the outdated paradigm of 'cult of the leader' and unipolarity in power only move away from the main direction of development of human civilization. Recall today's country-outcasts Cuba and North Korea as example.

Unipolar systems are not capable for self-renewal and are uncompetitive, and the imposed political regimes die together with their despotic owners, leaving behind themselves the poverty-stricken and backward country. The life-giving emulative spirit in them is substituted by the total coercion (and by the evasion from it!). But the slave labor under the same dominating and parasitizing elite brings back the society to an initial state. What's next? Do "We need a new revolution"? - for a new "Hero" and future tyrant? So what's the revolutionism? ... And how to break vicious circle? Then the THINKING part of the former captives of a regime addresses to the historical experience of more free and successful countries...

What form of governance is capable to bring freedom, peace, and function properly for the whole society?

The old-fashioned periwigs of 'respected lords' in the parliament which perseveres today that served as a system of checks and balances for absolute rulers were primordially designed just to protect their own interests within feudalism. In addition, the over-crowded and unstructured nature of parliament is not conducive to the discipline, quality and speed of decision-making as well as an effective fight against corruption. In spite of subsequent modernizations, this bulky and amorphous superstructure 'under the big boss' still is deprived of the opportunity to choose priorities and is not motivated by the inter-group competition for leadership and for leadership and for the voices of voters. At last, under proportional representation the minority party can't have any significant influence on decisions. These innate defects do not allow "democratic parliamentary government" to effectively represent the interests of all parts of the population thus making it unable to adapt to the modern multiform and multicultural society. This form of government by descent is intended only for the elite which allows some freedom to the rest for own safety.

By the way, and bipartisan "duelling" (two-party political system) is indeed a fascinating spectacle for the politically naive, and it does indeed distract from any kind of serious critique (dare we say "panem et circenses"?). The resulting winner will invariably favour the impresario, backed up by the money of the millions of simple-hearted 'santa clauses'. Everything becomes outdated without renewal. What were once useful past political movement with a working interparty competition have degenerated into a huckstering ruse in the modern socially developed society. Now, with little effective difference in approach, the cunning "business model" connives at maintaining the financial status quo of the "Big Money", and is also cautious not to allow "strangers" into the powerful "club". This "closed joint-stock company" is intended not for "the rabble" who are creating the nation's wealth but only for the business elite that is appropriating it "on legal grounds" by its own laws; with that, the degrees of their freedom are separated by the thickness of a purse. The monetization of laws, health care, education, pre-election campaign, etc. puts citizens in obviously unequal conditions. What about a declaration of the "society of equal opportunity"? Meanwhile, the healthy and intelligent nation is possible only when the honest competition and equal access of all its citizens to nationwide resources.

This are also not democracies, as Abraham Lincoln described it, that is to say "government of the people, by the people and for the people"!

Unipolar political systems on the principle of "the one is the winner, the rest are the losers" are thought up by the elite for establishing its own supremacy over the other people; whether a capitalism or a "communism". They are defective* and unjust from the start and will never be able to bring freedom, peace and stable equilibrium to a modern, multiform society. Therefore protests and coups are repeated now and again... * Fully-fledged, balanced solutions for the whole society can not be one-sided.

Despite artful "democratic" imitations of power-hungry elites, old and new, with purpose of keeping their own monopoly and domination, the development of civilization makes the true democracy and the humanization of mankind inevitable. The best minds look for a new and effective form of state government that would adequately represent today's fast changing and multicultural society. Meanwhile, the solution is near and the necessary resources to establish a new form of government are already available in the most of countries.

The genuine revolution as the next development (http://modelgovernment.org/en/) stage starts with new paradigm and concept of governance. A multipolar democratic governance comprising several independent parties, permanently motivated by competition for interests of voters and with a movable centre of joint decisions, would put an end to discord and would bring society together. The President isn't present more. It means that there are no more conditions for somebody's monopoly and bias. A working multi-party system within the government guarantees multiculturalism, tolerance and social stability within community and creates conditions for the harmonious development of the whole society without social turmoil and economic cataclysms.

This governance revolution does not give preferences to any of the political ideologies; that is a self-balancing democratic governance system, a step to collective common sense and a new civilization.

Real Democratic Revolution and Freedom are here: A multipolar democratic system. (http://modelgovernment.org/en/multipolar-democratic-political-system.html)

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Yeah I don't think freedom and democracy are going to be brought about by changing the amount of political parties from 2 to 5. What matters is not the amount of parties but their content. What matters ultimately is the class nature of the state, not what specific political formation is being used by that class to oppress others.

[Nicholas Popov]

It is not about the number of parties, but about the quickening and renewing interparty competition within the government. The Soviet political system has died together with its old-aged secretaries general.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Why parliamentarism? It seems to me that it's necessitated only by the organizational needs of ruling classes. In a society that isn't premised on top-down management generally, it seems to me as though formal representative democracy would be a shitty substitute for more heterogeneous and diffuse forms of organization.

[Nicholas Popov]

"... But the Athenian direct democracy of small communities (as well as E-democracy) and the usual representative democracy, speculatively built on inertness, incompetence and also on the sympathies of the majority of population for peechifiers and populists, doesn't provide a professional factor for selection the candidates for authority bodies and leads to an amorphous structure of nonprofessionals (or leads to 'diluting' professionals in it) which will inevitably be subordinated to a more organized structure or a strong leader, hidden or explicit. This makes traditional forms of democracy, the same as anarchy, inefficient and nonviable, and returns the democratic society to a greater arbitrary rule and lawlessness of dictatorship at crisis times (eg, Bolsheviks and the Provisional Government in Russia, Hitler and the Reichstag in Germany, the criminal/"democratic" revolution Russia of 1990s etc)..." - "A new political system as a real democratic revolution".Poorly organized structures always lose more strong. In Russia of 90s the garrulous people's democracy was is crushed by bandits and FSB. Welcome to Putin's Russia!
A well-organized management should be compact and prompt. And it should actually depend on the population. True revolution has to put forward a new way of decision-making. :trotski:

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Poorly organized structures always lose more strong. In Russia of 90s the garrulous people's democracy was is crushed by bandits and FSB. Welcome to Putin's Russia!
A well-organized management should be compact and prompt. And it should actually depend on the population. True revolution has to put forward a new way of decision-making. :trotski:

For one, I hardly think post-Soviet Russia could be described as people's democracy. Unless power arises out of real struggle - where the great masses of people develop techniques of autonomous organization - of course demagogues and bandits will take power. The point, in my mind, would not be capitulation to this as though it were an inevitability (the Zapatistas seem to be doing alright, and in the face of overwhelming military firepower no less), but struggling to create the conditions where every cook can govern (http://www.marxists.org/archive/james-clr/works/1956/06/every-cook.htm).

[liberlict]

Personal opinion is there's little point in discussing economic systems in countries that lack quality government and social capital. It doesn't matter what kind of economy you want to achieve, it's not going to work in a country that is in civil war or ruled by an opaque, corrupt government.

[Nicholas Popov]

Multipolarity and the rivalry of the independents can make government transparent.


"The new democratic governance system can minimize eternal problems of the power such as corruption, infringement of rights and freedom under the imperfect legislation, etc. They are solved by cross check of several competing parties within the multi-polar democratic government: any blunders of the contender raises the rest participants' chances for survival in the power. Therewith the mutual competition of several competitors is more objective and constantly active motivation for fight against corruption etc. than the whim of any one 'National Leader'. Thus the health-enhancing competition of political movements can benefit to the whole society."
"The multipolar political system." http://modelgovernment.org/en/multipolar-democratic-political-system.html

[Decolonize The Left]

I thought it was about overthrowing capitalism as a class because it's in our interest, not about government or parties or politics or whatever...

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I thought it was about overthrowing capitalism as a class because it's in our interest, not about government or parties or politics or whatever...

Actually, what I find really interesting and problematic about this whole thing is that it's so apolitical - it's entirely form with no reference to content. It proposes multipolar political competition without any particular comment on the location of the poles in question.
That said, despite explicitly avoiding the question, we can get a (not particularly surprising) sense from the way the question of communism is grappled with: literally, reference to the Microsoft Encarta article on the topic, and denunciations of Stalin. Seriously. There's also a reference to Pol Pot that emphasizes, alongside (and in fact, ahead of!) the genocidal shitshow in Cambodia, posits the abolition of money and blowing up of the central bank as though they were underwriting the Khmer Rouge atrocities. Again, I suspect this says something about the conceptions the OP has about a "democratic" economy.

[Decolonize The Left]

Actually, what I find really interesting and problematic about this whole thing is that it's so apolitical - it's entirely form with no reference to content. It proposes multipolar political competition without any particular comment on the location of the poles in question.
That said, despite explicitly avoiding the question, we can get a (not particularly surprising) sense from the way the question of communism is grappled with: literally, reference to the Microsoft Encarta article on the topic, and denunciations of Stalin. Seriously. There's also a reference to Pol Pot that emphasizes, alongside (and in fact, ahead of!) the genocidal shitshow in Cambodia, posits the abolition of money and blowing up of the central bank as though they were underwriting the Khmer Rouge atrocities. Again, I suspect this says something about the conceptions the OP has about a "democratic" economy.

Exactly. Real politics rises from class relations, from the struggle of the working class. It isn't abstract, it isn't complex, and it doesn't use words like "multipolar."

[Nicholas Popov]

Exactly. Real politics rises from class relations, from the struggle of the working class. It isn't abstract, it isn't complex, and it doesn't use words like "multipolar."
About reality. As a result of October revolution the main "fighters for the total equality and classless society" have turned into the Kremlin caste. The Russian workers as before continue to work, now already for new capitalists. On former "own factories.