Democracy is a great thing.... - so my friend said !

[liderDeFARC]

I have a friend who shares our ideas and is even more into che and news than me. I was talking to him one day and he said he thought that democracy was one of the greatest things. He left me like, Did i just hear correctly and what did he mean? I have thought and i definetaly agree that representation of the people is important but, socialism cannot be achieved with democracy i dont think so.... what do you think, can you help me?

im confused :confused:

[Xvall]

Democracy is when the people control things, not the government. Democracy is good. As it is said, Democracy leads to Socialism. (Marx, I think)

- Drake

[BOZG]

Democracy can just as easily lead to capitalism aswell.

[Fires of History]

"The greatest threat to democracy is the belief that it exists" -Socialist saying

Once we have a Socialist/Communist system that protects laborers, defends the rights of ALL people, and cares for the underpriviledged, then, and only then, can we start to talk about 'democracy.' When the people, and NOT special interest, have the ear of government, maybe then we'll talk of democracy.

I agree that democracy is a great thing, but the idea that it exists is just that...an idea...a false belief....

[BOZG]

I still will never agree with Parliamentary democracy even if we create a society like FoH said. The power should lie in the people, not in representitives.
The only democracy I will ever support is direct democracy.

[guerrillaradio]

"Democracy is the worst form of government, apart from all the alternatives" - Winston Churchill

I have to agree. The problem with democracy is that it assumes that the majority will always make the right decision, an assumption that we now know to be almost always wrong. It is also a slow process, and in times of crisis, democractic protocol often leads to worsening the situation. However, until someone else comes up with a fairer solution, I support democractic regimes in every single country worldwide...

[Guest]

When I gave food to the poor, they called me a saint. When I asked why the poor were hungry, they called me a communist.

~ Dom H. Camara ~

[PunkRawker677]

i personally believe that socialism can work perfectly with democracy.. its a democratic economic system, so why cant it be a democratic voting system?

[revolutionary spirit]

it's,as lenin said,democracy for which class?

[honest intellectual]

What we have is not democracy, it is plutocracy (the rule of the rich). No candidates for elections are proletarian. Especially in America where you need millions of dollars to get a campaign going to get elected

[I Will Deny You]

Quote: from guerrillaradio on 8:02 am on April 11, 2002
The problem with democracy is that it assumes that the majority will always make the right decision, an assumption that we now know to be almost always wrong. It is also a slow process, and in times of crisis, democractic protocol often leads to worsening the situation. However, until someone else comes up with a fairer solution, I support democractic regimes in every single country worldwide...
Agreed. But we need campaign finance reform. We need more chances for third parties, especially in local elections. We need leaders who actually know what they're talking about. I don't think of the US as a true democracy, but I would support a true democracy in almost any situation.

[guerrillaradio]

The US is not a democracy at all. Bush and Gore are both members of the privileged class, both right wing and with near-identical policies. One was the son of the last Republican president, and the other was the Vice to the last Democratic president. Vast injections of cash are put into a candidate's campaign by a huge corporation in exchange for a promise that when in power the candidate will let the corporation bend the law. It's horsetrading, pure and simple. Also, what sickens me about the American electoral process is the rallies they have. it's not about politics, it's merely about how many pop stars/actors/business leaders they can get up on stage to endorse them. in effect, the average American votes for his/her favourite celebrity at the election, not the candidate.

Addressing the third party point, you are absolutely right, but what do you suggest?? Is proportional representation an option?? I don't like first past the post at all, but is PR much better?? It's applied in the majority of European countries, but seems to end up in a virtual two-party system anyway, 17 socialist parties vs 15 conservative parties instead one-on-one. Still, I think it is better than the current system.

[red senator]

The fact that the presidential debates are owned by a corporation which *what a suprise* only allows the Democrat and Republican nominees to participate doesn't help democracy at all. A third party may participate in the presidential debate if his party got 5% of the popular vot in the previous election, the problem is that it is impossoble to get 5% of the vote if you do not have mass media coverage i.e. the debates, or millions of dollars to piss away on propaganda. America's electorial system and system of government sucks.

[new democracy]

your friend meant capitalism which dont work with real democracy. but communism is undemocractic just as capitalism.

[Felicia]

I can support democracy: for, of and by the people. Unfortunately it isn't really like that, but I like the idea of it :)

[James]

I don't understand you ND, or maybe you don't understand democracy!

[James]

Americans argue that it doesn't really matter who is president, because there are local elections for the (whats it called???), which can block presidental proposals...

[antieverything]

In the legislative arena, the president doesn't have power to make laws, only to sign or veto them. If he vetos (rejects) a law then congress needs a 3/4 majority in order to pass the law.

I don't think that most of you have much of an idea of what democracy is and why it can be a bad thing. I know that you all hate the USA but just look at the way the federal government is set up. It is a mix of republicanism (nothing to do with the party) and democracy slanting heavily towards the republican side. In congress there are two branches, the house and the senate. The house is made up of a representative from each district. The house is the most democratic part of the government. Then you have the senate which is made up of two senators from each state. A bill has to pass through the senate in order to become a law. The reason that even small states are equally represented is so they can't be imposed upon by the larger states. If the larger states want to enact a measure that can't pass nationaly, they can enact it in their state. The senate is highly republican. You also have the executive branch and judicial branch. The executive branch is the president. The president is elected through some sort of weird ass system that doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of sence but it works out that in some states, a person's vote only counts 1/3 as much as a vote in another state. It is supposed to be republican and democratic simultaneously but it ends up making no sence at all! The judicial branch is the supreme court and it is the most republican part of our government as the judges are appointed by presidents and serve lifetime terms...it also is pretty screwed up. This works the same way at the state level but without the senate, so that local government is more democratic. It is important to remember that the USA is supposed to be a collection of soveriegn states and is unique to most other countries.

If a country was a "true democracy" people would just vote on everything and the majority would rule. If we had a big vote about outlawing homosexuality, what do you think would happen? That is why some republicanism is neccessary...you need majority rule with minority rights.

The problem with the American system is that the democracy is subverted (ultimately by capitalism). The democratic parts of our society aren't being protected and stuff is getting messed up.

(Edited by antieverything at 11:55 pm on Aug. 12, 2002)

[Michael De Panama]

Quote: from guerrillaradio on 1:02 pm on April 11, 2002
"Democracy is the worst form of government, apart from all the alternatives" - Winston Churchill

I have to agree. The problem with democracy is that it assumes that the majority will always make the right decision, an assumption that we now know to be almost always wrong. It is also a slow process, and in times of crisis, democractic protocol often leads to worsening the situation. However, until someone else comes up with a fairer solution, I support democractic regimes in every single country worldwide...

Like someone mentioned earlier, there is no democracy to base these assumptions on, man. There's plutocracy, which is what any capitalist "democracy" will turn into, which is nothing more than democratic centralism of the bourgeoisie. But no democracy. Democracy and capitalism don't mix.

Besides, even if the majority fails to make the right decisions, I'd rather have the majority of the people fail than have a ruling minority fail for me. At least if we feel in a democracy, it's our fault.

[andresG]

Natalia, can I meet this friend of yours?

Democracy is what is needed in Latin America and the rest of the world.
TRUE democracy.
The democracies these countries pride themselves in having are fake.
Only the elite are represented, not the people.
(This is one of the reasons I give my support to the Zapatistas. They are fighting for democracy among other things).

This does not mean I can not support the Cuban Revolution, for example. The Cuban Revolution has improved the lives of Cubans extremely. Also, the Cuban Revolution has taken a stand against American imperialism. Cuba can not hold free elections for a fear of intervention from the U.S. government. They must sacrifice some freedoms for the good of the Revolution.

"socialism cannot be achieved with democracy i dont think so.... "
-liderDeFARC

Socialism can be achieved with democracy.
Read about Salvador Allende's government in Chile.
It was going great, until the U.S. decided to intervene.

[kingbee]

there is also a difference between capitalist democracy and non capitalist democracy. most people think of capitalist democracyn whenever someone mentions democracy, but capitalism is a form of rule, while democracy is a way of choosing who to rule. in theory, you should be able to vote anyone into power, but as many have pointed out on this post, only the rich in the us can get into power- capitalist democracy.
the only states in the world who have no elections are the vatican, oman, saudi,qatar, brunei, uae and oman- every other country in the world has a vote, but it may not be free or fair. just thought id add that in

[guerrillaradio]

Quote: from Michael De Panama on 2:50 am on Aug. 14, 2002
There's plutocracy, which is what any capitalist "democracy" will turn into, which is nothing more than democratic centralism of the bourgeoisie. But no democracy. Democracy and capitalism don't mix.

So how are we install "true" democracy then??


Besides, even if the majority fails to make the right decisions, I'd rather have the majority of the people fail than have a ruling minority fail for me. At least if we feel in a democracy, it's our fault.


Yeah but then again, what if the minority can make the right decision while the majority wants to make the wrong one?? Call me an extremist, but I'd rather that democracy was suspended while the necessary changes were made.

[Michael De Panama]

True democracy would be where everyone has equal power in their government. Not where one man with more money than the other will get more power or representation.

I'd much rather be able to make a wrong decision for myself than have a ruling minority make a wrong decision for me. If any wrong decision comes up, at least we'd have the responsibilty. I personally don't like it when my government fucks up for me.

[guerrillaradio]

Quote: from Michael De Panama on 12:23 am on Aug. 19, 2002
True democracy would be where everyone has equal power in their government. Not where one man with more money than the other will get more power or representation.

Agreed. What do you reckon to direct democracy??


I'd much rather be able to make a wrong decision for myself than have a ruling minority make a wrong decision for me. If any wrong decision comes up, at least we'd have the responsibilty. I personally don't like it when my government fucks up for me.

Ah...but what if you were the ruling minority?? As a Marxist, you would want to dismantle the capitalist framework. However, the vast majority of both our nations are pro-capitalist, so to do so would be an unpopular decision. Yet if you were not to, then you wouldn't be a Marxist. Idealistically, we are all democrats, but you have to apply realpolitik.

[Zippy]

Quote: from guerrillaradio on 12:57 pm on April 12, 2002
the average American votes for his/her favourite celebrity at the election, not the candidate.
That isn't always true. You know, sometimes their favourite celebrity is the candidate. ;)

Zippy.