My Ramblings On Democracy

[Zingu]

I'm trying to turn this into a good essay, this is my first draft, thinking out of my mind, please tell me your thoughts and suggest some improvements, I need to plug up the holes in my ideology and need some more justifications and "meat" in the essay, this is what I need help in, historical examples, ect. I posted this just before I went to bed, so I'll be checking for replys tommorow:

Democracy and the Economic-Political Economy:
Why Class Struggle renders 'Democracy' flawed


Democracy and the Economy

When asked if America or the western world is a democracy. I usaully reply "None of this world is democractic, democracy does not exist." They are usaully taken back by this bold statement. But for the sake of not being accussed of stupidity, I will prove my point through this essay explaining my point.

What people do not realize is that society and politics revolves around the means of production. Whoever controls the means of production, controls society. We have seen this system throughout history. The king taxing the lords who take shares of what serfs grow as crops. Dictators who control society through military force. Its the same system again, again and again. There is the ruling class, who own the means of production, and employ the working class through wage-slavery to produce the commidities that use in everyday life. From this system they control the economy and society. "Democracy", Monarchy, Dictatorship, they all have the same grassroots organization of social order, the rich minority at the top, and the working majority at the bottom.
Its obvious that these social classes have different interests. The upper class wishes to stay in their posistion of economic and political power while giving themself an as big portion of the capital as possible while paying the working class, who itself creates the capital through the means of production.
Now, the working class, is a little more complicated. They do not always posess the "class conscience" of the upper class. They usaully do not realize their posistion in the wage-slavery of capitalism. But overall, an average worker wants greater wages, more workplace freedom and more political power. This is the "labour union" mentality.
This is obviously conflicting between the two main classes, between the bourgeois and the proletariat, are complete oppisite of each other. This is what Karl Marx theorized, there is no actual unbias society when social classes exist. As long as the production of capital is possible and the ideal of private property, there will always be social classes. As long as there are classes, there will conflicting interests in the control of the means of production. Every society today has this system of class struggle. Every society that has classes will have some leaning in the favor of a certain class's interests, there is only two political systems in today's world of political society: The Dictatorship of the Bourgeois and The Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

The Dictatorship of the Bourgeoise This is the society we live in today, where the economy, political system and means of production are geared for the best interests of the upper class. This is the capitalist system, where the upper class owns and controls the means of production and employs the proletariat in the means of production. Western "Democracy" is really a subtle version of the dictatorship of the bourgeois as opposed to a very obvious military dictatorship. You can compare easily, the rich capitalists and corporations will benefit of the legitimate power of the society, to harness the means of production to control the society, economy and political system. In result, the upper class has complete political power and voice, while the working class has almost or at all, none. Take a look at any democracy, the rich, with their political lobbying, our "representatives" are all from upper class and rich backrounds and connections.

The Dictatorship of the Proletariat- This is also known as Socialism. This society serves the interests and needs of the working class. Here, capitalism is abolished. The means of production ownership is granted to the proletariat, or working class, as a whole. With the means of production under the working class's control, wage slavery ends. Society is now geared in favor of the working class. The production of capital is replaced with a direct production from labour power to products. Private property's concept is also changed, now that the means of production are now in the control of the masses of the working class.

Now, here we come to the punchline. Democracy requires that everyone is completely equal in political infulence. But this is the manifest flaw of Democracy that defines the fake illusion of democracy from true and real democracy. Also Democracy is in favor of the rule of the majority.
In the dictatorship of the Bourgeois, Democracy does not exist since its very obvious the rich and upper classes have more infulence in a nation's policies and interests than a ordinary person. Why? Because they control the means of production, Mircosoft, Haliburton, oil companies, its all there! This self defeats the purpose of equal political infulence. The manifest flaw in Capitalism and Democracy is that people are more equal than each other and more political infulence, all since of the production of capital and the ownership of the means of capital. If Democracy was actually not flawed, then why isn't society Socialist? The majority of people are of the working class. This can be both or one of these two reasons:

1. Capitalism and the ruling upper class guides the morals and vaules of culture since they are in control of the means of distribution of information (Media ect.). Since Capitalism is manifested into society, and since people grow up in such a system, they are ingrained with political ideologies that are functional within the system. These people are unaware of the possible change of society. This is all undirectly caused by the control of the means of production, this in a different subject, and will be the subject of my next essay, but, human culture, society, nature and morals are ALL in according to the means of production and what system (capitalist or Socialist) they are manifested in. If society (the control of the means of production) changes, so will culture and human nature in accordance with it, I will explain this into more detail in my next writings, Karl Marx theorized this point too, the means of production is what completely defines human civilization.

2. The Dictatorship of the Burgeois in "democracy" is formed into what all democracies in such system turn into; a rough form of plutocracy ruleof the rich and/or the upper class. It can be even unintentional, just like in the USA. It happened in even the earliest "democracies", the "democracy" of Greece was a council of well-to-do-men. It was even more evident in the Roman Republic, where the the senate was full of rich upper class Romans and the plebians were completely unrepresented.

The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is not a democracy either. Again for the manifest flaw of Democracy. As even Plato stated, Democracy is unbiased, this flaw is even more evident in a Socialist society, society serves the working class, it is not a neutral element in human existance, just the mere existance of classes, the rich and the poor, completely destroys any chance of true Democracy to work. As long as the seperate classes exist, it will always be that society serves whatever class is in control of the means of production.
This power struggle that denies true democracy from ever working has not been going on forever. Before Capitalism, the means of production were fragmented, not industrialized, but by individual handcrafters and seperate farms selling a limited output of goods to the economy. The other factor is, the concept of Democracy was not yet realized, it was still in a form of formalized despotism.

So in conclusion, Democracy could work within social classes, since they hold the same vaules. BUT, these vaules and ambitions depend on the existance of the other classes. So, there is no other way around it, Democracy could only work in a society where the means of production are owned by all and all class distinctions are abolished, this society is Communism.

[Zingu]

I'm trying to turn this into a good essay, this is my first draft, thinking out of my mind, please tell me your thoughts and suggest some improvements, I need to plug up the holes in my ideology and need some more justifications and "meat" in the essay, this is what I need help in, historical examples, ect. I posted this just before I went to bed, so I'll be checking for replys tommorow:

Democracy and the Economic-Political Economy:
Why Class Struggle renders 'Democracy' flawed


Democracy and the Economy

When asked if America or the western world is a democracy. I usaully reply "None of this world is democractic, democracy does not exist." They are usaully taken back by this bold statement. But for the sake of not being accussed of stupidity, I will prove my point through this essay explaining my point.

What people do not realize is that society and politics revolves around the means of production. Whoever controls the means of production, controls society. We have seen this system throughout history. The king taxing the lords who take shares of what serfs grow as crops. Dictators who control society through military force. Its the same system again, again and again. There is the ruling class, who own the means of production, and employ the working class through wage-slavery to produce the commidities that use in everyday life. From this system they control the economy and society. "Democracy", Monarchy, Dictatorship, they all have the same grassroots organization of social order, the rich minority at the top, and the working majority at the bottom.
Its obvious that these social classes have different interests. The upper class wishes to stay in their posistion of economic and political power while giving themself an as big portion of the capital as possible while paying the working class, who itself creates the capital through the means of production.
Now, the working class, is a little more complicated. They do not always posess the "class conscience" of the upper class. They usaully do not realize their posistion in the wage-slavery of capitalism. But overall, an average worker wants greater wages, more workplace freedom and more political power. This is the "labour union" mentality.
This is obviously conflicting between the two main classes, between the bourgeois and the proletariat, are complete oppisite of each other. This is what Karl Marx theorized, there is no actual unbias society when social classes exist. As long as the production of capital is possible and the ideal of private property, there will always be social classes. As long as there are classes, there will conflicting interests in the control of the means of production. Every society today has this system of class struggle. Every society that has classes will have some leaning in the favor of a certain class's interests, there is only two political systems in today's world of political society: The Dictatorship of the Bourgeois and The Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

The Dictatorship of the Bourgeoise This is the society we live in today, where the economy, political system and means of production are geared for the best interests of the upper class. This is the capitalist system, where the upper class owns and controls the means of production and employs the proletariat in the means of production. Western "Democracy" is really a subtle version of the dictatorship of the bourgeois as opposed to a very obvious military dictatorship. You can compare easily, the rich capitalists and corporations will benefit of the legitimate power of the society, to harness the means of production to control the society, economy and political system. In result, the upper class has complete political power and voice, while the working class has almost or at all, none. Take a look at any democracy, the rich, with their political lobbying, our "representatives" are all from upper class and rich backrounds and connections.

The Dictatorship of the Proletariat- This is also known as Socialism. This society serves the interests and needs of the working class. Here, capitalism is abolished. The means of production ownership is granted to the proletariat, or working class, as a whole. With the means of production under the working class's control, wage slavery ends. Society is now geared in favor of the working class. The production of capital is replaced with a direct production from labour power to products. Private property's concept is also changed, now that the means of production are now in the control of the masses of the working class.

Now, here we come to the punchline. Democracy requires that everyone is completely equal in political infulence. But this is the manifest flaw of Democracy that defines the fake illusion of democracy from true and real democracy. Also Democracy is in favor of the rule of the majority.
In the dictatorship of the Bourgeois, Democracy does not exist since its very obvious the rich and upper classes have more infulence in a nation's policies and interests than a ordinary person. Why? Because they control the means of production, Mircosoft, Haliburton, oil companies, its all there! This self defeats the purpose of equal political infulence. The manifest flaw in Capitalism and Democracy is that people are more equal than each other and more political infulence, all since of the production of capital and the ownership of the means of capital. If Democracy was actually not flawed, then why isn't society Socialist? The majority of people are of the working class. This can be both or one of these two reasons:

1. Capitalism and the ruling upper class guides the morals and vaules of culture since they are in control of the means of distribution of information (Media ect.). Since Capitalism is manifested into society, and since people grow up in such a system, they are ingrained with political ideologies that are functional within the system. These people are unaware of the possible change of society. This is all undirectly caused by the control of the means of production, this in a different subject, and will be the subject of my next essay, but, human culture, society, nature and morals are ALL in according to the means of production and what system (capitalist or Socialist) they are manifested in. If society (the control of the means of production) changes, so will culture and human nature in accordance with it, I will explain this into more detail in my next writings, Karl Marx theorized this point too, the means of production is what completely defines human civilization.

2. The Dictatorship of the Burgeois in "democracy" is formed into what all democracies in such system turn into; a rough form of plutocracy ruleof the rich and/or the upper class. It can be even unintentional, just like in the USA. It happened in even the earliest "democracies", the "democracy" of Greece was a council of well-to-do-men. It was even more evident in the Roman Republic, where the the senate was full of rich upper class Romans and the plebians were completely unrepresented.

The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is not a democracy either. Again for the manifest flaw of Democracy. As even Plato stated, Democracy is unbiased, this flaw is even more evident in a Socialist society, society serves the working class, it is not a neutral element in human existance, just the mere existance of classes, the rich and the poor, completely destroys any chance of true Democracy to work. As long as the seperate classes exist, it will always be that society serves whatever class is in control of the means of production.
This power struggle that denies true democracy from ever working has not been going on forever. Before Capitalism, the means of production were fragmented, not industrialized, but by individual handcrafters and seperate farms selling a limited output of goods to the economy. The other factor is, the concept of Democracy was not yet realized, it was still in a form of formalized despotism.

So in conclusion, Democracy could work within social classes, since they hold the same vaules. BUT, these vaules and ambitions depend on the existance of the other classes. So, there is no other way around it, Democracy could only work in a society where the means of production are owned by all and all class distinctions are abolished, this society is Communism.

[Zingu]

I'm trying to turn this into a good essay, this is my first draft, thinking out of my mind, please tell me your thoughts and suggest some improvements, I need to plug up the holes in my ideology and need some more justifications and "meat" in the essay, this is what I need help in, historical examples, ect. I posted this just before I went to bed, so I'll be checking for replys tommorow:

Democracy and the Economic-Political Economy:
Why Class Struggle renders 'Democracy' flawed


Democracy and the Economy

When asked if America or the western world is a democracy. I usaully reply "None of this world is democractic, democracy does not exist." They are usaully taken back by this bold statement. But for the sake of not being accussed of stupidity, I will prove my point through this essay explaining my point.

What people do not realize is that society and politics revolves around the means of production. Whoever controls the means of production, controls society. We have seen this system throughout history. The king taxing the lords who take shares of what serfs grow as crops. Dictators who control society through military force. Its the same system again, again and again. There is the ruling class, who own the means of production, and employ the working class through wage-slavery to produce the commidities that use in everyday life. From this system they control the economy and society. "Democracy", Monarchy, Dictatorship, they all have the same grassroots organization of social order, the rich minority at the top, and the working majority at the bottom.
Its obvious that these social classes have different interests. The upper class wishes to stay in their posistion of economic and political power while giving themself an as big portion of the capital as possible while paying the working class, who itself creates the capital through the means of production.
Now, the working class, is a little more complicated. They do not always posess the "class conscience" of the upper class. They usaully do not realize their posistion in the wage-slavery of capitalism. But overall, an average worker wants greater wages, more workplace freedom and more political power. This is the "labour union" mentality.
This is obviously conflicting between the two main classes, between the bourgeois and the proletariat, are complete oppisite of each other. This is what Karl Marx theorized, there is no actual unbias society when social classes exist. As long as the production of capital is possible and the ideal of private property, there will always be social classes. As long as there are classes, there will conflicting interests in the control of the means of production. Every society today has this system of class struggle. Every society that has classes will have some leaning in the favor of a certain class's interests, there is only two political systems in today's world of political society: The Dictatorship of the Bourgeois and The Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

The Dictatorship of the Bourgeoise This is the society we live in today, where the economy, political system and means of production are geared for the best interests of the upper class. This is the capitalist system, where the upper class owns and controls the means of production and employs the proletariat in the means of production. Western "Democracy" is really a subtle version of the dictatorship of the bourgeois as opposed to a very obvious military dictatorship. You can compare easily, the rich capitalists and corporations will benefit of the legitimate power of the society, to harness the means of production to control the society, economy and political system. In result, the upper class has complete political power and voice, while the working class has almost or at all, none. Take a look at any democracy, the rich, with their political lobbying, our "representatives" are all from upper class and rich backrounds and connections.

The Dictatorship of the Proletariat- This is also known as Socialism. This society serves the interests and needs of the working class. Here, capitalism is abolished. The means of production ownership is granted to the proletariat, or working class, as a whole. With the means of production under the working class's control, wage slavery ends. Society is now geared in favor of the working class. The production of capital is replaced with a direct production from labour power to products. Private property's concept is also changed, now that the means of production are now in the control of the masses of the working class.

Now, here we come to the punchline. Democracy requires that everyone is completely equal in political infulence. But this is the manifest flaw of Democracy that defines the fake illusion of democracy from true and real democracy. Also Democracy is in favor of the rule of the majority.
In the dictatorship of the Bourgeois, Democracy does not exist since its very obvious the rich and upper classes have more infulence in a nation's policies and interests than a ordinary person. Why? Because they control the means of production, Mircosoft, Haliburton, oil companies, its all there! This self defeats the purpose of equal political infulence. The manifest flaw in Capitalism and Democracy is that people are more equal than each other and more political infulence, all since of the production of capital and the ownership of the means of capital. If Democracy was actually not flawed, then why isn't society Socialist? The majority of people are of the working class. This can be both or one of these two reasons:

1. Capitalism and the ruling upper class guides the morals and vaules of culture since they are in control of the means of distribution of information (Media ect.). Since Capitalism is manifested into society, and since people grow up in such a system, they are ingrained with political ideologies that are functional within the system. These people are unaware of the possible change of society. This is all undirectly caused by the control of the means of production, this in a different subject, and will be the subject of my next essay, but, human culture, society, nature and morals are ALL in according to the means of production and what system (capitalist or Socialist) they are manifested in. If society (the control of the means of production) changes, so will culture and human nature in accordance with it, I will explain this into more detail in my next writings, Karl Marx theorized this point too, the means of production is what completely defines human civilization.

2. The Dictatorship of the Burgeois in "democracy" is formed into what all democracies in such system turn into; a rough form of plutocracy ruleof the rich and/or the upper class. It can be even unintentional, just like in the USA. It happened in even the earliest "democracies", the "democracy" of Greece was a council of well-to-do-men. It was even more evident in the Roman Republic, where the the senate was full of rich upper class Romans and the plebians were completely unrepresented.

The Dictatorship of the Proletariat is not a democracy either. Again for the manifest flaw of Democracy. As even Plato stated, Democracy is unbiased, this flaw is even more evident in a Socialist society, society serves the working class, it is not a neutral element in human existance, just the mere existance of classes, the rich and the poor, completely destroys any chance of true Democracy to work. As long as the seperate classes exist, it will always be that society serves whatever class is in control of the means of production.
This power struggle that denies true democracy from ever working has not been going on forever. Before Capitalism, the means of production were fragmented, not industrialized, but by individual handcrafters and seperate farms selling a limited output of goods to the economy. The other factor is, the concept of Democracy was not yet realized, it was still in a form of formalized despotism.

So in conclusion, Democracy could work within social classes, since they hold the same vaules. BUT, these vaules and ambitions depend on the existance of the other classes. So, there is no other way around it, Democracy could only work in a society where the means of production are owned by all and all class distinctions are abolished, this society is Communism.

[Zingu]

Last part:
2. Why Democracy can only truly function in a Communist society

The answer is clear. Since social classes creates class struggle resulting now in the upper class domination which results in the spawning of upper class tools like the "state" and Bourgeois "democracy".
This brings me to my conclusion, since the enviroment required for democracy is a classless society, which is in turn needed for a truly equal society, the only solution is a Communist society. Since everyone would belong to the same class, which in turn fundalmentally resulting into no social classes, since class interests depending on other social classes. Since Communism contains an ever more developed system of Socialist economics and a society where everyone is equal in economic, social status and political sense, society cannot server any other variable expect this one. In this sense, with everyone's views will be generally the same.
This brings up an other point as well though. If in a society, like the Communist one, where everyone in class solidarity, why is Democracy needed? If everyone's views are the same? The reply to this question gnawed me with two possible answers: Is Democracy actually not a realy ideal? That in every society there will be a dictatorship of some class at every time? Or is this "dictatorship" with a one social class democracy is the true definition of democracy?
The answer comes with this synthesis: Democracy is a misguided idea. What philosophers were really striving for in the purpose of Democracy is a generic social dictatorship that serves the majority without any consideration to class struggle. Capitalism was on the verge of emegering with the Democractic Revolution broke out. The answer is simple, Democracy has no place in today's Capitalist or Socialist societies. What is only possible is the dictatorship of a certain social class. And the only to make an equal voice for everyone since social classes are grossly unequal by nature, is solidarity, one social class! With one social class, the dictatorship of society will be according to everyone interests and needs. Democracy is outdone by the theroy of Social Dictatorship. A perfect society has no need for democracy, everyone will collaborate with each with the same interests once we arrive to the point of Communism. Democracy is dead, no-one has realized yet expect us Marxists, it is outmoded and has the one major flaw: Democracy attempts to give social dictatorship to a majority of people without any regard of what social class they belong to, and this method would against the upper class, so it would either result in a Socialist 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat' which is impossible since of capitalist domination, so it will only result of the dictatorship of the Burgeois, Democracy is inventaibly a tool of the upper class for opression and domination of the working class. The only thing that statisfy everyone is a society of class solidarty, a Communist society.

[Zingu]

Last part:
2. Why Democracy can only truly function in a Communist society

The answer is clear. Since social classes creates class struggle resulting now in the upper class domination which results in the spawning of upper class tools like the "state" and Bourgeois "democracy".
This brings me to my conclusion, since the enviroment required for democracy is a classless society, which is in turn needed for a truly equal society, the only solution is a Communist society. Since everyone would belong to the same class, which in turn fundalmentally resulting into no social classes, since class interests depending on other social classes. Since Communism contains an ever more developed system of Socialist economics and a society where everyone is equal in economic, social status and political sense, society cannot server any other variable expect this one. In this sense, with everyone's views will be generally the same.
This brings up an other point as well though. If in a society, like the Communist one, where everyone in class solidarity, why is Democracy needed? If everyone's views are the same? The reply to this question gnawed me with two possible answers: Is Democracy actually not a realy ideal? That in every society there will be a dictatorship of some class at every time? Or is this "dictatorship" with a one social class democracy is the true definition of democracy?
The answer comes with this synthesis: Democracy is a misguided idea. What philosophers were really striving for in the purpose of Democracy is a generic social dictatorship that serves the majority without any consideration to class struggle. Capitalism was on the verge of emegering with the Democractic Revolution broke out. The answer is simple, Democracy has no place in today's Capitalist or Socialist societies. What is only possible is the dictatorship of a certain social class. And the only to make an equal voice for everyone since social classes are grossly unequal by nature, is solidarity, one social class! With one social class, the dictatorship of society will be according to everyone interests and needs. Democracy is outdone by the theroy of Social Dictatorship. A perfect society has no need for democracy, everyone will collaborate with each with the same interests once we arrive to the point of Communism. Democracy is dead, no-one has realized yet expect us Marxists, it is outmoded and has the one major flaw: Democracy attempts to give social dictatorship to a majority of people without any regard of what social class they belong to, and this method would against the upper class, so it would either result in a Socialist 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat' which is impossible since of capitalist domination, so it will only result of the dictatorship of the Burgeois, Democracy is inventaibly a tool of the upper class for opression and domination of the working class. The only thing that statisfy everyone is a society of class solidarty, a Communist society.

[Zingu]

Last part:
2. Why Democracy can only truly function in a Communist society

The answer is clear. Since social classes creates class struggle resulting now in the upper class domination which results in the spawning of upper class tools like the "state" and Bourgeois "democracy".
This brings me to my conclusion, since the enviroment required for democracy is a classless society, which is in turn needed for a truly equal society, the only solution is a Communist society. Since everyone would belong to the same class, which in turn fundalmentally resulting into no social classes, since class interests depending on other social classes. Since Communism contains an ever more developed system of Socialist economics and a society where everyone is equal in economic, social status and political sense, society cannot server any other variable expect this one. In this sense, with everyone's views will be generally the same.
This brings up an other point as well though. If in a society, like the Communist one, where everyone in class solidarity, why is Democracy needed? If everyone's views are the same? The reply to this question gnawed me with two possible answers: Is Democracy actually not a realy ideal? That in every society there will be a dictatorship of some class at every time? Or is this "dictatorship" with a one social class democracy is the true definition of democracy?
The answer comes with this synthesis: Democracy is a misguided idea. What philosophers were really striving for in the purpose of Democracy is a generic social dictatorship that serves the majority without any consideration to class struggle. Capitalism was on the verge of emegering with the Democractic Revolution broke out. The answer is simple, Democracy has no place in today's Capitalist or Socialist societies. What is only possible is the dictatorship of a certain social class. And the only to make an equal voice for everyone since social classes are grossly unequal by nature, is solidarity, one social class! With one social class, the dictatorship of society will be according to everyone interests and needs. Democracy is outdone by the theroy of Social Dictatorship. A perfect society has no need for democracy, everyone will collaborate with each with the same interests once we arrive to the point of Communism. Democracy is dead, no-one has realized yet expect us Marxists, it is outmoded and has the one major flaw: Democracy attempts to give social dictatorship to a majority of people without any regard of what social class they belong to, and this method would against the upper class, so it would either result in a Socialist 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat' which is impossible since of capitalist domination, so it will only result of the dictatorship of the Burgeois, Democracy is inventaibly a tool of the upper class for opression and domination of the working class. The only thing that statisfy everyone is a society of class solidarty, a Communist society.

[NovelGentry]

I don't have much issue with what you're saying -- as I don't think many leftists will. I just have issues with the way you said some of it. Various problems with grammar and in general what I would consider to be a piece that's very watered down.


The Dictatorship of the Bourgeoise

I consider it: The Democracy of the Bourgeoisie FOR the Bourgeoisie.

Dictatorship would apply totalitarian control, and whether we like it or not voting does have SOME influence, especially on a local level. While this may seem to defeat your point of saying it's not a "democracy," because you've actually used the term democracy, argue as Marx did on what a TRUE democracy is, and why a true democracy cannot exist until class interests have been destroyed.

A Dictatorship of the Proletariat implies that the proletariat has totalitarian control, you would not even allow the bourgeoisie to vote let alone simply subverting their vote. Thus it's evil twin "Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie" is not really applicable, as the proletarait CAN vote, their vote is just subverted by other means.

If you want tips on writing talk to me directly, I don't think this is really the place to correct your poor writing habits... remember though, I'm still an English major wannabe, not an English major yet... so my word is by no means the final say on how to write.

BTW, if you haven't done so, pick up a book called The Elements of Style.

[NovelGentry]

I don't have much issue with what you're saying -- as I don't think many leftists will. I just have issues with the way you said some of it. Various problems with grammar and in general what I would consider to be a piece that's very watered down.


The Dictatorship of the Bourgeoise

I consider it: The Democracy of the Bourgeoisie FOR the Bourgeoisie.

Dictatorship would apply totalitarian control, and whether we like it or not voting does have SOME influence, especially on a local level. While this may seem to defeat your point of saying it's not a "democracy," because you've actually used the term democracy, argue as Marx did on what a TRUE democracy is, and why a true democracy cannot exist until class interests have been destroyed.

A Dictatorship of the Proletariat implies that the proletariat has totalitarian control, you would not even allow the bourgeoisie to vote let alone simply subverting their vote. Thus it's evil twin "Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie" is not really applicable, as the proletarait CAN vote, their vote is just subverted by other means.

If you want tips on writing talk to me directly, I don't think this is really the place to correct your poor writing habits... remember though, I'm still an English major wannabe, not an English major yet... so my word is by no means the final say on how to write.

BTW, if you haven't done so, pick up a book called The Elements of Style.

[NovelGentry]

I don't have much issue with what you're saying -- as I don't think many leftists will. I just have issues with the way you said some of it. Various problems with grammar and in general what I would consider to be a piece that's very watered down.


The Dictatorship of the Bourgeoise

I consider it: The Democracy of the Bourgeoisie FOR the Bourgeoisie.

Dictatorship would apply totalitarian control, and whether we like it or not voting does have SOME influence, especially on a local level. While this may seem to defeat your point of saying it's not a "democracy," because you've actually used the term democracy, argue as Marx did on what a TRUE democracy is, and why a true democracy cannot exist until class interests have been destroyed.

A Dictatorship of the Proletariat implies that the proletariat has totalitarian control, you would not even allow the bourgeoisie to vote let alone simply subverting their vote. Thus it's evil twin "Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie" is not really applicable, as the proletarait CAN vote, their vote is just subverted by other means.

If you want tips on writing talk to me directly, I don't think this is really the place to correct your poor writing habits... remember though, I'm still an English major wannabe, not an English major yet... so my word is by no means the final say on how to write.

BTW, if you haven't done so, pick up a book called The Elements of Style.

[Zingu]

Err, yes, I need to organize it, this was more of getting out my ideas, need to get this divided into a step to step process, give me a few days and I'll cough something out on this forum for you to read.

[Zingu]

Err, yes, I need to organize it, this was more of getting out my ideas, need to get this divided into a step to step process, give me a few days and I'll cough something out on this forum for you to read.

[Zingu]

Err, yes, I need to organize it, this was more of getting out my ideas, need to get this divided into a step to step process, give me a few days and I'll cough something out on this forum for you to read.