'democracy' - its not as perfect as you think

[lenin]

opinion polls are in from russia. the communists have a rising approval rating of between 35-40%. this is there highest approval rating in years. in moscow on mayday, over 100,000 people marched, the highest number since 1990! but in the duma, communists have recently been stripped of 8 out of the 10 posts they held! even in moscow (an anti-communist city) people were outraged at this. they wanted the people THEY voted for in, not the people the centerists wanted in.
the reason i give you this example is because it is the perfect example of how the bourgeosie can take power through 'democratic' means. the view of the public is unnecessary.
the communists are more popular than ever in russia, but less powerful than ever in the duma. thats what 'democracy' does. thats why it can never work during the initial stages of communism. the bourgeoisie, even when they are in the minority (as in russia) can still gain power. how would you deal with this liberal communists?

[lenin]

come on de panama, i know your on-line!!!!

[Nateddi]

Lenin, you are talking about bourgeois democracy. There will not be any capitalist parties in a communist system. If thats the kind of democracy you are implying, I am against it. I have mixed feelings about the policies of the KPRF, nevertheless it appears that russians prefer them over the policies of european communist parties, so I don't go against them.

[lenin]

yes but de panama wants capitalist parties and free capitalist speech in his society. and so do many others on this site. this is what happens when you give capitalits free speech!

[Edelweiss]

do you want us to defend parlamentary democracy? I guess you better post this in SvsC.

[lenin]

i posted it here because i didn't want capitalist interference. i want the democratic marxists who beleive in multi pary elections to answer this one.

[j]

I think that democractic socialism is only possible after the monied interests are not a viable force. If it is true democracy than it is not shadowed by the propaganda of the bourgeoise.

I believe that in this country (USA), for example, the bourgeoise have propaganda techniques--the foremost being the myth of the "american dream." This technique keeps the masses (proletariat) from realizing the true situation that they are in and the powers that they serve. Once the bourgeoise uneven and unequal influence is no longer a piece in the political puzzle can true democratic socialism exist.

I'm all for democracy but not the way it exists in america. So I guess to answer the question, the bourgeoise power must be dismantled before true democratic socialism can exist.

j

(Edited by j at 2:14 am on June 7, 2002)

[Nateddi]

I support democratic elections, incase you thought I didn't.

We should have internal party democracy, or different leftist parties. Pro-life groups, pro-choice groups, gay-rights groups, etc etc would all be legal. All social issue parties and organizations will have a voice. The economic structure would not be able to be (greatly) changed though.

[Reuben]

yes but de panama wants capitalist parties and free capitalist speech in his society. and so do many others on this site. this is what happens when you give capitalits free speech!

In my opinion the bourgoir threat to democracy which is very existent, eminates from their econmic power, not their right to free speech.

[Angie]

Ariel sharon is not as nice as he looks.Doesn't look that nice, either.

Mind you, I think Yasser Arafat looks huggable. :biggrin:

[I Will Deny You]

Quote: from lenin on 8:46 pm on June 6, 2002
yes but de panama wants capitalist parties and free capitalist speech in his society. and so do many others on this site. this is what happens when you give capitalits free speech!
There is a difference between letting capitalists say what they think and letting them bribe and corrupt a democratic system. Your views are so simplistic, it's scary.

I recently read that 70% of Russians prefered the Soviet Union. But the acts that they found most outrageous were the most un-democratic, not the most un-communistic. (I still think the neoliberals should get the fuck out of there, though.)

Don't equate communism with dictatorship, or capitalism with democracy.

Lindsay

[Blasphemy]

banning capitalist parties is not democracy, it's a dictatorship. i advocate social-democracy, but if there are only socialist parties, then the people won't have much choice... if the people rather have capitalism instead of socialism, then you can't do anything about it (as you see, i'm not a big fan of armed revolution). you must work in democratic ways in order to materilzie equality.

[Revolution Hero]

I understand socialism and communism, in terms of the golden rule of Marxism: Socialism is the dictatorship of the proletariat.
That means that the government is ruled by the working class, which is the majority. During the socialist period the workers are dictators and they oppress ex- exploiters, which have oppressed them during capitalism.
My point is, that if the working class is the majority, the minority of capitalists will not be able to make any political steps for gaining the power.
So, the aim of socialist state is to destroy the class of exploiters and it will have one democratic party , which will represent the opinion of the whole nation.

(Edited by Revolution Hero at 7:50 pm on June 8, 2002)

[Blasphemy]

but what if the majority doesn't want a communist state?

[Revolution Hero]

That's OK.
But if we come to power , we will make the majority....

[ID2002]

'democracy' is just a word. It takes a nation to put it into practise.

There is no such thing as complete 'democracy'...because leaders want control over the people. Control they believe will keep the people in line, and the systems in check but reality proves differant. The more the Government tightens their grip, the more the people resist.

[Blasphemy]

that's why in a democracy you have laws restricting leaders, and different organization who protect the people in time of need. the people can go to court if they feel the governemnt infrindged upon their rights.

in a dictatorship, there is no one to protect the population from exploition.

[RGacky3]

domocracy is a good thing. BUT if the majority of the people are pro communist, yet the cappies interfere with the elections, a revolution is needed.

[Blasphemy]

but in a democracy you can deal with these cappies in a democratic way. no need for a revolution.

[Kez]

get James here

There are different branches of democracy:
plutocray- by the wealthy
somethingelseacy - by the few

the bourgeois are the plutocracy, this is not democracy.

Democracy is its truest sense is in a workers state
ie a dictatorship of the proleteriat

am i correct?

[uth1984]

Sorry to go off the topic, but does anyone else think that theres a lot of sexual tension between Sharon and Arafat? I thinks its about to reach boiling point
I know Churchill was a right wing scumfuck who probably kicked kittens in his spare time, I he wasnt too wrong when he said
"democracy is the worst form of Government except all those others that have been tried from time to time"

[Blasphemy]

democracy has an abundance of flaws and faults, but it is the best thing so far.

[Kez]

can some1 define democracy?
so then we are all workin within the same shit?

[Blasphemy]

democracy is a from of government in which the people elect the members of the governmnet and the parliament, who are suppose to represent the people and fight for them.

[honest intellectual]

Quote: from Blasphemy on 9:08 pm on June 8, 2002
democracy is a from of government in which the people elect the members of the governmnet and the parliament, who are suppose to represent the people and fight for them.
Nah. Democracy is government by the people.

[thebigcom]

man you cant use russia as a basis for anything anymore. its all just fucked up, that whole history of that country is a scar on the face of communism. just dont even use it to blast democracy, a theory which is not the enemy, capitalism is.