Most democratic nation in the world. [Archive]

Karl Marx's Camel

31st December 2004, 19:15

:rolleyes: becouse it was obviously a joke

He's a marxist-leninist. I doubt it is a joke.

The DPRK is run by an elected government

In what way elected?

In what way does the Korean people take part in the decision making in the country?

If you have read Marx, Engles, Lenin etc. you understand the characteristics of a dictatorship of the proletariat.

Theory and practice are two different things. What's wrong with walking away from the theoretical point of view just a few seconds and rather discuss reality?

From what I've heard, Marx also coined the term barracks communism to refer to primitive egalitarian concepts of communism with bureacratic reglamentation of all aspects of social activity. I don't believe he was in favor of this. But what does it matter anyway? This guy died 150 years ago. What Marx said, or did not say for that matter does not make North Korea more or less democratic then it is in reality.

Marx talked about the dictatorship of the proletariat, not the dictatorship of the party.

Cuba

Why?

The Cuban people only elect delegates to the municipal
assemblies. They are not allowed to make their own parties, nor do they elect the government (which is done by the National Assembly).

rahul

31st December 2004, 19:39

no nation can be really democratic.................but let me vote 4 cuba{i learnt about cuba thru books net and other means}

Fidelbrand

31st December 2004, 19:42

A country can hardly be democratic at all in the first place if it starves its people. Fulfilment of physiological needs is the very very 1st stepping stone for any democratic endeavors. (DPRK)

My vote might be Sweden...

Archpremier

31st December 2004, 23:14

Originally posted by Chairman [email protected] 31 2004, 09:51 AM
If you have read Marx, Engles, Lenin etc. you understand the characteristics of a dictatorship of the proletariat.
Sorry Mao, but I don't know if YOU'VE read Marx or Engels. Dictatorship of the proletariat doesn't mean dictating the proletariat. It means dictatorship by the proletariat. Not by Kim Il-Sung or Kim Jong-Il or, for that matter, Kim Fuck-a-Duck-Jong or whoever comes after him. Dictatorship of the proletariat means that what the proletariat says, goes. Marx, Engels, and Lenin have all referred to the Commune of Paris as "a living instance of dictatorship of the proletariat". I, too, know that DPRK isn't as unruly as people often make it out to be, but it's NOT dictatorship of the proletariat. It's just dictatorship.

And if you hate me for pointing that out, you can go suck Dear Leader's dick.

refuse_resist

31st December 2004, 23:54

Definatley Cuba and the DPRK.

Anti-Prophet

1st January 2005, 03:49

Id say every country with a liberal democracy is equaly democratic and sadly the most democratic nations in the world. They are definitly more democratic that the "DP"RK. Although its like taking all the slaves in ancient Greece and having to answer which one is freest. None of them are even close to being free but some are slightly more free than others.

Saint-Just

1st January 2005, 14:30

In what way elected?

In what way does the Korean people take part in the decision making in the country?

The countries national assembly is known as the Supreme People's Assembly. It has between 600-700 delegates each representing and elected by 30,000 of the population. This assembly is the state legislature, like the house of representatives in U.S. and parliament in U.K. The Executive is called the SPA Presidium, this body elects a leader of the WPK (Worker's Party of Korea), this leader, currently Kim Il Jong is like the president of U.S. or like Prime Minister of the U.K. The presidium elects a Politburo which is responsible for the affairs of the WPK.

The Supreme People's Assembly as in U.S. and U.K. system can recall members of the central committee. SPA elections occur every 4 years. Usually with many new members joining the SPA every election. The bureaucratic arm of the state i.e. civil service, is elected in local councils elections but is controlled by the Presidium. Policy has to be approved in the SPA to be enacted.

Theory and practice are two different things. What's wrong with walking away from the theoretical point of view just a few seconds and rather discuss reality?

The DPRK does not represent the theories of Marx, Engels and Lenin precisely. But, my point was that the reality of the DPRK is derived from the theory of the ditatorship of the proletariat as set out by Marx, Engels and Lenin. The DPRK now is a society based upon the ideas of Kim Jong Il, nevertheless his ideas are very heavily influenced by Marx, Engels and Lenin.

I agree with what you are saying: look at the reality of the DPRK. In fact, one comes across the theory that DPRK society is constructed upon by looking at the reality of the DPRK.

FYI: I have been studying the DPRK for around 2 years. I have never visited but I know a number of people who have visited the DPRK since 1992. I have also met people from the DPRK, albeit only officials. I cannot emphasize enough how important such things are in understanding the DPRK. To understand the country there is a great deal to learn. Although I accept that those who have experienced a visit to the DPRK are in a much greater position of knowledge on this subject. To know about the DPRK one must read the literature and see the information about the society from the country and from abroad.

Sorry Mao, but I don't know if YOU'VE read Marx or Engels. Dictatorship of the proletariat doesn't mean dictating the proletariat. It means dictatorship by the proletariat. Not by Kim Il-Sung or Kim Jong-Il or, for that matter, Kim Fuck-a-Duck-Jong or whoever comes after him. Dictatorship of the proletariat means that what the proletariat says, goes. Marx, Engels, and Lenin have all referred to the Commune of Paris as "a living instance of dictatorship of the proletariat". I, too, know that DPRK isn't as unruly as people often make it out to be, but it's NOT dictatorship of the proletariat. It's just dictatorship.

And if you hate me for pointing that out, you can go suck Dear Leader's dick.

I am aware of the meaning of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The Paris Commune was a working-class leadership. The DPRK adopts some similar principles, although it is of course not precisely the same. Marx's point about the Paris Commune was that it was a dictatorship of a particular class as all societies are. The question to be asked of the DPRK is whether it is a proletarian dictatorship or a bourgeois dictatorship, not whether it is 'just dictatorship'.

bolshevik butcher

1st January 2005, 17:46

Mao, the dictatorship of the poltrait was meant to be something like russia from 1917-1923 or the Paris commune, not North Korea. Surely Proportional representation is the only true democracy.

Red Heretic

1st January 2005, 20:34

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2004, 11:14 PM
Kim Fuck-a-Duck-Jong
Ehm... you are fringing on racism.

Latifa

2nd January 2005, 01:59

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2004, 12:53 AM
lol at socialist tiger.

The most democratic country? Under capitalism? Dunno, maybe it's New Zealand, they seem very laid back. Maybe Latifa could fill us in.

My guess, just a shot in the dark, would probably be Cuba. Don't know for sure.
Wahay! Someone remembers NZ :D

That'd be quite wrong though. We don't really have any leftist parties in parliment ( but plenty of right wingers. <_< )

Rockfan

2nd January 2005, 02:52

lol yea i know what you mean Latifa, I mean labours "center left" but it may as well be "center Right" theres not much difference between the two. And when was the last time we had a refarendume. Not two mention all that sea bed and foreshore crap!

Latifa

2nd January 2005, 03:37

Labour is not left of the center.
Seabed and foreshore issues are making me sick...
Just incase you don't know...

IWI = I Want It

Dr. Rosenpenis

2nd January 2005, 03:42

Whilke the DPRK is by no means an ideal example of a dictatorship of the proletariat, it is by far more democratic than any capitalist nation. I don't understand how anyone who calls themselves a communist can say that Canada, Switzerland, or Sweden are "more democratic" than a country than has phased out wage slavery!

I would say Cuba is "more democratic" than the DPRK, however.

Latifa

2nd January 2005, 04:22

Democracy has nothing to do with wage slavery. Democracy is about everyone having a say in things.

Dr. Rosenpenis

2nd January 2005, 04:26

Doesn't wage slavery necessary phase out that possibility?

RABBIT - THE - CUBAN - MILITANT

2nd January 2005, 05:12

Cuba

Canada- were probably very much above average

Denmark-they do have like 200 party’s or something ... my boy form demark said that they even have a neo - socialist Marxist party:blink:

comrade_mufasa

2nd January 2005, 05:28

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2005, 10:42 PM
Whilke the DPRK is by no means an ideal example of a dictatorship of the proletariat, it is by far more democratic than any capitalist nation. I don't understand how anyone who calls themselves a communist can say that Canada, Switzerland, or Sweden are "more democratic" than a country than has phased out wage slavery!

I would say Cuba is "more democratic" than the DPRK, however.
a truthful democracy will have no leaders at any point in the machine. it will be all by the people for the people. a dictatorship of any kind is not a democracy so the DPRK is not in any way shape or form a democracy becouse Kim is a dictator(and you can not deny this). the people may be able to vote if they need a new secutary of street lights but if Kim was to say that ever person has to have a tatoo of snoopy on thier ass then it would have to be with no ifs, ands, or buts about it. and i consider myself a communist and i do not think that the DRPK is democratic but yes they have removed wage slavery form the machine, but know they have the goverment telling people to grow opium instead of food so that the goverment officals can make money.

Commie Rat

2nd January 2005, 06:24

China seems to have it alright

45% middle class and a nearly 2 billion man army [apparently]
not saying ther the most democratic but they seem to have ti going alright

Latifa

2nd January 2005, 07:22

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 04:26 AM
Doesn't wage slavery necessary phase out that possibility?
You don't need to be rich to get the word out.

Saint-Just

2nd January 2005, 14:11

Originally posted by Commie [email protected] 2 2005, 06:24 AM
China seems to have it alright

45% middle class and a nearly 2 billion man army [apparently]
not saying ther the most democratic but they seem to have ti going alright
I am not sure your 45% middle class statistic is accurate. Perhaps you did see the statistic somewhere but the validity depends on how the statisticians determined who is middle-class. They don't have a 2 billion man army, it is more like 2 million. The population is around 1.3 billion.

I am not sure they have it going alright. There is massive unemployment which there was not previously and there are many working-class people in poverty. Many of them have no health care and so die from disease and many turn to crime to live.It may not be he majority of the nation that it is like this, but it is unaccaptable that it has become like this in recent years. It is also always wrong for the rich to ignore such people, as they do in China.

Many of those who do have work are in sweatshops in the cities. The wages are so low now that these sweatshops are finding it difficult to find new workers since many of them will have a better standard of living if they go back to the rural areas in the north of the country.

bolshevik butcher

2nd January 2005, 15:48

Mao, don't forget the lack of personal freedom. Middle class in China doesn't mean they r on a par wiht the middle calss in the west.

Dr. Rosenpenis

2nd January 2005, 16:59

Originally posted by Latifa+Jan 2 2005, 02:22 AM--> (Latifa @ Jan 2 2005, 02:22 AM)
[email protected] 2 2005, 04:26 AM
Doesn't wage slavery necessary phase out that possibility?
You don't need to be rich to get the word out. [/b]
In capitalism you do.
Capitalism means that the capital-wielding elite holds power. The rest of us do not. There is a reason why we call it wage-slavery.

If the people had a say in capitalsim, why would capitalism even exist?

Honestly, how can you advocate communism, while buying into the lie that democracy can exist in capitalism?

Saint-Just

2nd January 2005, 17:19

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 1 2005, 05:46 PM
Mao, the dictatorship of the poltrait was meant to be something like russia from 1917-1923 or the Paris commune, not North Korea. Surely Proportional representation is the only true democracy.
The DPRK is quite similar to RSFSR/USSR 1917-1953. Marx said of the Paris Commune that it was the first instance in which proletarians took possession of state power, it was not an exact blueprint for the dictatorship of the proletariat, it was the first instance of something like it. He did also favour the sensible wages given to government members and various other aspects. The USSR was not exactly the same but it had many similarities, similary the DPRK now.

Proportional representation is an electoral system. You can argue it is the most democratic electoral system, however, it is not the definition of democracy.

Democracy is derived from Ancient Greek words meaning people and power.

The DPRK is democratic because the proletariat is the class that holds state power. These quotes summarise this idea.

‘Socialist ideology develops the masses into independent people who
are conscious of their independence and creative ability, while
reactionary bourgeois ideas reduce them to servants who obey the
domination of capital, to ideological and mental cripples.’~Kim Jong Il

‘[Where]oppression and capital hold sway – the masses’ consciousness
of their independence is suppressed. falsehood and deception,
imperialists and reactionaries benumb the masses’ uncorrupted minds….
This is the very ideological suppression which stops the development
of people’s consciousness of their independence. It is criminal
ideological indoctrination, which forces reactionary ideas on
people.’~Kim Jong Il

‘[Under socialism]Only then can they free themselves once and for all
from the influence and shackles of all kinds of outmoded ideas…. Only
then can everyone develop his individuality, aspirations, wisdom and
talent in an all-round way. Because it is the most revolutionary
ideology and champions and realizes the masses independence,
socialist ideology serves as a weapon for genuine ideological and
human emancipation. It ensures the unlimited development of people’s
ideologies and mental qualities. Socialist ideology is the sum total
of the development of human ideas’~Kim Jong Il

'The subject of history is the working masses, not the reactionary exploiting classes. The working masses carve out and develop history, but the exploiting classes try to arrest and turn back the historical advance. All exploiting classes, after all, constitute a reaction against history; they are the target of revolution. The whole course of the existence of class societies has been a history of sharp struggles between the creators of history and reaction against history between the masters of revolution and the targets of revolution, that is, between the working masses and the reactionary exploiting classes. Society has advanced and developed through these struggles.'~Kim Jong Il

'Only by seizing state power and the means of production in their own hands and by establishing a socialist system can the working masses free themselves from exploitation and oppression and create history consciously as true masters of society and their own destiny.'~Kim Jong Il

'The process of development of a socialist society under the leadership of the working class is the process of working-classizing the whole society. When the whole society is reshaped completely on the pattern of the advanced working class under its leadership'~Kim Jong Il

China, until 1976, was also a democratic society. Another aspect of dictatorship of the proletariat is explained by Mao. That democracy, also involves suppression since bourgeois ideas must be destroyed so that people can be free.

‘The people's democratic dictatorship uses two methods. Towards the enemy, it uses the method of dictatorship, that is, for as long a period of time as is necessary it does not let them take part in political activities and compels them to obey the law of the People's Government and to engage in labour and, through labour, transform themselves into new men. Towards the people, on the contrary, it uses the method not of compulsion but of democracy, that is, it must necessarily let them take part in political activities and does not compel them to do this or that, but uses the method of democracy in educating and persuading them.’~Mao Zedong

[b]Mao, don't forget the lack of personal freedom. Middle class in China doesn't mean they r on a par wiht the middle calss in the west.

I agree, this is a highly intelligent comment. One that suggests you have first-hand experience. You are correct that in China there is very little political freedom, in China it is taboo to talk about politics in many places. In the west we have a great deal more freedom, but we still do not live in democratic societies.

Intifada

2nd January 2005, 18:39

Castro's Cuba.

:cuba:

Postteen

2nd January 2005, 18:46

Ancient Athens.

Today I don't think that (apart from Cuba maybe)it exists a democratic nation.

Bolshevist

2nd January 2005, 19:04

Originally posted by comrade_mufasa+Dec 31 2004, 03:49 PM--> (comrade_mufasa @ Dec 31 2004, 03:49 PM)
[email protected] 31 2004, 08:21 AM

DPRK (Noth-Korea)

Why?
:rolleyes: becouse it was obviously a joke [/b]
Of course its not a joke <_<

h&s

2nd January 2005, 19:09

Edited as post was not relevant

Bolshevist

2nd January 2005, 19:12

Originally posted by Beatle [email protected] 2 2005, 06:46 PM
Ancient Athens.
I disagree. The women, slaves and landless people had no say in politics.

Latifa

3rd January 2005, 01:23

Originally posted by RedZeppelin+Jan 2 2005, 04:59 PM--> (RedZeppelin @ Jan 2 2005, 04:59 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 02:22 AM

[email protected] 2 2005, 04:26 AM
Doesn't wage slavery necessary phase out that possibility?
You don't need to be rich to get the word out.
In capitalism you do.
Capitalism means that the capital-wielding elite holds power. The rest of us do not. There is a reason why we call it wage-slavery.

If the people had a say in capitalsim, why would capitalism even exist?

Honestly, how can you advocate communism, while buying into the lie that democracy can exist in capitalism? [/b]
The average Joe gets a small say in local politics. I know this so.

But yes, you are right. Democracy in Captialism is a lie.

bolshevik butcher

3rd January 2005, 16:23

Sorry to dissapoint you Mao, I don't have any first hand expirience, I do have a Chinese friend, but he's a cappie from Hong Kong.

You mention about how in China it's taboo to mention politics, isn't it similar in North Korea, and what about the dissaperances, and the work camps, where up to 3 generation of people are made to work to death and are experimented on because of 1 of there families "crimes" against the North korean communist party?

Postteen

3rd January 2005, 18:55

Originally posted by Twisted+Jan 2 2005, 09:12 PM--> (Twisted @ Jan 2 2005, 09:12 PM)
Beatle [email protected] 2 2005, 06:46 PM
Ancient Athens.
I disagree. The women, slaves and landless people had no say in politics. [/b]
First of all, we're talking about the 5th century before Christ was born!What did you expect?Do you remember when women got the right to vote?It was in the 20th century!2500 years later!

Do slaves have political rights nowadays?(where they exist)

But anyway, with the historic facts of this time, in Athens there was democracy because, at least, those who had the political rights had the ability to take part in the governing(meaning to make decisions,vote etc)

Bolshevist

3rd January 2005, 20:33

Originally posted by Beatle Kat+Jan 3 2005, 06:55 PM--> (Beatle Kat @ Jan 3 2005, 06:55 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2005, 09:12 PM

Beatle [email protected] 2 2005, 06:46 PM
Ancient Athens.
I disagree. The women, slaves and landless people had no say in politics.
First of all, we're talking about the 5th century before Christ was born!What did you expect?Do you remember when women got the right to vote?It was in the 20th century!2500 years later! [/b]
It still does not make it right, and what the lack of political freedom for women shows us is that in no way capitalism can be called a working democracy. Unlike in North Korea, democracy does not end when the elections are over, and you can also discuss in what way the elections represents the true will of the people.

Karl Marx's Camel

3rd January 2005, 21:06

isn't it similar in North Korea, and what about the dissaperances, and the work camps, where up to 3 generation of people are made to work to death and are experimented on because of 1 of there families "crimes" against the North korean communist party?

How do you know this propaganda is true or not?

First of all, we're talking about the 5th century before Christ was born!What did you expect?Do you remember when women got the right to vote?It was in the 20th century!2500 years later!

I don't really care if it was 2500 years, or two seconds ago. Ancient Athens was not a democracy. It was for the elite. The majority did not have a right to change anything politically, just like today.

Just because it was over 2000 years ago and they achieved what you call a "democracy", does not mean they had more or less democracy than they actually had. Democracy cannot be "measured".

pandora

3rd January 2005, 21:22

Czech Republic had a chance with Vlad right after the Velvet Revolution just before the tourist trade came in a crushed the working class.

The problem is that neo-liberalist global units are working to crush democracy in every country as a barrier to trade at this time, so each country has it's strengths, like France voting against GMO food and allowing labor unions to impound the shipment, but they all bow down to the corporate cock (cuz my French)sooner or later so until we overcome corporate interests it's meaningless :P

The Zapatista areas had a democratic system of local initiative process that is duplicatable.

The saddest thing is, I've seen the most democracy in the smaller countries where ordinary citizens have a voice, but the EU threatens to erase local power.

Saint-Just

3rd January 2005, 21:25

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 3 2005, 04:23 PM
You mention about how in China it's taboo to mention politics, isn't it similar in North Korea, and what about the dissaperances, and the work camps, where up to 3 generation of people are made to work to death and are experimented on because of 1 of there families "crimes" against the North korean communist party?
I know a number of people who have been to the DPRK and discussed politics there. I have also met with North Korean officials and discussed politics with them. However, I could not possibly know what it is like to live in the DPRK - I don't live there. I have read speeches on education from the DPRK, I have actual copies of them. They stipulate the importance of political education, most of them are titled to that effect as Kim Jong Il says that political education is the most important weapon with which to fight capitalism.

I could not possibly know about work camps in the DPRK either. But, there has been South Korean propaganda for decades with people claiming they were tortured in North Korea. I did have a KCNA article with an admittance from a Korean that testimony about his family being in those alleged camps from a defector was false, although it would take some time to find again. There are many other stories, many from the Japanese about how the DPRK kidnaps the Japanese women that are of superior beauty to Korean women. These things are from right-wing media in Asia and from the South Korean government; the South Korean government was a fascist dictatorship until 1992.

This is a quote from Dermot Hudson from an e-mail interview conducted a few years ago, he lives in the UK and I have met him a number of times:

I have visited the DPRK 5 times-in 1992,1993,1994,1996 and 2002.
The Korean people are happy and united around the leadership.There
is no starvation or anything like that.In all my visits to the DPRK
I have never seen anyone begging or sleeping rough on the streets but
here in London you see it all the time.The quality of life is high the
DPRK you do not see streets full of drug dealers or drunks or
prostitutes.
Children can play safely.Crime is not a problem and Koreans laugh at
people locking doors !
In 1996 my colleague Shaun Pickford became seriously ill
while visiting the DPRK but was taken to hos pital and treated free of
charge.I also recieved dental treatment on that visit free of charge.
Pyongyang has lots of big hospitals.All treatment is free of
charge.Here
in the UK we pay for prescriptions(£6.30 per item) plus we pay national
insurance contributions (11.5% of salary- I pay £106 per month) for the
health
service.In the DPRK all taxation was abolished in 1974.Before I visited
the
DPRK in 2002
a dentist in London told me that it would cost £1000 to sort my teeth
out
but in the DPRK I got free dental treatment and only had to pay $30 for
the gold for the gold tooth.
Pyongyang is a modern clean city with lots of new
housing.
Flats are allocated to people free of charge.One of my guides told me
that her husband applied for a new flat while she was in the maternity
hospital and when she came out their new flat was ready !.
Education is free and even universities are free and
students get a free uniform and living allowance.Nursery and pre school
education are also free.
Full employment is guranteed by law and by socialist planning.
There are no big social differences in the
DPRK.Officials live in ordinary blocks of flats and have to work hard.All officials
and cadres must do 1 day of manual labour per week.

antieverything

4th January 2005, 02:23

If North Korea were truly democratic I think we could expect to see a regime change--immediately. There would probably be a lot fewer people in forced labor camps and fleeing to China, a country they see as a utopia! Maybe DPRK is democratic in the sense that the villages on the border of the DMZ are real :lol:

Cuba...fuck...In Cuba, individuals vote for representatives which in turn decide on a slate of candidates that must first be approved by the party leadership. Citizens then vote either "yes" or "no" on the slate of candidates--no votes are exceedingly rare (it is well documented that people are fearful of casting a "no" vote though repression of those who do may or may not exist). For all intents and purposes, "no" votes simply don't exist! This setup doesn't sound that democratic to me.

Are capitalist "democracies" democratic? No...but they aren't entirely undemocratic either. I think most societies in the world are best described as polyarchies in which many groups articulate their interests in the democratic arena. The range of effective democracy, of course, goes only so far as the nation's elite deems acceptable. This "control" over the democratic process is articulated as structural biases as well as the ability of elites to stage a capital strike...so even if genuinely progressive (or even socialist) candidates are put into office, the range of action is severly limited since they can either change the economic structure completely (namely by abolishing private ownership of the commanding heights of the economy, at the least) and face the possibility of a coup with the usual accompanying bloodshed and repression -or- they can do what they can to build the structural embryo of radical change in the future.

Drathir

4th January 2005, 03:09

I say Holland... before the damn CDA came to power, I thought things were going quite well... but then again, I've been out of that country for over three years now so i wouldnt know what its like now, but before the unemployment benefits and universal health care systems were great. I did forget to mention they should kick out the royal family

Sabrina

4th January 2005, 03:52

Cuba...fuck...In Cuba, individuals vote for representatives which in turn decide on a slate of candidates that must first be approved by the party leadership. Citizens then vote either "yes" or "no" on the slate of candidates--no votes are exceedingly rare (it is well documented that people are fearful of casting a "no" vote though repression of those who do may or may not exist). For all intents and purposes, "no" votes simply don't exist! This setup doesn't sound that democratic to me.

However, when you see that the majority of the people in Cuba defend Cuba's revolution (and, no, I'm not talking about the counterrevolutionaries who decide to join Imperialism and the Cuban Mafia in Miami), then you know that Fidel is doing what the people want him to do. When you see the strides that Cuba has taken in giving its people the most important basics of health care, education and revolutionary attitude to help the rest of the world and the people are appreciative even though they are lacking many things thanks to the US blockade which extends to much of the rest of the world. If you speak or understand Spanish, you can check out www.cubadebate.cu and you'll see that it's very easy to identify the people that are writing who live in Cuba because not only do they defend Cuba against all attacks but they do it with specific data and back up information that is invaluable.

bolshevik butcher

4th January 2005, 11:24

Mao, they may discuss politics, but could they say anything actually cristising the government?

antieverything

4th January 2005, 13:20

However, when you see that the majority of the people in Cuba defend Cuba's revolution (and, no, I'm not talking about the counterrevolutionaries who decide to join Imperialism and the Cuban Mafia in Miami), then you know that Fidel is doing what the people want him to do. When you see the strides that Cuba has taken in giving its people the most important basics of health care, education and revolutionary attitude to help the rest of the world and the people are appreciative even though they are lacking many things thanks to the US blockade which extends to much of the rest of the world. If you speak or understand Spanish, you can check out www.cubadebate.cu and you'll see that it's very easy to identify the people that are writing who live in Cuba because not only do they defend Cuba against all attacks but they do it with specific data and back up information that is invaluable.
Do most Cubans support the revolution? You bet. Do most Cubans have a meaningful input into the decisions that effect their everyday lives? Nope. Do most Cubans hope for an expansion of democracy? All published documentation says yes. Is democracy largely unworkable due to the imperialist presence 90 miles to the north? Probably.

GrYnEt

4th January 2005, 13:28

I would like to say Norway, but I can only dream. Norway is a fucked up country

h&s

4th January 2005, 13:32

Is democracy largely unworkable due to the imperialist presence 90 miles to the north? Probably.

Why does everyone think this? Democracy is never unworkable, it may be hindered, but that can always be overcome. Just because there is a threat to democracy from the US why should it not be attempted? Why should the people be deprived of power? If the US invades a democratic Cuba all I can say is: shit happens. The people of Cuba would kick the US's ass. Once they have had the taste of real working class power they ain't aver going to want to give that up, and will fight for it.
Just think - the same sort of exuse for lack of democracy could be used anywhere in the world. In the West the left-rulers could say that democracy could lead to a return to capitalism, and therefore shouldn't be attempted. Those sort of excuses should be rejected, though the advances given by the revolutions should not be discredited.

Colombia

4th January 2005, 14:47

Are people actually serious when they say North Korea?

Saint-Just

4th January 2005, 15:07

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 4 2005, 11:24 AM
Mao, they may discuss politics, but could they say anything actually cristising the government?
Che said, how can people be for socialism but against the communist party? In the DPRK, like in Cuba, people criticise certain ideas and policies, but one cannot say that the WPK should be overthrown or that socialism is oppressive.

It is not people that are enemies - it is ideas. There are reactionary and outdated ideas that must be put out of our consciousness.

‘In capitalist society, where society is split into classes and
people’s interests conflict, one ideology cannot hold undivided sway
and it is inevitable that different ideas exist.

'progressive ideas can never develop freely in a capitalist society, where the means of propaganda, education and the mass media are in the hands of the monopoly capitalists and reactionary rulers.

‘Only in socialist society, where exploitation, oppression and class
antagonisms have been eliminated, can all members of society be
equipped with a single ideology, because of their common aspirations,
purpose and interests.’ Kim Jong Il

Are people actually serious when they say North Korea?

Such a statement proves ignorance of the DPRK.

comrade_mufasa

4th January 2005, 15:33

Originally posted by Chairman Mao+Jan 4 2005, 10:07 AM--> (Chairman Mao @ Jan 4 2005, 10:07 AM)
Clenched [email protected] 4 2005, 11:24 AM
Mao, they may discuss politics, but could they say anything actually cristising the government?
Che said, how can people be for socialism but against the communist party? In the DPRK, like in Cuba, people criticise certain ideas and policies, but one cannot say that the WPK should be overthrown or that socialism is oppressive.

It is not people that are enemies - it is ideas. There are reactionary and outdated ideas that must be put out of our consciousness.

‘In capitalist society, where society is split into classes and
people’s interests conflict, one ideology cannot hold undivided sway
and it is inevitable that different ideas exist.

'progressive ideas can never develop freely in a capitalist society, where the means of propaganda, education and the mass media are in the hands of the monopoly capitalists and reactionary rulers.

‘Only in socialist society, where exploitation, oppression and class
antagonisms have been eliminated, can all members of society be
equipped with a single ideology, because of their common aspirations,
purpose and interests.’ Kim Jong Il

Are people actually serious when they say North Korea?

Such a statement proves ignorance of the DPRK. [/b]
Can you deny that Kim is a dictator?

Saint-Just

4th January 2005, 16:04

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 03:33 PM
Can you deny that Kim is a dictator?
I do not believe he is. I do not think that he has absolute control in the Workers Party of Korea. The Party has 3 million members, all of whom play a part in the governing of Korea.

This link is related to parts of that question:
http://www.kdvr.de/english/dictator.html

Vinny Rafarino

4th January 2005, 19:13

Originally posted by Archpremier+Dec 31 2004, 11:14 PM--> (Archpremier @ Dec 31 2004, 11:14 PM)
[email protected] 31 2004, 09:51 AM

And if you hate me for pointing that out, you can go suck Dear Leader's dick. [/b]
Was this truly necessary Archpremier?

You don't have to like Mao or his beliefs however you do have to behave like something other than a child.

Please read the RL guidelines.

Dyst

4th January 2005, 19:54

Norway is (or it seems like it is, anyways) a pretty "democratic" country. Sadly there are way too many closed-minded people living here to ever explore the true richness of democracy...

And for the record, freedom (in the way is used today) is a term created by capitalists which describes the state of the capitalists way of life and turns it into the Name of the whole country. For example, USA can be described as "free", yet, Africa can not, although Africa serves USA it's freedom. Freedom, as in the sense the word is used today, describes in fact what we would normally categorize as economic wealth. Economic wealth is, in our society today, unobjectivily exploitation.

PRC-UTE

4th January 2005, 20:19

I don't think any of us could say anything meaningful about DPRK unless we'd lived there honestly. I'll admit I'm pretty much ignorant on the subject. I've read a few pieces about it, but who knows. I won't be like Michael Moore and condemn the DPRK, but neither will I praise it til I know more.

antieverything

4th January 2005, 22:57

Democracy is unworkable in Cuba because the United States would undoubtedly subvert the crap out of anything resembling a free, fair, competitive election. As to the Cuban people being able to fight off the empire--they did it once...when they were fighting a rag-tag group of refugees who were expecting air support that never came. Cuba wouldn't stand up against an actual military invasion and even if the people resisted the occupation it would be an incredibly bloody affair. It is exceedingly unlikely that anything close to democracy would result.

Sabrina

5th January 2005, 00:39

Anti-everything, I think that the people in Cuba do have a say. The thing is anyone who thinks that free elections mean democracy, I think, are brainwashed. Just look at the US and look at what they did just recently to Afghanistan and what they are now doing to Iraq. Do you really think that Afghanistan's and Iraq's elections represent democracy?

The way I see it, Cuba is doing it the right way. For one thing anyone who is against the Revolution is considered a counterrevolutionary which is only fair. I mean if you are against the Revolution, to me, you just want to bring Capitalism back and that's just not what the majority of the people want in Cuba. I firmly believe that the people's will really travels all the way to the top in Cuba and I think this is especially identified in the way that Fidel Castro conducts his speeches. He doesn't have speech writers that think things through in a way as to not mess up or give up their falsehood, his speeches come from the heart and, not only that, but they are very detailed with specifics which is much more than I can say for most other countries.

antieverything

5th January 2005, 01:33

I think that the people in Cuba do have a say.
Are you actually going to back this statement up or are you just going to insult my intelligence and education? I happen to think that hippos can fly...

The way I see it, Cuba is doing it the right way. For one thing anyone who is against the Revolution is considered a counterrevolutionary which is only fair. I mean if you are against the Revolution, to me, you just want to bring Capitalism back and that's just not what the majority of the people want in Cuba.
If you had any idea what you are talking about you would know that what the Cuban people want is the maintainance of socialism coupled with a meaningful expansion of democracy, including the right to form opposition parties and directly vote for government representatives without the Communist Party leadership having the ability to veto their decisions. They would undoubtedly, furthermore, vote to affirm Castro's position as head of state...this is not to say, however, that the Cuban state is structured in a democratic fashion.

It is important to note that there are multiple pro-revolution, pro-socialist (often labor-based) underground democracy movements in Cuba today...it is possible that the government is correct when they alledge ties (even if the participants are unaware of these ties) to US interests and funding...it is, as I have said, in the interests of the US to force elections because elections present the opportunity for subversion and intrigue--things the United States is quite good at.

Democracy in Cuba works along the same basic lines as does democracy in capitalist countries--popular sovereignty extends only so far as it is in line with "official" positions. The real difference is who gets to decide what is official--a corporate elite on one hand and a party elite on the other.

El_Jefe_De_Jefes

5th January 2005, 08:50

Don't laugh and hear me out. The U.S. is the most democratic. A democracy is completely run by the people of its nation in its core essence. Corporations are held together by the people that buy the product and the people who work for it. If people stopped buying the product, those corporations are rendered powerless. Now, capitalism is not at all bad when it is coupled with business ethics, such as not attacking a said country for their natural resources. There is nothing wrong with earning an honest living. Any form of government can be overturned through the unification of people. The U.S. constitution, in all it's vaugeness, is the key to a successful democratic gov't. It's the ammendments that fuck everything up. I'll give you the bill of rights, the civil war ammendments, and any other human rights ammendments are great, but should have been incorporated in the constitution to begin with. I think the main complaint that most people have is that maybe their vote didn't count and that the election was probably fixed. There were no conspiracies that Bush and Halliburton ran to buy the election. Those assholes won fair and square. A bunch of assholes just like him voted for him, but that's what a democracy is. The majority vote wins. Now, they didn't only vote for him, but his politics and his beliefs that are imposed on the U.S. The rest of the world hates the U.S. and we complain that its the government's fault. Hey, we voted for those shit heads. It's our fault because it's a democracy. That's why it is important to become educated and watch the news more (Not FOX NEWS). Che's beef was with imperialism. I guess that's what the U.S. is becoming and it is really time for a revolution, but a revolution does not work unless people are behind it.

El_Jefe_De_Jefes

5th January 2005, 09:31

Blame yourself before you blame others. Have you done all in your possibilties to better the world. No, you have bought that Che and Zapata merchandise that is made by our cousins in third world countries and keep the evil corporations in power.

h&s

5th January 2005, 09:35

The U.S. is the most democratic
No its not. End of. Full Stop. 'Period.'

A democracy is completely run by the people of its nation in its core essence.
And what say do these people actually get? Did they get the choice to bomb Iraq? Did they choose to cut their own welfare?

Corporations are held together by the people that buy the product and the people who work for it.
That doesn't mean that they get a say in anything. That doesn't mean that they are not exploited through the wage-slavery system.

Now, capitalism is not at all bad when it is coupled with business ethics, such as not attacking a said country for their natural resources.
Yes it is. Capitalism is a system based on a minority exploiting the majority.

There is nothing wrong with earning an honest living.
Tell that to the borgeoise.

Any form of government can be overturned through the unification of people.
Yes, you can swap a republican government for a 'democrat' one. Whoo! They both represent the rich, not the working class.

A bunch of assholes just like him voted for him, but that's what a democracy is. The majority vote wins.
The thing is that less than one third of the country voted for him. The vast majority had no representation, so did not vote. How democratic....

That's why it is important to become educated and watch the news more (Not FOX NEWS).
Not any for-profit media. All for-profit media is biased massively in favour of the ruling elite.

I guess that's what the U.S. is becoming and it is really time for a revolution, but a revolution does not work unless people are behind it.
The people don't just have to be behind a revolution, they have to be the revolution.

El_Jefe_De_Jefes

5th January 2005, 09:57

And what say do these people actually get? Did they get the choice to bomb Iraq? Did they choose to cut their own welfare? [QUOTE]

Their choice came when they voted for their leader.

That doesn't mean that they get a say in anything. That doesn't mean that they are not exploited through the wage-slavery system.[QUOTE]

They don't have to buy the product.

Yes it is. Capitalism is a system based on a minority exploiting the majority.[QUOTE]

If you work hard, you can become part of the minority and aid those less fortunate.

Yes, you can swap a republican government for a 'democrat' one. Whoo! They both represent the rich, not the working class.[QUOTE]

Is helping the AIDS relief in Africa representing the rich? Is funding after school programs in the intercity representing the rich? Clinton did shit like that.

The thing is that less than one third of the country voted for him. The vast majority had no representation, so did not vote. How democratic....[QUOTE]

That's why people must become informed. Voting and not knowing why you are voting is a tragedy.

Not any for-profit media. All for-profit media is biased massively in favour of the ruling elite.[QUOTE]

You are correct there buddy.

El_Jefe_De_Jefes

5th January 2005, 09:59

The people don't just have to be behind a revolution, they have to be the revolution.[QUOTE]

You know what I mean dude.

h&s

5th January 2005, 12:57

Their choice came when they voted for their leader.
Both Bush and Kerry wanted to send more troops to Iraq. What a choice...

They don't have to buy the product.

If you don't buy any products from exploitative emploers, you can't buy shit. It is the very nature of the wages system that exploits people.
When you work on a product you put value into that product. The capitalist does nothing to put value into that product, yet he does not pay you for all of that value you put into it. Therefore you are not being paid for part of your days work. That is exploitation.

If you work hard, you can become part of the minority and aid those less fortunate.

Oh look, there's a flying pig!

Is helping the AIDS relief in Africa representing the rich? Is funding after school programs in the intercity representing the rich? Clinton did shit like that.
What Clinton did was just for show. If he was bothered about AIDS victims in Africa he would have nationalised the drug companies and given away AIDS drugs to anyone who needed them. US presidents only ever look after the corporations that put them into power. Any reforms they give to the working class are token gestures and are only ever temporary.

Saint-Just

5th January 2005, 13:21

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 09:57 AM
Is helping the AIDS relief in Africa representing the rich? Is funding after school programs in the intercity representing the rich? Clinton did shit like that.
Clinton gives less money to AIDS than Bush. Clinton gave between $1-2 billion each year. Bush gives between $1.9-3 billion annually.

seraphim

5th January 2005, 13:24

Democracy is a fallicy, propaganda to keep the masses believing they are free.

h&s

5th January 2005, 13:25

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 01:24 PM
Democracy is a fallicy, propaganda to keep the masses believing they are free.
What do you mean by that? Do you mean just borgeois democracy, or do you mean real democracy aswell?

Colombia

5th January 2005, 14:51

Ignorant eh?

http://www.amnestyusa.org/women/document.d...0256E1B00478D0B (http://www.amnestyusa.org/women/document.do?id=3A85FB1357C97BA080256E1B00478D0B)

Colombia

5th January 2005, 14:53

6.3 Executions including public executions

There are reports that people have executed in public for famine-related crimes such as stealing crops or livestock for food. There have also reportedly been executions of North Koreans repatriated from China who had crossed the border in search of food. Amnesty International opposes the death penalty in all instances as the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment. As a State Party to the ICCPR the North Korean government is obliged to uphold Article 6(2) which states: "In countries which have not abolished the death penalty, sentence of death may be imposed only for the most serious crimes..."(75) Other UN safeguards stipulate this should not go beyond intentional crimes with lethal or other extremely grave consequences."(76) The Human Rights Committee has also determined that public executions are "incompatible with human dignity".(77)

"Public executions were highest between 1996 and 1998 when the famine was at its peak. People were stealing the infrastructure of society such as electric lines, copper wires and selling it in China and in consumer markets. This was seen as damaging to society and so the government decided they had to punish people severely. People who slaughtered cows to eat were also severely punished. The government forbade this as cows were perceived as essential for farming and transportation (due to lack of energy resources), and not just as a food source. In 1997/8 during the height of the refugee flow to China, the North Korean authorities found that through the mass exodus, some North Koreans were contacting South Koreans. North Korean authorities were afraid that they would be influenced by these South Koreans, especially missionaries. The North Korean authorities feared that it would threaten the political and social fabric of North Korea. In some cases, the North Koreans who had been forcibly repatriated back from China were publicly executed."(78)

Testimonies suggest that food shortages resulted in social disorder, and public executions were carried out "to educate the people that disorder would be punished."(79) Notices of pending executions were reportedly advertised in public sites such as marketplaces. For instance, a witness testified that he saw public notices of executions near Hesan city in Yangang province when the famine was at its peak in 1996.(80) Testimonies also indicate that the North Korean government adopted a policy of increased numbers of public executions in the mid-1990s as the famine worsened.(81) One person told Amnesty International that, "after 1995, the authorities had to "intimidate" people so that they did not go to China and so they were shot in the head."(82)

Children were witness to these public executions. In some cases, school teachers reportedly took school groups to witness public executions.

Most of the North Korean children Amnesty International interviewed in South Korea had witnessed executions during the years of famine in the late 1990s. They reported seeing executions by hanging or by shooting. When there were executions in the market place, all shops were ordered to be closed. After the executions, the shops opened again. Sometimes the people to be executed were badly beaten before the execution. Men and women were executed for crimes including theft of cows and in one case for the murder of a policeman during a bungled attempt to steal corn.

One boy witnessed public executions twice in Hoeryong (North Hamgyong Province) at a market place in 1997. One of the accused was executed for the "crime" of killing a cow.

Another boy stated that in 1996 when he was in the third grade, his school teacher had taken students to see a person executed for robbery. Two brothers whom he witnessed being executed had killed a party member while trying to steal corn.

Another boy witnessed an execution in Musan (North Hamgyong Province), with other schoolchildren. He saw the execution of a man - who was in his thirties - on charges of stealing cows.(83)

According to testimonies collected by Amnesty International, "Teachers were seen bringing school groups to witness executions."(84) The exposure of children to the brutal act of execution appears to indicate that the North Korean government is not observing Article 19 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child which states that "States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse... while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child."

Amnesty International has received reports that indicate that public executions have declined since the time of these testimonies, but there is concern that executions are still taking place secretly in detention centres. There are vaguely defined provisions in the North Korean Criminal Code that provide for the death penalty. In concluding observations on the second periodic report submitted by the North Korean government on the implementation of the ICCPR, the UN Human Rights Committee remained "seriously concerned that, of those five offences (which carried the death penalty)... four are essentially political offences (arts. 44, 45, 47 and 52 of the Criminal Code), couched in terms so broad that the imposition of the death penalty may be subject to essentially subjective criteria." The Committee also recommended that North Korea "should refrain from any public executions" and invited the North Korean government "to work towards the declared goal of abolishing capital punishment."(85) More recently, the UN Commission on Human Rights expressed its deep concern about reports of systemic, widespread and grave violations of human rights in North Korea, including: "(t)orture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, public executions, imposition of the death penalty for political reasons..."(86)

Colombia

5th January 2005, 14:55

It just grows on.

5.2 Restrictions on freedom of movement

The North Korean famine and food crisis have been largely invisible because of political controls, including restrictions on the movement of both North Koreans and staff of international humanitarian agencies and the near-total suppression of freedom of expression, information and association. North Korean sensitivity about revealing the worst cases has also played a part. The challenging physical terrain, strict governmental controls over travel, the lack of a transport infrastructure, fuel shortages and flooding have all restricted the movement of people within the country in search of food, especially those weakened by hunger. The result has been what aid workers called a "silent famine".(50)

The North Korean government operates a policy of compulsory designation of place of employment and residence. Ordinary citizens are not allowed to travel freely inside North Korea without permission. The restrictions on freedom of movement for North Korean citizens were clarified by the government in its second periodic report under the ICCPR submitted to the Human Rights Committee in May 2000. This stated that

"citizens are free to travel to any place of the country on official or personal business subject to the Regulation of Travel. By article 4 of the Regulation the area along the Military Demarcation Line, military base, district of munitions industry and the districts associated with State security are travel restrictive. By article 6 of the Regulation the citizens who want to travel are issued with traveller's certificate."(51)
Ordinary North Korean citizens have to apply for a travel certificate from the local government office. There are different permits for different journeys. For example, travel to a special administration section requires a particular certificate. Travel to an area bordering China or South Korea requires exceptional permission requiring many more approvals. The local office presents the documents to the border city office which provides a number. The application process takes, in general, 15 days. Acceptable reasons for travel include visiting relatives, for which permission is rarely granted, and the marriage or funeral of close relatives, for which permission is easier to obtain. To attend a funeral, documents have to be provided about the person's death.
According to Oh who left North Korea in late 2000, "One could travel to Pyongyang and other parts, except border areas near China or Free Trade Zones, by paying bribes to authorities. It was not easy as I had to travel frequently between the city where my father worked and where my family lived to get money for my mother's treatment; she was suffering from cancer. By law, I needed permission to travel; but it was difficult to get travel permits. So I didn't get a travel permit, and when travelling without permission, I evaded the inspectors by hiding in the toilet or stairs or by bribing them."(52)

The inconvenience caused by travel without permission is emphasized by Kim: "Ordinary people cannot travel freely; they need certificates and its non-possession would result in fines or in these travellers being asked to get off buses or trains. Police checks were conducted at checkpoints for buses."(53)

This permit system "had kept most people in their home villages most of their lives… [as] people did not receive their food ration unless they were in their home village. As the public distribution system collapsed, these regulations became far less effective at controlling population movements as people no longer relied on the state for food."(54) Reinforcing the system, on 27 September 1997, Chairman Kim Jong-il reportedly issued orders to all county administrators in each of the 211 counties(55) to set up facilities, known as "927 camps" to forcibly confine those who were caught outside their village or city without a travel permit including those found illegally foraging for food.

In some areas defying the regulations and risking detention reportedly became critical for survival. A member of the ruling Korean Workers' Party who escaped in March 1999 from North Hamkyong province to China was quoted as stating that "people who defied internal travel restrictions to go foraging survived, while loyal party members stayed put and died."(56)

The restrictions on freedom of movement also appear to have worsened the impact of the famine and food crisis by increasing the break-up of families. In the second half of the 1990s hundreds of children were left to fend for themselves on the streets because their parents had died or left home in search of food. These children became known as kkotjebi (literally, 'flower swallows').

Commie Girl

5th January 2005, 16:10

I have to say that Canada does things fairly well, in this present climate. Cuba is a model for what we need to achieve.

bolshevik butcher

5th January 2005, 17:43

Anyway Mao you may have talked to party officials, but they are hardly going of give you a bad picture of the place, and what about real freedom, it's basically a police state. The western media is by no means perfect, but you should see the media there, it's just a propaganda tool of the state.

Saint-Just

5th January 2005, 18:16

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 02:51 PM
Ignorant eh?

http://www.amnestyusa.org/women/document.d...0256E1B00478D0B (http://www.amnestyusa.org/women/document.do?id=3A85FB1357C97BA080256E1B00478D0B)
Sorry, I had no idea you had read what Amnesty international says about the DPRK. The best use for the Amnesty International information is to defend the DPRK on accusations of famine. Where do you think Amnesty gets its information - defectors living from the ROK?

Anyway Mao you may have talked to party officials, but they are hardly going of give you a bad picture of the place, and what about real freedom, it's basically a police state. The western media is by no means perfect, but you should see the media there, it's just a propaganda tool of the state.

I said a lot more than mentioning having talked to officials from the DPRK. I know officials are not going to say anything negative. But by meeting people from a country you can still learn a great deal.

Count all the fingers on your hands, and then count all the toes on your feet and then times that number by two. And then you will have an idea of how many times I have discussed your questions on message boards.

The bourgeoisie want you to believe that socialism = police state, but it is nothing like that.

Have a look at this. It is very good and it talks about some of the questions you posed.

http://www.korea-dpr.com/library/211.pdf

you should see the media there, it's just a propaganda tool of the state

The media in the DPRK propagates the socialist truth; I do not see anything wrong with that. Of course it must be controlled by the people, as it is in the DPRK. Party members educate and inform others of the evils of capitalism and the aim of socialism.

Wolf-11

5th January 2005, 22:18

I am curious if DPRK is a totalitarian dictatorship then why are the ideas of socialism and communism being promoted? If Kim Jung wants to oppress the people wouldn't it be more efficient to claim capitalism like many of the oppressive dictatorships have, that way they could have their oppressive dictatorship with out having capitalist countries on their back? Why educate the populace about the power and freedom of a worker state and promote ideas of revolution? I mean if the people were truly being oppressed wouldn't those kind of ideas be dangerous and counter productive to the government?

Karl Marx's Camel

5th January 2005, 22:51

I am curious if DPRK is a totalitarian dictatorship then why are the ideas of socialism and communism being promoted?

Socialism has in many places been totalitarian, led by a party with total control.

I don't think it is very fruitful to discuss if the country is "totalitarian or NOT, or democratic, or NOT". Every nation is totalitarian to some degree, and some nations are more democratic than others.

If Kim Jung wants to oppress the people wouldn't it be more efficient to claim capitalism like many of the oppressive dictatorships have

A lot of opressive dictatorships have been leftist. Capitalism does not neccesarily equal totalitarian rule.

trex

5th January 2005, 23:48

most perfect democracy? Ancient Greece. Show up, you get to vote, and everyone did it. Wonderful social contract.

chebol

6th January 2005, 05:22

Ancient Greece, hey? Would this be the same ancient greece where "democracy" was restricted to a small elite of males over 18 who were from the 'right' families in the 'right' city (not all of ancient greece had "ancient greek 'democracy'"?
Imagine, if you will, if the the entire electorate were made up of the rich and powerful, and ony the local ones at that, and noone else. THAT'S "ancient greek 'democracy'".
Who needs to let the commoners, slaves, women or foreigners vote anyway?

Wonderful social contract indeed!

PRC-UTE

6th January 2005, 05:31

most perfect democracy? Ancient Greece. Show up, you get to vote, and everyone did it. Wonderful social contract.

Ancient Greece didn't work that way at all, m8. A number of citizens were chosen in a lottery system to be the government and in one mass, rotating body they were the policy makers. Not a bad idea really.

What was so effed up about it was the fact that slaves, women and propertyless men were exempt. So in practice it was brutal and not very democratic.

ComradeChris

6th January 2005, 05:36

Originally posted by Commie [email protected] 5 2005, 12:10 PM
I have to say that Canada does things fairly well, in this present climate. Cuba is a model for what we need to achieve.
I think Canada could do better. A percentage system would help the NDP out a lot, who usually rack up about 25% of the votes but don't get the seats to show it.

ComradeChris

6th January 2005, 05:40

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 07:48 PM
most perfect democracy? Ancient Greece. Show up, you get to vote, and everyone did it. Wonderful social contract.
I wrote an essay on how undemocratic it was. Only 18% of the population in Athens could vote. I'm sure they all didn't vote the same way. So all you need is 9.1% of the population to see things your way (which was easy because the rich still had vast influence on the assemblies) and you have you're "perfect" democracy. :rolleyes:

chebol

6th January 2005, 05:48

Hey antieverything, are you going to back up your assertions that cuba is not democratic with references, or are you just going to continue to insult my intelligence?
What kind of free "competitive" election? One in which the US bankrolls the 'opposition' pro-'democracy' party, which will immediately reinstate capitalism if it were to (hilarious) 'win'? The cuban people do have a meaningful input to the running of their everyday lives. And, yes, they would like to have more input and control, but that's difficult with the risk of US espionage, but not so difficult that cuba needs a pro-capitalist party just for the sake of appealing to bourgeois layers in the west who fetishise multi-party democracy. As far as 'democratic input and control' goes, you're no going to find much better than Cuba. But this doesn't mean Cuba is the pinnacle- even cuba adits this..

Just a (very, very tiny) taste of the democracy that exists in Cuba:

Granma International On line - Jan 5, 2005
http://www.granma.cu

Members of the National Electoral Commission appointed

Havana, Jan 5--THE Council of State of Cuba has designated the members of
the National Electoral Commission (CEN) to supervise the proper management
of the elections scheduled for this April, an official note informs today.

A decree from that state agency notes that the CEN is composed of
Roberto Díaz Sotolongo, justice minister, as president; Juan Vela,
dean of the University of Havana, as vice president; one secretary;
and 14 members.

The CEN members are to take up their positions today before the
secretary of the Council of State, one day after the convening of
elections for delegates of the municipal assemblies of People's Power
(local government).

In the next two weeks the 17-member body will decide the date for
establishing the provincial, municipal and constituency electoral
commissions, states the text published today by the national press.

Cuban electors should attend the partial elections on April 17 (the
first round) to elect their municipal government representatives for a
period of two and a half years.

The following Sunday, April 24, the second round will take place in
those constituencies where none of the candidates have obtained more
than 50% of the valid ballots cast.

**************************** ***

Municipal elections called in Cuba

Havana, Jan 4 -- The Council of State of Cuba has convened elections this
April for delegates to the 169 municipal assemblies of People's Power (local
government) on the island.

A decree signed by President Fidel Castro and circulated today by the
national press affirms that voters should attend the partial elections
on April 17 (the first round) to elect their representatives for a two
and a half-year term.

The following Sunday, April 24, has been set aside for a second round
in constituencies where none of the candidates attain more than 50% of
the valid votes cast, the document notes.

According to the country's Electoral Law (Law 72 of October 1992), the
Council of State must convene these elections at least 90 days
previously.

Some eight million people aged over 16 with no mental or legal
impediments should participate in these elections, given that on
reaching voting age Cubans are automatically registered on the
electoral rolls.

The candidates are proposed in local meetings or on a personal basis,
although they should have the approval by raised hands of their
neighbors.

A minimum of two and a maximum of eight candidates stand in every
constituency. They cannot make personal propaganda and their
nominations are presented via CVs placed in public areas.

Up to 50% of the elected delegates, representing the mandate of their
voters, can become members of the National Assembly (single-chamber
Parliament) if elected as deputies by popular vote.

Partial elections take place every two and a half years in Cuba for
the municipal assemblies and every five years to elect delegates to
the provincial assemblies and deputies to Parliament. (PL)

Copyright © 2005 Granma International. All rights reserved.

Guerrilla22

6th January 2005, 07:27

Probaly Switzerland or one of the Scandanavian countries.

Cobra

6th January 2005, 08:58

I don’t mean to insult anyone but this thread is useless.

The term “democratic state” is an oxymoron. The very nature of a state’s existence is anti-democratic. States may appear to be “by the people” but if you cut through all the bullshit you will be to see that what makes the government, party, capitalists, whatever, have authority over others is coercion. Chairman Mao once remarked that “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun”. He was right; for all states use the ‘guns’ of the military and police to ‘legitimize’ rule over the people.

Look beneath the mask of any government and you will find the point of rifle!

trex

6th January 2005, 10:35

:) Well, nobody seems to think Ancient Greece's system of democracy worked well. Perhaps that's why we put the adjective 'ancient' in front of thier names.

Colombia

6th January 2005, 14:59

Originally posted by Chairman Mao+Jan 5 2005, 06:16 PM--> (Chairman Mao @ Jan 5 2005, 06:16 PM)
[email protected] 5 2005, 02:51 PM
Ignorant eh?

http://www.amnestyusa.org/women/document.d...0256E1B00478D0B (http://www.amnestyusa.org/women/document.do?id=3A85FB1357C97BA080256E1B00478D0B)
Sorry, I had no idea you had read what Amnesty international says about the DPRK. The best use for the Amnesty International information is to defend the DPRK on accusations of famine. Where do you think Amnesty gets its information - defectors living from the ROK?

[/b]
I don't know which is more reliable. Amnesty international or this. :rolleyes:

http://www.kdvr.de/english/dictator.html

bolshevik butcher

6th January 2005, 16:13

Mao, an example of what I'm talking about was an entire news programme dedicated to what a great gardener the "great leader" was.

Wolf 11, these dictatorships you talk about usually spanned from a group that was at some point genunially socialist. Or they use socialism to stop the oppressed from using it. Think about it, how can you use socialism to fight a "communist" dictatorship?

I trust Amnesty International, it has nothing to gain through lying about North Korea.

Sabrina

6th January 2005, 18:13

QUOTE
I think that the people in Cuba do have a say.

Are you actually going to back this statement up or are you just going to insult my intelligence and education? I happen to think that hippos can fly...

Okay, Antieverything, it's going to take me a few days but I'm working on getting you info directly from the people of Cuba. Check out this website cubadebate.cu. It's in Spanish for the most part, but I've asked for some input from the people of Cuba to give me actual proof from their standpoint. I'll get back to you as soon as I have enough.

Hey antieverything, are you going to back up your assertions that cuba is not democratic with references, or are you just going to continue to insult my intelligence?
Well said Chebol, I read the Granma site almost everyday and I find it extremely informative.

Thanks and HASTA LA VICTORIA SIEMPRE!!!!

Saint-Just

6th January 2005, 19:31

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 6 2005, 04:13 PM
I trust Amnesty International, it has nothing to gain through lying about North Korea.
You should read Kim Jong Il. As he says everything exists from a particular ideological perspective. This includes Amnesty International. They may not gain anything by criticising the DPRK but they do subscribe to a bourgeois weltanschaung. As a result Amnesty International is anti-DPRK and anti-Cuba.

The stories that fuel Amnesty are sensationalist, tabloid-esque stories.
Charles Jenkins, a soldier who defected to the DPRK is one such person who creates these stories. On the other hand, a soldier who defected with him, James Dresnok takes a completely different view.
http://www.ernesto-guevara.com/forums/inde...1867&hl=jenkins (http://www.ernesto-guevara.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=1867&hl=jenkins)

This is a good article, from four lawyers from the National Lawyers Guild of the United States that visited the DPRK.

http://www.nlg.org/korea/2003delegation_report.html

Archpremier

6th January 2005, 22:43

Is it illegal for an American to travel to DPRK, like Cuba? If so, according to which side?

Cal

7th January 2005, 00:16

Baathist Iraq.

Everybody got a vote and they even had your name on the ballot paper!

antieverything

7th January 2005, 00:55

Hey antieverything, are you going to back up your assertions that cuba is not democratic with references, or are you just going to continue to insult my intelligence?
Why should I? I've read quite a bit of academic research on Cuba's political system...you folks, on the other hand, are just saying what you wish were the case and then citing, of all things, Cuban state media. North Korea state media makes a big production out of "democracy" also.

Sabrina

7th January 2005, 01:13

then citing, of all things, Cuban state media

You know, a statement like this just proves to me that you know nothing about Cuban media. If you read any of it, you would see that they always back up their information with numerous sources including, for example, US government sources when stating specifics about how the US operates. Maybe you should check it out, or maybe you are just one of those people that doesn't want to read things that are self explanatory, is that why you call yourself antieverything, because you'd rather be against everything instead of trying to search out what truths do exist in this world?

Saint-Just

7th January 2005, 01:36

Is it illegal for an American to travel to DPRK, like Cuba? If so, according to which side?

I personally know an American that went to the DPRK. The DPRK allow it but the U.S. do not. The DPRK officials did not stamp his passport because he was from the U.S., so that he would not be fined and/or imprisoned for his visit as he came back to the U.S.

Dr. Rosenpenis

7th January 2005, 02:26

antieverything, you seem to be missing the point of socialism.
"Competitive elections" would do absolutely nothing whatsoever to promote democracy in Cuba. The US "elections" were "competitive" weren't they?

And what exactly do you mean by "competitive"?
Surely you're not suggesting that the government should be more lenient on right-wingers!

Electing leaders would be completely ineffective in allowing the people to express their will. It seems to me that you need to do some more reading on Cuba's political system.

Read this! (http://www.newhumanist.com/geiser.html)

antieverything

7th January 2005, 03:09

antieverything, you seem to be missing the point of socialism.
"Competitive elections" would do absolutely nothing whatsoever to promote democracy in Cuba. The US "elections" were "competitive" weren't they?
The link you provided basically described the political system just as I did but emphasized the elected officials who have no ultimate authority and didn't emphasize the role of the CP leadership in determining the slate of candidates that the people then "approve". Are the CDRs and PPAs interesting? Of course. However, my sister interviewed such representatives extensively while she was in Cuba and their main objection to the political structure was the lack of genuine popular participation in real decision making.

And what exactly do you mean by "competitive"?
Surely you're not suggesting that the government should be more lenient on right-wingers!
By competitive I mean people can individually affirm or reject candidates for representative positions and furthermore vote for an alternate candidate if the official candidate is not to their liking. You are missing the major point here: no dissident could ever get a place in national government because the party leadership has to approve the entire slate of candidates before their is a "vote" on them. Voting for a slate of candidates as a whole is about as democratic as Soviet-style single-candidate elections...the only difference is that a single-candidate election, at least theoretically, allows for the rejection of an unsuitable candidate without having to reject the whole lot of them. If multiple views aren't taken seriously and allowed to be represented in government, a state can hardly be viewed as democratic in any real sense. Like I said before, democracy in such a system (in theory and in practice) extends only so far as the Party officals see fit as they have the ability to limit the range of debate to their liking.

A non-capitalist economic system does not suddenly and magically eliminate all valid dissenting views on how society should operate. There are still real decisions for people to make in a socialist state--debates will develop with different sides.

Electing leaders would be completely ineffective in allowing the people to express their will. It seems to me that you need to do some more reading on Cuba's political system.
This is the same, bullshit Stalinist appologetics for "democratic" centralism. Please don't tell me you take this old-guard quackery seriously!

You know, a statement like this just proves to me that you know nothing about Cuban media.
Well, seeing as I regularly read Granma and I've read academic studies on the Cuban media, I don't think this statement has much validity.

Maybe you should check it out, or maybe you are just one of those people that doesn't want to read things that are self explanatory, is that why you call yourself antieverything, because you'd rather be against everything instead of trying to search out what truths do exist in this world?
I call myself antieverything because I thought it to be clever...several years ago. As to your rambling about "truth", let's just say I refuse to take things on faith and would rather see for myself. I've read the apollegetics and I've read the real, academic research...I've had discussions with professors who have studied there--one of them is a leading scholar of Latin America revolutions and has his wall plastered with Che images and Anarcho-Syndicalist propaganda. I've taken classes on Latin American politics and written well-researched academic papers on the Cuban political system. Frankly, all of this is silly, infantile, anti-intellectual garbage and I really shouldn't waste my time with it any longer.

praxis1966

7th January 2005, 05:02

You'll have to forgive me for entering so late in the game. I've been out of town (in San Francisco to be exact) recently and am just recovering from the jetlag. In any event, I nominate The People's Republic of Berkeley as the most democratic nation. Don't tell me it's not it's own country either. If that's what you think then you obviously have never been there.

chebol

7th January 2005, 05:15

antieverything, you've entirely missed my point.

IF you have read this "real, academic research", my challenge is that you actually reference it, or at least indicate which bits of research they are, which books they are that you've read, who is this academic whose wall is pasted with che-posters, etc.

If you seriously believe that Cuba is undemocratic then you will need to tell us how? who says so? and why?
In return you will get (hopefully) a rational response and we can have a debate over the creation of popular power in cuba and elsewhere.

As it is, you just keep saying "Oh, I don't have to answer that, I'VE read the BOOKS", or "You can't say that, that's from the cuban media". Well, guess what? I used the Cuban media because I'm in agreement with it, therefore it backs up my argument. I'd post more, but I've got a workshop to finish preparing (on, would you believe it, Cuba) and am going to a conference for the next 4 days- I'll do so when I get back. When I do, I'll expect at least ONE solid reference, or I'll assume that your argument (which, I may add, contains SOME valid points- Cuba's democratic system needs improvement and adjustment as it's society and economy evolve) is based simply on assertions or bourgeois anti-cuban material, and is not worth the argument. You say you've studied Latin American politics and written well-researched papers on the Cuban political system- bloody well prove it then!!!!! Give us the goss, not the gas.

I would like to be proved wrong. Try it.
And try not to use such a self-righteous tone when you're doing it.

bolshevik butcher

7th January 2005, 13:21

Cuba is democratic, North Korea certainly isn't though.

h&s

7th January 2005, 13:33

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 7 2005, 01:21 PM
Cuba is democratic, North Korea certainly isn't though.
What kind of a statement is that? How can you make such a statement without backing it up at all? Its not as if there's a lack of evidence on this thread....

antieverything

7th January 2005, 16:26

Let's look back at your original post, shall we?

What kind of free "competitive" election? One in which the US bankrolls the 'opposition' pro-'democracy' party, which will immediately reinstate capitalism if it were to (hilarious) 'win'?
This is exactly why I said it is largely impossible for Cuba to be a genuine democracy. I never said I didn't support Cuba against the Empire. All I said was wishing for Cuba to be democratic doesn't make it so.

The cuban people do have a meaningful input to the running of their everyday lives. And, yes, they would like to have more input and control, but that's difficult with the risk of US espionage, but not so difficult that cuba needs a pro-capitalist party just for the sake of appealing to bourgeois layers in the west who fetishise multi-party democracy.
They have some, yes, but it at the local level and subverted by a (irrational or otherwise) fear of stepping out of line due to the structure of these institutions (they can be summarized as much kinder, gentler Stalinist-style control systems--local officials are still expected to "discourage" "counter-revolutionary" sentiment).

There is also some input at other levels of government but it is advisory, not actually legislative or executive.

The national government, it can't be denied, still resembles an organ of the Communist Party leadership even though it is in no way dominated demographically (CP membership isn't required or expected). This is because the slate of national candidates must be approved by the party before it is voted on.

So, am I saying that Cuba is a vile, Stalinist dictatorship or controlled society? Of course not. Am I saying the Cuba lacks any form of institutionalized popular power or even an impressive amount of it? No. All I'm saying is that the final word still comes from the Communist Party leadership and there is no way to change that within the system! Thus, this is not a democracy--it is a set of democratic institutions administered and controlled by an elite group. I would go as far to say that Cuba is astoundingly democratic given the situation.

Did I ever deny that there were elections in Cuba? No, in fact I pointed the fact out in my original post. There are also elections in the United States. There were also elections in the Soviet Union. Elections don't mean democracy.

As to citing sources, it would require I have access to my university network account which I don't at the moment. I do, however, strongly recommend the chapter on Cuba in Harry E. Vanden and Gary Prevost, Politics of Latin America: The Power Game. This is widely considered to be the most accurate and honest text on Latin America to date.

Ultimately I feel my critique is being confused as a conservative critique based on liberal ideas. This isn't correct. Actually my critique of the Cuban political system is based on a radical conception of democracy which is defined by the major, structural questions of social organization being subject to popular control. In Cuba, as with the United States, these questions are out of the public sphere.

Erin Go Braugh

7th January 2005, 23:29

Definetly not Cuba or N. Korea. Or the USA. I'd be willing to say Ireland or New Zealand or Sweden.

Karl Marx's Camel

8th January 2005, 00:02

Why Ireland, New Zealand or Sweden?

Arnau

8th January 2005, 18:02

If you're talking the most democratical as in which is closest to a direct democracy i would have to say Swizterland.
Most important and social decisions are put into a referendum and citizens are called to vote for these, i don't know for sure, but from what i've seen its seems like around once every 2 months. But of course it is run by the Bourgeouisie and the right wing does have alot of power and influence.
However i do agree it would be fair to say that Switzerland probably gets closest to a direct style democracy, amongst other countries

Winston Smith

8th January 2005, 21:18

Switzerland or any Scandinaivian country. Once Israel pulls out of Gaza and the West Bank I might give them a nod.

bolshevik butcher

9th January 2005, 11:56

Originally posted by h&s+Jan 7 2005, 01:33 PM--> (h&s @ Jan 7 2005, 01:33 PM)
Clenched [email protected] 7 2005, 01:21 PM
Cuba is democratic, North Korea certainly isn't though.
What kind of a statement is that? How can you make such a statement without backing it up at all? Its not as if there's a lack of evidence on this thread.... [/b]
Ok, you're right that was pretty vague. I had just read red zeppelins docuyment. Cuba is run similarly to the old soviet systems, with most of the administration being done by commities, similar to workers councils. Then these councils and the poeple vote for a higher assembly to govern the country, I think this is the best form of democracy, as it alows for each area to have an amount of independance in the way that it's run, yet still maintains it's links with the rest of the country.

SubZ

9th January 2005, 17:20

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 12:02 AM
Why Ireland, New Zealand or Sweden?
not sweden since i like hear i would not call it the Most democratic nation not eaven close let me remind you of gothenburg 2001. There is alot of shit in this country as well and im affraid it gets more and more corrupt.

Dr. Rosenpenis

9th January 2005, 17:43

The link you provided basically described the political system just as I did but emphasized the elected officials who have no ultimate authority and didn't emphasize the role of the CP leadership in determining the slate of candidates that the people then "approve". Are the CDRs and PPAs interesting? Of course. However, my sister interviewed such representatives extensively while she was in Cuba and their main objection to the political structure was the lack of genuine popular participation in real decision making.

With an understanding of the Cuban political process, why would you say that there is a lack of genuine popular participation?

By competitive I mean people can individually affirm or reject candidates for representative positions and furthermore vote for an alternate candidate if the official candidate is not to their liking. You are missing the major point here: no dissident could ever get a place in national government because the party leadership has to approve the entire slate of candidates before their is a "vote" on them. Voting for a slate of candidates as a whole is about as democratic as Soviet-style single-candidate elections...the only difference is that a single-candidate election, at least theoretically, allows for the rejection of an unsuitable candidate without having to reject the whole lot of them. If multiple views aren't taken seriously and allowed to be represented in government, a state can hardly be viewed as democratic in any real sense. Like I said before, democracy in such a system (in theory and in practice) extends only so far as the Party officals see fit as they have the ability to limit the range of debate to their liking.

The district PPA had the right to nominate up to half of the candidates and the rest were chosen by the electoral commission from the names submitted for the provincial and national PPA.

A ballot was then prepared with no provision for a write-in candidate. Voters had three choices: 1) to deface their ballot or leave it blank; 2) to vote for one or some of the candidates, and; 3) to vote for the entire slate and thereby show the whole-hearted support for the Revolution. The candidates spent no money, nor did they campaign separately; their names and biographies were published and they all appeared at public meetings. There was no party slate.

DEPAVER

9th January 2005, 23:57

The poster that made the comment about "democratic state" being an oxymoron is correct, although I do understand the intent of the original post.

Democracy is governance of the people, by the people and for the people. It is possible for people to democratically select representatives at the local level that can represent them in regional or even national federations to deal with issues that transcend the local community. If a democratic process was used at the grass roots level and if the representatives are immediately recallable by those that sent them. This, in my opinion, does not constitute a "state," but base level, representation empowered by the people, not an empowered few.

But back to the question. Switzerland is certainly a country that many people hold in high esteem, and it does appear they have an engaged and free citizenry.

I'm hearing that Costa Rica is a good place to live. If you live in the US, you don't even need a passport to visit. Might be worth a look....

bolshevik butcher

10th January 2005, 16:15

I think that in most western countries the media has far too big an influence for it to be described as democracy.

BernardMarx

11th January 2005, 06:07

i didn't read everything that was written in this thread, but every one does realize that democracy is simply the peoples right to vote, and have a say in the way the government is run right? it has nothing to do with poverty level, how well off they are, or anything of the sort. No matter how much the communist in this forum want to say so, a dictatorship cannot by default be more democratic then a non-autocratic government. the best form of democracy that can be measured as "best" would be a representative democracy were everyone over a certain age can vote, and their vote has some kind of effect on how things are run, not like here in the U.S.A. based on this definition i would say switzerland has a very strong republic.

undeadsinner

11th January 2005, 11:49

Democracy??most democratic?? :lol:
who is the most oprressed nation in the world by the "democracy"
who is the "best"(worst) nation in the world...it has the parties of socialist and independant but they never get anywhere near winning- :ph34r: AMERICA-the most democratic nation in the world-worlds leading opressers-cant keep thier nose out of any world conflict if everyone else didnt want the help"But its america's duty to help those under cruel rule of communist and dictators of socialism"
but what the americans never look at is the fact that In 1971-72 the USSR was the FIRST IN THE WORLD to grant an 8 hour work day and paid vacations to the workers with no need to contribute to social insurance funds as the government had taken it upon itself to handle that...also Article 126 of the constitution of the USSR also granted unification of trade unions.social organizations,youth orgs,trade and scientific societies,sport and defense orgs,culutral and religious press freedoms,ect.
now whos got more freedom?*rasing hand for Socialist*
and the only reason that the Rpublican and Democrats dont like"Commies"(socialist)
is because they dont want to be associated with "commoners" or the poverty stricken(such as myself-who is soon to living in a cardboard box in ohio:( )
they want to try to control people such as myself and run our lives til death just so they look important..
so in the end my vot for most"democratic" is the most hated country in the world..The United States Of America...

h&s

11th January 2005, 15:41

Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2005, 06:07 AM
i didn't read everything that was written in this thread, but every one does realize that democracy is simply the peoples right to vote, and have a say in the way the government is run right? it has nothing to do with poverty level, how well off they are, or anything of the sort. No matter how much the communist in this forum want to say so, a dictatorship cannot by default be more democratic then a non-autocratic government. the best form of democracy that can be measured as "best" would be a representative democracy were everyone over a certain age can vote, and their vote has some kind of effect on how things are run, not like here in the U.S.A. based on this definition i would say switzerland has a very strong republic.
Democracy does not mean the right to vote.
de·moc·ra·cy ( P )
n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies
1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

highway star

11th January 2005, 16:10

hi. i cant speak english very well. apologize for this...
i am surprised when i saw this topic? Which nation has most democratic system?? Here, we are in a leftist site/forum and i think most of us defend and want proleterian democracy. And there is one country that has proleterian democracy: CUBA!!

DEPAVER

11th January 2005, 17:46

Democracy does not mean the right to vote.
de·moc·ra·cy ( P )
n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies
1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

Democracy is simply rule by the people. Democracy recognizes nothing other than the people deciding their own fate. It says nothing about authority or majority rule.

Majority rule is a particular form of representative republicanism used in the United States to prevent democracy. Majority rule means the ruling authority can still maintain control in spite of public opinion. Majority rule means the ruling minority need only convince a majority of the people who vote to go their way. This is not democracy.

Factor in economic control of elections in our corporate oligarchy, and you have an electoral system unresponsive to the people, acting to support corporate interests.

#4 is incorrect....

"Representative government has broken down. Our politicians represent not the people who vote for them but the commercial interests who finance their election campaigns. We have the best politicians that money can buy."
Ed Abbey