Lasting Governments

[D_Bokk]

Okay before I start. I was unsure where I should post this since it contains it's fair share of history, but only used it to support Democratic Socialism stemming from a Vanguard. I'm no expert on the topics I am about to discuss, but I came across a seemingly trend when it comes to long lasting countries that had a lot in common with what I see as a superior governmental system. Here goes:

**********

Nearly all of the Communist countries, if one could even call them so, were ruled by dictators whom never showed any intention to allow the people to vote in their leader via elections. Everyone of these countries have failed, are in the process of failing or still have a chance of going towards Democratic Socialism.

Due to this failure, a new type of socialist government must come into effect. Since we haven't witnessed a long lasting Democratic Socialist state, the only historical facts are that from Capitalist societies to prove this system to be more desirable. Of those are; The US, England and Rome. The three greatest powers the world has witnessed all followed a simular bases to set up their society.

In order for a government to actually last more than a few decades, there is a series of steps that are required to be taken to ensure success. These steps include a dictatorial rule of unelected politicians who participated in the revolution that brought about this new form of government. This Party will instill the bases on which said country is going to be run. After they've accomplished their main goal (ie setting up Socialism), they will set out to set up a new government. The new government will be a Democracy in which politicians are no longer appointed by the party, but elected by the proletariat.

USA:
When one thinks of strong central government, the US doesn't tend to come into mind. Since the beginning, the Fore Fathers of the US made a seemingly small central government and a large state government. By doing so, the central government can never get direct blame for the suffering of it's own people and still have utter control over what really matters, the military.

In the early stages of the US government, the citizens of the US had very little political power. Much of the thirteen states picked to whom the electoral votes for the president without even holding a vote among the people. What they did instead was allow their legislature to decide to whom the electoral votes will be awarded too.

http://img89.imageshack.us/img89/2200/graph5bw.jpg
LEG: State Legislature picked to which candidate will receive the electoral votes
POP: Popular Vote picked to which candidate will receive the electoral votes


Popular Vote didn't become popular until around 1828 when only 25% of the electoral votes were controlled by the state governments as opposed to the people. Even then, one could argue the people still weren't in control.

The Freemason Society has been very influential to America. Throughout the history of the US, Freemasons have been in positions of power in the US. Twenty-three out of the forty-two US presidents belonged to the Freemason Society. Although some of their affiliation to the society is debatable, the numbers are still startling. Of those presidents, many were in office during the most important times of the US. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison all took part in molding the society we live in today. Abraham Lincoln was in power during one of the most hectic times in American history. Franklin D. Roosevelt was president during World War II and the Great Depression. Lyndon B. Johnson was president during the Vietnam war to combat Communism. Ronald Reagan was president during the fall of Soviet Russia.


US Presidents Affiliated with the Freemason Society:

1. George Washington (1789-1797)
3. Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) *
4. James Madison (1809-1817) *
5. James Monroe (1817-1825)
7. Andrew Jackson (1829-1837)
11. James K. Polk (1845-1849)
15. James Buchanan (1857-1861)
16. Abraham Lincoln 16 (1861-1865) *
17. Andrew Johnson (1865-1869)
18. Ulysses S. Grant (1869-1877) *
20. James A. Garfield (1881)
25. William McKinley (1897-1901)
26. Theodore Roosevelt (1901-1909)
27. William H. Taft (1909-1913)
29. Warren G. Harding (1921-1923)
30. Calvin Coolidge (1923-1929) *
31. Herbert Hoover (1929-1933) *
32. Franklin D. Roosevelt (1933-1945)
33. Harry S. Truman (1945-1953)
34. Lyndon B. Johnson (1963-1969) *
38. Gerald R. Ford (1974-1977)
40. Ronald Reagan (1981-1989) *
42. Bill Clinton (1993-2001) *

* Their affiliation with the Freemason is debatable.

The longest time a Freemason wasn't in office was five presidency beginning in 1881 when James A. Garfield died and ending in 1897 when William McKinley was elected.

These facts point out that the US wasn't exactly a country run by the people, at least not in the beginning. In the beginning, not every US citizen had much influence on whom will be elected president because their state legislature decided who received the electoral votes, and who did not. The Freemason Society had a hold on much of the power in America, and this power has continued throughout the history of America.

England:
By 410, Britain had become self-governing in parts of Britain. Many of Monarchs have followed since then, of which had absolute power. One could argue that Monarchy was a primitive form of Capitalism. By 1215, the Baron's of King John forced him to signed the Magna Carta, which limited the rule of the monarch - taking away their absolute power.

The monarchy's rule had greatly lessoned with the signing of the Magna Carta. They essentially stepped away from a dictatorship and put the power into the hands of the Parliament. In the 17th century, the conflict between the Monarch and Parliament grew as the Magna Carta was revised in order to give more freedom to a greater number of people.

Britain made a relatively peaceful transition from a dictatorship to a phase in which the Barons gained more power and finally into open elections. Prior to handing over the power to the people, the Monarchy had set up a bases which a larger number of people, not all, inherited.

Rome:
Rome was founded in 753BC by Romulus. By tradition, the kingship was elective and limited in power. The Roman monarchy worked differently than other monarchies in Europe by having their sister's son succeeding the present monarch.

However, the intentions of the first monarchs to have limited power didn't occur. As more kings were succeeded, the newer kings became power hungry. Once the kings became oppressive, they were overthrown in a popular revolt which was in favor of a republic.

The Roman kings had set up a society for a group of Republicans (In the sense of wanting a republic) to take power and allow the people to be more involved with politics, in other words - their future.

Conclusion:
The three greatest empires known to man have used simular tactics in which I described in previously. Each used a Vanguard to created a civilized society in which were able to be handed over to the people and allow the society to still prosper, even more so than they did with the Vanguard.

All dictatorships have failed, or will fail in the future. In no case has a dictatorship ever been a desirable in any country, unless they are needed to set up a society and then discarded. The only way to avoid certain failure is to turn to Democracy a few decades after the Revolution. Otherwise, people who don't believe in the cause may get into power and destroy everything that was previously accomplished.

However, the temporary dictatorship is only needed in countries that have experienced the "fruits" of Capitalism because their country exploited millions of people for their own selfish benefit. People who have been exploited by Imperialism will find no use of the temporary dictatorship because they know precisely what the problem is, Capitalism. While in the wealthy countries people are tainted by Capitalism and may very well stray away from the Revolution due to their introduction to greed growing up. The temporary dictatorship is necessary for these countries to ensure they do not perform counter-revolutionary deeds.

People who live in countries where they've been severely exploited can be trusted to bring about Socialism. As shown in Venezuela, the people have taken their future into their own hands and now has control of the government. They are by no means Socialist at this point in time, but they will undoubtedly use democracy to become socialist when the time is right.

Sources:
http://www.bessel.org/presmas.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kings_of_Rome
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Carta
http://presidentelect.org/index.html
http://hrsbstaff.ednet.ns.ca/waymac/Histor...time_line_2.htm (http://hrsbstaff.ednet.ns.ca/waymac/History%20A/A%20Term%201/1.%20Rome/Roman_time_line_2.htm)
http://www.britannia.com/history/narintrohist.html

[redstar2000]

It's clear that you put in some serious time in writing your essay.

But it's a mess. :(

I understand what you're trying to say; that a post revolutionary society must begin as a dictatorship but set up some mechanism for "transition" to "democracy".

That's controversial in itself; many here think the working class should rule directly, from day one.

The "examples" of previous class societies are irrelevant...we do not propose doing what they tried to do.

And all that stuff about Freemasonry is just "tinfoil hat brigade" crap -- that "secret societies" are a significant factor in the modern world is a nutball hypothesis.

You sound like someone who wants to be a serious student of political theory...but it's clear you need to do a lot more serious reading.

I hope you will.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[joshdavies]

An interesting line of argument D_Bokk but I think what you fail to take into account is the class nature of the state (and so of the question of democracy and dictatorship) and how that can change through the course of a world revolution (its only after the world capitalist class has been completely defeated that you can have communism and so it is impossible to have either socialism in one country or total democracy until that has happened.

Take a look at 'The State and Revolution' (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/index.htm) by Lenin which summarises the Marxist analysis of the state and also the process of its 'whithering away'. This bit in particular is good:
The economic basis for the complete withering away of the state is such a high state of development of communism at which the antithesis between mental and physical labor disappears, at which there consequently disappears one of the principal sources of modern social inequality--a source, moreover, which cannot on any account be removed immediately by the mere conversion of the means of production into public property, by the mere expropriation of the capitalists.

This expropriation will make it possible for the productive forces to develop to a tremendous extent. And when we see how incredibly capitalism is already retarding this development, when we see how much progress could be achieved on the basis of the level of technique already attained, we are entitled to say with the fullest confidence that the expropriation of the capitalists will inevitably result in an enormous development of the productive forces of human society. But how rapidly this development will proceed, how soon it will reach the point of breaking away from the division of labor, of doing away with the antithesis between mental and physical labor, of transforming labor into "life's prime want"--we do not and cannot know.

That is why we are entitled to speak only of the inevitable withering away of the state, emphasizing the protracted nature of this process and its dependence upon the rapidity of development of the higher phase of communism, and leaving the question of the time required for, or the concrete forms of, the withering away quite open, because there is no material for answering these questions.

Trotsky's 'Terrorism and Communism' (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1920/dictatorvs/index.htm) also deals with the question of democracy in a workers' state very well particularly chapters 2 and 3. Some people hate the book though because it is quite honest that in fighting a civil war democratic freedoms must be taken away in certain circumstances - just remember when you read it that it was written during a civil war.

[D_Bokk]

I know my essay isn't great, but it was the first one I've ever wrote during my free time... I'll get better after I do more.


Originally posted by redstar2000+--> (redstar2000)That's controversial in itself; many here think the working class should rule directly, from day one.[/b]I understand this. Although humans aren't born with greed, many people have been tainted by greed while they grew up. In countries simular to the US, there is a large amount of people who have been living a fairly good life and don't want to try anything different. Due to lies shoveled out by the government, 'Communist' has become a dirty word. So even the people living in poverty in those countries rarely advocate Communism. Putting these people in power would result in a capitalist society with more social programs.

Unless the masses as a whole are exploited as we've seen in Latin America and many other parts of the world, the liklihood of the workers actually bringing about socialism through democracy isn't too good. Waiting for the US to become a even more Capitalist hell-hole in which all of the Proletariat are living in poverty could take thousands of years.

I'm assuming most people on this board want people to suffer less, and to do that a system that is possible without the complete backing of the working class is needed. Places like the US will severely hinder the chances of Socialist revolutions in the poorer parts of the world, so unless their exploitative ways are taken out of the picture... Capitalism will rule.

Of course Imperialized countries can go straight to democracy, but that's only because they've experienced the dark hand of Capitalism.

The "examples" of previous class societies are irrelevant...we do not propose doing what they tried to do.
Because Communism is an economic theory, we can look elsewhere for a working governmental theory. The democracy displayed during socialism wouldn't be like the kind we experience in America, but I used these examples because they show how a country can go from a Party ruling, to the people gaining more power as time went on, after the country's bases was set up.

joshdavies
An interesting line of argument D_Bokk but I think what you fail to take into account is the class nature of the state (and so of the question of democracy and dictatorship) and how that can change through the course of a world revolution (its only after the world capitalist class has been completely defeated that you can have communism and so it is impossible to have either socialism in one country or total democracy until that has happened.
This isn't meant for one country to become Socialist using this system, but as a mechanism to stop 'Bourgeois Countries' (Countries that are wealthy) from taking away all chances of revolution in 'Proletariat Countries' (poorer countries that do most of the labor for the Bourgeois Countries.) And at the same time set up a lasting socialist system in those 'Bourgeois Countries' and teach it's people the truth about Communism. It's meant to allow a world revolution to occur without the interference of Capitalism.

[Vanguard1917]

An interesting line of argument D_Bokk but I think what you fail to take into account is the class nature of the state (and so of the question of democracy and dictatorship) and how that can change through the course of a world revolution

I agree. I think it's important not to turn "democracy" into some sort of fetish. Communists demand real democracy: the rule of the working class, the mass majority. In order to have this real democracy, communists are willing to withdraw the political "rights" of other sections of society if those "rights" go against the revolutionary interests of the working class. Remember, when the bourgeoisie crushed workers movements, strikes, etc., throughout the 20th century, they did so under the banner of "democracy".

Same could be said of "freedom", as Lenin pointed out in What is to be Done:

"“Freedom” is a grand word, but under the banner of freedom for industry the most predatory wars were waged, under the banner of freedom of labour, the working people were robbed."

Marxists do not support empty phrases. We're not ignorant to the realities of class society, and we form our principles accordingly.

[Clarksist]

“Freedom” is a grand word, but under the banner of freedom for industry the most predatory wars were waged, under the banner of freedom of labour, the working people were robbed."

Marxists do not support empty phrases. We're not ignorant to the realities of class society, and we form our principles accordingly.


Ahh... Lenin. What a master of the obvious. He wrote volumes of books explaining what Marx explained.

But I think that it IS important to realize what is said here. We cannot rally around words or phrases without first devoutly reading and learning about what these words mean.

D Bokk, your essay is a step in the right direction, however more is said in your essay than you know.

Work on eliminating "extra baggage" from your essay to streamline it and its point.