Poor Leadership

[Zapata]

When arguing with friends and family about socialism, i am usually capable of persuading them or at least disproving their argument handily. but recently a point made by two different people left me without response. they both pointed out that a society without democratic elections is conducive to dictatorial leaders, and often little can be done about it. i'm curious to know what people think about how this may be incorrect, or how to remedy this issue. any thoughts?

[JKP]

Since you're new, do support revolution or reform?

[Guest1]

There may not be elections, but there are votes. We're talking about direct, participatory democracy, not representative democracy.

[Organic Revolution]

leaders for the whole country is a flawed idea, which has been shown many many times. leaders are inherently overlordish, no matter how good there intentions are.

[kurt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 01:29 AM
When arguing with friends and family about socialism, i am usually capable of persuading them or at least disproving their argument handily. but recently a point made by two different people left me without response. they both pointed out that a society without democratic elections is conducive to dictatorial leaders, and often little can be done about it. i'm curious to know what people think about how this may be incorrect, or how to remedy this issue. any thoughts?
What leaders? Stalinism is not socialism, and shouldn't be confused with socialism. Socialism will be different from current 'democracies' in the sense that there will not be representitive democracy, but direct democracy. Workplaces will be controlled democraticly, and local areas will make decisions democraticly.

[Commandante_Ant]

If you have a poor leader, get a new one!

[Zapata]

i agree that stalin was not a socialist at all. the problem is that people like him could potentially take power and transform the government to suit their own needs. i guess participatory democracy of a sort is the answer. and as for reform/revolution, i think reform is preferable, because then no one needs to get hurt. and of course, a country can only undertake so many revolutions. however, if batista won't reform, then it takes the castros and the guevaras to solve the problem

[JKP]

Reform wont bring about communism.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

If you have a poor leader, shoot him :P

But seriously, direct democracy removes much of the need for leaders. More useful than leaders in my opinion are executors (Not to be confused with executioners, but we will need them as well)

[kurt]

the problem is that people like him could potentially take power and transform the government to suit their own needs. i guess participatory democracy of a sort is the answer.
It's not 'sort' of the answer, it IS the answer. The thing you need realize is that the Russian Revolution was not a genuine proletariat revolution, as the proletariat never held political power. People like Stalin would not be able to simply take power if the revolution was a genuine workers struggle. If the workers ccan wrest power from the bourgeoisie, they will be able to hold onto it through the new institutions they create.


and as for reform/revolution, i think reform is preferable, because then no one needs to get hurt. and of course, a country can only undertake so many revolutions.
No one needs to be hurt during revolution, but unfortunately it is unlikely this will be the case. Reform will not lead us to true socialism. After all, socialism is the proletariat in control; the ruling class will not roll over without a fight.

however, if batista won't reform, then it takes the castros and the guevaras to solve the problem
I wouldn't go as far as to say it takes 'castros' and 'guevaras' to solve the problem. Although these men obviously had skills to be able to lead their forces to victory, without the support of the masses, any sort of revolutionary attempt will be a failure. When the people are truely ready for socialism, we will see all sorts of people come out of the woodwork.