"Democracy" and violent struggle

[enigma2517]

How do we justify violent struggle in the fact of capitalist elections?

We can say that they are "fake" or simply cannot be used to acheive our means. That for our purposes, "democracy" (bourgeoise parliamentary politics) is a barrier.

Thats what I gather at least.

To give you some background, we are extensively discussing this in my AP Political Science class.

Given the time, I could probably explain (and even convince) a person of this fact. Bringing up historical examples where "democracy" has failed.

My question is, how can I do this more simply, without ranting or needing 5 minutes to explain myself.

Is there a quick and easy example or metaphor I can use to explain that a.) capital, not politicians dictate everything and b.) representatives are not delegates, often, being a representative in a capitalist society is a career, just like everything else.

More over, how can I justify violent struggle? I guess this is a long one, since you have to first establish what is so wrong with private property for example. But assuming I could somehow postulate the first part, how do I say...its ok to kill somebody to get what I want?

How do we justify coercion and how do we counter classical liberal arguments of "pluralism" or "free speech" (even for reactionaries)?

Moreover, what do you think about the Constitution and "rights". Is there something fundementally wrong or deceiving about this document. Why is it (ir)relevant today?

Like I said, I have some ideas but I'd like to hear it from other people so I can figure out a more presentable form for my arguments.

[VictoryOverWar]

the very act of revolution is Democratic

unfortunately all those issues would be hard to paraphrase without losing the point completely. So im afraid i can not help

[Hegemonicretribution]

I will give a brief outline of justification in my oppinion.

Revolution should only take place once class consciousness has arisen. At such a time seizing the means of production should be easy. At such a time, the abolution of government would be a priority, but not one which the government and its few hangers on would support.

This essentially means that the few "in power" are acting directly against the wishes of the vast majority (the proletariat). Those who they depend upon for defense are a part of the proletariat. It is not that we should be violent for violent's sake, rather that any opposition at this stage is that of a tyrannical leadership against the many oppressed.

The government lose their mandate completely once class consciousness is established. You may ask about how you can justify action against them, but it is the other way around, they have no power any more. They only ever had what was granted to them, and at this stage it is taken away. Any trouble will be what they cause.

[enigma2517]

Nice thinking, I like that. Very to the point.

We also brought up certain principles of "democracy" in class such as conflict and individual liberty. My teacher says that democracy is not always majority rule, that sometimes you cannot marginalize the minority.

In fact, he said something that Redstar2000 mentioned awhile ago. Back when the United States was first founded, "democracy" was an unheard word. The term used was republic, and it was meant to ensure the security of the propertied classes. Real, direct democracy would be ascribed as "mob rule", violating certain "individual rights".

Along Marxist lines the answer to this would be obvious. In a class society you always have class conflict based on...well...the material basis for everything in society. Its two groups of people pulling in completely opposite directions. Of course the poor are always going to go against the rich. Everything changes in a classless society. First, there is no minority to oppress, and secondly it would be very hard because everything can be thrown back at you with equal force.

The concept of majority is an interesting one. Very few people actually fit into the category of the majority in everything: race, gender, ice cream flavor preference, etc.

A group of freely associating social individuals would not back overly oppressive decisions against a minority because they could soon find themselves to be a minority in something else.

Its like the golden rule: treat others as you want to be treated. Capitalists exploit workers day by day, and they should rightfully expect nothing but hositility from them.