democracy and communism

[chaval]

in countries that are at least electoral democracies why would revolution be needed? instead of shedding blood why not just vote for your communist party? for instance, in th USA why not instead of fighting the system use it to get your way by voting in the communist party?

and if tahts not possible because the majority of poeple dont want it then isnt it just a matter of changing their mind? i cant see how even if you took the state by force you would be able to end capitalism and transfer the means of production to workers if no one even wants to.

Salvador Allende got voted in as a marxist, sure the army threw him out but i think that is because the army had not assumed the professional role it has in most established democartic countries in which it ultimately under civilian control and part of the state rather than its own entity.
makes sense?

[LSD]

in countries that are at least electoral democracies why would revolution be needed?

Because "electoral democracy" is a sham.

Oh sure, every couple of years or so, 50% of the population may get to choose between Oppressor A and Oppressor B; but honestly they're more invested in who's going to get voted off of American Idol.

The populations of modern capitalist countries know that their "democracies" are fraudulent, even if they can't yet vocalize this understanding. That they no longer bother to show up, is sign enough that they've lost their "respect" for the system.

Great social changes do not occur within the confines of the old system. There comes a time when a social form becomes so antiquated and so anachronistic that it is no longer capable of reformation, it must be replaced.

The proletariat of the first world has not yet realized what it is that must replace capitalism, but it is begining to realize that something must. That's why they've abandoned "voting" and "politics".

They're just no longer important.


instead of shedding blood why not just vote for your communist party?

Because our goal is not the apointment of "better" rulers, but the elimination of all rulers.

Capitalism cannot be "voted out of existance", it is intrinsic top the modern "electoral democratic" system, and no amount of politicking is going to change that.

The bourgeoisie have set the rules of the game and they have set it such that they will always win it. At this point it doesn't take out-right election tampering to ensure their victory, but that's only because they've rigged the groundrules to begin with.

The "established" parties are all defenders of the status quo; and any new group that attempts to "play" this game, no matter how "progressive" they may initially be, will inevitably be corrupted by it. There is simply no way to be both a revolutionary and a politician.

Now, some social-democrats/reformists/Leninists(!) will tell you that voting for their party is in and of itself a "revolutionary act", but it is absolutely nothing of the kind.

Sure, it's often fun to see which actor is going to win the pagent, but to imagine that bourgeois elections are anything more than a show is utter fallacy.

"Voting" is an inherently reformist act, and has absolutely no place within the revolutionary left.


and if tahts not possible because the majority of poeple dont want it then isnt it just a matter of changing their mind?

Absolutely.

But not changing their minds towards "voting" (as that would be pointless), but towards revolution.

Obviously a popular revolution is impossible without popular support. But once that support is attained what's the point of continuing to play the bourgeoisie's game? Once we have that level of mass consciousness, we are under no obligation to "respect" the very system we are organizing against.

"Liberal democracies" are capitalist to their core and cannot be "voted" out of existance.

It took a revolution to create capitalism, it will take another to destroy it.

[red team]

The "established" parties are all defenders of the status quo; and any new group that attempts to "play" this game, no matter how "progressive" they may initially be, will inevitably be corrupted by it. There is simply no way to be both a revolutionary and a politician.


Plus you got the modern equivalent of the Roman Praetorian Guards (political police like the FBI, CSIS) that can jump in with sabotage and armed force if things get out of line even with minor reforms.

[Hegemonicretribution]

It is as Rousseau said, elections assume on the part of the populace as a whole that they want a ruler. There is not option not to have a government in any election I know of.

Even if a popular leader with the ambition of helping the state whither away came into power, do you not think that it would likely lead to corruption of their initial ideals? This is the school-yard criticism of communism, and is why communists can not support reform as a means to an end.

[cyu]

You can't have a real democracy when there's no press freedom and the ideas open for debate are limited. You know what capitalists say - "Freedom of the press belongs to those who own one."

[Dimentio]

!Buenos dias!

The reason why the electorate in the US are divided in two dominant parties, is because that the US constitution uses a majority voting system which counts the amount of votes on a regional and local level instead of on a national, proportional level. Thus, if the republican party has gained 51% of the votes in the New Haven county, they are given all the votes in New Haven, and so on. The minor groups which usually receives 10-20% of the votes together have no chance to get influence. And since they are new, people tend to vote favourably for the established alternatives.

In most European countries, we are using a proportional system which instead favor multi-party coalitions.