Democracy

[OneBrickOneVoice]

What do we think about democracy? If you don't support it, what political system would you propose in it's place. Why is democracy in the US a failure?

[black magick hustla]

socialism is impossible without democracy

[violencia.Proletariat]

The US is not a democracy. It is a republic in theory. However, in practice it has shown to be a plutocracy.

Real democracy is direct democracy (aka participatory democracy) in which all involved have a vote. This eliminates hierarchy and puts power in the hands of which it belongs, those directly involved in whats being voted on.

[Janus]

What do we think about democracy?
Direct democracy? Yes, it is definitely necessary to an egalitarian society.


Why is democracy in the US a failure?
It's representative democracy and combined with capitalism; it has allowed the wealthy and privileged a much greater opportunity to either gain power or at least wield power.

[BreadBros]

The problem with this question is that political systems can not be seperated from economic systems. It is the structure of the economic production of a society that determines the way representation and decision-making will be made, you can not abstractly or ideally mix and match.

If by "failure" you are asking why democracy has failed to be representative of society as a whole or has been unable to produce thoroughly progressive changes, it is because its structure can not be extrapolated away from capitalism. Capitalism creates hierarchies, different views of power and organization, extremely wealthy businesses and organizatons etc. which dominate bourgeois democratic institutions and set the agenda of a nation. It has not been a "failure" as much as it has shown its integral ties to capitalist production. A Communist society seems to hold the potential for some sort of real direct democracy to take hold, although ultimately that question will be left for the people who actually participate in the revolutionary overthrow of capitalist society.

[LoneRed]

Just because people talk about "Democracy" within capitalism, how do we know that this "democracy" will be in socialism. Democracy, as it came to be known, is a bourgeois theory of the state and how to rule. If we can get ourselves out of that mindset, we might be able to prosper

[BreadBros]

Just because people talk about "Democracy" within capitalism, how do we know that this "democracy" will be in socialism.

"This" democracy (as in todays) wont be, because political structure is inherently tied to economic structure, so if there is a change it will be seen in the politicial structure as well.


Democracy, as it came to be known, is a bourgeois theory of the state and how to rule.

Not necessarily, some form of democracy or political representation has found expression at various points throughout history, including ancient Greece and the such.


If we can get ourselves out of that mindset, we might be able to prosper

By "we" I assume you mean the Socialist/Communist movement? In case you didn't notice, every so-called "socialist" state that has existed has exerted some form of exclusive party-rule that does not entail democratic or representative structures. So far that has not done anything to progress the Socialist struggle.

[rouchambeau]

I liked Erico Malatesa's Neither Democrats, nor Dictators: Anarchists.

http://www.prole.info/pamphlets/democracy.pdf

[LoneRed]

Democracy, is largely a way to rule over a people. If we like to keep the word democracy, then so be it, but it should be noted that whatever it is, it is Drastically different from the capitalism notion of democracy.

[Leo]

I oppose democracy... As Bordiga says; "Democracy both in its literal sense as well as in the dirty use means "power belonging not to one but to all classes". For this reason, just as we reject bourgeois democracy and democracy in general, we must exclude, as a contradiction in terms, class democracy and workers democracy." I am against parlementarianism, and participation in elections as they are social-democratic tactics never able achieve revolutionary change at all, let alone a revolution for the proletarians. I would propose something like "proletarchy" instead of democracy.

[Dimentio]

Democracy is good for social issues, but we shall not subject the production to neither politicians or businessmen. Only those competent enough to understand technology should administrate it.

Political issues are social issues which cannot be scientifically evaluated.

[Cryotank Screams]

de-moc-ra-cy [di-mok-ruh-see] -noun.
1, government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents (the vanguard) under a free electoral system.

My emphasis, and insertion.

It must be understood that no democracy exists today in the bourgosie states, what we have are instead aristocracies.


ar-is-toc-ra-cy [ar-uh-stok-ruh-see] -noun.
1. a government or state ruled by an aristocracy, elite, or privileged upper class.

I personally would support democratic centralism.

[Tekun]

Direct democracy, true democracy is invaluable in a socialist world
Socialism cannot be wielded by a man or a group of men, socialism must be something that all of us take part in, directly
As far as the "democracy" in place in the US, one can see that the majority of the US feels alienated by the system
A system that only benefits the ruling class and their cronies, rather than being a democracy, the US is a "plutocracy"
Therefore, as far as Im concerned, when socialism triumphs, direct democracy must be stressed and implemented in its full form if such a society is to improve the lives of all of its inhabitants

[apathy maybe]

Here is an essay I wrote (and a discussion that came from it) on Democracy and the US presidential election system.
http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=24734

Anyway, my opinion is that 'democracy' as we have it now is not rule by the people. And rule by the people (the majority), while it might be 'democratic', is not a good way to go about things in a lot of cases. I call for rule by no one, or maybe rule by all.

[anomaly]

I think that in an anarchist (or communist, if that name tickles your fancy) society, things which actually require some sort of decision of the whole of the people will be rather rare. Look at things voted upon in modern republics: taxes, war, laws. Such votes will not be needed in an anarchist society.

But at times, some new rule, or anything else, perhaps may need to be voted upon. At such times, I think the only way to go about things is by direct democracy. The only other option in those situations is a consensus. A consensus, however, is often dominated by some alpha-male hardass type. I think that a directly democratic system would give individuals more of a voice.

However, let me reiterate that these types of decisions will usually and likely by rare and of far less importance than are issues which are voted on by our brilliant representatives today.

[Comrade Kurtz]

Again, we get into the "pie-in-the-sky" problems with communists. Sure, it's great in theory that we have a direct democracy where everyone gets a say in every matter. The problem? It's just not practical!

U.S. democracy would work quite nicely if capitalism were replaced with democratic socialism and the electoral college was eliminated (the two biggest inhibitors of democracy). Can you imagine if we had to tally votes for people on every issue? Maybe it would be fauir but it's hard enough to do it every November on simple candidates! Even more, most people even in a democratic socialist society will not be fully educated on every issue. It's just not practical. Hence, why we elect representatives.

When capitalism is eliminated, soft money and campaign funds are eliminated. Therefore we see more of the candidates themselves and their beliefs rather than the facade they put up. Moreover, part of the reason certain candidates win in the States is ebcause they have such deep pockets. Look at Charlie Crist in Florida, who is only beating Jim Davis because he has wealthy friends. Take that away and it boils down to simple ideals, which is how it should be.

Second, the electoral college gives a "winner-take-all" approach to elections, which is simply wrong. The popular vote should determine our representatives, not who pulled out strategic majorities in certain key areas. After all, we know this is how Bush got elected. It's a bourgeois inhibitor of democracy to insure grassroots movements don't get off the ground nationally and it needs to be revoked.

Otherwise though, U.S. democracy could be a success.