Democracy

[MrDoom]

Would it be accurate to say that liberals and conservatives see democracy as an end in itself, content to play an eternal tug-of-war with each other, between two near-identical parties in which there is no significant progress; while revolutionary socialists see democracy as a means to an end, a stepping stone, a tool that should be used to its utmost and then discarded when it no longer serves an independant service and something else contains its useful properties (for example, for the reason one would choose a steel axe over a stone axe; the steel axe contains all useful properties of the stone tool [i.e., sharpness, etc.] but improves upon them)?

In other words, is democracy something we should defend and promote for its own sake, or is it something that should be used and, when something that "contains" the useful elements of democracy but supercedes it comes along, it should be abandoned in favor of the greater end?

It always seems to me that our liberal/conservative counterparts always care more about the democratic progress than the ends it is being used towards. They'd rather play the endless Democrat-Republican tug-of-war game rather than see actual, positive progress.

[Dimentio]

Democracy is actually something which needs to be developed, not only as a tool in realising a new society, but as a tool to protect both that society and the individual of that society. Democracy could also be combined with other systems.

[MrDoom]

And yet should that democracy (ie, 'majority rule') be developed and protected for its own sake, or is it something that should be regarded as a disposable tool: something that has a use, and when a social relation exists that supercedes 'majority rule', it is disposed of?

[Pow R. Toc H.]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2007 03:56 pm
should that democracy be developed and protected for its own sake, or is it something that should be regarded as a disposable tool: something that has a use, and when a social relation exists that supercedes 'majority rule', it is disposed of?
I would say this:

If there are other means of going about political evolution where we can create something that better fits the needs of society, than we should treat Democracy like a stepping stone towards a better way of governing.

If we cannot find another way of governing society that fills the same needs as democracy and better fits society, than we should develope it and make it stronger.

[RGacky3]

Democracy is more of a concept than a concrete theory or form of government, in the same way communism kind of is. So should Democracy be defended as a principle for its own sake? Of coarse, but the institutions that call themselves "Democractic" (at least most of the ones around now) Probable should not be.

[Rawthentic]

No, democracy is not some abstract "concept", but a real-world tool that can work if applied correctly. Take for example, running your workplace, or organizing your neighborhood under communism, that is democracy.

[rouchambeau]

Why should we support elitist rule by Greek plantation owners?

[razboz]

Why should we support elitist rule by Greek plantation owners?

Could you expand?

Democracy is a blessing and a curse. A decision passed by democracy is often better accept than one imposed regardless of the will of the people. However people are notoriosly stupid. Democracy is a very powerfull tool for change and can be unbeleivably usefull. It can also be a terrible curse and be used to work against the interests of the people. Thus it is not an end, for it is an imperfect and potentially dangerous one. It is but a tool to be used responsibly.

[OneBrickOneVoice]

democracy os defined as "people's rule" or "majority rule". What could be vaguer than that?

[RGacky3]

I fail to see how Democracy is a "tool". Democracy is People rule, its a concept. How can it be a tool?