Democracy?

[Hegemonicretribution]

I was just wondering, would people here agree with democracy as an ideology. Of course I mean direct democracy, every one votes, and in small groups so an idividual vote can change all? Democracy it seems to me is a good "ideology" along with some forms of communism and anarchy. Would people here be willing to strive for that, rather than the oligarchy we have, or only go for a communist way of life...putting up with a possibly inferior system like some authoritarian state? Capatalism is the inherent enemy of democracy.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

In communism, I believe a direct democracy would be the prefferable choice over a representative democracy found in most countries today. Democracy is better, instead of voting for potentialy incopetent individuals, we could vote for each decision. The outcome would come directly from the people, not from aristocratic opportunists.

[Revolution Hero]

Capitalists are oppressed during socialism, their opinion is ignored and their views are under revolutionary attack. Do you agree with such democracy?

[Hegemonicretribution]

Sorry agree with what? I don't understand the question.

[Revolution Hero]

Do you agree with socialist democracy, the one that limits the rights and freedoms of capitalists?

[Just Joe]

Socialist Democracy does not 'limit' the rights of anyone. it gives new rights to the majority and takes them away from the elite.

[Blibblob]

It doesnt "give new rights to the majority and takes them away from the elite". It makes sure there actually are the unalienatable rights. Socialism is based off of neccesity, not want, but needs. Capitalism is based off of wants, and says the people that need, "screw you".

Democracy is the only way to go in a communist society, either that, or a dictator will rise. You dont have to limit the rights of the capitalists, for at that time there will be none.

Explaining "there will be none":
Communism is the end result, that is what marx said, first we need socialism, the intermediate step. The removal of capitalists, and communism will occur after the capitalists are gone.

There will always be a few, but not enough to counteract the needs of the majority.

[Hegemonicretribution]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you agree with socialist democracy, the one that limits the rights and freedoms of capitalists?



I think that any system, that we want to be better than what we have, has to encompass the rights and beleifs of all that are taking part in it. In our consumerist society most people are capatalists, not all are bourgeoise, but most are capatalist. No one should be treated different, as terrible as it seems to treat the former oppressors equally with the oppressed, it is the only way that we can show no oppression will be tollerated.

(Edited by hegemonicretrobution at 10:11 pm on Feb. 8, 2003)

[MJM]

Quote: from hegemonicretrobution on 10:02 am on Feb. 9, 2003
In our consumerist society most people are capatalists, not all are bourgeoise, but most are capatalist. No one should be treated different, as terrible as it seems to treat the former oppressors equally with the oppressed, it is the only way that we can show no oppression will be tollerated.


Most people are not capitalists. The majority are wage slaves, capitalists must use capital to create surplus value from the labour of others, here is the exploitation of labour. This idea is fed to everyone, so then when the marxist says we must take power from the capitalists people think they are the victim, when they wuld be the beneficiary

[Hegemonicretribution]

Well then again people here aren't communists, we just take that stance. Although most people are misguided, and because of whatever reason, the would still fight to preserve what they have. Although Western workers may be exploited, the real exploited are not in sight. If they were people may even rediscover their moral sense. A lot of people will remain capatalist at heart, no matter what they actually are, this is because the thing that holds them together is fear of the strange. Leftists.

[ComradeJunichi]

@hegemonicretrobution: I have no clue what you just said in the last post.

Frankly, a system of oppression replaced with another system of oppression is not wanted. However, without such extremes, or cages, the reaction of these measures (socialism) would not be wanted.

[Revolution Hero]

Hegemonicretrobution propose to use democracy as an ideology. But democracy can’t exist without a certain type of ideology and without a certain type of system. Therefore democracy is not ideology, rather than indicator of the level of progress of a certain ideology or system. The conception of democracy is always connected with different theories and beliefs.
The state is the tool of oppression of one class by the other. Hence pure democracy existed only in pre-state societies. Then the definite classes, such as class of slave owners, feudal nobility and bourgeois used democracy; democracy is always a privilege of one ruling class.
After the socialistic revolution working people take the governmental machine in their hands, destroy this machine and create a new one. The working people run this new state, here we talk about socialistic democracy.
The pure democracy will reappear on the last level of social-economical development; its name is COMMUNISM.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Quote: from Revolution Hero on 11:28 pm on Feb. 10, 2003
Hegemonicretrobution propose to use democracy as an ideology. But democracy can’t exist without a certain type of ideology and without a certain type of system. Therefore democracy is not ideology, rather than indicator of the level of progress of a certain ideology or system. The conception of democracy is always connected with different theories and beliefs.
The state is the tool of oppression of one class by the other. Hence pure democracy existed only in pre-state societies. Then the definite classes, such as class of slave owners, feudal nobility and bourgeois used democracy; democracy is always a privilege of one ruling class.
After the socialistic revolution working people take the governmental machine in their hands, destroy this machine and create a new one. The working people run this new state, here we talk about socialistic democracy.
The pure democracy will reappear on the last level of social-economical development; its name is COMMUNISM.



I realise that, I guess what I meant was a total anarchy, almost tribal living...thats what I meant by small groups. I don't see why democracy can't be a ideology even if it only functions within a system. I was using it in terms of the closetest thing to a lack of a system...anarchy. If all systems exist in their ideological form, and how they have actually existed...why can't democracy? What is paraded as democracy isn't, just as the difference between communism as an ideology and the examples of it we have had so far. I supose this was more about anarchy though.

[ravengod]

finally someone who agrees with me
well done and thank you

[Revolution Hero]

Quote from hegemonicretrobution:” I don't see why democracy can't be a ideology even if it only functions within a system. I was using it in terms of the closetest thing to a lack of a system...anarchy.”

Is anarchism the ideology? It is. This means that anarchism determines the level of democracy, the second is determined by the first; therefore democracy is just the part of any ideology, in this case it is the part of anarchism.
It is wrong to say that democracy determines the system, because the complete and pure democracy can exist in both anarchism and communism; hence a system determines democracy.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Quote: from Revolution Hero on 10:00 pm on Feb. 14, 2003
Quote from hegemonicretrobution:” I don't see why democracy can't be a ideology even if it only functions within a system. I was using it in terms of the closetest thing to a lack of a system...anarchy.”

Is anarchism the ideology? It is. This means that anarchism determines the level of democracy, the second is determined by the first; therefore democracy is just the part of any ideology, in this case it is the part of anarchism.
It is wrong to say that democracy determines the system, because the complete and pure democracy can exist in both anarchism and communism; hence a system determines democracy.


I was trying to say that democracy can be an ideology, not an ideology of a system.

I beleive that democracy could determine the system: Or at least the only difference in the system being the type of democracy. I am an anarchist because I see the rights of people are best understood in groups so small that a state could not cater specifically enough to them. I beleive everything should be done based on direct votes of a few people. Communism to me falls down here, democracy is only fair if you win. Too many people lose, and would feel unrepresented in a world where they have different views. This is why anarchy must come before we can have communism.

If you think about it though that is the great difference, the type of democracy, or the scale it is run on. So it may not be totally incorrect to say democracy determines the system.