How Demorcracy Failed

[anarchy666]

The textbook definition of democracy is "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 under a free electoral system." and as anyone with simple reason knows, America has not lived up to their so called democracy. The people can hardly exercise their power directly. Freedom of speech has been completely betraded, no man is equal (not even close,) and people are still in slavery everywhere (Sex slaves in SF, Clothing Labor in LA, etc.) The question is, can true democracy work, or is it just a bunch of bullshit?

[Cencus]

The question is, can true democracy work, or is it just a bunch of bullshit?


Not under a capitalist economy, almost all leftist support democracy in one form or another, the difference being in the leftist democracy the people will actually have a real say as opposed to voting once every 5 or so years for what puppet of the rich you wish to be ruled by.

To quote Rousseau “The English people believe themselves to be free; they are gravely mistaken; they are free only during election of Members of Parliament; as soon as the Members are elected, the people are enslaved”

[Die Neue Zeit]

There can never be full "democracy" until the entry into the socialist mode of production: until then, there can be only plutocracy or proletocracy.

Thanks for reminding me to mention the failures already implied by the original "social democracy" in my future discussion paper. :)

[Awful Reality]

Democracy has never existed.

Communism is democracy. For some reason, the US propagandists assert that it is imperialist, oppressive, and totalitarian, demonstrating both their sheer idiocy and their sheer lack of knowledge about Marxist theory.

[Os Cangaceiros]

The United States is a republic, not a democracy.

In fact, it's in the Constitution of the United States: every state in the union is guaranteed a "republican form of government."

Real democracy has never existed in the United States.

[Jude]

Democracy has never existed.Some Greek states?


For some reason, the US propagandists assert that it is imperialist, oppressive, and totalitarian, demonstrating both their sheer idiocy and their sheer lack of knowledge about Marxist theory. No, it demonstrates their knowledge of groupthink in that thy have the ability to quickly turn a nation of free-thinking individuals into a massive clusterfuck of mindless drones, hating communism, islam, france, nazism, north korea, immigrants, and whatever else they can benefit from the destruction of. it demonstrates the fact that people will believe everything they hear without examining the world around them.


The United States is a republic, not a democracy.

It is a democratic republic. But with emphasis on republic.


Real democracy has never existed in the United States.

Well, at least not on a national scale, but with current technology that is utterly impractical.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Well, at least not on a national scale, but with current technology that is utterly impractical.

Could you elaborate on this point?

[Jude]

Well for the country to be a true democracy, every time someone wanted to pass a national law, everyone in the country would have to vote on it. Seeing the controversy every time we attempt to elect a president, can you honestly say that people won't moan and ***** for a recount every time they don;t get the outcome they want?

[Static]

Some Greek states?


Freedom in capitalist society always remains about the same as it was in ancient Greek republics: Freedom for slave owners. .

[Lead Headache]

Capitalist Democracy = No

Socialist Democracy = Yes

[black magick hustla]

Depends on your definition of "democracy". Certainly, people do have a certain degree of choice in choosing their Masters. Some countries in europe are even more "more democratic" because they are pluralists, etc. Also "Democratic" countries like the US are democratic in so far that people the mayority of people there are ok with the form of government they have, and somewhat believe in it. Certainly many western countries were more "democratic" than many of those in the socialist bloc (this doesnt means they were better, however) in the sense that theoretically, any kind of party could make its way through parliament because of pluralism. Again, this doesn't means the US was fundamentally better than the USSR.

This is why we need to get rid of all the moralistic, aprioristic liberalism behind democratic slogans and analyze what democracy really is.

In the case of the liberal, aprioristic, democratic princple, we communists are anti-democratic in so far that we send to hell parliamentary democracy, the state, and the ruling ideas. The ruling ideas are always the ideas of the ruling class, unless society suffers a crisis. We don't demand what the people demand, we demand communistic principles. Just because the people demand kicking immigrants, we won't demand it.

We are democratic in the sense that we believe proletarian organs should be democratic. In periods of reaction this doesn't means accepting masses and masses of people into our organizations, but it means having space for discussing and interchanging ideas between communist militants. We are also democratic in so far that the DoP should be democratic.

You see, the question of democracy is what makes a lot of leftists go astray. Many of them become very little more than populists with a left bend, and the others, become ultraliberal anarchists (doesnt means all anarchists are liberal) that think that the major contradiction is in "democracy" and not between classes.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Comrade, have you considered my material above? I have considered quite extensively your Bordigist insight into this "apriorism."


There can never be full "democracy" until the entry into the socialist mode of production: until then, there can be only plutocracy or proletocracy.

Thanks for reminding me to mention the failures already implied by the original "social democracy" in my future discussion paper.

[RNK]

To be technical, democracy as we know it today, ie bourgeois democracy, is democracy according to its foundations.

In ancient Rome -- "birthplace" of democracy (or is that Greece? in either case), this system of governance started by rich and priviledged landowners, merchants, military men, nobility and religious leaders voting amongst themselves on state issues.

In a sense, democracy has changed very little, as it is largely the same; priviledged minorities determining social and economic policies and law. They added "popular input", ie, the ability to choose which of the priviledged got to make the decisions (should I vote for the rich landowner who forces me to work on his land in exchange for disease-ridden housing? Or should I vote for the merchant who forces me to sell my crops at bankruptcy prices? Or the warlord who demands harsh taxes and tithes from me?)

[BurnTheOliveTree]

the ability to choose which of the priviledged got to make the decisions


Well, I don't think this is quite the full picture. Anyone can stand for election, provided they can stump up the deposit. It's not just a run down list of the "privileged", and you pick one. The main problems are things like you're only voting for a representative, not actual issues. A good example of this last night was the house of commons simply denying us the ability to vote on the lisbon treaty - it doesn't matter what we think, just parliament. The biggest issue is that government can't really change anything without revolution first, because private economic power holds all the cards. They can shout from the rooftops that they will change things, but nothing will change without a fundamental change in economic relations, i.e. revolution. So whoever you vote for, in bourgeoisie democracy nothing serious can be achieved, because however benevolent the state is, it's hands are tied without radical change from below.

-Alex

[Killer Enigma]

The textbook definition of democracy is "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 under a free electoral system."
Which textbook? This is a far too simplistic definition of democracy to be used holistically on an operational basis.


and as anyone with simple reason knows, America has not lived up to their so called democracy.
I recommend you read The Federalist Papers (especially #10 (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm) by James Madison), in addition to the Constitution. America was never intended to be a democracy, least of all in accordance to the definition you provided.

Before discussing the American government, you must have a clear idea of how it actually functions, how it was founded, etc.


The people can hardly exercise their power directly.
Are not referenda allowed on the state level? Moreover, the people not having "power directly" is characteristic of a representative democratic republic.


Freedom of speech has been completely betraded,
*Betrayed. Of all the criticisms I have heard of modern America, especially from those on the left, this is a new one. Speech is one of the last bastions that has remained largely intact, especially with the revocation of the red-scare era sedition acts and their remnants by the Supreme Court. A large portion of this board's posting base comes from America. I think that in and of itself speaks (no pun intended) to this particular freedom's presence in American society.


no man is equal (not even close,)
The Constitution never guaranteed that "all men will be equal". Though hypocritical at the time, the Constitution claimed that "all men are created equal".


and people are still in slavery everywhere (Sex slaves in SF, Clothing Labor in LA, etc.)
Can you point to a modern nation devoid of these same "slave" elements?

[erupt]

*Betrayed. Of all the criticisms I have heard of modern America, especially from those on the left, this is a new one. Speech is one of the last bastions that has remained largely intact, especially with the revocation of the red-scare era sedition acts and their remnants by the Supreme Court. A large portion of this board's posting base comes from America. I think that in and of itself speaks (no pun intended) to this particular freedom's presence in American society.

The Constitution never guaranteed that "all men will be equal". Though hypocritical at the time, the Constitution claimed that "all men are created equal".

Can you point to a modern nation devoid of these same "slave" elements?
Freedom of speech is not intact completely. I'm sure many Americans on this board are investigated through the Patriot Act. Is that not an obvious violation of civil rights and freedom of speech? Also, I'm pretty sure if one was to go to a super-market and start screaming, "I'm a Communist!" they would be viewed as psychotic. They might not get in any legal trouble, but the local public would sure as hell think different of that person, rather than letting them have their own beliefs, or researching and asking why.

In response to to the "created equal" vs "are equal" garbage, I really have nothing to say. Are you implying everyone is born equal but as society grows and some grow rich and some grow poor, people are no longer equal? We all bleed red, we all have brains, we all have hearts. We are all equal. I for one agree that is why the founders wrote that. They almost all owned African or Native American slaves at some point, but does that not mean that problem should be mended?

Also, I'm sure other nations have those called "slave" elements, but, once again, the problem should be resolved anywhere possible, regardless if it's in a capitalist society or not. Just because other nations have the problem does not mean that the American public should be informed on the sex and textile slaves in California, or wherever else they are at. That's something that liberal reformists might be able to accomplish.

[AGITprop]

Democracy has never existed.

Communism is democracy. For some reason, the US propagandists assert that it is imperialist, oppressive, and totalitarian, demonstrating both their sheer idiocy and their sheer lack of knowledge about Marxist theory.

Very much the contrary actually. I am certain that much of he ruling class understand Marxism very well and for this reason must slander and deface it as it is not in there interest to have an educated population but one that is brainwashed with ultra-Nationalism and Patriotism , producing xenophobia and prejudice. This is the only way they can defend their so called 'glorious' capitalism.

[Killer Enigma]

Freedom of speech is not intact completely. I'm sure many Americans on this board are investigated through the Patriot Act. Is that not an obvious violation of civil rights and freedom of speech?
The PATRIOT Act is a violation of civil rights, but it has done nothing to further restrict free speech beyond Schenck v. United States. However, the Schenck ruling didn't actually restrict free speech so long as the exercising of that right did not pose "a clear and present danger" as so to bring about "substantive evils". Prior restraint was similarly restricted to the same criteria in New York Times v. United States.

If you want to make the claim that the United States restricts free speech because people are not allowed to "yell fire in a crowded theater", I am at a loss for what you advocate. Free speech is a person's positive right until it begins to directly interfere with another's negative right to life.


Also, I'm pretty sure if one was to go to a super-market and start screaming, "I'm a Communist!" they would be viewed as psychotic.
What are you asserting here? Is there any society in which such an action would not be viewed as a disturbance of the peace? The sheer randomness of such an occurrence alone warrants suspicion at the very least.


They might not get in any legal trouble, but the local public would sure as hell think different of that person, rather than letting them have their own beliefs, or researching and asking why.
Once again, your assertions are unclear. Based on your post, are we to assume that in order for one to have freedom of speech, everything they say must be rationally considered, weighed, and evaluated by others? The further implication of this is that one's right to free speech is infringed upon if that criterion is not met in every circumstance.

You have a right to free speech, but not a right to be heard.

Ironically enough, you are incorrect on the legal issue. In all likelihood, the scenario you described would attract the attention of the police, who would probably begin with a warning and then, if the person persists, charge you with a misdemeanor for disturbing the peace.


In response to to the "created equal" vs "are equal" garbage, I really have nothing to say. Are you implying everyone is born equal but as society grows and some grow rich and some grow poor, people are no longer equal? We all bleed red, we all have brains, we all have hearts. We are all equal. I for one agree that is why the founders wrote that.
Are you purposely mis-characterizing my positions? I pointed out that the Constitution asserts that "all men are created equal" (italics mine), rather than that "all men will be equal". If you wish to put a metaphysical, intrinsic value on all human beings from which you claim that all men are equal, that is, of course, your belief and opinion.

In terms of skills, ability, etc. even Karl Marx recognized that men were not equal: "But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement."

I encourage you to read Critique of the Gotha Programme (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/index.htm) for further expansion on the subject of rights and notions of equality. Section I has the most on the subject, but the text is interesting and useful holistically as well.


Also, I'm sure other nations have those called "slave" elements, but, once again, the problem should be resolved anywhere possible, regardless if it's in a capitalist society or not.
What "should" happen, what does happen, and what can happen oftentimes go in stark contrast to one another. My point in showing that all nations have some residual elements of slavery remaining is to show that even after the institution's formal abolition, aspects still remain. Fighting to solve the problem is important, but so is the realization that in all likelihood, slavery will never end in every form.


Just because other nations have the problem does not mean that the American public should be informed on the sex and textile slaves in California, or wherever else they are at. That's something that liberal reformists might be able to accomplish.
I never asserted that the American public ought not to be informed. You can avoid some of the problems that your straw man claims have caused you in the future by reading a person's position several times and identifying what s/he is saying separate from your own personal feelings and annotations.

[erupt]

If you want to make the claim that the United States restricts free speech because people are not allowed to "yell fire in a crowded theater", I am at a loss for what you advocate. Free speech is a person's positive right until it begins to directly interfere with another's negative right to life.

What are you asserting here? Is there any society in which such an action would not be viewed as a disturbance of the peace? The sheer randomness of such an occurrence alone warrants suspicion at the very least.

Once again, your assertions are unclear. Based on your post, are we to assume that in order for one to have freedom of speech, everything they say must be rationally considered, weighed, and evaluated by others? The further implication of this is that one's right to free speech is infringed upon if that criterion is not met in every circumstance.

You have a right to free speech, but not a right to be heard.

Ironically enough, you are incorrect on the legal issue. In all likelihood, the scenario you described would attract the attention of the police, who would probably begin with a warning and then, if the person persists, charge you with a misdemeanor for disturbing the peace.

Are you purposely mis-characterizing my positions? I pointed out that the Constitution asserts that "all men are created equal" (italics mine), rather than that "all men will be equal". If you wish to put a metaphysical, intrinsic value on all human beings from which you claim that all men are equal, that is, of course, your belief and opinion.

In terms of skills, ability, etc. even Karl Marx recognized that men were not equal: "But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement."

I encourage you to read Critique of the Gotha Programme (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/index.htm) for further expansion on the subject of rights and notions of equality. Section I has the most on the subject, but the text is interesting and useful holistically as well.


What "should" happen, what does happen, and what can happen oftentimes go in stark contrast to one another. My point in showing that all nations have some residual elements of slavery remaining is to show that even after the institution's formal abolition, aspects still remain. Fighting to solve the problem is important, but so is the realization that in all likelihood, slavery will never end in every form.


I never asserted that the American public ought not to be informed. You can avoid some of the problems that your straw man claims have caused you in the future by reading a person's position several times and identifying what s/he is saying separate from your own personal feelings and annotations.
What you are saying now seems to make much more sense. What you first wrote kind of confused me to be completely honest. But to clear some things up...

I do not advocate (I'll use your yelling fire in a theater example) free speech in these circumstances. Other people are affected, as you have said, which is bullshit.

In hindsight, I also agree with my terrible example of loudly proclaiming "I'm a Communist!" in a store. It would be a disturbance of the peace in the U.S. I guess what I should have stated is rather than screaming it and running around maniacly, what if someone just said they were a Communist in a debate at a school function. I feel that proclaiming a belief in the Communist ideology is relevant in some debates. Would the other participants not likely be surprised? I also agree that the police (most likely a higher authority) would give attention to the situation.

Also, I did completely mis-understand your point concerning people being better at certain things than others. I do agree that certain people talent at things. For example, not everyone's a musician. The same statistics goes along with labor.

I agree again with the realization that slavery will not be completely abolished.

Your right, I put word in your mouth in quite a few areas, and I did not notice it 'till I re-read your original post. Apology accepted?

[Killer Enigma]

Absolutely.

[careyprice31]

The textbook definition of democracy is "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 under a free electoral system." and as anyone with simple reason knows, America has not lived up to their so called democracy. The people can hardly exercise their power directly. Freedom of speech has been completely betraded, no man is equal (not even close,) and people are still in slavery everywhere (Sex slaves in SF, Clothing Labor in LA, etc.) The question is, can true democracy work, or is it just a bunch of bullshit?

Everyone knows that, that we do not have true democracy anywhere, as per the definition.

Especially not in the US (and canada doesnt have it either)

I think democracy is an idea, a theory, much like Marxism and communism, one idea that we have never really had, truthfully.



"In ancient Rome -- "birthplace" of democracy (or is that Greece? in either case),"


5th century Athens, Greece.

I took Political Science courses.

[erupt]

Absolutely.
Alright, good. At first it seemed like we disagreed on many things, and now it appears to be the total opposite. Funny how things work out.

[Faux Real]

The textbook definition of democracy is "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 under a free electoral system." and as anyone with simple reason knows, America has not lived up to their so called democracy. The people can hardly exercise their power directly. Freedom of speech has been completely betraded, no man is equal (not even close,) and people are still in slavery everywhere (Sex slaves in SF, Clothing Labor in LA, etc.) The question is, can true democracy work, or is it just a bunch of bullshit?That is the Aristotelean definition of democracy - even then it was democracy for the slave owning men. When we hear the word used by bourgeoisie politicians today they mean it in the classical liberal sense, republican democracy (representative government). Democracy, as used by leftists who share beliefs like socialism, is a "truer" sense of the word, largely in part because socialism aims to abolish class whereas republican democracy does not (even under a "socialist republic" where "representatives of the proletariat" do not carry out much constructive reform towards socialism).

Oh, and what's the thing about sex slavery in SF? I'm not aware of such things happening here. :confused:

[Comrade Rage]

Democracy has never existed.

Communism is democracy. For some reason, the US propagandists assert that it is imperialist, oppressive, and totalitarian, demonstrating both their sheer idiocy and their sheer lack of knowledge about Marxist theory.I never thought I'd say this, but you nailed it.


Oh, and what's the thing about sex slavery in SF? I'm not aware of such things happening here. :confused:Crooks smuggle in Russian, Ukrainian, and other slavic women promising a new life in the US. Instead, they are sold into prostitution rings. They are smuggled in by seaport in 'stack' cargo crates. Frisco, Philly, LA, and NYC ar thought to be the major points of entry.

It's been spotlighted on a few crime shows like 'Without a trace'.

[Crest]

Well, I wouldn't say that actual democracy has ever been fully attained. People may have a degree of choice in whose going to be making the laws in most countries, the problem is all countries in the past have also had the leaders in almost full control of these laws.
An actual form of democracy can only be honestly attained in various (but not all) forms of socialism, including Marxism.