1 party system BULLSHIT - Really it is!

[Invader Zim]

How can any of you call your selvs socialist/communist and support a 1 party system, please tell me the reasons for this folly.

[Mazdak]

Lets see, we fight a revolution, win and hold "free elections."

The capitalists win and we fade away.

What was the point of the revolution? TO TAKE OVER. THE MAJORITY WILL ALWAYS BE AGAINST US AT THE BEGINNING. The masses are ignorant, resistant to change at every turn. As Machiavelli so brilliantly described, you can only rely on half hearted support for the change, but you can count on strong opposition. therefore it is impossible to allow more than one party to be in power unless the masses are educated, and this is a far off goal.

And the two/multiple party system simply creates extreme divisions amongst the people, and it accomplishes nothing. When one party takes over, it makes all the changes which it had intended to make. As soon as a new party takes control of the government, then all the changes are reverted. The country see-saws between two weak parties. One unified party accomplishes its goals as it has no opposition.

And again, the purpose of a revolution is to OUST the party/s in power. what is the purpose of a revolution if one allows "free" elections

[thursday night]

The revolutionary political party in any socialist revolution is the vanguard of socialism. This is basic Marxist-Leninist theory. Furthermore, socialism takes the reins of power from the minority bourgeoisie class and gives it to the majority proletarian class (working-class), so the need for political parties representing the major classes in society is vanquished.

Do not confuse a one-party people’s republic with an undemocratic, autocracy. As we see in the Republic of Cuba, a one-party state can indeed be a very democratic one. In this way, socialist democracy can and has worked in the past and continues to work in the current socialist countries of the world. As Mao Zedong said:

“The Chinese Communist Party is the core of leadership of the whole Chinese people. Without this core, the cause of socialism cannot be victorious.” May 25, 1957

[RedComrade]

A one party state as long as it permits free speech and allows factions to exist within the party (ex:collectivist bolsheviks and non-collectivist bolsheviks) would be no worse than the current system. In fact it would be much better since in a socialist state the #1 law of capitalist political science which is the canidate who raises the most cash wins would not apply. Personally I feel multiple parties should be allowed to exist but their should also be an unamendable clause in the new constitution which would prevent a return to capitalism on pain of death.

[Ymir]

How can you call yourself a socialist/communist and NOT support the 1 party system...

[thursday night]

I agree totally with Ymir’s post.

[thursday night]

By the way Comrade Ymir, you must go back to that old avatar you had. It was funky awesome. :)

[RedComrade]

Correct me if Im wrong Ymir but Marx never explicitly lays out the idea that there can be only one party he merely states that there shall be a dictatorship of the proletariat, to say that the proletariat interests are so specific that their is no need for multiple parties is foolish (ex:collectivist stalinist party vs socially libertarian communists). There is no expilict law of Marx which prevents the workers from forming multiple parties. Perhaps there may be an explicit law of the one party state in Leninism but you dont have to be a Leninist to be a Marxist...

[Cassius Clay]

''Finally, in February 1937, a crucial meeting of the Central Committee addressed the question of democracy and the struggle against bureaucratization. It was that same meeting that decided upon the organization of the purge against enemy elements.

It is important to note that several days of the February 1937 Central Committee dealt with the problem of democracy within the Party, democracy which should reinforce the revolutionary character of the organization, hence its capacity to discover enemy elements that had infiltrated it. Reports by Stalin and Zhdanov dealt with the development of criticism and self-criticism, about the necessity of cadres to submit reports to their respective bases. For the first time, secret elections were organized in the Party, with several candidates and after a public discussion of all candidatures. The February 27, 1937 Central Committee resolution indicates:

`The practice of co-opting members of party committees must be liquidated .... each party member must be afforded an unlimited right of recalling candidates and criticizing them.'

.

The Preparation of Party Organizations for Elections to the USSR Supreme Soviet under the New Electoral System and the Corresponding Reorganization of Party Political Work (27 February 1937). McNeal, p. 187.


When the German fascists occupied the Soviet Union, they discovered all the archives of the Party Committee for the Western Region of Smolensk. All the meetings, all the discussions, all the Regional Committee and Central Committee directives, everything was there. The archive contains the proceedings of the electoral meetings that followed the Central Committee meeting of February 1937. It is therefore possible to know how things actually took place, at the local level.

Arch Getty described a number of typical examples of the 1937 elections in the Western Region. For the positions of district committee, thirty-four candidates were first presented for seven positions. There was a discussion of each candidate. Should a candidate wish to withdraw, a vote was made to see if the members accepted. All votes were secret.

Finally, during the May 1937 electoral campaign, for the 54,000 Party base organizations for which we have data, 55 per cent of the directing committees were replaced. In the Leningrad region, 48 per cent of the members of the local committees were replaced.

.

Ibid. , p. 158.

Getty noted that this was the most important, most general and most effective antibureaucratic campaign that the Party ever effected.

But at the Regional level, which constituted the main level of decision-making, very little changed. In the Regions, since the beginning of the twenties, individuals and clans had solidly entrenched themselves and held a virtual power monopoly. Even this massive antibureaucratic campaign could not budge them. The Smolensk archives contain the written proof.

The Party Secretary of the Western Region Committee was named Rumiantsev. He was a Central Committee member, as were several other regional leaders. The report of the meeting electing the Regional Secretary is in the Smolensk archive. Five pages state that the situation was good and satisfactory. Then follow nine pages of harsh criticism that indicate that nothing was working well. All the criticisms that the Central Committee had formulated against bureaucracy within the Party were taken up by the base against Rumiantsev: arbitrary expulsions, worker complaints that were never treated by the Regional Committee, lack of attention to the economic development of the region, leadership with no connection with the base, etc. The two opposing lines within the meeting were clearly expressed in the proceedings. The document shows that the base was able to express itself, but that it was incapable of getting rid of the clans that held a firm grip on the regional apparatus.

.

Ibid. , p. 162.


The same thing took place in almost all the big cities. Krinitskii, the first secretary of Saratov, had been criticized by name in the Party press by Zhdanov. However, he succeeded in getting himself re-elected. Under fire from both the central leadership of the Party and from the base, the regional `fiefdoms' were able to hold on.

.

Ibid. , p. 164.

They would be destroyed by the Great Purge of 1937--1938.''


Now tell me AK47 what is not democratic about that? More important though is that Soviet workers had democracy where it mattered, the work place, which if you come over to the 'Authoritarians' thread you will see.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in a one-party system, people can vote democraticaly on decisions?
I don't think the the people should be granted democracy at first. In order to enstate the system, a dictorship of the proletariat will be needed in order to suppress the bourgoise. After this, I would enstate very liberal policies, though.

(Edited by Victorcommie at 5:51 am on Feb. 28, 2003)

[Saint-Just]

The working class only needs a single party to represent them. A party they have created. Multiple parties, would suggest they have numerous interests. They only have the interest of the working class, the bourgeois parties must be removed. If not you deny revolution.

To say that those who advocate a 1 party system cannot be socialists, you are saying Marx was not a socialist.

[Just Joe]

the working class do have numerous interests, Mao. i've said before, theres more to life than money and theres more to life than economic interests.

any parties will just turn into power hungry bureacrats. the present system is just about getting into power. parties lose ideals in there quest for power. a one party state is the same only it keeps its power by force rather than false promises and heavy financing from rich wankers.

all parties are a bad idea. let the people govern themselves.

[lifetrnal]

I believe that opposition is the most important part of the dialectic. Without the freedom to speak and present alternatives to those in authority, humanity does not come to synthesis, we simply submit to the dominant theory. That being said, there are times when I agree with the one-party socialists as well. Clearly, counter-revolutionary forces ARE capable of taking power away from the revolution. What is to be done then? We can not let them simply take control back from the people...
I am left for the moment without answers.

[Anonymous]

Its not about having one or more partys, its about how you use it...

we have the multi party sistem, system defended by the burguase, this system allows right winger partys, and other type of "public enemys" to speak and have power, worse, in almost all cases it creates states were money=power, creating a burguase dictatorshit...
one the other hand we have one party system, its a good idea, yet it is easily corrupted... mainly because most of them forget a fundamental law in democracy, the rotation of power, a chairman is leader until its incapacity most of the times, there must be democracy INSIDE the party, i think that one party system is the best..
yet we have to fight another great enemy, corruption, holding too much power is hazardous and it most of the times destroys a country (china, CCCP)
i think taht the party should be the state, yet fundamental laws of democracy cannot be forget, the freedom of speeche, association, equality, and the abolition to exploitation from man to man....
therefore the party must exist, but the leaders must change and have moderated powers...
direct democracy is fundamental..
mainly i think the primitive soviet system is the best...

[Ymir]

Red Comrade I do not recall Marx discussing a one-party system either. While I personally agree with what I said, my statement reflects the fallacy of the first post.

[Mazdak]

Direct Democracy? Do any of you realize how impossible it would be? Complete chaos would ensue! It worked in Athens because of the small population, but in an country of millions?! Every single person voting would be an overload. Counting them and tallying would be impossible. No partys? Most people would simply vote for themselves, or someone they liked. Parties would indirectly form as people hovered towards certain individuals. Your ideas are a piper's dream.

[Invader Zim]

Yes but in a one party system, if the party becomes corrupted then you cannot get rid of them.

Any way Mazdak saying that the people are ignorant and under educated is shit. Maybe where you come from but were i come from that is not the case.

Chairman Moa your arguments directly lead to the formation of tyrants such as Moa so if you are trying to form a state of murderers and ethnic clensers thwen your system is ideal.

[Old Friend]

How can any of you call your selvs socialist/communist and support a 1 party system, please tell me the reasons for this folly.

Ymir's right. One party systems are the inevitable result of Marxism-Leninism. I suggest you look for a different ideology if you remain opposed to the inherent evil of such a state.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Old Friend on 9:37 am on Feb. 28, 2003

How can any of you call your selvs socialist/communist and support a 1 party system, please tell me the reasons for this folly.

Ymir's right. One party systems are the inevitable result of Marxism-Leninism. I suggest you look for a different ideology if you remain opposed to the inherent evil of such a state.

Yes i agree but as i dont follow a direct Marxist-lenist approach i avoid that. I am a democratic socialist. But any way you say that about Marxism-Lenonism look at cappy system. Technically we live in a multi party system but most of UK's are the same.

[Old Friend]

democratic socialist

Now that's the epitome of an oxymoron. It's laughable to me that you believe the two are somehow compatible. Do you also believe in the tooth-fairy?

[Cassius Clay]

Tell me are Powell, Rumsfield, Cheney and Rice elected by anybody? No they are not.

Is it democratic to have a system where there a two party's with little difference compete and the party who manages to get the most media outlets in it's pocket wins?

That's not democracy freedom is more than the right to chance masters. Democracy is when a worker has the power to sack his or her boss if they abuse their power, where you can nominate those who were oppressed yesterday to the position of head of a local Soviet and where 55% of the local government officialls are replaced by those who the people want in power.

God Bless America and it's democracy, all nine state judges of it.

[Liberty Lover]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tell me are Powell, Rumsfield, Cheney and Rice elected by anybody?

I don't know much about the US political system...but weren't they elected to congress?

[sc4r]

Democratic Socialism is actually a tautology.

I dont know what ideology it is that you oppose but it isn't socialism, it's either something you have invented or in fact is facism.

whereas it is an explicit (not assumed) condition of capitalism that democracy be very limited. So limited in fact as to render it non-effective. My suspicion is that even the very weak form that is actually proposed is only there for marketing reasons.

[Old Friend]

I don't know much about the US political system...but weren't they elected to congress?

They were appointed by the President Elect Bush, and confirmed by the elected body known as the as the Senate (http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/20/senate.vote/). The Vice President is elected with the President.

[sc4r]

Quote: from Mazdak on 5:02 am on Feb. 28, 2003
Direct Democracy? Do any of you realize how impossible it would be?


I think this shows that you do not grasp the essence of direct democracy. Direct democracy does not imply that a mass vote needs to be taken on every minor decision or that nobody can ever be delegated to carry through an initiative. It implies that those people so delegated can be sacked at any time.

The assumption in a direct democracy is that most of the time the status quo is a pretty good approximation of peoples desires regarding policy and that nothing should be done to change it without the express approval of the people.

To achieve this policy writers are appointed. They are guided as to what they shall write both by referendum's and by ongoing opinion polling but before any policies they write are passed into law an opportunity to reject or accept it must be given.

You are confusing admin with policy I suspect. Very few important new laws or policies are enacted each year.

The old objection to direct democracy of the sheer difficulty of collecting and counting votes is in any case very much less sustainable today than it was. Things like the internet and computers are practically made for direct democracy.

[Old Friend]

I think this shows that you do not grasp the essence of direct democracy. Direct democracy does not imply that a mass vote needs to be taken on every minor decision or that nobody can ever be delegated to carry through an initiative. It implies that those people so delegated can be sacked at any time.

Buzzzzzzzzz! Wrong!

[sc4r]

what an incredibly informative rebuttal. I can see how you have achieved the reputation for reasoned argument I see some people give you.

I would guess that you take the simplistic dictionary type definition of direct democracy as being the actual total thinking of people who advocate it.

Unfortunately real solutions to complex problems are not expressed within such definitions. The dictionary encapsulates the flavour of the solution it does not explain the mechanism.

[Old Friend]

I knew you were going to say that. I'll get back with you in a while. I gotta sleep.

[Saint-Just]

'the working class do have numerous interests, Mao. i've said before, theres more to life than money and theres more to life than economic interests.'Just Joe

They have numerous interests in that they are interested in economic construction to better their standard of living, that they also want peace etc. But their interests do not conflict. In a system that has a single ideology, interests do not conflict. If you tried to create a system in which both anarchists and moderate socialists and Marxist-Leninists existed, you would of course have conflicting interests. However, anarchy or weak liberal socialism are no in the interest of the working class.


'Red Comrade I do not recall Marx discussing a one-party system either.'Ymir

Marx said that "the class struggle necessarily leads to the dictatorship of the proletariat".
["Marx to J. Wedemeyer, March 5, 1852", Selected Works of Marx and Engels, FLPH, Moscow, Vol. 2, p. 452.]
He also said:
Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. There corresponds to this also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.
[Marx, "Critique of the Gotha Programme", Selected Works of Marx and Engels, FLPH, Moscow, Vol. 2, pp. 32-33.]
The development of socialist society is a process of uninterrupted revolution. In explaining revolutionary socialism Marx said:
This socialism is the declaration of the permanence of the revolution, the class dictatorship of the proletariat as the necessary transit point to the abolition of class distinctions generally, to the abolition of all the relations of production on which they rest, to the abolition of all the social relations that correspond to these relations of production, to the revolutionizing of all the ideas that result from these social relations.
[Marx, "The Class Struggles in France, 1848 to 1850", Selected Works of Marx and Engels, FLPH, Moscow, Vol. 1, p. 223.]

'Chairman Moa your arguments directly lead to the formation of tyrants such as Moa so if you are trying to form a state of murderers and ethnic clensers thwen your system is ideal.'AK47

My arguments do lead to the formation of states such as that, however, to substantiate that comment you would not to cite evidence of Mao Zedong thought creating a state of murderers and ethnic cleansing in the PRC.

'Technically we live in a multi party system but most of UK's are the same.'AK47

Thats because they all represent the bourgeois class. The only points at which the Labour party showed any socialism was when it had members of a militant socialist description, particularly in the 70's. However, its positions in power and its ideology have always proved it to be very central. The working class needs a real working class party.


'To achieve this policy writers are appointed. They are guided as to what they shall write both by referendum's and by ongoing opinion polling but before any policies they write are passed into law an opportunity to reject or accept it must be given.'sc4r

This would compromise the role and conscience of representative politicians. You can either have direct democracy or representative democracy. Direct democracy is impossible in populations of million. You cannot amalgemate direct and representative since direct compromises the thought and conscience of representatives.

[sc4r]

Mao - I'm completely unclear as to why you think that the fact that direct democracy compromised the conscience of representatives is a bad thing. Of course it does, thats the whole point of it.

Substitute the word influences for compromises and you get exactly the same substantive meaning but without the negative connutation.

If you subscribe to the idea that our interests are best served by a wise but benevolent prince then I can see that what you are saying would make sense. But I'd ask where you think you are going to find such a paragon and how you are going to ensure he stays benevolent.

It is simply not true that you cannot mix direct and representative democracy. All direct democratic models beyond those designed for very small communities do exactly that.

If you dont agree that democracy is desirable in the first place then for sure representative democracy is better than direct democracy. But if you do then it is difficult to see why you would wish to limit it more than is practically neccessary.



(Edited by sc4r at 2:33 pm on Feb. 28, 2003)

[Saint-Just]

Quote: from sc4r on 2:30 pm on Feb. 28, 2003
Mao - I'm completely unclear as to why you think that the fact that direct democracy compromised the conscience of representatives is a bad thing. Of course it does, thats the whole point of it.

Substitute the word influences for compromises and you get exactly the same substantive meaning but without the negative connutation.

If you subscribe to the idea that our interests are best served by a wise but benevolent prince then I can see that what you are saying would make sense. But I'd ask where you think you are going to find such a paragon and how you are going to ensure he stays benevolent.

It is simply not true that you cannot mix direct and representative democracy. All direct democratic models beyond those designed for very small communities do exactly that.

If you dont agree that democracy is desirable in the first place then for sure representative democracy is better than direct democracy. But if you do then it is difficult to see why you would wish to limit it more than is practically neccessary.



(Edited by sc4r at 2:33 pm on Feb. 28, 2003)


The electorate votes a particular representative into power. That representative uses their intelligence and conscience to do what is best for their constituency. In addition they have a party duty, to follow the wishes of their party. They talk to and are influenced by those who they represent. However, once those who they represent start telling them what to do they cannot exercise their conscience, intelligence or follow the party line to the same degree. Therefore, their power and position as a representative is compromised. This has many implications. The governing party can become factioned with the loss of the party line, this can lead to an extremely weak and thus ineffective government. If a representative is dictated by referundums etc. they have far less input into policy, they become little more than a puppet of those they represent. They are a representative for reasons that they can exercise their conscience and intelligence and create and influence policy which is correct for those they represent. Once they are dictated to completely by their representatives they lose this power. The government in effect becomes powerless, and is still a tool of the people, but one with little authority to create a specific society.

I am not saying referendums and direct democracy are completely redundant, but as it is they are only used in certain circumstances, to vote on a very small number of policies.

In representative democracy those that are represented can still de-select their representative. You do not need such a benevolent paragon as you describe. In representative democracy, he representatives still listen and work with those they represent as it is of paramount importance. What I am saying is that it is undesirable to compromise the functions of representatives. The effectiveness of a democratic system ensures its democracy.

In addition, I think direct democracy is extremely hard and most probably impossible to operate.

[ireallyhadablackout]

Quote: from Mazdak on 10:22 pm on Feb. 27, 2003


As Machiavelli so brilliantly described, you can only rely on half hearted support for the change, but you can count on strong opposition.



yes. one can agree that he is brilliantly stated. one question...(and its in regards to the same situation i see going on alot in many problem or conflict areas.)

considering the opposition, how do the players of the opposition go about generating such a stong force agains half-hearted victims?




(Edited by ireallyhadablackout at 5:30 pm on Feb. 28, 2003)

[ireallyhadablackout]

Quote: from Mazdak on 10:22 pm on Feb. 27, 2003

And the two/multiple party system simply creates extreme divisions amongst the people, and it accomplishes nothing. When one party takes over, it makes all the changes which it had intended to make. As soon as a new party takes control of the government, then all the changes are reverted. The country see-saws between two weak parties. One unified party accomplishes its goals as it has no opposition.

And again, the purpose of a revolution is to OUST the party/s in power. what is the purpose of a revolution if one allows "free" elections


its hard to disagree with the about statement because its sounds logical. what one could question is the precise identification of the two elements who make up "parties". (not sure what that word implies)

what if something were to come about and it were to demand the natural occurance of two seperate entities?

in my opinion, there is reform and revolution. most movements appear to have moved more toward "reformist" tactics and little toward "revolutionary" tactics. for revolution is its own "entity" and works naturally with the "law of command."


(Edited by ireallyhadablackout at 6:07 pm on Feb. 28, 2003)

[ireallyhadablackout]

In addition, I think direct democracy is extremely hard and most probably impossible to operate.


all people shoud be "the representative" and this could be attained by the creation and implementation of "individual declarations" so that everyone is required and empowered to their own "task." not only can this decrease unproductivity among peoples, it ensures their basic right to work.

i must say, im not big on any political term and although i find democracy to be verbally soothing for the masses, its a term i will continue to use.

as a person who merely looks toward the opportunity to fight for peace, in my thoughts i find myself debating that to stand for peace has many complexities than it is expensive yet how many people associate the phrase "time is money" so with that said, i can believe that true "peace" requires thought processes in an expedited manner. always going back to the one quick fix in my mind...and i can hear the bullets firing from the guns, quicker than i can say..."PEACE."

A Democray without Discord!
Make it Work!



(Edited by ireallyhadablackout at 6:04 pm on Feb. 28, 2003)


(Edited by ireallyhadablackout at 6:10 pm on Feb. 28, 2003)

[ireallyhadablackout]

Quote: from sc4r on 10:19 am on Feb. 28, 2003
Democratic Socialism is actually a tautology.

I dont know what ideology it is that you oppose but it isn't socialism, it's either something you have invented or in fact is facism.

whereas it is an explicit (not assumed) condition of capitalism that democracy be very limited. So limited in fact as to render it non-effective. My suspicion is that even the very weak form that is actually proposed is only there for marketing reasons.


spitting non-fiction, i see. :mmmmm: another delicious soul (s.o.d.) :)
hey, do i sense some de la rocha style going on hear?

[ireallyhadablackout]

Quote: from Old Friend on 10:32 am on Feb. 28, 2003

I don't know much about the US political system...but weren't they elected to congress?

They were appointed by the President Elect Bush, and confirmed by the elected body known as the as the Senate (http://www.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/stories/01/20/senate.vote/). The Vice President is elected with the President.


being paranoid is not one of my strong attributes, i like to use the "suspect" and in my heart i believe something did not go right with the last u.s. presidential election. i may have imagined one of the Bush men to have quoted something along the lines of "If its a dictatorship we have evolved to then I (bush) will make sure that I am the biggest dictator alive." again, it was something to that effect.

the point is that this all leads me to believe in some form of either transitory change in economic venue or "world economic crisis" he he, maybe ive been reading too much. :wink:


(Edited by ireallyhadablackout at 6:29 pm on Feb. 28, 2003)

[Invader Zim]

Moa i agree that the British party's represent the Boursoirgie (god i never will be able to spell that word) and i hate that, but i would also hate a system with out a diverse arrey of political partys. Even if only a single socialist party existed what about all the other strands of socialism, ie libertarian socialists, marxist-lenonists ect. Who represents them.

[Invader Zim]

SM or whatever you want to be called. Your evident stupidity is clearly visable. If you are to ignorant to see the natural link between some forms of socialism and democracy you should study some basic politics.

[sc4r]

In addition, I think direct democracy is extremely hard and most probably impossible to operate.


First let me assume that we agree that democracy is desirable and that the purpose of democracy is to provide a way of resolving the differing desires of people so as to maximise the satisfaction of those desires. There is no objective way that such an optimum can be unambiguously defined and than one function of democratic purpose is actually to find an acceptable solution. In this sense democracy is a field theory.

If we agree, more or less, so far, I can go on.

I agree, fairly self evidently, that representatives have a duty to enact policies which as far as possible reflect the desires of their constituents and take into account what is actually possible. The problem is that I don’t accept that they will automatically do this. I am inordinately fond of control mechanisms and pathologically suspicious of relying on goodwill.

Representative democracy is undeniably prone to subversion from within. This is most graphically illustrated by the sheer number of dictators who have aquired power through democratic process and then discarded it. . In all fairness there may be a case for saying that societies in which democracy is unestablished would be incapable of instituting direct democracy. I will therefore (tentatively) concede that representative democracy is at least a necessary stepping stone, even if it is a rather precarious and slippery one.

Once you are past the point where democracy is established as the institution to which people and security forces will give allegiance, the situation changes. The danger of overt subversion is now minimal, but typically the person or party in power is able to call upon very significant resources to persuade people of the correctness of a particular course of action. There will be opposition parties but for these to get their message across they must have access to significant resources of their own. Most usually this means that all parties will court sources of funding, and such funding rarely (never?) comes without strings. The end result is a small number of dominant parties who are balancing the demands of the special interest groups who fund them with the need to voice a message which is at least not so unacceptable to the general populace that the party is unelectable.

The problem is that the message is not a passive one where they simply set out their stall and ask the populace to accept or reject it. They engage in active attempts to alter the views of the population and they are not always honest in how they do this. They employ deceptions so that the balance appears more acceptable than it really is. Commonly, the dominant parties will also seek to exclude alternative views by the psychologically convincing tactic of persuading the voter that a vote for a minor party is a vote wasted. The result much of the time is a scenario where many people are persuaded to vote not for what they would like, but for what they would least dislike. Again very typically the major parties also seek to establish emotional attachments so that the voter will choose them at least partly on the strength of an irrational allegiance rather than on the basis of stated policies (and still less on the basis of actual actions).

Once this situation exists it is easily within the power of the party to gradually shift the actual (never the ostensible) balance of its policies towards the special interest group and away from the actual voter. The special interest group will typically be very much more perceptive and resourceful in measuring what actual policy is being followed and ensuring that its desires are tracked. It will eventually become members of the special group who actually lead the party so that it does not even struggle against competing demands but merely does as much as must be done (and say much more that will not) to retain credibility.

Direct democracy provides a way out of this vicious trap. Now a party cannot present a bundle of policies favouring the special group because it is likely that the populace will accept only that part of the bundle which it actually wants. The bundle is exposed to much more discriminating selection. Nor can a ‘representative’ present a bundle which only contains unattractive items, because if he does so the populace will immediately remove him. He is therefore constrained to track their wishes and has little if any hope that he will benefit from a permanent alliance with other representatives*

There are several common objections even from people who accept all the foregoing:

Firstly they will say that constant changes of policy will result as the electorate sways hither and thither always seeking immediate gratification. I don’t accept this. If the electorate knows that it can behave like an undecided child without penalty it may do so; but when it is clear that to change your mind has an actual cost there is a far greater likelihood that people will consider their views (and of course governments will also invest vastly more effort in making sure that they are given the information to allow them to do so).

Secondly they will say that for reasons of national security it would be far too dangerous to actually allow all the relevant details which may influence policy to be published. This presupposes that the population is unable to be convinced of this in situations where it is true, and again assumes a level of childlike simplicity on the part of the electorate. There is nothing to stop the executive** saying ‘please believe us, in this instance we cannot reveal details without putting you at great danger’. It seems nonsensical to say that the population could not accept this on occasion given that you would be saying that the reason they should prefer representative democracy in the first place is that they will accept it as a general rule.

Thirdly they will say that the general population are simply too stupid to be allowed to dictate policy. This is just outright insulting and patronising. If the populace are too stupid for this then they are certainly too stupid to be allowed to decide between two or three very heavily disguised packages presented every 4-5 years.

Fourthly they will point to the immense bureaucratic cost of direct democracy. Once upon a time they might have had a point here; but no longer. The net, computers, telephones etc. make this objection hopelessly outdated. Direct democracy does not imply that every suggestion made by every person must automatically result in a detailed policy proposal or feasibility study. I’m not going to go into the specific mechanics of direct democracy here. I’m assuming you realise more or less the sorts of things which are proposed. If not here is a link to one of them

Fifthly; they will say (correctly) that policies do not stand in isolation; that if we are to build more hospitals we must also train more nurses and doctors and accept that this means either less schools or higher taxation. However, there is absolutely nothing to prevent such bundles being presented as a package to be accepted or rejected as a unit (together with options). Direct democracy does not have to imply no policy writers capable of expressing such inter dependencies or even that there can be no distinction between guiding policy and specific legislation. The money actually saved on paying politicians to stand up and agree with their leader could just as easily be spent employing people to actually research and explain such things.

The bottom line of all this is that direct democracy lets people be responsible for their own decisions and guards against the emergence of covert dictatorships. This to me is worth the risk that we may be discarding the Einstienian wisdom and benevolence of the likes of the Vicar.

Finally the implementation of DD does not have to be a sudden phase state change, it can be done gradually.

I’ll bet a 5 ball lotto ticket to a facist promise that I’ve omitted some part of what I want to say from the above and that there are holes. Even if I have convinced you (hahaha rolls on floor laffing; is anyone ever convinced by an internet argument ?) please feel free to point out the gaps, I’ll do my best to supply the missing parts (allow 28 days delivery, P&P not included).

Best wishes Comrade.

* and this is the reason why direct democracies can be called one party systems. Really they are no party systems, the party is the society itself. Parties ideally are just groups of people with sufficiently complimentary logs to roll that they cooperate in the quest for funding and the power that results. In reality they often become staffed by people who have little ideological commitment at all and will go along with whatever the party line is because the party is in effect their employer . In direct democracy such a thing has far less cohesive force.

** direct democracy does not have to imply that there is no permanent executive. The executive may be replaced at any time, but unless it is actually voted out it may persist indefinitely.

[ireallyhadablackout]

Direct democracy does not imply that a mass vote needs to be taken on every minor decision or that nobody can ever be delegated to carry through an initiative. It implies that those people so delegated can be sacked at any time.

The assumption in a direct democracy is that most of the time the status quo is a pretty good approximation of peoples desires regarding policy and that nothing should be done to change it without the express approval of the people.

To achieve this policy writers are appointed. They are guided as to what they shall write both by referendum's and by ongoing opinion polling but before any policies they write are passed into law an opportunity to reject or accept it must be given.

You are confusing admin with policy I suspect. Very few important new laws or policies are enacted each year.



democracy in itself is confusing and not to mention, costly. the last i was exposed with is that there are fifty-one legal systems in addition to the federal court system and fifty state court systems with its own body of laws.

each system has its constitutions, treaties, statutes, ordinances, regulations and adminstrative law issues.

i favor administrave law issues, they come on strong in adminstrative court proceedings. its the "treaties" also known as the "Supreme law of the Land" i find intriguing, mainly because most of them (what i hear) have not been adhered to, and just about every single one made with the Soveign Governments of American Tribes has been broken.

the point i was trying to make before i deviated is that the status quo needs to be "given the boot" because the status quo you refer to may not be the majority and if it is the majority, in my opinion it does not enact for "all people" only their political party and representative.

im not saying ithat it is ineffective, maybe im just thinking that if the game has changed then so will the players.

(Edited by ireallyhadablackout at 7:01 pm on Feb. 28, 2003)

[ireallyhadablackout]

sc4r

thanks. excellent reading. thanks again. :)

[Som]

However, anarchy or weak liberal socialism are no in the interest of the working class.

Anarchy is where the working class as a whole exerts complete control over their own lives, Why exactly would that be against the interest of the working class?

As well as the simple concept letting the working class decide for themselves what their interests are.

In a system that has a single ideology, interests do not conflict. If you tried to create a system in which both anarchists and moderate socialists and Marxist-Leninists existed, you would of course have conflicting interests.

And what about freedom? Isn't the point of marxism to liberate the working clas? Instead you merely suggest throwing them into sort of ideological chains. Some sort of liberation in control.

Creating a single ideology which is forcibly imposed on the population leads to stagnation, beurocracy, rule from above, oligarchy and control.

Simply, its a dictatorship OVER the proletariat. What happens to those who feel that the party no longer represents working class interests, if it ever did, and its inevitable turn to revisionism. Simply the masses don't have a choice.

All of the marx quotations you listed simply mention the dictatorship of the proletariat, the dictatorship of a class, not a party. They imply absolutly nothing of a single party.

[Moskitto]

they become little more than a puppet of those they represent.

boo hoo hoo, you're mp can't follow the party line anymore, he can actually stand up to the promises he made and be truely held accountable, boo hoo hoo, someone who represents me is argueing his viewpoint with other people, boo hoo hoo, someone is standing up for my rights in parliament, boo hoo hoo.

representatives are there to represent the people, they are NOT there to follow the party line

[Saint-Just]

Quote: from sc4r on 6:33 pm on Feb. 28, 2003

In addition, I think direct democracy is extremely hard and most probably impossible to operate.


First let me assume that we agree that democracy is desirable and that the purpose of democracy is to provide a way of resolving the differing desires of people so as to maximise the satisfaction of those desires. There is no objective way that such an optimum can be unambiguously defined and than one function of democratic purpose is actually to find an acceptable solution. In this sense democracy is a field theory.

If we agree, more or less, so far, I can go on.

I agree, fairly self evidently, that representatives have a duty to enact policies which as far as possible reflect the desires of their constituents and take into account what is actually possible. The problem is that I don’t accept that they will automatically do this. I am inordinately fond of control mechanisms and pathologically suspicious of relying on goodwill.

Representative democracy is undeniably prone to subversion from within. This is most graphically illustrated by the sheer number of dictators who have aquired power through democratic process and then discarded it. . In all fairness there may be a case for saying that societies in which democracy is unestablished would be incapable of instituting direct democracy. I will therefore (tentatively) concede that representative democracy is at least a necessary stepping stone, even if it is a rather precarious and slippery one.

Once you are past the point where democracy is established as the institution to which people and security forces will give allegiance, the situation changes. The danger of overt subversion is now minimal, but typically the person or party in power is able to call upon very significant resources to persuade people of the correctness of a particular course of action. There will be opposition parties but for these to get their message across they must have access to significant resources of their own. Most usually this means that all parties will court sources of funding, and such funding rarely (never?) comes without strings. The end result is a small number of dominant parties who are balancing the demands of the special interest groups who fund them with the need to voice a message which is at least not so unacceptable to the general populace that the party is unelectable.

The problem is that the message is not a passive one where they simply set out their stall and ask the populace to accept or reject it. They engage in active attempts to alter the views of the population and they are not always honest in how they do this. They employ deceptions so that the balance appears more acceptable than it really is. Commonly, the dominant parties will also seek to exclude alternative views by the psychologically convincing tactic of persuading the voter that a vote for a minor party is a vote wasted. The result much of the time is a scenario where many people are persuaded to vote not for what they would like, but for what they would least dislike. Again very typically the major parties also seek to establish emotional attachments so that the voter will choose them at least partly on the strength of an irrational allegiance rather than on the basis of stated policies (and still less on the basis of actual actions).

Once this situation exists it is easily within the power of the party to gradually shift the actual (never the ostensible) balance of its policies towards the special interest group and away from the actual voter. The special interest group will typically be very much more perceptive and resourceful in measuring what actual policy is being followed and ensuring that its desires are tracked. It will eventually become members of the special group who actually lead the party so that it does not even struggle against competing demands but merely does as much as must be done (and say much more that will not) to retain credibility.

Direct democracy provides a way out of this vicious trap. Now a party cannot present a bundle of policies favouring the special group because it is likely that the populace will accept only that part of the bundle which it actually wants. The bundle is exposed to much more discriminating selection. Nor can a ‘representative’ present a bundle which only contains unattractive items, because if he does so the populace will immediately remove him. He is therefore constrained to track their wishes and has little if any hope that he will benefit from a permanent alliance with other representatives*

There are several common objections even from people who accept all the foregoing:

Firstly they will say that constant changes of policy will result as the electorate sways hither and thither always seeking immediate gratification. I don’t accept this. If the electorate knows that it can behave like an undecided child without penalty it may do so; but when it is clear that to change your mind has an actual cost there is a far greater likelihood that people will consider their views (and of course governments will also invest vastly more effort in making sure that they are given the information to allow them to do so).

Secondly they will say that for reasons of national security it would be far too dangerous to actually allow all the relevant details which may influence policy to be published. This presupposes that the population is unable to be convinced of this in situations where it is true, and again assumes a level of childlike simplicity on the part of the electorate. There is nothing to stop the executive** saying ‘please believe us, in this instance we cannot reveal details without putting you at great danger’. It seems nonsensical to say that the population could not accept this on occasion given that you would be saying that the reason they should prefer representative democracy in the first place is that they will accept it as a general rule.

Thirdly they will say that the general population are simply too stupid to be allowed to dictate policy. This is just outright insulting and patronising. If the populace are too stupid for this then they are certainly too stupid to be allowed to decide between two or three very heavily disguised packages presented every 4-5 years.

Fourthly they will point to the immense bureaucratic cost of direct democracy. Once upon a time they might have had a point here; but no longer. The net, computers, telephones etc. make this objection hopelessly outdated. Direct democracy does not imply that every suggestion made by every person must automatically result in a detailed policy proposal or feasibility study. I’m not going to go into the specific mechanics of direct democracy here. I’m assuming you realise more or less the sorts of things which are proposed. If not here is a link to one of them

Fifthly; they will say (correctly) that policies do not stand in isolation; that if we are to build more hospitals we must also train more nurses and doctors and accept that this means either less schools or higher taxation. However, there is absolutely nothing to prevent such bundles being presented as a package to be accepted or rejected as a unit (together with options). Direct democracy does not have to imply no policy writers capable of expressing such inter dependencies or even that there can be no distinction between guiding policy and specific legislation. The money actually saved on paying politicians to stand up and agree with their leader could just as easily be spent employing people to actually research and explain such things.

The bottom line of all this is that direct democracy lets people be responsible for their own decisions and guards against the emergence of covert dictatorships. This to me is worth the risk that we may be discarding the Einstienian wisdom and benevolence of the likes of the Vicar.

Finally the implementation of DD does not have to be a sudden phase state change, it can be done gradually.

I’ll bet a 5 ball lotto ticket to a facist promise that I’ve omitted some part of what I want to say from the above and that there are holes. Even if I have convinced you (hahaha rolls on floor laffing; is anyone ever convinced by an internet argument ?) please feel free to point out the gaps, I’ll do my best to supply the missing parts (allow 28 days delivery, P&P not included).

Best wishes Comrade.

* and this is the reason why direct democracies can be called one party systems. Really they are no party systems, the party is the society itself. Parties ideally are just groups of people with sufficiently complimentary logs to roll that they cooperate in the quest for funding and the power that results. In reality they often become staffed by people who have little ideological commitment at all and will go along with whatever the party line is because the party is in effect their employer . In direct democracy such a thing has far less cohesive force.

** direct democracy does not have to imply that there is no permanent executive. The executive may be replaced at any time, but unless it is actually voted out it may persist indefinitely.



That is an interesting model. Of course I still prefer representative democracy.

Ok, so you like control mechanisms. Control mechanisms are paramount in democracy, and indeed in all democratic societies they do exist. I would certainly not say that representative democracy is devoid of control mechanisms. There are a great number of balances and checks. The constitution, seperation of powers etc.

I agree, Representative democracy is prone to subversion more than direct. I would also say that in direct democracy there is nothing to subvert, little power to take since the power is distributed so widely.

In direct democracy, who creates policy? what do people elect? People could elect administrators, however these administrators would constantly have to get everything rubber stamped by the electorate.


I agree that parties should not be funded. There are often limits on how much business can contribute to parties, therefore limiting their influence. Obviously I believe in a one party system where the party would be funded by state....
In addition, even in representative democracy the system is open to scrutiny to a level where it is not so easy for such underhand actions to take place. The electorate can de-select representatives at elections and therefore representatives have limited power.

I agree that often people vote for what they dislike least rather than what they like. However, in a system with a limited number of choices it can be clear to develope some strong ideological routes which people can then judge on their success. In direct democracy no clear ideological path is taken since people do not have a small number of people with an idea or 'vision' to follow.


I have not time to construct and in depth critique of what you have said. I will later though. For now you can answer these questions, although they are somewhat simple.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Moskitto on 10:19 pm on Feb. 28, 2003

they become little more than a puppet of those they represent.

boo hoo hoo, you're mp can't follow the party line anymore, he can actually stand up to the promises he made and be truely held accountable, boo hoo hoo, someone who represents me is argueing his viewpoint with other people, boo hoo hoo, someone is standing up for my rights in parliament, boo hoo hoo.

representatives are there to represent the people, they are NOT there to follow the party line


LOL the truth hurts them doesnt it moskitto :cool:

[Saint-Just]

Quote: from Moskitto on 10:19 pm on Feb. 28, 2003

they become little more than a puppet of those they represent.

boo hoo hoo, you're mp can't follow the party line anymore, he can actually stand up to the promises he made and be truely held accountable, boo hoo hoo, someone who represents me is argueing his viewpoint with other people, boo hoo hoo, someone is standing up for my rights in parliament, boo hoo hoo.

representatives are there to represent the people, they are NOT there to follow the party line


*sigh* you seem so confident of your statement, if you had actually studied politics you would realise that you are wrong. You may THINK MP's should not follow the party line, but the reality is that for a government to work effectively they are obligated to.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Chairman Mao on 4:00 pm on Mar. 1, 2003

Quote: from Moskitto on 10:19 pm on Feb. 28, 2003

they become little more than a puppet of those they represent.

boo hoo hoo, you're mp can't follow the party line anymore, he can actually stand up to the promises he made and be truely held accountable, boo hoo hoo, someone who represents me is argueing his viewpoint with other people, boo hoo hoo, someone is standing up for my rights in parliament, boo hoo hoo.

representatives are there to represent the people, they are NOT there to follow the party line


*sigh* you seem so confident of your statement, if you had actually studied politics you would realise that you are wrong. You may THINK MP's should not follow the party line, but the reality is that for a government to work effectively they are obligated to.

Where are you from beacause it seems that it's you not moskitto who needs to do a bit of studying on politics.

[Saint-Just]

Quote: from AK47 on 4:36 pm on Mar. 1, 2003

Quote: from Chairman Mao on 4:00 pm on Mar. 1, 2003

Quote: from Moskitto on 10:19 pm on Feb. 28, 2003

they become little more than a puppet of those they represent.

boo hoo hoo, you're mp can't follow the party line anymore, he can actually stand up to the promises he made and be truely held accountable, boo hoo hoo, someone who represents me is argueing his viewpoint with other people, boo hoo hoo, someone is standing up for my rights in parliament, boo hoo hoo.

representatives are there to represent the people, they are NOT there to follow the party line


*sigh* you seem so confident of your statement, if you had actually studied politics you would realise that you are wrong. You may THINK MP's should not follow the party line, but the reality is that for a government to work effectively they are obligated to.

Where are you from beacause it seems that it's you not moskitto who needs to do a bit of studying on politics.

I'm not even going to dignify this with a relevant responce.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Chairman Mao on 6:12 pm on Mar. 1, 2003

Quote: from AK47 on 4:36 pm on Mar. 1, 2003

Quote: from Chairman Mao on 4:00 pm on Mar. 1, 2003

Quote: from Moskitto on 10:19 pm on Feb. 28, 2003

they become little more than a puppet of those they represent.

boo hoo hoo, you're mp can't follow the party line anymore, he can actually stand up to the promises he made and be truely held accountable, boo hoo hoo, someone who represents me is argueing his viewpoint with other people, boo hoo hoo, someone is standing up for my rights in parliament, boo hoo hoo.

representatives are there to represent the people, they are NOT there to follow the party line


*sigh* you seem so confident of your statement, if you had actually studied politics you would realise that you are wrong. You may THINK MP's should not follow the party line, but the reality is that for a government to work effectively they are obligated to.

Where are you from beacause it seems that it's you not moskitto who needs to do a bit of studying on politics.

I'm not even going to dignify this with a relevant responce.

That is evidently because you cant.

[Moskitto]

if politicians are there to follow the party line then why do you bother with elections and why do you allow independant candidates? It's clear from the setup of the electoral system in most democracies that politicians are supposed to be there to represent the people, not tow the party line.

[Invader Zim]

Also how do you account for what just happened in the labour party then.

[Saint-Just]

Quote: from Moskitto on 6:21 pm on Mar. 1, 2003
if politicians are there to follow the party line then why do you bother with elections and why do you allow independant candidates? It's clear from the setup of the electoral system in most democracies that politicians are supposed to be there to represent the people, not tow the party line.


I'm not stating my opinion, I am stating facts. MP's have a number of obligations. To represent their constituencies wishes, to exercise their conscience and to follow the party line. People argue which is the most important and which should be the most important.

'Also how do you account for what just happened in the labour party then.'

Are you referring to the vote on Iraq. In that there was no party whip to my knowledge....May have been a one line whip. In any case the MP's were exercising their conscience and in some cases representing their constituencies wishes. They were generally back benchers, so not adhering to the party line was not too much risk, particularly on such a contentious issue.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Chairman Mao on 6:33 pm on Mar. 1, 2003

Quote: from Moskitto on 6:21 pm on Mar. 1, 2003
if politicians are there to follow the party line then why do you bother with elections and why do you allow independant candidates? It's clear from the setup of the electoral system in most democracies that politicians are supposed to be there to represent the people, not tow the party line.


I'm not stating my opinion, I am stating facts. MP's have a number of obligations. To represent their constituencies wishes, to exercise their conscience and to follow the party line. People argue which is the most important and which should be the most important.

'Also how do you account for what just happened in the labour party then.'

Are you referring to the vote on Iraq. In that there was no party whip to my knowledge....May have been a one line whip. In any case the MP's were exercising their conscience and in some cases representing their constituencies wishes. They were generally back benchers, so not adhering to the party line was not too much risk, particularly on such a contentious issue.

Not too much risk other than the possible spliting of the labour party.

[Moskitto]

People argue which is the most important and which should be the most important.

you'll find most people think the most important role of an MP is to represent their constituancy, that is why people hate party whips so much.

[Saint-Just]

'Not too much risk other than the possible spliting of the labour party.'

Maybe...lets hope so.

'you'll find most people think the most important role of an MP is to represent their constituancy, that is why people hate party whips so much.

Thats not the point at all. I have no idea if the majority of people think that. Most educated politicists entirely see the need for party whips and think democracy would be in danger of collapse without them.

[Anonymous]

Who are you to talk about the most important role of an MP. It really depends on the MP. Some will belive that it is there duty to represent and protect the party. Some will believe it is their duty to further themselves. It really does depend on the MPs morals, concerns and most importantly their ambitions.

[Moskitto]

so you support a 1 party state and party whips, so you support a dictatorship then?

[Saint-Just]

Quote: from Moskitto on 8:29 pm on Mar. 2, 2003
so you support a 1 party state and party whips, so you support a dictatorship then?

Yes. That was an extremely quick conclusion. Party whips have nothing to do with dictatorship. One Party system does however.

I support a dictatorship of the Proletariat, even Malte agrees (if you look at his signature) that this is the most democratic form of government. However, we disagree on many other things.

It is most democratic because it is the class system that negates democracy. Once power is monopolised in the hands of the working class a democracy for the masses will finally be facilitated, but only in this DoP, however it will be a dictatorship towards, some, towards the former exploitative class.

And so on....have had this argument so many times before in this forum.

(Edited by Chairman Mao at 11:13 pm on Mar. 2, 2003)

[Moskitto]

so you want one party or many parties?

[Saint-Just]

Quote: from Moskitto on 11:44 am on Mar. 3, 2003
so you want one party or many parties?

One party.

[Invader Zim]

Moa what a load of shit you post.

[Moskitto]

so you support a one party state and party whips? this is a dictatorship.

[Saint-Just]

'so you support a one party state and party whips? this is a dictatorship.' Moskitto

You are actually saying that party whips are facets of dictatorship and not democracy?

Yes, correct, as I have already stated, a one party state is a dictatorship, a dictatorship to the bourgeoisie if that is a working class party. If the party in power is a bourgeois party it is a dictatorship to the working class.
I have said I advocate a dictatorship of the proletatiat since it is essential to bring democracy to the mass class. Without a dictatorship in the hands of the proletariat the class struggle cannot be fought and won, the existence of the class struggle is what negates democracy. A single equal homogenous class is essential for democracy.

'Moa what a load of shit you post.' AK47

By saying that you suggest that Marx and Lenin thought is, as you so eloqeuntly put it.... 'shit'.

[Invader Zim]

Yes Marxist-Leninism is full of SHIT.

[Invader Zim]

Any way as i've said before, Marx is not the be all and end all of socialism, he did not create it, and what he says is not the strict truth.

[Saint-Just]

Quote: from AK47 on 2:34 pm on Mar. 3, 2003
Any way as i've said before, Marx is not the be all and end all of socialism, he did not create it, and what he says is not the strict truth.

True, but I subscribe to it. However, I think saying Marxism-Leninism is full of 'shit' is a bit over simplistic.

[socialist2000]

im new and dont know any one but what do you believe moa, AK-47, moskitto.

[thursday night]

Why is it that a one-party people’s republic is always related with brutal autocracy? Nothing can be further than the truth! It only takes a bit of research into Cuban socialist democracy today to see real democracy in action, supported by the people. Furthermore, Comrade Mao gives a very detailed explanation of why the revolutionary vanguard party is vital to Marxism-Leninism, however the only replies he receives is obscenities and inane babble. What a shame indeed that the liberal left cannot put forward a decent debate to Marxist-Leninists.

[socialist2000]

Quote: from thursday night on 5:24 pm on Mar. 3, 2003
Why is it that a one-party people’s republic is always related with brutal autocracy? Nothing can be further than the truth! It only takes a bit of research into Cuban socialist democracy today to see real democracy in action, supported by the people. Furthermore, Comrade Mao gives a very detailed explanation of why the revolutionary vanguard party is vital to Marxism-Leninism, however the only replies he receives is obscenities and inane babble. What a shame indeed that the liberal left cannot put forward a decent debate to Marxist-Leninists.

Cant put up a deceent debate ahh. Please go to this source below, read about this guys life, thwn i will debate yith you when we both know each others ideal systems.

http://robert-owen.midwales.com/

[thursday night]

I wasn’t referring to your post, socialist2000. :)

[socialist2000]

Quote: from thursday night on 5:31 pm on Mar. 3, 2003
I wasn’t referring to your post, socialist2000. :)

Yes but as i am liberal left, i feal i must defend my politics.

[Saint-Just]

Quote: from socialist2000 on 5:30 pm on Mar. 3, 2003

Quote: from thursday night on 5:24 pm on Mar. 3, 2003
Why is it that a one-party people’s republic is always related with brutal autocracy? Nothing can be further than the truth! It only takes a bit of research into Cuban socialist democracy today to see real democracy in action, supported by the people. Furthermore, Comrade Mao gives a very detailed explanation of why the revolutionary vanguard party is vital to Marxism-Leninism, however the only replies he receives is obscenities and inane babble. What a shame indeed that the liberal left cannot put forward a decent debate to Marxist-Leninists.

Cant put up a deceent debate ahh. Please go to this source below, read about this guys life, thwn i will debate yith you when we both know each others ideal systems.

http://robert-owen.midwales.com/


'He was one of the foremost Britons who taught men to aspire to a higher social state by reconciling the interests of capital and labour

Reconciling the interests of capital and labour. Robert Owen it seems, was a farsighted liberal, who initiated a wealth of reforms during his lifetime.

Your ideology is similar to a majority of people on this site, however, far from identical. Your views oppose mine greatly however. I do not imagine you would read what is required to learn Marxism-Leninism simply to debate my ideology with me. Anyhow, welcome.

[socialist2000]

Quote: from Chairman Mao on 8:54 pm on Mar. 3, 2003

Quote: from socialist2000 on 5:30 pm on Mar. 3, 2003

Quote: from thursday night on 5:24 pm on Mar. 3, 2003
Why is it that a one-party people’s republic is always related with brutal autocracy? Nothing can be further than the truth! It only takes a bit of research into Cuban socialist democracy today to see real democracy in action, supported by the people. Furthermore, Comrade Mao gives a very detailed explanation of why the revolutionary vanguard party is vital to Marxism-Leninism, however the only replies he receives is obscenities and inane babble. What a shame indeed that the liberal left cannot put forward a decent debate to Marxist-Leninists.

Cant put up a deceent debate ahh. Please go to this source below, read about this guys life, thwn i will debate yith you when we both know each others ideal systems.

http://robert-owen.midwales.com/


'He was one of the foremost Britons who taught men to aspire to a higher social state by reconciling the interests of capital and labour

Reconciling the interests of capital and labour. Robert Owen it seems, was a farsighted liberal, who initiated a wealth of reforms during his lifetime.

Your ideology is similar to a majority of people on this site, however, far from identical. Your views oppose mine greatly however. I do not imagine you would read what is required to learn Marxism-Leninism simply to debate my ideology with me. Anyhow, welcome.

No i have read some Marx and have a basic idea of Lenin ect.

However in your ideal surely you see that is the dictator is corrupt then your system fails. In theory it is perfect, a one pary state run by an honest socialist. The workers are highly represented, giving the greatest happyness to the greatest number, however you still alienate a large preportion of your people, the upper/middle classes.

As to Robert Owen he (attempted to) created a socialist socioty in places, he even lost his fortune in doing so, which is why i vertualy hero worship him, because of his sacrifice for others.

[thursday night]

Again, people begin to think that Marxism-Leninism is autocratic. I cannot fathom why. I give all the evidence to the contrary by showing how socialist democracy in Cuba works but I'm ignored, ignored and ignored. :(

[ComradeJunichi]

I was just going to say what thursday night said. Why is it that a one party state in support of the working class, always mangled in with a brutal, autocratic, evil fascist state? I support a one party system, vanguard party. I think Mazdak put it very well in the early posts. Why support a revolution if you're going to enstate a system of multiple parties?

By the way, it's MAO! MAO! MAO! Not Moa.


I've gotta go to my next class.