Essay On Democracy In America

[Mute Fox]

Hello, this is my first thread on RevLeft. I'm not sure whether this should be here or in Learning; but seeing as it deals with researching and writing an essay, I assumed this would be the best place to post.

The story is, I have a friend who I get in a lot of arguments with over instant message. We argue so much and so heatedly, that we decided on a rule - whenever one of us starts an argument and keeps pushing it, the other one has the right to demand an essay on the subject, since the burden of proof necessarily lies with the person who started the argument. The assumption is that if you don't care enough to be able to go do research to back up your argument, you shouldn't be arguing.

Recently, my friend and I got in an argument over whether people (specifically our American countrymen) are aware of their oppression by capitalism and the State and simply choose not to do anything about it, or whether they are simply not aware of their oppressed status and their power as a class, etc. He argued the former and I the latter. As usual, the debate got heated, he refused to budge, and he demanded an essay to end the argument. I accepted. I have two weeks to come up with an essay on how the American people are not free, and don't choose to be oppressed, but are rather manipulated, divided and ruled, propagandized and indoctrinated, etc.

My friend calls himself a Marxist, is a member of the CPUSA, but is also a former Marine and apparent patriot (he called the U.S. Constitution the most important/liberating document "in the history of mankind.") He is also 9 years older than me and is college-educated, whereas I am not (he actually has a Doctorate in Theology if I remember correctly, along with several lesser degrees.) It's very difficult for me to make any headway when arguing with him, and as I said, I am not college-educated and have no experience with writing essays or doing research outside of high school. So...I need your help, RevLeft!

Specifically, I need help finding some sources that can show that voting and participating in the "democratic" process in America doesn't achieve anything. My friend brought up the fact that there was a 4-week referendum on the Patriot Act which he himself voted on, and he made the comment that the American people "chose" to have it passed, knew all the facts, weren't bombarded with propaganda, etc. He then said that "those who choose security over freedom deserve neither", and that oppressed people all over the world don't rebel because they simply choose not to. I knew intuitively that he must be wrong, but I couldn't find any sources to prove it. It's very frustrating, because he calls himself a communist and yet places all this faith in our bourgeois "democratic" institutions, and none in the people. How do I combat this craziness? He's an intelligent guy, and he's a great friend, but I don't understand how he can hold these contradictory beliefs and am glad for this opportunity to try and change his mind. Anyway, I welcome any help you can give.

[Drace]

Wow, I was very surprised when you said his a Marxist.
What is his definition of Marxism?
I want to argue with him personally on this.
I don't see how you can uphold workers struggles and the idea of exploitation of capitalists if you view America, the capital of the capitalists, as heaven.

Elections are really the only thing people have a say in. But its not by popular vote so even the little democracy that exists in voting is distorted. The vote is usually between a turd or a douche. The campaigns are filled with lies and supported by lobbyists. There nothing more than propaganda.
Politicians rarely keep their promises. Obama said he would recognize the Armenian Genocide but as soon as he got into office he forgot about that. It not about recognizing a crime of humanity, his moves are led by military and economic strategy and going against an ally in the Middle East would not be a wise choice for the US's interests.
So really, as soon as the president is elected, democracy has no place. The whole existance of an election seems to be only to uphold the notion that there is democracy in America.

Just about every move made in office for the past 8 years has been rejected by the public, but still has passed.
Im not sure how many people actually supported bailing out banks or fighting two wars in the Middle East.

Or hell, any imperialist act done by the US in the past century.
Libya
Vietnam
Laos
Grenada
El Salvador
Niceragua
Cuba
Iraq
Afghanistan
Palestine

I doubt the public ever had a say in intervening in these countries, rigging elections, fighting wars or installing dictatorships.
Also, during the Cold War, the US took massive efforts of propaganda. I suppose the majority of the public chose to propagandize themselves too?

The US constitution was nothing more than a peace of paper. Every revolution has given itself credit and portrayed itself as if it was going to establish a Utopia.
Im sure the North Korean government praises itself greatly too and talks about the freedom of its people and how great their land is.
The United States had imperialistic thoughts as soon as the revolution was won. They massacred Indians to expand and made it a goal to invade Cuba.

[Bloody Kalashnikov]

Democracy is the illusion of freedom, there is no freedom in America, except the freedom to be a dirty wannabe capitalist.

[Potemkin]

Greetings,

I know of two pamphlets that might be of help to you, and possibly point you toward some other resources:

This is What Democracy Looks Like (available online through http://www.zinelibrary.info)
Don't Vote, Organize by Zabalaza and can probably be found through the link above or Zabalaza's website.

[Mute Fox]

Drace: I am not sure what his definition of Marxism is, because I haven't really asked him. He isn't a member of RevLeft, and as I said he belongs to the CPUSA and I'm not sure if he'd want to "waste his time" debating with "radicals." Regarding Obama and the Armenian Genocide; was that in Turkey? I haven't heard of it before. It doesn't surprise me that Obama would make such a flowery, useless promise as "recognizing" a genocide, and then not follow through. Wouldn't want to piss off Turkey while we're still in Iraq, after all

BK: Right on.

Potemkin: Thanks you, Comrade, for letting me know about such a useful site! I shall add it to my list of revolutionary resources ^^
Those two pamphlets you pointed me to look like they will be especially useful. Would you happen to know of any sources that deal specifically with the United States and the Patriot Act? As I said, my friend used the example of the referendum on the Patriot Act to support his argument. I am confident that I can blow that one out of the water; there is absolutely no way that during the hysteria after September 11, under the Bush government, there was no propaganda or coercion involved in getting it passed - which my friend maintains. I'm just curious if you know of any sources off the top of your head, since you're offering. I'm a very poor researcher

Thanks for your help and opinions, comrades!

[Drace]

I am not sure what his definition of Marxism is, because I haven't really asked him. He isn't a member of RevLeft, and as I said he belongs to the CPUSA and I'm not sure if he'd want to "waste his time" debating with "radicals." Regarding Obama and the Armenian Genocide; was that in Turkey? I haven't heard of it before. It doesn't surprise me that Obama would make such a flowery, useless promise as "recognizing" a genocide, and then not follow through. Wouldn't want to piss off Turkey while we're still in Iraq, after all

From what I heard, CPUSA is pretty reactionary. But you should really ask him to explain his economic and political ideas. They don't seem to be Marxist at all.

As of the Armenian Genocide, it was committed by the Turks in the Ottoman Empire around 1915.

As I said, my friend used the example of the referendum on the Patriot Act to support his argument. I am confident that I can blow that one out of the water; there is absolutely no way that during the hysteria after September 11, under the Bush government, there was no propaganda or coercion involved in getting it passed - which my friend maintains. I'm just curious if you know of any sources off the top of your head, since you're offering. I'm a very poor researcher

A good tip in any debate is to question the facts presented as well as the sources of them.
Don't take everything they say as truth.
Question him on there being a referendum and there being no propaganda. Why do you have to be the one to show facts to disprove it? Let him prove it instead.

Btw, Google is always your best friend. I tried looking for "patriot act referendum" Nothing, I changed referendum to its synonym, vote. Got this
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LI...n=1&vote=00313

It seems only the senate had a vote on it. I'm not sure how democratic that is! It seems rather that the act is widely opposed among the population.

Now, I searched for "Why did patriot act pass?"
I got this result
http://opt-out.cdt.org/security/usap...31027cdt.shtml

We can find some interesting information here.

The Department of Justice has launched a website, http://www.lifeandliberty.gov, to defend the PATRIOT Act.

Seems like propaganda to me!

The rest of the page is myths that the site lists.

Though I think this is too much focus on the Patriot Act. I would argue that the word democracy is given to much value. The word in itself, now due to massive patriotic propaganda, carries too many positive connotations of freedom and bliss. In politics, the word is almost interchangeably used as freedom and prosperity.
One does not inherit directly from such "democracy". One does not look up at the sky and praise his liberty and that he is able to pursuit his happiness.
These are of no emotional value, they are of no benefit in giving you a better life.
And thus, what needs to be analyzed are the effects of the system because democracy does not immediately translate to prosperity.
And in analyzing American politics what we have is a Republic in which the senators and representatives are voted into office. There comes many obstacles here in which takes away the value which democracy stands for -- the country running at the will of the people.

With the existence of corrupt politicians, massive propaganda, the conflicting interests of the rich bourgeoisie, money running elections, etc...the use of the little democracy(the ballot box) that exists is shred to pieces.


Also, you can use polls to show that government is not acting in the interests of the people.
War in iraq
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
62% of the people oppose it.

Afghanistan
http://www.pollingreport.com/afghan.htm
60% to 36%

Bailing out banks
http://www.allbusiness.com/automotiv...1816489-1.html
65% to 35%


And again, I wonder how involved the people were in the decisions of the massive propaganda used in the Cold War as well as various other imperialistic acts.
We also have no control over the spending of government.

http://www.globalissues.org/article/...acts-and-stats
Look down at the spending

$11 billion for ice cream
$780 billion on military
$101 alchocolic drinks

compare that to basic social services
$6 billion Basic education for all
$9 Water and sanitation for all
$13 Basic health and nutrition

This also shows the little democracy that exists in economics and the injustices of capitalism.
A democratic society would have better control of such ridiculous spending, would it not?

[Mute Fox]

From what I heard, CPUSA is pretty reactionary. But you should really ask him to explain his economic and political ideas. They don't seem to be Marxist at all.

That's what I heard, too. I should ask him what his specific beliefs are, you're right. There'll be plenty of time for a renewed debate with him when I turn my essay in, I assume, but he's not in a very receptive mood right now for debating XD

A good tip in any debate is to question the facts presented as well as the sources of them.
Don't take everything they say as truth.
Question him on there being a referendum and there being no propaganda. Why do you have to be the one to show facts to disprove it? Let him prove it instead.

Excellent tip, will do. It's just a bit hard when arguing with a friend who you trust, to respond to what you think must be blatant un-truths (without sounding like a dick, anyway.)

Btw, Google is always your best friend....*stuff*

I read what you pulled up, and then did a Google search myself, looked up the PATRIOT act on Wikipedia, and seem to have confirmed your doubts that a referendum even existed. I wonder what he's talking about, then? What could he have voted on? I don't think he's lying through his teeth, I think he must simply be mistaken in some way.

Though I think this is too much focus on the Patriot Act. I would argue that the word democracy is given to much value. The word in itself, now due to massive patriotic propaganda, carries too many positive connotations of freedom and bliss. In politics, the word is almost interchangeably used as freedom and prosperity.
One does not inherit directly from such "democracy". One does not look up at the sky and praise his liberty and that he is able to pursuit his happiness.
These are of no emotional value, they are of no benefit in giving you a better life.
And thus, what needs to be analyzed are the effects of the system because democracy does not immediately translate to prosperity.
And in analyzing American politics what we have is a Republic in which the senators and representatives are voted into office. There comes many obstacles here in which takes away the value which democracy stands for -- the country running at the will of the people.

With the existence of corrupt politicians, massive propaganda, the conflicting interests of the rich bourgeoisie, money running elections, etc...the use of the little democracy(the ballot box) that exists is shred to pieces

I agree. I focused on the Patriot act because that was the only (supposedly) factual bit of evidence he gave me when I pressed him. I should have asked him to prove it, but now it's too late and I'll have to ask him again later. In my essay, I think my goal will be to show two things:
1) That "democracy" in the sense that we use it, does not equal prosperity, and
2) Even if it did, the system doesn't work at all like our oppressors tell us it does.

[Potemkin]

Mute Fox,

I'm not aware of a radical pamphlet or article dealing directly with the PATRIOT (PATRIOT is a stupid acronym that Congress came up with) Act. I'm sure articles like that exist somewhere.

I think I might know what your friend is talking about, though. The PATRIOT Act was an act of Congress that the average person in the United States was not able to vote on. It was renewed under the Bush administration, as well.

However, there was enough public outrage against this act that some cities did hold public referendums, that people in those cities could vote for, which instructed local authorities not to cooperate with the federal government in certain instances pertaining to certain things in the PATRIOT Act.

I'm not a lawyer, or even well versed in law, but I think these were largely symbolic gestures. Constitutionally (I believe), the authority of the federal government supersedes any state or local government -- therefore, the PATRIOT Act was/is still legally overriding. However, it would probably be a bad move politically (for the federal government) to try to enforce certain things on municipalities that have explicitly passed something like this.

To my understanding, this is a similar issue to medical marijuana dispensaries. At the federal level, marijuana is illegal. In California and other places, however, you can get a medical card that allows you to purchase and/or grow a certain amount of marijuana for your own private medical purposes. Until the Obama administration, which earlier this year stated it would not raid medical marijuana dispensaries or target locally sanctioned medical marijuana growers, the federal government was still raiding these places and arresting people. This was even though they were not breaking California and/or local law. This is because federal law is overriding.

So, I think this is probably what he meant by a referendum. I would argue (though you'd want to research this a bit), that such referendums (at least in the instance of trying to supersede federal law) are simply token gestures. Also, it doesn't change the fact that the people of the United States had no say over the original bill becoming law, or its renewal by Congress.

Also, there may not have been propaganda for or against the PATRIOT Act during its deliberation because 1) it was rushed through Congress (as many bills are nowadays when either party has the majority it needs) and 2) they didn't have to sell the people on it because they had no say.

Certainly, it could be argued that it's often a good idea to pass laws in accordance to the will of the people, since the Congresspeople voting for these laws are elected by voters at home. However, this is only in theory. In practice this happens far less often. As well, the Bush administration was increasingly bold after September 11th, and as most of the world knows, often acted unilaterally. Additionally, there was a huge surge of conservative, reactionary, nationalistic sentiment after September 11th, so it might also be argued that it wasn't as controversial at the time (although, I don't think this was the case -- after all, Michael Moore's very critical Fahrenheit 9/11 came out in 2004, during Bush's first term, and less than three years after September 11th).

I hope this helps. Also, you should be able to find lots of information about how screwed up the United States' "democracy" is. For starters, it's controlled by only two parties with only minor differences between them. Other parties do exist here, but are often barred from public debates and in many (even most) states, the laws required to get on the ballot are often too strict for the smaller alternative parties to be able to particiapte -- I know this firsthand, as I volunteered for the Green Party here for a few years.

Perhaps the only aspect of this system that allows true popular participation are the ballot initiatives (or referendums, I believe) that allow people to put their questions on the ballot in their state or local areas. There is nothing like this for the federal level, however, which we have seen is the overriding legal body.

Anyway, I hope this helps. You should be able to find a list of localities that had anti-PATRIOT Act legislation. I think it includes Berkeley, California.

One last thing -- you may want to bring up the fact that money talks in this system. I took a political science class long ago, and the professor there actually said that money buys you "access" to politicians. He made no qualms about the way it is, and acted as if there is nothing wrong with this. The lobbyists here really have a large amount of control over the political process, which is why it's so hard for Congress to pass anything against business interests.

My analysis of this is just that capitalism has infiltrated the state, and the government largely exists to enforce the will of capital as expressed by giant, multinational corporations. I'm sure you can find statistics on the amount of lobbyists for every person in Congress (it might be something huge like 50:1). Also, big business can outspend truly grassroots, people-oriented lobbying movements, which is partly why the left is so ineffective here -- it can't outspend those companies. Of course, campaign finance reforms never seem to happen, and public funding of elections is almost non-existent. For instance, at the presidential level, once a candidate has raised a certain amount of money, they are eligible for federal matching funds. They hardly ever accept them, though, because by taking the public funds it caps the amount you can raise for the rest of the campaign, actually putting you at a disadvantage when compared to the other candidates, who usually don't accept the public funds.

Money talks in this "democracy" (technically, an unrepresentative republic), as can be demonstrated by this late-breaking news story: Bloomberg Spent $102 Million to Win 3rd Term -- he spent over $100 per vote.

[Mute Fox]

Originally posted by Potemkin
*stuff*

You've been very helpful, comrade. Especially interesting to me was the token political nature of these referendums, and the interplay between local and federal authority. It seems as though the State, by acknowledging the (technically unenforceable) local laws and protections, is also acknowledging that they never had popular support for their repressive measures in the first place. In other words, they are acknowledging that there is no democracy, and they only enforce the "law" where it is convenient or necessarily in their interests to do so.

The fact that money talks is obvious even to my friend - but he would most likely argue that this is a "corruption" of the true democratic system, and that the system is separate from this corruption. I have to somehow prove that it is the very nature and purpose of this republican representative government to perpetuate capitalism.

[ComradeMan]

Specifically, I need help finding some sources that can show that voting and participating in the "democratic" process in America doesn't achieve anything.

Be careful here or you will fall into the trap of using facts to support a theory instead of drawing a theory from the facts and I am sure your friend will jump on you for this one. I have a similar situation with a hardened Leninist friend of mine.... but we are still friends the same.

[Drace]

Mute Fox,

You should also make a tie between economics and democracy. In other words, don't only take the political structure in account, but also the economic one.
This way you will be able to bring up the unjust and undemocratic ownership of the means of production of the bourgeoisie that exists in capitalist America.

If he is any bit of a communist at all, he has to agree with you. What Marxist thinks that capitalism is democratic?

[Mute Fox]

ComradeMan: Sound advice. Thanks.

Drace: If he was a communist at all, I shouldn't have been having this argument with him in the first place

[Dean]

Hello, this is my first thread on RevLeft. I'm not sure whether this should be here or in Learning; but seeing as it deals with researching and writing an essay, I assumed this would be the best place to post.

I wrote an essay on western democracy in my senior year of high school, and I always regarded it as one of my best: http://dean.roushimsx.com/essays/dem...nd_control.htm