Democracy in a Socialist count
Guest
|
Post by Democracy in a Socialist count on Nov 13, 2004 16:41:15 GMT -5
What is the difference between the representative democracy in capitalist society compared to a socialist one?
It can be unequal because a representative democracy gives more power by definition to the representatives, thereby taking the power out of the hands of the people. Also it lends to incumbency advantages and the like. It's not the voice of the people, it's the voice of the political elite. You're a bad communist if you think other wise. You'll see in one of my previous posts that direct democracy isn't the solution because it is not feasible for a large government.
Is Kim-Jong il perfecting communism? "we're cutting you down to 2 meals a day, but don't worry, the people in South Korea only get 1 meal a day because of the capitalist corruption."
Some years later...
"We're now cutting you down to 1 meal a day." I'm not sure how he justified this, but clearly Kim-Jong il and North Korea is nothing close to perfection, in fact he's an evil tyrant with contempt for the common people.
|
|
flyby
Revolutionary
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Posts: 243
|
Post by flyby on Nov 13, 2004 17:23:24 GMT -5
here is the single deepest answer we have: rwor.org/bob_avakian/new_speech/avakian_democracy_dictatorship_speech.htmI want to discussit here in this thread, and will have things to say. But that essay is the heart of it. And is worth studying deeply. Here is what chairman Avakian says (among other things) in that essay: ":First, I want to refer to a short statement -- actually it was three previously unpublished sentences on democracy that are part of some unpublished correspondence from me which was then recently published in the RW. I don't have it before me, but I think I can remember the essence of it. First, the point was made that in a world marked by profound class divisions and social inequalities, to talk about "democracy" -- without talking about the class content of democracy and whom this democracy serves -- is meaningless at best, meaningless, or worse.
"Second, in a society that is divided in this way, with profound relations of exploitation and oppression, there cannot be any such thing as "democracy for all," or "pure democracy": there will always be the rule of one class or another, and whichever class rules will not only enforce that rule, but will apply, uphold and promote whatever kind of democracy serves its rule and its interests.
"And given this, the third point is that the essential question is: which class rules and in what way, and whether its rule serves to maintain and foster relations, deep-going relations of exploitation and oppression, or whether it serves the struggle to uproot and eventually completely abolish these relations.
"Now, the first question that arises in relation to this -- and these are things that, in the popular culture and so on, are commonly misrepresented and distorted, so it's important to speak directly to them -- the question is: What is democracy? Well "cracy" refers to a form of rule and "demos" is the people. So it technically means rule by the people. And if we look at history from Greek society up to the present time, democracy has basically been applied among the ranks of the people who actually ruled. There may have been, as there are in this society, formal procedures and structures which seem to apply certain aspects of this democracy to the population in general. But, in essence, the democracy that has been applied -- the right to rule the society, and the right to really be involved in determining the direction of society -- belongs essentially to the ranks of the ruling class and those who serve it.
"That was true in ancient Greece and Rome, for example, as I pointed out in the book Democracy: Can't We Do Better Than That? These were societies founded on slavery. Most of the people -- when they refer to democracy, most of the people were excluded from this democracy. They were slaves or they were non-citizens, and they didn't have any part to play in the determination of the direction of society. And that's still true in modern bourgeois-democratic society, where in reality the political decision-making process is removed from and stands over the masses of people, and their role is reduced to a charade of a kind, in which at most they are allowed to play a secondary role in relation to struggles within the ranks of the elite ruling classes in society."
|
|
flyby
Revolutionary
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Posts: 243
|
Post by flyby on Nov 13, 2004 17:24:54 GMT -5
|
|
redstar2000SE
Revolutionary
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png) ![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
The emancipation of the working class must be the work of the workers themselves
Posts: 113
|
Post by redstar2000SE on Nov 13, 2004 19:46:06 GMT -5
Democracy in a Socialist Country wrote: You'll see in one of my previous posts that direct democracy isn't the solution because it is not feasible for a large government.Which should suggest to you that perhaps the answer is getting rid of "large governments". Just a suggestion. ![;)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/wink.png)
|
|
|
Post by Snitza on Nov 16, 2004 8:18:36 GMT -5
Why don't you just give us your own opinion or spin or whatever on the topic, instead of pushing us towards Avakian? Or at the very least, summarize what HE says in whatever your 'favorite' essays are, and put them in your OWN words.
|
|
|
Post by kasamo on Nov 16, 2004 20:12:20 GMT -5
hmmm.
Well, our new comrade snitza....
If you watched before you spoke... you would know Flyby is kinda well known for speaking his/her opinions.
But let me respond to your criticism of flyby more directly (in a friendly, welcoming, comradely way!!):
snitza wrote: "Why don't you just give us your own opinion or spin or whatever on the topic, instead of pushing us towards Avakian? Or at the very least, summarize what HE says in whatever your 'favorite' essays are, and put them in your OWN words. "
Well, perhaps flyby's "opinion" on the topic is that we all need to grapple deeply with the way Avakian is approaching it.
Perhaps, some of these matters are deep and not simply amenable for simple summation.
So we bypass Marx and Marxism, and just put forward our own analyses from scratch?
Is it more important to learn Marxism in MY OWN words, or for you to grapple with the most advanced and correct summation of it?
Why make a fetish out of "our" words?
I agree we should express our views, and we should learn to do that well. If that is your piont, I agree (and I'm sure flyby does too!)
We need to debate here, and help each other improve our understanding and ability to express it -- because we all need to dig deep into political work (online and offline). This site is a training camp for revolutionaries.
However, the point is not merely or mainly "self-expression." The point is (as Maoists say) "to know the world to change the world."
And sometimes the most complete and revealing and penetrating analyses need to be read in "the original text" -- particularly the cutting edge contemporary analysis of the world and revolution WE ARE NOW LIVING THROUGH -- i.e. the work of Avakian.
Anyway, that is how I would answer you, comrade Snitza.
I look forward to you, expressing in your own words, what you think of Marxism (and especially its development in our times by our main man).
|
|