There is no absolute, pure, 'true' etc. democracy. Leftoids assert the *ideal* of democracy against the real results of democratic rule under capitalism - namely, the supremacy of the bourgeoisie. The bourgeoisie rules precisely through democracy. The fact that the bourgeoisie is in power does not mean that countries like the US are not democratic. Rather the fact that they are democratic, based on universal suffrage, etc, ensures bourgeois rule.
When we see that democracy has led to the rule of the bourgeoisie, the answer is not to appeal to some fictitious 'real democracy', but to recognize that democracy itself is just an organizational mechanism, whose content is provided by relations external to it. Marx makes this point himself in the Conspectus. 'Democracy' does not necessarily imply the rule of any particular class - everything depends upon the conditions within which democracy exists and operates. In a society based on competition between free and equal *citizens*, the most economically powerful and successful rise to the top.
<Asine! This is democratic twaddle, political drivel. Election is a political form present in the smallest Russian commune and artel. The character of the election does not depend on this name, but on the economic foundation, the economic situation of the voters, and as soon as the functions have ceased to be political ones, there exists 1) no government function, 2) the distribution of the general functions has become a business matter, that gives no one domination, 3) election has nothing of its present political character.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1874/04/bakunin-notes.htm>>2106377>>2106398For one, ‘demos’ doesn’t imply any economic status for ‘the people’ at all.
>inb4 if Aristotle said it, it must be trueIt doesn’t matter what the ‘historical understanding’ of democracy was, it matters what it is today.
>>2106363Hourgeoisie democracy puts absolutely massive limits on how democratic it actually is, because the goal isn't actually democracy, it's conservatism. Every last choice, from separation of powers to the constitution, exists to preserve the system by limiting any individual or even group's ability to change it. Saying that such systems are proof that Democracy Doesn't Work is stupid. The American people don't vote for socialism because socialism is not on the ballot.
Democracy is the only system where the common man is guaranteed a voice and is also able to actually function in the real world, and that, in my humble opinion, is extremely important for state socialism. Otherwise, you've just created capitalism with state-sanctioned monopolies on everything. Being democratic does not make a state socialist, obviously, but I firmly believe that a state cannot be socialist without democracy.
>>2106377Behead all definitionfags
>>2106441So then break it down to a smaller scale. I've advocated for subsidiarity before, and I'll do it again. The more localized you can get the decision making, the better.
>>2106542>puts absolutely massive limits on how democratic it actually islmao were really doing the burger thing where we pretend democracy can be quantified?
>the goal isn't actually democracy, it's conservatism????
>state socialismaka bourgeois socialism
>>2106584>"it wasnt real democracy"It is real democracy, just a version of it that's limited so as to preserve the status quo. Other than that I stand by what I said.
>not because democracy isnt worth jack shitWhy isn't it "worth jack shit"? And what alternatives do you suggest?
>but because the evil politicians dont want them votingI blame no individual for the way things are.
>>2109281>>2109596council communists had some really fucking ridiculous criticisms of lenin and the union form, and im certain that no one who considers themselves to be a council communist has read them because theyre too stupid to take seriously
here lies the council communist problem: trade unions are not a revolutionary vehicle. even marx already made this comment. but the critique of ccs is that theyre bourgeois institutions. no shit!
>everything is tainted by the bourgeoisie therefore we cant have anything to do with it >>2106363>>2109590I agree that a struggle for democratic demands is wrong, and that the bourgeois can make do with different political forms to rule depending on conditions, but it's still democracy that corresponds to the most developed capital. You just need to look at Ukraine to see that.
It is the US that is the very homeland of capitalism, and it is the US that is eager to spread democracy and free trade, because those mean that its interests reign supreme. Obviously other countries like the UK are also democratic. And according to conditions, a different form of rule might be appropriate. Just look at Saudi-Arabia.
As for fascism, it doesn't exist anymore. Its historical achievements have been fully absorbed by democracy. Those that are called fascists nowadays are usually proper democrats. And categories like "autocracy" are meaningless philosophical reflections to begin with.
>>2109671It's currently the world power, at the top of competition between countries (this competition being what marxists call imperialism and not just whatever state policy people don't like). Even Engels calls the democratic republic the logical form of bourgeois rule and explicitly points to the US as an example of it. This is also why a middle class has more to gain from democracy and association with the EU and the US, than with some random shithole.
>If the US falls, capitalism can continue.Obviously.
>>2109666>but it's still democracy that corresponds to the most developed capital.So? That does not make democracy inherently capitalistic.
>And categories like "autocracy" are meaningless philosophical reflections to begin with.I think a better way of looking at things is to ask how political power is distributed. In an absolute monarchy, for example, all power is centralized in the hands of one. In a direct democracy, on the other hand, power is distributed equally amongst everyone. This is obviously a very broad-strokes way of looking at politics, but I find it to be a helpful one.
>>2106377slaves?
>the producerslandowners?
>In Ancient Greece, a deme or demos (Ancient Greek: δῆμος, plural: demoi, δήμοι) was a suburb or a subdivision of Athens and other city-states. Demes as simple subdivisions of land>>2109252and Representative Proletarian democracy?
>>2106363>the answer is not to appeal to some fictitious 'real democracy'idk man. the borg did spend a lot of money hyping up democracy and laying the groundwork. i dont think its so bad to lean into saying they corrupted it.
in what particular way would this tactic mislead the proles or destroy the revolution? or is this just semantics? what are the consequences of this supposedly wrong interpretation?
<…the only sore point there is that the ‘concept’ of democracy is invoked. That concept changes every time the Demos changes and so does not get us one step further. In my opinion what should have been said is the following: The proletariat too needs democratic forms for the seizure of political power but they are for it, like all political forms, mere means. But if today democracy is wanted as an end it is necessary to rely on the peasantry and petty bourgeoisie, that is, on classes that are in process of dissolution and reactionary in relation to the proletariat when they try to maintain themselves artificially. Furthermore it must not be forgotten that it is precisely the democratic republic which is the logical form of bourgeois rule; a form however that has become too dangerous only because of the level of development the proletariat has already reached; but France and America show that it is still possible as purely bourgeois rule. The ‘principle’ of liberalism considered as something ‘definite, historically evolved’, is thus really only an inconsistency. The liberal constitutional monarchy is an adequate form of bourgeois rule: 1) at the beginning, when the bourgeoisie has not yet quite finished with the absolute monarchy, and 2) at the end, when the proletariat has already made the democratic republic too dangerous. And yet the democratic republic always remains the last form of bourgeois rule, that in which it goes to pieces. With this I conclude this rigmarole.https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/letters/84_03_24.htm
<If we are not to mock at common sense and history, it is obvious that we cannot speak of “pure democracy” as long as different classes exist; we can only speak of class democracy. (Let us say in parenthesis that “pure democracy” is not only an ignorant phrase, revealing a lack of understanding both of the class struggle and of the nature of the state, but also a thrice-empty phrase, since in communist society democracy will wither away in the process of changing and becoming a habit, but will never be “pure” democracy.)<“Pure democracy” is the mendacious phrase of a liberal who wants to fool the workers. History knows of bourgeois democracy which takes the place of feudalism, and of proletarian democracy which takes the place of bourgeois democracy.<When Kautsky devotes dozens of pages to “proving” the truth that bourgeois democracy is progressive compared with medievalism, and that the proletariat must unfailingly utilise it in its struggle against the bourgeoisie, that in fact is just liberal twaddle intended to fool the workers. This is a truism, not only for educated Germany, but also for uneducated Russia. Kautsky is simply throwing “learned” dust in the eyes of the workers when, with a pompous mien, he talks about Weitling and the Jesuits of Paraguay and many other things, in order to avoid telling about the bourgeois essence of modern, i.e., capitalist, democracy.https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/prrk/democracy.htm>>2109830>in what particular way would this tactic mislead the prolesBesides what I said about, proletarian rule does not inherently imply any specific form of organization/state, it merely denotes a certain balance of power. There have been conditions in which democracy would have meant the rule of the proletariat, namely, in absolute monarchies in which workers either directly constituted the majority, or where their social weight was such that their influence in other strata helped them to factually command a majority. These conditions no longer exist.
>>2107244The US is a democracy and so are almost all countries in the world today, the majority of its population is middle-class, and the proletariat is weak and unorganized. In such conditions, "more democracy" is the rallying cry of the middle-class, not that of the proletariat.
>>2109865>In such conditions, "more democracy" is the rallying cry of the middle-class, not that of the proletariat.I'm not sure I 100% follow. I advocate for more democracy because bourgeois democracy is not democratic
enough.
Unique IPs: 31