[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internets about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Password (For file deletion.)

Join our Matrix Chat <=> IRC: #leftypol on Rizon
Please give feedback on proposals, new on Mondays : /meta/
New /roulette/ topic: /spoox/ - Paranormal, horror and the occult.
New board: /AKM/ - Guns, weapons and the art of war.

File: 1642192720582.jpeg (141.49 KB, 750x497, Ancient Athens.jpeg)


Was there ever any society based on private property that was actually democratic, or were they all dictatorships of the upper class, more or less providing for the welfare of lower-class citizens?



no and >>296564


no, there wasn't
yes they were


This topic is too big for just a couple of responses. Ancient Greece, Switzerland - liberals claim those are real, in some cases "pure" democracies. Are they really though, given analysis? Is the bourgeoisie reigned in somehow in Switzerland?


>Is the bourgeoisie reigned in somehow in Switzerland?
The direct democracy system in Switzerland is slightly more democratic than regular electoral democracy. But that system is the result of the conditions of Switzerland. The cause is that it's not even remotely possible to attack that country, the terrain neutralizes military projection wholesale. Resulting in a national bourgeoisie that has to bribe the population, to have a bourgeois dictatorship.


>Ancient Greece
Wha…are you really claiming they were democratic? Has Cockshott planted this seed in you?


How does not being able to expand necessitate more democracy? The bourgeoisie can operate as normal given it conduct imperialism through law and trade anyways.


NEP Russia, Tito's Yugoslavia, Xi's China


Macau maybe?


All of them stuffy dictatorships in practice.


Jesus man, stop being such a fucking idiot…


I think his point was more that Switzerland's geography affords it a high degree of security. This in turn allows it the luxury of decentralization and localized democracy.


C'mon man


Safavid Persia, Ottoman Empire, Mughal India, Tsardom of Muscovy, Yuan & Qing Dynasty


Based and Hazpilled.


>Has there even been a society based on deprivation and domination of a class of “lowers” that was genuinely democratic
Really think about that question and tell me what you think is correct


Why don't we see more democracy in other secure places like the UK, US, Meiji-era Japan?


If anything centralization is the more efficient way for government. There's no reason to decentralize for the sake of it.


Define dictatorship


Minority rule, i.e. the way things have been in every society bigger than a hamlet.


How are they dictatorships then?


Workers lacked/lack a means by which to elect their leadership, with things like trade unions either not existing independently or having little power.


But that's bullshit.


Security is necessary but not sufficient for a healthy democracy.
Depends on the conditions of the country. Switzerland is very small, stable, defensible, etc. There isn't really a need for strong centralization, which is why they have been so successful without it.


The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Remember that only the nobility were citizens.


Liberum Veto moment


File: 1642246392002.png (27.79 KB, 730x1194, soysmug.png)

>liberum veto


It's the other way around, bigger countries typically benefit more from decentralization of power because of the variety of geographies, people, etc.


There's no such thing as democracy, never has been, never will be. Humans are a social AND hierarchical species, the closest you will get to democracy is when the strong protect the weak rather than exploiting them.


I've never really studied it seriously but I was reading some of Caesar's memoirs recently.

I might be mistaken, but it sounded like Ancient Rome went through a surprise series of privatizations before Caesar was able to invade and people more or less joined with Caesar against his enemies in the Roman government.

Surprise privatizations through the country into chaos, prompting Caesar's invasion.


Caesar was an opportunist. The real revolutionary of the 1st century BCE was Catalina.


it's still a democracy even when what constitutes "citizen" is narrow. all that's required is that people vote
we shouldn't fight the ancient athenians on the definition of the concept when they invented it


The athenians were colonizers and slavers, fuck their concepts, fuck thrm, and fuck you for trying to revive their slaver imperialist society


Their democratic system is actually really good, it was just put into practice in a sexist slave society. In a socialist society I think it would work well.


I don’t think they were sexist
I just think they were pedophilic faggots that needed to cope with knowing how impulsive they were


>require women to always have a male guardian
<not sexist
What did he mean by this?


they were notorious homosexuals, woman abusers and imperialists

but i think a lot of it is still cool


cool aesthetic, cool philosophy


my point is that there's no point being conservative or possessive of the concept, since it came from a feudal slave-holder society anyways


>being gay is bad
did you get lost faggot?


As opposed to what exactly? Electoral oligarchies that have been perverted to mean democracy?

Worst take in the thread.

But no, in fact slave holding societies weren't the only ones to experiment in democratic rule. In fact peasants during feudalism in parts of central and western Europe often used an assembly decision-making system that was quite like the Athenian system. This system was overthrown in France by the liberal revolution that ushered in capitalism. For some reason this has been largely overlooked by historians of government.


*Peasants during feudalism in parts of central and western Europe, when not subject to the authority of their feudal lords, often used an assembly decision-making system at a local level that was quite like the Athenian system.


if you're an invalid this is what you think and if you are an assassin of the truth this is what you'd posit

however, for the sake of this conversation i enjoy reading your thoughts on the exclusion of this group of people or that group of people over nuance and i think it does justice to our parade of communism and anti fascism in this conversation


Athens was not a real democracy because they had a huge slave population, on top of non-voting citizenry, on top of non-citizen residents. Just the voter-to-slave ratio was like 1:4 - the vast major of the population's voice was not heard and wasn't considered. It's a dictatorship of the upper classes, except they were bigger than in today's society. And even then, there were probably elites among the demos (voters) who manipulated things similarly to how the elites manufacture consent now, lobby, whatever.


It was a democracy of its free male citizens. This should be properly juxtaposed with other city-states of the period which were oligarchies of their free male citizens or outright dictatorships. The lack of a land requirement for participation alone was a radical departure in Athens compared to its contemporaries and dramatically reduced the class character of its governance.



Kill youself conservatoid.


>i enjoy reading your thoughts on the exclusion of this group of people or that group of people over nuance and i think it does justice to our parade of communism and anti fascism in this conversation


what i am saying is that even if something sounds crazy or off the wall, if it is an honest opinion i respect that another person brings it into consideration as long as they are honest

and with the spirit of leftist discussion, it sounds like some leftist shit to say "ah yeah, fuck them, they owned slaves or were ancient capitalists" or whatever


how is it crazy or off the wall? you do realize where you're posting, right?


well, it is not a big deal here, but i only go through the pains of illustrating this for the intrinsic truth of the matter for the sake of honest and intrinsic truth. it is one thing to propagate a catch phrase but another thing to seriously think you need to exclude history or ancient studies or whatever for this nuance or that nuance when that ancient time was much different from the present time

evidently even if there are things about a certain society we dislike, there are also things which are still relevant to the present in one way or another, and there are there aspects of that ancient society which existed independently from the thing you don't like about the ancient society

i do agree though that a society must be mad to live in such a way as to base much of your labor on slavery. egypt did the same thing, albeit likely worse, but are we then supposed to do the same here in egypt and basically every other society?


i just think that democracy can mean anything, so there's no need to exclude stuff from its definition considering its historical flexibility


File: 1642293880225.jpg (66.39 KB, 512x401, kleroterion.jpg)

>i just think that democracy can mean anything
Then why even make the thread or have a discussion? If democracy is anything and everything, who cares?

It is of course not anything, and a robust discussion about its meaning and utility should be had, so that if nothing else we stop getting newfags who conflate electoral governments explicitly rejecting democracy and modeled after ancient oligarchies as "democratic" in any fashion.


Some peasant areas in Russia also used such systems where they elected stewards(starosta).


>Was there ever any society based on private property that was actually democratic,


alright. i do think democracy can be unironically more useful for proletarian action and organization than even insurrection (at times), and i don't have a dogmatic, meaningless opposition to it like a lot of supposedly "radical" leftists


How does Switzerland keep itself from falling to capitalist oligarchy, assumingly? That country has lots of big porky financial/multinational companies; there's no way people are actually getting more than in any other western European country.


Switzerland is an electoral oligarchy like any other, it just has more direct decision-making than most.


How about this question - is Singapore a real dictatorship of the state, or is the bourgeoisie the ones with control? Has the state managed to wrangle the capitalists in any non-socialist country?


>Was there ever any society based on private property that was actually democratic, or were they all dictatorships of the upper class, more or less providing for the welfare of lower-class citizens?
To even ask the question reveals a lack of understanding of what private property is. Private property is an arrangement where one party owns property that other people work to produce value. It's an inherently undemocratic arrangement. Even if politically all things were made as equitable as possible, there would still be intrinsic power in the rights of ownership. If there weren't then it wouldn't be ownership and it wouldn't be private property.


There are in fact a lot of democracies, but they are of course flawed ones. Think America, France, Spain etc., in those countries people do vote at the municipal, state, and federal level and do get some change made, though with the influence of money in politics as usual. But by and large the people are enfranchised and the figures they vote for do get at least some of their campaign promises done, despite opposition (which mind you is just another part of democratic voice). Governments have a mandate from the people and even if you want to look at it materialistically, still want to win votes every cycle, still have to worry about mid-term results, and overall largely keep to people's expectation of their voices mattering. It's a balancing act that involves wealthy private interests but still a kind of democracy.


>Workers lacked/lack a means by which to elect their leadership
Why should they?
The party is more educated in marxism than worker, workers meddling with planning and politics could only throw AES into disarray


File: 1642545867625.jpg (129.26 KB, 1600x557, originalsource.jpg)

>The party is more educated in marxism than worker
idc about workerism but this is laughable


File: 1642547881716.jpeg (43.68 KB, 612x408, commissar cletus.jpeg)

<this but unironically


>look at all these democracies
>lists blatant oligarchies modeled after Rome


File: 1642561361474.jpg (228.31 KB, 960x504, 1634339373465.jpg)

>private property


Except Rome had a fifth of its population be slaves, women among others were never allowed to vote, and there was a lot less social mobility then as there is now… in a flawed, but actual democracy for the masses of people.

Unique IPs: 24

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]