Democracy is not always the best

[Brian]

Worth making a not of:  http://www.intelligencesquared.com/events/democracy-is-not-always-the-best-form-of-government/

[alanjjohnstone]

"Take for example Yugoslavia. Slobodan Milosovic – the democratically elected president – left a legacy of more than 200,000 dead in Bosnia and ethnically cleansed more than 800,000 Albanians from their homes in Kosovo."Or take the example of Blair or Bush who were democratically elected and left a legacy of a million dead and millions more displaced! 

[Brian]

Going by the blurb I imagine that is precisely the argument they are looking for.  On the other hand if a socialist were to be in the audience they would argue 'This what you can expect from representative democracy where the politicians are mere puppets of the capitalist system '.  Or, 'How can you have a democracy when a minority own the means of living?' 

[LBird]

Brian wrote:

Or, 'How can you have a democracy when a minority own the means of living?'

Yeah, parliamentary democracy means 'One pound, one vote'.We have to argue over the meaning of 'democracy', and insist that until there is 'One person, one vote' in the economy, then 'democracy' will remain the sham that it is, at present, in all countries that profess to be 'democratic'.

[alanjjohnstone]

It was Debs who always argued that much of his anger in elections was not directed at the capitalist class, after all they are committed to their own interests, but at his fellow workers who consistently refused to to vote for their own  interests. He always pointed out that at the election box, a capitalist vote equals a workers vote and the logic being that the capitalist is out-numbered a hundred-fold. If we simply accept Gramci's hegemony of capitalist cultural dominance theory tacked on to the fact that Marx said that the ideas of the ruling class are the prevailing ideas of all society, there is no hope of socialism.Once more we are all in search of how and why and when will class/socialist consciousness spontaneous arise. Once more we ask ourselves how do we reach the point where the power of knowledge of the person behind the vote is used to get political power. i have no idea despite all the pat explanations that class struggle produces this consciousness for socialism …if it does it should be here now without any need for us in the socialist/syndicalist parties if we accept the premise of it being deterministic and automatic development of class dynamics. 

[Brian]

LBird wrote:

Brian wrote:

Or, 'How can you have a democracy when a minority own the means of living?'

Yeah, parliamentary democracy means 'One pound, one vote'.We have to argue over the meaning of 'democracy', and insist that until there is 'One person, one vote' in the economy, then 'democracy' will remain the sham that it is, at present, in all countries that profess to be 'democratic'.

Of course and that is exactly what we do.  But having said that you have to be ready with a feasible alternative which can only outline possibilities on how Direct Participatory Democracy (DPD) may function.  Any attempt to draw up a blue print – by projecting speculation on the conditions of the future would only lead to misunderstandings, besides being undemocratic and dogmatic.But nevertheless an excellent opportunity to distribute party literature. 

[Brian]

alanjjohnstone wrote:

If we simply accept Gramci's hegemony of capitalist cultural dominance theory tacked on to the fact that Marx said that the ideas of the ruling class are the prevailing ideas of all society, there is no hope of socialism.Once more we are all in search of how and why and when will class/socialist consciousness spontaneous arise. Once more we ask ourselves how do we reach the point where the power of knowledge of the person behind the vote is used to get political power. i have no idea despite all the pat explanations that class struggle produces this consciousness for socialism …if it does it should be here now without any need for us in the socialist/syndicalist parties if we accept the premise of it being deterministic and automatic development of class dynamics. 

Class consciousness is not necessarily determined by class dynamics, or an automatic development , and even of direct involvement in class struggle.  If it were how do we explain the significant number who left the party and joined the opposition?  Does this mean they are no longer class conscious in every single case?But this only suggests we hold a very narrow definition of 'class consciousness' in that it equals a basic support for our case.  If we were to broaden the definition it would not only include ' the thin red line' but also some supporters of Zeitgeist.

[ALB]

I see that the main speaker for the proposition is Martin Jacques, formerly of the old "Communist" Party. He can't be returning to his roots can he? I thought he'f moved a long way since those days. Didn't he end up as an adviser to Blair or something?

[Ed]

Brian wrote:

alanjjohnstone wrote:

If we simply accept Gramci's hegemony of capitalist cultural dominance theory tacked on to the fact that Marx said that the ideas of the ruling class are the prevailing ideas of all society, there is no hope of socialism.Once more we are all in search of how and why and when will class/socialist consciousness spontaneous arise. Once more we ask ourselves how do we reach the point where the power of knowledge of the person behind the vote is used to get political power. i have no idea despite all the pat explanations that class struggle produces this consciousness for socialism …if it does it should be here now without any need for us in the socialist/syndicalist parties if we accept the premise of it being deterministic and automatic development of class dynamics. 

Class consciousness is not necessarily determined by class dynamics, or an automatic development , and even of direct involvement in class struggle.  If it were how do we explain the significant number who left the party and joined the opposition?  Does this mean they are no longer class conscious in every single case?But this only suggests we hold a very narrow definition of 'class consciousness' in that it equals a basic support for our case.  If we were to broaden the definition it would not only include ' the thin red line' but also some supporters of Zeitgeist.

I think this is a common misconception of determined processes, that there can only be one at work at a single time. Instead different determined processes exist and counterpose each other. So while the antagonism which exists between worker and owner is the cause of class consciousness developing, it is constantly under a barrage of suppression by everything else, but mainly by the fact that a market system is the only thing any of us have ever known. This discourages us from paying attention to the voice in the back our head telling us that there must be a better way. This is the reason that class conscious workers can end up rejecting what they know to be in their interests.I think also that class consciousness should have a very broad definition. When the idea that the market system must go emerges it does not always emerge with all the other ideas that we associate with being a socialist. For example internationalism or materialism. The rest of it has to be refined, worked through logically.and learned.That's my two cents on it anyway.(p.s. also I don't think it has anything to do with 'class struggle' unless we define class struggle to mean living within capitalism. One does not have to be a union member or have ever gone on a protest to be a class conscious worker)

[Brian]

ALB wrote:

I see that the main speaker for the proposition is Martin Jacques, formerly of the old "Communist" Party. He can't be returning to his roots can he? I thought he'f moved a long way since those days. Didn't he end up as an adviser to Blair or something?

Either way of his past, a few party members scattered in the audience would have a field day at this event.

[Author]

Posts