democracy- your definition

[Laz]

LOL the revolution involves a gun or a lot of dead che wannabes

---

(09-17-2011 10:46 PM)TheMythOfSisyphus Wrote:  I think it can be agreed that democracy is not always a good thing, like Benjamin Franklin said, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch". A lynch mob is a democracy isn't it? Sometimes people don't know whats best for themselves or best for those around them for that matter. We could address the issues as to why this is such as education, etc but lets leave it at that for the sake of this argument. I don't believe the ends justify the means, especially when it comes to something as important to us as a revolution in which we are supposed to gain our freedoms and rights. Let us look at whats on the news right now for a perfect example. What is going on in Libya right now. Some rebels who didn't want Ghadaffi's rule anymore fought to get him out (some can argue that they weren't all for that but you can't deny that that was their goal). Surely a noble cause correct? At what cost did they achieve this revolution? Through the massacre of blacks and the intervention of NATO, now the country is more likely than not going to be more of the same. No one here has convinced me that my reasoning is flawed in thinking that if we were to revolt violently that it would be any better than where we are now. Sure, violence is sometimes unavoidable, but to go and seek out violence is going to do nothing but hurt not only ourselves but our cause as well.

ben franklin is full of shit. democracy is the people's control of power. a lynch mob is pure populism, not democracy

gaddafi is supported by the majority of libyans, don't throw his name in there

democracy is impossible without protecting the minority. so do we use an arbitrary figure, like an executive or a representative, or a dead script like a constitution? no. the only way to guarentee the rights of an individual in a democracy would be to allow the right of secession.

make a thread about this if you want to further the debate

---

goddamn! shakur just DESTROYED 1871

[/thread]

[shakur420]

(09-17-2011 10:42 PM)1871 Wrote:  So you are going to address the concerns of everyone who wants to own a gun right?

No, they should address it themselves. Under ideal circumstances, that would mean they have no reason for a gun because no one has a gun. No one has a gun because there's no need for guns.

(09-17-2011 10:42 PM)1871 Wrote:  Brother youre gonna have to address the concerns well into the next thousand years if you believe that!

Nah, worker's control over production and direct Democracy would do the trick almost immediately.

(09-17-2011 10:46 PM)TheMythOfSisyphus Wrote:  I think it can be agreed that democracy is not always a good thing, like Benjamin Franklin said, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch".

I don't think it can be agreed. Of course Benjamin Franklin would say that, because he wouldn't be interested in Democracy. He would be interested in keeping wealth (and therefore power) concentrated. What he wouldn't tell you about that example is that it doesn't represent Democracy at all, it represents majority rules. Democracy means the participation of the people in decision making, it has nothing to do with creating voting blocs (which you just described with the example). Real Democracy can only exist within a situation where people's wishes are represented and actually carried out. The only way of practically achieving this and equalizing the decision making process is worker's taking control over production, and autonomy of the people, decision-making coming from the bottom up, not top down.

(09-17-2011 10:46 PM)TheMythOfSisyphus Wrote:  A lynch mob is a democracy isn't it?

I don't see how, because a "lynch mob" is not an organized structure working together to further the interests of all participants, guided by communal decisions. It's not a Democracy and has nothing to do with Democracy. Again, you gotta stop listening to examples given to you by people who don't believe in Democracy because they will give you false interpretations. Like, anyone who tells you "Communism/Socialism is good on paper, not in real life", has no idea what Communism or Socialism means. If they did, they wouldn't say that because it makes no sense. Same goes for the lynch mob thing. Doesn't make any sense if you understand what Democracy means. It means your participation in decision-making, not random, chaotic actions carried out to fulfill emotional desires. I understand you're indoctrinated by the parliamentary/republic standard, but these systems barely resemble Democracy. "Representative Democracy" is not intended for popular participation, but rather elite rule. Look at Rome, look at England. Apparently, look at Athens/Greece.

(09-17-2011 10:46 PM)TheMythOfSisyphus Wrote:  Sure, violence is sometimes unavoidable, but to go and seek out violence is going to do nothing but hurt not only ourselves but our cause as well.

Your "cause", or mine for that matter, usually turns out to be irrelevant when my kids, my wife, my mother, brother or sister is in danger. Most people don't hold ideals and notions to such a high standard when it comes down to it. They will choose to protect themselves and those they care about. At least, that's how I've seen people react. A gun can be that protection, it's not "seeking violence" when you own a gun for protection.





Some food for thought. Nobody will dispute Gandhi as a good model, will they?

Quote:"When it was subsequently put to Goldstone that the Report disproportionately focused on Israeli violations of international law, he replied, 'it's difficult to deal equally with a state party, with a sophisticated army, with the sort of army Israel has, with an air force, and a navy, and the most sophisticated weapons that are not only in the arsenal of Israel, but manufactured and exported by Israel, on the one hand, with Hamas using really improvised, imprecise armaments.' Despite their relative impotence, Palestinians are often taken to task in the West for not embracing a Gandhian strategy that repudiates violent resistance. In 2003 then-U.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz told a Georgetown University audience that 'if the Palestinians would adopt the ways of Gandhi, I think they could in fact make enormous change very, very quickly.' Whatever the merits of this contention it still should be recalled what Gandhi actually had to say on the subject of nonviolence. He categorized forceful resistance in the face of impossible odds - a women fending off a rapist with slaps and scratches, an unarmed man resisting torture by a gang, or Polish armed self-defense to the Nazi aggression - as 'almost nonviolence' because it was in essence symbolic and acted more as a fillip to the spirit to overcome fear and allow for a dignified death; it registered 'a refusal to bend before overwhelming might in the full knowledge that it means certain death.' In the face of Israel's infernal, high-tech slaughter in Gaza it is hard not to see the desultory Hamas rocket attacks falling into the category of token violence that Gandhi was loath to condemn. Even granting that the rocket attacks did constitute full-fledged violence, it is not certain that Gandhi would have disapproved. 'Fight violence with nonviolence if you can,' he counseled, 'and if you can't do that, fight violence by any means, even if it means your utter extinction. But in no case should you leave your hearths and homes to be looted and burnt.' Isn't this what Hamas did when it decided to 'fight violence by any means,' even if it meant 'utter extinction,' after Israel broke the ceasefire and refused to relax the illegal blockade that was destroying Gaza's 'whole civilization' (Mary Robinson) and causing 'the breakdown of an entire society' (Sara Roy)?"

- "This Time We Went Too Far", p. 131-132 (Finkelstein)

[TheMythOfSisyphus]

So then what is democracy Shakur?

[Laz]

rule by the people

[TheMythOfSisyphus]

Isn't a lynch mob rule by the people?

[YaelTheGreat]

We have a Representative Democracy. Why do I need some one to represent my ideas? Why can't I just fucking tell you?

[Laz]

a lynch mob is pure populism. democracy is a collective, all inclusive group of individuals in charge as opposed to populism, which is simply the unorganized majority's will

there is no such thing as a representative democracy. it is a republic. that is an american euphemism

[TheMythOfSisyphus]

So if the black people being lynched had a choice in the matter it would be a democracy? Because sometimes they fought back, then is it a democracy?

[shakur420]

(09-17-2011 11:37 PM)shakur420 Wrote:  Democracy means the participation of the people in decision making...

This can be accepted as the standard measure for how "democratic" a society is, no? So then, to rid yourself of the parliament/republic indoctrination, read up on the kingdom of Rome. Then move to the Republic. The reason they wanted a republic instead of a king was to slightly diffuse the power, so they (the wealthy class) could wield some of that power. It's very obvious when you look at modern parliaments, republics and such. We, our voices, our wishes are not represented very much. Poll after poll shows that Canadians don't want things to be privatized, same goes for England, yet not only are our representatives increasing that privatization, but the parliamentary system allows them too!! Poll after poll shows that U.S. citizens want public healthcare, again, not only do their politicians continue to step in the opposite direction, the system allows for this. When you look to Rome, the republic, and the independence of the U.S., you see very clearly the motives of the ruling class - to weild some of that power that the king has, to keep the tribute normally paid up to the Don for themselves. But they were all cautious not to allow for "too much" Democracy. HAHA, as if that's a bad thing. It's plain and clear that these systems are not meant to maximize popular participation in decision-making. Have you read A People's History of the United States? Must read. Hit me up with a PM if you wanna know where to get a digital copy. Or hit up your library, they got it for sure.

If the bank told you that you had some participation in the decision-making about your money, but not "too much" control, because "sometimes, people making their own decisions about their money can be a bad thing", would you accept that? Then why do you accept it when a politician tells you that about your working conditions, your wage, your tax dollars, how many parks, stores and garbage cans in your neighborhood, who can have guns and who can't?

[shakur420]

(09-18-2011 12:17 AM)TheMythOfSisyphus Wrote:  So if the black people being lynched had a choice in the matter it would be a democracy? Because sometimes they fought back, then is it a democracy?

Yes. If the playing field is even. If everyone has equal say and the ability to implement their wishes, then it's democratic. If blacks, in your lynching scenario, had the same access to weapons, the same education, the same protection from prosecution, the same number and quality of combatants, then yeah, it is democratic. But it turns from a "lynching" to a street fight, a straight up, fair, clash of titans. How is that not democratic?

[Laz]

(09-18-2011 12:17 AM)TheMythOfSisyphus Wrote:  So if the black people being lynched had a choice in the matter it would be a democracy? Because sometimes they fought back, then is it a democracy?

yes, no. if they want to be lynched it would be. but if they fought back, and their choice was not respected, then it would still be populism

[TheMythOfSisyphus]

So in reality, democracy has nothing to do with the majority?