Reactionary Tripe from 'American Thinker' (lol): "Registering the Poor to Vote is Un-American"

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/09/registering_the_poor_to_vote_is_un-american.html

No, this isn't from The Onion. I guess the Right is dropping all their supposedly "compassionate" bullshit these days?

Most of the ideologues the right-wing intelligentsia are influenced by (e.g., Ludwig von Mises, Robert Nozick, Friedrich von Hayek, et al.) were quite explicit in their utter disdain for democracy. Of course, the Republicans have always found it politically expedient to pay lip service to democracy, whilst, nevertheless, doing all they possibly can to undermine the functioning of actual democratic institutions—democracy is, after all, the most popular political idea in existence, so it would have been foolish for them to be forthright about their real views regarding the concept. Recently, however, certain conservative pundits have been somewhat more candid about their antipathy toward democracy (i.e., Stephen Moore's praising of China's authoritarian capitalism and suggestion that the model is worth emulating in the West).

The thesis of Mr. Vadum's article diverges very little from prevalent right-wing talking points today. The "left" (which Vadum inaccurately labels the Democratic Party as being representatives of) seeks to politically mobilize the unemployed, in a malevolent, unpatriotic attempt to redistribute wealth from the "hard working" elements of society (aka, the bourgeoisie) to the "lazy parasites" (aka, the lower class). Conveniently omitted from his article, of course, is any mention that the vast majority of the unemployed are involuntarily so, and that capitalism is structurally incapable of producing full employment for any appreciable length of time—not to mention the fact that full employment is hindrance to the process of capital accumulation and, therefore, undesired by the bourgeoisie itself. Also intentionally ignored is the fact the bourgeoisie derive all their wealth from the literal expropriation of the surplus-value their workers produce, that these capitalists use society's common resources to a disproportionate extent to enrich themselves, etc. By virtue of such glaring omissions, reactionaries are able to make capitalist remuneration appear completely just, and any attempt to levy progressive taxes seem like an egregious violation of the "non-aggression principle" (hence why they commonly call taxation "legalized theft"). Like James Madison, they believe the primary function of government should be to "protect the minority of the opulent from the majority."

Well I hope mr Vandum loses all his money and hopefully then he will be quiet as he will see himself as one of the peasent class he thinks are to lazy or stupid to vote.

I had a quick look online and cant find much about this bloke is he just a pundit?.Its people like him that think they are ones who will have a say when the western world turns into a plutocracy (assumeing the econamy actually recovers) when really the elite wont give a damn about him or his blog and he will find himself in the same situation the rest of us have been in for generations.

The one thing I agree on with the Right Wing is that democracy is idiotic and suicidal for many Nations. I am a firm supporter of a Nationalistic Socialist chieftainship. Democracy might work with Americans or Englishmen but it sure as hell wont work with my people. We need a Chief to rule over us.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote: The one thing I agree on with the Right Wing is that democracy is idiotic and suicidal for many Nations. I am a firm supporter of a Nationalistic Socialist chieftainship. Democracy might work with Americans or Englishmen but it sure as hell wont work with my people. We need a Chief to rule over us.

Coming from someone who values both great leadership and the democratic process, why do you NEED a chief to rule over you?

A spectre is haunting the Global North—the spectre of communism.

At no point in history has the spectre of communism loomed greater in the mind of the international bourgeoisie, its collaborators, and apologists. Reactionary trash such as this article is to be expected from a system whose "intellectual" elite are desperately scrambling to procure more creative arguments for the maintenance of the status quo. Capitalism, in its invariable decline, now finds itself in a similar position as the monarchies of Old Europe: it, too, calls on the loyal to stand firm in the face of oppression, give in to contradictions, and accept blind faith in a decrepit institution. Mr. Vadum, of course, is not conveying any sentiments that have not long ago expressed themselves or percolated beneath the veneer of reactionary politics; instead, he has merely concentrated the fear, self-righteousness, and groundless outrage of a class that is increasingly compelled to disguise its cancerous existence with ever more inventive rhetoric. The sheer arrogance with which these deluded creatures tout their preferred method of exploitation betrays their deeply rooted insecurity.

Rev Scare wrote:Reactionary trash such as this article is to be expected from a system whose "intellectual" elite are desperately scrambling to procure more creative arguments for the maintenance of the status quo.

Indeed. Since the start of depression in 2008, the absolute hysteria exhibited by the media with respect to the looming threat of "communism" and "socialism" isn't accidental. The bourgeoisie and their army of servile, intellectual apologists, know perfectly well that the threat to capitalism's reproduction as a system hasn't been this significant since the 1920s. So we've witnessed a relentless onslaught of anti-communist propaganda, the scale of which is truly unprecedented—anything even remotely unpopular with the electorate is portrayed as being "socialistic" in some capacity. The reason for this level of panic is quite clear,

"The riots that hit London and other English cities last week have the potential to spread beyond the British Isles. Class rage isn't unique to England; in fact, it represents part of a growing global class chasm that threatens to undermine capitalism itself."
Kotkin, Joel. "The U.K. Riots and the Coming Global Class War."

The groundswell of support which awaits radical political parties as this depressions deepens is going the be of historic proportions. I don't know if we'll witness the overthrow of capitalism within this particular economic downturn—the far left is still much too fragmented and ideologically confused to adequately lead the proletariat to victory—but I do believe that we will witness monumental change within our lifetime nonetheless (whether this change will be for the better or not, no one can predict). It's our task to engage proactively in the class struggle, for I'm thoroughly convinced that we're in possession of the only revolutionary philosophy capable of adequately capturing the hearts and minds of the national proletariat.

Capitalism, in its invariable decline, now finds itself in a similar position as the monarchies of Old Europe: it, too, calls on the loyal to stand firm in the face of oppression, give in to contradictions, and accept blind faith in a decrepit institution.

From my observation of the political climate over the past few years, the petite bourgeoisie definitely seem to be the most pugnacious among forces of reaction. There's little doubt in my mind that they will represent a serious obstacle in the coming revolution. We must set our sights on these simpletons, and not cede a single inch to them, whether it be in the realm of philosophical debate or in the streets. Make no mistake, comrades, even if the lot of them were to become proletarianized during the process of this depression (which many of them undoubtedly will), they are still a fundamentally untrustworthy class—for they've had a taste of the power capital provided them over labor, and, for many of them, that power is far too difficult to let go of.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote: The one thing I agree on with the Right Wing is that democracy is idiotic and suicidal for many Nations. I am a firm supporter of a Nationalistic Socialist chieftainship. Democracy might work with Americans or Englishmen but it sure as hell wont work with my people. We need a Chief to rule over us.

I'm baffled. Do the Hungarian people not possess an instinct for self-preservation? Any system of governance which doesn't contain within it some form of democratic oversight over officials is sure to give rise to various forms of corruption and abuse. I find it "idiotic and suicidal" for any people to seriously consider not establishing democratic institutions.

Chieftainships work fine in small tribes, wherein the chief is forced to live in very close proximity to his people—to the extent he literally sees his subjects on a frequent basis—and is therefore forced to live with the consequences which may result from his decisions. In such scenarios, the chief has no choice but to behave in a relatively benevolent manner, since tyrannical behavior would surely result in his tribe uniting to assassinate him.

Celtiberian wrote:I'm baffled. Do the Hungarian people not possess an instinct for self-preservation? Any system of governance which doesn't contain within it some form of democratic oversight over officials is sure to give rise to various forms of corruption and abuse. I find it "idiotic and suicidal" for any people to seriously consider not establishing democratic institutions.

Chieftainships work fine in small tribes, wherein the chief is forced to live in very close proximity to his people—to the extent he literally sees his subjects on a frequent basis—and is therefore forced to live with the consequences which may result from his decisions. In such scenarios, the chief has no choice but to behave in a relatively benevolent manner, since tyrannical behavior would surely result in his tribe uniting to assassinate him.

We have no tradition of democracy like the Swiss or French do ( for example). Trying to establish a form of government that has no historical roots within a Nation sounds like a bad idea to me. Not to mention my people are very undisciplined ( compared to Westerners in general). We need a just iron fist to rule over us lest we want to perish.

Democracy is only relatively good. Its not some magic formula which will work everywhere its put into practice. Its success depends mostly on the Nation that adopts it. It has turned out to be a utter disaster in mine which is why I support a return to a revamped form of chieftainship.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:We have no tradition of democracy like the Swiss or French do ( for example). Trying to establish a form of government that has no historical roots within a Nation sounds like a bad idea to me. Not to mention my people are very undisciplined ( compared to Westerners in general). We need a just iron fist to rule over us lest we want to perish.

Democracy is only relatively good. Its not some magic formula which will work everywhere its put into practice. Its success depends mostly on the Nation that adopts it. It has turned out to be a utter disaster in mine which is why I support a return to a revamped form of chieftainship.

There is absolutely no reason to assume that democracy will somehow fail for certain people. Historical precedent is wholly immaterial given the proper circumstances. Genuine socialism has no "roots" in any nation's history, yet this should not deter us from pursuing the ideal.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:We have no tradition of democracy like the Swiss or French do ( for example). Trying to establish a form of government that has no historical roots within a Nation sounds like a bad idea to me. Not to mention my people are very undisciplined ( compared to Westerners in general). We need a just iron fist to rule over us lest we want to perish.

There was obviously a time wherein no country had experience with democracy, but it was fought for nonetheless. Personally, I don't believe any people are too "undisciplined" to handle democracy, but I most certainly do believe that it's illogical to assume individuals who possess a significant degree of power within an authoritarian dictatorship will consistently behave benevolently.

Democracy is only relatively good. Its not some magic formula which will work everywhere its put into practice.

Advocates of democracy (myself included) aren't under the delusion that it will always produce optimum outcomes. It will, however, provide people with control over the issues which affect them and, consequently, also serve as a check against abuses of power.

It has turned out to be a utter disaster in mine which is why I support a return to a revamped form of chieftainship.

I believe it is capitalism which has proved disastrous in Hungary. In fact, in the opinion polls I've posted indicating a high level of nostalgia for the the People's Republic of Hungary, most of the individuals who claimed they preferred life under state socialism nevertheless admitted that they wouldn't want to forfeit their right to vote—which suggests that they would prefer a form of democratic socialism.

Celtiberian wrote:There was obviously a time wherein no country had experience with democracy, but it was fought for nonetheless. Personally, I don't believe any people are too "undisciplined" to handle democracy, but I most certainly do believe that it's illogical to assume individuals who possess a significant degree of power within an authoritarian dictatorship will consistently behave benevolently.

What sort of government a Nation has depends a lot on the character of the particular Nation in question. It is no accident that democracy developed among the Swiss long before it developed among, say, Bulgarians. To have a succcessful democracy most people have to be basically conformist and willing to be politically active. Hungarians are generally anti conformist( at least compared to the Swiss), unwilling to be politically active, and are notorious for being extremely divided among themselves. Which is why only an iron fist could keep them in order.

Advocates of democracy (myself included) aren't under the delusion that it will always produce optimum outcomes. It will, however, provide people with control over the issues which affect them and, consequently, also serve as a check against abuses of power.

You dont need to have Democracy in order to keep those in power in check. What you need is the willingness to revolt and establish a new government. Other than that there is not much a Nation can do ( besides go to the voting booth and protest which will do absolutely nothing in Hungary's case).

I believe it is capitalism which has proved disastrous in Hungary. In fact, in the opinion polls I've posted indicating a high level of nostalgia for the the People's Republic of Hungary, most of the individuals who claimed they preferred life under state socialism nevertheless admitted that they wouldn't want to forfeit their right to vote—which suggests that they would prefer a form of democratic socialism.

Yes Capitalism in Hungary is a complete failure but so is Democracy. Every single democractic government has proven to be a failure for the past 21 years. Chieftainship, on the other hand, has proven to work before in the past . Certainly it was not perfect but it was better than any sort of democratic ( or even monarchic) government. I would certainly much rather see my people ruled by an iron fisted ( yet just) chieftain than by a bunch of spineless, corrupt, and traitorous rats ( that are today called democratically elected representatives).

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:What sort of government a Nation has depends a lot on the character of the particular Nation in question.

I couldn't disagree more with such a theory. Setting aside the fact there are very few functioning democracies in the world today, in what way is the character of the American people similar to the South Koreans, for instance? How are those two populations similar to Germans, the French, Peruvians, Venezuelans, the Japanese, etc.? The impulse for democracy clearly cuts across all ethnic and national boundaries.

It is no accident that democracy developed among the Swiss long before it developed among, say, Bulgarians.

On the contrary, I believe it was very much a result of differing historical factors influencing the development of Switzerland and Bulgaria, not some immutable psychological difference between the two nations.

To have a succcessful democracy most people have to be basically conformist and willing to be politically active.

I don't see what conformity has to do with the functioning of a successful democracy, but a willingness to be politically active is easily attainable within a population—particularly if said population feels that their participation is genuinely meaningful, which it most certainly is not within our contemporary capitalist plutocracies, unfortunately.

Hungarians are generally anti conformist( at least compared to the Swiss), unwilling to be politically active, and are notorious for being extremely divided among themselves. Which is why only an iron fist could keep them in order.

As I've said in the past, I'm not knowledgeable enough in the sociology of Hungary to accept or refute your analysis of the country. Nevertheless, I've yet to read of a single issue dividing a nation which couldn't be addressed using the principle of self-management. An "iron fist" definitely isn't an answer which will produce outcomes conducive to social justice.

You dont need to have Democracy in order to keep those in power in check. What you need is the willingness to revolt and establish a new government.

If a population is unwilling to participate in elections, what makes you think they'll risk their lives in an attempt to overthrow a dictatorship? Furthermore, the problem with your theory is that authoritarian regimes are renowned for minoritizing their victims—which is a form of psychological manipulation utilized to pacify people. For example, any victims the state murders can be characterized as having been "intellectuals," "conspirators," etc. which obviously represent an insignificant portion of any given population, thereby preventing the majority from entertaining thoughts of resistance. Moreover, even if you had all forms of weaponry legal for ownership and the state was incapable of preventing people from rebelling, it still wouldn't be enough to take on the strength of a modern military—for more on this, I recommend reading Leon Mcnichol's post in the Democratic Façade thread.

Yes Capitalism in Hungary is a complete failure but so is Democracy. Every single democractic government has proven to be a failure for the past 21 years.

Perhaps the reason democracy continues to fail in Hungary is because the power of capital interferes with the functioning of democratic institutions, as it does in every other ostensibly "democratic" capitalist country.

Chieftainship, on the other hand, has proven to work before in the past .

Again, within small hunter-gatherer tribes.

Again, within small hunter-gatherer tribes.I would certainly much rather see my people ruled by an iron fisted ( yet just) chieftain than by a bunch of spineless, corrupt, and traitorous rats ( that are today called democratically elected representatives).

I obviously haven't any respect for our so-called elected "representatives" (who, in reality, represent the interests of capital) either, but the answer isn't found in bygone traditions. Apparently, we'll just have to 'agree to disagree' on this.

Celtiberian wrote:I couldn't disagree more with such a theory. Setting aside the fact there are very few functioning democracies in the world today, in what way is the character of the American people similar to the South Koreans, for instance? How are those two populations similar to Germans, the French, Peruvians, Venezuelans, the Japanese, etc.? The impulse for democracy clearly cuts across all ethnic and national boundaries.

I highly doubt there is a universal impulse for democracy since I dont see any sort of evidence pointing towards it.

On the contrary, I believe it was very much a result of differing historical factors influencing the development of Switzerland and Bulgaria, not some immutable psychological difference between the two nations.

I cant prove you wrong via documentation but if you get to know many Swiss and Bulgarian people then you might catch on to what Im talking about.

I don't see what conformity has to do with the functioning of a successful democracy, but a willingness to be politically active is easily attainable within a population—particularly if said population feels that their participation is genuinely meaningful, which it most certainly is not within our contemporary capitalist plutocracies, unfortunately.

A conformist population definitely makes a democracy easier to function because conformist people are more likely to agree with one another. In a democracy the majority of the politically equal population rules. That means the majority of political equals must agree with each other on the same basic political issues. Such a state of affairs is less likely to be present in a generally non conformist population.

As I've said in the past, I'm not knowledgeable enough in the sociology of Hungary to accept or refute your analysis of the country. Nevertheless, I've yet to read of a single issue dividing a nation which couldn't be addressed using the principle of self-management. An "iron fist" definitely isn't an answer which will produce outcomes conducive to social justice.

An iron fist can guide a Nation in one concrete direction. A democracy is constantly subject to the whims of voters and politicians. One day the government may be pushing for economic revolution, the other it might be stroking the hair of the Capitalists. I personally would trust an iron willed chieftain more with pushing through an economic revolution ( in the form of Socialism) than the majority of the populace. Hate or like Stalin, you have to admit that the goals he accomplished could not have been done so by a democracy ( especially a representative democracy).

If a population is unwilling to participate in elections, what makes you think they'll risk their lives in an attempt to overthrow a dictatorship? Furthermore, the problem with your theory is that authoritarian regimes are renowned for minoritizing their victims—which is a form of psychological manipulation utilized to pacify people. For example, any victims the state murders can be characterized as having been "intellectuals," "conspirators," etc. which obviously represent an insignificant portion of any given population, thereby preventing the majority from entertaining thoughts of resistance. Moreover, even if you had all forms of weaponry legal for ownership and the state was incapable of preventing people from rebelling, it still wouldn't be enough to take on the strength of a modern military—for more on this, I recommend reading Leon Mcnichol's post in the Democratic Façade thread.

Let me ask you what makes you think a democracy could keep those in power in check? Let us say a government is doing something the people dont like and then they demand for them to resign. They go to the voting booth and vote them all out. But the government says it wont resign and continues doing its usual business. My point is, revolution is the ultimate safeguard against tyranny. You wont get a truly evil person to give up their power by pressing a button on a machine, you must physically throw them out of the building where they govern. As for what you write about a rebellion not being able to defeat a modern military, I wouldnt be too sure about that. In the US or Russia ( which have so powerful armies) perhaps, but Hungary is a whole different story. The Hungarian army has no weapons of mass destruction and it is few in number. If the majority of the adult population revolted against it then it would probably be defeated in a few months at most. And as for people not revolting, Im not assuming anyone will revolt. Im just saying when it comes to politics, only a revolution can radically change things. If the people dont revolt then everything continues to stay basically the same. Its that simple.

Perhaps the reason democracy continues to fail in Hungary is because the power of capital interferes with the functioning of democratic institutions, as it does in every other ostensibly "democratic" capitalist country.

Certainly many Capitalists bribe Hungarian politicians and effectively control them but Capitalists are not the only ones to blame for why democracy has turned out to be a failure. Like I wrote before, its partly due to the nature of the people itself. Most Hungarians are not politically active and either dont care or are pessimistic about democracy. Democracy is a foreign Western thing to Hungarians really.

Again, within small hunter-gatherer tribes.

Chieftainship has existed among Hungarians during the Early Middle Ages ( and Hungarians were a Nation back then not some small tribe). Im not writing that it was a perfect thing but it was certainly better for the people than all the other governments that came after it. I believe a revamped and modernized version of it should be restored in Hungary because of this fact. Oh and yes I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. By the way Celtiberian, I hope Im not coming off as purposely trying to argue with you at every turn. I just think differently than you and like debating thats all.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:I highly doubt there is a universal impulse for democracy since I dont see any sort of evidence pointing towards it.

The evidence can be found through a reading of contemporary human history. The French Revolution, the American Revolution (the Founding Fathers were only capable of garnering the support of most colonists through populist appeals to democracy), virtually every significant socialist movement throughout the world has aroused revolutionary fervor through advocating democracy, the recent "Arab Spring" uprisings, etc. The fact of the matter is, democracy is one of the most powerful political concepts ever devised.

I cant prove you wrong via documentation but if you get to know many Swiss and Bulgarian people then you might catch on to what Im talking about.

Any behavioral differences which happen to exist between the Swiss and Bulgarians, or any two European populations for that matter, are almost entirely cultural in origin and are, therefore, of no consequence to the prospect of establishing democratic institutions anywhere in the continent.

A conformist population definitely makes a democracy easier to function because conformist people are more likely to agree with one another. In a democracy the majority of the politically equal population rules. That means the majority of political equals must agree with each other on the same basic political issues. Such a state of affairs is less likely to be present in a generally non conformist population.

There will always be issues which are contentious in any nation, which is why democracy isn't necessarily an automatic solution to every problem that arises and why the principle of self-management serves as a useful heuristic, insofar as determining which issues should or shouldn't be voted on is concerned. Issues which require mass participation are those which influence everyone equally, e.g., federal tax levels, national social services, warfare, etc. A constitution which protects the rights of minorities (i.e., those who hold opinions contrary to those held by the majority of the citizenry) is also equally important. Mass consensus is obviously nice—under such circumstances, policies can be carried out quickly and with few or no people feeling alienated due to having voted against said policies, for example—but it isn't required for a democracy to function. The "conformist"/"nonconformist" issue is ultimately irrelevant when pertaining to the operational viability of democracy.

An iron fist can guide a Nation in one concrete direction.

Undoubtedly, but that direction might run contrary to one favored by the nation.

A democracy is constantly subject to the whims of voters and politicians. One day the government may be pushing for economic revolution, the other it might be stroking the hair of the Capitalists.

No one, least of all me, has suggested that we might be able to achieve socialism through bourgeois parliamentary procedures. A proletarian revolution which 'expropriates the expropriators' is a requisite condition. Most of us refer to ourselves as revolutionary socialists precisely because we recognize that bourgeois "democracy" will never enable a radical political party to peacefully institute socialism.

I personally would trust an iron willed chieftain more with pushing through an economic revolution ( in the form of Socialism) than the majority of the populace.

Without the consent of a significant portion of the population, socialism will not be attained—whether that attempt be made from above or below is inconsequential. In a modern nation (especially in the Global North), you cannot expect a coup d'état to succeed in overthrowing a capitalist regime, so the only alternative is to wait for the contradictions of capitalism to materialize to the point wherein class consciousness is developing and, from there, radical parties must convince the majority of wage-laborers that it is in their material interest to dispossess the bourgeoisie of their capital and establish a workers' state.

Hate or like Stalin, you have to admit that the goals he accomplished could not have been done so by a democracy ( especially a representative democracy).

My view of Stalin is fairly neutral. I readily acknowledge the many great achievements made in the Soviet Union under his leadership, but I also realize that he wasn't infallible, that many of those achievements were at the expense of unacceptable human costs and that he made several serious mistakes during his rule.

You're right to note that democracy would have been a hindrance to the Bolsheviks. After all, Russia was a backwards agrarian nation when the Bolsheviks took power and, as such, proletarians constituted a relatively minor percentage of the Russian working-class. The peasants stood to gain nothing from the implementation of centralized economic planning, so it would be mistaken to presume they ever would have voted to allow Stalin's agricultural collectivization policy, for instance. Karl Marx, however, was intelligent enough to foresee such contradictions, which is why he predicted that socialist revolutions would occur in the most advanced capitalist nations first. I don't necessarily agree that socialism cannot be achieved in undeveloped nations, but such nations, if they're democratic, would have to go through a lengthy socialist market phase in order to allow time for industry to sufficiently develop before entertaining thoughts of widespread economic planning.

Let me ask you what makes you think a democracy could keep those in power in check? Let us say a government is doing something the people dont like and then they demand for them to resign. They go to the voting booth and vote them all out. But the government says it wont resign and continues doing its usual business.

Theoretically they could, but it's unlikely every elected/recallable official would simultaneously choose to defy their mandate and violate the nation's constitution in order to establish some sort of oppressive authoritarian government—which would be a crime punishable by a severe prison sentence, or possibly death.

My point is, revolution is the ultimate safeguard against tyranny.

Indeed, it is the "ultimate safeguard," but certainly not the only safeguard.

The Hungarian army has no weapons of mass destruction and it is few in number. If the majority of the adult population revolted against it then it would probably be defeated in a few months at most.

I can't comment on such a hypothetical scenario occurring in Hungary, but I can offer a counterexample. For over a year in Greece (a comparably small European nation) there has been a mobilized, radical population fed up with the Papandreou presidency and the forced austerity they're having to endure. Countless protests and general strikes have occurred, and yet they haven't been able to overthrow the regime. You don't need weapons of mass destruction to suppress rebellion, only a well organized and equipped police and military force with orders to shoot to kill.

Chieftainship has existed among Hungarians during the Early Middle Ages ( and Hungarians were a Nation back then not some small tribe). Im not writing that it was a perfect thing but it was certainly better for the people than all the other governments that came after it. I believe a revamped and modernized version of it should be restored in Hungary because of this fact.

Chieftainships, in my opinion, belong to an epoch long since transcended by civilization. I don't see how such a form of governance can be modernized to handle the issues faced by industrial societies, nor do I see how it could be prevented from engaging in corrupt and abusive behavior in the long term. Moreover, I find it ethically abhorrent and don't think that a genuinely socialist mode of production could be maintained within a state which bestows certain individuals with absolute executive authority.

By the way Celtiberian, I hope Im not coming off as purposely trying to argue with you at every turn. I just think differently than you and like debating thats all.

You're not coming off as purposefully argumentative, comrade. I appreciate a good debate as well, so don't worry.

Celtiberian wrote:The evidence can be found through a reading of contemporary human history. The French Revolution, the American Revolution (the Founding Fathers were only capable of garnering the support of most colonists through populist appeals to democracy), virtually every significant socialist movement throughout the world has aroused revolutionary fervor through advocating democracy, the recent "Arab Spring" uprisings, etc. The fact of the matter is, democracy is one of the most powerful political concepts ever devised.

You do have a point. Nevertheless attempts at democracy in many countries keep on failing every time they are tried. Anyways this is pretty off topic so this is the last Ill write of it.

Any behavioral differences which happen to exist between the Swiss and Bulgarians, or any two European populations for that matter, are almost entirely cultural in origin and are, therefore, of no consequence to the prospect of establishing democratic institutions anywhere in the continent.

Certainly the behavioral differences between different European nations are cultural. After all there is no gene that makes Bulgarians act in a different way than the Swiss ( at least none that I know of). However my point is the culture of a given Nation is important in determining what sort of government that particular Nation has. And changing a Nation's culture is downright difficult and can be impossible. Therefore trying to get a Nation that possesses none or very few of the cultural traits required for a functioning democracy, to establish a democratic government, is probably bound to fail.

There will always be issues which are contentious in any nation, which is why democracy isn't necessarily an automatic solution to every problem that arises and why the principle of self-management serves as a useful heuristic, insofar as determining which issues should or shouldn't be voted on is concerned. Issues which require mass participation are those which influence everyone equally, e.g., federal tax levels, national social services, warfare, etc. A constitution which protects the rights of minorities (i.e., those who hold opinions contrary to those held by the majority of the citizenry) is also equally important. Mass consensus is obviously nice—under such circumstances, policies can be carried out quickly and with few or no people feeling alienated due to having voted against said policies, for example—but it isn't required for a democracy to function. The "conformist"/"nonconformist" issue is ultimately irrelevant when pertaining to the operational viability of democracy.

I must disagree here. A generally nonconformist people are less likely to agree on anything. In some cases the entire Nation may be bitterly divided as to make majority rule impossible. Not to mention other factors such as a Nation being generally apathetic.

Undoubtedly, but that direction might run contrary to one favored by the nation.

True that might indeed happen.

No one, least of all me, has suggested that we might be able to achieve socialism through bourgeois parliamentary procedures. A proletarian revolution which 'expropriates the expropriators' is a requisite condition. Most of us refer to ourselves as revolutionary socialists precisely because we recognize that bourgeois "democracy" will never enable a radical political party to peacefully institute socialism.

I know, I figured as much. If you dont mind Celtiberian, then may I ask what is your vision of a ( future) socialist democracy? Would it be direct or indirect? Would it have a party system or not? I dont mind if you write about it in another thread and if you have allready wrote about it then I apologize for not noticing,

Without the consent of a significant portion of the population, socialism will not be attained—whether that attempt be made from above or below is inconsequential. In a modern nation (especially in the Global North), you cannot expect a coup d'état to succeed in overthrowing a capitalist regime, so the only alternative is to wait for the contradictions of capitalism to materialize to the point wherein class consciousness is developing and, from there, radical parties must convince the majority of wage-laborers that it is in their material interest to dispossess the bourgeoisie of their capital and establish a workers' state.

I disagree somewhat regarding a coup d etat but I think that deserves a thread of its own. Perhaps Ill start one about it.

My view of Stalin is fairly neutral. I readily acknowledge the many great achievements made in the Soviet Union under his leadership, but I also realize that he wasn't infallible, that many of those achievements were at the expense of unacceptable human costs and that he made several serious mistakes during his rule.

You're right to note that democracy would have been a hindrance to the Bolsheviks. After all, Russia was a backwards agrarian nation when the Bolsheviks took power and, as such, proletarians constituted a relatively minor percentage of the Russian working-class. The peasants stood to gain nothing from the implementation of centralized economic planning, so it would be mistaken to presume they ever would have voted to allow Stalin's agricultural collectivization policy, for instance. Karl Marx, however, was intelligent enough to foresee such contradictions, which is why he predicted that socialist revolutions would occur in the most advanced capitalist nations first. I don't necessarily agree that socialism cannot be achieved in undeveloped nations, but such nations, if they're democratic, would have to go through a lengthy socialist market phase in order to allow time for industry to sufficiently develop before entertaining thoughts of widespread economic planning.

Were mostly in agreement here.

Theoretically they could, but it's unlikely every elected/recallable official would simultaneously choose to defy their mandate and violate the nation's constitution in order to establish some sort of oppressive authoritarian government—which would be a crime punishable by a severe prison sentence, or possibly death.

Fair enough.

Indeed, it is the "ultimate safeguard," but certainly not the only safeguard.

Nonetheless I maintain that ultimately all rights are maintained by force.

I can't comment on such a hypothetical scenario occurring in Hungary, but I can offer a counterexample. For over a year in Greece (a comparably small European nation) there has been a mobilized, radical population fed up with the Papandreou presidency and the forced austerity they're having to endure. Countless protests and general strikes have occurred, and yet they haven't been able to overthrow the regime. You don't need weapons of mass destruction to suppress rebellion, only a well organized and equipped police and military force with orders to shoot to kill.

Yes but, as far as I know, there is no civil war in Greece. If the majority of the population had risen up in arms the situation may be different. My point is, if the majority of the population goes up in arms, then there is a chance that they will win. That chance is greater in a small country with a relatively weak military like Hungary than in others.

Chieftainships, in my opinion, belong to an epoch long since transcended by civilization. I don't see how such a form of governance can be modernized to handle the issues faced by industrial societies, nor do I see how it could be prevented from engaging in corrupt and abusive behavior in the long term. Moreover, I find it ethically abhorrent and don't think that a genuinely socialist mode of production could be maintained within a state which bestows certain individuals with absolute executive authority.

The chieftainship I write of would be essentially the same as a decentralized, nonfeudal ( socialist), populist, monarchy. The only difference being the ruler would be called a chieftain.

You're not coming off as purposefully argumentative, comrade. I appreciate a good debate as well, so don't worry.

I know I replied late so all I want to write is that I dont want to beat a dead horse. But just so you know, Im not arguing against democracy in general. Democracy has worked and still works in many places ( such as Switzerland if Im not mistaken). My point is that in former East Bloc countries ( including mine) democracy has been a failure and trying to create a good one in either one of them would probably fail. See, as you surely know, corruption was rampant in the formerly State Socialist systems across the East Bloc. This has continued on after Capitalism came in. It will take a long time to get the population of any former East Bloc country to recover from the mentality of " get into government office, be little king, take bribes, and answer to nobody". In Hungary for example, there are many local government officials who literally do what they please in their region. People vote for them since they promise to bring back the good old goulash days of Socialism but then they sell everything of value to their Capitalist buddies and bring nothing but rot to their region. The only way such opportunist scum can be combated is by a centralized government that is hell bent on pushing through its principles. I dont see how democracy ( especially representative democracy) can bring the iron fist down on such people when the population doesnt participate in politics that much and when the mentality of taking bribes and doing back door deals is so present in the minds of the powerful ( Politicians and Capitalists alike). Participation, transparency, and honesty ( three things without which a democracy cannot function well at all) are absent in such a state of affairs. Therefore I see no other route for my Nation to rise other than a determined and principled Chieftain. Of course one such person may never be found but I see no other alternative. So again my point is: Democracy may be the path for other Nations but it is not the path for mine.

Rebel Warrior 59 wrote:However my point is the culture of a given Nation is important in determining what sort of government that particular Nation has. And changing a Nation's culture is downright difficult and can be impossible. Therefore trying to get a Nation that possesses none or very few of the cultural traits required for a functioning democracy, to establish a democratic government, is probably bound to fail.

But, as I previously stated, there was a time wherein no country possessed a culture conductive to democratic principles, and yet democracy was still fought for and attained nonetheless—the extent to which our current democracies are actually functioning, however, is debatable. Your contention regarding democracy is also just as applicable to socialism, as Rev Scare mentioned in his post.

The potential difficulties which may arise while constructing a functioning democracy and socialist mode of production are not insurmountable, in my opinion, though I do agree it would be relatively easier in certain nations.

In some cases the entire Nation may be bitterly divided as to make majority rule impossible. Not to mention other factors such as a Nation being generally apathetic.

Majority rule can still work because the procedure is quite simple to follow: 50.01% + wins. Carrying out whatever policy was decided upon may be somewhat difficult, depending on exactly what it entails, but it wouldn't be any easier for a dictator to have his policies enforced if they happened to be especially unpopular with the people.

As for apathy, that can best be dealt with by proving to people that their contributions to the political process are actually meaningful. In other words, by establishing an economic system which doesn't enable wealth to be concentrated within a small privileged class—which inevitably results in rent-seeking—as well as implementing laws which harshly penalize political corruption.

what is your vision of a ( future) socialist democracy? Would it be direct or indirect? Would it have a party system or not?

In the democratic order I favor, some decisions would be handled in a direct manner and others would have to be dealt with by elected (and recallable) representatives. Self-management would be the guiding principle. There wouldn't be competing political parties and every politician would be tasked with upholding the socialist laws outlined in the nation's constitution.