Democracy

"Democracy" comes from the greek words "Demos" and "Kratos".
"Demos" meaning people;
"Kratos" meaning power.
And thus democracy is understood as the "Power of the people".

On these grounds, "democracy" should be a system in which the interests of most of the population are not only represented by the government but also enacted.

However, when people are not totally conscious of the concequences of their choices, can we speak of people eligible for democracy?
When, within a certain population some interests seem to contradict other interests? When even some individuals have interests that contradict some of their very own interests.... can we speak of people eligible for democracy?
When people have not yet cleared out their own scale of priorities... can we speak about people eligible for democracy?
When most of a population does not or is unable to actively participate in politics... can we speak of a stablished democracy?
When people's access to objective education is limited or unexistant, can we talk about a stablished democracy?

These are some questions to make before thinking of democracy.

Democracy to work would need:

1. That all or a large majourity of population were aware of the consequences of their actions and choices.
2. That all people had equal access to objective education.
3. That people were able to make reflexions about the situations in which they live instead of just worrying about survival within a system.
4. That all or a large majouirty of population could actively participate and if able were even forced to actively participate in political decitions in case of not wanting.
5. A complex infrastructure that allows the previous points.


I think that there should be some sort of "democratic dictatorship" that builds up democracy. How to make a dictatorship democratic? By keeping that dictatorship objective and sticked to a code of governmental conduct.

This dictatorship should be socialist and of course should allow criticism but only objective criticism.


Sadly, these days democracy is just understood as the possiblity to vote for a leader and tell him "fuck you" if you don't like how he governs.

What do you comrades and non-comrades think? I invite you to elaborate your ideas on the topic!

I think democracy is a good idea, but people are to diverse. They don't have the exact same views, plus a candidate can make it seem like they represent one group,but actually favor the other (especially in a republic). Plus, over the years democratic society has become way too corrupt.

Democracy is to Republic like Communism is to Socialism.

There hasnt been a true Democracy since the greeks and there hasnt been Communism..But there HAS been milder forms of each on the Each

U.S.A= Representitive Democracy.
The people vote for who they think is closer to them and so they are indirectly in control but arn't really.

Diogritor wrote:

There hasnt been a true Democracy since the greeks

The Greeks had slavery, so it wasn't quite the democracy.

Riddler wrote:

Diogritor wrote:

There hasnt been a true Democracy since the greeks

The Greeks had slavery, so it wasn't quite the democracy.

the firs real democracy was althingi in iceland established in 930 A.D
evryone had a vote for theyr rprisentitive and they could vot on new laws and were also judges.
In rome slaves had no votes and only a small portion of the population showed up to vate only about 4 of the 36 roman pelb tribes showed up to vote.

Most modern republics are bourgeois democracies meaning the people are not meant to make decisions that are in their interests, but rather be tricked into serving the interests of the ruling class while thinking they are serving their own interests. Sri Lanka had a pretty good system of maintaining econmic equality and democracy but that didn't last; I think Cuba has a pretty good system, I'd prefer it to my own countries.

Did Oligarch just call Cuba a Democracy?

Voice of Reason wrote:

Did Oligarch just call Cuba a Democracy?

Cuba is much more democratic than the U.S. to be sure.

the only true democracy is direct democracy

cary jebus wrote:

the only true democracy is direct democracy

That would require democratization of the state itself and is only really practical in anarcho-syndicalism. The best abd most democratic system of government is soviet democracy.

oligarch wrote:

cary jebus wrote:

the only true democracy is direct democracy

That would require democratization of the state itself and is only really practical in anarcho-syndicalism. The best abd most democratic system of government is soviet democracy.

whats wrong with anarcho-communism? soviet dmeocracy can suck my ass, its not a democracy its oligarchy.

[quote="cary jebus"]

oligarch wrote:

whats wrong with anarcho-communism? soviet dmeocracy can suck my ass, its not a democracy its oligarchy.

By soviet democracy I don't mean what was actually practiced in the Soviet Union.

[quote="oligarch"]

cary jebus wrote:

oligarch wrote:

whats wrong with anarcho-communism? soviet dmeocracy can suck my ass, its not a democracy its oligarchy.

By soviet democracy I don't mean what was actually practiced in the Soviet Union.

what the hell?

cary jebus wrote:

cary jebus wrote:

what the hell?

The Soviet Union was supposed to operate on a series of democratically elected soviets which were supposed to be elected by workers. There would be several layers of soviets ranging from the local soviets elected by factory workers the the Supreme Soviet which had representatives from the entire union. In practice, the general-secretary of the CPSU, who determined the make up of the central committee and the politburo would decide who presided over the Supreme Soviet and all the representatives were determined by appointment and bureaucracy.

oligarch wrote:

cary jebus wrote:

cary jebus wrote:

what the hell?

The Soviet Union was supposed to operate on a series of democratically elected soviets which were supposed to be elected by workers. There would be several layers of soviets ranging from the local soviets elected by factory workers the the Supreme Soviet which had representatives from the entire union. In practice, the general-secretary of the CPSU, who determined the make up of the central committee and the politburo would decide who presided over the Supreme Soviet and all the representatives were determined by appointment and bureaucracy.

why not just have a direct democracy among the workers?

cary jebus wrote:

oligarch wrote:

cary jebus wrote:

cary jebus wrote:

what the hell?

The Soviet Union was supposed to operate on a series of democratically elected soviets which were supposed to be elected by workers. There would be several layers of soviets ranging from the local soviets elected by factory workers the the Supreme Soviet which had representatives from the entire union. In practice, the general-secretary of the CPSU, who determined the make up of the central committee and the politburo would decide who presided over the Supreme Soviet and all the representatives were determined by appointment and bureaucracy.

why not just have a direct democracy among the workers?

becuse then it would be democracy dummy and cummunism dose not like that

mattabesta wrote:

becuse then it would be democracy dummy and cummunism dose not like that

Ah Matthías Már.... not only you speak as if you knew what communism... you speak as if you knew what democracy is! I'm waiting to see what others post here, but, just a brief thing:

Democracy can be stablished under most or probably all economical frameworks, the thing is that all or most people consciously approve that framework. On those grounds Communism, Fascism and Capitalism can be democracies, the thing is that most people consciously and with knowledge of the implications accepted those systems. In the case of Communism, the system requires active popular participation while in the case of fascism is matter of accepting that the upper classes are above you while you're a worker and that they have the right to opress and exploit you.

mattabesta wrote:

becuse then it would be democracy dummy and cummunism dose not like that

Heres the chairman of my country's communist party speaking on democracy.

Democracy dosent work, but its the best thing we got

mattabesta wrote:

cary jebus wrote:

oligarch wrote:

cary jebus wrote:

cary jebus wrote:

what the hell?

The Soviet Union was supposed to operate on a series of democratically elected soviets which were supposed to be elected by workers. There would be several layers of soviets ranging from the local soviets elected by factory workers the the Supreme Soviet which had representatives from the entire union. In practice, the general-secretary of the CPSU, who determined the make up of the central committee and the politburo would decide who presided over the Supreme Soviet and all the representatives were determined by appointment and bureaucracy.

why not just have a direct democracy among the workers?

becuse then it would be democracy dummy and cummunism dose not like that

unlesss we EDUCATE you moronic cappie pigs

cary jebus wrote:

why not just have a direct democracy among the workers?

Thats fine at a local level but there would need be series of soviets for governance on a larger scale.

oligarch wrote:

cary jebus wrote:

why not just have a direct democracy among the workers?

Thats fine at a local level but there would need be series of soviets for governance on a larger scale.

Eventually if a complex and whole congress is conformed by direct representatives of those workers, democracy would follow some sort of pyramidal conbection.

oligarch wrote:

cary jebus wrote:

why not just have a direct democracy among the workers?

Thats fine at a local level but there would need be series of soviets for governance on a larger scale.

OF CORSE! but wars, bills should be voted directly by the people with the choice of yes or no.

cary jebus wrote:

oligarch wrote:

cary jebus wrote:

why not just have a direct democracy among the workers?

Thats fine at a local level but there would need be series of soviets for governance on a larger scale.

OF CORSE! but wars, bills should be voted directly by the people with the choice of yes or no.

In most cases, theres not enough time to hold a referendum when a country is being invaded. The supreme worker's soviet which was elected by the workers would still be in control during such a wartime.

oligarch wrote:

cary jebus wrote:

oligarch wrote:

cary jebus wrote:

why not just have a direct democracy among the workers?

Thats fine at a local level but there would need be series of soviets for governance on a larger scale.

OF CORSE! but wars, bills should be voted directly by the people with the choice of yes or no.

In most cases, theres not enough time to hold a referendum when a country is being invaded. The supreme worker's soviet which was elected by the workers would still be in control during such a wartime.

nono , I dont mean to respond to a war, to start a war.