Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Democracy: crap/not crap

I think that you will find only the most advanced section of the advanced section of the proletariat, that part which has irrevocably broken with economism and tailism, embraced dialectical materialism and recognised the necessity of its own historical mission, will be fit and able to lead the dictatorship of its own class and hence ripen the conditions for the negation of the relationships which constitute the inhumanity of capitalism.

Comradely greetings - Louis MacNeice
 
What does this mean?
Perhaps it means the proles voting against the advice of the ruling neolib elite & then the proles pulling up deckchairs & munching popcorn while being entertained by the spectacle of the ruling neolib elite dissappearing up their own arses trying to 'respect the will of the people' which becomes more & more impossible as 'negotiations' progress. :D
 
Last edited:
Perhaps you might define democracy for us. What do *you* think it consists of?
To me, democracy is a mechanism which allows the will of the majority to prevail. “Pure” democracy may be a referendum on everything, but that’s clearly impractical. At election time, to eliminate “25% of the vote” governments, perhaps secondary voting rounds – processes of elimination – to determine an overall winner. Again, probably too cumbersome to be practical, which is maybe why we have our current system.
 
What form of democracy do you want? If one says Brexit was democratic because the popular vote won then our General elections are not democratic because party MPs do not reflect the popular vote. One could argue that our General elections at least produce the government somebody wants whereas PR produces governments nobody wants but equally PR should ensure a centrist government & prevent extremist governments left or right which could be a plan. China, Russia & plenty of other countries do not do democracy because their dictators know that fair elections would not produce the required result.
I tend to agree with this.
 
To me, democracy is a mechanism which allows the will of the majority to prevail. “Pure” democracy may be a referendum on everything, but that’s clearly impractical. At election time, to eliminate “25% of the vote” governments, perhaps secondary voting rounds – processes of elimination – to determine an overall winner. Again, probably too cumbersome to be practical, which is maybe why we have our current system.
Right. So you think it's democratic that unelected, unaccountable people have great power over us in our everyday lives, that there are no free and fair elections, and that there is no means by which to recall a councillor or MP between elections. Why should the will of the majority prevail? Is it really their will or is it a view created by government and/or mass media?
 
Perhaps it means the proles voting against the advice of the ruling neolib elite & then the proles pulling up deckchairs & munching popcorn while being entertained by the spectacle of the ruling neolib elite dissappearing up their own arses trying to 'respect the will of the people' which becomes more & more impossible as 'negotiations' progress. :D

What can you be thinking of?
 
Right. So you think it's democratic that unelected, unaccountable people have great power over us in our everyday lives ...
Which people are they?

... that there are no free and fair elections ...
Why is an election not "free"? Re. "fair", do you propose proportional representation?

... there is no means by which to recall a councillor or MP between elections.
Presumably these people can be forced out if gross misconduct is evident?

Why should the will of the majority prevail?
Because enacting the will of the minority would be unfair on the majority.

Is it really their will or is it a view created by government and/or mass media?
Are you saying that most people are too stupid to see through manipulation?
 
Which people are they?
bosses, cops, teachers, the dole etc
Why is an election not "free"? Re. "fair", do you propose proportional representation?
It's not free or fair because no one votes without influences from the media, from their boss, while someone's choices are of course limited and determined by political parties.
Presumably these people can be forced out if gross misconduct is evident?
can they?
Because enacting the will of the minority would be unfair on the majority.
Yeh but what if the minority are right and the majority wrong?
Are you saying that most people are too stupid to see through manipulation?
You clearly are.
 
@ Pickman's model

We could ping-pong these points back and forth all afternoon. To save time, and cut to the chase, please tell me what YOUR preferred way of running a society would be.
 
@ Pickman's model

We could ping-pong these points back and forth all afternoon. To save time, and cut to the chase, please tell me what YOUR preferred way of running a society would be.
A society based on free association and without hierarchy
 
Because enacting the will of the minority would be unfair on the majority.

And enacting the will of the majority is unfair on the minority. Nowhere is this clearer than with the 52% - 48% EU referendum result, a vote decided by a margin any scientist would instantly dismiss as not even significant enough to use as evidence that the entire population hadn't voted on the flip of a coin.
 
There are many matters in which a majority of the public believes to be true something which is demonstrably false. A majority of the British public believes that 'Great Britain' is the name of a country, rather than the name of an island. Should we be really be making decisions based on the opinions of people who don't even know where they live?

e2a: Even the Ordnance Survey, whose entire job is making maps, get this wrong:

Great Britain is the official collective name of of England, Scotland and Wales and their associated islands.

The difference between UK, Britain and the British Isles

:facepalm:
 
There are many matters in which a majority of the public believes to be true something which is demonstrably false. A majority of the British public believes that 'Great Britain' is the name of a country, rather than the name of an island. Should we be really be making decisions based on the opinions of people who don't even know where they live?

Perhaps we ought to let them know where they live before making decisions.
 
Too easy.



That isn't quite what I was getting at. Stalin didn't claim to be a Marxist, he was one.

Second para, they were doing it, in their eyes.[/QUOTE

Everyone thinks what they
Perhaps it means the proles voting against the advice of the ruling neolib elite & then the proles pulling up deckchairs & munching popcorn while being entertained by the spectacle of the ruling neolib elite dissappearing up their own arses trying to 'respect the will of the people' which becomes more & more impossible as 'negotiations' progress. :D


Problem is the "proles" are going to discover that this had a real bad effect and various right wingers are intending to use this an excuse to make life shitter for almost everyone.
 
The leaders put in place by the last nine elections in the UK were Thatcher, Thatcher, Thatcher, Major, Blair, Blair, Blair, Cameron, and Cameron, proving beyond a doubt that democracy as it currently works is a pile of shit - not that there seem to be any better replacements waiting in the wings.
 
The leaders put in place by the last nine elections in the UK were Thatcher, Thatcher, Thatcher, Major, Blair, Blair, Blair, Cameron, and Cameron, proving beyond a doubt that democracy as it currently works is a pile of shit - not that there seem to be any better replacements waiting in the wings.

We have a system where the only job you can get without providing references is Prime Minister.
 
And enacting the will of the majority is unfair on the minority.
So, in the case of, say, 60/40 split opinion, do you propose that the country be divided into a 60/40 geographical proportion, and people herded according to their view? Rinse and repeat for opinion on each subject?
 
The leaders put in place by the last nine elections in the UK were Thatcher, Thatcher, Thatcher, Major, Blair, Blair, Blair, Cameron, and Cameron, proving beyond a doubt that democracy as it currently works is a pile of shit - not that there seem to be any better replacements waiting in the wings.

Surely that proves that you think it's a pile of shit, not that it is a pile of shit.
 
Problem is the "proles" are going to discover that this had a real bad effect and various right wingers are intending to use this an excuse to make life shitter for almost everyone.
Many left wingers have been behaving disgustingly as well, if you look at the comments on you tube etc
its quite disgusting
Many of them are no angels and have behaved appalingly
im sick and tired of hearing about tbh
 
So, in the case of, say, 60/40 split opinion, do you propose that the country be divided into a 60/40 geographical proportion, and people herded according to their view? Rinse and repeat for opinion on each subject?

Nah but the 40% who lost get first dibs on the next decision.
 
Without an educated population democracy is impossible. Our present school system seems designed to actively prevent such a menace from arising.
Tbf many Uni bods present and Ex have been brainwashed by these teachings as well
Do they honestly think a few placards have any point, all seems a bit futile and pathetic imho
 
People do just fine when there aren't vast and powerful institutions working tirelessly to misguide and misinform them according to the interests of the powerful minority.

This may be true but it's an untested theory when it comes to a country of 70 million people.
 
Back
Top Bottom