Political Change

[armyclonk]

Hi,
I am currently in a disscusion with a guy from my school. He states, that most people actually want a radical change of the political order in their country. And with radical he means for example the change from democracy to lets say anarchosydicatism (which is a kind of decentral communism without real autority). My opinion is, that most people are happy with the order, no matter if they are in favour of the currently leading party.

So I started a poll which give you these two opinions as basis for the poll alongside with a third "i don't care" option.

Please vote so I can see what you think.

Click here to get to the poll
(The poll-script is in german, but i guess you'll understand it anyway. If not, ask. Oh, and if i made some mistakes in formulating the question ect. please let me know. English is my third language so I most likely have made some mistakes.)

Thanks in advance... and now: discuss !

[TrevorOfCrete]

ask the middle class of the nation. ***There the people who are most likely to be politicaly active. ***I hasten to guess most would say they were content with the current system. But Democracy/Capitalism wont be everlasting. Feudalism lasted alot longer so far, do you really believe this is the system we will have till the end of human-kind?

[armyclonk]

no, i dont believe that. but i believe, that currently most people are satisfied with the basic system (democracy). it will change, but not too soon. not in my lifetime and most likely not right after it.

[AfrographX]

I think those people in western countries crying about how bad the current system is, are just too lazy to work on the improvement of what they already got. Of course it's not perfect, in fact when you look at it closely you'll find a lot of flaws, but it's the best we have. And instead of whining one should put more energy into figuring out how to improve the system.

Besides that I'd like to see how those punks propagating anarchy would survive in truely anarchic country. Perhaps one should organise field trips to Somalia or something like that.

[Necromancer-]

I believe democracy is currently the best system. However different parties have different issues and have the option to vote for one party. The problem is that a political party has issues you agree on, but also has issues you disagree.

I believe democracy works better if the people can vote directly on the issues, this works better than a majority multi-party formed coalition.

In the current system the problem is that the majority of the people do not really know what issues a party has. They are too uneducated to make a vote.

[Spokesperson]

Which democracy? The "democracy" in Greece or the one in the 19th century or maybe even the "democracy" we have now?

Democracy means the rule of the people. The dictatorship of the majority. The western world is a dictatorship of the few, the wealthy, those who own money and who decide the whole economy of a country. One dollar = one vote.

There's economic democracy and political democracy. Democracy doesn't exist without them both. They are prerequisites for eachother.

The owners make you fight and vote for them, they make you work for them (say you produce a worth of X in a day, but get paid Y for it. X-Y is what they take from you in profits, your work. They steal your work and time. That's slavery.). If you refuse, strike or protest there's always the police around the corner.

Unless they screw up the economy real bad (which they do about every 15 years when there's economic recession) people won't care as they have been provided the minimum necessary means just to keep busy with religion, football or similar. And so they just pump in billions of dollars into their deceptive voting campaigns or their press, like advertising, making sure they win. People without money stand no chance. And they tell it's freedom when people are poor unemployed or homeless. Sure, sleeping outside under the stars is always free. Freedom of the capital is not the same as the freedom of the people.

We need a change to real democracy. That's communism. (I'm not talking about the system in the USSR which wasn't communism (they never claimed that either)).

[AfrographX]

Of course there is no freedom without money. There never was a time in history and there probably never will be a time when people can survive without producing something of worth for the society they live in.

What's real democracy for you? Granting everyone the freedom to do what he wants, even if he chooses not to be a productive part of society and just enjoy the nice side of life?

[armyclonk]

Which democracy? The "democracy" in Greece or the one in the 19th century or maybe even the "democracy" we have now?

Democracy means the rule of the people. The dictatorship of the majority.

ad 1: democracy was an example for a current system. if you don't consider you current system as democracy you may chose yes, i want radical change.

ad 2: democracy does not mean the dictatorship of the majority, it means the rule of all people. for this rule complete consens between all people would be necessary. as this is impossible there are different forms of "democracy", like representativ democracy in germany. communism is not necessarily democracy.

[Spokesperson]

In the classless (and "state"less) communist society there'll likely be no money at all. No slaves, no masters. Adding a voting system makes it a democracy as there is no oppression and everybody is free.

But it's nothing we can get overnight. Probably it will take hundreds of years before we can get that far from here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_materialism

Democracy is not about consensus, it's about majority decisions. Therefore its definition is the dictatorship of the majority. The majority rules.

[armyclonk]

Democracy is not about consensus, it's about majority decisions. Therefore its definition is the dictatorship of the majority. The majority rules.

this, good sir, is wrong.

democracy, in it's very meaning, is the rule of the people. for this rule you need the volonté générale.

read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Ja...litical_theory

of cause this isn't possible with more then lets say 10 people. that why there are other types of more or less democratic systems, but none of them is realy democratic.
today we say democracy to institutionel and representativ democracy, but in it's very meaning this is wrong.