God fucking damn it, even if you're a bit account don't fedpost like this. Democracy is not the problem, liberalism (i.e. the allowance of capital to be the dominant force in society) is the problem. The position of communists is one of trying to bring about a democracy that is not dictated by media ownership, lobbying, and various other vectors of control used by capitalists.
Bourgeois democracy, although a great historical advance in comparison with medievalism, always remains, and under capitalism is bound to remain, restricted, truncated, false and hypocritical, a paradise for the rich and a snare and deception for the exploited, for the poor. It is this truth, which forms a most essential part of Marx’s teaching, that Kautsky the “Marxist” has failed to understand. On this—the fundamental issue—Kautsky offers “delights” for the bourgeoisie instead of a scientific criticism of those conditions which make every bourgeois democracy a democracy for the rich.
One of the problems is that the term "democracy" has been completely hijacked by liberal democracy and its media arms so that only democracy that looks like western bourgeois democracy is real democracy and everything else is authoritarianism.
You can even see the definition shift back and forth depending on how libs feel about the country in question. Japan is a democracy, except when a rich westoid is being put on trial for corruption, then it's a all sorts of unfair and authoritarian and their conviction rates are too high.
I think it's flimsy compared to simply making public office less appealing to people who want to be rich. It's one of the few places where I think Plato was on to something, minus the caste part.
Honestly I like it as an idea, I have no idea how you'd make it work in practice, but I find the idea of "anyone could become an official, so everyone needs to be educated to a high standard" appealing. I like the idea of a society that greatly values education, and I like the idea of the people being ready and capable to take on an important role whenever required? Practicality? I could see it working for devolved government dealing with local issues, but higher levels of organization probably wouldn't work well.
God fucking damn it, even if you're a bit account don't fedpost like this. Democracy is not the problem, liberalism (i.e. the allowance of capital to be the dominant force in society) is the problem. The position of communists is one of trying to bring about a democracy that is not dictated by media ownership, lobbying, and various other vectors of control used by capitalists.
-- Lenin, PRRK
One of the problems is that the term "democracy" has been completely hijacked by liberal democracy and its media arms so that only democracy that looks like western bourgeois democracy is real democracy and everything else is authoritarianism.
You can even see the definition shift back and forth depending on how libs feel about the country in question. Japan is a democracy, except when a rich westoid is being put on trial for corruption, then it's a all sorts of unfair and authoritarian and their conviction rates are too high.
Personally though I favor sortition.
I think it's flimsy compared to simply making public office less appealing to people who want to be rich. It's one of the few places where I think Plato was on to something, minus the caste part.
Honestly I like it as an idea, I have no idea how you'd make it work in practice, but I find the idea of "anyone could become an official, so everyone needs to be educated to a high standard" appealing. I like the idea of a society that greatly values education, and I like the idea of the people being ready and capable to take on an important role whenever required? Practicality? I could see it working for devolved government dealing with local issues, but higher levels of organization probably wouldn't work well.