I feel like this is how our conversation is going…
Me: “Look. See this hammer? I can hit a nail with it, which means I’m using it to build. Then, I can turn around and hit a person with it, which means I’m using it to cause harm. But, it’s still the same hammer. Do you understand?”
And you’ve all like: “Nope. Those are two totally different hammers. We need to destroy one, and keep the other. That’s the only way.”
It’s pretty bizarre talking to someone who can’t even grasp basic reality. Enjoy your state of confusion. Let us all know when you’ve figured out what “revolution” means. That should be equally insightful.
The simple answer is that capitalist “democracy” is “democracy” controlled by capitalists. Capitalists control production and distribution, pick what parties can run, run the mass media and bribe officials. Socialist democracy exists in the context of worker control. You view democracy as existing outside of this context, usable by anyone for any aim, which is why you’re running into the same mistake. Revolution means overthrowing the system with force, see what the bolsheviks did in Russia for an example.
I have no idea where your condescension comes from, if you can’t acknowledge the role capital plays in the state then you’ll forever be confused.
do you ever wonder if someone is running interference on you?
i ask because i’m likewise having to phrase and then rephrase repeatedly with someone else right now and that’s preventing me from engaging with anyone else.
You view democracy as existing outside of this context, usable by anyone for any aim, which is why you’re running into the same mistake.
Wow. Do you not get that in the lines just before this stunning revelation, YOU described exactly how capitalists use democracy one way and socialists use democracy another way? Yet, for some reason, your conclusion is that there are still *two different democracies" being used.
You keep accusing me of thinking there is a separation between these concepts…but you are the one who keeps arguing that they are separate. I don’t know how much more simply I can explain it…and yet you still don’t seem to understand that basic concept. You can’t even see that you’re the one making the argument that you’re arguing against.
It’s seriously bizarre. I haven’t seen this level of cognitive dissonance in quite a while.
A wrought iron sledge hammer and a plastic toy hammer are both hammers yet they are qualitatively different. Liberal democracy and Socialist democracy are both a democracy yet are qualitatively different.
Again, with the “two separate hammers” analogy. They are the same hammer. You just can just use it for more than one purpose. How you use it, determines whether it’s “good” or “bad”.
What happens after you’ve destroyed “capitalist democracy” and replaced it with “socialist democracy”…and then someone learns how to exploit the system again? Do you destroy it all over again, and make a new one? Again? And then again, again? And then again, again, again?
At some point, would you not realize that it’s not democracy that’s flawed? Or would you just keep destroying it over and over again, expecting different results?
You’re treating democracy as class-neutral. That’s wrong. There is no abstract “democracy” floating above society, every democracy expresses class power. Liberal democracy is the dictatorship of capital: private ownership, capital controls media and institutions, and workers can vote forever without ever voting away exploitation. Socialist democracy is the dictatorship of the proletariat: bourgeois property is abolished, exploiters are politically suppressed, and the working class holds state power. Same word, different class rule. Not “the same hammer used differently,” but qualitatively different systems.
And your “what if someone exploits it again?” question just proves the point. Yes, class struggle continues under socialism. When new bourgeois elements emerge, you suppress them. That’s exactly what proletarian dictatorship exists for. Socialism isn’t a one-time constitutional tweak; it’s an ongoing process of fighting capitalist restoration.
Democracy is class neutral. It is a tool. Nothing more. It is a system that can be structured in any number of ways, for a huge variety of different purposes. It is not an “it” that you can destroy and replace with another one. Democracy is just democracy. The easiest way to change how it is used, is to put someone else in charge of using it. And guess what? Democracy, by its very nature, allows you to do that. That’s literally what it’s for.
But, as long as you keep anthropomorphizing it with your own moral biases, you will never understand how to use it. It will always be a tool that inevitably gets used against you.
You keep describing it like it’s some kind of dragon in a cave, that needs to be defeated in order for you to be free. I’m trying to explain to you, that it is actually the very mechanism that can free you…as long as you understand how to use it for your own purposes.
(Edit…sorry, I thought you were the other guy. My point still stands)
You’re still wrong. “Democracy” is not some floating, neutral mechanism that anyone can simply take over. It exists inside a state, and every state has a class character. Under capitalism, democracy operates through bourgeois property relations, bourgeois courts, bourgeois media, and bourgeois control of production. That means capital rules no matter who you vote for. Workers cannot vote away private ownership of the means of production. That’s why Marxists call it the dictatorship of capital.
Saying “just put someone else in charge” ignores how power actually works. The bourgeoisie doesn’t politely surrender its property because a ballot box asked nicely. Socialist democracy only becomes possible after that class power is broken, after bourgeois ownership is abolished and exploiters are politically suppressed. That’s not “using the same tool differently.” That’s a different state, serving a different class.
And no, democracy doesn’t magically “free” you by itself. Liberation comes from class struggle. When new bourgeois elements emerge under socialism, they are suppressed, because socialism is an ongoing process of preventing capitalist restoration, not a one-time electoral event. You’re treating democracy as primary and class power as secondary. The opposite is true.
You’re still wrong. “Democracy” is not some floating, neutral mechanism that anyone can simply take over. It exists inside a state, and every state has a class character. Under capitalism, democracy operates through bourgeois property relations, bourgeois courts, bourgeois media, and bourgeois control of production.
I’m not the ones saying that…you are, with everything you just said in that comment. You are portraying “the state” as some separate entity that operates independently from the people within it. But, that isn’t true. Those people make up “the state”. It doesn’t exist without them. So, yes…if you put different people in those positions, you absolutely can “change the state”.
Nobody is saying democracy itself is bad, but that democracy in the context of capitalism isn’t really democratic. Socialist democracy works, and does so far better than democracy in capitalist systems at achieving results for the working classes. We expect democracy to work differently in socialism because this is observably true.
How is it “observably true” that it “works differently in socialism”? Do you not still elect people to represent you in government? Do you not still vote on issues that matter in your community? Are you not still expected to participate in the process, in order for it to function? Do you not still use it to replace leaders that don’t represent your views?
Nothing about democracy itself, fundamentally changes, just because you call it “socialist democracy” instead of “capitalist democracy”.
What changes is that society, rather than being run by capitalists and for capitalists, becomes run by the working classes, and the state acts in their interests. This is reflected in policy. You have a metaphysical way of thinking that sees systems as being capable of understanding devoid of the context they exist in, as static, and in a vacuum, ie an impossible fantasy.
I’m not talking about how individual capitalists or socialists use democracy, but how democracy as a system functions in capitalism vs. socialism. My point isn’t that democracy is bad, but that democracy can only exist in the context of the class struggle, and in economic systems dominated by capitalism, the democratic institutions will inevitably be hollow and unusable for the purposes of establishing socialism.
I absolutely understand the basic concept, my point is that socialists in the, say, US, or Canada, cannot use existing structures of “democracy” to bring about socialism. No cognitive dissonance on my part, just pure metaphysical thinking on yours.
I’m not talking about how individual capitalists or socialists use democracy, but how democracy as a system functions in capitalism vs. socialism.
You may as well be saying, “It’s not who uses the hammer that makes it bad, but how they use it, that does.” My brother in Christ…the person using it decides how it’s used. FFS. You are talking in circles again without realizing you’re arguing against your point.
Do you believe that things like the media, culture, state, and industry have absolutely no impact whatsoever on how things are decided in a given system?
I feel like this is how our conversation is going…
Me: “Look. See this hammer? I can hit a nail with it, which means I’m using it to build. Then, I can turn around and hit a person with it, which means I’m using it to cause harm. But, it’s still the same hammer. Do you understand?”
And you’ve all like: “Nope. Those are two totally different hammers. We need to destroy one, and keep the other. That’s the only way.”
It’s pretty bizarre talking to someone who can’t even grasp basic reality. Enjoy your state of confusion. Let us all know when you’ve figured out what “revolution” means. That should be equally insightful.
The simple answer is that capitalist “democracy” is “democracy” controlled by capitalists. Capitalists control production and distribution, pick what parties can run, run the mass media and bribe officials. Socialist democracy exists in the context of worker control. You view democracy as existing outside of this context, usable by anyone for any aim, which is why you’re running into the same mistake. Revolution means overthrowing the system with force, see what the bolsheviks did in Russia for an example.
I have no idea where your condescension comes from, if you can’t acknowledge the role capital plays in the state then you’ll forever be confused.
do you ever wonder if someone is running interference on you?
i ask because i’m likewise having to phrase and then rephrase repeatedly with someone else right now and that’s preventing me from engaging with anyone else.
Not really, sometimes I just think people can be stubborn, or simple miscommunication happens. Text isn’t as clear as speaking in person.
i guess the epstein files are making me extra paranoid. lol
Fair, lol
Wow. Do you not get that in the lines just before this stunning revelation, YOU described exactly how capitalists use democracy one way and socialists use democracy another way? Yet, for some reason, your conclusion is that there are still *two different democracies" being used.
You keep accusing me of thinking there is a separation between these concepts…but you are the one who keeps arguing that they are separate. I don’t know how much more simply I can explain it…and yet you still don’t seem to understand that basic concept. You can’t even see that you’re the one making the argument that you’re arguing against.
It’s seriously bizarre. I haven’t seen this level of cognitive dissonance in quite a while.
A wrought iron sledge hammer and a plastic toy hammer are both hammers yet they are qualitatively different. Liberal democracy and Socialist democracy are both a democracy yet are qualitatively different.
Again, with the “two separate hammers” analogy. They are the same hammer. You just can just use it for more than one purpose. How you use it, determines whether it’s “good” or “bad”.
What happens after you’ve destroyed “capitalist democracy” and replaced it with “socialist democracy”…and then someone learns how to exploit the system again? Do you destroy it all over again, and make a new one? Again? And then again, again? And then again, again, again?
At some point, would you not realize that it’s not democracy that’s flawed? Or would you just keep destroying it over and over again, expecting different results?
You’re treating democracy as class-neutral. That’s wrong. There is no abstract “democracy” floating above society, every democracy expresses class power. Liberal democracy is the dictatorship of capital: private ownership, capital controls media and institutions, and workers can vote forever without ever voting away exploitation. Socialist democracy is the dictatorship of the proletariat: bourgeois property is abolished, exploiters are politically suppressed, and the working class holds state power. Same word, different class rule. Not “the same hammer used differently,” but qualitatively different systems.
And your “what if someone exploits it again?” question just proves the point. Yes, class struggle continues under socialism. When new bourgeois elements emerge, you suppress them. That’s exactly what proletarian dictatorship exists for. Socialism isn’t a one-time constitutional tweak; it’s an ongoing process of fighting capitalist restoration.
You should really read Chairman Mao and Lenin.
Democracy is class neutral. It is a tool. Nothing more. It is a system that can be structured in any number of ways, for a huge variety of different purposes. It is not an “it” that you can destroy and replace with another one. Democracy is just democracy. The easiest way to change how it is used, is to put someone else in charge of using it. And guess what? Democracy, by its very nature, allows you to do that. That’s literally what it’s for.
But, as long as you keep anthropomorphizing it with your own moral biases, you will never understand how to use it. It will always be a tool that inevitably gets used against you.
You keep describing it like it’s some kind of dragon in a cave, that needs to be defeated in order for you to be free. I’m trying to explain to you, that it is actually the very mechanism that can free you…as long as you understand how to use it for your own purposes.
(Edit…sorry, I thought you were the other guy. My point still stands)
You’re still wrong. “Democracy” is not some floating, neutral mechanism that anyone can simply take over. It exists inside a state, and every state has a class character. Under capitalism, democracy operates through bourgeois property relations, bourgeois courts, bourgeois media, and bourgeois control of production. That means capital rules no matter who you vote for. Workers cannot vote away private ownership of the means of production. That’s why Marxists call it the dictatorship of capital.
Saying “just put someone else in charge” ignores how power actually works. The bourgeoisie doesn’t politely surrender its property because a ballot box asked nicely. Socialist democracy only becomes possible after that class power is broken, after bourgeois ownership is abolished and exploiters are politically suppressed. That’s not “using the same tool differently.” That’s a different state, serving a different class.
And no, democracy doesn’t magically “free” you by itself. Liberation comes from class struggle. When new bourgeois elements emerge under socialism, they are suppressed, because socialism is an ongoing process of preventing capitalist restoration, not a one-time electoral event. You’re treating democracy as primary and class power as secondary. The opposite is true.
I’m not the ones saying that…you are, with everything you just said in that comment. You are portraying “the state” as some separate entity that operates independently from the people within it. But, that isn’t true. Those people make up “the state”. It doesn’t exist without them. So, yes…if you put different people in those positions, you absolutely can “change the state”.
Nobody is saying democracy itself is bad, but that democracy in the context of capitalism isn’t really democratic. Socialist democracy works, and does so far better than democracy in capitalist systems at achieving results for the working classes. We expect democracy to work differently in socialism because this is observably true.
How is it “observably true” that it “works differently in socialism”? Do you not still elect people to represent you in government? Do you not still vote on issues that matter in your community? Are you not still expected to participate in the process, in order for it to function? Do you not still use it to replace leaders that don’t represent your views?
Nothing about democracy itself, fundamentally changes, just because you call it “socialist democracy” instead of “capitalist democracy”.
What changes is that society, rather than being run by capitalists and for capitalists, becomes run by the working classes, and the state acts in their interests. This is reflected in policy. You have a metaphysical way of thinking that sees systems as being capable of understanding devoid of the context they exist in, as static, and in a vacuum, ie an impossible fantasy.
I’m not talking about how individual capitalists or socialists use democracy, but how democracy as a system functions in capitalism vs. socialism. My point isn’t that democracy is bad, but that democracy can only exist in the context of the class struggle, and in economic systems dominated by capitalism, the democratic institutions will inevitably be hollow and unusable for the purposes of establishing socialism.
I absolutely understand the basic concept, my point is that socialists in the, say, US, or Canada, cannot use existing structures of “democracy” to bring about socialism. No cognitive dissonance on my part, just pure metaphysical thinking on yours.
You may as well be saying, “It’s not who uses the hammer that makes it bad, but how they use it, that does.” My brother in Christ…the person using it decides how it’s used. FFS. You are talking in circles again without realizing you’re arguing against your point.
Do you believe that things like the media, culture, state, and industry have absolutely no impact whatsoever on how things are decided in a given system?