this post was submitted on 23 Oct 2025
391 points (89.3% liked)

Memes

52975 readers
973 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] PillowD@lemmy.world -4 points 6 days ago

I have never heard the word electoralism in real life.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world -1 points 6 days ago

Democracy can and will work once a simple rule is implemented. Namely: no one who wants the power to rule should ever be allowed anywhere near power. Of course the rich won't allow such a law to be passed, and enforcing it is the stuff of thought crime dystopic nightmares, but I'm sure we can overcome those small issues.

[–] PearOfJudes@lemmy.ml -1 points 6 days ago (7 children)

ngl I do hate this kind of nhilism in terms of democracy. Like I agree with that one quote from that greek guy which says that a democracy needs smart people, but democracy is the best system we've come up with that to a small extent, makes politicians meet the peoples needs.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] commiunism@lemmy.dbzer0.com 42 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Real liberal democracy has never been tried

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 33 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

The great lie of liberal democracy is the idealist notion that literally anything can be voted in if enough people vote for it, and that this will have political supremacy over those in power. This analysis puts the state outside of class struggle, above it, and not as the mutually reinforcing superstructural aspect of society. The role of the state is to reinforce the base, ie the mode of production, and it does so through propagating ruling class ideology (ie, liberalism), and through a monopoly of violence.

Electoralism is a sham. The lessons of the failures of electoralism scar the global south, the coup against comrade Allende taught us all too well. The state is not outside or above class struggle, but is mired in it. Without replacing the bourgeois state with a socialist, proletarian one, the ready-made levers for reinforcing the bourgeois mode of production will cause a reversion. The Paris Commune was the first such example of this failure in action, and it has happened again, such as with the coup against Allende and the installment of Pinochet.

What is there to do, then? Organize. Build up parallel structures that take the place of existing capitalist mechanisms. Join a party, read theory, and solidify the politically advanced of the working class under one united banner. Build a dedication to the people, defend and platform the indigenous, colonized, queer, disabled, marginalized communities, and unite the broad working class. It is through organization and revolution that we can actually move on into a better world.

If anyone reading wants a place to start with theory, I made an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list, aimed at absolute beginners. Give it a look!

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Without replacing the bourgeois state with a socialist, proletarian one, the ready-made levers for reinforcing the bourgeois mode of production will cause a reversion. The Paris Commune was the first such example of this failure in action.

The Soviet Union was one of the latest. Yeltsin taking office, failing to get his way, and then shelling parliament into surrender being the most prominent example of the failures of electoralism, even in an ostensibly proletarian state.

Gaza also a great instance of the wages of strict electoralism. You rally your people behind a more militant political body (Hamas in 2006) and the end result is your heavily armed neighbors using the results of an election as causa belli. Hell, the American Civil War is another great example, what with a Southern coup government rising up after a Presidential election defeat.

It is through organization and revolution that we can actually move on into a better world.

It gives us a fighting chance, at least. But it is also hard, painful, and requiring enormous self-sacrifice particularly among the early adopters.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Edie@lemmy.ml 19 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

  We are sometimes inclined, I think unwisely, to treat democracy and dictatorship as two mutually exclusive terms, when in actual fact they may often represent two aspects of the same system of government. For example, if we turn to the Encyclopedia Britannica, to the article dealing with “Democracy,” we read: “Democracy is that form of government in which the people rules itself, either directly, as in the small city-states of Greece, or through representatives.”
  But the same writer goes on to say this: “All the people in the city-state did not have the right to participate in government, but only those who were citizens, in the legal and original sense. Outside this charmed circle of the privileged were the slaves, who had no voice whatever in the making of the laws under which they toiled. They had no political and hardly any civil rights; they were not ‘people.’ Thus the democracy of the Greek city-state was in the strict sense no democracy at all.”
  The Greek city-state has been cited time and again by historians as the birthplace of democracy. And yet, on reading the Encyclopedia Britannica, we find that in fact this was a democracy only for a “charmed circle of the privileged,” while the slaves, who did the work of the community, “had no voice whatever in the making of the laws under which they toiled.”
  The classical example of democracy was, then, a democracy only for certain people. For others, for those who did the hard work of the community, it was a dictatorship. At the very birthplace of democracy itself we find that democracy and dictatorship went hand in hand as two aspects of the same political system. To refer to the “democracy” of the Greek city-state without saying for whom this democracy existed is misleading. To describe the democracy of the Greek city-state without pointing out that it could only exist as a result of the toil of the slaves who “had no political and hardly any civil rights” falsifies the real history of the origin of democracy.
  Democracy, then, from its origin, has not precluded the simultaneous existence of dictatorship. The essential question which must be asked, when social systems appear to include elements both of democracy and dictatorship, is, “for whom is there democracy?” and “over whom is there a dictatorship?”

—Pat Sloan, in the Introduction to Soviet Democracy

[–] ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 10 points 1 week ago

Two more quirks of Athenian democracy: Only males were allowed to vote, and soldiers, mostly lower class salarymen, couldn't vote if they were in service.

[–] ShinkanTrain@lemmy.ml 17 points 1 week ago

In bourgeois 'democracy', electoralism serves to legitimize and perpetuate the interests of the ruling class. Should laborers become the ruling class, I don't have a problem with it doing the same.

[–] taiyang@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Seeing CA propositions get rigged with misinformation and tricky language suggests to me that direct democracy might also not work without proper safeguards.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] School_Lunch@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I struggle to find the points in your posts. Yes capitalism has a great many problems. I agree about doing something about it, but are you also suggesting democracy is bad?

[–] dessalines@lemmy.ml 17 points 1 week ago (11 children)

Bourgeios "democracy" isn't actually a people's democracy, even though its sold as one. Its really an oligarchy/aristocracy/capitalist dictatorship.

We shouldn't allow capitalists to define democracy as bourgeios parliamentarism, especially when that form of government works against the interests of the vast majority of people.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 16 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Liberal democracy isn't democratic, and electoralism as a means of systemic change doesn't work. Socialist democracy does work, and delivers far higher rates of approval and perceptions of democracy being effective.

[–] School_Lunch@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I think I agree with you, but your messaging could use some work. I feel like most people who aren't already in the same groups as you might struggle with the terms you use. It might be simpler to say "capitalism corrupts democracy" because my original read of the post made it seem like its anti democracy.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 week ago

It's not really that capitalism "corrupts" democracy, it's that all states serve the ruling class, and the political formation reinforces that. Capitalist democracy is democracy for capitalists, dictatorship for workers. In a socialist state, the political power is held by the workers, it becomes democracy for the working class and dictatorship for capitalists, landlords, etc.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›