It’s one of the more subtle propaganda narratives I find. On the surface it almost makes sense, but once you apply materialist analysis the whole thing falls apart because the whole discussion of democracy is meaningless when the means of production are privately owned. This arrangement takes away from public debate the key question of who governs our common economic life and to what ends?
Genuine democracy must include the power to shape the material conditions of our existence. The nature of labour, the distribution of its fruits, and the purpose for which we can produce are fundamental decisions we make as a society. When these are decided by a capitalist class alone with the absolute authority of private property, then political democracy becomes merely an ornamental competition on secondary issues. Citizens vote to choose politicians, but not regarding the structure of industry or finance, or the necessity for maximum profit which places all social and ecological considerations in a subordinate position. This creates an inherent contradiction where citizens are called equals politically, yet remain subordinates economically.
Any system where there is a private dictatorship over industry is not democracy but a carefully staged charade which legitimises the rule of money through the hollow ritual of elections. So you can have as many parties as you like, but there’s no actual democracy to be had.
Agreed, my point is that it’s helpful to explain that rather than jumping to insult right off the bat. Bloodsport is fun and all, but at the bare minimum I think it’s helpful to showcase why the point is bad, not just claiming that it’s bad. I know it isn’t as fun, and we do explain time and time again, but that’s the task we have as communists, to help bring the working class to more correct ideological lines.
Fair, I should work on being a bit more patient. It’s just so tiring when people keep regurgitating these same tropes that have already been addressed time and again. Kudos on your patience dealing with this sort of stuff and actually explaining things.
Believe me, I sympathize with the monotony of dispelling the same myths and tropes regularly. It’s why I usually reference prior comments of mine before making a bespoke comment or post, and tweak to better suit the context, similar to what you do. I’m a firm believer that simply explaining and refusing to take cheap rhetorical wins results in long-term ideological cohesion in internet communities, raising the general average understanding of those who use these forums, and results in reduced work load in the long run by increasing the number of people that can actually respond well.
It’s one of the more subtle propaganda narratives I find. On the surface it almost makes sense, but once you apply materialist analysis the whole thing falls apart because the whole discussion of democracy is meaningless when the means of production are privately owned. This arrangement takes away from public debate the key question of who governs our common economic life and to what ends?
Genuine democracy must include the power to shape the material conditions of our existence. The nature of labour, the distribution of its fruits, and the purpose for which we can produce are fundamental decisions we make as a society. When these are decided by a capitalist class alone with the absolute authority of private property, then political democracy becomes merely an ornamental competition on secondary issues. Citizens vote to choose politicians, but not regarding the structure of industry or finance, or the necessity for maximum profit which places all social and ecological considerations in a subordinate position. This creates an inherent contradiction where citizens are called equals politically, yet remain subordinates economically.
Any system where there is a private dictatorship over industry is not democracy but a carefully staged charade which legitimises the rule of money through the hollow ritual of elections. So you can have as many parties as you like, but there’s no actual democracy to be had.
Agreed, my point is that it’s helpful to explain that rather than jumping to insult right off the bat. Bloodsport is fun and all, but at the bare minimum I think it’s helpful to showcase why the point is bad, not just claiming that it’s bad. I know it isn’t as fun, and we do explain time and time again, but that’s the task we have as communists, to help bring the working class to more correct ideological lines.
Fair, I should work on being a bit more patient. It’s just so tiring when people keep regurgitating these same tropes that have already been addressed time and again. Kudos on your patience dealing with this sort of stuff and actually explaining things.
Believe me, I sympathize with the monotony of dispelling the same myths and tropes regularly. It’s why I usually reference prior comments of mine before making a bespoke comment or post, and tweak to better suit the context, similar to what you do. I’m a firm believer that simply explaining and refusing to take cheap rhetorical wins results in long-term ideological cohesion in internet communities, raising the general average understanding of those who use these forums, and results in reduced work load in the long run by increasing the number of people that can actually respond well.