SlAvA UkrAnI!

  • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    4 hours ago

    Elections are not indicative of democracy. The fact that capital is what determines which parties are viable, what candidates are allowed to run, and controls the entire economy means that elections in capitalism are more of a pressure valve than an actual way to get your voice across. Capitalism is incompatible with working class democracy.

    • unknownuserunknownlocation@kbin.earth
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 hours ago

      How the hell are elections not indicative of democracy? I mean, just because you have elections doesn’t mean you have a proper democracy (e.g. if there is only one party available), but how those elections are run says a lot. They’re the core of any democracy. Democracy is, by definition, the people being ruled by the people. So you need some form of governance that is accountable to the people.

      And capital is far from the only thing that determines if parties are viable. Yes, it plays too much of a role (especially in the US, but there are many western countries that aren’t the US), but let’s not pretend it’s some mysterious being that decides everything. That ignores so many important factors.

      • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        31 minutes ago

        Elections aren’t democracy, as you said democracy is rule by the majority. Pluralism, the ability to choose between parties, isn’t actually democracy either. A single party system can be more democratic if it’s a consultative democracy and reflects the will of the majority, like how it works in China (though China obviously has many, many elections). That also doesn’t mean pluralism is inherently antidemocratic, countries like the DPRK have multiple political parties with seats (even if the majority are held by the WPK), just that the will of the majority be upheld.

        In capitalism, a tiny class of people controls the most essential means of production and distribution for society. The state represents their interests, and any parties that exist must represent them, or instead have strong grassroots support and work against the state (such as the Bolsheviks). Choosing between any number of capitalist parties doesn’t mean workers are going to be represented. No western country represents the will of the majority.

      • zbyte64@awful.systems
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 hour ago

        Capitalism is not some mysterious being, its a phenomenon and it is fundamentally incompatible with democracy. If the workplace was democratized then you would not have capitalism.