What are your thoughts on democracy? Are revolutions undemocratic? Should elder people vote...

Attached: 47780c31bbf71b31c0c012a7dc25d7bcddf8fd55e57e6a0b49b7ffa428c6d8a8.png (1188x1736, 1.08M)

fuck off

Democracy is good, but majority rule voting isn't democratic.

Ideally everything would be done by consensus, if reality gets in the way of that large super majorities should be a requirement. If 51% of people feel one way but 49% feel another way the community should split in two.

If representatives are a must, they should be selected at random for short terms, and being one should really suck so no one wants to be one for long.

literally any revolution deserving the name

"True Democracy" has literally never existed.

boo hoo i want a nanny state instead of being lead by an all powerful deity

Attached: 1470326067386.jpg (255x191, 10.26K)

So no revolution deserves the name?

In what scenario do you think China can get 700 Million people revolting?

That kind of thing is rare in reality. The reason you see this with voting is because the (usually only two) options presented are selected specifically to be as divisive as possible and neither will be good solutions. If people actually co-operate to try to find a creative and novel solution to social problems (which are in fact open-ended but can't be addressed that way via representative democracy) it's usually possible to make everyone happy.

people ITT seriously need to read Zizek

read engels

All revolutions up to the present day have resulted in the displacement of one definite class rule by another; all ruling classes up till now have been only minorities as against the ruled mass of the people. A ruling minority was thus overthrown; another minority seized the helm of state and remodeled the state apparatus in accordance with its own interests. This was on every occasion the minority group, able and called to rule by the degree of economic development, and just for that reason, and only for that reason, it happened that the ruled majority either participated in the revolution on the side of the former or else passively acquiesced in it.
…
If, in all the longer revolutionary periods, it was so easy to win the great masses of the people by the merely plausible and delusive views of the minorities thrusting themselves forward, how could they be less susceptible to ideas which were the truest reflex of their economic position, which were nothing but the clear, comprehensible expression of their needs, of needs not yet understood by themselves, but only vaguely felt? To be sure, this revolutionary mood of the masses had almost always, and usually very speedily, given way to lassitude or even to a revulsion to its opposite, so soon as illusion evaporated and disappointment set in.
…
The time of surprise attacks, of revolutions carried through by small conscious minorities at the head of unconscious masses, is past. Where it is a question of a complete transformation of the social organization, the masses themselves must also be in it, must themselves already have grasped what is at stake, what they are going in for [with body and soul]. The history of the last fifty years has taught us that.
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1850/class-struggles-france/intro.htm

illuminate us

``Legal Luck, or, the Loop of the Act`` from ``Living in the End Times`` explains Democracy and revolution far better than I could.

Zizek says people don't want to be involved in every decision their society has to make, they want water to come out of the faucet when they turn the knob and their shit to go away when they flush the toilet, they don't want to care about the intricacies of it. This makes democracy a burden so it shouldn't be held up as highly as it is by many. If some totalitarian organization delivered water to you few would care as long as the water kept flowing.

But I did.
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/10/authority.htm

you're taking it too literally

That's neither here nor there. The OP's question was about revolution and democracy not revolution and authority.

The existence of a kind of revolutionary authority does not negate its democratic nature, nor does it imply that socialists/communists can just ignore democratic politics.

Fuck sociopathic leaders thinking they are more important than anybody else. In a type of people's rule equivelant of a certain multi-cultural Western European country, leaders have no significance, and instead of electing your manipulative dictators, you are voting for your POLICIES.

There are no neutral positions, if a revolution starts you can either support it or resist it. If a revolution succeeds there are more people supporting it than resisting it.

Democracy is only desirable as long as the public is sufficiently motivated to make good decisions. If a majority of people vote to institute racial segregation, is that a good system of governance? If a majority of people vote to deny women the right to vote in the future, is that a good system of governance? If the majority of people vote to invade a neighboring country to annex its resources, is that a good system of governance? Direct democracy is only as good as the voting public is. In a small scale commune, it's probably the ideal system. Scale it up to hundreds of millions where individual accountability approaches zero, it starts to get dangerous fast.

Get rid of democracy entirely. Meritocratic dictatorship is undoubtedly the best system.

This is what the sociopaths want you to believe.
in a society with proper education and no aggressive propaganda, the people will vote responsibly.

it’s also a nonexistent one

Sorry, but that's never going to happen.

In an ideal society laws would be passed via referendum, if a petition get’s a certain amount of signatories than it is one of the issues voted on. At the first of every month each piton with enough signatories is voted on via a referendum, if it gets greater than 50% + 1 of the vote it becomes law. Governmental agencies (Military, Foreign Ministry, Industry) which need leaders are made up of directly elected scientists who are elected via ranked choice voting.

Revolutions are almost always democratic because their revolting against an undemocratic system most of the time. Very few democratic (as in direct democracy) societies have existed thought history.

All successful ones

So if the people vote for something bad what do you suggest a socialist government does, shoot them, if that fails what do you do, bomb them. The reality is that these things are extremely unlikely to happen, and that small chance is just an expectable risk. When a government goes against the majority of it’s citizens, it’s days are numbered.

This is literally my point. I stated that democracy is only as good as the people are. If you have good education and a sufficiently sympathetic populace, democracy is ok.

I suggest they implement a constitutional system where certain rights are protected from democratic decision making that can hurt a minority. You say these things are "extremely unlikely" to happen, but that's completely relative to the populace. Direct democracy in a heavily Islamic population is going to have severely different implications for women and homosexuals than in a highly-educated, a-religious one.

Majority rule voting is not democracy.

Non-universal suffrage is a shit idea since it puts power into fewer and fewer hands. If you live in a society you automatically have skin in the game, regardless of your sex, race, or whether or not you have property.

ah yes, the 100 year old boomer with dementia's voice must be heard
we live in a society

But Capitalism does this for Porkies.

Attached: NotAnArgument.jpg (728x843, 60.16K)

Learn about Lenin's Vanguard Party. Most people are morons and do not deserve the votr.

arguments are so 2016

Of course revolutions are democratic. Democracy is the strength of the people, not just the existence of an electoral system and ballot boxes. Bourgeois democracy is a shame and they only care about the people when election time comes around. A real democracy would be the people in control of society politically, economically, culturally, militarily, etc.

Not a big fun of the "masses"
Buuuuuuuut….From ancient times (citizen councils, clan elders meetings, local nobles talking to the emperor,etc.) the people had direct influence over their leaders ,also as Star wars RoS showed us, it’s actually better to have a senate,boule,wtvr its better as each area has unique culture and environment
So having a house of elected or randomly chosen reps is helpful(and the media people will like it as well)
No, most them need at least 50% of the people to win
But after revolutions political rights are ,correctly, suppressed
Currently no
Yes

Depends what level of education you are talking about
People really need to go through primary school at least, not only does it develop their cognitive skills but also their social ones.
Primary school usually ends at the age of 14, which is a perfect fit with the development of a child in mind.

well i was mostly talking about local elections
But still under socialism everyone will have education

t. sociopath lizards

Quality bait

Why not?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition