Lately i notice allot of people on the left supporting democracy when did this change happen?

it's like the left and right have flipped on this lately it's like the twilight zone.

The right wing has never supported either actual democracy or "democracy", the right wing are there to syphon discontent into creating a movement to install another government form other than democracy that protects the interest of capital.
Any claim by a right winger that they "protect democracy" is a sham.

Since always?

...

Lol, the fashies have just got more brazen

what is happening in France is democracy fault is it too much to ask for the death of democracy.

LOL

you think what is happening to those people is funny.

That's only going to create a system where the people in charge of deciding who's 'educated" and who isn't are going to have massive and undue power.
Systems based on qualified elites have always lead to massive inequality and eventual failure for this specific reason. They inherently reward nepotism and corruption.

That can't be true because with maybe one or two minor exceptions all communist regimes have been the result of violent and extremely bloody revolution.
Neither the left nor right are inherently imperialistic nor benevolent(kek), if anything my general impression of communists has been that of self-serving hypocrisy and a selfish disregard for the wishes and opinions of others. Sperg out all you want, you know this is the case for most lefties out there.

You're also implying that imperialism can't be benevolent which I disagree with entirely. We believe our ideas are the best, we see that inferior ideas are causing suffering elsewhere in the world, thus we seek to -first peacefully and then not so - spread our ideas and influence in the process exponentially benefiting our own native populations.

Over time and appropriate assimilation Imperialism can be far better than "letting everyone just do their own thing" and can certainly better serve the cause of progress and broader good.

In the end, some people just can't govern them selves. Or at least so the argument goes, personally I have nothing against imperialism itself(indeed I believe all countries should strive towards it and the conflict it brings), what I have plenty against is the corruption of national interests to be antagonistic towards the nation and beneficial to private interest groups and abusive individuals.

Democracy is quite specifically an institution, namely, it's the direct involvement of the masses in the decision making process of the country through voting. That is to say, rule by majority consensus.

It's not a perfect institution but in it's representative, republican form it has led to the least amount of suffering and the most amount of general good of all other systems to date.
It is, however, highly reliant on decentralization of power and a strong national spirit to protect from corruption.

Being honest they did vote for the people currently screwing them over.

fucking liberal.

Anarchist-tier mentality. It was either crypto-fascist Le Pen or Macron. Don’t forget the bourgeois ideological hegemony in influencing their thinking

i notice the mods don't rename the word DEMOCRACY why is that?

Sorry, I don't talk to people who can't speak English correctly

So you honestly believe the right is lying to protect capital instead of being fervently inspired by Democratic and Republican philosophers and their works?

Which has been worse in your opinion?

You don't know what imperialism is. Hint: It isn't simply invading a country and changing it's government.

Macron was a better choice than Le Pen

Only like 20% voted for Macron first round, you can't blame them for voting for him over Le Pen.

Here is macron on his true democracy.
cnn.com/videos/us/2018/04/25/macron-congress-address-fake-news-sot.cnn

Macron on democracy.
youtube.com/watch?v=gDmHzcCdjug

macron on democracy in the arab-spring.
youtube.com/watch?v=lMIho-5x9x0

It was more like 40% iirc, but he had the shill media and so on on his side so it is what it is.

meh it was Le Pen 2017 v. Le Pen 2022. They should've accelerated the destruction and voted her in.

a guy that supported the Syrian war LOL

Well, the very thing you described is not an institution, but a property of a society:
A society whose collective decision-making is aligned with the opinions of majority, and, consequently, pursues the interests of majority.

While many Western societies tend to be comparatively democratic, it is in spite of Liberal representative institutions, not because of them. The latter trend towards oligarchizing of society, and empowering of Capitalist oligarchy as an uncompromising ruling class of society.

Voting for a fascist is never the answer. I bet you think voting Trump was smart

It was 24%

Marine Lepen isn't fascist, and her agenda is pretty OK

No.

Yeah I don't agree
Does this board support Macron combining France and Germany into a new state?

Attached: etat-democratie-en-france-1.jpg (568x844, 79.34K)

Trump is retarded just like all democrats ie democracats.

Wow, Zig Forums supports anti-immigrant crypto-fascism now?

democratic means democracy how stupid are you.

LePen's platform would benefit the people of France a little bit, Macron is the true accelerationist candidate (as we are now seeing)

What's crypto-fascism? This sounds like a nonsense word to describe liberal authoritarian capitalism
in which case how would Le Pen be faring any different from Macron

Communism IS democracy. Workers deciding on issues through councils and then sending delegates up through a federation of communes is one model that crops up a lot. Even the end of private property is itself just the extension of democracy to the economic realm, and the arrival of "to each according to his needs" means no one can use hierarchical difference in the amount of money they have amassed from capital to buy more goods. Communism is the supreme of democracy.

Your confusion stems from the fact that A: we hate FAKE liberal democracy that is merely the democracy of the bourgeoisie to manage their common affairs while they seperately run economic dictatorships (THAT'S WHAT A BUSINESS IS), and B: historical communist movements relying on vanguard parties to guide the working class and at times using undemocratic methods. This is usually excused as being transitional since pure communism can only exist when there is enough productive advancement for it, but your mileage may vary depending on whether you are a vanguardist of various stripes or an anarcho-communism. Apart from that, the end goal - communism - is the most democratic thing possible. That's what makes it not tyranny, because no one impoverishes workers by witholding what has been produced from them. All are able to flourish and all are able to be involved in the process of governance which stems from the lowest level upwards, in a TRUE representative system.

Google it, nigger, it's not like I made up the term

Damn I didn't realise it was so close.

Why can't we have direct democracy already so the 24% could just change their mind when they realised Macron was a 'jupiterian' nutjob?

Attached: macron quick rundown.png (960x3650, 3.45M)

First off, the day-to-day management of large-scale organizations will ALWAYS be managed by a minority. Whether they are selected by appointment, election, or sortition, this fact remains true. The whole of society can not be involved in government every single day. At best, maybe a few times a year to involve themselves with the most important issues.

So the question is not whether to have a small group in charge or not, it is how to control them. This is done, as every brainlet knows, by minimizing their responsibilities and strictly limiting their terms of service. (perhaps even as low as one year, and selected by sortition in the case of Classical Athens)

At the end of the day your reply to me was totally unrelated to anything I said and you look like a schizo retard so be happy I bothered to reply at all, bitch.

OwO what is this?
Le Pen isn't antiimmigrant Fun fact: she is overwhelmingly supported by naturalized immigrants. She is anti-immigration, and so is any orthodox Marxism: for uncontrolled immigration ruins it for everyone involved, except the Porky.

to me it sounds like Zig Forums needs to read up on how stupid democracy is and what politic term are used for it today.

Read Lenin

Well, quote it then, big guy. The USSR (and all Orthodox Marxist states) had maximum restricted immigration, not only external but internal as well.

That doesn't discredit anything I've said.

You're implying that this was the only choice when it wasn't. People chose this and it's what they got.
I didn't advocate for non-participation either, don't assume things I never said. It doesn't make me wrong, it just makes you a faggot.

I know precisely what Imperialism is, faggot, and "invading a country and changing it's government" is a good way to describe most of it.
It's the exercise of one nation's will over another, and that's not always a bad thing(certainly for the victor).

I can and I am. Macron and Le Pen were never the only choices, they weren't even the only candidates. The French people made this mess happen, they are not blameless.

The people are never blameless, they are always principally at fault.

It is though, it's a legally defined, enforced and administrated system. This makes it an institution.

Voting for Trump(not that I could vote in the US) was funny. In truth, as far as American politicians are concerned, my sympathies always go to the Libertarians.

Not because I'm particularly sympathetic to their politics, I have plenty of problems with them, but because as a general measure they're the least corrupt and the most sincere in terms of the politics they pursue.
Maybe that's just because they're not significantly powerful, but it is the case for now.

Think about it, the alternatives there were 17 shades of corporatist slime, the Clinton abomination, McHip Socialist Bro and a man who, in his earliest days of office, referred to another national leader as "rocket man".

Trump was the best choice because it's a 24/7 meme factory and it makes all the retards ree. Even Zig Forums doesn't like him anymore, it's glorious.

Marine is basically Hillary except she calls herself a "conservative". So pretty much Theresa May or Mutti.

Cool, the problem is that you're placing the qualifier of "educated" there which massively alters the formula.
It's a simple question of who decides what's "educated", because that person or group of people are, by default, going to have immense and undue power.

Simply stating "government is always run by a relative minority" is Zig Forums tier "muh in group preference". It's a non-point. You're not saying anything here.

lying to yourself is still lying

Zig Forums needs to learn that the rule of law is far, far more important than democracy or bullshit elections in making sure a government operates with reason and competence.

Sargon you need to get off the internet.

rule of law are you a satanist or a boot licker.

Yep. And it doesn't make such an institution a democracy. The same society with the same institution may be more or less democratic, or not democratic at all.

I agree with Hume that reason is inferior to passion. But that doesn't mean we should throw reason out the fucking window. And when a government throws away it's laws, it is ruling solely by passion.

How could the rule of law ever be upheld in a non-democracy?

By having laws. I hate to inform you of this but laws have existed for millennia even though literally almost every society in history has been ruled by a minority-elite.

If you're going to reply to me, at least do me the favor of defining what you mean by "democracy." That term has been used to lump together all different kinds of government that have little in common.

Nigger we're specifically talking about democracy as a system of governance. You're trying awfully hard just so you don't admit you were wrong on a relatively minute thing.

You don't even have to admit it to me, admit it to yourself and move on.

Sorry, mate, I'm not seeing it.

What law, who's law, to what end and for what purpose? This just reads as "I don't like that other people are allowed to disagree with me", you should've grown out of that phase by age 5 user.

Pure idealism. The class character of a state has nothing to do with the ideology supposedly upheld by a ruling class, but the material interests of that ruling class. Unless the working class governs collectively in their own interest (ie proletarian democracy) you will descend into revisionism.

We're not talking about democracy now, I agree it has many less than ideal forms, but I'd like to hear what your form of autocracy is that isn't vulnerable to leaders or the elite simply choosing to ignore whatever laws they like with no repercussions.

You are clearly confused by what is meant by the term "rule of law." Which is pretty funny. Only books can cure your brainletism, unfortunately.

Dude what is up with batshit schizophrenics replying to me tonight? How the hell can you look at your post and genuinely believe this is a coherent debunking of anything I said?

I would totally be down to see working people establish a government for themselves, like every communist. Now please explain why exactly you think I didn't believe this?

Well there are no real autocracies, and this has never been more true than in the modern day where a head-of-state trying to take over the reigns of government would be 100x more swamped with responsibilities than he would have been a few centuries ago.

Not sure why exactly you think I'm in favor of autocracy, a term I never even mentioned ITT, but I'm not wholly against the concept of a political strongman as I think it can be the sole source of unity in societies that are sorely lacking in direction. But ideally it would not be necessary.
Autocracy is by definition directly contrasted to the rule of law. One man cannot make himself follow the law, only when power is shared in a republic can it exist. This principle holds true no matter how many people are participating in the republic.

Being honest, this can very easily lead to a situation where short-sighted, short term security is sought at the expense entirely foreseeable and massively disastrous consequences.
I speak from experience, a lot of the syndicates in my country were absolutely ruined by this sort of short-term thinking and a lot of industries were completely tanked as well.
You'll always need a guiding hand just as you'll always need that hand's power checked by answerability to the masses. Otherwise very little is going to be done in favor of long term progress and goals and vast sectors of society will be completely abandoned because they lack immediate, material appeal.
My grandad was a red partisan back in WW2, and later a teacher. He said "The proles care about two things, jobs and welfare, the administratives care only about their jobs and the politicians care only about their own welfare. Nobody cares Academy of Arts and Sciences which is why it's full of literary illiterates, nuclear physicals and onion farmers".

As a note, in my language we use something similar to "physicals" to mean people who work as unskilled manual labor, it's very close to "physicists" and this kind of word play is pretty common.

You really can't get away with it one way or the other.

Enlighten me, faggot. What do you mean when you say "rule of law"? Be very specific.

You know that by saying stupid shit like this you are basically upholding the strawman of marxism-leninism, right? You have been told ML is literally blanquism and you've taken it to heart. Instead ML actually has a liberatory nature with some harsh pragmatism.
Ideally, a communist society is able to function in such a way that the proletariat is able to represent its class interests through well functioning democratic institutions. Basically, communism shouldn't have to depend on commited communists to work.

Alright, queer. Although I think I've already made it abundantly clear in my other posts. I understand the rule of law to be the limiting of the reach of individuals by strictly defining their responsibilities (what they do, and for how long) in legal code. This is in contrast to despotism, where the rule of arbitrary decree prevails and officials can act as they see fit. I have no idea why this elementary principle of government has caused so much controversy. Blame brainletism I guess.

Oh cool, so what was all that about "bullshit democracy" and "bullshit elections"?
By the way that still doesn't answer the simple questions of "what, why, who's and to what end?".

leftists have always been the ones looking for more progressive forms of government that give more power to common people, rightists have always encouraged regression and hierarchy, no right-wing screeching will be able to change this historical fact