The New York Times: Elections Are Bad for Democracy
(web.archive.org)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (50)
sorted by:
As a reminder, this is what happened every time that the Socialists lost an election. (Suggesting to me they are scared about 2024).
Always remember: voting is unrelated to democracy.
Democracy is about "the people's state". The people's will can only be determined by the government. According to Rousseau, the final and true form of Democracy is something that is effectively a Fascist state. The state are the people, and the people are the state. So long as "The General Will" is represented, in whatever form, that is considered Democratic. The suspension of all further elections, and the use of unlimited violence, terrorism, and coercion are moral imperatives to maintaining The General Will, thus maintaining Democracy.
This is why every time the Fabian or Democratic Socialists would try to vote in Communism or Socialism, they would be rebuked by a proletariat that was far more reactionary that they'd ever believed. Lenin learned this the hard way, lamenting that he couldn't control "Private Capitalism". Trotsky figured out the same thing with what he called "The Petty Bourgeois". That is the lower-middle class, property owning, rural living, gold protecting, gun having, and God worshiping people who just won't "buy-in" to the Communist mindset. The Left trick themselves into thinking they represent everyone, and then are rebuked in an election they thought they were certain to win.
As a response, they absolutely freak the fuck out. Declare that elections and populism are the enemies of Democracy. They demonstrate that Fabians and SocDems are as revolutionarily violent as the most hard-core Maoists, and declare that true Democracy can only exist within the "Dictatorship of the Proletariat", nullify the elections, and use unlimited force to secure their power.