Three solution is a democratic regime, where nobody can become like them.
The regimes that the bourgeoisie established after their revolutions were ostensibly democratic. Even now the imperialist bourgeois regimes call themselves democratic, however hollow that is shown to be with even a cursory investigation. “Just make a democracy” is a pretty useless approach if you’re not looking at the relations of classes in a society. “Democratic” or not, states are made by whatever the ruling class is to preserve their interests and prevent class contradictions from pulling a society that benefits them apart.
Democracy does remove the ruling class. Its aim is fundamentally the same as socialism.
IMO the only difference between democracy and socialism advocates is the preferred method of achieving a classless society.
Your wording implies that you see democracy and socialism as mutually exclusive approaches to the same goal. However, they aren’t mutually exclusive. Previous and existing socialist societies are quite democratic. While I still need to look further into the ways specific socialist states are organized, I think a good recent case study for this is Cuba’s family code.
So that will become a legal document? It will be an enforceable code?
But it’s being drafted in a Libyan-style democratic process?
If so that’s a great experiment. You who understands it, what do you think the western pro-democracy movement (for example the quite powerful one in France) can learn from this?
So that will become a legal document? It will be an enforceable code?
From what I understand.
If so that’s a great experiment. You who understands it, what do you think the western pro-democracy movement (for example the quite powerful one in France) can learn from this?
I’m no expert on this, just aware of that recent development in Cuba, so take what I say with a grain of salt.
I guess if I were to tie the French and Cuban revolution and the meme together, organizing society in the interests of most people when society is currently in control of a ruling minority requires to some extent going outside of the law and governmentally approved political institutions, and may even necessitate organized violence.
This doesn’t mean people should be immediately pushing for armed revolution, and it especially doesn’t mean that people should do random acts of terror against the rich and powerful, however satisfying that might be. The left in the west is nowhere near strong and organized enough to pull off the former, and the latter accomplishes nothing and pushes people away from the movement. Still, organizing workplaces and communities to meet material needs that the bosses and state aren’t meeting and spreading class consciousness will go further than trying to vote a few progressive members into the existing bourgeoisie state’s institutions because for the latter the game is rigged against you so that the only victories you can get are temporary concessions that get clawed back from you.
Considering much of the imperial periphery is escaping U.S. dominance, it’s going to be increasingly harder for U.S. and friends to sustaining themselves on cheap labor and resources from the imperial periphery, more people are going to be driven into precarious positions and kept there by means of state violence, and eventually the guillotine approach is going to look less like the fantasies of violent madmen and more like the only viable option to getting out of an unbearable situation.
If you guillotine them, you will become them.
Just look what happened in France.
Three solution is a democratic regime, where nobody can become like them.
What happened in France was that after they declared their revolution, a coalition of 7 European countries tried to invade them.
How do you propose a fledgling revolutionary state defend itself and its revolution without using violence?
Wtf do you mean by “democratic regime?”
The regimes that the bourgeoisie established after their revolutions were ostensibly democratic. Even now the imperialist bourgeois regimes call themselves democratic, however hollow that is shown to be with even a cursory investigation. “Just make a democracy” is a pretty useless approach if you’re not looking at the relations of classes in a society. “Democratic” or not, states are made by whatever the ruling class is to preserve their interests and prevent class contradictions from pulling a society that benefits them apart.
Yes “ostensibly”. They are “representative” democracies. The “representative” qualifier is because they are not true democracies.
Democracy does remove the ruling class. Its aim is fundamentally the same as socialism.
IMO the only difference between democracy and socialism advocates is the preferred method of achieving a classless society.
Your wording implies that you see democracy and socialism as mutually exclusive approaches to the same goal. However, they aren’t mutually exclusive. Previous and existing socialist societies are quite democratic. While I still need to look further into the ways specific socialist states are organized, I think a good recent case study for this is Cuba’s family code.
So that will become a legal document? It will be an enforceable code?
But it’s being drafted in a Libyan-style democratic process?
If so that’s a great experiment. You who understands it, what do you think the western pro-democracy movement (for example the quite powerful one in France) can learn from this?
From what I understand.
I’m no expert on this, just aware of that recent development in Cuba, so take what I say with a grain of salt.
I guess if I were to tie the French and Cuban revolution and the meme together, organizing society in the interests of most people when society is currently in control of a ruling minority requires to some extent going outside of the law and governmentally approved political institutions, and may even necessitate organized violence.
This doesn’t mean people should be immediately pushing for armed revolution, and it especially doesn’t mean that people should do random acts of terror against the rich and powerful, however satisfying that might be. The left in the west is nowhere near strong and organized enough to pull off the former, and the latter accomplishes nothing and pushes people away from the movement. Still, organizing workplaces and communities to meet material needs that the bosses and state aren’t meeting and spreading class consciousness will go further than trying to vote a few progressive members into the existing bourgeoisie state’s institutions because for the latter the game is rigged against you so that the only victories you can get are temporary concessions that get clawed back from you.
Considering much of the imperial periphery is escaping U.S. dominance, it’s going to be increasingly harder for U.S. and friends to sustaining themselves on cheap labor and resources from the imperial periphery, more people are going to be driven into precarious positions and kept there by means of state violence, and eventually the guillotine approach is going to look less like the fantasies of violent madmen and more like the only viable option to getting out of an unbearable situation.
Thanks that’s interesting.