A wrought iron sledge hammer and a plastic toy hammer are both hammers yet they are qualitatively different. Liberal democracy and Socialist democracy are both a democracy yet are qualitatively different.
Again, with the “two separate hammers” analogy. They are the same hammer. You just can just use it for more than one purpose. How you use it, determines whether it’s “good” or “bad”.
What happens after you’ve destroyed “capitalist democracy” and replaced it with “socialist democracy”…and then someone learns how to exploit the system again? Do you destroy it all over again, and make a new one? Again? And then again, again? And then again, again, again?
At some point, would you not realize that it’s not democracy that’s flawed? Or would you just keep destroying it over and over again, expecting different results?
You’re treating democracy as class-neutral. That’s wrong. There is no abstract “democracy” floating above society, every democracy expresses class power. Liberal democracy is the dictatorship of capital: private ownership, capital controls media and institutions, and workers can vote forever without ever voting away exploitation. Socialist democracy is the dictatorship of the proletariat: bourgeois property is abolished, exploiters are politically suppressed, and the working class holds state power. Same word, different class rule. Not “the same hammer used differently,” but qualitatively different systems.
And your “what if someone exploits it again?” question just proves the point. Yes, class struggle continues under socialism. When new bourgeois elements emerge, you suppress them. That’s exactly what proletarian dictatorship exists for. Socialism isn’t a one-time constitutional tweak; it’s an ongoing process of fighting capitalist restoration.
Democracy is class neutral. It is a tool. Nothing more. It is a system that can be structured in any number of ways, for a huge variety of different purposes. It is not an “it” that you can destroy and replace with another one. Democracy is just democracy. The easiest way to change how it is used, is to put someone else in charge of using it. And guess what? Democracy, by its very nature, allows you to do that. That’s literally what it’s for.
But, as long as you keep anthropomorphizing it with your own moral biases, you will never understand how to use it. It will always be a tool that inevitably gets used against you.
You keep describing it like it’s some kind of dragon in a cave, that needs to be defeated in order for you to be free. I’m trying to explain to you, that it is actually the very mechanism that can free you…as long as you understand how to use it for your own purposes.
(Edit…sorry, I thought you were the other guy. My point still stands)
You’re still wrong. “Democracy” is not some floating, neutral mechanism that anyone can simply take over. It exists inside a state, and every state has a class character. Under capitalism, democracy operates through bourgeois property relations, bourgeois courts, bourgeois media, and bourgeois control of production. That means capital rules no matter who you vote for. Workers cannot vote away private ownership of the means of production. That’s why Marxists call it the dictatorship of capital.
Saying “just put someone else in charge” ignores how power actually works. The bourgeoisie doesn’t politely surrender its property because a ballot box asked nicely. Socialist democracy only becomes possible after that class power is broken, after bourgeois ownership is abolished and exploiters are politically suppressed. That’s not “using the same tool differently.” That’s a different state, serving a different class.
And no, democracy doesn’t magically “free” you by itself. Liberation comes from class struggle. When new bourgeois elements emerge under socialism, they are suppressed, because socialism is an ongoing process of preventing capitalist restoration, not a one-time electoral event. You’re treating democracy as primary and class power as secondary. The opposite is true.
You’re still wrong. “Democracy” is not some floating, neutral mechanism that anyone can simply take over. It exists inside a state, and every state has a class character. Under capitalism, democracy operates through bourgeois property relations, bourgeois courts, bourgeois media, and bourgeois control of production.
I’m not the ones saying that…you are, with everything you just said in that comment. You are portraying “the state” as some separate entity that operates independently from the people within it. But, that isn’t true. Those people make up “the state”. It doesn’t exist without them. So, yes…if you put different people in those positions, you absolutely can “change the state”.
Of course the state is made up of people, but those people operate inside a pre-existing system of property, law, coercion, and institutions. That system doesn’t change just because you swap officeholders. Under capitalism, the courts defend private property, the police protect capital, the media belongs to capital, and the economy is owned by capital. Anyone entering that structure is forced to govern within those limits. That’s why workers can vote forever and still remain exploited.
You keep saying “just put different people in charge,” but history shows what happens when elected governments seriously threaten capitalist ownership: capital flees, investment stops, media turns hostile, courts obstruct, and imperialist pressure mounts until the project is neutralized or overthrown. That’s not theory, that’s how bourgeois power has observably functioned from its inception . Liberal democracy allows rotation of managers, not transfer of class power.
You’re also reversing cause and effect. Democracy doesn’t shape class relations, class relations shape democracy. As long as private ownership of production exists, the state exists to defend it. That’s why bourgeois democracy always resolves crises in favor of capital. It’s structurally designed to.
Real change only begins when exploitative property relations are abolished and the old coercive apparatus is broken and rebuilt to serve the working masses. That’s when democracy stops being a shell and becomes material, because the people control production, not just ballots.
I beg you to please read Lenin, and Chairman Mao you don’t understand what you’re talking about and they have far more extensive writing on this than I can fit into a debate with you on a message board.
No capital isn’t a ghost with a name tag, it’s a material social relation: ownership of production, control of investment, wage labor, and the institutions built to defend them. That’s why elected officials who threaten profits immediately face capital flight, media attacks, legal sabotage, and economic strangulation, among other attacks, regardless of their intentions. You keep reducing structural power to personalities because liberalism can’t think past individuals.
Again I beg read Lenin and Chairman Mao, looks into what was done to Aellende Sankara and Lumumba. Until you understand that class power determines the state (not vibes and ballots) you’re just repeating liberal talking points and it’s not worth continuing this.
Nobody is saying democracy itself is bad, but that democracy in the context of capitalism isn’t really democratic. Socialist democracy works, and does so far better than democracy in capitalist systems at achieving results for the working classes. We expect democracy to work differently in socialism because this is observably true.
How is it “observably true” that it “works differently in socialism”? Do you not still elect people to represent you in government? Do you not still vote on issues that matter in your community? Are you not still expected to participate in the process, in order for it to function? Do you not still use it to replace leaders that don’t represent your views?
Nothing about democracy itself, fundamentally changes, just because you call it “socialist democracy” instead of “capitalist democracy”.
What changes is that society, rather than being run by capitalists and for capitalists, becomes run by the working classes, and the state acts in their interests. This is reflected in policy. You have a metaphysical way of thinking that sees systems as being capable of understanding devoid of the context they exist in, as static, and in a vacuum, ie an impossible fantasy.
A wrought iron sledge hammer and a plastic toy hammer are both hammers yet they are qualitatively different. Liberal democracy and Socialist democracy are both a democracy yet are qualitatively different.
Again, with the “two separate hammers” analogy. They are the same hammer. You just can just use it for more than one purpose. How you use it, determines whether it’s “good” or “bad”.
What happens after you’ve destroyed “capitalist democracy” and replaced it with “socialist democracy”…and then someone learns how to exploit the system again? Do you destroy it all over again, and make a new one? Again? And then again, again? And then again, again, again?
At some point, would you not realize that it’s not democracy that’s flawed? Or would you just keep destroying it over and over again, expecting different results?
You’re treating democracy as class-neutral. That’s wrong. There is no abstract “democracy” floating above society, every democracy expresses class power. Liberal democracy is the dictatorship of capital: private ownership, capital controls media and institutions, and workers can vote forever without ever voting away exploitation. Socialist democracy is the dictatorship of the proletariat: bourgeois property is abolished, exploiters are politically suppressed, and the working class holds state power. Same word, different class rule. Not “the same hammer used differently,” but qualitatively different systems.
And your “what if someone exploits it again?” question just proves the point. Yes, class struggle continues under socialism. When new bourgeois elements emerge, you suppress them. That’s exactly what proletarian dictatorship exists for. Socialism isn’t a one-time constitutional tweak; it’s an ongoing process of fighting capitalist restoration.
You should really read Chairman Mao and Lenin.
Democracy is class neutral. It is a tool. Nothing more. It is a system that can be structured in any number of ways, for a huge variety of different purposes. It is not an “it” that you can destroy and replace with another one. Democracy is just democracy. The easiest way to change how it is used, is to put someone else in charge of using it. And guess what? Democracy, by its very nature, allows you to do that. That’s literally what it’s for.
But, as long as you keep anthropomorphizing it with your own moral biases, you will never understand how to use it. It will always be a tool that inevitably gets used against you.
You keep describing it like it’s some kind of dragon in a cave, that needs to be defeated in order for you to be free. I’m trying to explain to you, that it is actually the very mechanism that can free you…as long as you understand how to use it for your own purposes.
(Edit…sorry, I thought you were the other guy. My point still stands)
You’re still wrong. “Democracy” is not some floating, neutral mechanism that anyone can simply take over. It exists inside a state, and every state has a class character. Under capitalism, democracy operates through bourgeois property relations, bourgeois courts, bourgeois media, and bourgeois control of production. That means capital rules no matter who you vote for. Workers cannot vote away private ownership of the means of production. That’s why Marxists call it the dictatorship of capital.
Saying “just put someone else in charge” ignores how power actually works. The bourgeoisie doesn’t politely surrender its property because a ballot box asked nicely. Socialist democracy only becomes possible after that class power is broken, after bourgeois ownership is abolished and exploiters are politically suppressed. That’s not “using the same tool differently.” That’s a different state, serving a different class.
And no, democracy doesn’t magically “free” you by itself. Liberation comes from class struggle. When new bourgeois elements emerge under socialism, they are suppressed, because socialism is an ongoing process of preventing capitalist restoration, not a one-time electoral event. You’re treating democracy as primary and class power as secondary. The opposite is true.
I’m not the ones saying that…you are, with everything you just said in that comment. You are portraying “the state” as some separate entity that operates independently from the people within it. But, that isn’t true. Those people make up “the state”. It doesn’t exist without them. So, yes…if you put different people in those positions, you absolutely can “change the state”.
Of course the state is made up of people, but those people operate inside a pre-existing system of property, law, coercion, and institutions. That system doesn’t change just because you swap officeholders. Under capitalism, the courts defend private property, the police protect capital, the media belongs to capital, and the economy is owned by capital. Anyone entering that structure is forced to govern within those limits. That’s why workers can vote forever and still remain exploited.
You keep saying “just put different people in charge,” but history shows what happens when elected governments seriously threaten capitalist ownership: capital flees, investment stops, media turns hostile, courts obstruct, and imperialist pressure mounts until the project is neutralized or overthrown. That’s not theory, that’s how bourgeois power has observably functioned from its inception . Liberal democracy allows rotation of managers, not transfer of class power.
You’re also reversing cause and effect. Democracy doesn’t shape class relations, class relations shape democracy. As long as private ownership of production exists, the state exists to defend it. That’s why bourgeois democracy always resolves crises in favor of capital. It’s structurally designed to.
Real change only begins when exploitative property relations are abolished and the old coercive apparatus is broken and rebuilt to serve the working masses. That’s when democracy stops being a shell and becomes material, because the people control production, not just ballots.
I beg you to please read Lenin, and Chairman Mao you don’t understand what you’re talking about and they have far more extensive writing on this than I can fit into a debate with you on a message board.
So…is this “Capital” in the room with us, right now? Is it wearing a name tag that says, “Hello. My name is Capital”?
Is Capital really running the whole system? Or is it the people we choose to put in charge of that system?
No capital isn’t a ghost with a name tag, it’s a material social relation: ownership of production, control of investment, wage labor, and the institutions built to defend them. That’s why elected officials who threaten profits immediately face capital flight, media attacks, legal sabotage, and economic strangulation, among other attacks, regardless of their intentions. You keep reducing structural power to personalities because liberalism can’t think past individuals.
Again I beg read Lenin and Chairman Mao, looks into what was done to Aellende Sankara and Lumumba. Until you understand that class power determines the state (not vibes and ballots) you’re just repeating liberal talking points and it’s not worth continuing this.
Nobody is saying democracy itself is bad, but that democracy in the context of capitalism isn’t really democratic. Socialist democracy works, and does so far better than democracy in capitalist systems at achieving results for the working classes. We expect democracy to work differently in socialism because this is observably true.
How is it “observably true” that it “works differently in socialism”? Do you not still elect people to represent you in government? Do you not still vote on issues that matter in your community? Are you not still expected to participate in the process, in order for it to function? Do you not still use it to replace leaders that don’t represent your views?
Nothing about democracy itself, fundamentally changes, just because you call it “socialist democracy” instead of “capitalist democracy”.
What changes is that society, rather than being run by capitalists and for capitalists, becomes run by the working classes, and the state acts in their interests. This is reflected in policy. You have a metaphysical way of thinking that sees systems as being capable of understanding devoid of the context they exist in, as static, and in a vacuum, ie an impossible fantasy.