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.
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.