reply to post by lampsalot
I disagree with the following "myths" in this article...
In fact, it is the capitalist system that manipulates and bribes
Manipulation and bribery can happen in any political or economic system.
The mere fact that the elections are always won by representatives of the bourgeois minority makes them unrepresentative.
Says who? If this was the case the guy who receives the most money in an election would win every time, and last I checked the winner of an election
was determined by a majority of voters.
In fact, it is obvious that two-party or multiparty parliamentary system is a one-party system.
Well no that's not a fact, you are are simply asserting that it is. In fact
logic disagrees with you, as two does not equal one, and to assert
that nations like Germany who have over 10 parties with varying different ideologies are truly one party is asinine.
These are two or more factions of one political force, they alternate, mimicking the party with an alternative policy. People always choose an
agent of the system,
So what is your argument here? That political parties must be radically different from one another, and support totally opposite policies? Do you live
in the real world?
The myth that bourgeois parties have different platforms and are even oppositional, is one of the most important, it is constantly discussed
to make the capitalist system work.
Oh so it is a conspiracy? It all makes sense now
"Myth" 8 (by far my favorite):
The politician was granted authority by the people, and can rule at will.
Well you got one part right, authority is granted by the people, but that authority figure cannot "rule at will", there are a number of checks and
balances in effect that prevent this.
The purpose of this myth is to feed the people with empty promises and hide the real measures that will be implemented in practice. In fact,
the elected leader does not fulfill that promise, or, worse, starts to implement undeclared measures, often conflicting and even contradicting the
Again it seems that you fail to think in the context or reality. In reality compromise must be made, and promises even broken. Political policies
should not be preached and practiced as dogma, they are all subject to change depending of the circumstances.
Often such politicians elected by an active minority in the middle of the mandate reach their minimum popularity. In these cases, the loss of
representation does not lead to a change of the politician through constitutional means, but by contrast, leads to the degeneration of capitalist
democracy in the real or disguised dictatorship.
I will agree with you that in modern western political systems unpopular politicians seem to retain their positions quite frequently, however this is
not a fault of capitalism, this is the fault of said politicians constituents. If they would actually get off their lazy behinds, and be politically
active, perhaps something may change.
The systematic practice of falsification of democracy under capitalism is one of the reasons for the increasing number of people who do not go
to the elections.
No but your conjecture of such things may convince people not to go vote, as they might think it is pointless because of the "oppressive capitalist
power", god knows I was convinced by hogwash like yours.
I will give you the main reasons people don't vote right here:
A: They are lazy
B: They don't care
C: They are uneducated on the process
D: They bought into horse manure like yours, which convinces them to say "screw the system man" and then go sit in a field with in a drum circle
which they deem a protest.
In closing I will say that Capitalism is far from perfect, but people like you fail to except that the evil capitalist system does not exist, in fact,
we live in a very mixed economy, which is governed primarily by reason. Now I think there is greed, corruption, and inequality, all of which need to
be addressed, but these things are part of he human condition, there is no one system, or one solution to these problems.
reply to post by TheWrightWing
How do you account for the hundreds of millions starved to death deliberately, under Communism?
Well you could argue that the USSR did not practice Marxism, as they interpreted "the workers owning the means of production" as the state owning
the means of production, which was IMO not Marx's argument.