Democracy or What's Right?

[al Roumi]

Those are intellectual positions rather than grass-roots understanding.

I disagree. Surely any serious communist would know this... People didn't support Lenin becasue they wanted a democracy, they were more interested in his agenda and policies. Exactly what one thinks when choosing number 2 in your vote...

Democracy does errode support for hard left groups. But when centre-left, or even left groups become successful in democracy, rightist elements respond by shutting down democracy.

yes, in some cases they have, but so have left wing groups. As Stalin so adroitely demonstrates from history, you can be very left wing aswell as being totalitarian and having a warped sense of compassion for human life.

[Idaho]

It's an essay in evasion this thread. Trying to redefine democracy, going off piste entirely with talk of Stalin. And yet no-one has come up with anywhere near the number of democracies overthrown by leftists as democracies overthrown by rightists - in fact so far we haven't had one decent example.

Why not just say "yes, democracies have much more to fear from rightists than leftists" and then we can move on?

[Furunculus]

It's an essay in evasion this thread. Trying to redefine democracy, going off piste entirely with talk of Stalin. And yet no-one has come up with anywhere near the number of democracies overthrown by leftists as democracies overthrown by rightists - in fact so far we haven't had one decent example.

Why not just say "yes, democracies have much more to fear from rightists than leftists" and then we can move on?

i think you're evading, democracy is not a desirable end in itself, it is merely a possible means of achieving representative governance (i.e. the absence of tyranny) for the people. many of the revolutions or coups have been against tyrannical government, or merely unrepresentaive government, to talk of left or right is simply irrelevant except in the context of 20th century history, and even then it had as much to do external influence as internal pressure on either side.

[Idaho]

i think you're evading, democracy is not a desirable end in itself, it is merely a possible means of achieving representative governance (i.e. the absence of tyranny) for the people.

Aha! This is the nub of it. The point of the poll is that democracy is an end in itself. The self governance of the people.

My point was that ignoring the actual wishes of the people and doing what "you" believe is Right is more a trait of the Left, as evidenced by the numerous oppressive and brutal Leftist regimes from Cromwell onwards (Cromwell was "Left" for his period).

Cromwell is left wing? I think you are, er... skating at the limits of conventional thinking there. I suppose he was the antithesis or Toryism* at that time. And as you are a Tory he may well, on reflection, seem left wing. Although once again this isn't germane to the thread as he didn't overturn a democracy.






*Toryism. The belief that "Real England/Britain" is the character of the landowning classes and those who support them.

[Furunculus]

Aha! This is the nub of it. The point of the poll is that democracy is an end in itself. The self governance of the people.

*Toryism. The belief that "Real England/Britain" is the character of the landowning classes and those who support them.

Since i start from the position that the aim of democracy geovernment is to achieve representation of the people the first option; The primacy of public opinion is paramount, make a lot more sense. There have after all been plenty of political systems that claim to be deomocratic without be representaive of the will of the people.

* in your opinion, to me it is the belief that individual freedom is a far healthier position that state imposed freedom.

[al Roumi]

It's an essay in evasion this thread. Trying to redefine democracy, going off piste entirely with talk of Stalin. And yet no-one has come up with anywhere near the number of democracies overthrown by leftists as democracies overthrown by rightists - in fact so far we haven't had one decent example.

Why not just say "yes, democracies have much more to fear from rightists than leftists" and then we can move on?

Essentially, you want to affirm a supposition you have that right wing people & groups are fundamentally undemocratic. I think you are the only person arguing that case in this thread. Furthermore, in the absence of evidence, you want to affirm your own opinion as fact!

Aha! This is the nub of it. The point of the poll is that democracy is an end in itself. The self governance of the people.

I think it is very easy to be confused by what democracy theoretically means and what it is in practice. Exactly as a totalitarian state can be left wing (furthering the interests of the poor/working class) and right wing (preserving the interests of the elite), so can a “democracy”.

Democracy only means a system of election of the people to rule the people. Under no circumstances does it alone ensure representative or responsive governance. To be so fixated on “democracy” as a system is frankly absurd –you don’t have to look far round the world to find corrupt, kleptocratic, un-representative and un-responsive “democratically” elected governments.

The single thing which democratic elections do contribute to representative and responsive governance is a (crude) system of accountability –if you don’t like the incumbent, don’t vote for him again! I say this is a crude system though because elections can be so open to corruption and influence that the accountability can be no more than a fig-leaf for decidedly un-representative, unresponsive and unaccountable governance.

That's an interesting discussion we could have on another thread, but it isn't really material to this thread as Russia was a monarchy, not a democracy.

:wince: As I mentioned above, there was a February revolution before an October one in Russia. The February revolution, supported by the communists, deposed the Tsar’s absolute power and established an elected “democratic” government (middle/upper class dominated). The communists then proceeded to undermine this government and later in the same year provoked the October revolution –deposing the elected democratic government and imposing a communist one.

Stalin wasn't a lefty. He mainly did all he could for personal power and ambition. He wasn't even the leader of Russia (that was Mikhail Kalinin), shows you what he did for his own personal power.

Stalin must, at some level, have been motivated by the interests of the proletariat, ergo left wing. He would also quite clearly have been one to vote “2” in this poll…

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Cromwell is left wing? I think you are, er... skating at the limits of conventional thinking there. I suppose he was the antithesis or Toryism* at that time. And as you are a Tory he may well, on reflection, seem left wing. Although once again this isn't germane to the thread as he didn't overturn a democracy.

*Toryism. The belief that "Real England/Britain" is the character of the landowning classes and those who support them.

I said that Cromwell was left wing, in his time. Cromwell wanted to further the interests of the "Commons" as a group rather than the aristocracy, he also wanted a secularised state (secular in so far as you could pick your flavour of Protestantism) rather than a State-established Church. At the same time, he most certainly did overthrow a democracy whn he desolved Parliament and declared himself "Lord Protector" for life.

Oh, and before you say Parliament was not then democratic, it was but only with a limited franchise. Another example of a despotic regime desposing a democractic one can be seen in Lenin's Communists, as has been noted.

In any case, you sgtill haven't responded to my point that most Leftist revolutions impose Tyrannies instead of Democracies.

[Idaho]

Democracy only means a system of election of the people to rule the people. Under no circumstances does it alone ensure representative or responsive governance. To be so fixated on “democracy” as a system is frankly absurd –you don’t have to look far round the world to find corrupt, kleptocratic, un-representative and un-responsive “democratically” elected governments.

Well that, once again, is a whole other debate, but one more cogent of this thread. Democracy isn't per se about a system of elections. It is "rule by the people". Elections are one method to acheive this via a representative model.

I said that Cromwell was left wing, in his time. Cromwell wanted to further the interests of the "Commons" as a group rather than the aristocracy, he also wanted a secularised state (secular in so far as you could pick your flavour of Protestantism) rather than a State-established Church. At the same time, he most certainly did overthrow a democracy whn he desolved Parliament and declared himself "Lord Protector" for life.

Oh, and before you say Parliament was not then democratic, it was but only with a limited franchise. Another example of a despotic regime desposing a democractic one can be seen in Lenin's Communists, as has been noted.

Those are examples, sure enough. Although, fairly weak ones in terms of antiquity and the nature and establishment of the state that was overthrown.

They compare fairly poorly to Spain in 1936, Greece in the 1970s, Thailand recently, Chile in the 70s, Germany in the 30s, Italy in the 20/30s - primarily because these examples were deliberate attempts to remove established democracies.

[al Roumi]

In any case, you still haven't responded to my point that most Leftist revolutions impose Tyrannies instead of Democracies.

Honestly, that's as silly as Idaho's opposing bias.

A movement for particular values imposes the system which best suits its interests, e.g. A working class communist movement imposes a communist dictatorship. A monarchist/aristocratic movement imposes an autocratic system. A middle class movement imposes a "democracy".

There are exceptions and these are traditionaly due to neccessary measures taken to tighter enforce/preserve the movement's interests in the face of a strong challenge to them (e.g. the French revolution turning into a dictatorship during la terreur). Ironically these bourgeoi movements have often stepped away from democratic rule as a measure to preserve it in the long term.

[Rhyfelwyr]

* in your opinion, to me it is the belief that individual freedom is a far healthier position that state imposed freedom.

I think Idaho was referring to the more historical Toryism, and it is true that they did aim to protect the old feudal order in the face of the rise of the Whigs and the new bourgeoisie elites. The English Tories even tried to get French help for some of the Jacobite risings. I suspect you yourself would identify much more as a Whig in this time period.

I said that Cromwell was left wing, in his time. Cromwell wanted to further the interests of the "Commons" as a group rather than the aristocracy, he also wanted a secularised state (secular in so far as you could pick your flavour of Protestantism) rather than a State-established Church. At the same time, he most certainly did overthrow a democracy whn he desolved Parliament and declared himself "Lord Protector" for life.

I will reply now since I think this is a relevant example of what I was talking about earlier. Well, as a side note, I don't think you can apply concepts of the left/right in a seventeenth century scenario, if anyone was left wing in this period it was the Diggers, which Cromwell quite strongly opposed.

But more on topic, Cromwell's dissolution of Parliament is a classic example of preserving individual freedom in the face of a tyranny of the majority, much like the sentiments of my first post here. For a start, Parliament was dominated by the Political Presbyterians (which mostly weren't actually Presbyterians, the name being from an earlier time before Congregationalism became dominant), which were going a bit nuts imposing Puritan laws such as banning walks on the sabbath etc. On the other hand, the army was dominated by the rival faction, the Independents, which were much more secular due to the fact they had a lot of the quirkier sects like Anabaptists and what not. But the Political Presbyterians kept enforcing laws to keep them down, and eventually cut pay to the army to prevent the Independets seizing power (which is not nice when they were campaigning all over Scotland and Ireland). And so Cromwell stepped in with his army dissolved Parliament, removed much of the oppressive laws, and actually allowed for much more tolerance on the whole. And this is why I do not like Cromwell portrayed as a military dictator in the face of a democratic Parliament, since he was actually all for individual liberty (given his belief in the idea of the ancient Anglo-Saxon constitution as appointed by God).

So I think that is very relevant to this thread, and a classic example of how democratic systems can be far more oppressive and harmful to individual liberty, than even, in the above case, an army council proved to be.

[al Roumi]

So I think that is very relevant to this thread, and a classic example of how democratic systems can be far more oppressive and harmful to individual liberty, than even, in the above case, an army council proved to be.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Honestly, that's as silly as Idaho's opposing bias.

Specifically Leftist revolutions have generally imposed Tyrannies though. What usually happens is that the Left/Right Tyranny is eventually overthrown by a democratic revolution, which is when people get fed up with ideaology and decide they'd rather the State leave them alone, thank you very much.

I was responding to Idaho's argument that Tyranny is a Right-wing phenomenon, not arguing with his examples of Right-wing Tyrannies.

I think Idaho was referring to the more historical Toryism, and it is true that they did aim to protect the old feudal order in the face of the rise of the Whigs and the new bourgeoisie elites. The English Tories even tried to get French help for some of the Jacobite risings. I suspect you yourself would identify much more as a Whig in this time period.

Quite true, though Toryism should really be seen as Constitutional conservatism, and the maintainance of an ordered society. The fact that this favours the established elite is (partly) co-incidental.

But more on topic, Cromwell's dissolution of Parliament is a classic example of preserving individual freedom in the face of a tyranny of the majority, much like the sentiments of my first post here. For a start, Parliament was dominated by the Political Presbyterians (which mostly weren't actually Presbyterians, the name being from an earlier time before Congregationalism became dominant), which were going a bit nuts imposing Puritan laws such as banning walks on the sabbath etc. On the other hand, the army was dominated by the rival faction, the Independents, which were much more secular due to the fact they had a lot of the quirkier sects like Anabaptists and what not. But the Political Presbyterians kept enforcing laws to keep them down, and eventually cut pay to the army to prevent the Independets seizing power (which is not nice when they were campaigning all over Scotland and Ireland). And so Cromwell stepped in with his army dissolved Parliament, removed much of the oppressive laws, and actually allowed for much more tolerance on the whole. And this is why I do not like Cromwell portrayed as a military dictator in the face of a democratic Parliament, since he was actually all for individual liberty (given his belief in the idea of the ancient Anglo-Saxon constitution as appointed by God).

So I think that is very relevant to this thread, and a classic example of how democratic systems can be far more oppressive and harmful to individual liberty, than even, in the above case, an army council proved to be.

While I think you're glossing over Cromwell's brutality in putting down rebellions I broadly agree. However, this rather proves my point; Cromwell became a dictator in order to force a "progressive" reform program. what he didn't do was expand the franchise in order to break the Puritan hold on Parliament; or offer an amnesty and incentives to allow the more religiously liberal Royalists to come home and participate in power.

[PanzerJaeger]

Why not just say "yes, democracies have much more to fear from rightists than leftists" and then we can move on?

While I'm inclined to agree with your historical analysis, you're stretching it to make a political point.

In any event, the reason that right wing coups generally have more success has less to do with ideology and more to do with practical realities on the ground. Specifically, military institutions are generally favorable to the right and coups usually only succeed when the military takes a side.

alh_p's point is prescient. There is nothing in far left ideology that makes it particularly more favorable to Western style capitalist democracy than far right ideology. Marxist thinking revolves around enforcing its tenets regardless of public opinion.


As for the poll, I'd rather live in an autocracy that promotes my interests than a democracy that doesn't. That's just basic self preservation.

[Idaho]

I disagree. Surely any serious communist would know this... People didn't support Lenin becasue they wanted a democracy, they were more interested in his agenda and policies. Exactly what one thinks when choosing number 2 in your vote...

That's an interesting discussion we could have on another thread, but it isn't really material to this thread as Russia was a monarchy, not a democracy.

[Beskar]

yes, in some cases they have, but so have left wing groups. As Stalin so adroitely demonstrates from history, you can be very left wing aswell as being totalitarian and having a warped sense of compassion for human life.

Stalin wasn't a lefty. He mainly did all he could for personal power and ambition. He wasn't even the leader of Russia (that was Mikhail Kalinin), shows you what he did for his own personal power.

Vladimir Lenin on his deathbed tried to get rid of Stalin, including Lenin's wife, trying to convey his will and testament after he was gone. This was ignored by the Politiburo-Rightwingers (which Stalin was apart of) as they feared the influence of Trotsky (leading Polituburo-Leftwinger). It was Stalin who played these factions off against eachother, eliminating his rivals, is how he gained the control and power as he did. While they fought in the speeches, Stalin was behind the scenes, planting loyal supporters to himself in all the positions, a grand scale of corruption on the highest level.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's an essay in evasion this thread. Trying to redefine democracy, going off piste entirely with talk of Stalin. And yet no-one has come up with anywhere near the number of democracies overthrown by leftists as democracies overthrown by rightists - in fact so far we haven't had one decent example.

Why not just say "yes, democracies have much more to fear from rightists than leftists" and then we can move on?

I dissagree, I am certainly not evaiding. This was your original question:

Do you think it's more important for your nation to have democracy, or that it does what is right*?

*right as defined by you.

You then said this was an opinion held more by the Right than the Left. I gave you a list of anti-Democratic revolutions, the fact that they overthrew monarchies is irrelevant, because they instituted oppressive Tyrannies.

If you want to now redefine the question as, "who has overthrown more democracies", I think that is a very different issue - not least because until recently most governments were "Right" of the modern centre and not very Democratic. Ergo, there were not many democracies to be overthrown.

My point was that ignoring the actual wishes of the people and doing what "you" believe is Right is more a trait of the Left, as evidenced by the numerous oppressive and brutal Leftist regimes from Cromwell onwards (Cromwell was "Left" for his period).

Stalin wasn't a lefty. He mainly did all he could for personal power and ambition. He wasn't even the leader of Russia (that was Mikhail Kalinin), shows you what he did for his own personal power.

Vladimir Lenin on his deathbed tried to get rid of Stalin, including Lenin's wife, trying to convey his will and testament after he was gone. This was ignored by the Politiburo-Rightwingers (which Stalin was apart of) as they feared the influence of Trotsky (leading Polituburo-Leftwinger). It was Stalin who played these factions off against eachother, eliminating his rivals, is how he gained the control and power as he did. While they fought in the speeches, Stalin was behind the scenes, planting loyal supporters to himself in all the positions, a grand scale of corruption on the highest level.

Even if I agreed with you, and I don't, I think Stalin was Left Wing, Trotsky was just as unconcerned with traditional morality, as ruthless, and as blood-soaked, so the point is irrelevant.

[Rhyfelwyr]

The discussion was at first more about left/right ideology, rather than how these translated into revolutions, and I think the ideological perspective is more useful, since the reality was clouded by a ton of other factors that obscure things.

In purely ideological terms, both the far-left and far-right are anti-democractic. Everything inbetween is democratic to some extent.

For the far-left, political equality is meaningless so long as there is material/social inequality. For the far-right, its collectivist approach to the idea of the good of the nation as a whole means there is simply no need for democracy.

For leftists or rightists to try to claim a monopoly on democracy and slander the other is just plain stupid.

My point was that ignoring the actual wishes of the people and doing what "you" believe is Right is more a trait of the Left, as evidenced by the numerous oppressive and brutal Leftist regimes from Cromwell onwards (Cromwell was "Left" for his period).

Must refrain from derailing another thread.... *tries really hard not to argue with the above*

Stalin wasn't a lefty. He mainly did all he could for personal power and ambition. He wasn't even the leader of Russia (that was Mikhail Kalinin), shows you what he did for his own personal power.

Vladimir Lenin on his deathbed tried to get rid of Stalin, including Lenin's wife, trying to convey his will and testament after he was gone. This was ignored by the Politiburo-Rightwingers (which Stalin was apart of) as they feared the influence of Trotsky (leading Polituburo-Leftwinger). It was Stalin who played these factions off against eachother, eliminating his rivals, is how he gained the control and power as he did. While they fought in the speeches, Stalin was behind the scenes, planting loyal supporters to himself in all the positions, a grand scale of corruption on the highest level.

There was factionalism all right, but it was never seen in left/right terms. I think it would be fair to say than rather than being left or right in ideology, Stalin was really a product of the totalitarianism of his time, something that transcended the left/right divide.