• Freecell [he/him]
    ·
    4 years ago

    Apologies if this is a bit intro polsci, but I've undergone a bit of a magic eye switch in terms of democracy that I can't seem to flip back. What if the majority of the population genuinely believes or is coerced into believing that something intrinsically immoral should be law e.g. slavery, unethical experimentation, endless overseas wars? Is this an instance where we want an autocratic figurehead like the President or Queen to step in and override the will of the people? In this case, is that good and desired? I legitimately do not know how to reconcile this in my stupid lib brain that assumes democracy = good. Obviously not every working of the state can be left up to the people, but where is the line? Is it really democracy if you can only actually vote for things the state deems as morally good? Should the people be allowed to vote for things that are reprehensible because that is a lesser evil than tyranny? Who determines what is ethical? And is it better to leave that judgment to a tyranny of the majority than a statesman? Does a democratic electorate even have any imperative to consider the morality of its decisions?

    • opposide [none/use name]
      ·
      4 years ago

      This is why class consciousness is so important. 95% of people have the same working class best interest if only they knew it, and they all need just slightly adjusted methods to achieve this depending on where they’re from. The imperative is there if and only if class consciousness exists.

      This is likely why (even though the USSR was far from perfect) the majority of people who lived under it TO THIS DAY regret its collapse. Now the capitalist powers that be, which have come about as a result of denationalization, corrupt their democracies and corrode working class powers in an attempt to stop the actual will of the people

      • Freecell [he/him]
        ·
        4 years ago

        So your argument is that the most important thing to prevent corruption of a democratic state is education and solidarity. I like that.

        I'd also add that a classical liberal view to this problem would likely be that a solitary leader or oligarchy is much more corruptible than an electorate, so the point is moot: a ruling class would be more likely to be imposing immoral laws than vetoing them in the first place.

        • thelasthoxhaist [he/him]
          ·
          4 years ago

          you should read about the mass line , it deals with educating the Masses and uniting them with the communist party so that there wont be a workers/party split, even if you arent a Marxist-leninist Its a good idea that we should learn from

    • spectre [he/him]
      ·
      4 years ago

      I'm not really sure where the "line" is, but I see democracy as more of a tool than a virtue. It's a very useful tool, of course, but the idea that every government would be better if it only were "more democratic" is idealism. It is one way for the populace to speak for themselves, and keep the power structures that govern them and their communities in check, but I don't think it is the only way.

      There are some issues that need to be decided by officials/bureaucrats, some that need to be decided by the membership of the ruling party, and some that can and should be left directly to direct democracy. I don't know where to draw the lines for those, though.

    • Classic_Agency [he/him,comrade/them]
      ·
      4 years ago

      This actually just happened with the Cannabis referendum in New Zealand. A narrow majority of people voted to keep it illegal. The conclusions from the progressive camp were that

      1. It shouldn't have been put to a referendum in the first place. It's a law that only affects a small number of people.
      2. A rather influential medical advisory group came out against it and then changed their minds 5 days before the vote
      3. The Prime Minister never gave a position on it, but if she said she supported it, YES would have won.

      Overall when it comes to this sort of stuff the only reason why people would support awful things is because of lies and propaganda. It is one of our most important duties as Marxists to disseminate the reality to people so that they can get off the consent manufacturing line.