Re: Government of the world by the party and for the party

The confusion about democracy is that it has been presented to us as the
anti-thesis to communism.  The United States prides itself on exporting
capitalism disguised as democracy.  It amazes me how little this has been
questioned in mainstream circles. The close relationship between democracy 
(a
political system) and capitalism (an economic system) is what remains to be
explained.  Please correct me if I am wrong, but I have a lot of trouble
explaining the difference between capitalism and democracy to undergraduates
which leads me to believe it has been deeply ingrained in their minds.
 
To answer the question posed below, I will define democracy as political 
power
of the people.  This is not achieved simply by putting the ballot in the 
hands
of all those deemed eligible.  Democracy is not achieved by granting the 
right
to choose between a few politicians whose interests are contrary to the
majority of the population.  This is the version of democracy the USA has 
been
"exporting".   We actually have a very extreme version of this in that the 
lack
of difference between the Republican and Democratic agendas is the laughing
stock of other nations.

A better example of giving power to the people (my euphemism for 
"dictatorship
of the proletariat") would be allowing people to choose individuals who
represent their interests.  This could be achieved by any number of forms of
democracy.  I would argue that under communism, when the class system, the 
wage
system, and the monetary system have been abolished, the conflict of 
interest
between the leaders and the rest of the people will also disappear.  Power 
may
tend to corrupt, but money is a lot more likely to corrupt.

Tanya Golash
Graduate Student
Sociology Department
UNC - Chapel Hill

visit my website at: http://www.unc.edu/~tatiana

> To Elson:
> You said:
> "I don't recall anyone arguing that there should be a world government of
> the party and for the party.  I think "dictatorship of the proletariat" is
> a failed idea with few supporters today."
> 
> The fact that this idea is not openly promoted, does not make it 
>disappear.
> There is talk of DEMOCRATIC MARXISM, but its adherents never explain, how
> it might work.
> 
> Judging from past experience one can only conclude that the chances for
> success of such a system are very slim indeed, since:
> The core ideas of Marxism, such as that all means of production must 
>belong
> to the State, can only be realized by an enormous concentration of power
> over people's lives in the hands of government. 
> 
> Obviously wielding such power wisely and effectively needs qualities
> exceedingly rare among humans. Finding individuals  with such rare
> qualities is in itself already very difficult, but only under the most
> fortunate circumstances could one hope, that they could combine with what
> is required to win violent revolutions or to rise to the highest levels of
> party cadres through adept maneuvering .
> 
> Cuba's Fidel Castro and the leaders of post Maoist China might possibly
> qualify, but should a New World system depend on such a rare coincidence?
> Remember the saying, that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts
> absolutely.
> 
> Maybe you can enlighten us on how to overcome these difficulties.
> 
> Greetings             Paul Riesz
> 
> 

-- End original message --