Quote:
Originally Posted by Nobody1
That is, of course, just part of the truth. The whole truth is that it has never been tried within democratic conditions.
|
The problem is that Marxism in practice is contemptuous of democracy-- they have no use for it. "Democratic conditions" presume that you want rule of law. Marxists are plain enough that class struggle, rather than rule of law, is their aim.
No reason to expect that folks will achieve what they don't seek.
Democratic Socialists/Social democrats, by contrast seek some of the goals of the Marxists, but with a respect for rule of law and democratic institutions of the State. Its not an accident that Sweden ended up a more civilized place than Cambodia or Albania-- they sought different things. You can't achieve what you don't want in the first place. Marxists have had plenty of opportunities to support democracy-- its plain enough that they simply don't want it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nobody1
Well, that is exactly what you are. No offense.
'Americans think they live in a democracy. But their workplaces are small tyrannies.'
|
This is a non sequitur, "whataboutery". The US has its failings -- arguably never moreso than today in my lifetime-- but at an explicit level we're clear enough about what we seek-- and that's the rule of laws, not men, classes or parties.
Marxists don't seek that, don't want that. The State is subordinate to the Party, which answers to . . . well, to no one.
So Marxism in practice is intrinsically hostile to rule of law, separation of powers and constitutional government; not because of some defect, but because that's the design. Somehow, magically the Party will represent the will of the workers, and equally magically the organs of the State will carry out their just desires.
Ah, but what if they don't?
Well then, comrade, then its time to find out just who's in charge of the Secret Police, because that's how you'll find out what "the law" is.