To really get a good look at Democracy, it becomes necessary to take an unconventional look at the phenomenon in present day society. For this I will analyze US democracy from a Marxian/ Leninist perspective. What we have here in America and most other countries is formal democracy, democracy among government only. I agree with representative democracy, as not everyone is concerned with government affairs. What I find frustrating, and appealing about the Marxian perspective of democracy is that our formal democracy does not provide us with the liberties and freedoms to democratically manage and elect officials for the place we spend 9/10ths of our life- the workplace. We have made great strides in the past century in regards to suffrage, however we must remember that although our democratic republic provides us with great liberties, “A democratic republic is the best possible political shell for capitalism, and, therefore, once capital has gained possession of this very best shell … it establishes its power so securely, so firmly, that no change of persons, institutions or parties in the bourgeois-democratic republic can shake it.”- V. I. Lenin. In fact, even this is not enough to appease those in power. We see democracy itself trampled even in our present society. While there have been many great struggles and much blood shed in the name of suffrage, there still only exists ‘formal’ democracy. What I wish to see is true democracy. In these areas of life which we spend 9/10ths of our life we only see, when you get down to it; dictatorship. Where the workers- those who produce the fruits of their labor only receive a fraction (a wage) of the fruits of the commodity they produced while someone else pockets the rest for themselves, despite having not worked for it. This Marxist ideas is not really Marxist at all, in fact capitalists foolishly proclaim it to be the philosophy of capitalism. It is the idea that those who work shall receive the profits of their labor, and not have it taken from them. Usually they go about this by speaking of the government, that the government taking their money is somehow ‘socialism’ and therefore bad. Such a claim is ludicrous. They fail to grasp the basic notion of socialism, they think that it has to do something with the government! The philosophy of socialism is “he who does not work shall not eat”, that the means of production shall be socially- not government owned. It is NOT “he who sits around shall receive other peoples well earned money”, that would be capitalism! The bourgeoisie do NOT want socialism because it would require them to actually work in order to receive the basic commodities of life, rather than receiving them via the workers’ surplus value, money they did not work for. We see such a savage mutilation of the term ‘socialism’ that over 9/10ths of the population cannot actually define what it means or explain it, yet are somehow convinced that it is something bad. Indeed the masses are taught to praise capitalism as the superior system from an early age, the embodiment of true human nature (as if capitalism had been around for even a thousand years). Only those who seek out the truth will see past these lies, which- according to Lenin serve only to suppress the working class and its ability to recognize it’s exploitation (a logical analysis, given the rampant misinformation). In fact, even the idea of democracy is suppressed. If you view my previous blog post on oligarchy you will see my point. The United States, along with most other countries have morphed from a democracy into an oligarchy, serving the interests of the rich ruling class. There is an actual scientific study on this which you can find linked in my former post on Oligarchy. “Democracy for an insignificant minority, democracy for the rich – that is the democracy of capitalist society. If we look more closely into the machinery of capitalist democracy, we see everywhere, in the “petty” – supposedly petty – details of the suffrage (residential qualifications, exclusion of women, etc.), in the technique of the representative institutions, in the actual obstacles to the right of assembly (public buildings are not for “paupers”!), in the purely capitalist organization of the daily press, etc., etc., – we see restriction after restriction upon democracy. These restrictions, exceptions, exclusions, obstacles for the poor seem slight, especially in the eyes of one who has never known want himself and has never been in close contact with the oppressed classes in their mass life (and nine out of 10, if not 99 out of 100, bourgeois publicists and politicians come under this category); but in their sum total these restrictions exclude and squeeze out the poor from politics, from active participation in democracy.” -V.I. Lenin. While many things mentioned here have passed with time (residential qualifications, exclusion of women) there is still a great deal of voter repression and fraud today. Poor people do not vote, that is a fact. It is very difficult for them to do so. Many voters in poor, predominately black areas have to wait in line for many hours before actually being able to vote. There is no national holiday for voters, and thus many poor voters cannot vote because they cannot afford to get off work for several hours just to vote. There is also the issue of gerrymandering, not to mention the two-party system in which neither party represents the working class. The two party system continues to alienate a vast number of Americans from participating in government. Even more alarming is the vast influence corporate interests have on the government. If the Leninist idea that “elected officials shall receive no more than a workers wage” was implemented we would not have this problem. If financial contributions to representatives were banned perhaps our government would better represent the interests of the masses. As our society continues to evolve, it becomes essential to view our present system from every possible perspective in a scientific manner, even those that are unconventional. Only then can we truly address the problems accurately and attempt to fix them.
It is impossible to give consent to be thrust into existence, into consciousness. For to consent implies that existence, that consciousness already exists. Thus we have a universal injustice, a universal truth until it is proven false by some psychedelic madness. So what is the nature of existence? Chaos would imply that whatever wretched beast comes about by a random chain of events would be a torturous, mutilated thing longing for nonexistence. Yet we find order amongst the chaos, our existence is perfected through the eternal process of natural selection, which acts to ensure that we largely consent to our existence after the fact. Yet where does consciousness truly begin? Is a spider truly conscious when it winds its web? Is a man truly conscious when he writes a book or drives a car? Thus we see differing levels of consciousness in differing beings. Perhaps the spider is simply acting merely on instinct, perfected over billions of years of evolution, lest we say that men are no different from the perspective of an outside, nonhuman observer? No! Humans seem to deviate from mere instinctual behaviors, collectively and individually we change through our own intellect. We do not still wander among caves with primitive wooden sticks, we change far ahead of what is necessary. But what of God? I like to think that bacteria are to men as men are to God. It is unfathomable by the limits of the human mind. But what of God? Did God himself consent to existence? Did God himself emerge as a construct of the laws of time which we are so familiar with or is he not bound by them at all? Did God create time itself? Of this one can only speculate. For whatever conclusion is come to, one cannot be assured of it’s truth unless one confronts God himself which would be even greater still.
It is a balance, a fine line. Once you cross it you enter the realm of persecution. Once it enters the affairs of the state it enters the realm of theocracy, which is good if it’s your religion, until your religion becomes obsolete in the eyes of society and another takes is place. Then you too see that it is wrong to enforce any form of religious law on the whole of society, even if it claims to be just.
Our children’s children are all going to die a slow, painful, suffocating death if we do not address the threat of global warming immediately, before it’s too late. Even though many scientists are saying that BECAUSE our corrupt government did nothing these past few decades, we have reached the point of no return, there is still hope of somehow reversing the effect. It’s in our hands. The runaway greenhouse effect is very real (see Venus, compare to Mercury). People who deny what scientists are saying like Donald Trump and the big billionaire oil companies will be held responsible for the death of all of humanity for refusing to see the problem and addressing it. When a scientist goes and tells congress ‘a meteor is going to his earth and cause a mass extinction event if we don’t do something immediately’ you don’t hear the congressman saying ‘oh I’m not a scientist’. Every single climate denying congressman and woman who’s receiving any donations from the fossil fuel industry needs to be fired immediately and all such donations need to be banned. You can argue about marriage equality, abortion, the military, immigration, and all that stuff later. This IS the future of humanity we are talking about here. If we do nothing, everyone WILL die and it will be our fault. Global warming is the single most important issue we face. That’s why I’m voting Jill Stein for President.
I see the logic in the statement by Marx that religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, religious suffering is the expression of real suffering, and that religion is the opium of the people. That being said, I do not believe in Marx’s strict adherence to atheism, his dismissal of religion as a simple social construct brought about by class struggle. Furthermore I do not see dialectical or historical materialism as being inherently atheistic in nature, the science of which seems to me to be agnostic rather than atheistic. Orthodox Marxists and many Marxist-Leninists often see atheism as the only way forward, as religion being something- like class oppression, which the proletarian masses need to be liberated from. I fundamentally disagree with this analysis. Historically policies of State Atheism such as those in the USSR and China have resulted in mass religious persecution. Not only is this persecution wrong, but it is/ was a hinderance to their revolutionary struggles. I see religion as having a peculiar effect on society. Regardless of how religion evolves, it strictly adheres and defends the prevailing socioeconomic system as the ‘best’, or most ‘moral’ system. It acts as a kind of social glue, binding a significant majority of the populous to defend the prevailing socioeconomic system. We see this in early Christianity with primitive slave society. We see texts saying to ‘treat your slaves kind, treat them as you treat your wife’. Christianity is more concerned with not going to hell than the prevailing issues and class conflicts which we find in society. We also see examples of this phenomenon in Feudal Europe. The Church intertwines itself in the Feudal system, defending it with the utmost conviction. Any deviation from the social norm being seen a potential threat to the church. We even see this today in capitalist society. Despite the fact that it is a social system based on greed, which puts people before profits, it is adamantly defended by the religious people. So thus, religion acts as a kind of glue which holds society to the prevailing socioeconomic system. However there is another effect, which comes with religious persecution. Religious persecution alienates the religious people from the state and from the prevailing socioeconomic system. They will practice their religion in private, they will pray for the destruction of the state. This is a threat to any governing body. It cannot be weakened by increasing religious persecution, this only increases the alienation and this increases the threat to the state. The only solution is a complete lack of any religious persecution, along with the strict separation of Church and State.
There’s this twist on the english language I see a lot when it comes to war. It’s usually half serious be it’s still concerning. The U.S. Isn’t dropping FREEDOM on Syria. No, it’s dropping bombs. It’s killing people, a lot of people, some of which, yes are bad. But only 1 out of 10 people killed in these drone strikes are actually terrorists. That isn’t freedom fighting, no, that is just fighting terror with terror. What exactly do you think war is? You have to be absolutely sure that who you’re killing is a terrorist and not an innocent family who’s just trying to get by. Otherwise you’re just killing people you don’t know for reasons you don’t understand.
Apparently it’s only terrorism if a.) a minority does it and b.) it’s intentional. Because every time the US kills a bunch of civilians in a drone strike it’s an ‘accident’ or a ‘mistake’ yet they never seem to learn from these mistakes. You’re almost as bad as the terrorists you are fighting when you do not alter your policies to ensure that acts of mass murder against innocent families never happen again. It’s unacceptable, mistake or not. The act is the exact same as when ISIS does it. The public needs to force them to take up measures to reduce the chances of this happening in the future by protesting and mourning those innocent lives that were taken. We need the public to condemn these atrocities and demand that they never happen again.