There are other forms of democracy than this one kind with parliaments, which, incidentally, is only as as popular because its easy for private interests to control. What’s happening now is particularly blatant, there’s no more profit in hiding their intentions. Parliamentary constitutional democracy was def a progressive development over divine right of kings, but its been pretty ineffective for a long time, as well as the preferred form of government by private interests.
One might argue that parliamentary governments are particularly stable, and that’s why they are preferred by capital interests. But in that case, why then do capital interests prefer brutal dictatorships over any other form of democracy, even fairly stable ones? I think “stability” only matters with relation to business and finance, which dictators are often willing to deliver in service of their own power. These dictators are often praised in the imperial core, while other forms of democracy are called dictatorships.
I think that parliamentary “democracies” are particularly good at disempowering large swaths of the masses, while establishing various national ruling and administrative classes. This democracy that obscures class domination is barely any kind of democracy, when you pay close attention. But it is the only form of democracy acceptable to powerful private interests.
What if democracy voted in private power? What do we do then?
You know exactly what needs to be done and so does everyone else. The problem is that we’re all too selfish, lazy, or scared to do it.
There are other forms of democracy than this one kind with parliaments, which, incidentally, is only as as popular because its easy for private interests to control. What’s happening now is particularly blatant, there’s no more profit in hiding their intentions. Parliamentary constitutional democracy was def a progressive development over divine right of kings, but its been pretty ineffective for a long time, as well as the preferred form of government by private interests.
One might argue that parliamentary governments are particularly stable, and that’s why they are preferred by capital interests. But in that case, why then do capital interests prefer brutal dictatorships over any other form of democracy, even fairly stable ones? I think “stability” only matters with relation to business and finance, which dictators are often willing to deliver in service of their own power. These dictators are often praised in the imperial core, while other forms of democracy are called dictatorships.
I think that parliamentary “democracies” are particularly good at disempowering large swaths of the masses, while establishing various national ruling and administrative classes. This democracy that obscures class domination is barely any kind of democracy, when you pay close attention. But it is the only form of democracy acceptable to powerful private interests.