Menu

  • collapseDeutsch (439)
  • collapseEnglish (63)
  • expandEspañol (65)
  • expandFrançais (75)
  • expandItaliano (33)
  • expandNederlands (28)
  • expandOther Languages (8)
  • expandTürkçe (60)
  • expandРусский (20)

Struggle for clarity regarding socialist democracy!

On the protests against the mass layoffs at Nokia: Against appeasement andnationalistcampaigns: Intesify the struggle, occupy the factory!

Struggle for clarity regarding socialist democracy!

Struggle for clarity regarding socialist democracy!
” There is a central question which cannot and may not be subject to denocratic decision within the framework of bourgeois democracy: namely, to whom the banks and industrial corporations, to whom the actual core of capitalist society in relation to its economics should belong. Who has the final say? Who determines who owns the banks and corporations? Who is allowed to decide on this?
In the same way that it is impossible for the United Nations to ‘decide ‘ that the financial resources of big capital should be distributed to the starving and exploited- or that exploitation should be abolished—so it is beyond the bourgeois parliament in Germany (regardless of whichever coalition of parties is in power) to de- ‘ cide ‘ that the economic power ofthe ruling class in its entirety should be broken by outright expropriation. And in case of emergency, the Bundeswehr, the German Armed Forces, are still there.
Socialist democracy demands as a prerequisite that the question of the ownership of the means of production is settled: banks, industry, land andproperty must be expropriated as a central measure of socialist democracy – that is, for the majority of the working class in conjunction with the exploited masses. These means of production then have to be put into the hands of these masses of once exploit ed working women and men.
Whoever claims that the class of exploiters will take such moves lying down, are either deliberately lying or has learnt nothing from history and will, either way, be disabused of such a misconception: so cialist democracy firstly assumes, if we look at its development, that a ‘des potic ‘ intervention in mat ters of property ownership takes place. And it is un avoidable that this inter vention will be denounced by the dispossessed ex ploiters, stripped of their freedom to exploit, as dic tatorial and a denial of their freedom – in just the same way that slave owners decried the abolition of slavery as the revocation of their own freedom to own slaves.
As necessary and invaluable it is to have a scathing criticism of the hypocrisy of the bourgeois-parliamentary democracy, this does not explain or justify the necessity or the hallmarks of socialist democracy.(…)

Comments are closed.