Disclaimer: Although I may often criticize her policies, I am by birth, an American. That being said, I was conditioned in an environment that allowed me to study other political systems, and my idea of "freedom" may reflect that ability.
Most Americans, if asked what they love best about their country, would answer their freedom. Their freedom to open a business, vote for a candidate, or speak freely without fear of repercussions. Some of these freedoms help me be able to write this blog, for instance. However, when looking deeper into the fabric of American, or more importantly, Western society, one can't help but notice the shocking lack of true freedom. Does the child born into the extreme urban poverty we are only too familiar with have any true choice of education? Any real chance of owning or operating a business? Perhaps, in some rare cases, they do. But far too many people born to the lower class stay that way, poor, hardworking, and overlooked by a society obsessed with materialism. This sense of freedom degrades even more when considering that although allowed to vote, too often the people's choices are between similar candidates, operating without any working class principles or cares. Does one's vote really matter when choosing between two ideologically concurrent parties? Certain Democrats, I believe, have a concern for the working class, but all too often, they're corrupted by the power, money, and prestige.
Even though beset by all these problems, most Americans, as well as leftists, would balk at the idea of living within a socialist, dictatorship of the proletariat. They decry this idea of being authoritarian, Orwellian, etc. Would a multi-party, western, socialist society be able exist? That is, would a socialist nation be able to function with a viable opposition? Historically, every Marxist society that came about due to revolution has not allowed political opposition. Some may attribute the downfall of the USSR, for example, to their banning of any organized political opposition. I disagree. In my opinion, if a socialist state were to come about, allowing political opposition to take root amongst the unlearned masses would spell destruction for the movement. This is due to the fact that socialism requires a complete rewiring of society, and one's ideas and perceptions of it. I have faith in the people, faith in their ability to popularly choose socialism eventually, however once that happens, it would be far to dangerous to allow an active opposition immediately. Socialism brings massive improvements, but only after tearing down the pre-existing system of exploitation and degradation. The people must be given the chance to witness the positive changes, and then let them contemplate an opposition.
If, for example, a popular movement were to take power, under the leadership of a vanguard party, which I believe is necessary, and that party was to stay in power, allowing democratic centralist elections to party posts, would that not be true democracy, provided this party was truly acting on the will of the people? And would not the people's decision to allow this party to continue to rule constitute as legitimizing its rule? By this logic, I would argue that it is possible to have a democracy, even a more effective democracy, within a one party state.
Victory!
13 years ago
