I prefer an uncoded constitution, because it means that there doesnt have to be a massively long proccess for laws and acts to be passed.
Think inside the box
Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...
Korimyr the Rat wrote:Codified.
An unwritten Constitution is not a Constitution at all-- an unfortunate fact I hope that our British brothers and sisters never have to discover for themselves.
MosesWasALibertarian wrote:There's a little problem, Potekim. First, you kind of half to get support of at least a majority of the people. All this "revolution" stuff won't happen unless people want the revolution to happen. A lot of British people really aren't up to that.
Potemkin wrote:The October Revolution was made in Moscow and Petrograd, and it was made by a sufficiently determined minority, in the name of the working people.
And why should the working class accept the tyranny of the majority?
Captain Hat wrote:Potemkin wrote:The October Revolution was made in Moscow and Petrograd, and it was made by a sufficiently determined minority, in the name of the working people.
One can make the case, and many historians have, that the October Revolution wasn't a revolution at all, but rather an organized coup by the Bolsheviks, a minority party.
EDIT:And why should the working class accept the tyranny of the majority?
This theory got another famous revolutionary in trouble. His name was Robespierre. He believed that the peasants and commoners had no idea what was in their best interests. Robespierre and his Jacobin Club felt that only they could interpret the "General Will." The end result were midnight arrests, Revolutionary Tribunals, and mass executions.
Gee, who else did this? The Bolsheviks! They felt they knew what was best, and again, midnight arrests, trials, and executions.
Potemkin wrote:Which is why Lenin developed the idea of the Party as the vanguard of the proletariat. Left to their own devices, most workers never develop beyond trade union consciousness. And a revolution can succeed even with only a significant minority of the population actively involved. Most Russians in 1917 were landless peasants who did not play an active role in the revolution. Indeed, even as late as 1923, Krupskaya (Lenin's wife) was complaining that there were still peasants in the provinces of Russia who hadn't heard that the Tsar was gone and there was a Communist government in Russia. The October Revolution was made in Moscow and Petrograd, and it was made by a sufficiently determined minority, in the name of the working people.
And why should the working class accept the tyranny of the majority? As Lenin said in 'State and Revolution', democracy is nothing more than the tyranny of the majority over the minority. If the petty-bourgeois class becomes the majority of the population, does this mean we should accept petty-bourgeois values? No, of course not. The proletariat is the vanguard class, and therefore has the right and the duty to seize power if it can.
MosesWasALibertarian wrote:You do realize that the Bolsheviks (what an ironic name) weren't even all of the marxists, right? They were a minority in a minority. That, and the November (since it did happen in November) revolution would have happened anyway. Bread strikes, decreasing morale in the war, it would have been eventually. The majority knew they were being screwed over already, all it took was Lenin to rile them up under a marxist banner. All he did was take advantage of desperate people.
That doesn't make any sense. The bourgeoise could never become the majority, because then they wouldn't be the bourgeoise. Their money would simply decrease in value if they became that rich because of the plentifulness of it.
And the majority will always be the working class, because of it. The working class, who you are out to defend, is the majority. And if the majority, the working class does not want bolshevik rule, then what's the point? You're not protecting them, then, just your own interests.
I find it is usually people who have never had th[…]
Trump is the one who's dedicating time and energy[…]
There is no such thing as racial hierarchy. There[…]
Lukacs, Gramsci, Adorno, Marcuse are not liberals[…]