The Dilemma of Choice
The Dilemma of Choice
For liberal understanding, it’s clear; Trump is tyranny, Harris is the salvation of “democracy”.
Why it is irrelevant who wins this election, and how the bourgeois election conceals the lack of freedom in this system.
Reminder: The words marked in red are links leading to corresponding Kritikpunkt articles.
“I don’t want to vote for Trump [again]. I feel better voting for Kamala than for Biden.
So writes a reader of the New York Times in a broad representative survey about the upcoming US election.
Biden lacked “energy”, now Harris is up next to defend the presidential title for the Democrats.
The American-liberal media stand behind Harris; she is (once again) the last chance to protect American democracy from tyranny, Trumpism, and its supporters.
The Americans who label themselves as left are united; Harris is justice, and Trump is tyranny – or at least the “lesser of two evils”.
While the ideologically divided American society stares at the election polls from their devices in the “Swing States”, a Times survey shows: “Nearly half say it (‘American Democracy’) does not do a good job representing the people,” and yet, they will vote.
It shows the firm grip that the illusion of “democracy” has on bourgeois society.
People and Power
The term “democracy,” which is Greek for “people’s rule,” is also defined by the German federal government as; “In this form of state, the people exercise the sovereign power,” and in simpler terms, the United States say, “This means that our government is elected by citizens.”
The government is appointed by the people, and the “sovereign power” emanates from the people — this is what bourgeois democracy claims.
In representative democracy, which is preferred for bourgeois rule, the state is mediated by representatives of the people — that’s the point of the whole system.
The representatives, primarily subordinate to the constitution, serve as a buffer between the will and interests of the people and the state that claims to represent them.
Am all dem Medienrummel, den die deutschen Medien nun über die düsteren Aussichten für die amerikanische Politik machen, vergessen sie gerne, dass auch ihre Herrschaft scheinbar vom Volk ausgeht.
„Die USA sind keine funktionierende Demokratie“ (profil); aber was ist denn eine „funktionierende Demokratie“ im bürgerlichen Sinne?
The bourgeois democracy in Germany
In bourgeois democracy, the people are authorized to vote for “representatives” in parliament through approved parties.
The approval of a party depends on whether the Federal Returning Officer considers that party to be rooted in the Basic Law; this officer is traditionally the President of the Federal Statistical Office, who is not elected by the people but appointed internally.
If a party is deemed “anti-democratic,” meaning, among other things, that it is consistently Marxist, it is generally assumed it will not be admitted to the election or will be banned if it becomes too large.
Except: if the Federal Returning Officer considers the party to be of little significance, then it may be allowed to be voted for – after all, it makes no difference (which is why, for example, the DKP is tolerated).
“Anti-democratic” here specifically means; any political orientation incompatible with the “free democratic basic order” — i.e., incompatible with the core structure of the Federal Republic, which includes fundamental rights like the right of corporations to property (the means of production).
From this follows the conclusion that any party seeking fundamental change cannot legally come to power; bourgeois democracy is not “people’s rule,” but a ruling structure that is fundamentally unchangeable and thus a mere illusion of bourgeois rule.
One could argue that the Basic Law can be amended with a 2/3 majority – but not the right to property (Art. 14), which is unchangeable – and moreover, it would be impossible for a force that is explicitly inimical to the system to even enter the Bundestag.
Which representatives are legitimized every 4 years through elections can, of course, decide only to a limited extent on taxation, national debt, or migration policy — but even these actual powers have been transferred since 1992 to the autocracy of the European Union.
Decisions such as tariffs decided by Germany, whether in the current important discourse on electric cars with China, or competition rules against other European countries, ultimately lie with the EU Commission, which is not even elected in a bourgeois-democratic manner.
All nothing new
Yes, but I would even dare to say that the realization that “democracy” is not really such, is at least known to a large part of the people in Germany.
The disillusionment of voters with bourgeois democracy manifests in the general understanding; voting doesn’t bring any real change, which is reflected in both the number of “core voters” and non-voters.
According to representative surveys, about 53% of people in Germany are not very interested or not interested at all in politics.
About a quarter of the population in Germany doesn’t even bother to visit the polling station.
The bourgeois democrats cannot comprehend this; “(Voting) is a privilege that many people in other regions of the world would gladly have” (Spiegel) – what kind of rule is a “privilege”?
And the “political apathy,” which bourgeois democrats characterize as simply the result of “unfulfilled election promises,” is actually a rejection of bourgeois democracy as a whole.
If we understand a political party as Weber does, i.e., as a society based on advertising “with the purpose of granting its leaders power within an association and providing its active participants with (ideological or material) opportunities (to pursue substantive goals or personal advantages or both),” then “false promises” are not just a symptom of individual “bad” politicians, but a consequence of the entire bourgeois party system, which is based on advertising and competition.
As in all aspects of bourgeois society, competition that promotes quantity over quality is also a cause of “false promises,” which many simply cannot realize within bourgeois lobby democracy — because, even a party has to sell itself.
To help with the costs of selling itself, “lobby groups” of large corporations exert influence on politics with millions, which in turn implement the policies.
The fact that corruption, which beautifies the BRD as “lobby work,” is widespread and significantly influences Germany’s internal and external policy, speaks against the democratic character of this “democracy.”
Where consumer protection shields consumers from false promises on the market, there is no institution to protect voters from false promises in elections — simply because realistic election promises would expose the farce of bourgeois democracy.
The two biggest concerns for people in Germany are rising living costs (a word that is quite scary) and unaffordable housing; two problems that bourgeois politics cannot address without fundamental changes in property ownership.
If coalition politicians meet with real estate lobbyists monthly[1] and the rise in living costs is, after all, a consequence of profit motives, but is conveyed as “crisis symptoms,”a coalition cannot be surprised by the rise of the AfD.
The bourgeois democracy, which fundamentally protects property rights, is not “threatened” by right-wing extremist forces; these “anti-democratic” forces were born from it.
By protecting the fundamental mechanisms of this system, on which the contradiction between rich and poor, West and East, capital and labor is based, bourgeois democrats cannot claim that opposition to their system is a surprise.
How can this “democracy” be the rule of the people when all electoral options fundamentally pursue the same agenda?
The democracy, which the Federal Agency for Civic Education calls “the best possible form of government,” is probably exactly that: the best possible form of government for the preservation of bourgeois society.
The choice between plague and cholera, which bourgeois elections always lead to, can be seen as people’s rule, but only insofar as a decision about a wall color can be seen as house-building.
Nevertheless, the illusion of having a choice remains.
It is precisely from this illusion and the thesis that this system is “a privilege” that the fairy tale of “democracy” reproduces itself — because there is nothing better, so be grateful.
The vote confirms the citizen in the idea that they are free.
If reality then does not match campaign promises, it is either because others voted incorrectly, or because politicians lied — but not because of the system itself, because it blurs the idea that one is free in voting.
While simultaneously criticizing Russia and others, bourgeois democracies boast that they at least allow a choice between plague and cholera — in Russia, it’s just directly the plague.
What is democracy?
The capitalism can never permit the “rule of the people,” because the rule of the people would not allow capitalism.
It is precisely this “democracy” that makes it impossible for the people to exercise power, because it pretends they are already empowered.
The de facto unavoidable choice among 7 capitalist parties at each Bundestag election is not people’s rule—the rule of the people is the rule of the people over production, economy, culture, and all other aspects of life that are to be determined.
In bourgeois democracy, this “rule” always focuses on maintaining the status quo, which serves the ideal capitalists of the BRD, USA, and others.
Who wins the US election is still open. (the official Kritikpunkt estimate is Harris)
Who loses, however, is already certain: The working people and the poor of America, who, in the decline of their existence, turn to culture war and fentanyl, get nothing from the “Vote between bad luck and Kamala” (taz).
Of course, under a Harris administration, the rights of queer people and the self-determination of women could enjoy more attention from the officeholder — but is that already enough to be considered a progressive candidate?
The improvement of certain excesses of American culture war is not what it’s about.
The existence of the American female wage earner is not good; it would only be better in one of her many intersections — this cannot be the claim on the candidate of the (still) largest economy in the world.
And if, at the same time, the American ideal capitalist (so or so) advances profits through genocide in Gaza, ongoing war in Ukraine, provocations in the South China Sea, and fighting progressive movements in Myanmar, Cuba, Kurdistan, Sahel, etc., then no Marxist can speak of a “better” candidate.