"Tyranny of the Majority"

[MarxSchmarx]

In many respects democracy is a double edged sword.

A lot is said about the need to "democratize" and "follow the people's will", but from time to time this strategy can play right into the hands of reactionaries. False consciousness may be part of the problem, but it is only a partial way out of it, and many capitalist and even feudal ideas will remain "popular" during the first stages of socialism.

How should leftists deal with deeply non-leftist, majority-held opinions?
What does this term "democracy" or "tyranny of the majority" mean to you?
It is a classic argument against a robust democracy, but do you think there is a kernel of truth to it?
Is it an inherently metaphysical critique because it presupposes the ontological primacy of the individual?

[WhitemageofDOOM]

Democracy is a terrible system. But it's better than all the others we've tried.
Democracy is the lesser evil as it were. There are real and pressing problems with democracy, but the problems of are less than for other systems.

[Dimentio]

In many respects democracy is a double edged sword.

A lot is said about the need to "democratize" and "follow the people's will", but from time to time this strategy can play right into the hands of reactionaries. False consciousness may be part of the problem, but it is only a partial way out of it, and many capitalist and even feudal ideas will remain "popular" during the first stages of socialism.

How should leftists deal with deeply non-leftist, majority-held opinions?
What does this term "democracy" or "tyranny of the majority" mean to you?
It is a classic argument against a robust democracy, but do you think there is a kernel of truth to it?
Is it an inherently metaphysical critique because it presupposes the ontological primacy of the individual?

Opinions tend to change. What is important is that leftists actively should try to usher in a change in attitudes, without acting in a manner which re-inforces reactionary beliefs. For example, I think its a mistake to shoot priests and burn down churches.

[Nietzsche's Ghost]

Democracy can only work if the masses are objectively un-biasly educated. This of course means that democracy cannot work in a capitalist society, but it also means that it cannot work on a large scale(at least very well). People will always be subjective and biased. So democracy on a small scale yes, large scale(example North America) probably not.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Democracy is necessary because guardianship doesn't work. Some people are better at making decisions, but they act in their own interests. Ideally, democratic citizens recognize the legitimacy of experts.

People who deny global warming, for instance, are ridiculous. They don't have a science degree. They don't have any real knowledge of the subject, yet they think their opinion is as legitimate as that of the expert. The balance between valuing expertise and democracy, somehow, needs to be addressed in a communist society.

You can recognize that people deserve equality without recognizing that their opinions are equal on all issues.

[piet11111]

so the idea is that everyone has a say in things but the problem is that many do not have a clue what they are talking about ?

i like the idea of having the majority saying what they want and then leaving experts to decide how to achieve that where the experts can be made to answer to the people and are subject to recall when the people think its necessary.

[black magick hustla]

I think Democracy as an ideology is completely counter-revolutionary, but not because of some tiranny of the majority. Basically, the point is that correct principles are not necessarily shared by the majority and even if capitalism was self managed it would still be capitalism:

Basically, read thios:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1922/democratic-principle.htm

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I think Democracy as an ideology is completely counter-revolutionary, but not because of some tiranny of the majority. Basically, the point is that correct principles are not necessarily shared by the majority and even if capitalism was self managed it would still be capitalism:

Basically, read thios:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1922/democratic-principle.htm

If democracy is counterrevolutionary, what methodology will be used in a communist society to make decisions of mutual interest, resolve conflicts, et cetera?

[black magick hustla]

If democracy is counterrevolutionary, what methodology will be used in a communist society to make decisions of mutual interest, resolve conflicts, et cetera?

I am not saying democratic organs are not useful but its just a methodology - workers organizations are democratic because sometimes that is the best way to settle things. However, what I am saying is that democracy as an ideological object is complete deadweight. Principles should supersede modes of organization. For example, just because factories might be self managed does not make them revolutionary - they are just normal buisnesses. Fascism was not bad because it was antidemocratic, etc. I think it is an important point to stress.

[an apple]

Although democracy would be hard to intergrate into a Communist state, clamping down on opposition, no matter what the majority, can only lead to the creeping in of totalitarianism.

I agree with Serpent in that positive opinions should be ushered in. Propaganda would be one of the best tools to shift public opinion.

[ZeroNowhere]

Although democracy would be hard to intergrate into a Communist state
Mainly because of the nonexistence of said 'communist state'.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I'm rather confused. I always thought democracy was essential to a communist society. How do you resolve disputes? If I want to build a road near your house, but you don't want the noise to annoy you, who wins? Technically, you're being annoyed - not harmed. A law could resolve the dispute? Who decides the law?

[Cumannach]

Are the replies in this thread a series of ironic jokes? WTF?!

Democracy is the rule of the majority, anything else is the rule of minorities.

You sound like a pack of Ron Paulites! "America is not a democracy, it's a republic! USA! USA!"

And I'm the totalitarian!!:rolleyes:

[MarxSchmarx]

Thanks for the thoughts, all! Here are some further questions I have, mostly clarification type questions.

Don't mean to start a large number of tangents, but it's the only way I see to try to fairly address the diverse points raised.


Opinions tend to change. What is important is that leftists actively should try to usher in a change in attitudes, without acting in a manner which re-inforces reactionary beliefs. For example, I think its a mistake to shoot priests and burn down churches.Does this mean respecting the rule of the majority, when, for example, the majority feels that priests should be shot and churches burned? This seems like a catch-22. Not repressing religion and ignoring the will of the people to uphold a bourgeois institution is "reactionary", but doing so is also reactionary as you suggest.


People will always be subjective and biased. So democracy on a small scale yes, large scale(example North America) probably not.
Hmmm... But what about the execution of socrates, or which hunts in self-governing German city states? Aren't these examples of democratic rule whose problems were exacerbated by the small scale nature of them?

Basically, read thios:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/bord...-principle.htm (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1922/democratic-principle.htm)Alright, will do.


The balance between valuing expertise and democracy, somehow, needs to be addressed in a communist society.Right, so how do you see this balance working out?


so the idea is that everyone has a say in things but the problem is that many do not have a clue what they are talking about ?Yeah... kinda, at least in the early stages


i like the idea of having the majority saying what they want and then leaving experts to decide how to achieve that where the experts can be made to answer to the people and are subject to recall when the people think its necessary. Right but what if the global majority of say Americans, Brazilians, Japanese, Chinese, Indians, and Europeans decree "Muslim Arabs should be exterminated" and the experts say "Well, no, they should just be sent to Madagascar"? Should the experts be recalled? We can't just defer to majority opinion and leave it to the experts to decide the technicalities. There seem, at least to me, real limits on how much power the majority should be awarded.


Although democracy would be hard to intergrate into a Communist state, clamping down on opposition, no matter what the majority, can only lead to the creeping in of totalitarianism.But where do you draw the line? How about the opposition that takes up arms in the name of fascism?


Propaganda would be one of the best tools to shift public opinion. The counter-argument to this is that despite arguably decades of state and religious propaganda against, for example, the death penalty in Latin America and Western Europe, large majorities in many countries continue to support the idea.


How do you resolve disputes? If I want to build a road near your house, but you don't want the noise to annoy you, who wins? Technically, you're being annoyed - not harmed. A law could resolve the dispute? Who decides the law?Good questions. It need not be the majority or a group of philosopher kings. How about a randomly chosen group of people intensely educated (in other words, "a jury" under anglo-saxon jurisdiction or the "demarchy" idea of Jacor Richter)? Or how about a group of the most notoriously zealous civil libertarians (the principle behind the appointed judiciary in anglo-saxon countries)?

[Led Zeppelin]

Are the replies in this thread a series of ironic jokes? WTF?!

Democracy is the rule of the majority, anything else is the rule of minorities.

You sound like a pack of Ron Paulites! "America is not a democracy, it's a republic! USA! USA!"

And I'm the totalitarian!!:rolleyes:

I am just as amazed by your post as you are amazed by the posts made by others in this thread.

You, a defender of Stalin and his regime, are defending democracy as the rule of the majority and saying that anything else is the rule of minorities...as if that is something you consider to be bad?

Ok, now care to provide examples of when democratic elections were held in the USSR after Stalin's rise to power? Was it perhaps when this happened:


It was determined that of the 139 members and candidates of the party's Central Committee who were elected at the 17th Congress, 98 persons, i.e., 70 per cent, were arrested and shot (mostly in 1937-1938). (Indignation in the hall.) What was the composition of the delegates to the 17th Congress? It is known that 80 per cent of the voting participants of the 17th Congress joined the party during the years of conspiracy before the Revolution and during the civil war; this means before 1921. By social origin the basic mass of the delegates to the Congress were workers (60 per cent of the voting members).

[...]

The same fate met not only the Central Committee members but also the majority of the delegates to the 17th Party Congress. Of 1,966 delegates with either voting or advisory rights, 1,108 persons were arrested on charges of anti-revolutionary crimes, i.e., decidedly more than a majority. This very fact shows how absurd, wild and contrary to common sense were the charges of counterrevolutionary crimes made out, as we now see, against a majority of participants at the 17th Party Congress.
Link (http://www.trussel.com/hf/stalin.htm)

[Cumannach]

You, a defender of Stalin and his regime, are defending democracy as the rule of the majority and saying that anything else is the rule of minorities...as if that is something you consider to be bad?
Of course I defend Stalin and the Soviet Union. Socialism is not democracy by the way, it's the dictatorship of the proletariat, that's democracy for the workers. In the Soviet Union, this democracy wasn't perfect, but adequate enough to keep the state genuinely acting as the representative of the working class for about 30 or so years following the revolution. Although you like to imagine Stalin as omnipotent, there was no one with total power and control, and Stalin was one of the people seeking to preserve and improve Soviet democracy, unsuccesfully as it turned out.


Ok, now care to provide examples of when democratic elections were held in the USSR after Stalin's rise to power?Hm? Stalin's 'rise to power'? Oh please tell me more about this 'rise to power'. How did that come about? Might it have been, oh I don't know, by party election, this ominous 'rise'?

You might want to look a bit further than Khruschev's 'secret' speech for information about the Stalin period.

(Stalin and the Struggle for Democratic Reform)-Grover Furr
(http://clogic.eserver.org/2005/furr.html)

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I can't believe some of you are questioning the need for democracy in a post-revolution society. One of the main problems we have with todays society is the LACK of democracy. There cannot be a free, self managing, equal society without democracy. Without democracy then we will be creating new rulers to dictate to us how our lives will be run. Democracy is central to Anarchism/Communism and if we cannot do not have democracy then a communist society it will not be.

[couch13]

Every system other than democracy is rule of the minority. Take consensus rule for example. A minority can deny what the majority wants. The best possible method is a rule of the majority, which is direct democracy.

The best organizational method would be like a distorted form of Athenian Democracy. An elected workers council would organize ideas and policies which would be subject to referendum every quarter of a year. Majority rules.

[Lenin Cat]

are you people joking? Democracy is needed, any other system is oppression.

[mikelepore]

To compare any two things, consider a change to just one variable at a time. Is tyranny of the majority a bad thing? The answer is: compared to what?

Of course, to have no tyranny at all is the best. But it seems that most people who use the phrase "tyranny of the majority" don't consistently compare tyranny to no tyranny. Instead, "majority" is another point in the forefront of their attention. This is where they get confused. They have changed another variable while they were in the act of describing the effect of changing the first variable.

Tyranny of the majority is better than tyranny of the minority, because if a minority exerts tyranny, the whole of the people might become enlightened and desire a new way, and yet the minority goes on ruling by force. But if you have the majority exerting the tyranny, when the people become enlightened, when, to use a modern expression, most people raise their consciousness, then the bad situation will change.

In other words, when democracy results in bad decisions or outcomes, it happens incidentally, for various other reasons, and not because the method of decision-making was democracy. But when oligarchy, minority rule, makes bad decisions, it happens not incidentally but systematically -- because, in addition to the various other reasons, we also have the fact that the need to suppress the desires of most of the people is ever-present.

[BobKKKindle$]

I think Democracy as an ideology is completely counter-revolutionaryIn what way can democracy be described as a political ideology in and of itself? It's hard to see how you could ever describe someone simply as a "democrat" without going on to explain what exactly you mean by the term "democrat", or what kind of "democrat" that person actually is, because the term is used in so many different contexts, and has been associated with all political ideologies, including liberalism and revolutionary socialism. The precise meaning of democracy is one of the most fundamental and important debates in political theory and the term itself has been used to describe a whole range of different institutional arrangements and systems of government, with the most commonly accepted meaning shifting over time - what we consider democracy would have been described by the theorists of the Enlightenment and even earlier theorists such as Hobbes and Aristotle as a form of elective aristocracy, or oligarchy, because democracy was originally understand as the rule of the entire community, expressed through a general assembly, and not the rule of people who have been given the role of making laws and decisions on behalf of the rest of society, which is essentially what we have today. It's also worth pointing out that whereas today all regimes feel the need to present themselves as democratic, and as acting in order to encourage democracy in other countries, even when they are self-evidently not democratic at all, the term itself initially had very negative connotations, as it was seen as the rule of the mob, who were allegedly unfit to rule. Simply saying that democracy is counter-revolutionary, or that we should support democracy, is therefore rather meaningless.

To answer the OP, you make a mistake in assuming that restricting the will of the majority - for example, by introducing a constitution that would ensure that the rights of vulnerable and oppressed minorities were protected from the rest of society - is the same as restricting democracy. In other words, the will of the majority, and democracy are not synonymous. When we talk about a democratic decision-making process we have to keep in mind what exactly it is that the people or the people's representatives are deciding upon, i.e. what is the nature of the decisions that are being made under a democratic system. It's not the case that democracy involves allowing people to arbitrarily exact punishments against specific individuals because the process of revolving disputes and applying punishments is the task of the executive, and is carried out in accordance with a set of rules that have been accepted by the political community as legitimate. If majorities are literally allowed to impose violence on individuals simply by virtue of the fact that they are majority then it would be fair to say that principles that normally govern and regulate political behavior would have ceased to exist, and man would no longer be living in a political community. The main component of democracy is the popular ratification of laws, or, if we're talking about crime, the guidelines that determine when and how someone should be punished. A law consists of a rule that applies in the same way to everyone, i.e. it is universal and non-discriminatory in its object, and for that reason an act of legislation that targets a particular community with the aim of oppressing the individuals who make up that community would not be considered a law at all, but rather an act of oppression, and would be inconsistent with what democracy is.


Democracy is the rule of the majority, anything else is the rule of minorities.How do you reconcile this rather simplistic statement with the fact that Stalinist Russia has a constitution that theoretically gave every citizen certain inviolable rights that could not be altered by a decision of any of the major governing or legislative bodies? We all know that these rights were never upheld, but the fact that they existed as formal guarantees suggests that there were certain things that the majority should not have been allowed to do regardless of its numerical strength, which, in your eyes, is incompatible with democracy.

[Poppytry]

49% Is a lot of sad people.

In the British General Election of 2005 The Labour Party won the election with 37% of the vote? how the hell does that work?

That is the result of the first past the post system.

However its alternative.. proportional representation which is democracy as we know it just produces weak coalitions who cant get much done.

Democracy therefore sucks. :)

[couch13]

49% Is a lot of sad people.

In the British General Election of 2005 The Labour Party won the election with 37% of the vote? how the hell does that work?

That is the result of the first past the post system.

However its alternative.. proportional representation which is democracy as we know it just produces weak coalitions who cant get much done.

Democracy therefore sucks. :)

Strangely, there aren't that many things that only 51% of people want. Those things people are split on like that in today's society, tend to be things like republican vs democrat, which is due to a media distortion calling one left and one right.

[Spooky]

Democracy is a terrible system. But it's better than all the others we've tried.
Democracy is the lesser evil as it were. There are real and pressing problems with democracy, but the problems of are less than for other systems.


In your head, you are constructing a dichotomy:

Either democracy or Totalitarianism. Either democracy or totalitarianism, and no other possibilities: democracy offers the least evil, so reject totalitarianism.

What this dichotomy that 98% of the world uses, the possibility of emancipatory politics (revolution) is completely excluded.

You don't stop simply because it's the best that has been achieved so far.

To sum up, as Avakian said, "Demoracy: Can't we do better than that?"

[Herman]

Why are people equating "democracy" with representative democracy?

There are many forms of democracy. Personally I dislike representative democracy and would rather see a form of direct democracy in its place, something completely possible and desirable, thanks to the power of technology and the internet.

[Cumannach]

How do you reconcile this rather simplistic statement with the fact that Stalinist Russia has a constitution that theoretically gave every citizen certain inviolable rights that could not be altered by a decision of any of the major governing or legislative bodies? We all know that these rights were never upheld, but the fact that they existed as formal guarantees suggests that there were certain things that the majority should not have been allowed to do regardless of its numerical strength, which, in your eyes, is incompatible with democracy.

If the majority of the people want to pass a law banning the purchase of labour-power say, and decide further that this law should not be open to change in the future, because they allow for, or even anticipate some possible situation, where, the state apparatus and legal processes they utilize now, in this exercise of popular will, can or could be managed or manipulated in such a way as to move itself contrary to the popular will, to challenge this law, this type of 'once and for all' democracy is valid and appropriate in my opinion, depending on the circumstances and the importance attached to the particular law by the people.

[Comrade Anarchist]

The only way to prevent it is to have a constitution of sorts that protects the individual liberties of all and that can not be infringed upon by the majority

[Cynical Observer]

democracy is inefficient, but it is the ideal and something to move towards. however i think one party put in power after the revolution should stay in power long enough to stabilize the state, and i like the idea of setting up a sort of constitution. ideally by the time control is decentralized the state will have weeded out those in direct opposition to Communism, and popular opinion will have settled into a definite route

[Andropov]

however i think one party put in power after the revolution should stay in power long enough to stabilize the state, and i like the idea of setting up a sort of constitution. ideally by the time control is decentralized the state will have weeded out those in direct opposition to Communism, and popular opinion will have settled into a definite route
Absolutley.
It would be best to look at the creation of a new workers state as that of a new born baby.
This new born baby must be immunised to protect it from diseases, infections and various bacterial attacks.
I feel the same applys with the birth of a workers state, it must be stabilised and immunised from the innevetable attacks it will sustain from both domestic reactionarys and Bourgeoise Capital from abroad.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Every system other than democracy is rule of the minority. Take consensus rule for example. A minority can deny what the majority wants. The best possible method is a rule of the majority, which is direct democracy.

The best organizational method would be like a distorted form of Athenian Democracy. An elected workers council would organize ideas and policies which would be subject to referendum every quarter of a year. Majority rules.

That depends on what you mean by democracy. I don't disagree with part of your conclusion, but 50%+1 is a fairly dangerous concept when talking about large-scale experimentations. If we look at super-majority democracies, you technically don't have rule by the minority, nor do you have rule by the majority. You have something in between that promotes consensus work while not being a slave to it.

Example: If 60% voter approval is needed to pass legislation, the minority can still have a voice against such a decision, but the minority would never be able to pass its own legislation.


A minority can deny what the majority wants.

Is inaction tyranny?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I'm rather confused. I always thought democracy was essential to a communist society. How do you resolve disputes? If I want to build a road near your house, but you don't want the noise to annoy you, who wins? Technically, you're being annoyed - not harmed. A law could resolve the dispute? Who decides the law?

I'm reading this thread as a relationship between democracy and the state, rather than democracy and free communist associations where people would model the democratic model as they think necessary (simple majority, demarchy, consensus).

[The Red Next Door]

Democracy is a terrible system. But it's better than all the others we've tried.
Democracy is the lesser evil as it were. There are real and pressing problems with democracy, but the problems of are less than for other systems.


democracy is the reason why hugo chavez, michelle bachalet, daniel ortega and evo morales got elected. democracy is a good system for socialists and everybody esle humans. need democracy even the butthole on the right

[couch13]

That depends on what you mean by democracy. I don't disagree with part of your conclusion, but 50%+1 is a fairly dangerous concept when talking about large-scale experimentations. If we look at super-majority democracies, you technically don't have rule by the minority, nor do you have rule by the majority. You have something in between that promotes consensus work while not being a slave to it.

Example: If 60% voter approval is needed to pass legislation, the minority can still have a voice against such a decision, but the minority would never be able to pass its own legislation.



Is inaction tyranny?

Direct Democracy. 50%+1 with a consitution guarunteeing equal rights for all peoples.

Inaction is not tyranny. What is tyranny is when 41% can say no to the will of 59%. For example, 59% want a constitution that will grant equal rights to all people, while 41% want a constitution that will grant equal rights to all people except for transexuals. Then, the minority has made it so transexuals aren't equal.

[Cooler Reds Will Prevail]

I feel that direct democracy is the best system (especially now with modern technology as Herman pointed out), but at the same time I feel that it needs to be confined with a socialist constitution that protects against capitalist restoration and guarantees minority rights or an elected people's council of dedicated revolutionaries that can override decisions that pass with less than a, let's say, 3/5 popular vote if they contradict the principles of socialism... Kind of like an elected Supreme Court, just a thought.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

democracy is the reason why hugo chavez, michelle bachalet, daniel ortega and evo morales got elected. democracy is a good system for socialists and everybody esle humans. need democracy even the butthole on the right

But this isn't actual democracy what you are advocating.

[Vincent P.]

democracy is the reason why hugo chavez, michelle bachalet, daniel ortega and evo morales got elected. democracy is a good system for socialists and everybody esle humans. need democracy even the butthole on the right

Democracy is also the reason why Adolf Hitler got elected :rolleyes:.

If you cannot decide against the will of the people in a democracy, you can alway decide the will of the people. Of all the americans which voted last year, how many of them voted by pure political conciousness? Charisma, public image and scandals were the criteria for 80-90% of the Americans, and all of those are artificially made for that purpose by the political power, not by the people. Yellow journalism: Obama is a muslim, Obama is a communist (Not a communist !? By that single move they decided of the image of communism in the mind of the republicans for the years to come - lemon socialism).

That said I believe in some form of democracy. That is: direct democracy for local business, in a very restricted form (never deal with "moral" business or whatever).

In a dictatorship you're told: "Shut up!". In a democracy it's: "Keep talking, but I'm not listening!"... Coluche


EDIT: Just like Captain stated below, democracy must be used along with proper education (not only maths, but also politics basics).

[Il Medico]

"The road to socialism is democracy"- Karl Marx

Democracy is not the problem, the false capitalist propaganda is the problem. The only way to guard against these falsities is education. The greatest goal of Leftist should be to educate the masses, because with education come knowledge and with knowledge comes power. The power to discern from what is true and what is false. the power of class consciousness.

"There is no poverty like ignorance and no wealth like knowledge"
I don't know who said that, if anybody knows please tell me I like the quote.

"I have a problem with any system that puts the opinion of the village idiot on the same level of that of Aristotle" Also do not know.
The left's goal should be to make the village idiots rich in knowledge so the Aristotles don't have cart blanch with the world.

[apathy maybe]

democracy is the reason why hugo chavez, michelle bachalet, daniel ortega and evo morales got elected. democracy is a good system for socialists and everybody esle humans. need democracy even the butthole on the right
Oh right, and that's a great thing isn't it. Tell me, these "socialists", what have they actually done? Is the state disappearing? Are the workers in control?



"The road to socialism is democracy"- Karl Marx
Yes, let's all give a pithy Marx quote without context...

I believe that when universal suffrage first was coming into being in various countries, Marx thought it was good. However, later in his life he changed his mind.

Indeed, if he could see the last 100 years of history, he wouldn't think much of "democracy" and its ability to bring "socialism".

----

I had some other stuff to say, but I really can't be fucked.

[Poppytry]

Are the replies in this thread a series of ironic jokes? WTF?!

Democracy is the rule of the majority, anything else is the rule of minorities.

You sound like a pack of Ron Paulites! "America is not a democracy, it's a republic! USA! USA!"

And I'm the totalitarian!!:rolleyes:

Says the guy who describes himself as a "Democratic Stalinist"..

Hmm I might consider becoming a meat eating vegetarian :confused:

[Cumannach]

How silly of me.

[WhitemageofDOOM]

49% Is a lot of sad people.

51% however, is more sad people.



You don't stop simply because it's the best that has been achieved so far.

To sum up, as Avakian said, "Demoracy: Can't we do better than that?"

I agree.
We can implement wide scale change to the decision making process once we've tested some alternatives.

[Poppytry]

(49% is alot of sad people)
51% however, is more sad people.


So the 49% should continually be oppressed by the tyranny of the majority?

[Kollentsky]

Some people here need to take a trip back to elementary A-level politics...

Demos = the people (masses)
Cracy = (the) Rule of

'Democracy' isn't a system of voting, or specific mode of governmental process. In any meaningful sense it relates to a society in which the distinction between citizenry and state has been diminished to the point at which all (or most) play a direct role in administering the rules and institutions of society... which is why 'Representative Democracy' is an oxymoron, and the closest that bourgeois liberals can come to claim as 'democratic' is talk of 'the third estate' (which in most classical theory is seen as distinct from both monarchy and 'government').

If the reason that you wish to achieve socialism isn't to maximise the power and influence which individual humans have over their own lives, then you're no political ally of mine. For this to happen, any future society must be in some real sense 'democratic', with a culture of direct participation. As far as I'm concerned, this is the culture of revolution and of workers' organisations, and would be the culture of a workers' state. If it wasn't, then I wouldn't be a communist.

[WhitemageofDOOM]

So the 49% should continually be oppressed by the tyranny of the majority?

So the 51% should continually be oppressed by the tyranny of the minority?
Any complaints aimed at democracy are going to crop up more often in every other attempted form of government. In the end all the others we have tried are oligarchies.

[Led Zeppelin]

So the 49% should continually be oppressed by the tyranny of the majority?

When those 49% live in a democratic society, a truly democratic society that is, then they would not be "oppressed", they'd be free to espouse their point of view and try and convince others of it. When enough people have been "convinced", then they will become the majority.

Democracy is never something static, because society isn't. A few hundred years ago women were not considered "equal" by many, yet now they have equal rights. If the system was designed to be static and unchangeable, then a law which stated that women were not equal to men would still be in place today, and indeed about half of the people would be oppressed.

The problem with bourgeois democracy is that it's not truly democratic, because there's no level playing field for all contending point of views. That's why the system usually lags behind the will of the people, after it perverts and distorts it, of course (through the media, indoctrination etc.).

[dogwoodlover]

It seems evident that democracy is probably the least totalitarian of political system.

As to whether democracy is desirable or not, however, in the context of revolutionary and post-revolutionary society, seems to rest on another question:

Is the purpose of our revolution to institute a society which places the highest intrinsic value on the will of the people (or, the majority)? or, is it a matter of fulfilling "historical imperatives"?

If you subscribe to the idea that revolution is purely about establishing a free society in which the people truly rule, then the question of whether democracy is problematic seems to be irrelevant. Though, if you take the perspective that the purpose of revolution is the "historical necessity" of transcending capitalism, then it seems that democracy may well be dispensable, in favor of another system which may "more correctly" put in place the necessary measures to institute socialism/communism.

I tend to lean towards the latter point of view, though I hold the first in high regard (i.e. I think the only way towards the latter is the former). I suspect that, in a revolutionary/post-revolutionary society, if the revolution were to have occurred at all, a proper degree of class-consciousness had to have been present in the working classes, given that they did not have their hands held by some "vanguard," and that it follows that they could largely be trusted to usher in a properly socialist/communist society while keeping a new class of bureaucrats/professional politicians from developing (i.e. what might happen in a less-democratic system).

I am of the view that the working classes must make the revolution and carry it through, and seeing as how the working classes make the majority, democracy in general seems to be a safe bet.

[RedAthena1919]

The problem with any system is the ability of other people to interfere in and control your life, whether with their ideas or their actions. The "tyranny of the majority" is the mistake of allowing the majority of people control the few. Now, I'm no "Anarcho-Capitalist", I believe that the economy should be collective, but it should alos ofcourse be entirely voluntary, and not extended to all aspects of life. So, for example, the majority of workers get the say in how a factory is run or resources distributed (and, if anyone too violently objects to these decisions, they should be allowed to leave the factory and seek work wlesewhere), but they do NOT get a say in how people distribute their personal resources or live their lives. The Community CANNOT be allowed to interfere with the fate of the individual, how they dress, speak, eat, or whatever else. A democraticly-run economy, but an individual-focused society. Afterall, didn't Marx and Engels make it clear in the Communist Manifesto when they said:
"In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all." ?

[New Tet]

The problem with bourgeois democracy is that it's not truly democratic, because there's no level playing field for all contending point of views. That's why the system usually lags behind the will of the people, after it perverts and distorts it, of course (through the media, indoctrination etc.).

The incapacity of bourgeois democracy to properly address injustice and inequality is the result of the undemocratic nature of the economic system that sustains it.

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatole_France

[IllustriousCommie]

Addressing the democracy discussion on page 1 and page 2 of this thread:

As far as the necessity of democracy in the beginning and middle stages of a socialist society: it must be a democracy of the working class. This is the same as what Marx referred to as "dictatorship of the proletariat." Unfortunately he did not describe what this system would look like, except by writing [paraphrased]: "The Paris Commune is the dictatorship of the proletariat!".

Once class distinctions are eliminated, which would most likely come before the state is dismantled, meaning that the society is still socialist, but on the verge of becoming communist. E.g., the highest phase of socialism. The proletariat wants to disappear from existence. Anyway, at this point, when the proletariat, and bourgeoisie, as well as any other classes no longer exist.. we can begin to speak of "democracy" and "the people" - not the working class as those who make the decisions.

Certainly, shortly after I'd assume the state would dismantle itself, having achieved the goal of no class distinctions. Once there is no state, and no class distinctions, we have communism.

I am particularly concerned about people who know nothing (or worse, something incorrect) with regards to issues that would be voted on. As someone said, an expert
on a certain subject and a dumbshit could have opposing views on said subject, yet their votes cancel each other out. And there are far more dumbshits than experts.

The solution? Who knows. Some of the following could help. Very good education (sounds cliche). Everyday people interacting with scientists and experts (in something like an Akademgorodok, Russian for "Academic village", a wonderful thing which existed in the USSR where intelligent, educated people all lived together in the same community, their families spending time together, kids going to school together, etc. -- but including everyday people in such a place. Or perhaps having educated experts speak to workers councils and at party meetings about the subject in which they hold their expertise. Televise it. Obviously in a socialist society, it wouldn't be allowed to lie to the public (the press shouldn't be able to print that evolution is nonsense.) So the public would only be receiving correct, scientifically-valid information. Of course, not all scientists in the world, or experts of a specific discipline, agree 100% with each other. But in the case of evolution there is a large consensus in the scientific community.

There really is no simple answer (emphasis added) to the above problem.

Someone mentioned "burning churches". I don't think this is necessary. My friend, who grew up in the USSR, said that people who were religious were looked at like crazies -- like UFO enthusiasts are looked at by the mainstream. They were literally laughed at for their insane beliefs. That's how it should be - negative reinforcement for people who express incorrect, unprovable, non-scientific views.

[Dave B]

I suspect that the ‘Dictatorship of the Proletariat’ was the Paris commune quote referred to came from Engels, maybe Karl said it as well but the one below is the one I remember;



Of late, the Social-Democratic philistine has once more been filled with wholesome terror at the words: Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Well and good, gentlemen, do you want to know what this dictatorship looks like? Look at the Paris Commune. That was the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

Frederick Engels
London, on the 20th anniversary
of the Paris Commune, March 18, 1891.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/postscript.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/postscript.htm)

Bakunin endorsed the Paris Commune as well eg as below;

Stateless Socialism: Anarchism, by Mikhail Bakunin 1814-1876




Revolutionary Socialism has made its first brilliant and practical appearance in the Paris Commune.


http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/bakunin/bakunin2.html (http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/bakunin/bakunin2.html)

You sometimes wonder what the problem is.

Just before the Paris Commune kicked off Karl thought the idea was stupid or folly was the word he used I think. But obviously later supported it as a noble experiment kind of thing.


With this tyranny of the majority there seems to be some kind of implication that there is going to be some group, consisting of the same people, who are always going to be in the minority over everything and vice versa with the majority. In reality it is much more likely that you are going to be in the tyrannical majority on one issue and the tyrannised minority on the next. So it wouldn’t make sense to make an example of using democracy to trample over any strongly held views of a minority as it could be you next as something else crap is being suggested for your own backyard.

The problem of democratically taking decisions on complex issues which require detailed understanding and time to understand them to make a rational decision is a real one. But there is a solution.

Statistically if you randomly select a large enough group of people to look into an issue and give them time to understand everything that is involved. Then when they voted on it they would take the same decision that the entire population would if they had done the same thing.

That decision wouldn’t need to be binding, people could just vote to endorse that decision.

It is called demarchy, there is a wiki entry on it below, not that it is exactly my take on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarchy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demarchy)

I see no place for democracy in interfering with the ‘individual’, it would be limited to the production process where production would be a co-operative process.

That is unless you decide not to abolish the wages system, and labour vouchers, in which case you are going to have to institutionalise the regulation of economic crimes.