Democracy

[thecoffeecake1]

So many people on this board seem to be pro soviet union and anti democracy and i dont get it. Why cant democracy work in a communist society? i sound like a broken republican record but democracy is taken for granted. when do dictatorships ever work?

and if you honestly support the soviet union, you might want to get checked for downs syndrome. people had no basic rights or liberties and it seems as though many people here support that fully and want the united states to turn into that.

[DecDoom]

I haven't been here long enough to see any of the democracy debates, but I think the problem is that most democratic elections ensure that the ruling class remains in power, no matter the outcome. Leftists seek to remove the ruling class, obviously, so the democratic system isn't a very good outlet for doing that.

[thecoffeecake1]

while that is usually the case, it doesnt have to be in communist elections. i just feel that all dictatorships become oppressive with power hungry, greedy dictators.

[F9]

In what use you think of democracy as?As elections?There arent going to be elections of who is the ruler..Democracy in communism is the direct one and only in the decisions of communes.
There arent many pro-soviet and anti-democracy people around here, especially the second one.Direct democracy is part of communism, those who say opposite dont talk about communism but of something different.
And i agree with you but whats about your avatar?KKE supports what you are talking about!It seems weird.

Fuserg9:star:

[Tjis]

I'm very much anti democracy. One of the biggest lies we're being told every day is that democracy is as free as it can possibly get. And it's not.
You seem to have fallen for this trap as well. You seem to think that democracy only is freedom, and anything that is not democracy can only really be a dictatorship.
Democracy does not give us any power. Democracy doesn't even give us the power to choose who rules us, because as long as capitalism is around, our ruler is the capitalist class. All we ever choose is the face of our rulers.
That kind of democracy is completely incompatible with communism. Communism is a classless, stateless society. If any group has any power over any other group, it's not communism. The soviet union was not communist. China is not communist. North Korea definitely isn't communist.

We need no rulers. We can rule ourselves.

[F9]

I'm very much anti democracy. One of the biggest lies we're being told every day is that democracy is as free as it can possibly get. And it's not.
You seem to have fallen for this trap as well. You seem to think that democracy only is freedom, and anything that is not democracy can only really be a dictatorship.
Democracy does not give us any power. Democracy doesn't even give us the power to choose who rules us, because as long as capitalism is around, our ruler is the capitalist class. All we ever choose is the face of our rulers.
That kind of democracy is completely incompatible with communism. Communism is a classless, stateless society. If any group has any power over any other group, it's not communism. The soviet union was not communist. China is not communist. North Korea definitely isn't communist.

We need no rulers. We can rule ourselves.

You are using, as most people and the states today, a deformed version of democracy which in the end it isnt democracy.

Fuserg9:star:

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

As noted by Fuserg, representative "democracy" is not democracy at all. You can't have socialism without democracy. Most people that support the USSR do it because they believe it was a true proletarian democracy.

[Tjis]

You are using, as most people and the states today, a deformed version of democracy which in the end it isnt democracy.

Fuserg9:star:

It is democracy. It's not direct democracy of course, but that's why we call direct democracy direct democracy, and not just democracy. Cause it's a special case of democracy.

I'm fine with direct democracy, as long as it remains a matter of various groups that all consent with the outcome of a vote, which was done after careful discussion, and not a matter of a majority enforcing their will upon a minority.

[GPDP]

Like my professor said in an article he wrote on the anti-democratic nature of the US constitution and its framers once:


Today, as roughly 230 years ago, we have government of the people, by the propertied class, for the propertied class.

Our democracy is not a democracy as long as this is so.

[Tower of Bebel]

It is democracy. It's not direct democracy of course, but that's why we call direct democracy direct democracy, and not just democracy. Cause it's a special case of democracy.
I wouldn't call parliamentary democracy or bourgeois democracy "democracy". Demos-cratein in Athens was different from democracy today. The Enlightenment gave its own bourgeoisified meaning to democracy. It denoted rule of the people, but the people was a restricted notion that could only be applied to the middle class and bourgeoisie. Even worse: they had to elect "representatives" of the people. Marx gave us a totally different definition. Democracy was described as rule by the people, while people stood for the population as a whole (demos). That's why ancient Athens was some sort of a democracy (yet still one of slave owners): there was a chance to elect ordinary people sitting as ordinary people. This is opposed to the idea that ordinary people can only elect elements from the bourgeoisie who act in favor of the bourgeoisie. The dictatorship of capital is nothing like democracy. A liberal dictatorship of capital sometimes looks even more like a modern dictatorship then a slave-owners' democracy in ancient Athens.

In short: communists are pro-democracy. A radical democracy which is the dictatorship of the working class. "But this dictatorship consists in the manner of applying democracy, not in its elimination, but in energetic, resolute attacks upon the well-entrenched rights and economic relationships of bourgeois society, without which a socialist transformation cannot be accomplished. But this dictatorship must be the work of the class and not of a little leading minority in the name of the class – that is, it must proceed step by step out of the active participation of the masses; it must be under their direct influence, subjected to the control of complete public activity; it must arise out of the growing political training of the mass of the people." (Luxemburg)

[Nwoye]

In short: communists are pro-democracy. A radical democracy which is the dictatorship of the working class. "But this dictatorship consists in the manner of applying democracy, not in its elimination, but in energetic, resolute attacks upon the well-entrenched rights and economic relationships of bourgeois society, without which a socialist transformation cannot be accomplished. But this dictatorship must be the work of the class and not of a little leading minority in the name of the class – that is, it must proceed step by step out of the active participation of the masses; it must be under their direct influence, subjected to the control of complete public activity; it must arise out of the growing political training of the mass of the people." (Luxemburg)
dammit i wanted to be the first to post a Rosa quote. good post though.

[Agrippa]

I wouldn't call parliamentary democracy or bourgeois democracy "democracy". Demos-cratein in Athens was different from democracy today. The Enlightenment gave its own bourgeoisified meaning to democracy. It denoted rule of the people, but the people was a restricted notion that could only be applied to the middle class and bourgeoisie. Even worse: they had to elect "representatives" of the people. Marx gave us a totally different definition. Democracy was described as rule by the people, while people stood for the population as a whole (demos). That's why ancient Athens was some sort of a democracy (yet still one of slave owners): there was a chance to elect ordinary people sitting as ordinary people. This is opposed to the idea that ordinary people can only elect elements from the bourgeoisie who act in favor of the bourgeoisie. The dictatorship of capital is nothing like democracy. A liberal dictatorship of capital sometimes looks even more like a modern dictatorship then a slave-owners' democracy in ancient Athens.

In short: communists are pro-democracy. A radical democracy which is the dictatorship of the working class. "But this dictatorship consists in the manner of applying democracy, not in its elimination, but in energetic, resolute attacks upon the well-entrenched rights and economic relationships of bourgeois society, without which a socialist transformation cannot be accomplished. But this dictatorship must be the work of the class and not of a little leading minority in the name of the class – that is, it must proceed step by step out of the active participation of the masses; it must be under their direct influence, subjected to the control of complete public activity; it must arise out of the growing political training of the mass of the people." (Luxemburg)

But the point others are trying to make is that the word "democracy" has never meant what it is supposed to. That's not to say Rosa Luxemburg's brilliant observations are somehow less valid because she uses the word "democracy" in a different way I do. But given the origins and history of the term "democracy", why should we cling to it?

[GPDP]

But the point others are trying to make is that the word "democracy" has never meant what it is supposed to. That's not to say Rosa Luxemburg's brilliant observations are somehow less valid because she uses the word "democracy" in a different way I do. But given the origins and history of the term "democracy", why should we cling to it?

Well, what would you call it?

inb4socialproletocracy

[Tower of Bebel]

But the point others are trying to make is that the word "democracy" has never meant what it is supposed to. That's not to say Rosa Luxemburg's brilliant observations are somehow less valid because she uses the word "democracy" in a different way I do. But given the origins and history of the term "democracy", why should we cling to it?
I think we should reclaim the word ;). I think we should not call this system democratic. You can call it bourgeois democratic, but just to make it clear that the prole has nothing to say (let alone he has something to gain (edit)). We should reclaim it just like I would want to reclaim socialism and communism from hostile Cold War rethoric.

Maybe a side not, but I don't have sufficient sources to really support my claim about Marx his definition :( . I read it somewhere and lost the link.

[Tjis]

I think we should reclaim the word ;). I think we should not call this system democratic. You can call it bourgeois democratic, but just to make it clear that the prole has nothing to say (let alone he has something to say). We should reclaim it just like I would want to reclaim socialism and communism from hostile Cold War rethoric.

Maybe a side not, but I don't have sufficient sources to really support my claim about Marx his definition :( . I read it somewhere and lost the link.

But aren't we clinging too much to democracy as somehow being the most free thing ever, therefore trying to match our idea of what freedom is with democracy?
The word democracy has been used for the past centuries in a way many in this thread say is not really democracy. But why bother trying to claim the word? Why not convince others that there's something better than what is currently called democracy, instead of confusing people by saying that we are the true democrats and the definition they have been using all their lives was wrong all this time?

[mel]

But aren't we clinging too much to democracy as somehow being the most free thing ever, therefore trying to match our idea of what freedom is with democracy?
The word democracy has been used for the past centuries in a way many in this thread say is not really democracy. But why bother trying to claim the word? Why not convince others that there's something better than what is currently called democracy, instead of confusing people by saying that we are the true democrats and the definition they have been using all their lives was wrong all this time?
I'd be willing to bet most people you could talk to understand the difference between a representative democracy and a direct one. The thing they don't understand is how bourgeois representative democracy robs them of control. We're not trying to "reclaim" democracy, just point out the inherent problems with a specific type of democracy.

[el_chavista]

So many people on this board seem to be pro soviet union and anti democracy and i dont get it. I support any instance of non-capitalistic economy. Don't be confused with the American 2-party electoral masquerade with which the greedy vermin disguise its dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

Why cant democracy work in a communist society? i sound like a broken republican record but democracy is taken for granted. when do dictatorships ever work? It was really hard to install a real socialist democracy in the Soviet Union being invaded by the capitalist powers' armies. Actually one porpoise of this forum is to discuss about the democratic concept of the ruling of the proletariat to end the class strugle.

and if you honestly support the soviet union, you might want to get checked for downs syndrome. people had no basic rights or liberties and it seems as though many people here support that fully and want the united states to turn into that.And what are the republicans with their war-business but neo-nazis.

[Rjevan]

Why cant democracy work in a communist society?
Who said democracy can't work in a communist society? Democracy is an essential part of a communist society.


and if you honestly support the soviet union, you might want to get checked for downs syndrome. people had no basic rights or liberties and it seems as though many people here support that fully and want the united states to turn into that.
*groan* Please, please, don't buy all of the nazi/cappie propaganda on the USSR! Stating that people had absolutely "no basic rights or liberties" in the USSR is just ridiculous, you might want to read some historical information about the USSR, preferably some, which were not written by Dr. Goebbels or Senator McCarthy and compare live and quality of life of the Russian people in the USSR and in the Czarist Russia. And here's an article (http://clogic.eserver.org/2005/furr.html) on democracy in the USSR, and if you think, this was was written by some hardcore "Stalinist":

This article is no attempt to "rehabilitate" Stalin. I agree with Yuri Zhukov when he writes:

I can honestly tell you that I oppose the rehabilitation of Stalin, because I oppose rehabilitations in general. Nothing and no one in history should be rehabilitated -- but we must uncover the truth and speak the truth.
And now excuse me, I have to go to the doctor and get checked for symptoms of down syndrome.

[Brother No. 1]

So many people on this board seem to be pro soviet union and anti democracy and i dont get it.

you've only seen the Marxist-Leninist faction. Check the Anarchists for if we Marxist-Leninists were compared to them here on Revleft its like 3 to 1. As for "Anti-Democracy" we oppose the "Democracy of Capitalism" which as Lenin said it just like Greek Democracy as the slaver is free while the slave is not free. Also this "Democracy" opresses the masses so how can it be a "Democracy" if it oppresses people? answer is: its not. All communists and Anarchists support a Democracy just that Capitalist "Democracy" and Communist/Anarchist Democracy are 2 different things.



people had no basic rights or liberties and it seems as though many people here support that fully and want the united states to turn into that.
The US is an imperialist Capitalist state that oppresses people on a daily basis and has killed many in the name of "Liberty,Freedom, and Democracy." Also what you may have been reading was propaganda by a Capitalist. The US has always shown the people what they, the goverment, think of someone else. The "Red menance" from the Russian Revolution to the end of the Cold war mostly focused around the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. It ddint fully foucs soley around it but it did foucs on it alot. It fouces on the DPRK,PRC,etc but the leaders of the US wanted their people to think that Communism and Socialism are "bad" when they just made it into what the goverment, Elite state, wants them to think how it is.

[Il Medico]

For once I kinda agree with Polish Soviet. Although I disagree with him on whether or not the USSR was communist, I agree with his statement. Also, Polish Soviet, there are a lot of people here who disagree with you, not just anarchist and trots. The American view of communism is all capitalist propaganda. The fact is communism if the ultimate form of freedom. It will allow true democracy to be implemented. Bourgeois democracy is not democracy. It is class dictatorship, and in a why worse then what the Soviet Union had. They give the people token rights so they think they are free. However, they oppress them and wage war with out their outrage. It is because, unlike in a dictatorship, they have the people thinking that the people are ultimately in charge. This prevents, with out extreme struggle, the people from even noticing their oppression, let alone doing something about it. However, like all propaganda, the people will eventually see the truth, and rebel against the lies. We have the truth, now we need to spread it.

Love always comrades,
Captain Jack.

[Absolut]

As noted by Fuserg, representative "democracy" is not democracy at all. You can't have socialism without democracy. Most people that support the USSR do it because they believe it was a true proletarian democracy.

I completely agree, socialism without democracy simply cannot exist, but I dont understand why representative democracy in itself is a bad thing. I thought the general idea was that when the workers take control of the means of production, they send representatives from their factory etc, on to the regional council or whatever you want to call it.

[Il Medico]

I completely agree, socialism without democracy simply cannot exist, but I dont understand why representative democracy in itself is a bad thing. I thought the general idea was that when the workers take control of the means of production, they send representatives from their factory etc, on to the regional council or whatever you want to call it.
That is the idea of soviets, which I believe was devised by Lenin. Anywho, representative democracy in a class society is bad, because it creates a class dictatorship. However, representative democracy in a socialist country could also lead to certain individuals taking control, and recreating a class system. this is unlikely, but I still believe that direct democracy is your best bet.

[Nwoye]

I completely agree, socialism without democracy simply cannot exist, but I dont understand why representative democracy in itself is a bad thing. I thought the general idea was that when the workers take control of the means of production, they send representatives from their factory etc, on to the regional council or whatever you want to call it.
well i suppose representation would have to be proportionate, meaning every representative speaks for the same amount of people. also, there must be very short terms and the option of recall for representatives. personally, i would prefer direct democracy, but if people wanted to delegate authority in the above matter then i don't see a problem.

[mel]

well i suppose representation would have to be proportionate, meaning every representative speaks for the same amount of people. also, there must be very short terms and the option of recall for representatives. personally, i would prefer direct democracy, but if people wanted to delegate authority in the above matter then i don't see a problem.

What if there were 4 representatives each representing 10 million people? I think the number of people represented by any representative would have to be a small number.

[Nwoye]

What if there were 4 representatives each representing 10 million people? I think the number of people represented by any representative would have to be a small number.
well yes. i was more referring to the discrepancy in representation between peasants and factory workers in the USSR.

and i will prepare to be flamed.

[mel]

well yes. i was more referring to the discrepancy in representation between peasants and factory workers in the USSR.

and i will prepare to be flamed.

At times in the USSR the peasants and factory workers had equal representation under the law. The problem was more likely the uncontested elections where the party put up only their own candidates to be elected (who would, of course, serve the interests of the party) than any problem with unequal power to vote between the peasants and factory workers.

[Absolut]

That is the idea of soviets, which I believe was devised by Lenin. Anywho, representative democracy in a class society is bad, because it creates a class dictatorship. However, representative democracy in a socialist country could also lead to certain individuals taking control, and recreating a class system. this is unlikely, but I still believe that direct democracy is your best bet.

If Im not mistaken, similiar ideas (if not pretty much the same) have been presented by various people in various traditions within the socialist school, the ones Im most familiar with would be the anarchist. We have Kropotkin advocating the complete souvereignity of each factory, which would then send delegates to some sort of council with the other factories. Either way, you get my point.

I agree with you though, representative democracy can easily lead to a clique of people taking control and recreating a class system, and I think we should implement a direct democracy as far as we can, but I also believe theres a limit as to how direct a democracy can be.

Sedrox has a few ideas as to how we could implement a more direct representative democracy, short terms and the ability of the delegates being recallable whenever the ones that elected them feels like it.

[Nwoye]

At times in the USSR the peasants and factory workers had equal representation under the law. The problem was more likely the uncontested elections where the party put up only their own candidates to be elected (who would, of course, serve the interests of the party) than any problem with unequal power to vote between the peasants and factory workers.
peasants and proletarians where represented in vastly different proportions in the Soviet Union, so as to give factory workers more influence on the government.

[mel]

peasants and proletarians where represented in vastly different proportions in the Soviet Union, so as to give factory workers more influence on the government.

Do you have a reference for this? I realize this may have been true under some soviet constitutions, but I know for a fact that this was not the case under all of them.

[Nwoye]

Do you have a reference for this? I realize this may have been true under some soviet constitutions, but I know for a fact that this was not the case under all of them.
Excuse the length. I wanted the whole quote. It's form marxists.org by the way.
But the Soviet system is not a symmetrical plan for achieving a just representation of whatever may be the opinions of the inhabitants of Russia. It is an organ of the class struggle. The peasants may be poor, and they may be workers, but they were not the pioneers in the Revolution. Save, indeed, that they seized the land with ready enthusiasm, they took little active part in it until, in the later period of the Civil War, their disgust with the "White" generals induced them to fight steadily under Communist leadership. Save for the more intelligent of the younger men who have passed through the school of the Red Army, the peasants do not possess the outlook of the organized workers of the towns. They grasp the aims of the Revolution imperfectly, and, owing to their lack of education and the immense distances over which they are scattered in a country poorly provided with roads and railways, it is not easy to keep them informed. Yet they form the overwhelming majority of the population. The leaders of the Revolution had to face the certainty that, if they gave equal representation to the villages and the towns, the peasants would soon swamp the revolutionary class, and the policy of the Soviet Republic would be based on some instinctive, old-world brand of individualism, short-sighted, conservative, and colored, perhaps, by the traditions of the most obscurantist Church in Christendom. Fortunately, the peasants had already accepted an unequal basis of representation in the early days of 1917, when the congresses of workers' and peasants' Soviets first met together. It has continued to this day. Its basis is (if we take 100 as the unit) that 100 voters in the towns have the same voting power as 500 inhabitants of the villages. It is not easy, without an exact study of the census, to say what the real pro-portion is, for children are reckoned in the population of the countryside, while only adults are counted in the urban constituencies. The townsman's vote probably weighs about three times as heavily as the countryman's. Even so the peasants are in a large majority.
peasants were not thought of as a revolutionary class, and as such their influence was down-played, in the hopes that the artificially increased power of town-workers would ensure that the soviets retained their revolutionary tendencies.

[mel]

When was that written, because this is from the 1936 Constitution of the USSR


Elections of deputies are universal: all citizens of the U.S.S.R. who have reached the age of eighteen, irrespective of race or nationality, religion, educational and residential qualifications, social origin, property status or past activities, have the right to vote in the election of deputies and to be elected, with the exception of insane persons and persons who have been convicted by a court of law and whose sentences include deprivation of electoral rights

and also this:


Elections of deputies are equal: each citizen has one vote; all citizens participate in elections on an equal footing.

[Nwoye]

When was that written, because this is from the 1936 Constitution of the USSR
i believe that was written in 1927/28.

by the way, my quotes are referring to how delegates are determined in the soviets. what it's saying is: proportionately, there are more representatives for town soviets then there are for village soviets. So if towns have one delegate for every 200,000 people, villages have one for every 500,000 people. This gave towns (and therefore industrial workers) more say in the soviet councils.

so your quotes are probably accurate. your quotes are just saying that when electing those representatives, every worker gets one vote - making them theoretically equal.

[mel]

i believe that was written in 1927/28.

by the way, my quotes are referring to how delegates are determined in the soviets. what it's saying is: proportionately, there are more representatives for town soviets then there are for village soviets. So if towns have one delegate for every 200,000 people, villages have one for every 500,000 people. This gave towns (and therefore industrial workers) more say in the soviet councils.

so your quotes are probably accurate. your quotes are just saying that when electing those representatives, every worker gets one vote - making them theoretically equal.

The supreme soviet of the USSR, which was the highest governing body of the state, is divided thusly:


ARTICLE 34. The Soviet of the Union is elected by the citizens of the U.S.S.R. according to electoral areas on the basis of one deputy for every 300,000 of the population
ARTICLE 35. The Soviet of Nationalities is elected by the citizens of the U.S.S.R. according to Union and Autonomous Republics, Autonomous Regions and national areas on the basis of twenty-five deputies from each Union Republic, eleven deputies from each Autonomous Republic, five deputies from each Autonomous Region and one deputy from each national area.

It appears to me that Stalin's constitution rectified this problem, though it failed to address most of the others.

[Nwoye]

hmmm interesting. good work Josef. I'll see if I can find some corroborating sources.