"Democracy without political parties is impossible"

[GPDP]

I'm currently wrestling with this statement by E.E. Schattschneider. I'm not totally sure how to approach it.

Obviously, it probably holds true for the current system. I get why they would be needed in a system of representative "democracy." But what about under a system of direct, participatory democracy such as in communism? Would parties also be necessary then? Even if the ideal system is a federation of nested councils with instantly recallable delegates at every level?

I'm mainly concerned about an evaluation of this position from an anarchist point of view, since I worry about the accumulation of power and additional and perhaps unnecessary layers between the people and the "government" (if an anarchist can call it such), but I suppose a Marxist perspective wouldn't hurt.

[Die Neue Zeit]

You should read my Theory thread on participatory democracy. Direct democracy is made possible in modern times by high levels of political activism, and this in turn is made possible mainly by political parties. This was noted long ago by Kautsky, and this remains true today.

[GPDP]

You should read my Theory thread on participatory democracy. Direct democracy is made possible in modern times by high levels of political activism, and this in turn is made possible mainly by political parties. This was noted long ago by Kautsky, and this remains true today.

Actually, it was that very article that led me to post this. :)

[Die Neue Zeit]

Well, then, I guess a blush is in order. :blushing:

In terms of "such as in communism," I don't know. I was obviously referring to the transition towards such. I also intend to cap off my Chapter 5 work on how to apply my take on the democracy question to political parties themselves:

1) that they should be demarchic and not electoral;
2) that freedom of dissent should be extended to immediate criticisms of decisions made (especially if those "decisions" are mere "party lines" and not definite actions);
3) that "unity of definite action" should not inhibit parties from taking *seemingly* opposite courses of definite action simultaneously, such as general spoilage campaigns alongside electoral campaigns for a registered electoral organization set up by in a non-frontist fashion by the revolutionary party (Class-Strugglist Social Labour for spoilage vs. "Socialist Left Party" for elections);
4) etc.

[GPDP]

Sounds interesting.

Well, I suppose this thread should stay open for discussion on how a party system should ideally work. As for me, I'm going to take my concerns directly to the Anarchist forum.

[More Fire for the People]

A democracy can have no parties, one party, or several parties. Democracy is (1) a dialogue between those involved; (2) the reaching of a consensus agreeable to all participants; and (3) the collective implementation of the consensus. Parties can only serve as an aid or hindrance in this process.

[ComradeOm]

From the Marxist perspective political parties are representative of certain class interests; ie they represent the "collective will", to quote Gramsci, of a certain segment of the population. When this will is diffuse, ie the class lacks conciousness, then you have the scattered and apathetic electorate of today. However in revolutionary circumstances the most militant and revolutionary elements of the proletariat will naturally gather under a single banner

Following a successful proletarian revolution its safe to expect political parties to fade away as the class interests of the proletariat can be directly addressed by the workers' state. The state becomes the favoured means for the collective will to exercise itself in action

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Democracy WITH political parties is impossible.

There. That's a more accurate statement.

[hammer and sickle]

Maybe it would be beneficial to have several diffrent Communist parties with diffrent views? Like a Marxist-Leninist party and a Trotskyist party? That way you still incorporate diffrent political parties.

[New Tet]

We must create a political party whose final objective it is to capture the state and, along with it, abolish itself, sine die.

[GPDP]

Guys, I'm not talking about political parties in the current specific state of affairs. I'm talking about political parties as structures of organization in a democracy, more specifically a direct, participatory democracy.

That is, assuming a post-class society, would people still need to organize their political participation through political parties in order for democracy to function? Or with the end of class relations, would political parties also lose their utility? Can a democracy function without organization in the form of political parties in order to address any grievances in the system?

[Jimmie Higgins]

From the Marxist perspective political parties are representative of certain class interests; ie they represent the "collective will", to quote Gramsci, of a certain segment of the population. When this will is diffuse, ie the class lacks conciousness, then you have the scattered and apathetic electorate of today. However in revolutionary circumstances the most militant and revolutionary elements of the proletariat will naturally gather under a single banner

Following a successful proletarian revolution its safe to expect political parties to fade away as the class interests of the proletariat can be directly addressed by the workers' state. The state becomes the favoured means for the collective will to exercise itself in action

Yeah, I have no idea what kind of organizations people will need and develop in communism. However, I do think there will be many worker parties/groupings/factions after a worker's revolution and these parties will probably be divided up based around certain issues such as how fast or slow to dismantle the socialist state, how to divide up resources, and so on.

Political parties represent class interests, but multiple parties can have different approaches to moving their class interests forward. When Gramsci was writing, capitalist hegemony was just a fraction (in Italy) of what it is today. Now for the most part industrialized countries have several parties representing different approaches to capitalist interests.

[mikelepore]

That is, assuming a post-class society, would people still need to organize their political participation through political parties in order for democracy to function?

I believe that people who have some common beliefs -- more geothermal energy, more efficient terraforming of Mars, genetic engineering to make babies be something -- will unite. They will establish something analogous to literature, web sites, or speaking engagements to persuade other people about the advantages of their common ideas. They will endorse the election of people who think like them to the administrative jobs. In the practical sense of the term, they will be political parties.

To the people who wrote of having all "direct" democracy, I think that's an unwarranted assumption. There are a limited number of hours in a day for practicing direct democracy. People will probably decide how much time they wish to spend on it, they will do just that much directly, and they will delegate all the rest of it to representatives.

[GPDP]

I believe that people who have some common beliefs -- more geothermal energy, more efficient terraforming of Mars, genetic engineering to make babies be something -- will unite. They will establish something analogous to literature, web sites, or speaking engagements to persuade other people about the advantages of their common ideas. They will endorse the election of people who think like them to the administrative jobs. In the practical sense of the term, they will be political parties.

To the people who wrote of having all "direct" democracy, I think that's an unwarranted assumption. There are a limited number of hours in a day for practicing direct democracy. People will probably decide how much time they wish to spend on it, they will do just that much directly, and they will delegate all the rest of it to representatives.

Thank you for your response. This is precisely what I'm looking for.

I am, of course, most interested on whether such a process could be reconciled under anarchism, because the prospects of a new bureaucratic political caste emerging out of such a political party system concern me.

I have thought about this in the context of a federation of communes, with recallable delegates at the "higher" levels rather than essentially independent representatives as we have today. But I still wonder if these delegates would have to run for office in order to be elected, which would require a nomination-campaign-election process.

In case any of you are wondering why I'm cracking my skull over this, it's because I'm taking a course on American political parties, and my professor, a radical leftist who argues that we do not live in a democracy, but an oligarchy of the capitalist class, is a big believer in political parties, and is in profound agreement with the quote in the topic title. I tried to make the case against the necessity of political parties, but he didn't buy it.

[mikelepore]

You said "the prospects of a new bureaucratic political caste emerging", but you can't just take that as a fact without deriving it step-by-step. Try to show exactly why a new social system might lead to such an emergence. But then, if you know exactly why it could happen, then perhaps you can identity what forms or practices it would take to prevent it.

For example, I consider policy-making by appointees to be a major source of bureaucracy, so I would be happy with delegation of decision-making to elected representatives, but I would oppose a system with central management appointing middle management.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Mike, the article I referred to above was this one:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/participatory-democracy-demarchy-t111334/index.html

[ComradeOm]

However, I do think there will be many worker parties/groupings/factions after a worker's revolution and these parties will probably be divided up based around certain issues such as how fast or slow to dismantle the socialist state, how to divide up resources, and so onCareful here, these ("parties/groupings/factions") are not interchangeable terms. The political party is a specific form of organisation that developed during the 19th C under the specific conditions of capitalism. It bring with it, as GPDP hints, a certain degree of bureaucracy (not necessarily a bad thing) such as a permanent staff, formal strictures, party programme, etc, etc. The party itself (its structure and purpose) is a tool, a view of how society should be run and a means for organising it

In contrast the likes of political clubs or factions are far less formal and do not have the same function. These are simply concentrations, ranging in their formality, of individuals who share similar aims/concerns


Now for the most part industrialized countries have several parties representing different approaches to capitalist interests.Not particularly new though. Politics has probably slightly fractured in the past century but not to a huge degree - in 1920s Germany*, for example, there were roughly three main parties of the right (not including the NSDAP) which is probably still about the norm in European nations. What tends to happen though is that these parties consolidate (in a similar fashion to socialists) when their interests are threatened by revolutionary classes. I'm sure I don't need to spell out how this happened in Germany

It may be that there is a similar 'lapse' in proletarian conciousness following a successful revolution and that the unity achieved during revolution is lost slightly. But by this stage society would no longer be operating under parliamentary democracy so it would be unusual for formal parties to emerge. In all likelihood socialism would give rise to an entirely new way/vehicle of organising its political affairs

*Italy is a bad example given the continual failings of its political parties and the dominance of patronage/corruption in its early parliaments. The more things change...


In case any of you are wondering why I'm cracking my skull over this, it's because I'm taking a course on American political parties, and my professor, a radical leftist who argues that we do not live in a democracy, but an oligarchy of the capitalist class, is a big believer in political parties, and is in profound agreement with the quote in the topic title. I tried to make the case against the necessity of political parties, but he didn't buy it.Is he Marxist or generic 'left-wing radical'? The question of political parties can't really be separated from your own conception of society and its politics

[GPDP]

Careful here, these ("parties/groupings/factions") are not interchangeable terms. The political party is a specific form of organisation that developed during the 19th C under the specific conditions of capitalism. It bring with it, as GPDP hints, a certain degree of bureaucracy (not necessarily a bad thing) such as a permanent staff, formal strictures, party programme, etc, etc. The party itself (its structure and purpose) is a tool, a view of how society should be run and a means for organising it

In contrast the likes of political clubs or factions are far less formal and do not have the same function. These are simply concentrations, ranging in their formality, of individuals who share similar aims/concerns

Not particularly new though. Politics has probably slightly fractured in the past century but not to a huge degree - in 1920s Germany*, for example, there were roughly three main parties of the right (not including the NSDAP) which is probably still about the norm in European nations. What tends to happen though is that these parties consolidate (in a similar fashion to socialists) when their interests are threatened by revolutionary classes. I'm sure I don't need to spell out how this happened in Germany

It may be that there is a similar 'lapse' in proletarian conciousness following a successful revolution and that the unity achieved during revolution is lost slightly. But by this stage society would no longer be operating under parliamentary democracy so it would be unusual for formal parties to emerge. In all likelihood socialism would give rise to an entirely new way/vehicle of organising its political affairs

*Italy is a bad example given the continual failings of its political parties and the dominance of patronage/corruption in its early parliaments. The more things change...

Is he Marxist or generic 'left-wing radical'? The question of political parties can't really be separated from your own conception of society and its politics

First off, thank you for making the distinction between a formal party and a faction or group - it's a common mistake to conflate the terms, one which worshipers of the so-called Founding Fathers (and teachers in school as well) make all the time in reference to their supposed dislike of parties - despite the fact that when they talk about "parties" they do not mean formal political parties in the contemporary sense of the word, but rather a group of individuals with certain interests. Indeed, how could they, when (as far as I know) no such parties existed at the time anywhere? It's like some guy warning people of the dangerous effects of capitalism back in the days of Charlemagne. It's absurd, and there's no reason to think anything of the sort would've happened.

In any case, I am truly interested in ways in which people with shared concerns or interests can associate in a stateless society.

As for my professor, he has sympathies for Marxism (If I had to pin him in a specific tendency, it would be Trotskyism, based on his intense dislike of Stalin and favorable comments on Trotsky in the past), but he doesn't actually refer to himself as a Marxist. I suppose he's some kind of independent socialist, who does not ascribe fully to any one school of thought exclusively. He does argue for the abolishment of capitalism openly, but doesn't argue explicitly for socialism or communism.

His thoughts on democracy are as follows: he is a strong believer in "participatory democracy" and "deliberative democracy," and has sympathies for direct democracy, but argues that it can only work at a small community level, so he argues that some form of representation is needed for higher levels, such as the national level, since not everyone can go out and deliberate on national issues. To this effect, he argues that strong, ideologically-commited political parties are needed for people to elect to the higher levels of government, and that it cannot be otherwise if a vibrant, deliberative democracy is to flourish.

[La Comédie Noire]

I don't think political parties would exist as they do today, large money machines with entrenched politicians, but I do think in a classless society a population may become split on a decision and form factions.

For instance, say a group of people living away from the center of things want a road built so they may commute with more ease. However, when they go to the nearest road builders collective, they find while they can build the road, it is going to take them 4 months to get to it because they have other jobs to get to.

So the people, not wanting to wait, go to the next nearest collective of road builders and find they can do it in two weeks time. Perfect! They think until the local road builder collective becomes angry. Frankly, they are insulted! For three generations their collective has built the roads in the area, creating a rational, and they think, beautiful, network of roads. They take great pride in their work and don't want to see it go to someone else.

Meanwhile, in the middle of where the road is supposed to go is another group of people who have homes. They don't want to go through the process of moving their houses over to left or right, or moving all together, so they are ardently against the road.

They have a dilemma; a referendum is set to be voted on in 2 months time. In the mean time, both sides begin campaigning for their causes. On the one hand you have the people who want the road, informing people in their areas of the benefits of the road and on the other hand you have the people against the road informing people of the cons of the road. In the middle of this are the two workers collectives. The local collective sides with the people who don't want the road, hoping to block the other collective from interfering, while the other collective sides with the people who want the road.

Both collective's histories are brought into question, there may even be a bit of mudslinging involved.

In the end it's voted on and it's decided that the road will not be built. The temporary associations the dilemma created dissolve.

This scenario brings up a lot of questions. Could it be possible for local collectives to control the course of local events, thus acting as a corrupting influence? Would democracy through referendum be the best method for all cases?

How about a system of informal arbitration? What if a compromise was reached? Say the outside collective would work on the road only if they agreed to allow advisers from the local collective to be attached to the project. While the people who were in the way of the road agreed to have the road built only if they found a way around their homes.

A few thoughts on improving this:

I think in post capitalist society we may see "Democracy on a sliding scale" IE. only those immediately concerned with the issue at hand will be allowed to vote. But determining exactly who is affected by a road or say a water treatment plant is hard to say.

Also we may see the rise of "temporary associations" of "individuals who share similar aims/concerns." I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing, in fact I think it's a very good thing. The multitude of opinions in a post capitalist society may very well ensure no one association or group has a monopoly on political power.

As for arbitration that may be an alternative if both sides don't want to go through a referendum or risk losing. As a rule, it would have to be very informal; perhaps people are called up to serve randomly, like jury duty in the United States. Of course both parties would have to agree whatever the chosen arbitrator said was binding and carry it out.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I don't think political parties would exist as they do today, large money machines with entrenched politicians, but I do think in a classless society a population may become split on a decision and form factions.

Yeah, I think a lot of people tend to get cynical about things as they are under capitalism and mistake the way the capitalists use it for an inherent flaw in the thing itself.

For example many people are wary of joining political group because they think it will be like the liberal lobby groups or volunteering for the Democratic Party where you join and then are given a clipboard and asked to gather donations while having no voice in the politics or activities of the group. Also many people in the US don't believe that "democracy works". What they mean is the kind of rigid and unrepresentative voting and political party system we have under capitalism right now. We would all probably agree with them on that count, but I would disagree with them on the idea that the problem rests with democracy - the real source of the problem is democracy in capitalism.

Establishment political parties in Capitalism are designed to hold the line of the ruling class and therefore make things as undemocratic as possible... the whole smoky back room full of business men type of politics. Sure in the US there are the primaries but by the time voters get to choose which ruling class Democrat they want, the party and the media have already separated the "realistic candidate" from the crazy ones that may express the opinions of most voters, but can't win in the general election according to the party and the media.

In a worker-ruled society people will still need to get together to gather support for certain positions or common goals and essentially that is what a party will be.

Capitalists have different parties to express different approaches to running capitalism - these parties my be undemocratic when it comes to workers, but big business has no problem dealing with and having their voices heard in the Democrats and Republicans. It will be the same for workers - different parties and different approaches, but the same goal: classless, stateless communism.

[sanpal]

I know only this: democracy should be class and represent classes but not parties.
Party democracy is an attribute of a bourgeois society.