Democracy and socialism

[Robocommie]

One thing that has been troubling me as of late is a dilemna that seems to be posed by democracy and socialism. Generally I am in agreement with the maxim that socialism requires democracy, as indeed I would generally consider socialism to be democracy applied to all levels of society, including the workplace.

However, after a revolution and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, it occurs to me that a problem is posed by democracy in the sense that those workers who are swayed by revisionist or even capitalist ideologies might very well vote a socialist system out of existence. Petty dissatisfactions and the tempting promises of capitalism might sway voters in a developing socialist economy (developing, not developed) to make market reforms.

How can this be prevented? Is it theoretically a problem, or am I overlooking something key?

[Klaatu]

One thing that has been troubling me as of late is a dilemna that seems to be posed by democracy and socialism. Generally I am in agreement with the maxim that socialism requires democracy, as indeed I would generally consider socialism to be democracy applied to all levels of society, including the workplace.

However, after a revolution and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, it occurs to me that a problem is posed by democracy in the sense that those workers who are swayed by revisionist or even capitalist ideologies might very well vote a socialist system out of existence. Petty dissatisfactions and the tempting promises of capitalism might sway voters in a developing socialist economy (developing, not developed) to make market reforms.

How can this be prevented? Is it theoretically a problem, or am I overlooking something key?

The key is education. Not only in the schools but also letter-writing (to editors) on line forums, advertisements (this requires money; something the capitalist has a lot of and we don't) and other communications venues.

There is too much of the other side's propaganda out there. It's everywhere. We must counter act this, against all odds.

[Argument]

The way I see it, democracy should be voluntary, that is, if you don't want to follow what the majority want, you don't need to. Democracy would probably work best in the workers' cooperations and the like, but it would not be enforced. 51% should not be allowed to force 49% to be their slaves.

Then again, I don't support the dictatorship of the proletariat. Why do you even want democracy in a dictatorship? Wouldn't that make it "Democracy of the proletariat"?

[Zanthorus]

However, after a revolution and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, it occurs to me that a problem is posed by democracy in the sense that those workers who are swayed by revisionist or even capitalist ideologies might very well vote a socialist system out of existence. Petty dissatisfactions and the tempting promises of capitalism might sway voters in a developing socialist economy (developing, not developed) to make market reforms.

How can this be prevented? Is it theoretically a problem, or am I overlooking something key?

I am less worried about the workers themselves doing this than some of the other non-exploiting classes trying to steer the revolution towards their own class interests and taking control of the transitional state/"commune state"/federation.

However I think the answer to your question is that the vanguard party/anarchist federation/whatever the hell organisation is in the lead in this hypothetical revolution would have to keep up constant propaganda efforts.


The way I see it, democracy should be voluntary, that is, if you don't want to follow what the majority want, you don't need to.

But then, what really is the point of democracy? It's not really a democracy if people don't have to abide by the decisions made is it?


Democracy would probably work best in the workers' cooperations and the like, but it would not be enforced.

:blink:

Did you learn anarchism from Engels On Authority or something? Of course democracy would need to be enforced in your mutualist co-operatives. Otherwise production would just collapse.


Then again, I don't support the dictatorship of the proletariat. Why do you even want democracy in a dictatorship? Wouldn't that make it "Democracy of the proletariat"?

The "dictatorship of the proletariat" is not an actual "dictatorship" in the modern sense of the word. "Dictatorship" only really came to have the meaning it does now in the early 20th century. Back when Marx was writing there were these guys who followed this other guy Auguste Blanqui, who called for an "educational dictatorship". Marx turned the phrase around in order to get the point across that the transitional stage would need to be controlled by the proletariat as a class. It's quite clever really, what do you do when someone calls for dictatorship? You say, yes! Dictatorship! That means rule, but the rule we are calling for is the rule of the whole proletarian class.

The point is supposed to be that in the transition from capitalism to communism other non-exploiting classes will exist besides the proletariat and the proletariat will need a state to repress the bourgeoisie and draw the other non-exploited classes under it's wing. So a transitional "state" (Sometimes referred to as a "semi-state" or "commune state") is formed consisting of "the proletariat organised as the ruling class" which is used to attack itself by destroying it's own basis, the existence of various social classes, until the class system is abolished and the state becomes a redundant institution.

[lulks]

that is possible but unlikely. just like it is possible for people today to vote to go back to the feudal system, but no one is going to do it.

[Old Man Diogenes]

One thing that has been troubling me as of late is a dilemna that seems to be posed by democracy and socialism. Generally I am in agreement with the maxim that socialism requires democracy, as indeed I would generally consider socialism to be democracy applied to all levels of society, including the workplace.

However, after a revolution and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, it occurs to me that a problem is posed by democracy in the sense that those workers who are swayed by revisionist or even capitalist ideologies might very well vote a socialist system out of existence. Petty dissatisfactions and the tempting promises of capitalism might sway voters in a developing socialist economy (developing, not developed) to make market reforms.

How can this be prevented? Is it theoretically a problem, or am I overlooking something key?

The way I see it, they've already made the big step towards Socialism, because they realised capitalism wasn't working, why they'd go back I don't know, but social anarchism is voluntary, if they want it they'll have it in other words.

[BeerShaman]

:confused:Well, people will not "build" a socialist revolution if they are about to reform the society to capitalist or socialdemocratic or something like that... If they are about to do it, it will appear as a fact right from the start of the revolution and it will be driven wrong and thus quickly fail. In addition, if people build a socialistic society after a revolution, they certainly will not change it again back to capitalist, out of simple logic. Socialism will be far better!:D (In my view, Anarchist Socialism, but that's not the matter here.) Well, education is a basic requirement even for the start of a revolution. Furthermore former revolutionaries will surely continue their work by informing people and by making propaganda and stuff. And finally keep in mind that people tend to stick to usuallity, thus refraining from having a continuous will to change the occasions, in their majority. As stated already, half of that stuff is pre-revolutionary and of course never forget that PEOPLE WILL FIRSTLY CHANGE IF THE SOCIETY IS ABOUT TO CHANGE, and that NO PARTY OR ORGANISATION WILL CAUSE THE REVOLUTION BY ITSELF. THE FIRST AND FOREMOST AND MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR OF SOCIALISM IS THE PEOPLE. NO PEOPLE, NO MOVEMENTS, NO CHANGE!:cool:

[mykittyhasaboner]

One thing that has been troubling me as of late is a dilemna that seems to be posed by democracy and socialism. Generally I am in agreement with the maxim that socialism requires democracy, as indeed I would generally consider socialism to be democracy applied to all levels of society, including the workplace.

Technically this cannot be true in itself--if democracy were extended to the work place, (meaning even the most basic level of cooperative decision making, voting, debating, etc) and said workplace is a capitalist enterprise, then we still don't have socialism. The main condition for socialism would be the actual ownership of the workplace by those who work it in common with the rest of society.


However, after a revolution and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, it occurs to me that a problem is posed by democracy in the sense that those workers who are swayed by revisionist or even capitalist ideologies might very well vote a socialist system out of existence.Socialism cannot be voted out of existence, or voted into existence.

(Socialism-- the post-revolutionary reorganization of society towards common ownership of the the means of production for the benefit of those who labor, generally along the lines of "to each according to her/his work"--clarifying this now.)



Petty dissatisfactions and the tempting promises of capitalism might sway voters in a developing socialist economy (developing, not developed) to make market reforms.This is true, but this isn't anything new or in need of specific consideration. The working class state must combat against market reforms. If the state is susceptible to market reforms then the state is being steered away (or is already taken away) from the working class.



How can this be prevented? Is it theoretically a problem, or am I overlooking something key?I think your overlooking the reason for the necessity of the dictatorship of the proletariat--the fact that class struggle persists in a socialist society and the state is in existence primarily to keep society under the ownership of the proletariat. This means that the working class seizure of power must entail establishing their own state--to combat against restoration of capitalism and revisionism.

The question of how to do this--well you know that the answer will be different according to different people.

[zundap]

One thing that has been troubling me as of late is a dilemna that seems to be posed by democracy and socialism. Generally I am in agreement with the maxim that socialism requires democracy, as indeed I would generally consider socialism to be democracy applied to all levels of society, including the workplace.

However, after a revolution and the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, it occurs to me that a problem is posed by democracy in the sense that those workers who are swayed by revisionist or even capitalist ideologies might very well vote a socialist system out of existence. Petty dissatisfactions and the tempting promises of capitalism might sway voters in a developing socialist economy (developing, not developed) to make market reforms.

How can this be prevented? Is it theoretically a problem, or am I overlooking something key?

Going back to being employed/exploited, being someones servant and living your life for them, don't think so. Socialism is the free association of producers, which means giving freely of your social creativity and taking freely from the common store. No money no state = freedom.
If there's not an overwhelming majority who understand what socialism is and are prepared to put in the work to bring it about, it can't happen.

[gilhyle]

I think this questions depends totally on context. If the formal exercise of democracy in the heat of revolutionary action would require the demobilisation of the revolutionary forces then it would have to be resisted. The revolutionary dynamic needs to be well advanced before revolutionaries can submit themselves to democratic control - once they have mobilised to action.

But the very undesirability of this legitmisation of resistence to democratic mandates is the strongest argument for revolutionaries to resist seizing power just because they can.

[Atlee]

The "dictatorship of the proletariat" was never defined by Marx. There are some in academic circles that view this from what they think Marx knew or understood for his period, culture, and early faith which was the book Leviathan by Hobbs.

[Atlee]

The way I see it, democracy should be voluntary, that is, if you don't want to follow what the majority want, you don't need to. Democracy would probably work best in the workers' cooperations and the like, but it would not be enforced. 51% should not be allowed to force 49% to be their slaves.

Then again, I don't support the dictatorship of the proletariat. Why do you even want democracy in a dictatorship? Wouldn't that make it "Democracy of the proletariat"?

What is key to defining democracy is not that it moves the majority perspective, but that is allows a minority opinion to coexist even when in disagreement. Otherwise there is no democracy but oppression. If 51% held the vote e.g. FOX NEWS and did not allow 49% to air their views MSNBC then this is what is known as "tyranny of democracy".

[Atlee]

I am going to recommend two books here to review the topic for later in depth conversations:

Democracy; A Very Short Story by Bernard Crick from Oxford

Patterns of Democracy by Arend Lijphart from Yale University Press