"Democracy" In Leninism

[Subcomandante Marcos.]

Can Marxism Leninism be democratic, or does it always end up becoming only slightly better than capitalism.

A person should be able to call the leader anything, denounce him as a revisionist, or as a poor economist, without fear of the gulag.

Without criticism, the hinges of the door start to speak.

During the great leap, Officials were too scared to report the starving of millions to Mao, so they either lied, or ran for fear of punishment.

This is not what i envisage, when thinking of Socialism, socialism should be the stepping stone to egalitarianist paradise, if the people have to be monitored, and have huge surveilance or forced labour, the proletariat, must not be class conscious enough to have socialism.

Also, leaders of a revolution, always end up better off than the people, i have never seen fidel in a shack in Havana, i have never heard of Lenin dossing it.

During the transition, a council, made up of ordinary workers, elected by their coworkers, should manage their own workplaces.

Agree?

[The Ben G]

I think it can. We just need to look at the past to try and figure out what went wrong. One thing that we need to do is make a sort of Checks and Balances system.

[Subcomandante Marcos.]

There should also be no state beuracracy ie:

Police
Army
Navy
Courts

There should be Militia's, for defence from imperialism, or counter revolution, the Court system should be ran and directed by the people, with an organised, yet non oppresive stance, they should serve the people, not investigate them as the current police do.

All people serving on the council, must recieve less than the workers, this ensures we only gt people in the council who genuinely want to help, they should have normal accomodation, and every person serving society is replacable, and answerable to every street sweeper, every cleaner, every builder and every person.

Education should not be graded, but be encouraged and placed as the most important thing aswell as labouring.

Nuclear weapons, if owned by the old capitalist government, should be destroyed, even if the USA fires on us, we would not fire back, how would killing millions of American workers help the millions of doomed socialist workers.

[Adi Shankara]

There should also be no state beuracracy ie:

Police
Army
Navy
Courts

There should be Militia's, for defence from imperialism, or counter revolution, the Court system should be ran and directed by the people, with an organised, yet non oppresive stance, they should serve the people, not investigate them as the current police do.

All people serving on the council, must recieve less than the workers, this ensures we only gt people in the council who genuinely want to help, they should have normal accomodation, and every person serving society is replacable, and answerable to every street sweeper, every cleaner, every builder and every person.

Education should not be graded, but be encouraged and placed as the most important thing aswell as labouring.

Nuclear weapons, if owned by the old capitalist government, should be destroyed, even if the USA fires on us, we would not fire back, how would killing millions of American workers help the millions of doomed socialist workers.

If you are interested in communist theory with a strong advocation of Social Democracy, you should look into Luxemburgism--that's primarily what she deals with, though by no means is she a reformist (she doesn't believe democracy can exist without a pre-existing revolution where society is equalized)

[Zanthorus]

If you are interested in communist theory with a strong advocation of Social Democracy, you should look into Luxemburgism--that's primarily what she deals with.

Eh? I think you might have misinterpreted Luxemburg there. Remember that pre-World War One all the Social-Democratic parties were revolutionary Marxist parties and any reference to "social-democracy" in Luxemburg's writing should be viewed in that context.

[Adi Shankara]

Eh? I think you might have misinterpreted Luxemburg there. Remember that pre-World War One all the Social-Democratic parties were revolutionary Marxist parties and any reference to "social-democracy" in Luxemburg's writing should be viewed in that context.

she fitted democracy in a revolutionary context though; she wasn't a reformist, she just believed that one couldn't have communism without a solid foundation in democracy.

[Subcomandante Marcos.]

i have been a ML for years, but am starting to question my ideology, i dont want to promote it out of stuborness or just to prove i am right in arguements, i am just seeking what is best for me and my class(working)

[Zanthorus]

she fitted democracy in a revolutionary context though; she wasn't a reformist, she just believed that one couldn't have communism without a solid foundation in democracy.

Ok, it's just that "social-democracy" is the ideology espoused by most european centre-left parties and tends to be synonymous with abject reformism. Just a heads up on that one :)

[Adi Shankara]

Ok, it's just that "social-democracy" is the ideology espoused by most european centre-left parties and tends to be synonymous with abject reformism. Just a heads up on that one :)

Capitalists also breathe air; Communists breathe air; does that make them both one in the same?

Luxemburg and most European parties of today have little in common; for one, they don't advocate the equalization of society at the hands of a revolution like Luxemburg did; also, she's was highly opposed to statism and reformist ideology, as can be seen in this pamphlet she wrote:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/index.htm

She also believed that democracy couldn't be had unless society was revolutionized completely from the top down, for how is a society democratic if most of the people are unequal? European parties don't advocate such top down revolution; they think things can change strictly through the ballet box, when that isn't so. capitalism and democracy really are not synonymous.

to be honest, I'm highly insulted you'd compare Rosa Luxemburg, who literally gave her life for communism as a martyr, to those ineffectual right wing capitalist parties in Europe.

[Zanthorus]

To be honest, I'm highly insulted you'd compare Rosa Luxemburg, who literally gave her life for communism as a martyr, to those ineffectual right wing capitalist parties in Europe.

I wasn't comparing Luxemburg to the European left-wing of capital. You said that Luxemburg had a "strong advocation of social democracy" which I then misinterpreted as meaning you though Luxemburg was an actual social-democrat.

[Adi Shankara]

I wasn't comparing Luxemburg to the European left-wing of capital. You said that Luxemburg had a "strong advocation of social democracy" which I then misinterpreted as meaning you though Luxemburg was an actual social-democrat.

oh, my mistake then. :lol: ha you get alot of people saying stupid stuff on these forums, I just thought you were saying Luxemburg was a eurocrat, and her definition of social democracy is worlds different than, the UK labour party for example.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Also, leaders of a revolution, always end up better off than the people, i have never seen fidel in a shack in Havana, i have never heard of Lenin dossing it.

During the transition, a council, made up of ordinary workers, elected by their coworkers, should manage their own workplaces.

Agree?I'd recommend checking out "State and Revolution" if you haven't read it in a while. A lot of these questions are addressed. He extensively quotes Marx on why bourgoise revolutions create more state and more state beurocrats whereas a worker's revolution would set up a transitional system where any representative positions would be elected by workers, subject to instant recall, and carry out political debates and decisions in public.

IMO, revolution needs to be from the bottom up and the work of the class. A vanguard party has a primary role - in helping to organize the class for revolution - but I do not believe the point of the party is to be the organization that replaces the capitalist state.

[Subcomandante Marcos.]

i just think we should have no high up leaders, just councils, and that workers can serve for just 2 years max and can be fired by the workers in their area whenever.

Leaders are not needed, workers control is.

My old ML self would be kicking my ass right now :)

[Rusty Shackleford]

its called democratic centralism. you have a central head like a central committe and you have the democratic election of said committee, democratic passing of resolutions/amendments and all that, and democratic election of leadership across the board.

as for the state, its a necessity. militias can only go so far. your doomed to be invaded by imperialist powers if you dont have the ability to show a forceful defense of the gains of a revolution. why didnt the US invade the ussr? nukes and a shit ton of tanks. if the soviet union was left to a bunch of militias then how could they operate strategically with bombers or nuclear weapons? it requires a centralized command.

and for counter-revolutionary criminals, would you rather have a military force or civilian force doing the job or maintaining order and defending a revolution?

also, would it be necessary for an APC with 12 dudes loaded with grenades and assaultrifles to respond to a domestic disturbance call? no.

[Subcomandante Marcos.]

wll you would arm the whole populous, this way if they did invade, they could never ever win, a homegrown insurgency can never be defeated, the support of the people cannot be destroyed by b22's.

And a civil Militia would deal with domestic violence and all non military matters.

[Obs]

Edit: Fuck, Vacant ninja'd me.

I think Marxism-Leninism has potential to be democratic. However, it also has potential to devolve into something akin to a dictatorship - and not that of the proletariat, mind. Despite the amazing progress and achievements of the USSR, I do believe they could have been more democratic - they needed more decentralisation and a greater democratisation of the worplace. I'm not going to make outrageous claims that the USSR wasn't socialist or anything equally ridiculous (if you read this, NHIA, feel free to negrep me again), but I believe they were a few steps away from what it could have been.


There should also be no state beuracracy ie:

Police
Army
Navy
Courts

There should be Militia's, for defence from imperialism, or counter revolution, the Court system should be ran and directed by the people, with an organised, yet non oppresive stance, they should serve the people, not investigate them as the current police do.

If we were going for communism, that would be absolutely true - however, a certain amount of lawful infrastructure is necessary as long as a socialist country is under threat from imperialist states. This includes a functioning military and a standing army - can you imagine if the USSR had been without a military when the nazis invaded?

I absolutely agree there should be worker militias independent of the state, though.

[Rusty Shackleford]

i do agree that it would be nice to have a bit more decentralization in the area of labor but we cant really go and change that now. but i think that the achievement of moving industry to Siberia and producing tanks in factories that were still under construction has to be one of the greatest feats of the system in place at the time.


also, democratic centralism serves 2 functions. in peace time and when there is no real imperialist threat, the democratic side of DC takes control, in war time and with a huge threat of imperialism, the centrralist portion of DC takes control. you must be rigid in war time or face defeat. and in peace time you have more flexibility in making mistakes and more time to fix them.

[Robocommie]

i do agree that it would be nice to have a bit more decentralization in the area of labor but we cant really go and change that now. but i think that the achievement of moving industry to Siberia and producing tanks in factories that were still under construction has to be one of the greatest feats of the system in place at the time.

Frankly, I have college textbooks on Soviet history that sang the praises of both the Five Year Plans and the ability of the Soviet Union to churn out war materiel, and they're from modern American authors. That said, the books also note that the pace of labor for the workers was particularly grueling during those Five Year Plans.



also, democratic centralism serves 2 functions. in peace time and when there is no real imperialist threat, the democratic side of DC takes control, in war time and with a huge threat of imperialism, the centrralist portion of DC takes control. you must be rigid in war time or face defeat. and in peace time you have more flexibility in making mistakes and more time to fix them.

How do you ensure the return to the peacetime democracy though once the crisis has been averted? History's full of examples of the state seizing authority in times of crisis and then never really relinquishing it. Mubarak's Egypt is a great example.

[Subcomandante Marcos.]

thats why councils are better than a dear leader, councils, made up of workers, only have the WORKERS interests at heart.

[Rusty Shackleford]

How do you ensure the return to the peacetime democracy though once the crisis has been averted? History's full of examples of the state seizing authority in times of crisis and then never really relinquishing it. Mubarak's Egypt is a great example.

i dont really have an answer because there hasnt really been an event which would facilitae that. wasnt murabak just an imperialist lap-dog? a comrade of mine is from Egypt...

[RedSonRising]

thats why councils are better than a dear leader, councils, made up of workers, only have the WORKERS interests at heart.

Centralized decision-making in times of crisis is essential, as others in this forum have already pointed out. Military efficiency will always outdo isolated and decentralized civilian autonomy in a confrontation, as will certain other types of emergency distribution and policy. In the transition to Socialism, there cannot be such a dangerous liquidation of political resources when foreign threats still exist. What should happen to safeguard the interests of the proletariat, however, is make sure the balance of power never rests more in the State than it does in the conscious proletarians which constitute the foundation of the revolution itself.

A vanguard controlling aspects of production, distribution, and policy after the capitalist class is overthrown is surely not socialism, but an empowered democratic leadership designed to protect the interests of the working class from foreign and internal threats is not something to shun for fear of past mistakes. As long as there are conscious civilians bearing arms and organizing cells within their communities that truly establish workplace democracy from the start of the revolution, they can recognize any harm a vanguard poses through the state and proceed to protect their interests from a ruling class just like they did the first time. A revolution needs not a guardian dictator with absolute power to have an responsible, accountable leadership democratically elected by conscious civilians living as engineers of their own society.

In my opinion, workplace democracy should attempt to become established in societal pockets through factories and such (like in Argentina) before the ruling class is overthrown by a cohesive movement or coalition of forces. In this way, not only will the short-term betterment of the lives of certain proletarians increase and social appeal for political action increase, but a foundation is established from which the working class may remain empowered and identify any reactionary infringement the state or its ruling vanguard are making against their interests. Balance is key.

[Robocommie]

i dont really have an answer because there hasnt really been an event which would facilitae that. wasnt murabak just an imperialist lap-dog? a comrade of mine is from Egypt...

Mubarak isn't a Marxist-Leninist, he's just a presidential dictator, ostensibly an heir to Gamal Abdel Nasser and Anwar Sadat, but the point is the Egyptian government routinely renews "emergency" legislation which gives the country extraordinary powers, which has been consistently renewed ever since they were first enacted when the Muslim Brotherhood assassinated Anwar Sadat.

It's like the Nazis and the Reichstag fire, there's some crisis which supposedly threatens the existence of the state which can be used to justify extraordinary power, but then it's often up to the state's honest intentions to surrender that power later.

[Subcomandante Marcos.]

But a vanguard can just crush them with the army.

Also, living under socialism should be a huge step up in both living conditions and freedom of labour, all workers should play a role in the workplace.

They should elect their fellow workers, this is the only way socialism will be far better than a welfare state, otherwise, with beauracratic institutions, it will be the same old thing, a big state, watching the people, making decisions for us, a vanguard can have the interests of the people at heart, but it will most likely, be their downfall.

In China, Look how long it took to return to capitalism, because the party was taken over from the inside.

If the people are all armed and politically aware, no one can sell us down the river.

Also, if all beauracratic tape and bullshit is gone, working hours could be brought down to a third, everyone could do around 3 hours a night, with everyone doing their part.

It would be amazing how productive a socialist society would be, since all the advances in technology

[RedSonRising]

But a vanguard can just crush them with the army.

If a mobilized people with arms and organized community facilities can overthrow the capitalist state with their own conscious forces, don't you think they'd repeat the process when they identify a newly formed threat to their interests with a very probably lesser army? It seems you would agree based on the statement in bold.


If the people are all armed and politically aware, no one can sell us down the river.

Also, if all beauracratic tape and bullshit is gone, working hours could be brought down to a third, everyone could do around 3 hours a night, with everyone doing their part.


A vanguard does not necessarily mean an economy of bureaucratic red tape controlled by crony planners; what a party of leadership has degenerated into in certain examples of history and what it's proper role is in a revolution are two different things. I can see your skepticism for centralized decision-making, but having a vanguard leadership and maintaining workers' control of the means of production is not an either-or situation- it simply requires the right safeguards for success in supplanting capitalism and preserving socialism, which in a proletarian revolution should come built-in with the education and politicization of the workers who liberated themselves. Within the modern organization of nation-states, the theory of a vanguard party is a useful tool to be considered and should not be confused or immediately associated with exclusive centralized power in opposition to the worker/community's control over society's structure. I share your desire to see decentralized and autonomous communities, but one has to face the likely circumstances of creating revolutionary territories while hostile ruling classes exist elsewhere.

[Subcomandante Marcos.]

But comrade, once a revolutionary state is built up, with its rmy, its secret police etc, any people who want to rise up if it sells them out, will be dragged out of their beds at night, the people won't be able to rise up, due to an all powerfull state, that could easily corrupt.

Why take that chance.

An army is not needed if the whole populous is armed.

Also, then no right wingers could say, the people are kept there by the evil commies, socialism should not be a police state, to gaurd from imperialism, it must have all the people conscious and ready to go ho chi minh on their ass if they send one troop into our domain.

[Blackscare]

The problem with Anarchism as most people interpret it is the failure to reconcile local autonomy with a form of federalization that would allow disparate groups to form a coherent resistance to aggression, decide economic policy, etc.

Yes, the idea of worker's councils is important and I fully support a system based upon that. But how will these councils work together as a cohesive whole? That is the question that I find most important today. Partial answers to these problems are put forward by some Left Communist thinkers, which is why I switched over from Anarchism a while back.

Amongst Anarchists, though, I have to say I quite like the ideas behind the Makhnovchina. They saw themselves as a kind of military wing of the grassroots political structures they helped to build. By this I mean they attempted to liberate areas, set up local voting councils that held absolute political power and autonomy, federate these groups into a sort of congress to make decisions pertaining to the actions of the Makhnovchina, and carry out the democratic will of these groups.

The important feature here is that they created political bodies which they did not participate in as an organized bloc, if at all. This was not a party. They were simply creators and protectors of a political system they did not control nor attempt to control. This must be the function of a true revolutionary vanguard.

I firmly believe that the key to creating the most ideal form of a socialist revolutionary state (call it what you will, whatever) is in setting down the proper forms government is to take in the first place, rather than individual policy. By this I mean that a system based on local industrial, residential, and agricultural voting bodies making the bulk of decisions will inherently be of a communist character because those voting will, of course, have their own needs in mind. The majority of the population is of course working class/agricultural. It doesn't require the intervention of a revolutionary party to maintain the purity of the voting or individual policy, as the Bolsheviks attempted to do. All that is required is a revolutionary vanguard committed to upholding the structure of decentralized government based on worker's councils and enforcing it's decisions.

Eh, my thoughts. Long time since I took that line of argument. Personally I find my views to be a synthesis of Platformism, Left Communism, and my own opinions on the role of the information age.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Mubarak isn't a Marxist-Leninist, he's just a presidential dictator, ostensibly an heir to Gamal Abdel Nasser and Anwar Sadat, but the point is the Egyptian government routinely renews "emergency" legislation which gives the country extraordinary powers, which has been consistently renewed ever since they were first enacted when the Muslim Brotherhood assassinated Anwar Sadat.

It's like the Nazis and the Reichstag fire, there's some crisis which supposedly threatens the existence of the state which can be used to justify extraordinary power, but then it's often up to the state's honest intentions to surrender that power later.


theres the difference, Mubarak is not a Marxist-Leninist or even a socialist. like most bourgeois politicians, they will use almost any means to gain more power, and any reason/means to maintain it.

i think Gorbachevs perestroika and glasnost were a premature attempt at moving towards democracy in socialism. why premature? because imperialism was still seeking the soviet unions destruction. and well, gorby is somewhat of a dubious character as well :lol:

[AK]

There should also be no state beuracracy ie:

Police
Army
Navy
Courts

Just a quick reminder here. In an anarchist society, we do in fact want police. We do want a legal system. We just don't want to include hierarchical social relations.

You can pretty much tell if a police force constitutes part of a state or not because police officers that enforce laws made by others (in the others' own interests; to protect the wealth and property of the ruling class amongst other class interests) higher up in the hierarchy belong to the state. If a police force enforced laws (direct-)democratically decided by the whole voting population (in a society free of private property, of course), then it would not constitute being an organ of the state.

The same thing applies to a standing army or a navy, I guess. Such institutions should exist solely for the mutual defence of the whole population - not to act in the class interests of rulers.

[Charles Xavier]

blank