Where there Elections in the Soviet Union ?

[tradeunionsupporter]

Where there Elections in the Soviet Union ? Was Lenin chosen as the Soviet Leader in a Election ? I know the people did not have the choice to go back to Capitalism but did they have the choice who their leaders were if there were no Elections how can anyone say the Soviet Union was a Worker's State ? Also was there only one Communist Party and one choice in the Elections ?

[#FF0000]

Yeah there were elections, but the General Secretary of the Communist Party (Lenin, Stalin) was elected/appointed by this council of three people who held executive power (who were, in turn, elected/appointed by the worker's councils, but don't quote me on that).

I think people voted for the leaders of local or regional soviets, but I'm not 100% about anything but the details about the position of General Secretary.

[Dean]

Where there Elections in the Soviet Union ? Was Lenin chosen as the Soviet Leader in a Election ? I know the people did not have the choice to go back to Capitalism but did they have the choice who their leaders were if there were no Elections how can anyone say the Soviet Union was a Worker's State ? Also was there only one Communist Party and one choice in the Elections ?

It wasn't a workers' state nor was it a soviet state. It was a state-capitalist regime which relied on nationalist industrialization to legitimize itself - when such basic industrialization was accomplished and dominance of the propaganda system outlived, it started to flounder.

[hobo8675309]

yes, but one had to be a member of the party to vote for council members who in turn elected cheif soviet. the need to be in the communist party to vote is much like the united state , in that people accused of certain criminal offenses are not permited to become full citizens, or join the party. of course elections occur quite differently under a totalarian state, where speaking in favor of an opponet can be a criminal offense, as in turkmenistan for a period of time.

[Die Neue Zeit]

http://books.google.ca/books?id=PTIVuGtAm5sC


What, he asked rhetorically, would the voters write on their ballots? Many people (he answered himself) wished to write on their ballots "Long life and happiness to Comrade Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin!", "I am voting for peace!", or some other appropriate sentiment. Or again, it might be that a voter did not like the candidate and wished to strike out his name. In that case, he could do so. He might wish to add a few words explaining his objection to the candidate, perhaps he might feel that someone else would be a better deputy. In that case, he could write in another name.

I read somewhere that, especially during the Brezhnev era, there was also the odd case of pro-CPSU voters handwriting petitions on their ballots for local or regional socioeconomic projects, something which today's bourgeois states don't allow.

us get your pork for you!"]

[Demogorgon]

There were elections yes. The various Soviets were elected through a system of Single Member Constituencies and they elected the executive authorities. Of course almost all elections were one candidate elections which amounted to appointment by the party.

The ballot papers asked if the voter supported or opposed the candidate in question but a blank vote was taken to mean they supported the candidate and as a result suspicion would fall on anyone who entered a polling booth meaning most simply dropped blank ballots into the ballot box. Around one in every thousand elections resulted in a "no" vote.

What was somewhat more common was people writing messages or requests on the ballot papers. The messages written were all recorded and this was intermittently used to catch out particularly corrupt officials who voters were complaining about.

As you might imagine this did not give the electorate much power over the government.

[Bud Struggle]

The question should be: Were the elections in the Soviet Union more or less democratic than that of Western Democracies?

Answer that.

[Demogorgon]

The question should be: Were the elections in the Soviet Union more or less democratic than that of Western Democracies?

Answer that.
No, though that assumes a relatively high standard of Western Democracy. In other words, not looking at the American South during one party segregationist rule by the Democratic Party or France while De Gaulle was spitting on every democratic principal. Of course you could argue that they still weren't as bad as the Soviet Union.

It isn't as useful a comparison as you might think though. The standard of democracy in Western elections varies enormously. None meet my standards of course, but you can clearly see some have far fairer elections affording far greater choice than others. Out of Western countries you may perhaps put the Nordic countries at the top and America, France and Britain at the bottom.

I bring up this tangent because when people say Western elections were fairer than Soviet elections (which they were) they often really mean American elections and that gives American elections a free pass by only comparing them to much worse examples.

Anyway to answer your question, no Soviet Elections were not as fair as almost all Western elections.

[Kiev Communard]

A common joke based on comparison between the USSR one-party and the U.S. two-party system in early 1990s was as follows:

"An American tells the Russian: "I know why the SU political system collapsed!"

"Why?"

"You should have had one more CPSU, but this time pro-choice!"

This sums up pretty well the difference and similarity between the U.S. and "Soviet" party system. Whereas the U.S. politics purports to be pluralistic, while having two almost indistinguishable dominant parties, the USSR bureaucrats were at least more morally honest than their American counterparts.

[AK]

Before anyone tries to claim otherwise; electing rulers =/= democracy. Just sayin'.

[RGacky3]

"An American tells the Russian: "I know why the SU political system collapsed!"

"Why?"

"You should have had one more CPSU, but this time pro-choice!"


That one was good, most political jokes suck, but damn, I'm gonna use that one.

[Dimentio]

A common joke based on comparison between the USSR one-party and the U.S. two-party system in early 1990s was as follows:

"An American tells the Russian: "I know why the SU political system collapsed!"

"Why?"

"You should have had one more CPSU, but this time pro-choice!"

This sums up pretty well the difference and similarity between the U.S. and "Soviet" party system. Whereas the U.S. politics purports to be pluralistic, while having two almost indistinguishable dominant parties, the USSR bureaucrats were at least more morally honest than their American counterparts.

No they were smarter.

The ruling class of western countries manage to hold themselves largely invisible.

[bailey_187]

Before anyone tries to claim otherwise; electing rulers =/= democracy. Just sayin'.

clapclapclapclapclap

[Die Neue Zeit]

What was somewhat more common was people writing messages or requests on the ballot papers. The messages written were all recorded and this was intermittently used to catch out particularly corrupt officials who voters were complaining about.

Could the messages and petitions have remained relevant if proportional representation had been used instead, abolishing the All-Union and Union-Republic constituencies?

As implied in my post above, pork barrelling relies upon the existence of constituencies in the first place. I suppose this would still have been relevant for elections to the Soviet of Nationalities.

[Demogorgon]

Could the messages and petitions have remained relevant if proportional representation had been used instead, abolishing the All-Union and Union-Republic constituencies?

As implied in my post above, pork barrelling relies upon the existence of constituencies in the first place. I suppose this would still have been relevant for elections to the Soviet of Nationalities.
Well many of the other Eastern Bloc countries did use Proportional Representation though only one list would typically be submitted, though as they tended to be flexible lists it did give voters a small amount of control over who entered the legislature. It made no difference though as the MPs simply voted for whatever the Government wanted (not exactly an unknown problem in Western Open list systems, but I digress).

As far as I know the messages/petitions system also operated in some of those countries. Admittedly it has been a while since I looked into it.

To go a little off topic pork-barreling (which isn't exactly a good thing) does go on under Proportional Representation. STV (which also uses constituencies albeit multi-member ones) is by far the worst for it, but open lists do encourage it too to an extent. When an MP needs sufficient personal votes to get a high enough place on her parties list to be ensured election, she will typically try to appeal to voters over her party colleagues by providing lots of personal benefits.

On another note, while we're on the subject, if you are interested in pork barrel politics taken to its logical extreme, look at Japan back when it used its bizarre SNTV system (that is several seats in each constituency with them being given to candidates with the most votes with no transfers possible). The Socialists and Communists generally only put up one candidate per constituency allowing them to campaign purely on party politics (but condemning themselves to permanent opposition) and that meant that the Liberal Democratic Party could hoover up most of the rest of the seats. However the different candidates for the seats had to compete with each other and that competition was far more vicious than between the parties. Some of the techniques used to win votes were about as subtle as a sledgehammer (envelopes stuffed full of cash being handed to voters being a favourite) but what was most common between elections was MPs looking to bring enormous amounts of pork to their districts to ensure reelection. This is part of the reason why Japan always operated such huge budget deficits. The Japanese economy used to be heavily planned (part of the reason for its success) so the Civil Service would draw up a budget each year based on its plan and the Government then had to maneuver it through parliament. However to get MPs to vote for it (part discipline not being strong) they had to add on much pork demanded by individual MPs meaning the budgets were hugely swollen by the time they were approved.

That is going miles off topic, though although it does put a little more context onto my point to Bud about western elections not always being ideal either (Japan not being Western obviously, but a similar sort of system), but if we are talking about pork barrel spending, I think it is relevant. It also ties in nicely with the Soviet Union incidentally as the way the Japanese Government planned was not a million miles away from the way the Soviet Government did (there was less of it and it involved heavy cooperation with private companies, but the level of planning in the economy was still very high). Japan is probably what the Soviet Union might have looked if deputies to the Soviets had been given freedom to negotiate the budget with the Government.

[Die Neue Zeit]

So, between what I wrote on random selections and the interim closed-list representative form that both achieves full or near-full proportionality and allows even small parties to arbitrarily appoint to and remove from the halls of power those with party affiliations - on the one hand - and on the other Paul Cockshott's stuff on plebiscites having clear limits before voting (voters can't pull off California-style deficit budgets year in and year out) - is there still room for for the not-so-good "cheap politics" of pork barrelling, and if so how can one minimize this to the level of Soviet-style petitions (instead of "representative" pork barrelling)?

[Demogorgon]

Well pork barrel politics can be limited quite effectively by capping the budget level each year and requiring new spending to be offset by a reduction elsewhere. However, I think you have to use different mechanisms to deal with "budgetary" matters than other political concerns. By this I mean most matters can be done through petition, initiative and so forth, but budgetary concerns probably need more complicated participatory decision making.

Incidentally, as to the petition thing in general. I used to be a big supporter of the idea of a petition with enough support followed by a referendum, but over time I have come to think it isn't good enough. For one it doesn't allow a discussion period followed by amendment before the actual vote so you can actually get ridiculous things like proposals being passed where spelling or grammatical errors change the meaning-there being no way to correct that and also it is an excellent means for reactionary groups to pander to people's baser instincts. So I have come to think that instead there should be a system where a petition with so many signatures instead leads to a randomly chosen panel of ordinary citizens being convened whom, after studying the background to the matter at hand, shall hear from proponents and opponents of the proposal at hand as well as any other public submissions would decide first of all whether any action should be taken at all-or if it is just some idiotic idea like "if only there were no gays and immigrants we would have utopia"-and then precisely what that action should be. That final considered decision could then go to referendum.

As for your idea of PR replaced by sortition, why not have both? The idea I have been toying with for the past two or three years is a sort of "new bicameralism". Bicameralism has in the past been a means to impose a Conservative blocking mechanism into the constitution, but why not have a new system for our purposes. By this I mean one body elected by open or flexible list proportional representation (either as a pure list system or MMP depending on how much local representation is valued in any particular area, but in either even being as proportional as possible) and a second body chosen by sortition. That would combine the most democratic election with demarchic representation of people.

[Die Neue Zeit]

My Marx-Engels minimum program calls for all forms of electoralism to be replaced by sortition. However, my Kautsky-Lenin "minimum program" calls for closed-list PR (again, possibly with MMP concessions for a third or less of the total seats to minimize overhang). It is possible to have both within the Kautskyan framework, and not in the bicameral way you mentioned. In my thinking, it is the parties themselves that should do the random sortitions and recalls.

This obviously runs counter to anti-party populism and cynicism that we see today, and I expect screams of "Anti-Democracy" at this very pro-party proposal. Replacing electoralism with sortition doesn't exclude parties from political life, but rather increases their role.

[Jose Gracchus]

A common joke based on comparison between the USSR one-party and the U.S. two-party system in early 1990s was as follows:

"An American tells the Russian: "I know why the SU political system collapsed!"

"Why?"

"You should have had one more CPSU, but this time pro-choice!"

This sums up pretty well the difference and similarity between the U.S. and "Soviet" party system. Whereas the U.S. politics purports to be pluralistic, while having two almost indistinguishable dominant parties, the USSR bureaucrats were at least more morally honest than their American counterparts.

This. :thumbup1:

[Rafiq]

From my understanding, the soviet union never really (up until Khrushchev) had a president. They had a party leader, which for the most part, as shown by J. Stalin, dominated many of the nations policy's.

[Crimson Commissar]

The real question is, why did there need to be elections in the Soviet Union? Elections for leaders, sure. But not for parties. We don't want to give capitalists any chance to take power ever, ever again. After the revolution, socialism should be the ONLY accepted ideology.

[Bud Struggle]

Future thread suggestions:

Where were the elections in Cuba?

Where were the elctions in Communist China?

Where were the election in DRNK?

Where were the elections in Communist Poland?

Where were the elections in Communist Rumania?

Where were the elections in Communist Bulgaria?

Where were the elections in Communist Hungary?

Where were the elections in East Germany?

And Hugo Chavez--can he please STOP screwing around with his country's constitution?

Now granted, the Free World isn't perfect, but the Iron Curtain countries NEVER had a free election.

If I'm wrong--I'd be interested to hear of one.

[#FF0000]

Now granted, the Free World isn't perfect, but the Iron Curtain countries NEVER had a free election. Source.

EDIT: Actually don't even bother because you're sort of wrong and sort of right.

From what I know, elections on the local level were generally pretty straightforward and free and fair, but the higher up you go, the more corrupt things were, as a rule.

And the DPRK has three political parties. :mellow:

EDIT EDIT: And Cuba has elections.

Like I said I don't know too much about how these governments are set up, but just because they have "Preisdents for life" doesn't mean they don't have elections for other government positions.

[Crimson Commissar]

Future thread suggestions:

Where were the elections in Cuba?

Where were the elctions in Communist China?

Where were the election in DRNK?

Where were the elections in Communist Poland?

Where were the Election in Communist Bulgaria?

Where were the Election in Communist Hungary?

Where were the Election in East Germany?

Now granted, the Free World isn't perfect, but the Iron Curtain countries NEVER had a free election.
Again, WHY does there need to be elections? The ruling party doesn't NEED to change every few years. We call the socialist state a "dictatorship of the proletariat" for a REASON. Because it's a society where the working class dictates how things should be run. Multi-party elections are just... unnecessary.

[Bud Struggle]

Source.

EDIT: Actually don't even bother because you're sort of wrong and sort of right.

From what I know, elections on the local level were generally pretty straightforward and free and fair, but the higher up you go, the more corrupt things were, as a rule.

And the DPRK has three political parties. :mellow:

EDIT EDIT: And Cuba has elections.

Like I said I don't know too much about how these governments are set up, but just because they have "Preisdents for life" doesn't mean they don't have elections for other government positions.

Elections of the "local level" are shit. Who is going to be the dog catcher.



And the DPRK has three political parties. :mellow:
Did you hear? There were TWO rainbows in the sky on North Korea on New Years Day--

http://blogs.wsj.com/korearealtime/2011/01/03/nk-in-2011-cold-noodles-double-rainbows/

:D

[Obs]

Did you hear? There were TWO rainbows in the sky on North Korea on New Years Day--

http://blogs.wsj.com/korearealtime/2011/01/03/nk-in-2011-cold-noodles-double-rainbows/

:D
In other words, you have no relevant comeback.

[Bud Struggle]

In other words, you have no relevant comeback.

Comrade: two of the parties are RAINBOWS!

[Bud Struggle]

Again, WHY does there need to be elections? The ruling party doesn't NEED to change every few years. We call the socialist state a "dictatorship of the proletariat" for a REASON. Because it's a society where the working class dictates how things should be run. Multi-party elections are just... unnecessary.

That's Mubarak's line of reasoning, too.

[Palingenisis]

Comrade: two of the parties are RAINBOWS!

Why does a one class state need various parties?

The idea of seperate parties comes from a division in the society.

Communism is not liberalism.

[Obs]

That's Mubarak's line of reasoning, too.
Mubarak advocates a dictatorship of the proletariat? sweet

[#FF0000]

Jesus Christ everyone in this thread is so wrong.

Dictatorship of the Proletariat is not Dictatorship of the Party, Crimson Commisar. Even fucking STALIN said this (http://www.marxists.org/archive/shachtma/1934/07/dictship.htm)

EDIT: RIGHT FUCKING HERE (http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/SEP26.html#Di4)

Further, multiple parties definitely stem from divisions in society, because every society will always have them. What, do you mean to tell me the Left Socialist Revolutionaries, Socialist Revolutionaries, and Mensheviks didn't have working-class interests at heart?

Not to mention the simple fact that anyone can reach a position of power in a one-party state just by cynically repeating and towing the party line.

And Bud, local elections mean elections to local and regional councils. I would say they were kind of a big deal. And the rainbow thing isn't an argument. Don't be dumb.

So there we go.

[RGacky3]

tradeunionsupporter, for petes sake, www.wikipedia.org (http://www.wikipedia.org), stop asking dumb questions.

[#FF0000]

Gacky don't be a dick.

[Bud Struggle]

And Bud, local elections mean elections to local and regional councils. Sure but you still have your Glorious Leader controlling everything.


I would say they were kind of a big deal. And the rainbow thing isn't an argument. Don't be dumb.

When Kim Il Jong took office there was a sign in the heavens (two rainbows) that approved of his "selection." Now it seems his son has also received the two rainbows. I think that is a very big deal. According to the DRNK not only the people but the UNIVERSE approves of their selection.

Hey, when the uniiverse goes out of its way to appove of a Glorious Leader--I think that's a VERY BIG DEAL.

[RGacky3]

Gacky don't be a dick.

Sorry, but this is probably the hundredth thread thats just a basic fact question that could be answered with a quick wikipedia search, its just pointless.

[Thug Lessons]

I honestly wish tradeunionsupporter was still asking tons of questions like this and I wasn't just reading a thread from last August.

[Bud Struggle]

Sorry, but this is probably the hundredth thread thats just a basic fact question that could be answered with a quick wikipedia search, its just pointless.

We are all here to learn, Gack. :)

[Dimentio]

There were electoral rituals in the Soviet Union, which hardly have anything to do with elections.

Not even multiple socialist parties were allowed.

[#FF0000]

Sure but you still have your Glorious Leader controlling everything.

Yup. They were far from perfect and the USSR certainly wasn't a proletarian democracy (for very long)


When Kim Il Jong took office there was a sign in the heavens (two rainbows) that approved of his "selection." Now it seems his son has also received the two rainbows. I think that is a very big deal. According to the DRNK not only the people but the UNIVERSE approves of their selection.

Hey, when the uniiverse goes out of its way to appove of a Glorious Leader--I think that's a VERY BIG DEAL.

OQSNhk5ICTI

[RGacky3]

We are all here to learn, Gack. :)

Thats fine, but for goodness sake, he can make a slight effort.

[Crimson Commissar]

Jesus Christ everyone in this thread is so wrong.

Dictatorship of the Proletariat is not Dictatorship of the Party, Crimson Commisar. Even fucking STALIN said this (http://www.marxists.org/archive/shachtma/1934/07/dictship.htm)
I never mentioned a party. What I meant was, the proletariat have the right to repress all political parties and movements that are opposed to socialism. Because it is a DICTATORSHIP of the proletariat. The proletariat dictates how society is run.

EDIT: RIGHT FUCKING HERE (http://www.marx2mao.com/Stalin/SEP26.html#Di4)


Further, multiple parties definitely stem from divisions in society, because every society will always have them. What, do you mean to tell me the Left Socialist Revolutionaries, Socialist Revolutionaries, and Mensheviks didn't have working-class interests at heart?
No, but how is it going to help us if we have the fucking government changing every 5 years for no reason at all? It will end up like under capitalism, where a reform made by one party will end up being immediately reversed the moment another party comes to power. All factions of socialism need to be united as one party.


Not to mention the simple fact that anyone can reach a position of power in a one-party state just by cynically repeating and towing the party line.
Better than capitalism where you can't even reach ANY position of power if you do that.

I'd just like to clarify, I don't support oppression of other socialists. Just non-socialists. After the revolution, there needs to be a complete and total abolition of all non-socialistic politics. As long as people aren't advocating a restoration of a free-market economy it shouldn't matter.

[#FF0000]

I never mentioned a party. What I meant was, the proletariat have the right to repress all political parties and movements that are opposed to socialism. Because it is a DICTATORSHIP of the proletariat. The proletariat dictates how society is run. I agree with this.
No, but how is it going to help us if we have the fucking government changing every 5 years for no reason at all? It will end up like under capitalism, where a reform made by one party will end up being immediately reversed the moment another party comes to power. All factions of socialism need to be united as one party.
It'll help us because it will be a proletarian democracy, then. Which is, you know, kind of the goal.

Unless you think that candidates can/will be fielded by groups outside the Party? 'Cause then I think we have some common ground.

Me, you, and Stalin. :mellow:


"You are puzzled by the fact that only one party will come forward at elections. You cannot see how election contests can take place under these conditions. Evidently, candidates will be put forward not only by the Communist Party, but by all sorts of public, non-Party organizations. And we have hundreds of them. We have no contending parties any more than we have a capitalist class contending against a working class which is exploited by the capitalists. Our society consists exclusively of free toilers of town and country -- workers, peasants, intellectuals. Each of these strata may have its special interests and express them by means of the numerous public organizations that exist."

See also: http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv11n2/darcy.htm

Oh what a world it would have been if this stuff happened as it was supposed to.

[Revolution starts with U]

We shouldn't be "oppressing" anyone. We exist to stop others from oppressing others. We don't need to "oppress" capitalists, just capitalism.
We are oppressing oppression, not the oppressive.

[Rafiq]

Again, WHY does there need to be elections? The ruling party doesn't NEED to change every few years. We call the socialist state a "dictatorship of the proletariat" for a REASON. Because it's a society where the working class dictates how things should be run. Multi-party elections are just... unnecessary.

Jesus... Stop making us all look bad.

Who the fuck needs party's anyway? How about NO partys?

And yes, we DO need Elections. People HAVE to control their society and system. Anything other is not Socialism.

[Rafiq]

When Kim Il Jong took office there was a sign in the heavens (two rainbows) that approved of his "selection." Now it seems his son has also received the two rainbows. I think that is a very big deal. According to the DRNK not only the people but the UNIVERSE approves of their selection.

Hey, when the uniiverse goes out of its way to appove of a Glorious Leader--I think that's a VERY BIG DEAL.

Double rainbow.... All the way!

[Revolution starts with U]

What does it mean?!

[Baseball]

We shouldn't be "oppressing" anyone. We exist to stop others from oppressing others. We don't need to "oppress" capitalists, just capitalism.
We are oppressing oppression, not the oppressive.

The point of "Crimson Commissar" is that with elections of they type you call for, the socialist community will crumble.

And he or she is absolutely correct.

Gee whiz! You guys on this website can't even agree amongst yourselves how to go about and build socialism. And this in a situation when you folks are about the only Revlefters on the planet. What do you suppose will happen should you all actually ever in a position to get what want? Everyone will suddenly agree? But isn't that "CC" desires?

[#FF0000]

Gee whiz! You guys on this website can't even agree amongst yourselves how to go about and build socialism. And this in a situation when you folks are about the only Revlefters on the planet. What do you suppose will happen should you all actually ever in a position to get what want? Everyone will suddenly agree? But isn't that "CC" desires?

Word, I mean, people agreeing on things 100% is the only way stuff ever got done in history.

Come on, you can do better than this.

[Baseball]

I agree with this.It'll help us because it will be a proletarian democracy, then. Which is, you know, kind of the goal.


Basically "CC" is claiming that various socialist parties will allow capitalism the opportunity to rear its head.

The counter-argument is skepticism that the "people" would be impressed with resurgent capitalism.

Yet, even you, still propose to ban it.

Is Stalinism "state capitalism?" Many people on these boards say it was. Stalinists deny the charge. Would those people who claim the USSR was a socialist community be denied by other socialist parties the opportunity to present their views in the new "proletariat democracy?"

[Baseball]

There were electoral rituals in the Soviet Union, which hardly have anything to do with elections.

Not even multiple socialist parties were allowed.

East Germany had multiple political parties in their elections.
Cuba also has multiple political parties in their elections.

Were/are thus genuine elections?

[#FF0000]

Is Stalinism "state capitalism?" Many people on these boards say it was. Stalinists deny the charge. Would those people who claim the USSR was a socialist community be denied by other socialist parties the opportunity to present their views in the new "proletariat democracy?"

Nope.

[Baseball]

Nope.


So how deal with "CC's" concerns?

[#FF0000]

His concerns that capitalism will come back somehow because of multi-party elections?

Well let me put it this way. If you have a socialist society, and it can go back to a Capitalist one because of an election, then you never had a socialist society to begin with.

I think I answered your question here but I'm not sure because I'm barely following your posts.

[Baseball]

What are his concerns, exactly? I'm just barely following this. Either I'm tired or you're barely coherent. :mellow:

That factions will undermine socialism and allow capitalism a route back in.

[#FF0000]

I edited my post with your answer just before you clarified, I think.

[Rafiq]

If majority of people under Socialism decide that they want Capitalism back, what's the problem with that?

Isn't Socialism about, you know, making life better for people? If you think that won't work out, they should be able to vote for any society they want (With Proper Education first though).

[Crimson Commissar]

Jesus... Stop making us all look bad.

Who the fuck needs party's anyway? How about NO partys?

And yes, we DO need Elections. People HAVE to control their society and system. Anything other is not Socialism.
Do you WANT capitalism to be restored? History has proven that not everyone will automatically support socialism as soon as it comes to power. Any socialist society needs to be one entirely dictated by the class interests of the proletariat. Socialism must be maintained by any means necessary.

I don't support all power being in the hands of the party. The ruling communist party of a socialist nation should only be the tool for the socialist proletariat to manage the state. I don't support some elite class of beauracrats controlling everything. You assume that just because I am against the multi-party electoral system I am automatically some evil supporter of dictatorship and oppression. That's not what I support at all. I support a society in which all reactionary ideas are abolished. Where humanity is really progressing into a new age where communism is the only guiding ideology of the people. Capitalism, in any form, should not be tolerated. We shouldn't give capitalists, fascists, nazis or any of our enemies a platform to express their opinion and potentially convert dissenters to their ideology.

And, if you think that in a socialist society everyone would just vote for communism anyway, that's completely false. Just look at Venezuela. They are a great example of modern socialism, but due to their flawed capitalistic electoral system they are constantly under threat from anti-communist parties that could seize power at any moment. This is what happens when you have "libertarian" socialism. The proletariat needs to have full, 100% control of politics within their nation. Only then will we ever be able to build a strong, stable and equal socialist state.


If majority of people under Socialism decide that they want Capitalism back, what's the problem with that?

Isn't Socialism about, you know, making life better for people? If you think that won't work out, they should be able to vote for any society they want (With Proper Education first though).
This is ridiculous. Capitalists will never, ever play fair when it comes to elections. By allowing them to organise against us in the form of political parties, we're giving them a great opportunity to destroy socialism. Even if a significant portion of society is in full support of socialism, there will always be an equally significant amount that are against it. And even if there isn't, it wouldn't stop capitalists from staging some kind of coup or persuading another capitalist nation to remove socialism from power.

[Rafiq]

This is ridiculous. Capitalists will never, ever play fair when it comes to elections. By allowing them to organise against us in the form of political parties, we're giving them a great opportunity to destroy socialism. Even if a significant portion of society is in full support of socialism, there will always be an equally significant amount that are against it. And even if there isn't, it wouldn't stop capitalists from staging some kind of coup or persuading another capitalist nation to remove socialism from power.

So if, without any party's at all, most of the people are unhappy with Socialism and want Capitalism back, that is not an option for them? What do you have to worry about if you truly, (like me) believe that Socialism is going to make life much better for people? What are you worried about? Or are you going to try to shove something (State Capitalism) that no one wants up the people's mouth?

What are you talking about

"Even if a significant portion of society is in full support of socialism, there will always be an equally significant amount that are against it"

Actually that's not true at all. Enless an unlikely event in which 50% are wanting Capitalism and 50% Socialism. In all cases, you either have a majority or a minority.

What are you talking about here too:

"And even if there isn't, it wouldn't stop capitalists from staging some kind of coup or persuading another capitalist nation to remove socialism from power."

Actually by this point, the masses will already remove the means of production from the hands of the Bourgeoisie. So there is no more Elitist Capitalist Clan. There is just the people living under Socialism. So no boogie man will change their opinion or brainwash them.

I for one am a true Communist, and have full trust that Socialism will make lives better for people, and I think that if people have full power, and decide they want Capitalism back, it would be for a good reason, and obviously Socialism would be something that does not work (Which I doubt).

If you think Socialism doesn't work, don't allow elections or the masses to decide what they want.

If you think it will work, then allow full direct democracy to take place. PostRevolution vangaurd did not work. Leninism does not work.

[#FF0000]

Do you WANT capitalism to be restored? History has proven that not everyone will automatically support socialism as soon as it comes to power. Any socialist society needs to be one entirely dictated by the class interests of the proletariat. Socialism must be maintained by any means necessary.



Well let me put it this way. If you have a socialist society, and it can go back to a Capitalist one because of an election, then you never had a socialist society to begin with.

:mellow:

[Crimson Commissar]

:mellow:
Not everyone agrees with socialist ideals you know. Even in the most perfect, utopian socialist world, there would be those who are against socialism due to various reasons. (Nationalism, religion, greed etc.)

[#FF0000]

Yeah and those people would get the shit repressed out of them depending on how much of a threat they are.

Still no reason to not have democracy :mellow:

[Crimson Commissar]

Yeah and those people would get the shit repressed out of them depending on how much of a threat they are.

Still no reason to not have democracy :mellow:
I agree with democracy. Just not multi-party democracy.

[Bud Struggle]

I agree with democracy. Just not multi-party democracy.

People should be allowed to CHOOSE what type of economic system they want--even if that system isn't Communism.

If people can't have the freedom to run their lives the way they choose then why bother having Communism at all?

[Thug Lessons]

Well let me put it this way. If you have a socialist society, and it can go back to a Capitalist one because of an election, then you never had a socialist society to begin with.

If the people cannot institute whatever changes they wish legislatively, then you do not have a democratic society. I suppose you could include strong constitutional provisions that make it difficult if not impossible to restore capitalism through the democratic process, but that doesn't have much to do with whether a society is socialist or not.

You have a point when it comes to the so-called 'higher phase' of communist society, where going back to capitalism would be as impossible as going back to feudalism in the contemporary UK, but there would be a long intervening period between a socialist revolution and that situation where it would be necessary to balance democratic and anti-capitalist concerns.

[RGacky3]

If the people cannot institute whatever changes they wish legislatively, then you do not have a democratic society.

Exactly, which is why the United States is not a democracy.

Btw, NO ONE, after having genuine socialism would voluntarily return to Capitalism, it would be as rediculous as a democracy returning to a monarchy.

[Crimson Commissar]

Exactly, which is why the United States is not a democracy.

Btw, NO ONE, after having genuine socialism would voluntarily return to Capitalism, it would be as rediculous as a democracy returning to a monarchy.
As I said before, there will always be reasons for people to return to capitalism. That's why anti-communist ideologies need to be suppressed until they are no longer a threat to us.

[RGacky3]

As I said before, there will always be reasons for people to return to capitalism.

Such as?

[Rafiq]

If you truly think Socialism is possible and will make life better(As I do), what is there to worry about, Crimson?

[Crimson Commissar]

If you truly think Socialism is possible and will make life better(As I do), what is there to worry about, Crimson?
I've just said it about three times. Some people just will not accept socialism no matter what we do. Do you think every racist, fascist, ultra-nationalist and religious fundamentalist is just going to abandon their ideas all because a socialist revolution happened?

[RGacky3]

Some people just will not accept socialism no matter what we do. Do you think every racist, fascist, ultra-nationalist and religious fundamentalist is just going to abandon their ideas all because a socialist revolution happened?

Nope, but they're arn't enough of them to undo socialism in a democracy.

[Rafiq]

I've just said it about three times. Some people just will not accept socialism no matter what we do. Do you think every racist, fascist, ultra-nationalist and religious fundamentalist is just going to abandon their ideas all because a socialist revolution happened?


Jesus Christ. I think 90% of people can take on 10% of reactionarys. Do you think the majority of people are going to be racist, fascist, ultranationalist religious fundies?

[Crimson Commissar]

Jesus Christ. I think 90% of people can take on 10% of reactionarys. Do you think the majority of people are going to be racist, fascist, ultranationalist religious fundies?
Probably not the majority. But even then, why bother allowing them to organise against us? Better to just ban their organisations and prevent them from ever creating any significant movement.

[Revolution starts with U]

It's better just to make fun of racists, than to give their arguments any kind of legitimacy (which banning them will do).

[Lt. Ferret]

Probably not the majority. But even then, why bother allowing them to organise against us? Better to just ban their organisations and prevent them from ever creating any significant movement.


so its bad when they do this to you, but good when you do this to them?

i think you give reactionaries the moral clarity to massacre the lot of you with a thought process like this.

[Bud Struggle]

Probably not the majority. But even then, why bother allowing them to organise against us?

Maybe so you don't seem as bad as the Fascists and the Nazis who do those kinds of things.

[RGacky3]

Probably not the majority. But even then, why bother allowing them to organise against us? Better to just ban their organisations and prevent them from ever creating any significant movement.

Read your signature,

Your a clown, you don't even believe in socialism it sounds like, you just like the idea of the USSR and authoritarianism.

[Baseball]

Read your signature,

Your a clown, you don't even believe in socialism it sounds like, you just like the idea of the USSR and authoritarianism.


CC signature is absolutely logically consistent with how socialism must evolve. It also seems hardly controversial-- What socialist on this board does NOT want socialism worldwide?

What CC did was simply accept the notion that socialist communities will have to deal with non- socialists within their community, or with non-socialist countries.

How does the socialist community interact with such people and countries? Much as it may distress socialists, it is a topic which they have to consider. At best, the only response is to CC along these lines has been based upon hope that the workers will find socialism so superior to capitalism that they will not be swayed off the golden road. But since socialists like to speak about how underhanded, rotten, brutal ect. capitalists are, it seems scarcely an adequate response.

[Ismail]

As a note, from another topic in which I mentioned it, here's American defector to East Germany, Victor Grossman, on GDR elections: "Candidates for the People's Chamber were questioned at neighborhood meetings and occasionally met disapproval. But most voters dutifully deposited in the box their unmarked ballot with the one National Front slate. Only a few brave souls used the tiny voting booth in the rear. Most people feared that it might seem that they were crossing out names, and who wished to risk a possible bonus or promotion just for a secret ballot? When a fellow student found no pencils in the booths, he circulated an angry petition to Premier Grotewohl. For his efforts he was censured by his SED party group. That was his only punishment; he earned no enmity from other students, but the authorities surely had labeled him a potential troublemaker." (Crossing the River, p. 140.)

This was an issue in pretty much every single "socialist" state. Demogorgon is generally quite right on this issue. A quote from West German bourgeois political science is also good on the mentality of the SED in regards to elections:

“The function of elections in the socialist system is misunderstood if they are regarded in the traditional way as being a method for approving or rejecting a policy and those who represent it... Because this system sees itself by definition as progressive, as serving the good of the people...

Thus elections have purely the function of general assent. At the same time they serve to mobilize and educate the mass of the people politically. The large-scale preparations for the elections—it would be wrong to call them an electoral battle—are intended to bind the citizens more closely to the system and to ensure their active support for those aims which the leading party prescribes for state and society. The actual ballot thus attains the character of a demonstration, it is ‘an act of self-assertion by the socialist state’. Election day is therefore not a day of political decision... it is a day when the political system asserts itself and, in the eyes of the SED, even a red-letter day. For this reason too it is the ambition of the political leadership to get everyone who is entitled to vote to the polls if possible. Although there is no legal compulsion to vote, the percentage of voters is always close to 100%: in 1963 it was 99.25%, in 1967 98.82%. The higher the percentage vote that can be recorded, the higher is the rate of success....

All candidates must introduce themselves to the electors at ‘electoral conferences’. At such conferences it may happen that the selection committee of the National Front is told by the electors' organization that certain candidates ought not to be selected...

For the SED, elections... are exclusively a ‘means of integration for the strengthening and further development of the socialist power of the state’... the function of elections in the GDR is simply to give assent to the system.”
(Kurt Sontheimer & Wilhelm Bleek. The Government and Politics of East Germany. New York: St. Martin's Press. 1975. pp. 78-80.)The irony was that the 1937 Soviet election was the most relatively "free" election held since the early 1920's, and the most "free" one held until 1989. As J. Arch Getty noted, Stalin and Co. seriously anticipated the introduction of multi-candidate elections. It was only due to the rising Great Terror and strong opposition from local party bosses that this was seen as inopportune. But even then, as Sarah Davies and Sheila Fitzpatrick point out, the 1937 elections were still quite active and voters were actually interested in voting and particularly in discussing matters of corruption, poor administrative work, arbitrariness, etc. Even Stalin was somewhat criticized in his electoral district (he was 'elected' deputy of the Supreme Soviet) and in fact lost in one district (Novosibirsk) to a local party secretary on suggestion from a Stakhanovite, who complained that Stalin was already standing for election in too many places. As Getty and Thurston point out, the Great Terror actually sort of helped this process along, since it encouraged workers to denounce abusive or bureaucratic managers, local party officials, etc.

But even then the Party made sure that these were isolated incidents, and by next year Russian SFSR elections and all elections onwards pretty much conformed to the generic, apathetic electoral system which characterized the Eastern Bloc and other "socialist" states.

[Crimson Commissar]

Maybe so you don't seem as bad as the Fascists and the Nazis who do those kinds of things.
We shouldn't be concerned so much about doing the opposite of everything fascists do. We simply need to take a realistic position here. Socialism will not be popular with everyone when it first takes control. We need to secure proletarian control over the state and crush all organisations who are against us. Perhaps this could be seen as un-democratic. But I don't propose restricting the freedom of normal people in their everyday lives. People should have the freedom to do whatever they want. All unnecessary laws need to be abolished. The only laws that need to remain are those that either protect people from harm, or enforce socialist control over the state and progress humanity towards communism. The simple fact is, anti-communism should NOT be tolerated. This doesn't mean we need to murder everyone who critiscizes communism. But if someone takes a radically anti-communist and reactionary position, what place do they deserve in human socialist society? Why show respect to conservatives, or fascists, or nazis, when they are the ones that are constantly holding our species back and oppressing their fellow human beings? I don't understand why any socialist would be against this. Especially when many of us would agree that capitalists and fascists are utter scumbags.

Of course, though, I can understand why someone like you would be afraid of these sorts of ideas, Bud, being a strong supporter of bourgeois rule and all. ;)

[hatzel]

So, do any of the OI:ers in here ever wonder why they're not Marxists? Oh? You don't? You just read CC's comments on this thread and that convinces you you shouldn't be? Oh, great! Because that's exactly why I'm not a Marxist, either! :)

[#FF0000]

So, do any of the OI:ers in here ever wonder why they're not Marxists? Oh? You don't? You just read CC's comments on this thread and that convinces you you shouldn't be? Oh, great! Because that's exactly why I'm not a Marxist, either! :)

You know, CC here is in the definite minority and even our own Ismail up there, a proponent of Enver Hoxha, is calling him on his dumb bullshit.

[hatzel]

I'm fully aware that CC's comments aren't the definitive take on Marxism, yes :)

[Bud Struggle]

We shouldn't be concerned so much about doing the opposite of everything fascists do.

We simply need to take a realistic position here. Socialism will not be popular with everyone when it first takes control. [/quote] You are correct.


We need to secure proletarian control over the state and crush all organisations who are against us. Perhaps this could be seen as un-democratic. But I don't propose restricting the freedom of normal people in their everyday lives. People should have the freedom to do whatever they want. All unnecessary laws need to be abolished. The only laws that need to remain are those that either protect people from harm, or enforce socialist control over the state and progress humanity towards communism. All freedoms except political freedom, then?


The simple fact is, anti-communism should NOT be tolerated. This doesn't mean we need to murder everyone who critiscizes communism. But if someone takes a radically anti-communist and reactionary position, what place do they deserve in human socialist society? Why show respect to conservatives, or fascists, or nazis, when they are the ones that are constantly holding our species back and oppressing their fellow human beings? I don't understand why any socialist would be against this. Especially when many of us would agree that capitalists and fascists are utter scumbags. Because if you do that you are no different than the people you detest. People either are or are not free. There is no middle ground. If you supress freedom of political though you are like the Fascists and you make Democratic Capitalism look like the best option--because it lets you be a Communist or a Fascist if you so choose.

You can't have it both ways. You can't be free and repressive at the same time.


Of course, though, I can understand why someone like you would be afraid of these sorts of ideas, Bud, being a strong supporter of bourgeois rule and all. ;) Well I'm the first one to admit that I don't think there is anything wrong with a little Bourgeoisie here and there in society. :D But the NICE thing about this society is that you CAN be a Communist or an Anarchist and no one (for the most part) bothers you.

And CC I'm a big fan of yours. When people want to know what Communism is all about--I'd be happy to point them in your direction and say, "there you go, listen to the guy right over there!"
;) :)

[Ismail]

But the NICE thing about this society is that you CAN be a Communist or an Anarchist and no one (for the most part) bothers you.Well that's rather stupid. Communists and Anarchists want communism or anarchism. If either became strong, I'm pretty sure they'd be quite "bothered" by capitalists. You get to freely be a Communist or Anarchist under bourgeois democracy because the expectation is that neither will ever be a potent force under it.

[Bud Struggle]

Well that's rather stupid. Communists and Anarchists want communism or anarchism. If either became strong, I'm pretty sure they'd be quite "bothered" by capitalists. You get to freely be a Communist or Anarchist under bourgeois democracy because the expectation is that neither will ever be a potent force under it.

So why not accord the same privledge to Capitalists in a Communist society?

[Ismail]

Because capitalists in other countries would gladly arm and/or otherwise encourage said capitalists in the workers' state to rise up and economically sabotage and terrorize the people of said workers' state. In 1980's Nicaragua and in 1970's-80's Angola both governments had plenty of conciliatory gestures towards the USA (the FSLN banned strikes and promoted a "mixed economy," the MPLA had deals with Chevron and the Gulf Oil Company) but that didn't stop either the Contras or UNITA from receiving copious amounts of US assistance.

Neither were workers' states. When there was a workers' state, Soviet Russia, it got invaded by fourteen states (http://www.shunpiking.com/books/GC/GC-AK-MS-chapter06.htm) in 1919. Of course there doesn't necessarily have to be a workers' state. Take Grenada, Guatemala or Haiti.

It should be noted that in most Eastern Bloc countries they actually had (most prominently in East Germany) ostensibly non-communist parties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_German_National_Front). You can dispute how viable these non-communist parties were in terms of influence, but in fact they were significantly more influential on paper than Communists and Anarchists are in bourgeois-democratic states today de facto.

[Dimentio]

Because if you do that you are no different than the people you detest. People either are or are not free. There is no middle ground. If you supress freedom of political though you are like the Fascists and you make Democratic Capitalism look like the best option--because it lets you be a Communist or a Fascist if you so choose.


Open oppression because people are of differing opinions will create support for those oppressed amongst the masses, simply because people in general don't like to see people oppressed.

It is better to do like in Western Countries. Have "independent" media networks which constantly attack and hate on the individuals which the powers hate. If the person becomes a real threat, arrange a sex trap or check his/her IRS files. Whatever you arrest the person for, it should be for something entirely unrelated to the political activism of the person in question.

FOX News are superior to the KGB as a control mechanism.

[Bud Struggle]

Open oppression because people are of differing opinions will create support for those oppressed amongst the masses, simply because people in general don't like to see people oppressed.

It is better to do like in Western Countries. Have "independent" media networks which constantly attack and hate on the individuals which the powers hate. If the person becomes a real threat, arrange a sex trap or check his/her IRS files. Whatever you arrest the person for, it should be for something entirely unrelated to the political activism of the person in question.

FOX News are superior to the KGB as a control mechanism.

Well in the USA it seems the Conservatives are much better at getting themselves into sex traps than librals. :D

But also there are a plethora of Liberal news sites (Gacky finds them by the bushel load) stateing their opinions. People don't watch. Really a market based news system bepends on hwat the consumer wants not some corporate powers.

Also you could shut off Fox News--no so much with the KGB. The Western Democracy system is a better sysem.

[RGacky3]

People don't watch. Really a market based news system bepends on hwat the consumer wants not some corporate powers.


Its much more complicated then that when you have a oligarchy of information and a corporate based one, remember how these news systems get paid, by corporations run by executives who are very class conscious, just look at the difference between non corporate funded media and corporate funded media, its a huge difference. THere has been a lot of scholarly work on this.