Marxism and workers' democracy

[Black Sheep]

Marxism emphasises on production, productivity, and distribution.
My question is about workers' control.Is workers' democracy something that results directly from marxist analysis - and how - or a 'preference', a way of managing that production.

For example, where would a society with a communist economy conflict marxism,if it was run,let's say, by a few people, who however planned production & distribution in a communist way.
Do you get me?
In short,is workers' democracy an intrinsic part of marxism or is it a side note desicion?

[Philzer]

Hi!


bourgeoisie democracy :
The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them.

Is not angry at me, but this is nothing else than emotional cheese.

Why?

Because it does not explain, why democracy, nevertheless, functions!

My model can explain you a little bit more, for example the last 100 years and the reason for the defeat of the real-existing-socialism against the democratic-exploiter-nations.

I have tried to show the principle of every democracy here. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/democracy-pantheism-bourgeoisie-t131250/index.html?t=131250)

I have my democracy-analysis for about 2 years in the net, in several forums.

And up to now nobody could disprove this to me!

But it is hated, from the rights like from the lefts because it is the truth.

Kind regards

PS: There is a longer explanation into German here: (http://aufbruch.foren-city.de/topic,797,-demokratie-und-der-moderne-pantheismus-der-bourgeoisie.html)

[Q]

What is Communism? Communism is the doctrine of the conditions of the liberation of the proletariat. What is the proletariat? The proletariat is that class in society which lives entirely from the sale of its labor and does not draw profit from any kind of capital; whose weal and woe, whose life and death, whose sole existence depends on the demand for labor....

Engels, Principles of Communism (1847)

To be short and to the point: Yes, democracy is a vital part of Marxist politics.

When Marx and Engels were still alive there were still many secret societies that tried to establish socialism through a coup to establish an "enlightened dictatorship" that would rule over the masses as they were educated to eventually take over power themselves. Marx and Engels consistently argued against these ideas, pointing out that without the working class fighting for its own freedom, there could be no communism. Socialism has to be democratic, or it will become its opposite, such as we saw in the USSR.

[Philzer]

Hi comrades!


The proletariat is that class in society which lives entirely from the sale of its labor and does not draw profit from any kind of capital

I agree if I see it with the eyes of Engels at his time.

And today? The worker from the democratic-exploiter-nations do not draw profit from the capitalism, if he works for 5 or 10 Dollar per hour, an "buy-back" in his supermarkets goods of the worker of the third world which have a wage of 10 or 20 pences per hour? For one hour of himself he can buy back 50 or 100 hours of his wage-slaves around the world, for example in India.

This is the justice sense of the democrat!


To be short and to the point: Yes, democracy is a vital part of Marxist politics.
Marx and Engels consistently argued against these ideas, pointing out that without the working

May be. But it is never explained, and so it's not more than empty phrases.

Psychology is the most missing part in class. M/L.

Unity of opposites (http://www.revleft.com/vb/unity-opposites-t133817/index.html)


Socialism has to be democratic, or it will become its opposite, such as we saw in the USSR.

So long the worker no understood what is democracy in real, and an other kind of democracy has never and will never exist, there is no progress in the world.

Communists need scientific pluralism, not esotheric pluralism like democracy!

Democracy is the being of pantheism!

The Sovietunion broke down by death-arming of the democratic-exploiter-nations and by the betrayal from persons which came from the people, like Gorbatschow, by nothing else.

It's pure rubbish to pray old parts from Marx or Engels ( be sure I also like it ), without adding a modern view and understanding of the real world today!

If we miss this, we make communism to an atheistic-religion!

Please read my signature.

Kind regards.

[Black Sheep]

Marx and Engels consistently argued against these ideas, pointing out that without the working class fighting for its own freedom, there could be no communism. Socialism has to be democratic, or it will become its opposite, such as we saw in the USSR. So workers' democracy is a prerequisite (one of the required means), with which we want to achieve domination over production & distribution ( = the goal)?
Do you see my question-point?I mean is the choice of workers' democracy stripped of its moral color?If a communist economy could only be achieved via dictatorship and worshiping of goats, you would support that?

Also Philzer your responses are like Rosa's.

[Philzer]

Hi comrades!



In short,is workers' democracy an intrinsic part of marxism or is it a side note desicion?

I think the idea of democracy at Marx´time was to generate a leadership of the majority. The workers should decide themself about the results of their work. But a concrete plan he didnt described.

Lenin worked out his plan of "the party of the new type". This failed in practice because the psychology of the human wasn't considered.
If we know this plan was ending in a "one-person=one god - dictature".


If a communist economy could only be achieved via dictatorship and worshiping of goats, you would support that?

We have to find a way to create a real social society without exploiting of other nations and their natural ressources!

My idea is a scientific pluralism whitch contains our future as an very important part in policy.


http://s3.directupload.net/images/100821/7zwf7wa5.gif (http://www.directupload.net)


Also Philzer your responses are like Rosa's.

If you mean the attempt to explain the world in scientific way, I agree.
But note: Rosa is an anti-dialectican, in opposite to me, but I think we have the same or similar aims :D

Kind regards

[Revolutionair]

Philzer, could you talk some more about your scientific pluralism? It sounds interesting.

[Hit The North]

So workers' democracy is a prerequisite (one of the required means), with which we want to achieve domination over production & distribution ( = the goal)?
Do you see my question-point?I mean is the choice of workers' democracy stripped of its moral color?


In a way it is. This is the difference between utopian and scientific socialism. The utopian socialists make an appeal to truth, justice, equality, democracy, as moral principles. Scientific socialism shows that these things must necessarily follow from a socialist society which can only be based on the democractic control of the direct producers and the eventual withering away of class distinctions. Further, it sets the establishment of socialism as the only basis for the realisation of these ideals which can only be realised through the revolutionising of our material relations, and not on the basis of a moral appeal.

If a communist society can only be achieved on the basis of the abolition of social class and mass democratic control of production and exchange, if, in other words, it necessitates workers democracy, then what use is the "moral color"?

[Philzer]

Hi Revolutionair!


Philzer, could you talk some more about your scientific pluralism? It sounds interesting.

My problem is my poor english.

You are from netherlands, can you read german? :D

Pluralism (http://aufbruch.foren-city.de/topic,866,6dd74d71378fd4c979c6ee04c4f01a35,-pluralismus.html)


The greatest problem is to separate esoteric pluralism from scientific pluralism. This problem was not recognised and not solved neither by Rosa Luxenburg nor by Trotzky.

Lenin has recognised it intuitively and has solved by his dictatorship of one party. Unfortunately, like we know today.


scientific pluralism means:

To analyse variety of theories with the purpose the world and reasonable, i.e. 4-dimensional, lasting (sustainability), to reach creation of the life on this planet.- no one-party-dictatorship, but no religious partys -> to understand this, you must know that the religion of capitalism is the pantheism! (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1705854&postcount=3)

- capitalism is not atheistic, but the most of the lefts think this!

- Not to forget: This functions of course only with communal property in means of production!



esoteric pluralism:

To justify variety of views, world views, religions, faith around own existence and his actions.esoteric pluralism means:

- freedom of opinion, also all unscientifics, like religions, all willing-based opinions

- esoteric pluralism is the basis for democracy of bourgeois -> because all opinions rise mutually and the capital remains as the only strength !


my request: if anybody can better translate from the german text which is linked above, please help

Good night!