Democracy

[PeacefulRevolution]

My question is for those who believe in total democracy.

I have a hard time accepting many aspects of Leninism as it pertains to democracy. However, there seem to be several flaws in pure democracy. For one, it seems that it would take just as long to make a decision as it does in Parliamentary Democracy, and so the revolution would be jeopardized, because reactionaries would have ample time to organize. Another problem I have with it is the general ignorance of the majority of the public (at least in America) as is evident in the Ground Zero Mosque controversy. So how could democracy survive considering these things?

[Tablo]

Actual communism will be made up of a series of communes. These communes will, in my mind, remain relatively small and close knit. Each of these communes will elect an instantly recallable rep that will meet with a regional confederation(or federation) to make decisions pertaining to the allocation of resources and planning the economy. So in reality almost all things will be decided on an extremely local level in relatively small groups of a few hundred to a few thousand. Now, a Communist society can easily be organized in many other ways, this is just how I feel it would be best managed.

Since decisions will be localized it will have a significant impact on everyone which will give them the desire to be involved in the decision.

[Kotze]

Besides decentralisation an alternative solution or supplement is to use random samples. So instead of asking millions to make a decision, you only ask a couple hundred, which hopefully has the effect that those asked will think more deeply about the issue, because each of them has more weight than with a direct vote of the whole population.

There is a general problem with decisions that have to be made quickly because of a state of emergency. If an official has officially very limited power in normal times, but extensive power in a state of emergency, and if it is also the task of the same offical alone to decide whether there is a state of emergency, that individual holds as a matter of fact the extensive power all the time.

Imagine there is a board that is alert 7 days a week, with night shifts and day shifts (random population sample whose members are replaced not in bulk but gradually, so the leavers can instruct the newcomers) that declares when a state of emergency begins and ends. During the emergency, some decision chains are made shorter, some actions by officials that normally require approval before they are taken now don't. But if an official's actions don't get approval after the fact, she will get problems.

Making laws can be done in a very centralized fashion, but these laws should only set upper penalty limits, the jury on a case should do the rest. Given that moral notions change over time and people tend to be more accepting of judgement by people their own age, the jury selection mechanism should take the age of claimant and defendant into account (and be otherwise random).

[Peace on Earth]

Very few issues would have to be decided with nation-wide elections. Most decisions are made by local councils, which because of the small size, are easy to manage. Think of town or county issues, and then think of that a bit faster because representatives aren't in a cushy seat for a few years until election. Larger issues wouldn't be a problem either. The elected representative (who is on a short leash from the people) directly communicates the will of the people to the larger body of representatives as well as reports back to the community at regular intervals. This process keeps going on and on until you eventually get to nation-wide levels, which would be comprised of elected officials who decide larger decisions that affect the whole nation. Because representatives are subject to recalls, it's extremely likely that they would follow what the people want.

And to address your issue of an ignorant population, the education system as well as major media would be far more productive and informative than anything we have today. There wouldn't be reactionary lies presented to smear the revolution.

One last point to remember is that the public couldn't vote on everything. You wouldn't have people voting to subject others or harm others, so many of the proposals put forth by many conservatives wouldn't even be able to be voted on, as they often times intentionally subject people to harm, in many different forms.

[Tablo]

Besides. The only decisions made on a "nation" size scale would be related to the allocation of goods and resources.

[(DSL)Mai68]

what is leninism? never heard that...

heard lenin thoug! so i assume lenininism isjust the stuff lenin did? or that soviet union did?

that Didn't really work thoug! :lol: not democracy in the soviet! and No More Soviet anyway!

also I agree that democracy is hard. u Can't always votee on everything thatgets done or nothing gets done. but if u Don't vote then everything gets done u just Don't get to say how! is a problem... but i Don't know that anyone has aagood answer either

[Tablo]

what is leninism? never heard that...

heard lenin thoug! so i assume lenininism isjust the stuff lenin did? or that soviet union did?

that Didn't really work thoug! :lol: not democracy in the soviet! and No More Soviet anyway!

also I agree that democracy is hard. u Can't always votee on everything thatgets done or nothing gets done. but if u Don't vote then everything gets done u just Don't get to say how! is a problem... but i Don't know that anyone has aagood answer either
Leninism is simply theory that is derived from the ideas produced by Lenin to expand upon Marxist thought.

[(DSL)Mai68]

thank u. that makes sense :)

[Jimmie Higgins]

I have a hard time accepting many aspects of Leninism as it pertains to democracy.like what? I'm a Leninist and I don't think socialism is possible without democracy and democratic decision making by workers.

At the local level and in workplaces there could easily be "pure democracy" in the sense that all people vote on all decisions. For larger-scale organization and coordination, I don't think it would be that difficult or bureaucratic in a stifling way for workers to elect delegates or representatives who are accountable but empowered to help coordinate the larger-scale things.


However, there seem to be several flaws in pure democracy. For one, it seems that it would take just as long to make a decision as it does in Parliamentary Democracy, and so the revolution would be jeopardized, because reactionaries would have ample time to organize.Do you mean during a revolution or after?


Another problem I have with it is the general ignorance of the majority of the public (at least in America) as is evident in the Ground Zero Mosque controversy. So how could democracy survive considering these things?Well this seems to suggest that people's consiousness is always the same. If that is true then there will never be a working class revolution and there could never have been any kind of revolution let alone the Russian Revolution and whatnot.

In order to get to the level where the working class is conscious of itself as a class in society with interests different from those who currently run society, a lot of attitudes will have already, necessarily, changed. If you understand that the ruling class is really your enemy and the one that runs society, you are not really going to be also afraid of Islam "taking over" America (although people do frequently hold contradictory ideas all at the same time). In order for working class struggle to make wins, then workers are going to have to have a basic level of solidarity and this means that xenophobia and racism have to also be taken on. So if there was a revolutionary working class about to take over and run society themselves, many of the ways that we are divided now would have already been challenged and come into question. After the revolution, those workers would then set up structures to prevent and back-sliding into divisions and so on just as they would create structures to prevent back-sliding into private ownership or wage-labor or a potential replay of the USSR or some other counter-revolution.

[PeacefulRevolution]

like what? I'm a Leninist and I don't think socialism is possible without democracy and democratic decision making by workers.

Well I'm currently reading "State and Revolution," and maybe I'm misinterpreting him, but he seems to be adamantly opposed to all forms of democracy.


Do you mean during a revolution or after?

I mean after.

[vader]

The only decisions made on a "nation" size scale would be related to the allocation of goods and resources.
This kind of decisions would be made also on a global scale. :)

[Jimmie Higgins]

Well I'm currently reading "State and Revolution," and maybe I'm misinterpreting him, but he seems to be adamantly opposed to all forms of democracy.Then that would be a misinterpretation. Did you not get to the parts on the Paris Commune yet?

The only way he argues against democracy is near the end when he talks about "democracy/parliaments" in capitalist countries because he argues it's a sham.

He also says ultimately the end of classes and the state means democracy is no longer necessary.


abolition of the state means also the abolition of democracy; that the withering away of the state means the withering away of democracy.

democracy is a form of governing - deciding things in a society divided by classes. The ultimate goal of anarchists and communists is no state, no classes, and therefore no need for special forms of decision-making. But in the transition, when the working class will need to make decisions coming out of a revolution, democracy is needed and a lot of the book talks about what that might look like and how any officials will be elected and re-callable and so on.

But Lenin argues for real and full democracy - proletarian democracy - as the best way for workers to make collective decisions after a revolution:


the transition from capitalism to socialism is impossible without a certain “reversion” to “primitive” democracy (for how else can the majority, and then the whole population without exception, proceed to discharge state functions?)


And so in capitalist society we have a democracy that is curtailed, wretched, false, a democracy only for the rich, for the minority. The dictatorship of the proletariat, the period of transition to communism, will for the first time create democracy for the people, for the majority, along with the necessary suppression of the exploiters, of the minority. Communism alone is capable of providing really complete democracy, and the more complete it is, the sooner it will become unnecessary and wither away of its own accord.

[Tablo]

This kind of decisions would be made also on a global scale. :)
Well, of course we would eventually like to expand economic management to that such level. :)

[PeacefulRevolution]

Then that would be a misinterpretation. Did you not get to the parts on the Paris Commune yet?

Actually I'm just starting that part. Thanks for clearing that up.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Actually I'm just starting that part. Thanks for clearing that up.Yeah I figured it was either that or maybe you were reading it out of sequence or something.

[AK]

My question is for those who believe in total democracy.
Democracy does not come in quantities. It is a way of governing and managing; there's nothing quantitative about it.


I have a hard time accepting many aspects of Leninism as it pertains to democracy. However, there seem to be several flaws in pure democracy. For one, it seems that it would take just as long to make a decision as it does in Parliamentary Democracy,
Implying that individuals would regularly vote upon things which affect a huge country-sized region. I see pretty much all governance and decision-making being done at the commune level. Voting would not have to be meticulously organised so that everyone across a wide region votes within a few hours of each other. The only things that could be voted on on a regional scale would be for things like standardisation (and also economic management. Ordering raw materials and all that) - and even then, I see things like that only being voted on by people working in that industry (eg. rail workers voting on rail gauge standardisation). Delegates (which do not possess any more social power than others themselves, are instantly revocable and simply act as messengers for a certain population's decision) are a good idea for regional decision-making - so are things such as teleconferencing.


and so the revolution would be jeopardized, because reactionaries would have ample time to organize.
How is this any different to Leninism? Reactionaries could organise in such a society, too.


Another problem I have with it is the general ignorance of the majority of the public (at least in America) as is evident in the Ground Zero Mosque controversy. So how could democracy survive considering these things?
For one, we wouldn't have idiots like Glenn Beck spewing xenophobic bullshit in any socialist society.

[CommunityBeliever]

long to make a decision

That is certainly a limitation of 20th century societies. However, now we can make decisions in a short period of time that involve people that are widely dispersed.

As an example, in some segments of the open source community, computer scientists routinely get together to vote on things on mailing lists, and sometimes we settle these decisions in mere hours.

Perhaps a better example though is Ubuntu brainstorm (http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/) here people get together to raise problems and solutions and to vote on them. I don't see why something like this couldn't work for a society instead of a computer operating system.

[Ovi]

For one, it seems that it would take just as long to make a decision as it does in Parliamentary Democracy, and so the revolution would be jeopardized, because reactionaries would have ample time to organize.

A local assembly deciding on land usage or a worker's assembly managing it's corn syrup production hardly jeopardizes the revolution. If efficient means obeying the orders given by an elite of revolutionaries and inefficient means popular participation, then inefficient is the way to go. Here's a good article (http://theanarchistlibrary.org/HTML/Curious_George_Brigade__The_Inefficient_Utopia_or_ How_Consensus_Will_Change_the_World.html) on the subject.
After all, what's the point of fighting for a worker's liberation revolution if afterwards the workers are in the same position of simply obeying the orders given by someone in a higher position?


Another problem I have with it is the general ignorance of the majority of the public (at least in America) as is evident in the Ground Zero Mosque controversy. So how could democracy survive considering these things?
It makes no difference. We won't have a revolution without class consciousness anyway. If people are naturally stupid or ignorant then what would make a self appointed leader or one elected through democratic centralism any better?

[Thirsty Crow]

My question is for those who believe in total democracy.

I have a hard time accepting many aspects of Leninism as it pertains to democracy. However, there seem to be several flaws in pure democracy. For one, it seems that it would take just as long to make a decision as it does in Parliamentary Democracy, and so the revolution would be jeopardized, because reactionaries would have ample time to organize. The problem of so called emergency situations.
Well, we could state that the revolution entails a period of a more or less prolonged state of crisis (in the sense of the originally Greek meaning of the term - a transition and/or transformation). And I do appreciate this point, that the sheer amount of time necessary to conduct a good debate which will lead to informed decisions is really problematic in this sense.
And I can offer no concrete solutions, but I would insist on a very broad (maybe somewhat vague) concept of a political balance between public agencies which can be designated as statist (intelligence, military, information gathering, coordination of production to an extent) and direct democracy as envisioned in the concept of soviets.Matters that do not pertain to "emergency problems" are in no way to be dealt with by means of an institution which has the power to issue commands.
Another problem I have with it is the general ignorance of the majority of the public (at least in America) as is evident in the Ground Zero Mosque controversy. So how could democracy survive considering these things?
Well, the "general ignorance" you refer to is a hellishly complex issue.
i'd just like to remind you of one of Marx's statements on this one: "In every epoch, the dominant ideas are the ideas of the ruling class" (I paraphrased since I couldn't be bothered to look this quote up :D).
Now, this shouldn't be mechanically interpreted as complete brainwashing of innocent and naturally good and tolerant people. What is at stake here is that there are tendencies within class societies which are involved in the "production" and dissemination of such reactionary ideas.
And how are these ideas taken up? One cannot answer this question with utmost certainty and scientific precision. We have to keep in mind that the material and social conditions play a very important role (for instance, upbringing and education are means of influence, or even of hegemony over an individual, by which certain ideas are more likely to take hold).

But this ignorance is not static. And we should oppose it through various means (I personally like Antonio Gramsci's proposal that one prerequisite for a successful revolution is the creation of proletarian cultural hegemony; which basically means that our task is to organize and conduct counter-education and provide direct material solidarity with immediate workers' struggles).

[Svoboda]

My question is for those who believe in total democracy.

I have a hard time accepting many aspects of Leninism as it pertains to democracy. However, there seem to be several flaws in pure democracy. For one, it seems that it would take just as long to make a decision as it does in Parliamentary Democracy, and so the revolution would be jeopardized, because reactionaries would have ample time to organize. Another problem I have with it is the general ignorance of the majority of the public (at least in America) as is evident in the Ground Zero Mosque controversy. So how could democracy survive considering these things?
I say fuck all democracy, people are assholes and morons who greedily only want to match their interests at the expense of others, a new social contract should be created between man and man based on liberty.

[Thirsty Crow]

I say fuck all democracy, people are assholes and morons who greedily only want to match their interests at the expense of others, a new social contract should be created between man and man based on liberty.
Wow, you take incoherence and vague implications to a whole new level.
Let's dissect this piece of wisdom:

1) you claim that people are intrinsically greedy assholes, who wish to fulfill their interest at the expense of others (i.e. the human nature argument); if it is so, how could "a new social " contract be created? How do men and women surpass their intrinsic characteristics?

2) This "social contract" of yours...what are its defining characteristics? What would its institutions be? What about sanctioning the breaking of the contract?

3) What does "liberty" presuppose, exactly? Private property or not?

Let's get these sorted out and we'll see where will it lead.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Let's get these sorted out and we'll see where will it lead.Right, in class society groups with different interests exist and so the only alternative to democracy (majority rule of the minority) is some kind of system where the minority rule the majority... like capitalism, feudalism, and basically every kind of class system through the ages.