On Socialism and Democracy

[Dean]

I wanted to revisit the point raised in a previous thread:

Socialism IS democracy.
I still disagree with a complete metaphor, but in everyday language this isn't completely wrong. Socialism, or the acquisition of such a state-of-things, is definitely measurable by the same models with which democracy are - that is by the decentralization* of political power.

But the difference is that socialists understand that political and economic power both follow the same laws, and therefore have the same relationship to the individual human being: that is to expand or restrict the level of diffused power over the population. That is the power we each have as power brokers over our individual lives, especially as we exist in the workplace, in the market, and in all social constructs we abide.

I think that RGacky3 is basically right on this, since socialism is expanded at the rate that democracy is expanded to each walk of life.

*Some people measure the state structure as the only character comparable to centralization-decentralization models. This is wrong for the simple reason that the state follows the same laws as the economy in general. So the fulfillment of interests to the effect of a dispersion of power over Campbells' Soup is in fact a decentralizing process - be that via a state transitional period or not.

I had previously argued against this concept, but the argument was obtuse.


You already have admitted that socialism is better than democracy,

It is vastly superior. There is no question.


that it more closely represents the interests of the populous.Also, true.


I don't see where you've much ground anymore.On the ground that Socialism is much better than democracy.

Which makes me wonder - what is Left Reasoning's conceptualization of "socialism," if it is not measured in the same model of broad empowerment over our lives? The market models in particular are bad because they see no harm in the aggregation, via "market voluntaryism" of the same power which defines our lives.

[RGacky3]

I still disagree with a complete metaphor, but in everyday language this isn't completely wrong. Socialism, or the acquisition of such a state-of-things, is definitely measurable by the same models with which democracy are - that is by the decentralization* of political power.

But the difference is that socialists understand that political and economic power both follow the same laws, and therefore have the same relationship to the individual human being: that is to expand or restrict the level of diffused power over the population. That is the power we each have as power brokers over our individual lives, especially as we exist in the workplace, in the market, and in all social constructs we abide.

I think that RGacky3 is basically right on this, since socialism is expanded at the rate that democracy is expanded to each walk of life.


I don't think we disagree, when I use the term democracy, I'm not using it in the narrow political definition, I'm using it in the broad way of participants having equal say in any system.

But I specifically call it democracy because in essense the same concepts that created political democracy apply to socialism, and your right, the 2 are intertwined, thats the thing that socialists understand that capitalists try to ignore, that economic power IS political power, be it formally or informally.

[Conquer or Die]

Socialism is not democracy as you people mean socialism. Socialism is the proletariat owning completely their material life and deciding for themselves what to do with it.

An authoritarian state can exist under socialism. Same with capitalist states. In addition, a fascist state can be openly democratic. People can be free to vote on legislation whilst promoting slavery, as what happened in the American South.

Communism, and proletarian socialism, are economic systems; not political ones.

[RGacky3]

Communism, and proletarian socialism, are economic systems; not political ones.

Except that economic power and political power are pretty much one in the same.

But when I say democracy, I dont mean the economic system, I mean the method of organizing.

[Conquer or Die]

Except that economic power and political power are pretty much one in the same.

But when I say democracy, I dont mean the economic system, I mean the method of organizing.

So you were wrong and then corrected yourself. Next topic.

[RGacky3]

no, you mis interpreted.

[BeerShaman]

Communism is a political system. Democracy is one too.
The matter is that you can't say that we have democracy and communism.
You can'te ven say we have socialism.
It is very general and not enough.
Someone should rather make it clear. Like saying, we have leninist socialism. Or we have anti-authoritarian collectivism. Or socio-democracy and a state of justice.
Or something like this.
Democracy is a different political system from communism and far less oriented.
For example, since democracy means that the people are in power, I could say that socialism is democratic. But it's wrong to say that socialism is democracy.
Democracy means that the people have the power and socialism means a situation while the people are getting the power back from their oppressors.

[RGacky3]

Semantics.

[Conquer or Die]

Communism is an economic system.

Democracy is a political system.

Christianity is a religion.

The Dallas Cowboys are a football team.

Etcetera

[Dean]

Communism is an economic system.
Correct.


Democracy is a political system.
Politics are an economic activity. It is for this reason that communism involves as its model a particular rejection of capitalist democracy, and a democratic reorganization of the means of production as the revolutionary shift from capital-oriented to labor-oriented economic organization.

Its is absurd and idealist to claim that politics and economics are distinct organizational models that can be analyzed and modified on an exclusive basis.

[Left-Reasoning]

"Socialism is the belief that the next important step in progress is a change in man’s environment of an economic character that shall include the abolition of every privilege whereby the holder of wealth acquires an anti-social power to compel tribute." - Benjamin Tucker

[Die Neue Zeit]

Its is absurd and idealist to claim that politics and economics are distinct organizational models that can be analyzed and modified on an exclusive basis.

We'll agree to disagree then. ;)

The problem with a lot of attempts to integrate "the struggle for socialism" with "the battle of democracy" is that it can give rise to economistic tendencies, tendencies which are for the former but are merely for "defending democratic rights" (then leaping forward to a model based on councils, but that's for another thread).

They don't address the various measures that need to be implemented to secure the proletariat in ruling-class political power (ultimately the only means through which the class has any chance whatsoever at social transformation in its favour).

[anticap]

I don't see communism as an economic system, but as a complete social system.

As for democracy, I see it as everyone having a voice in decision-making commensurate with the degree to which they will be impacted by those decisions.

I see the two as essentially equivalent in the sense that everyone will become a contributor and thus a decision-maker in communist society, since the non-contributing classes will have been abolished.

[Dean]

We'll agree to disagree then. ;)

The problem with a lot of attempts to integrate "the struggle for socialism" with "the battle of democracy" is that it can give rise to economistic tendencies, tendencies which are for the former but are merely for "defending democratic rights" (then leaping forward to a model based on councils, but that's for another thread).

They don't address the various measures that need to be implemented to secure the proletariat in ruling-class political power (ultimately the only means through which the class has any chance whatsoever at social transformation in its favour).

I think it was Marx that pointed out that politics was the shadow cast on social life by the workings of capital. I really need to look into that.

In any case - the democratic model of bourgeois society is nothing more than an affirmation of the property state's hegemony. Socialist democracy, as a bottom-up model of social organization, is not only more closely related to the democratic ideals of equal representation, but rejects the false notion of "democracy" as it is reflected in the impotent manifestations of contemporary society.

I don't see how the working class, acquiring the reigns of the state, would be at odds with democracy - contrarily, it seems that it would engender a far more democratic regime that had ever before existed. You might decry the "democratic rights" of the bourgeois, but that is a moot point - every democratic society has disempowered criminals, which would be the status of the class antagonists.

[Conquer or Die]

Correct.

Thank you.



Politics are an economic activity. It is for this reason that communism involves as its model a particular rejection of capitalist democracy, and a democratic reorganization of the means of production as the revolutionary shift from capital-oriented to labor-oriented economic organization.

Its is absurd and idealist to claim that politics and economics are distinct organizational models that can be analyzed and modified on an exclusive basis.

So is a serial rapist who rapes after his shift being denied proletarian justice if he is imprisoned and/or executed?

Politics is the measure of government. Government is not an economic activity. It is an activity that seeks to promote the collective organization and mete out justice.

[Dean]

So is a serial rapist who rapes after his shift being denied proletarian justice if he is imprisoned and/or executed?
What does this even mean?


Politics is the measure of government. Government is not an economic activity. It is an activity that seeks to promote the collective organization and mete out justice.
This is a terrible definition because it only confronts the ideals and justification - not the material basis - for the state.

[anticap]

I think it was Marx that pointed out that politics was the shadow cast on social life by the workings of capital. I really need to look into that.

Is it possible that you're thinking of this?


As long as politics is the shadow cast on society by big business, the attenuation of the shadow will not change the substance.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/John_Dewey#Sourced

I first heard it when it was referenced by Chomsky here:

K4Tq4VE8eHQ

[RGacky3]

Communism is an economic system.

Democracy is a political system.


You can't seperate the 2, Democracy is a system of desicion making, Communism is a full social system.

[Conquer or Die]

You can't seperate the 2, Democracy is a system of desicion making, Communism is a full social system.

Hegel is dead.

[Bud Struggle]

Hegel is dead.

No but Materialism is. 90% of the Communists on RevLeft try to get around it by appealing to morality or conscience to justify Communism.

[anticap]

No but Materialism is. 90% of the Communists on RevLeft try to get around it by appealing to morality or conscience to justify Communism.

What in the world are you talking about? Most do not reject materialism (that would imply embracing the patent nonsense of idealism); however, most (or all, I should hope) do recognize that the choice to embrace communism is rooted in one's values. That is not at all the same as what you said.

Once one chooses communism they generally let materialism take it from there, so-to-speak.

[Queercommie Girl]

Hegel is dead.

That's a complete Non-Sequitur.

[Queercommie Girl]

No but Materialism is. 90% of the Communists on RevLeft try to get around it by appealing to morality or conscience to justify Communism.

Your understanding of materialism is poor. Not all materialism is crude materialism. Appealing to morality to some extent isn't non-materialistic.

[Bud Struggle]

Your understanding of materialism is poor. Not all materialism is crude materialism. Appealing to morality to some extent isn't non-materialistic.

No...that's not how it goes. Communism doesn't appeal to the moral in us. It tells us that if we are resonable selfish--we all achieve a worthwhile common end. The people being too greedy or too altruistic create the problems. The worst slave holders are the GOOD slave holders--they perpetuate the system.

Communism is NOT about morality--it's about logic. Any appeal to morality subverts Communism.

And very few Communist believe that. That's why Communism is failing.

[Queercommie Girl]

Yeah, an anti-communist like you is now lecturing me about Marxist philosophy...:rolleyes:


No...that's not how it goes. Communism doesn't appeal to the moral in us. It tells us that if we are resonable selfish--we all achieve a worthwhile common end. The people being too greedy or too altruistic create the problems. The worst slave holders are the GOOD slave holders--they perpetuate the system.


That is simply wrong. If what you are saying here makes sense, then Marxists would oppose keynesianism and the welfare state in social democracy even more than they attack neoliberalism, but that's not what actually happens. In fact, many Trotskyists have a long-term strategy of co-operating with the left-reformists, but you never see communists co-operating with fascists.



Communism is NOT about morality--it's about logic. Any appeal to morality subverts Communism.
And what exactly is "logic"? "Logic" doesn't exist in the abstract sense, it is fundamentally imbedded in human society, in daily human life. Marxism is not logical positivism. Your understanding of communism here is a mechanical materialist one, not a dialectical one. Base determines superstructure, but superstructure (like ethics) also influences the base.

[Dean]

No...that's not how it goes. Communism doesn't appeal to the moral in us. It tells us that if we are resonable selfish--we all achieve a worthwhile common end. The people being too greedy or too altruistic create the problems. The worst slave holders are the GOOD slave holders--they perpetuate the system.
Materialist communism describes the working of social economy and seeks to find a plausible organizational structure not rooted in the unstable relations of class. "Good slave owners" are notable throughout history in that they not only 'treat people humanely,' but actively subvert the slave-master relationship.

Robert E. Lee was involved in the underground railroad and opposed slavery (though he is hardly an authoritative or 'non-racist' example). A similar dichotomy is seen with many rich philanthropists: by actively returning value, specifically economic value to the impoverished classes,they undermine the relations of economic disparity.

Your model is quite contrary: the great humanitarians spell an end to their contemporary class societies (whether they engender a new class relation, however, always remains to be seen).


Communism is NOT about morality--it's about logic. Any appeal to morality subverts Communism.
Again, the facts are completely at odds with this.

Kant provides very basic moral grounding which hardly needs to be expanded on within the "Categorical Imperative." In fact, the facts of morality are very simple to me:

-Humans are the moral creatures of the world and their autonomous dignity is the supreme value to which we should aspire.

From which a few things follow:
-It follows that those acts which uplift the dignity of humans fulfill this moral imperative
-usage of mankind to an end, rather than as an end, or in subjugation of the end of some (wo)men, is contrary to this in some form or another
-conditional manifestations of human activity serve to subjectively justify immoral acts committed by moral creatures; as such, we should only seek to rectify in a humanitarian fashion, not punish, those deeds.

And the communist morality:
-per the above conditional fact, disparate human manifestations of economic power stem not from disparate moral character (though they engender disparate respect for moral character), but from the conditional facts of biological, natural and economic conditions. Since property is clearly related to the moral dignity of human beings, the relative lot of property and the fulfillment of its obligation is a moral imperative which, per the above, proves the communist morality.


And very few Communist believe that. That's why Communism is failing.
Very few communists focus on the point because its fairly absurd to think otherwise. The only bona fide representation of the anti-communist moral paradigm is a completely anti-human, sociopathic model which serves to justify the wholesale disenfranchisement of the human being in his/her various walks of life.

The fulfillment of human dignity, specifically as it relates to property rights, is a very consistent model taken up by just about every ideology, and this includes most capitalists. That's why property rights are mentioned: if humans were not tied to property and material well-being, property would have no business as a model of human rights.

But it is there. And there is an obfuscating model of morality which attempts to justify the culmination of centuries of exploitation and direct force (a milieu which interestingly opposes redistribution of wealth but can admit the old models - slavery - which engendered the disparities were wrong).

It's basically conservatism, and once finance capital has completely done away with the political structure of the world, they'll complain about how terrible that was and how finance capital is the natural state of just human society. But they'll be wrong, too.

[Die Neue Zeit]

In any case - the democratic model of bourgeois society is nothing more than an affirmation of the property state's hegemony. Socialist democracy, as a bottom-up model of social organization, is not only more closely related to the democratic ideals of equal representation, but rejects the false notion of "democracy" as it is reflected in the impotent manifestations of contemporary society.

I don't see how the working class, acquiring the reigns of the state, would be at odds with democracy - contrarily, it seems that it would engender a far more democratic regime that had ever before existed. You might decry the "democratic rights" of the bourgeois, but that is a moot point - every democratic society has disempowered criminals, which would be the status of the class antagonists.

I have no problems with your general remarks here. I'm not decrying the "democratic rights" of the bourgeoisie at all, per my work. Ending disqualifications based on non-ownership is phrased in the double negative, especially since every double negative is positive: this is open to Soviet-style disenfranchisement of the bourgeoisie's suffrage, among other things.

[RGacky3]

Communism doesn't appeal to the moral in us. It tells us that if we are resonable selfish--we all achieve a worthwhile common end. The people being too greedy or too altruistic create the problems. The worst slave holders are the GOOD slave holders--they perpetuate the system.

Communism is NOT about morality--it's about logic. Any appeal to morality subverts Communism.

And very few Communist believe that. That's why Communism is failing.

Morality is nothing more than being consistant with your beliefs. Both YOU and maoists have a twisted view of what morality is, its not objective, its being consistant.

Heres the thing, if you don't care at all, about the system, about people, about justice, about sustainabilty, and about liberty, then you are A-Moral, then I don't know what your doing here, your wasting your own time, and everyone elses. If you ARE, then know what you believe and be consistant.

EVERY political, economic or social system appeals to morality, because there are standards that judge them and those standards are nessesarily moral judgement.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Morality is nothing more than being consistant with your beliefs. Both YOU and maoists have a twisted view of what morality is, its not objective, its being consistant.

Heres the thing, if you don't care at all, about the system, about people, about justice, about sustainabilty, and about liberty, then you are A-Moral, then I don't know what your doing here, your wasting your own time, and everyone elses. If you ARE, then know what you believe and be consistant.

EVERY political, economic or social system appeals to morality, because there are standards that judge them and those standards are nessesarily moral judgement.

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.

Despite my Anarchism and professed hatred towards Maoism, I take the most amoral regard towards actions. By that I mean, I fervently agree with Nietzsche's views on morality. Rather than looking at actions with universal dichotomies, one should look at them from all perspectives. Following self-destructive idioms seems ridiculous: "Thou shalt not Steal." Well, what does that mean? If I steal from a rich man is it just as wrong as from a beggar?

I think Kant's approach to morals, comes close to making the most sense to me (with the exception being Nietzsche's of course): "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." However, I think that's only because his stipulations are so abstract, that they are pretty much non-binding. For me a Kantian moral would look like: "Though shalt be allowed to steal only from those who don't need and don't deserve that which they own; and only when one needs and deserves the property of which they have stolen.".... This is so vague it could possibly mean anything....

Similarly, all notions of "justice" are abstract phrases, which embody forms of power. 3 Strike Laws and Politicians who are "tough on crime", cover up a system of class oppression with appeals to "justice". At the same time, laws which legislate the illegality of homicide, are just exercises in power (in this case, we might regard the flow of power as "positive", not "repressive")