Democratic Communism

[Ol' Dirty]

Most people on this board have heard about Democratic Socialism, and think it's a redundant term: socialism needs democracy like a fish needs water. But what about Democratic Communism? Nobody ever uses the term, and it might raise a few eyebrow. Some people will think "that's an oxymoron," because most people automatically assume communism is autocratic, because most communist revolutions have ended up that way. But if you frame the argument differently, maybe people will be more receptive?

http://democom.perso.neuf.fr/democraticcommunism.htm

[Adi Shankara]

Most people on this board have heard about Democratic Socialism, and think it's a redundant term: socialism needs democracy like a fish needs water. But what about Democratic Communism? Nobody ever uses the term, and it might raise a few eyebrow. Some people will think "that's an oxymoron," because most people automatically assume communism is autocratic, because most communist revolutions have ended up that way. But if you frame the argument differently, maybe people will be more receptive?

http://democom.perso.neuf.fr/democraticcommunism.htm

Democratic communism is usually a term that is used and reserved for bourgeois communist parties like the CPUSA.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Democratic communism is usually a term that is used and reserved for bourgeois communist parties like the CPUSA.

How could there exist an un-democratic communist society?

[chegitz guevara]

Democracy is a means of state rule. Communism is a stateless society. Therefore, communism cannot be democratic.

[Peace on Earth]

Democracy is a means of state rule. Communism is a stateless society. Therefore, communism cannot be democratic.
How would you describe communism? Un-democratic? Wouldn't anything that is run by and for the people be democratic? Democracy doesn't have to refer to the state.

[Zanthorus]

Democracy is a means of state rule.

No, democracy is just a decision-making mechanism which can be used for various purposes. Currently, in a highly distorted form, it serves as a mystificatory mechanism to make the working-class believe in the supposedly class-neutral character of the heavenly oratorio of bourgeois society. In Communism proper, it is the only mechanism which I can think of through which society as a whole could exercise control of, and collectively appropriate, the production process.

The main issue with 'Democratic Communism' is it seems to raise democracy up as an a priori principle to be followed at all points, however the relation between working-class revolution and democracy during the transition period is ambiguous. Certainly previous proletarian revolutions have been attacked in the name of 'true', 'pure' democracy. Practically every anti-Bolshevik force from the Monarchists to the Anarchists raised the slogan of 'Soviets without Bolsheviks'. Engels himself said that on the eve of the revolution, our main enemy will be the whole collective reaction which will group itself under the banner of 'pure democracy'. I think it will probably be necessary during the transition to enact something like the measures of the 1918 constitution of the RSFSR which denied the right to vote to the bourgeoisie.

[Die Neue Zeit]

That denial was symbolic. Denial of influence or participation in political decision-making based on ownership of non-possessive property or wealth more broadly is a bigger measure or set of measures, much like completely separating "the church" from political affairs entirely is bigger than "separation of church and state."

[ckaihatsu]

Democracy is a means of state rule. Communism is a stateless society. Therefore, communism cannot be democratic.


Since the idea of one-person-one-vote was a *merchant*-initiated kind of political progress over the *former* ruling idea of a monarch "chosen by God", we might extrapolate here to what kind of aggregated decision-making process would be a politically progressive improvement for a *proletariat*-based political economy.

Is there something *better* than one-person-one-vote? What could it possibly be?

I tend to think in terms of *policy* -- I think that a post-capitalist collectivized workers' society would finally be able to put aside *personages* in politics once and for all and just focus on *policy*, for the good of humanity as a whole. In such a situation there wouldn't be the least need for the "commodification" of political power into discrete individuals, and for the resulting politicking on the basis of that "currency". Instead, the usage of the collectivized machinery could just be "put out there", for liberated workers to hash out with their best overall intentions.

This *isn't* a utopian formulation, because we already have examples of mass-efficient policy that doesn't rely on personages and vote-chasing -- managerial divisions within a corporation would be one example, the military would be another, etc. In the hands of workers, though, such techno-efficiency could be directed by the actual workers doing the actual work, for the best results for *people*, instead of for profits.





I think it will probably be necessary during the transition to enact something like the measures of the 1918 constitution of the RSFSR which denied the right to vote to the bourgeoisie.





That denial was symbolic. Denial of influence or participation in political decision-making based on ownership of non-possessive property or wealth more broadly is a bigger measure or set of measures, much like completely separating "the church" from political affairs entirely is bigger than "separation of church and state."


Kind of like "Eat the rich", I guess -- more of a "fuck you" than anything *literal*, especially since the political overhead required to specify, apply, and enforce such practices would be more of a headache than it's worth....

[Catillina]

Well, democracy is a more polite word for capitalism^^

[Nanatsu Yoru]

ckaihatsu, your posts would be a little easier to read without the asterisks.

[ckaihatsu]

ckaihatsu, your posts would be a little easier to read without the asterisks.


Hey, you're cool and you got three heads so I'll level with ya:

Since this is all text here I *have* to use asterisks to provide emphasis and break up the pacing of the sentence a little. If I were doing this in person you'd *hear* my emphasis (and a lot of exhorting, natch), but in text it's all about the "punctuation", so to speak....

So all of my "punctuation critics" should go and have a drink, at their own expense, watch some lava lamp videos and just find something else to do until they feel more in the mood to handle a few asterisks with their political content. I mean, hey, *****ing is fun and all, but there're more important things to do around this board. I'll see what I can do to be as *sparing* as possible with 'em -- unfortunately they're *free*!

= D

[Ol' Dirty]

ckai's post makes the most sense, because the others (besides Zanthourous's) just write off the idea w/o really analyzing it. I definately afree that the upper and middle classes (petit- and upper bourgoise) should be kept out of the democratic process, I disagree with this sentiment:

Well, democracy is a more polite word for capitalism^^

If this were so, why would Lenin have painted Party rule with the veneer of "democratic centralism"?

Also, by Democratic Communism, I mean capitalism would be bridged by a period of democratic socialism. The communist Party would be explicitly democratic in nature rather than an oligarchy as in Bolshevik-style states.

[ckaihatsu]

Since this related issue of bourgeois-voting-or-not is tumbling around here, I'll throw it out there in a more direct way: Do people (you) have an explicit stance on what might be done with members of the bourgeoisie after the revolution?

Currently there are calls for war crimes trials of those like Bush, et al, who were in formal positions of directing the wars against Iraq, Afghanistan, and now Pakistan and Yemen. Would we extend this kind of procedure to a more "civilizational" kind of trial, against the leading members of the capitalist class for overseeing specific kinds of harmful corporate / state / class policies when they could have excused themselves instead -- ?

[AK]

Well, democracy is a more polite word for capitalism^^
Despite that fact that capitalism is by its very nature anti-democratic. It is a system based on social and economic power being concentrated into the hands of a very few, making them the only decision-makers.