Log in

View Full Version : liberalism and the confusion regarding democracy and dictatorship



scarletghoul
3rd October 2010, 11:49
A lot of comrades are still using the words 'democracy' and 'dictatorship' with absolutely no class content at all. This is essentially a liberal view of things, as it puts the peoples' 'right to vote' as the key to whether a place is truly democratic, and completely ignores the economic dimension. By these standards of course, the USA is more 'democratic' than Cuba and North Korea, which are 'dictatorships' (both countries have some democratic process but the choice of head of state/government is far less direct than in the USA). This liberal attitude does not understand that dictatorship and democracy are economic phenomena, usually more important than any superficial political process; that one class's dictatorship is another class's democracy and vice versa; that it is extremely rare for one person to actually have dictatorial powers, and downright inconceivable for even the most powerful ruler not to be heavily influenced by his class interests.

For example, often when North Korea (and to a lesser extent Cuba) is discussed on these forums, the thread is swamped by hordes of useless unoriginal and unvarying posts saying how the country is a 'dictatorship' and that we should not support it at all. Some posts even go as far as to support the destruction of the DPRK, or say that the South is more democratic and free, and in one instance I remember advocating a US invasion. (Aside from the brainwashed deliberate ignoring of any evidence for the political democratic process) these RevLeft members will disregard any discussion of the economic democracy which exists in Korea, viewing it as unimportant. Because the right to vote is more important than control of the means of production right ? That's essentially what they're saying, and it also happens to be the dominant liberal-bourgeois take on things.

Now I'll have to make these comments in order to try and prevent the usual flood of 'what a lunatic supporting north korea!' and 'oh here we go with the liberal witch hunt again'- I'm not saying the political democratic process is unimportant. There are proper criticisms to be made of the political process of all socialist states ever.. What I'm saying is it's wrong that this criticism is more often than not in completely 'abstract' liberal terms, with no consideration of the class character and economic process (let alone the material conditions). Also, even if you don't regard North Korea as socialist, surely you would agree that it's incorrect for a socialist to evaluate any country by its political process alone.

This view is, I claim, both liberal and metaphysical and we should try to rid ourselves of it

meow
3rd October 2010, 14:04
i read your post and found your ideas interesting. i find that the conclusion (what i assume is conclusion anyway) is correct.

surely you would agree that it's incorrect for a socialist to evaluate any country by its political process alone
yes i do agree. but im not sure i agree with the argument behind the conclusion.

obviously power rests not just in politics but also economics (etc). though country can hardly be socialist if only economicaly it is "free". political power is obviously important and a country cant be socialist if the mass of the people (the workers) dont have that power.

which is what i would argue about cuba and north korea. they are not free nor socialist.

Apoi_Viitor
3rd October 2010, 14:22
In order to have Economic Democracy, you need Political Democracy. There's nothing remotely democratic about having an unaccountable, tyrannic state, forcing you to relocate - or forcing collectivization upon you - disallowing unions and strikes - having 100% constant control over your work obligations.

To say North Korea is economically democratic - or even slightly democratic would be absurd. Workers control of means of production, does not entail all decisions being placed in the hands of a State Bureaucratic class. Without a noticeable level of accountability and reciprocity in the economic decision making process, planning will fall solely into the hands of this newly created Bureaucratic Class (who end up using state power to repress the proletariat). Control of the modes of production is essential, no doubt, and that's why no state can call themselves democratic, if control over this area is under the hands of Capitalists or (unaccountable) Bureaucrats.

Widerstand
3rd October 2010, 14:55
I think we can agree that the state is an instrument of class rule. As such, it exercises force to guarantee one classes power over other classes - the bourgeoisie's power over the proletariat, or in a "workers state", the proletariat's power over reactionary elements. It does so by protecting the established mode of production: In a bourgeois state by enforcing property rights, amongst other things, thus keeping the means of production in private hands; and in a "workers state" by ensuing that the means of production aren't reprivatized by force.

The issue I have with any 'undemocratic' and 'dictatorial' political apparatus is that I doubt the working class can have full, secured and lasting control over the means of production so long as the state apparatus, with all it's repressive force, is not accountable to them, let alone controlled by them.

While I agree that we cannot neglect the economic dimension, I don't think it can be truly democratic without democratic political structures. On the other hand, as we all know, what is currently called 'democracy' in the mainstream is a farce, because it ignores the economic dimension. To conclude: Both spheres are important, and a country can't be socialist without both having democratic structures.

StockholmSyndrome
3rd October 2010, 19:33
Marx's critique of bourgeois liberalism was that it did not live up to its own standards, because liberals failed to understand that you cannot achieve true liberty and equality in a class-based society. Marx used liberalism's own principles to turn it on itself. Likewise, any communist or socialist society which proclaims economic democracy must be held up to the same standards. That is, you cannot achieve economic democracy without also political democracy. Both are equally important. Basically reiterating UN's point, I know.

Apoi_Viitor
5th October 2010, 06:44
In the words of Comrade Lenin, "I am deeply convinced that the Soviets will make the independent activity of the masses a reality more quickly and effectively than will a parliamentary republic (I shall compare the two types of states in greater detail in another letter). They will more effectively, more practically and more correctly decide what steps can be taken towards socialism and how these steps should be taken. Control over a bank, the merging of all banks into one, is not yet socialism, but it is a step towards socialism. Today such steps are being taken in Germany by the Junkers and the bourgeoisie against the people. Tomorrow the Soviet will be able to take these steps more effectively for the benefit of the people if the whole state power is in its hands."

Amphictyonis
5th October 2010, 07:16
There is no such thing as "liberal" capitalist democracy.

http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=487

The golden rule? He who has the gold makes the rules!