The Problem With Soviets and the Revolutionary Left

[nickdlc]

From my understanding a theoretical soviet system would be a federation of workers councils where you would vote for parties through recallable delegates, a kind of revolutionary parliament with many tiers of councils ending at the national soviet or worldwide soviet. Because this is the dictatorship of the proletariat there are only socialist parties allowed.

Here's my problems

1) Democracy is not about electing the best comrades, it's about everyone having a voice on all major policies.

2) Delegates really are the same as MP's (members of parliament) except they are "recallable" which I highly doubt, why have delegates at all if they can't do anything outside what workers have demanded of them?

3) It will lead to the same problems we have today were we let our leaders handle everything, workers will become apathetic because their only role is voting once in a while.

This was pretty much the jist of the argument in towards a new socialism a chapter called "On Democracy" by Paul Cockshott and it hit me like a ton of bricks. The solution would be direct democracy where people vote on each issue with no political parties involved, more technical decisions would be done using demarchy where all those who have knowledge on a certain subject are randomly chosen and they present the options to the public to be voted on the best option.

In another thread their was discussion why different communist tendencies can't get along there was general concensus that after revolution there will be civil war and the tendency with the biggest following will pretty much kill the ones with less influence. An agreement to make the same catostrophic mistakes as in other failed communist revolutions. This is why I say the revolution can't be a party affair, we need something like the direct democracy situation outlined above.

[cenv]

Comrade, you're ignoring some key differences between delegates and representatives. Delegates differ from representatives in that they have no power independent of their electorate. Whereas representatives are authorized to make decisions in lieu of workers, delegates are merely chosen to carry out mandates given to them by the workers. They don't have the authority to make decisions as is the case with representatives. So workers councils are in fact a form of direct democracy. The idea that revolution is "not a party affair" was first phrased as such by Otto Ruhle, who was one of the biggest councilists around. ;)

[Paulappaul]

From my understanding a theoretical soviet system would be a federation of workers councils where you would vote for parties through recallable delegates, a kind of revolutionary parliament with many tiers of councils ending at the national soviet or worldwide soviet.

In a historical sense, generally that is not the case. Councils are generally elected absent of Political Parties in a system where as you say "would be direct democracy where people vote on each issue with no political parties involved" or as Comrade cenv puts it where "delegates are merely chosen to carry out mandates given to them by the workers" who elected them. This ending the Division between the "Order Givers" and the "Order Takers" as those making decisions by mandate are also following them out.


Democracy is not about electing the best comrades, it's about everyone having a voice on all major policies.

True that and historically Soviets (Workers' Councils) with exception to the Soviets 1917 - which was more of Forum for revolutionaries - have been elected on the basis of legitimate Democracy outside the realm of Political Parties.


It will lead to the same problems we have today were we let our leaders handle everything, workers will become apathetic because their only role is voting once in a while.

Once again, which is why the division between "Order Givers" and "Order takers" must be ended.


demarchy

Go talk to Comrade Die Neue Zeit, he's a big Demarchy supporter.


This is why I say the revolution can't be a party affair, we need something like the direct democracy situation outlined above.

True dat dog. Workers' Councils (Soviets) are exactly that. Read up on Council Communism, Libertarian Marxism, Anarchism or just PM for some info on that.

[Die Neue Zeit]

The real problem with the ultra-left fetish for spontaneous soviets is that there's a rejection of preparatory organization needed in order to replace the existing bourgeois state bureaucracy with a credible alternative.

That they're the vehicle of revolution is nonsense. The moment that "vehicle" turns its back on the revolutionary party, coups d'etat are inevitable, such as the thuggish Bolshevik coups d'etat of 1918 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/bolshevik-coups-detat-t134819/index.html) in response to majority political support from the working class going towards the Menshevik-Internationalists and Left-SRs, parties which didn't have the spine to overthrow the Bolshevik putschists and the disciple-turned-flip-side-but-lesser-renegade Lenin after the civil war but before Kronstadt (that is, before British imperialists were waiting in the wings on the coast) - doing to the Bolsheviks exactly what the Bolsheviks themselves did to the Provisional Government.

Too many tiers is a very, very, very secondary problem (albeit a big one).

[ZeroNowhere]

3) It will lead to the same problems we have today were we let our leaders handle everything, workers will become apathetic because their only role is voting once in a while.As far as I'm aware, the main reason for this apathy is that said leaders are not responsible to the majority of their electors, but rather serve and must serve the interests of capital (Marx's 'formal and material' contradictions). It would make sense that workers would grow apathetic to a process involving electing leaders who serve the capitalist class. There's not much basis for suddenly generalizing this to all systems involving election.


1) Democracy is not about electing the best comrades, it's about everyone having a voice on all major policies.Eh, call it democracy or call it what you will; I don't uphold the democratic principle either way, so it doesn't concern me that much. Ultimately, I don't see much wrong with election to administrative positions, which seems more or less akin to democratic election of managers, which is fair enough.


2) Delegates really are the same as MP's (members of parliament) except they are "recallable" which I highly doubt, why have delegates at all if they can't do anything outside what workers have demanded of them?"Asine! This is democratic twaddle, political drivel. Election is a political form present in the smallest Russian commune and artel. The character of the election does not depend on this name, but on the economic foundation, the economic situation of the voters, and as soon as the functions have ceased to be political ones, there exists 1) no government function, 2) the distribution of the general functions has become a business matter, that gives no one domination, 3) election has nothing of its present political character."

If we have an All-Industrial Congress, and indeed centralization is necessary for a globalized economy, as well as several smaller bodies, then it would hardly make much sense for all workers to take part in these administrative congresses, and really be a major and unnecessary hassle, ultimately. And if somebody is to represent certain workers, it would make sense that they choose who this is in order that they be in fact representative, as well as being recallable on demand.

[Q]

Too many tiers is a very, very, very secondary problem.

I very much disagree, for obvious reasons really, but I'll quote Nick Rogers on the matter who wrote about it back in May (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1003960):


The question is whether such a system can form the basis of regional, national and supra-national assemblies. This requires a multi-tier structure. Grassroots councils elect delegates to a higher council. This second-tier council, in turn, elects delegates to a yet higher body, and so on. Eventually national, European or global councils are formed. Each council deals with the issues appropriate to its level in the hierarchy.

...

The crippling flaw at the heart of the model is that, once a structure of multiple tiers is created, there is an inherent conflict between the collective, participatory nature of decision-making in each grassroots council and the absence of any effective collective mechanism for holding the layers just two or three levels above to account. The lines of accountability become too diffuse.

This fault is intrinsic to the hierarchical nature of the council model. For its proponents, each council shares responsibility for holding to account the council immediately above it. But all the citizens of a socialist democracy have to live with the outcome of the decisions made at every level of the structure. Imbued with enthusiasm for popular participation, they will want to know how they might make an impact on those decisions.

As far as the council to which they have elected a delegate is concerned, the lines of accountability are clear. You mandate your delegate, question them about their actions and, if necessary, recall them.

The problems start at the council two levels above the grassroots. No single grassroots council can swing even one vote at that level. Still, you can rely on your immediate delegate to lobby the other delegates at the council above yours and at least you know who is voting contrary to your position. You stand a chance of changing things in the future.

However, once you contemplate attempting to influence a decision three or four levels higher than the grassroots councils in which every citizen and worker is represented, the possibility of figuring out how to change the vote of just one delegate in the higher council, let alone engage in the campaigning necessary to gather support, verges on the impossible. It would be necessary to understand which delegates at the district, regional or national body were representing councils narrowly balanced between opposing views and work out, in turn, which delegates of which grassroots councils were capable of influencing the outcome.

Unlike Nick Rogers though, I see the solution in demarchy as well for reasons Paul Cockshott pointed out in his article on the subject last year (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/788/democracyor.php).

In this model you have not one minister/commissar/whatever for a post, but a committee of randomly selected people. Scientific research suggests that a group of randomly picked people actually arrives at better decisions than a single highly educaed person. There is a lower limit of 25 people for this though, in order to be statistically representative. If you add to this that representatives only have short terms, say 1 year, you prevent clique formation as well.

The discussion over at the Weekly Worker focuses on, among other things, the question whether to implement this type of democracy only under full blown communism, as the majority argues, or already in the transition to communism ("socialism" or "the lower stage of communism"). The majority believes that it is not desirable to implement it in the transition, as you still have middle classes and petty bourgeoisie in this stage of social development, you do not have a classless society.

I believe communists should argue for this democracy (that is, actual democracy) as soon as possible after the working class seizes power as lottery-democracy (or "demarchy", "actual democracy", whatever) actually brings the proletariat to power. The old Greeks already understood this (do some research on Athenian democracy). I think the majority in the CPGB misses the point when they argue that lottery-democracy should not be implemented in socialism as the middle classes and petty bourgeoisie still exist. They are a minority anyway. Besides, I believe it helps to absorb these layers into the working class and thus helps in the process of forming a classless society.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

If we do away with the infrastructure of mass society that necessitates large scale technical decisions, we do away with this whole problem. Just sayin'.

[Dean]

You're assuming that most administration would come from the delegates. I don't see why that has to be the case.

[Dean]

If we do away with the infrastructure of mass society that necessitates large scale technical decisions, we do away with this whole problem. Just sayin'.
Are you talking about decentralization or primitivism?

[Zanthorus]

Eh, call it democracy or call it what you will; I don't uphold the democratic principle either way, so it doesn't concern me that much.

What's all this then? :D

[nickdlc]

The real problem with the ultra-left fetish for spontaneous soviets is that there's a rejection of preparatory organization needed in order to replace the existing bourgeois state bureaucracy with a credible alternative.

A workers council system is the credible alternative to bourgeois state bureaucracy , the Petrograd soviet was deliberately organised by 30 - 40 "socialist intelligentsia" according to Rex A. Wade in his book "The Russian Revolution, 1917"

A workers council system should be the legitimate form of "government" for the workers movement leading up to the situation of dual power and immediately after the takeover of "the state"

This is essential because

1) After the councils take over we don't want different socialist parties killing each other. (This is the most important reason)

2) All tendencies that are historically identified with the labour movement are to be represented by individual members in the councils meaning from social democracy to anarchism and everything in between. They can never be banned for any reason, and their press is to be free to publish whatever it likes.

3) Votes on major policies to be voted on by workers as a whole.

After the takeover of the workers councils we set up a direct democracy right away. A very major problem with many of the responses here is that we are stuck in 1917. The huge advancements in technology allow for direct democracy and have taken away the need for delegates.

For example the length of the working day. Say members in their regional councils have frequently voiced the opinion that working 8 hours is just way too much, that it takes away from organising in the workers councils. This is a hot button issue and workers vote to put it on the agenda for the national council. Using the technology available to us we have debates on TV and streaming over the Internet why it should be 6 hours, why it should be 4,3,2 or 1 and then using touch screen voting machines the population takes a vote.

Policies that contradict each other or that most of the population does not need to vote on should be sorted using the demarchy system whereby all those interested and knowledable about the question are called to debate the topic show the results of the debate back to the people and to be voted on again. It will take up alot of time and resources but that is real democracy is about.

This is also a call to action we should be setting up workers councils on this basis right now!

[Die Neue Zeit]

I very much disagree, for obvious reasons really, but I'll quote Nick Rogers on the matter who wrote about it back in May (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1003960).

Not only did I edit my post above to clarify, but I should say that two-tiered recallability hierarchies grouped together (within a demarchic framework, of course) might make sense. Consider:

A: Pan-National recalls Global, Global randomly selected from among Pan-National

Global

Pan-National: North America, Central America, Hispanic South America, Brazil, European, Slavic (all FSU + Xinjiang/Chinese Uighurs + potential inroads into Eastern Europe, starting with Poland and Bulgaria + less likely re-absorption of Finland), Oriental, etc.

B: Provincial recalls "Sub"-National, "Sub"-National randomly selected from among Provincial

"Sub"-National (many current "nations" become "sub-nations" or are broken up): Cascadia, Deep South, Quebec, etc. within North America; Velikaia Rus' (from the Soviet anthem - my suggestion for the Russian Federation plus eastern Ukraine, Chinese Altay, and Baikonur and the remainder of western Kazakhstan), expanded Belarus (regain Belastok Oblost from Poland), reconstituted Turkestan (lose western Kazakhstan but gain non-Altay portion of Xinjiang) with the Slavic; Japan, Korea, Vietnam, expanded China (lose Xinjiang but gain Mongolia) within Oriental; etc.

Provinces / Prefectures / "Federated states" (like US states today) / Megapolitan Communes

C: Community recalls Municipal, Municipal randomly selected from among Community

Municipal

Community

[ZeroNowhere]

What's all this then? :D
I'm not entirely clear as to your question here, if it indeed is a question at all. Still, I'm more concerned with control than democracy as such. I wouldn't have a problem with a proletarian minority taking control in a country where peasants make up the majority, at least not on principle (in pragmatic terms, it can raise problems, as the late Engels pointed out); that is, it's a matter of which class rules, not how many of them there are, necessarily. As such, I don't have much of an urge to support something simply on the basis of it being 'democratic'; if election of recallable delegates to administrative positions is undemocratic, then I don't really mind being in favour of this awful despotism, inasmuch as it does no significant harm to social control of production, and if anything allows the mass of producers more free time compared to universal direct democracy, while still allowing them more or less total control over their representative, for example, at an All-Industrial Congress.


If we do away with the infrastructure of mass society that necessitates large scale technical decisions, we do away with this whole problem. Just sayin'Yes! Down with the ideology of progress! But no, really, you're increasingly starting to resemble an annoyingly loud fly.

[Zanthorus]

I was just wondering wether that was a coy reference to Bordiga.

[ZeroNowhere]

That's what I thought you probably meant, actually, which is why I noted, "if it indeed is a question at all." And yes, it more or less was.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Are you talking about decentralization or primitivism?
Well, I think "primitivism" is pretty problematic, insofar as proposing a civilized/primitive dichotomy that erases the specificities of various forms of life. That said, I am highly skeptical of the idea that communism is compatible with mass industrial, let alone high-tech, society. I mean, seriously, given the option, who the fuck will work in the mines, the sweatshops, the toxic chip-factories, etc.
I expect that, without the necessity of maintaining states, networks of economic and social domination, etc., life will be greatly simplified, and people will be more apt to provide for their needs on a local basis. On the other hand, I don't expect computers or automobiles to disapear overnight (nor do I necessarily think such a thing is desirable) - they're a reality we will probably be negotiating for some time.
In any case, co-ordinating production on a scale that requires delagates and so-on does not seem desirable to me. In a circumstance where it might be necessary, it at least seems futile to try and plan out the details of it now, when the context is totally beyond predicting.

[Thirsty Crow]

... if election of recallable delegates to administrative positions is undemocratic, then I don't really mind being in favour of this awful despotism, inasmuch as it does no significant harm to social control of production, and if anything allows the mass of producers more free time compared to universal direct democracy...
What do you exactly mean by "universal direct democracy"...?

[ZeroNowhere]

Essentially holding a vote on every administrative decision.