Do leninists believe in democracy?

[John "Eh" MacDonald]

The reason I ask is because I've heard the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" thrown around lately. I always thought socialism meant dictatorship of the vanguard party by the proletariat not the other way around.

And also,do trotskyists believe in this also?

[Weezer]

The Dictatorship of the Proletariat does not mean a dictatorship, but means the proletariat is the dominant class.

Right now, we live in the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

I would hope all Leninists believe in democracy. I for one do.

[ContrarianLemming]

Dictatorship of the proletariat (DoP) means that the proles have put themselves on top of there former oppressors, it is not a dictatorship in the usual sense (authoritarianism).
Leninists do support democracy, Trotskyism is a form of Leninism, they are also democratic and support the DoP

[John "Eh" MacDonald]

AH, thank you. This is what i originally thought than I thought about the USSR where there was no worker democracy at all. Was Russia like this before Stalin?

[Armchair War Criminal]

"Dicatorship of the Proletariat" means that the proletariat is the ruling class, yes; and Leninists believe in a thing they label "democracy;" but it's also true that Leninists have never supported competitive elections. If that's what you mean by democracy, no, Leninists are anti-democratic.

[ContrarianLemming]

AH, thank you. This is what i originally thought than I thought about the USSR where there was no worker democracy at all. Was Russia like this before Stalin?

Democratic? At the risk of starting a fight, no, the USSR was not democratic under Lenin, it was democratic in the breif period when the Soviet Councils had power and direct democracy, but when Bolsheviks weren't getting votes or didn't win elections they either refused to leave office or installed there own guys in power, by the end of the Russian Civil War direct democracy (or any other kind) was eliminated entirely.

to quote syndicat

"the first local soviet elections to take place in Russia after the elections won by the Bolsheviks in Aug-Sept 1917 were in the spring of 1918. In 19 cities the Bolsheviks lost. In all those cases the Bolsheviks either overthrew the Soviet, replacing it with a party-controlled Revolutionary Military Committee, or refused to leave office, backing up the existing officials with armed groups. This was when Lenin started talking about "the dictatorship of the party."

Part of the theory of the "vanguard party" is that it is the repostory of true Marxism which is supposed to ensure it alone represents working class interests. So overthrow of the soviets was excused on the grounds that workers were "demoralized" by "petit bourgeois ideology"...since by definition only the Bolshevik party's ideology was proletarian.

So, the problem here is in seeing the party as the seed of socialism rather than seeing the direct rule of workers as the basis of socialism. "

[9]

I think there is a real problem with the way anarchists talk about "Leninists". There is practically as much variation between different groups of self-declared "Leninists" as there is among different groups of self-declared "communists". Really, it depends upon which "Leninists" you ask.

Personally, I think Bordiga had some useful things to say on the matter:



Originally Posted by Bordiga
The use of certain terms in the exposition of the problems of communism very often engenders ambiguities because of the different meanings these terms may be given. Such is the case with the words democracy and democratic. In its statements of principle, Marxist communism presents itself as a critique and a negation of democracy; yet communists often defend the democratic character of proletarian organizations (the state system of workers' councils, trade unions and the party) and the application of democracy within them. There is certainly no contradiction in this, and no objection can be made to the use of the dilemma, "either bourgeois democracy or proletarian democracy" as a perfect equivalent to the formula "bourgeois democracy or proletarian dictatorship".http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1922/democratic-principle.htm

[Die Rote Fahne]

I'm going to say yes...but they didn't really hold any general elections.

So, whether they believed it or not, they didn't practice it.

[Q]

I'm going to say yes...but they didn't really hold any general elections.

So, whether they believed it or not, they didn't practice it.

Elections have nothing to do with democracy anyhow (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/788/democracyor.php).

[Jimmie Higgins]

Re: the OP - Democracy is central to Leninism (Bolshevism) and both he and Trotsky and many other Bolsheviks believed that democracy was necessary in order for workers to rule society. However, not everyone who followed Lenin or claims Lenin does support any real form of worker's democracy where people collectively and democratically make decisions.


Democratic? At the risk of starting a fight, no, the USSR was not democratic under Lenin, it was democratic in the breif period when the Soviet Councils had power and direct democracy, but when Bolsheviks weren't getting votes or didn't win elections they either refused to leave office or installed there own guys in power, by the end of the Russian Civil War direct democracy (or any other kind) was eliminated entirely.I agree in the broad sense, but disagree with the implication that the war powers or one-party state were a pre-meditated aim of the Bolsheviks or other revolutionaries that supported the revolution.

But the short answer is that the beginnings of democracy and worker's power lasted only a short time after the revolution.


"the first local soviet elections to take place in Russia after the elections won by the Bolsheviks in Aug-Sept 1917 were in the spring of 1918. In 19 cities the Bolsheviks lost. In all those cases the Bolsheviks either overthrew the Soviet, replacing it with a party-controlled Revolutionary Military Committee, or refused to leave office, backing up the existing officials with armed groups. This was when Lenin started talking about "the dictatorship of the party."

Part of the theory of the "vanguard party" is that it is the repostory of true Marxism which is supposed to ensure it alone represents working class interests. So overthrow of the soviets was excused on the grounds that workers were "demoralized" by "petit bourgeois ideology"...since by definition only the Bolshevik party's ideology was proletarian.The Bolsheviks were clear that they did not see the measures they were making as socialism, they repeatedly stated that they were taking measures in order to try and preserve the revolution until there were better conditions. IMO this is qualitatively different than later when restrictions on democracy and so on were done in order to strengthen the socialist state and build up the economic power of Russia for the sake of competition with the West.


So, the problem here is in seeing the party as the seed of socialism rather than seeing the direct rule of workers as the basis of socialism. "While people who came after the revolution and looked to the Stalinist model as "socialism" did see the party as the seed of socialism, the Bolsheviks of the revolution saw the councils as the seed of socialism, so again, there is the anti-democratic "leninism" of the one-party Stalinist states, but there is also the tradition of the revolution.

The original Bolsheviks were clear that "substitutionism" was not a goal, but a drastic measure. However, many people who looked to "socialism in one country" as a model turned substitutionism and a one-party state as ways to build their nations (you can't compete with the west without quickly industrializing and doing this top down means forcing people to do things and democracy is bad for forcing people to accept top-down reorganization of labor). Socialism is not about a powerful nation, it's about worker's power and this is what the Bolsheviks and other revolutionaries fought for.

The end of worker's power in Russia did not originate in the form of the Bolshevik party or their ideology, it came from the conditions of the Revolution. The subjective mistakes or positive contributions of the Bolsheviks are important and should not go unexamined, but they need to be seen with the larger historical currents. To say that the revolution became a bizzaro inverse of socialism because of the ideology of the party (while ignoring the larger context) is just as silly as arguing that the self-action and movement of ordinary peasants and workers and soldiers played no part in the revolution, but it was solely due to the ideology and organization of the Bolsheviks.

A revolutionary group syndicalist to vanguard is only a boat's rutter and can be decisive in navigating history or crashing into the rocks (the Bolsheviks did both IMO) but it can't change the currents of the ocean.

To sum up, there are both pro and anti democratic strands in people who consider themselves leninists just as there are pro-democratic and anti-democratic trends among utopian socialists and anarchists (insurrectionist is anti, syndicalism and other forms are strongly pro). IMO the important thing is not the conception of the party as the seeds of socialism (since this IMO is an anti-socialist idea) but support of revolution from above or below.

[Jack]

Ignoring all the blabbering by the anarchists and Trotskyites, who essentially believe that bourgeois dictatorship is somehow a fairer ideal than true, practical proletarian dictatorship, Marxist Leninists do beleive in democracy. However, Marxist-Leninists believe not just in political, multi party based bourgeois democracy, but rather a democracy where the working class, directly or through its mass organizations, has control over the state.

The 1936 Soviet constitution, as put forth by Stalin (though, due to the efforts of the bureaucracy, which Stalin also attempted to combat, many parts of it were not fully implemented):




ARTICLE 125. In conformity with the interests of the working people, and in order to strengthen the socialist system, the citizens of the U.S.S.R. are guaranteed by law:
freedom of speech;
freedom of the press;
freedom of assembly, including the holding of mass meetings;
freedom of street processions and demonstrations.
This section of the new constitution lays out the foundations of Marxist-Leninist democracy in the same way as bourgeois democracy. The rights of people are protected so that they may act freely in political discourse. The basis for the electoral system is layed out further in the constitution:




ARTICLE 134. Members of all Soviets of Working People's Deputies--of the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R., the Supreme Soviets of the Union Republics, the Soviets of Working People's Deputies of the Territories and Regions, the Supreme Soviets of the Autonomous Republics, and Soviets of Working People's Deputies of Autonomous Regions, area, district, city and rural (station, village, hamlet, kishlak, aul) Soviets of Working People's Deputies--are chosen by the electors on the basis of universal, direct and equal suffrage by secret ballot.
ARTICLE 135. Elections of deputies are universal: all citizens of the U.S.S.R. who have reached the age of eighteen, irrespective of race or nationality, religion, educational and residential qualifications, social origin, property status or past activities, have the right to vote in the election of deputies and to be elected, with the exception of insane persons and persons who have been convicted by a court of law and whose sentences include deprivation of electoral rights.
ARTICLE 136. Elections of deputies are equal: each citizen has one vote; all citizens participate in elections on an equal footing.
ARTICLE 137. Women have the right to elect and be elected on equal terms with men.
ARTICLE 138. Citizens serving in the Red Army have the right to elect and be elected on equal terms with all other citizens.
ARTICLE 139. Elections of deputies are direct: all Soviets of Working People's Deputies, from rural and city Soviets of Working People's Deputies to the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R., inclusive, are elected by the citizens by direct vote.
ARTICLE 140. Voting at elections of deputies is secret.
ARTICLE 141. Candidates for election are nominated according to electoral areas. The right to nominate candidates is secured to public organizations and societies of the working people: Communist Party organizations, trade unions, cooperatives, youth organizations and cultural societies. ARTICLE 142. It is the duty of every deputy to report to his electors on his work and on the work of the Soviet of Working People's Deputies, and he is liable to be recalled at any time in the manner established by law upon decision of a majority of the electors.


While some of these decisions, such as the secret ballot, were not fully implemented due to the fragile nature of the Soviet state in the face of the looming German assault, and the efforts of certain sections of the party, you can see that the Soviet Union had a democratic system set up.

[Jimmie Higgins]

This section of the new constitution lays out the foundations of Marxist-Leninist democracy in the same way as bourgeois democracy. The rights of people are protected so that they may act freely in political discourse. The basis for the electoral system is layed out further in the constitution:

While some of these decisions, such as the secret ballot, were not fully implemented due to the fragile nature of the Soviet state in the face of the looming German assault, and the efforts of certain sections of the party, you can see that the Soviet Union had a democratic system set up.

So "true, practical proletarian dictatorship" is better than the current bourgeois dictatorship we live under because it has constitutional rights that are the same as bourgeois societies?


Ignoring all the blabbering by the anarchists and Trotskyites, who essentially believe that bourgeois dictatorship is somehow a fairer ideal than true, practical proletarian dictatorshipThat logic doesn't hold up: you don't like eating poison apples, so then you must love starving.

[Armchair War Criminal]

If the Soviet Union had obeyed the letter of its constitution it would have been democratic. It didn't (and to a much greater extent than the American state ignores its own.) Perhaps Stalin, deep down, really wanted it to be enforced, but that seems vanishingly unlikely.

[Queercommie Girl]

Ignoring all the blabbering by the anarchists and Trotskyites, who essentially believe that bourgeois dictatorship is somehow a fairer ideal than true, practical proletarian dictatorship, Marxist Leninists do beleive in democracy. However, Marxist-Leninists believe not just in political, multi party based bourgeois democracy, but rather a democracy where the working class, directly or through its mass organizations, has control over the state.

The 1936 Soviet constitution, as put forth by Stalin (though, due to the efforts of the bureaucracy, which Stalin also attempted to combat, many parts of it were not fully implemented):

[/LIST]
This section of the new constitution lays out the foundations of Marxist-Leninist democracy in the same way as bourgeois democracy. The rights of people are protected so that they may act freely in political discourse. The basis for the electoral system is layed out further in the constitution:



While some of these decisions, such as the secret ballot, were not fully implemented due to the fragile nature of the Soviet state in the face of the looming German assault, and the efforts of certain sections of the party, you can see that the Soviet Union had a democratic system set up.

There is a fundamental difference between what is on paper and what is in reality.

Even today, the People's Republic of China is officially and legally a socialist state where the working class is the leading class of society. The PRC constitution also very clearly states that every Chinese citizen has full democratic rights, including free speech, free association etc. The reality is that Chinese workers are driven to death by their capitalist bosses, and radical Chinese trade unionist activists are brutally locked up and imprisoned by the state.

[Bright Banana Beard]

Yes, we believe in democracy, but we don't believe in general elections because 1)they do not serve anything but illusion (top guys dont make change) 2) The alternate is there 3)It looks like we are trying to please bourgeois.
We do hold local election and regional election, but the delegates will take care from more important matter and thus we have hierarchy.

Albania have 1:2 pay max, make participation of the government a secondary job, which mean they have to have a job in order to be elected and work in government. I personally think all parties should merge under one party after the revolution. The primary concern should be how to forward the revolution. I hate it where some parties are concern with number.

[el_chavista]

I always thought socialism meant dictatorship of the vanguard party by the proletariat not the other way around.
Some mess... The vanguard party, as the top representative of the ideology of the working class, has just one role in a socialist revolution: the organizing of the working class as the dominant class. After power is transferred to the people, parties are useless and counterproductive.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Elections have nothing to do with democracy anyhow (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/788/democracyor.php).

Yes, the wonderful world of semantics.

General elections are still democratic events. Much more democratic than not holding them.