Enforcing Democracy - Would you truly do it?

[Struggle]

I'm talking on principle.

Let us use the example of democratic centralism; "Freedom of discussion, Unity on action".

My question is, if you advocate democratic centralism, you therefore claim to submit yourself to the will of the democratic workers. If for example, the democratic workers ban one from driving over the speed limit of 35 miles per hour, but you drive over the democratically decided speed limit, shouldn't you be owning up and admitting your crime/mistake? Thus 'Unity on action'

I use this light example on purpose because if you truly subscribe to what you believe is democracy; Shouldn't you be submitting yourself entirely to democracy, on principle, however light the crime.

Let me use one more example. If a Socialist society existed governed on the principle of workers democracy, and you committed a crime, such as the assault of somebody or drinking alcohol underage (assuming there was a limit), again, if you support democracy, shouldn't you be admitting your crime, no matter how light it is?

If not, and I assume there may be crimes which you may not - How do you draw a line, and is it not for the workers to decide whether you should face punishment, and not yourself.

[Savage]

For this subject, I think it would be beneficial to explore position that Democracy is in fact in no way a principle, but a mechanism, with no 'instrinsic virtue'.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1922/democratic-principle.htm

[MarxSchmarx]

Of course "democracy" can't interfere with/intervene in every aspect of our lives. As to where the line should be drawn precisely there's no easy answer and it will likely involve trial and error as society progresses.

Personally I feel we should restrict democracy's role to economic affairs - how to allocate scarce social goods, rules about the production process (eg, environmental and safety standards) those kinds of things. Traffic laws probably should involve some admixture of "democracy" and expertise in terms of setting speed limits even if most people want to drive very fast. Most other things really aren't any of my business and should be settled by the parties involved.

[Jose Gracchus]

I don't care too much for Bordiga's (and other Marxists) mealy-mouthed positions on "democracy". The fact is the experiences of 20th C. attempted socialism and many of the internal dynamics of ostensibly socialist organizations demonstrate empirically that democracy remains an extremely pertinent issue with vast ramifications for the Left.

[Savage]

I don't care too much for Bordiga's (and other Marxists) mealy-mouthed positions on "democracy". The fact is the experiences of 20th C. attempted socialism and many of the internal dynamics of ostensibly socialist organizations demonstrate empirically that democracy remains an extremely pertinent issue with vast ramifications for the Left.
i don't necessarily support Bordiga's position, but he has some very good points in his argument, a particularly good point is that democracy is in fact anti-thetical to proletarian rule as a whole through workers councils', and that the democratic mechanism can in fact be considered authoritarian. You should also keep in mind that Bordiga considered Stalin to be a democratic leader.

[Jose Gracchus]

Okay, well I think rule of workers' councils is intrinsically an elaboration of the democratic process. Especially considering the historical origins of the word "democracy" (which really approach conceptions of "people's power" - the Greeks implicitly understood it to mean the political rule by masses of the public bereft of the highest economic privileges and power). Workers must have direct means of control over their workplace, the economy, the political rule of society. They must have institutions of decision-making where they exist control over their content.

[Savage]

Okay, well I think rule of workers' councils is intrinsically an elaboration of the democratic process. Especially considering the historical origins of the word "democracy" (which really approach conceptions of "people's power" - the Greeks implicitly understood it to mean the political rule by masses of the public bereft of the highest economic privileges and power). Workers must have direct means of control over their workplace, the economy, the political rule of society. They must have institutions of decision-making where they exist control over their content.
Yes, well we all know how the masses were in control of the ancient slave republics :D. I haven't made my mind up about democracy yet, but even If I do adopt the position that workers control is not democratic (and if democracy were to be applied it would negate the control of the workers'), this would only be an analytical difference between you and I, not one which would cause a barrier to practical unity, as proletarian control is still what we would both want.

[Jose Gracchus]

I am afraid the gobbledegook distinction is lost on me. Can workers form organizations in their workplaces, communities, and upward onto full control of the economy, by selecting candidates among themselves, and which are responsible to the support of their comrades, to carry out their will?

EDIT: Having re-read Bodiga's Fort Knox of verbiage, one can ascertain it is but low-rent apologism for the electoral chicanery of the Bolshevik leadership, degenerate by the end of 1918, and the never-implemented 1918 Soviet Constitution. Yes, I agree the workers' power and its installation will involve probable violations of liberal democratic norms. This is but truism for any student of revolutionary history and of the revolutionary left. Why this requires such an excessive excursion of semantical nitpickery over a narrow contextual question as explained above, I don't know. The fact is the working-class must lay its hands upon society directly, and not some bureaucratic or administrative entity which tells us (and one is supposed to leave it at that) that it is mystically based by essence on the advanced elements of the working-class. I'm very suspicious of Bordigist anti-democratic rhetoric. No sophisticated political analysis is made of how it is essentially pointless to elect councils on the basis of party-lists on majority, versus proportional grounds, since in any instance of a real party this will tend to render irrelevant the routes of accountability between intermediate councils. Base Council X with a Bolshevik majority does not in any meaningful sense control Delegate(s) X, since by definition the controlling faction is subject to the discipline of the party center. Councils not elected without party-list, or with party-list but not proportionally, are an obvious joke.

[Savage]

But that isn't Bordiga's understanding of democracy. According to Bordiga, democracy is prejudiced marginalization ('the manipulation of society as a formless mass'), his theory has validity in regards to the analysis of bourgeois democracy, I don't think think that it's ludicrous to say that democracy would have the same affect on the proletariat when they are in control.

[Savage]

EDIT: Having re-read Bodiga's Fort Knox of verbiage, one can ascertain it is but low-rent apologism for the electoral chicanery of the Bolshevik leadership, degenerate by the end of 1918, and the never-implemented 1918 Soviet Constitution. Yes, I agree the workers' power and its installation will involve probable violations of liberal democratic norms. This is but truism for any student of revolutionary history and of the revolutionary left.
I really don't think an appreciation for (or even acceptance of) Bordgia's understanding of democracy requires devotion to the other positions specific to his doctrine, there are quite a few people that adhere to his position on democracy without upholding his understanding of the Bolshevik experience.


Why this requires such an excessive excursion of semantical nitpickery over a narrow contextual question as explained above, I don't know.hahaha I'm beginning to think that you don't like me!!!


The fact is the working-class must lay its hands upon society directly, and not some bureaucratic or administrative entity which tells us (and one is supposed to leave it at that) that it is mystically based by essence on the advanced elements of the working-class.This critique is really barking up the wrong tree, the alienation of (a large portion of) the working class is what Bordiga expected would be the result of 'Proletarian Democracy':
''One thing is sure - while bourgeois democracy's real goal is to deprive the large proletarian and petty-bourgeois masses of all influence in the control of the state, reserved for the big industrial, banking and agricultural oligarchies, the proletarian dictatorship must be able to involve the broadest layers of the proletarian and even semi-proletarian masses in the struggle that it embodies. But only those who are the victims of democratic prejudice could imagine that attaining this end merely requires the setting up of a vast mechanism of electoral consultation. This may be excessive or - more often - insufficient, because this form of participation by many proletarians may
result in their not taking part in other more active manifestations of the class struggle.''


I'm very suspicious of Bordigist anti-democratic rhetoric. No sophisticated political analysis is made of how it is essentially pointless to elect councils on the basis of party-lists on majority, versus proportional grounds, since in any instance of a real party this will tend to render irrelevant the routes of accountability between intermediate councils.My understanding workers councils is that the entire proletariat would be involved in them, not just elected individuals that would constitute the councils as a governing body above the rest of the proletariat, that sounds like alienation.
But anyway, back to my original point about Bordiga, do you consider democracy to be, like he says, simply a mechanism for structure? Or something that is ethical? Because this thread isn't about democracy's compatibility with workers control, it's about democracy as a principle, the only reason I brought Bordiga into the mix was because he made a valid point that democracy is not a principle at all.

[Jose Gracchus]

Okay, I take your point and critique. I find it compelling. I agree the working-class must be engaged directly through its councils at large in the control of society. I do think "democracy" as a stand-alone ideal, is rhetoric which has maybe as many problems as it does virtues. I do think at heart it is a utilitarian principle. I didn't mean to offend you, maybe I just find Second-Third International Marxists incredibly difficult to read, as if they were trying to be impenetrable.

I do, however, feel the need of pointing out Bordiga does spend time apologizing for the particular mechanisms of the degenerated functioning of the no-longer authentic workers' councils in the USSR as of 1922. In fact, it was the Bolsheviks as early as 1918 who transformed them into stacked one-party parliaments, rather than authentic mass assemblies of the working-class.

EDIT: Having re-read it, the more I do like some of his essential points about utility of mechanism over the demagoguery of fetishing democracy as an idea. The core is workers' power, not "democracy" in an airy and empty function. The issue is the completion of the hegemony of the working-class in the class struggle. Everything else is subsidiary. :thumbup1:

[Savage]

I do, however, feel the need of pointing out Bordiga does spend time apologizing for the particular mechanisms of the degenerated functioning of the no-longer authentic workers' councils in the USSR as of 1922. In fact, it was the Bolsheviks as early as 1918 who transformed them into stacked one-party parliaments, rather than authentic mass assemblies of the working-class.
Well I certainly agree with you here, and I most definitely don't subscribe to any sort of 'ultra-partyist' position, If the Russian soviets were ever legitimate organs of class power, they had undeniably lost their power by 1919 at the latest. I just think Bordiga's position has value as critique of democracy on a larger scale than just the Russian Revolution.