Parliament in a Socialist Society

[Apoi_Viitor]

Is the idea of a a parliamentary system of government incompatible with socialism?

[BIG BROTHER]

Is the idea of a a parliamentary system of government incompatible with socialism?

Socialism is the abolishment of the state so in a sense it isn't. But during the transition period, we would have some sort of workers councils, or workers institutions based on direct democracy, etc which would be superior to any bourgeoisie parliament.

[MarxSchmarx]

It depends on what you mean by a "parliament", but very often there is a lot of smoke and mirrors on the left around merely replacing the names without changing the principles.

For examples, a lot of this stuff about "regional councils" composed of "delegates" of workers assemblies (or its analog for consumers) is basically just parliamentary democracy. Things like recall, paying the prevailing wage, instructions to report back, etc... are really just reforms. And I don't see what is gained by mandating that these people vote according to how their local soviet or whatever votes - since at least the invention of the telegraph, you might as well do away with the intermediary altogether.

But there won't be prime ministers, winner take all regional districts based on arbitrary partitions. And most likely "the crafting of laws" (i.e., legislation) wouldn't quite exist as we know it and in any event probably won't be in the hands of these "delegate's assemblies".

Still, there will be a need to coordinate activity across large spatial and demographic areas that something like a current parliament could fulfill, according to this school of thought.

[syndicat]

we shouldn't want a regime of professional politicians running a state through an administrative hierarchy. that would imply a class society.

an important feature has to be the easy ability of people at the base to force a decision of delegates back to the base assemblies for discussion and decision.

also, being a delegate should not be a full time profession, so that they work part of the time at a regular job. thus they interact regularly with their coworkers and neighbors and don't separate themselves off as a separate elite.

[CommunistsUnite]

Is the idea of a a parliamentary system of government incompatible with socialism?
No, because that creates a ruling class, which would defeat the purpose of socialism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

also, being a delegate should not be a full time profession, so that they work part of the time at a regular job. thus they interact regularly with their coworkers and neighbors and don't separate themselves off as a separate elite.

Why not? The flip side of "part-time occupation" is moonlighting, where those same delegates can nab extra money on the side doing speeches, consulting, etc.

[syndicat]

you're not paying attention. we're not talking about capitalism. or at least I'm not. I'm talking about a society of equals, an authentic socialist society, where people are remunerated equally for their work efforts.

if being a delegate is part-time, then of course, it logically follows that they can earn remuneration from some other job "on the side." that's true by definition. what's wrong with that?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Until the transition is complete, the DOTP should be for statistical representation and full-time occupation. Otherwise those same officials won't have the same standards of living as the median for professional and other skilled workers.

[There is a possible compromise: part-time political occupation with pro-rated compensation, plus tight regulation and special income taxes on any part-time non-public office occupations. However, this would raise the complaint of not paying attention to constituents while in public office.]

[Robocommie]

Until the transition is complete, the DOTP should be for statistical representation and full-time occupation. Otherwise those same officials won't have the same standards of living as the median for professional and other skilled workers.

Are we talking about direct democracy, with delegates from lower legislative bodies, or indirect republicanism?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Demarchy replaces elections with random selection, which guarantees statistical representation.

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

Demarchy replaces elections with random selection, which guarantees statistical representation.

I've always been curious about demarchy... isn't forcing someone to take political position contrary to socialist autonomy? What if they don't want to serve in that position? (sorry if I'm ignorant about the topic)

[hatzel]

I've always been curious about demarchy... isn't forcing someone to take political position contrary to socialist autonomy? What if they don't want to serve in that position? (sorry if I'm ignorant about the topic)

One could assume that it would be possible to decline the invitation to governance...I don't advocate demarchy, and don't know a great deal about it, but I can't imagine the bailiffs coming round, dragging people kicking and screaming to parliament house :lol:

[Die Neue Zeit]

Burnheim noted that a key difference between "demarchy" and more generic "random selection" is that under the former political positions would be filled on a voluntary basis.

[Gorilla]

Demarchy is a problematic choice for the sole way to select a representative body. Voting has two functions: it has a representative function, where the voters get to choose their officials, but also a legitimative one, where the voters become complicit in their choice of officials. Even the most representative body will make unpopular decisions from time to time. Without the complicity established by voting a new socialist republic would face a very real crisis of legitimacy.

Such crisis might be an interesting way to hasten the withering away of the state but more likely it would set the stage for reactionary restoration.

[syndicat]

Demarchy replaces elections with random selection, which guarantees statistical representation.


so what? an authentic socialism has to be based on direct self-management, people directly participating in and controlling the decisions that affect them.

it's not about "representation." that implies that the rank and file do not rule.

"statistical representation" does not guarantee control by the base. the only thing that can do that is the right to force issues to be decided in the base assemblies.

and my idea of "transition" is very different than yours. you have a bureaucratic state socialist concept of some set of party leaders running things by passing laws and issuing orders thru a state hierarchy. that will ensure continued existence of the class system.

a necessary task at the very beginning of the transition is workers taking over the workplaces and creating organizations they control to manage the workplaces and industries. this includes "public sector" workplaces.

[Gorilla]

But there won't be prime ministers, winner take all regional districts based on arbitrary partitions. And most likely "the crafting of laws" (i.e., legislation) wouldn't quite exist as we know it and in any event probably won't be in the hands of these "delegate's assemblies".

Yes, separation of powers is a major evil. It is specifically designed to prevent popular-ameliorative measures and encroachments on property (see Montesqieu, the Federalist, etc.) Rather than the parlamentary system, I think of a network of delegative bodies from factory floor to national or international level. Each one combines the functions of legislature, cabinet and supreme court - like the Paris Commune did.

[Jose Gracchus]

Gorilla is right. Madison actually used the term "divide et impera" (divide and conquer), admitted it was the "province of tyrants", and then endorsed it as a strategy anyway in a private letter to Hamilton during the Framing of the Constitution of 1787. The Constitution was a counter-revolution to check the budding direct democratic tendencies and popular mobilizations of the 1780s which increasingly threatened the prerogatives of property. In essence, the Constitution was designed to frustrate any plausible possibility of pushing a popular program in the national government, so that the nascent bourgeoisie could use the government to cow the small working class and poor farming class into tolerating onerous taxes and bailouts for bond speculators, thus creating a sound investment climate for capital.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

The word Parliament is another word for the National Assembly, but often the word Parliament is associated with the bourgeois notion of sovereign representatives.

This prevents anything beyond bourgeois democracy, as the idea of parliamentary sovereignty is incompatible with the idea of workers' councils and worker control of the means of production overall.

Thus, Parliaments of representatives, need to be replaced with National Assemblies, filled with delegates who are subordinate to the wishes of locally elected workers' councils and regionally elected workers' councils/assemblies.

Bottom up, bottom up, bottom up.