Democracy

[CommunistsUnite]

Is it really necessary for communists? Undeniably so in the final stages, but would it be feasible for revolutionary groups fighting against reactionaries to have such a slow and indecisive system of government getting the way of quick decision-making? Especially in this fast-paced world we live in?

It is inefficient for militant revolutionaries to make decisions democratically because it gets in the way of good choices. This is fact. Look at the USSR for example. Did they fight the Nazis with democracy? No, they did it with a sizable military and a proper totalitarian government. If Stalin couldn't get things done quickly and effectively, then all of Europe would be speaking German.

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

If by communists you mean people who support communism, then yes, democracy is essential. But if you mean idealists who think that "socialism in one country" is a winning strategy for the triumph of "workers of the world, unite!", then a lot of things (logical coherency, for example) aren't necessary.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

No, they did it with a sizable military and a proper totalitarian government.

Oh no. I don't think it ever lived up to that.

[hatzel]

No, they did it with a sizable military and a proper totalitarian government.Oh no. I don't think it ever lived up to that.

You almost speak as if totalitarianism is an end-goal for us to strive towards :lol:

[Per Levy]

Is it really necessary for communists?

yes.


It is inefficient for militant revolutionaries to make decisions democratically because it gets in the way of good choices.

why would democrazy get in the way of "good choices"? a small authorian leadership doesnt necessarily makes good decisions anyway.


This is fact.

nope


Look at the USSR for example. Did they fight the Nazis with democracy? No, they did it with a sizable military and a proper totalitarian government.

and a democratic soviet union couldnt have won this war, maybe a democratic SU would have been actually been better in fighting the facist invasion.


If Stalin couldn't get things done quickly and effectively, then all of Europe would be speaking German.

what were those quick decisions? killing off good military personal because they couldnt hold lines against the german invasion?

back to your main question: democrazy is extremly importent for communists, and also for winning people for communism/socialism.

[Gorilla]

Is it really necessary for communists? Undeniably so in the final stages, but would it be feasible for revolutionary groups fighting against reactionaries to have such a slow and indecisive system of government getting the way of quick decision-making? Especially in this fast-paced world we live in?

The 'democracy' that we have now is only slow and inefficient when it comes to something like healthcare for working people. When it comes to starting wars in the middle east or bailing out banks it gets down to work with a quickness. That's because we live under dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Under dictatorship of the proletariat, it will be the opposite.


It is inefficient for militant revolutionaries to make decisions democratically because it gets in the way of good choices. This is fact. Look at the USSR for example. Did they fight the Nazis with democracy? No, they did it with a sizable military and a proper totalitarian government. If Stalin couldn't get things done quickly and effectively, then all of Europe would be speaking German.

Comrade Stalin took the lead in the world's first attempt at socialist construction, led the workers of the Soviet union in their heroic defeat of fascism, rallied thousands of Western communists to fight fascism behind the lines as partisans. When he died, he was remembered as a friend and bulwark of oppressed people by millions around the world.

That being said, if you think his political methods are something to imitate you are fucking nuts, comrade.

Take a look at what Mao had to say about it:
http://www.marxists.org/subject/china/documents/polemic/qstalin.htm
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-8/mswv8_66.htm

[hatzel]

That's because we live under dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.

No we don't.

[Gorilla]

No we don't.

???

[hatzel]

???

I don't really accept the Marxist definition of 'dictatorship', I'll have you know :)

[eric922]

First of all, yes democracy is essential! Tolitarainsm is a terrible system no matter if it is in the name of Marxism or Fascism. The difference is Totalitarianism is a corruption of Marxism, while it is the nature goal of Fascism. Secondly the the U.S. and Britain fought the Germans as well using democratic systems. Do I agree with everything those two countries have done? Hell no, but to imply that they didn't help in WWII or that Russia did it alone is ignorant.

[hatzel]

First of all, yes democracy is essential! Tolitarainsm is a terrible system no matter if it is in the name of Marxism or Fascism.

The absence of democracy doesn't necessarily mean that the nation is totalitarian :)

[Gorilla]

Totalitarianism is a pretty questionable fucking concept to begin with.

[#FF0000]

Is it really necessary for communists? Undeniably so in the final stages, but would it be feasible for revolutionary groups fighting against reactionaries to have such a slow and indecisive system of government getting the way of quick decision-making? Especially in this fast-paced world we live in?

It is inefficient for militant revolutionaries to make decisions democratically because it gets in the way of good choices. This is fact. Look at the USSR for example. Did they fight the Nazis with democracy? No, they did it with a sizable military and a proper totalitarian government. If Stalin couldn't get things done quickly and effectively, then all of Europe would be speaking German.


The government of the USSR really couldn't be called "totalitarian", even under Stalin. Mostly because it was too much of a clusterfuck to be called totalitarian.

But, I'm curious, what do you think our goal is, and why do you think it's our goal?

[CommunistsUnite]

The government of the USSR really couldn't be called "totalitarian", even under Stalin. Mostly because it was too much of a clusterfuck to be called totalitarian.

But, I'm curious, what do you think our goal is, and why do you think it's our goal?
Our goal is to bring about the dictatorship of the proletariat because the bourgeoisie oppress the masses.

[hatzel]

Our goal is to bring about the dictatorship of the proletariat because the bourgeoisie oppress the masses.

This is a rather vague summary...and why does this dictatorship necessarily exclude any form of democratic organisation?

[#FF0000]

Our goal is to bring about the dictatorship of the proletariat because the bourgeoisie oppress the masses.

Sure, that would be it. But keep in mind that this also means dismantling class society. Why do you think we aim to dismantle class society? What is wrong with class?

[hatzel]

What is wrong with class?

I assume this isn't the place to make jokes about having class, right? But there's nothing wrong with a bit of class, I tell you! :lol:

http://www.reedsbridal.com/images/tuxedos/tuxedo.jpg

But yes, I agree that CommunistsUnite might be more concerned with USSR-fetishism than a deep understanding of communism, but I've not seen their posts, so it's difficult to tell at this stage :) Still, if that's the case, learning is the place to be, and I'd be very interested to know their opinions...

[Jose Gracchus]

Totalitarianism is a pretty questionable fucking concept to begin with.

Agreed. If "totalitarianism" is but a pejorative slur for mushy liberal-centrists based in the technocrat and intellectual stata to impugn their enemies in historically successful mass politics, then it is meaningless. If we want "totalitarianism" to mean anything, it should apply firstly to the sci-fi hivemind-esque, patently Orwellian, American intellectual-academic establishment, who clearly march in a psychological lock-step at the convenience of capital that the likes of Kim il-Sung could only have contemplated of in his wildest wet dreams.

[CommunistsUnite]

Sure, that would be it. But keep in mind that this also means dismantling class society. Why do you think we aim to dismantle class society? What is wrong with class?

Basically, class divides people based on ownership of the means of production. We don't like class society because it gets in the way of equality, our ultimate goal. Now, a ruling class is needed for a socialist country to remain competitive to capitalist countries, but once the world is rid of capitalism in all its forms, the ruling class should step down and make way for Communism.

[#FF0000]

Basically, class divides people based on ownership of the means of production. We don't like class society because it gets in the way of equality, our ultimate goal.

There you are!


Now, a ruling class is needed for a socialist country to remain competitive to capitalist countries,

I disagree for a few reasons.

1) A country that is trying to compete with capitalist countries is not socialist. At least, not in my view (sorry Chavez, Fidel, literally every other so-called socialist leader)
2) You acknowledge that class divisions get in the way of equality, which is obviously true. But, then, why should we defend privilege and class for a tiny group of people, just because they call themselves communists instead of capitalists?

[CommunistsUnite]

There you are!



I disagree for a few reasons.

1) A country that is trying to compete with capitalist countries is not socialist. At least, not in my view (sorry Chavez, Fidel, literally every other so-called socialist leader)
2) You acknowledge that class divisions get in the way of equality, which is obviously true. But, then, why should we defend privilege and class for a tiny group of people, just because they call themselves communists instead of capitalists?
1) Well, we need socialist countries to stay competitive so that they can assist other countries in becoming socialist, and to be able to defend themselves and others from capitalist countries. History shows that capitalists have no qualms about using the military to get their way.

2) Because socialist countries need centralized leadership to function competitively, especially in wartime. I'm sure you can imagine how difficult and time-consuming it would be to get the opinions of all the people of the country, and then make a decision based on those opinions; it would be even harder in large countries like Russia or the United States. I'm not saying that we need totalitarianism forever, but effective leadership is necessary if a socialist nation-state is to survive.

[hatzel]

effective leadership is necessary if a socialist nation-state is to survive.

I don't have much interest in a 'socialist nation-station' surviving, so I don't much care for 'effective leadership' if that's the aim...

[eric922]

1) Well, we need socialist countries to stay competitive so that they can assist other countries in becoming socialist, and to be able to defend themselves and others from capitalist countries. History shows that capitalists have no qualms about using the military to get their way.

2) Because socialist countries need centralized leadership to function competitively, especially in wartime. I'm sure you can imagine how difficult and time-consuming it would be to get the opinions of all the people of the country, and then make a decision based on those opinions; it would be even harder in large countries like Russia or the United States. I'm not saying that we need totalitarianism forever, but effective leadership is necessary if a socialist nation-state is to survive. Totalitarianism should never be tolerated under circumstances. It is just as cruel and oppressive as any form of capitalism. In Principles of Communism, Engels says of the first goals of the communists should be to establish a democratic constitution. I'll go with him over you and Stalin any day. Oh and isn't the point of socialism to liberate the workers from the oppression of the bourgeois class? If so, then why the hell should we be content to have them as slaves under a new oppressive class that claims to be on their side?

[#FF0000]

1) Well, we need socialist countries to stay competitive so that they can assist other countries in becoming socialist, and to be able to defend themselves and others from capitalist countries. History shows that capitalists have no qualms about using the military to get their way.

2) Because socialist countries need centralized leadership to function competitively, especially in wartime. I'm sure you can imagine how difficult and time-consuming it would be to get the opinions of all the people of the country, and then make a decision based on those opinions; it would be even harder in large countries like Russia or the United States. I'm not saying that we need totalitarianism forever, but effective leadership is necessary if a socialist nation-state is to survive.

What I'm saying is that it's kind of ridiculous to be for socialism for a reason, and then say we should abandon the goals so we can defend socialism, which we, uh, abandoned.

[CommunistsUnite]

Totalitarianism should never be tolerated under circumstances. It is just as cruel and oppressive as any form of capitalism. In Principles of Communism, Engels says of the first goals of the communists should be to establish a democratic constitution. I'll go with him over you and Stalin any day. Oh and isn't the point of socialism to liberate the workers from the oppression of the bourgeois class? If so, then why the hell should we be content to have them as slaves under a new oppressive class that claims to be on their side?
I'll have you know that Stalin did everything in his power to defend the USSR from the Nazis, and all your slandering of the USSR -- which was arguably the greatest anti-capitalist and anti-fascist entity in the world -- leads me to suspect that you are a Nazi/fascist yourself.

What I'm saying is that it's kind of ridiculous to be for socialism for a reason, and then say we should abandon the goals so we can defend socialism, which we, uh, abandoned.
Well, how is a socialist nation supposed to mitigate the spread of socialism when it is not strong enough to limit capitalist intervention?

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

Totalitarianism should never be tolerated under circumstances.

Blah blah blah. Enough of this nonsense about "totalitarianism", the word several interpretations, but you obviously seem to be using it in the generic bourgeois slander-fashion, by labelling anything exhibiting any semblance of authoritarianism as "totalitarian", which is hardly very useful a description.

[ZeroNowhere]

In Principles of Communism, Engels says of the first goals of the communists should be to establish a democratic constitution. I'll go with him over you and Stalin any day.Engels was referring to bourgeois democracy. Just saying. He was not making any reference to times after capitalism, he was rather speaking of the struggle for capitalism. As regards the proletarian revolution:


As to pure democracy and its role in the future I do not share your opinion. Obviously it plays a far more subordinate part in Germany than in countries with an older industrial development. But that does not prevent the possibility, when the moment of revolution comes, of its acquiring a temporary importance as the most radical bourgeois party (it has already played itself off as such in Frankfort) and as the final sheet-anchor of the whole bourgeois and even feudal regime. At such a moment the whole reactionary mass falls in behind it and strengthens it; everything which used to be reactionary behaves as democratic. Thus between March and September 1848 the whole feudal-bureaucratic mass strengthened the liberals in order to hold down the revolutionary masses, and, once this was accomplished, in order, naturally, to kick out the liberals as well. Thus from May 1848 until Bonaparte's election in France in December, the purely republican party of the National, the weakest of all the parties, was in power, simply owing to the whole collective reaction organised behind it. This has happened in every revolution: the tamest party still remaining in any way capable of government comes to power with the others just because it is only in this party that the defeated see their last possibility of salvation. Now it cannot be expected that at the moment of crisis we shall already have the majority of the electorate and therefore of the nation behind us.


Basically, class divides people based on ownership of the means of production. We don't like class society because it gets in the way of equality, our ultimate goal.
"The elimination of all social and political inequality,” rather than “the abolition of all class distinctions,” is similarly a most dubious expression. As between one country, one province and even one place and another, living conditions will always evince a certain inequality which may be reduced to a minimum but never wholly eliminated. The living conditions of Alpine dwellers will always be different from those of the plainsmen. The concept of a socialist society as a realm of equality is a one-sided French concept deriving from the old “liberty, equality, fraternity,” a concept which was justified in that, in its own time and place, it signified a phase of development, but which, like all the one-sided ideas of earlier socialist schools, ought now to be superseded, since they produce nothing but mental confusion, and more accurate ways of presenting the matter have been discovered.

If we are for 'equality', then are we for everybody being the same, having the same things and living in entirely identical conditions? Of course not. The only 'equality' which we are for is the abolition of all class (rather than the 'equality of classes' of Bakunin's program), which, as Engels comments above, constitutes socialism. As such, we are not for the abolition of classes because we are for equality, as we are for 'equality' only inasmuch as it means 'the abolition of classes'. One cannot therefore justify the other, any more than one may justify one's principle of never getting married by saying that doing otherwise would conflict with the principle of bachelorhood.


Now, a ruling class is needed for a socialist country to remain competitive to capitalist countries, but once the world is rid of capitalism in all its forms, the ruling class should step down and make way for Communism.What constitutes a 'ruling class', and does this have any connection to labour's being alienated? In this connection, what do you think of the statement that, "Private property is thus the product, the result, the necessary consequence, of alienated labor, of the external relation of the worker to nature and to himself"?


But yes, I agree that CommunistsUnite might be more concerned with USSR-fetishism than a deep understanding of communism, but I've not seen their posts, so it's difficult to tell at this stage
Well, how is a socialist nation supposed to mitigate the spread of socialism when it is not strong enough to limit capitalist intervention?This could explain things.

[eric922]

[QUOTE=CommunistsUnite;2066257leads me to suspect that you are a Nazi/fascist yourself. Disagree with me all you wish, but never ever call me a nazi or a fascist. I utterly despise everything they stand for, as for me I stand with Leon Trotsky in his opposition to Stalin.

[eric922]

Blah blah blah. Enough of this nonsense about "totalitarianism", the word several interpretations, but you obviously seem to be using it in the generic bourgeois slander-fashion, by labelling anything exhibiting any semblance of authoritarianism as "totalitarian", which is hardly very useful a description.
A fair point. I do think Stalin did some good things and would take him over the Nazis any day, I am however simply opposed to authoritarianism as I fear it can lead to exploitation.

[RedMarxist]

I know this is kind of off topic, but under Lenin if he lived longer would the SU be less or more democratic?

[CommunistsUnite]

This could explain things.

By "mitigate", I meant "help" or "improve". According to this website (thesaurus . com/browse/help), they're synonyms. To clarify, I did not imply that the spread of socialism should be slowed down in any way.


Disagree with me all you wish, but never ever call me a nazi or a fascist. I utterly despise everything they stand for, as for me I stand with Leon Trotsky in his opposition to Stalin.

You're not fooling anyone. You're only compounding the fact that you're a fascist by trying to discredit Stalin in favor of the petite-bourgeois sham that is Trotskyism. I feel sorry for you though. I don't know what caused you to have such hatred for the working class, but I do hope you get over it.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I'll have you know that Stalin did everything in his power to defend the USSR from the Nazis, and all your slandering of the USSR -- which was arguably the greatest anti-capitalist and anti-fascist entity in the world -- leads me to suspect that you are a Nazi/fascist yourself.
You're aware of the treaty he signed that split up parts of Europe between the USSR and Nazi Germany, that he handed over German communists to the Nazis who were seeking refuge from them, the shitty stance during the Spanish Civil War, etc, etc. The only reason why the USSR killed so many fascists was because they were attacked by them. What would have happened if the USSR was never attacked by Nazi Germany? Would the USSR have gone to war with Nazi Germany? The USSR was not the greatest anti-fascist entity in the world and Stalin's position against fascism consisted of him flip-flopping.

[Gorilla]

You're aware of the treaty he signed that split up parts of Europe between the USSR and Nazi Germany, that he handed over German communists to the Nazis who were seeking refuge from them, the shitty stance during the Spanish Civil War, etc, etc. The only reason why the USSR killed so many fascists was because they were attacked by them. What would have happened if the USSR was never attacked by Nazi Germany? Would the USSR have gone to war with Nazi Germany? The USSR was not the greatest anti-fascist entity in the world and Stalin's position against fascism consisted of him flip-flopping.

CommunistsUnite: There are good objections to a few of these charges and some you just have to concede 'yeah, Stalin fucked up there.' Thing is, if you're really serious about MLism you'll go to the effort to find out & evaluate what went right and what went wrong in the Soviet experience. Just throwing around slogans about Trot scum is not going to hack it.

[eric922]

You're not fooling anyone. You're only compounding the fact that you're a fascist by trying to discredit Stalin in favor of the petite-bourgeois sham that is Trotskyism. I feel sorry for you though. I don't know what caused you to have such hatred for the working class, but I do hope you get over it.
So now Trotsky is a Fascist and anyone who follows Trotksyism is a Fascist? I'm willing to bet the vast majority on this board disagree with you on that point. Trotsky did more for the cause of Socialism than you could ever dream of doing.

[CommunistsUnite]

So now Trotsky is a Fascist and anyone who follows Trotksyism is a Fascist? I'm willing to bet the vast majority on this board disagree with you on that point. Trotsky did more for the cause of Socialism than you could ever dream of doing.
So now you're trying to pin this on me by accusing me of calling Trotsky a fascist? Not gonna work. It's your integrity that is in question, not mine. You're a fascist for slandering the good name of the USSR, which is what Hitler did.

[eric922]

"You're only compounding the fact that you're a fascist by trying to discredit Stalin in favor of the petite-bourgeois sham that is Trotskyism" Those are your excat words. You called Trotskisy a sham. News flash: A lot of people on this board disagree with Stalin's polices. Oh and judging by the number of people who thanked my post where I said totalitarianism should never be tolerated a lot of people agree with me over you. So why don't you quit with the personal attacks of calling people you don't agree with Nazis or is that all you can do? Do not call me a Nazi or Fascist again, or we will see what the mods have to say about it.

[CommunistsUnite]

"You're only compounding the fact that you're a fascist by trying to discredit Stalin in favor of the petite-bourgeois sham that is Trotskyism" Those are your excat words. You called Trotskisy a sham. News flash: A lot of people on this board disagree with Stalin's polices. Oh and judging by the number of people who thanked my post where I said totalitarianism should never be tolerated a lot of people agree with me over you. So why don't you quit with the personal attacks of calling people you don't agree with Nazis or is that all you can do? Do not call me a Nazi or Fascist again, or we will see what the mods have to say about it.

If you re-read that post, you will find that I did not call Trotsky a fascist (protip: sham =/= fascist). I tried to argue with you about the original topic, but then you went on insulting me without provocation. If you want to talk about the original point, then that's perfectly acceptable. However, if you want to continue insulting people, then I can only point out the fascist nature of your behavior.

[eric922]

"Totalitarianism should never be tolerated under circumstances. It is just as cruel and oppressive as any form of capitalism. In Principles of Communism, Engels says of the first goals of the communists should be to establish a democratic constitution. I'll go with him over you and Stalin any day. Oh and isn't the point of socialism to liberate the workers from the oppression of the bourgeois class? If so, then why the hell should we be content to have them as slaves under a new oppressive class that claims to be on their side? http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/misc/progress.gif" How in the hell is that a personal attack? You asked for opinions and I gave mine. A number of posters even agreed with me, so what do you say about them?

[CommunistsUnite]

"Totalitarianism should never be tolerated under circumstances. It is just as cruel and oppressive as any form of capitalism. In Principles of Communism, Engels says of the first goals of the communists should be to establish a democratic constitution. I'll go with him over you and Stalin any day. Oh and isn't the point of socialism to liberate the workers from the oppression of the bourgeois class? If so, then why the hell should we be content to have them as slaves under a new oppressive class that claims to be on their side? " How in the hell is that a personal attack? You asked for opinions and I gave mine. A number of posters even agreed with me, so what do you say about them?


I'll have you know that Stalin did everything in his power to defend the USSR from the Nazis, and all your slandering of the USSR -- which was arguably the greatest anti-capitalist and anti-fascist entity in the world -- leads me to suspect that you are a Nazi/fascist yourself.

The above is what I said. What I meant was that the USSR defended socialism from fascists (implying that a totalitarian socialist state acted more effectively than a democratic state would have), and that your slander of the very same country that defended socialism gave me the suspicion that you were of a fascist persuasion because you acted on behalf on the fascists rather than on behalf of the socialists. Really, it's not that hard to figure out.

[StalinFanboy]

I have a quick question for sake of clarification.

What sets a state that is run by a minority that represents the rest of the population, has property - and therefore class - relationships, and participates in the global capitalist market and calls itself "socialist" apart from a state that is run by a minority that represents the rest of the population, has class relationships, and participates in the global capitalist market and calls itself capitalist? I mean aside from what they call themselves.

[eric922]

The above is what I said. What I meant was that the USSR defended socialism from fascists (implying that a totalitarian socialist state acted more effectively than a democratic state would have), and that your slander of the very same country that defended socialism gave me the suspicion that you were of a fascist persuasion because you acted on behalf on the fascists rather than on behalf of the socialists. Really, it's not that hard to figure out. I'm not arguing that Stalin didn't do some good however I don't know why you think a democratic government couldn't have fought off Hitler just as well. We don't know what a democratic government would have done, for all we know they could have been just as effective as Stalin was. My biggest problem with the USSR under Stalin is simply that I feel it should have been a direct workers democracy and I'm not the only person who feels that way.

[CommunistsUnite]

I'm not arguing that Stalin didn't do some good however I don't know why you think a democratic government couldn't have fought off Hitler just as well. We don't know what a democratic government would have done, for all we know they could have been just as effective as Stalin was. My biggest problem with the USSR under Stalin is simply that I feel it should have been a direct workers democracy and I'm not the only person who feels that way.
For Russia's size, I don't think that infrastructure was good enough for a direct democracy. It's a big place with a lot of people, and Russia was pretty backwards until Stalin. A direct democracy would take too long to make decisions, and the USSR couldn't afford for things to take too long when Panzers were rolling at the gates of Stalingrad.

[Jose Gracchus]

Yet the central leadership of Stalin totally botched the defense of the USSR prior to Barbarossa, so that's a poor argument.

[eric922]

[QUOTE=CommunistsUnite;2067314]For Russia's size, I don't think that infrastructure was good enough for a direct democracy. It's a big place with a lot of people, and Russia was pretty backwards until Stalin. A direct democracy would take too long to make decisions, and the USSR couldn't afford for things to take too long when Panzers were rolling at the gates of Stalingrad.[/QUOTE/] To address this point most democracies have laws vesting military power in their chief executive during emergencies. The U.S. for instance gives power to the president to authorize military force without the consent of Congress in case of emergency.

[Optiow]

Socialism needs democracy like the human body needs oxygen.

Leon Trotsky.

[Jose Gracchus]

I only wish Trotsky had lived those principles more in 1918, 1919, or 1921, when it might have mattered.

[eric922]

Socialism needs democracy like the human body needs oxygen.

Leon Trotsky.
I only wish he had been one to succeed Lenin instead of Stalin.

[Zanthorus]

Socialism needs democracy like the human body needs oxygen.

Leon Trotsky.

I have never actually managed to find what the source of this quote is. It would appear to be in direct contradiction with:


The Workers’ Opposition has come out with dangerous slogans, making a fetish of the principles of democracy. They seem to have placed the workers’ right to elect their representatives above the party, as though the party did not have the right to defend its dictatorship even if that a dictatorship were to clash for a time with the passing moods of the workers’ democracy ... What is indispensable is the awareness, so to speak, of the revolutionary historical birthright of the party, which is obliged to maintain its dictatorship in spite of the temporary wavering in the spontaneous moods of the masses, in spite of the temporary vacillation even in the working classes. This awareness is for us the indispensable unifying element. It is not on the formal principle of workers’ democracy that the dictatorship is based at any given moment, though the workers’ democracy is, of course, the only method by whose health the masses are increasingly drawn into political life.

Some sources also have it as 'a nationalised, planned economy needs democracy like the human body needs oxygen', which puts the quote in a slightly different light.

[Jose Gracchus]

In short, Trotsky was an inveterate opportunist and gasbag. He would have gleefully presided over a despotic authoritarianism had it been his despotic authoritarianism. Trotskyists have only imbibed a low-rent version of Workers' Opposition/Group of Democratic Centralism politics once they needed an ideological cover from being bested at their own game by Stalinists.

[ZeroNowhere]

In short, Trotsky was an inveterate opportunist and gasbag. He would have gleefully presided over a despotic authoritarianism had it been his despotic authoritarianism. Trotskyists have only imbibed a low-rent version of Workers' Opposition/Group of Democratic Centralism politics once they needed an ideological cover from being bested at their own game by Stalinists.This is of approximately the same quality as most abbreviated summaries of 'Capital'.

[Ostrinski]

No. Stalin wasn't interested in protecting Soviet citizens from Germany, he was interested in protecting his power. If he gave a damn about his people, a million people wouldn't have died in Leningrad.

[Jose Gracchus]

This is of approximately the same quality as most abbreviated summaries of 'Capital'.

You could have just said it sucks. I didn't know DeLeonists were fans of Trotsky.

[Zanthorus]

Well, the publishing company named on the front of this copy of Lenin's Theses on Bourgeois Democracy and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat was the Socialist Labour Party (UK)'s press, so it would appear to have something of a precedent:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/Lenin-slppamphlet-1920.jpg

[Red_Xan]

I can't decisively say that you need democracy to get to communism, but I believe that a fair share of direct democracy on simple issues would definitely allow citizens' morale to raise, and that would (theoretically, of course) help them cope with the changes from Capitalism to Socialism, and eventually Communism.