Democracy.

[miltonwasfried...man]

Is democracy a legitimate means to a communist end?

[$lim_$weezy]

If you mean reforming the current capitalist system, then I do not think so. The ruling class wants to keep its power. However, this is not a failing of democracy but of both the state and the economic system that is capitalism.
But, if by democracy you mean mass participation in community decision-making, then of course it is legitimate! I might go so far as to say it's the only legitimate method!

[Q]

Communism is not going to be voted through parliament. It is the self-emancipation, self-orgnisation, self-liberation of the working class, its formation as a potential hegemonic class, its taking over of power, that is going to set us on to the road of communism, universal human freedom.

[miltonwasfried...man]

Communism is not going to be voted through parliament. It is the self-emancipation, self-orgnisation, self-liberation of the working class, its formation as a potential hegemonic class, its taking over of power, that is going to set us on to the road of communism, universal human freedom.

Okay, but is forming a socialist political party not a form of self organization? With a socialist party, voters would have the opportunity to 'liberate' themselves by voting for such a party. And with enough votes the socialist party could take power and set us up on the very same road of communism and universal human freedom.

[Kamos]

Okay, but is forming a socialist political party not a form of self organization? With a socialist party, voters would have the opportunity to 'liberate' themselves by voting for such a party. And with enough votes the socialist party could take power and set us up on the very same road of communism and universal human freedom.

That's just reformism, and it will never succeed. Communists cannot challenge capitalists at their own game. We'll just be suppressed - that you can see from the examples of many communist parties. The workers have to seize the power by themselves - not by reconciling capitalists. Say, do you consider yourself a revolutionary?

[Os Cangaceiros]

Democracy isn't a perfect way of making decisions among large groups of people, but it's the "least bad" way of making decisions. That's the conclusion I've eventually come to on this subject. Consensus only goes so far (and really, anarchist consensus is kind of a joke anyway, as many times the same overbearing personalities dominate discussions and debates regarding issues.)

Voting socialism into existence doesn't really even seem worth addressing as a viable tactic. That party will be booted out of office faster than you can say Allende. :sleep:

[Rss]

Communism through bourgeois parliamentarism is a dream shared by many self-proclaimed leftists and communists. Sometimes I call these people speedbumps.

[red_rich]

Im sure we all agree that advances towards a stateless, classless society will not come from liberal democracy. That does not mean we give up on democracy as communists.

As far as i am concerned, democracy has never existed before and certainly doesn't today. No economy has ever been democratically ran even if other aspects of society have been.

Isn't this what we work for? a democratically run economy? That is truly where the means of production is in the hands of those who produce the wealth. Communists who do not believe in democracy are not communists at all....

[Manic Impressive]

I'm a bit surprised by some of the answers so far. I don't think you can say "it can NEVER happen" of course it can happen it's just highly unlikely to succeed without the threat of direct action. There's three main options that I can think of parliamentary politics, a general strike which carries on until the bourgeoisie give up or guerilla style warfare with sections of the military defecting to our side. On their own none of these are particularly realistic or appealing which is why a combination of all three may be needed. Parliamentary politics has a place in gaining support and in educating the working class. I was actually surprised by a senior member of the CPGB-ML who told me they would stand candidates if they thought they had a chance of winning. I see no reason to completely dismiss any strategy of the working class taking power and doing so can be detrimental to the movement social democrats are a prime example of this.

[Q]

Okay, but is forming a socialist political party not a form of self organization? With a socialist party, voters would have the opportunity to 'liberate' themselves by voting for such a party. And with enough votes the socialist party could take power and set us up on the very same road of communism and universal human freedom.

Besides posters 5, 6 and 7, I'll add that communism - being universal human liberation - can only be the act of the principal oppressed class under capitalism. Bourgeois parliamentarism has no such emancipatory function. It ceases after you have made your red cross once every 4 or 5 years. So besides the obvious anti-working class character of the state, it also can never function to liberate the class or to bring the class to power and is therefore opposed by communists for enacting any lasting reforms. Its only educational function is to unmask its capitalist function (and for this reason communists can run for elections).

[miltonwasfried...man]

That's just reformism, and it will never succeed. Communists cannot challenge capitalists at their own game. We'll just be suppressed - that you can see from the examples of many communist parties. The workers have to seize the power by themselves - not by reconciling capitalists. Say, do you consider yourself a revolutionary?

No matter the means the system has to be 'reformed' and adjusted to provided equality to the people. Most current governments are plagued by capitalism but through democracy the working class can alter who that government is. I realize that corporate regimes wish to maintain the status quo but socialism can and as prospered in many countries through the support of the people. An armed revolution must be preceded by a revolution of the mind (of the masses) and may not need occur if such is accomplished. For without the support of the working class, a revolution in their name can not be justified and currently the masses would be unfriendly to an armed struggle. Thusly we are left with education to spread the socialist word and democracy to bring about socialist change. I will be a 'revolutionary' when the masses have no other means to free themselves but for now I believe we must revolutionize the thought process of the people towards equality and freedom.

[miltonwasfried...man]

Communism through bourgeois parliamentarism is a dream shared by many self-proclaimed leftists and communists. Sometimes I call these people speedbumps.

Okay, so what would be your suggestion? Saying "revolution" is great but without a viable well thought out plan, it is merely a word.

[Kamos]

Okay, so what would be your suggestion? Saying "revolution" is great but without a viable well thought out plan, it is merely a word.

Well, if I may chip in - currently it is the job of communist parties and organisations to educate the common people. In one way or another, they ought to be shown that the capitalist system will not help them, that they should be conscious about the ways of how they get exploited. Basically, by doing this we'll gain more supporters - and once there are enough, the workers will strike, demanding the end of the oppressive capitalist states and setting up a system that is envisioned by communists. This would be the ideal way to do it - propaganda and then an organised mass movement. Any "straggler" capitalist states would soon fall afterwards. Another way would be do it is what is currently being done today - coups and armed revolutions to set up a communist (vanguard) state or two and then spread the revolutionary mindset from there. More dangerous and leads to more conflict - but in the end, that will not matter.
So yeah, it appears that we agree on some things. It is indeed important to make sure the workers have embraced communism as they should. My gripe with what you are saying is that this won't happen through the current system. A socialist party can't just set an example through bourgeois-democratic reforms, anything left of social democracy is the number one enemy of the capitalists and they will discredit anyone who attempts to do so. The revolution must be organised in defiance to the state - in that way, the revolutionary elements cannot be suppressed (without terror, which just fuels the fire) and it shows that there must be no compromise.

[CHEtheLIBERATOR]

Yes, dictatorship of the proletariat = democracy

[Rss]

Okay, so what would be your suggestion? Saying "revolution" is great but without a viable well thought out plan, it is merely a word.

Depends on circumstances. In Finland where nobody gives rat's ass about parliament ('cept bourgies, but that's no surprise), running for elections is pretty much waste of time and resources. Losing elections saps the morale of party members and makes them passive. Surely elections can be exploited to gain visibility, but putting up candidates is currently waste of time. Extraparliamentary activity, trade union work and grassroot work are much more important right now.

I'm not completely against using bourgeois parliament as a tool, but some people are WAY too optimistic and naive about it.

[chegitz guevara]

If a bunch of us got together, and voted to take all your stuff, would you respect the vote? Probably not. You'd probably resist, but whatever means are necessary and of which you are capable. The ruling class is no different, except in that they are probably less averse to killing in order to keep their stuff. They have a lot more to lose, considering they own the world.

[RedSunRising]

http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1922/democratic-principle.htm

From the crazy clock that managed to say to tell the right time more than twice a day.

A lot to learn from him...But be careful.

[Zanthorus]

This is an issue I've been turning through my head a lot lately. I think the real answer to the question is that there is no answer, or rather, no general, abstract answer can be given, since the question is a political question. Whether or not to utilise parliamentary methods in order to bring the working-class to power is not a question whose answer has reference to the economic situation of the class, which is what makes it international, but relates to the specificities of the political institutions of various countries. Or as Marx put it in his famous (Or perhaps infamous depending on your point of view) speech on the subject "we have not asserted that the ways to achieve that goal are everywhere the same... the institutions, mores, and traditions of various countries must be taken into consideration".


...communism... can only be the act of the principal oppressed class under capitalism. Bourgeois parliamentarism has no such emancipatory function.

This is creating a false dichotomy between parliamentary and extra-parliamentary action. It's true that the working-class will not be able to take power by simply standing in a voting booth and placing a tick next to the 'socialist party' box, but that doesn't mean that the tick next to the socialist party box couldn't be augmented by action on the streets. It seems to me that Anarchists, Left-Communists and Trotskyists alike all make the same mistake of counterposing parliamentary action to the actions of the workers' themselves. The Anarchists are probably the most consistent here in criticising Marx for being inconsistent on the subject of the state because he said in a couple of places that the working-class could take power peacefully through parliament (And he did say this, there isn't much use trying to wriggle around that), whereas LC's and Trots still nominally subscribe to the Marx side of the Marx/Bakunin split. But even the Trots agree that utilising parliament to take power is impossible (Trotsky even made it a part of his analysis of the Soviet Union that since there was no bloodshed, there couldn't have been a full counter-revolution yet), which actually makes their case for parliamentary participation weaker insomuch as they are forced to ascribe to the quasi-Kautskyan idea that parliament has an educational, consciousness-raising function.

By way of contrast, David Adams pointed out in his article on Marx's theory of the state that the Anarchist criticism of Marx is off-base. There is no reason to suspect that Marx's belief in the possibility of taking power through parliament meant an abandonment of the idea of mass extra-parliamentary action by the class, or of refashioning and simplifying the state-machinery in order to remove the power base of proffesional politicians. The supposed contradiction is a spectre conjured by Anarchist and more specifically Bakuninist ideology. The closest thing I can think of to the position I'm trying to get across (And ascribe to Marx) is the De Leonists position of voting a socialist party in to power backed up by the extra-parliamentary industrial union movement, the latter of which would seize the factories and the former of which would, upon taking power, immediately dissolve parliament.


The ruling class is no different, except in that they are probably less averse to killing in order to keep their stuff.

But this would be a general argument that a revolution would necessarily involve violently supressing counter-revolutionaries, it's not clear how it at all relates to the utilisation of parliament.


From the crazy clock that managed to say to tell the right time more than twice a day.

Bordiga's case against parliamentary action taken as a whole is self-defeating. Elsewhere he had accused the Third International of confusing the masses by participating in parliament whilst being against parliament, but it's not entirely clear what this means. It could make sense if Bordiga was making the argument that the seizure of power by the working-class would necessarily mean the institution of direct democracy, and hence any form of participation in representative democracy was decieving people into thinking that change could be gained through representatives. But that can't possibly be the case because the model of Soviets which Bordiga looked to was a form of representative democracy. In fact from Chartism to the Paris Commune I can't think of any movements of the class that were not for some kind of representative democracy. That means that an argument for direct democracy would be a form of sectarianism, upholding a principle against the movement of the class, more specifically it would be upholding the democratic principle against the class, the very same principle which Bordiga sought to demolish. In general Bordiga's piece actually presents a fairly good case against anyone who complains about parliamentary action not being 'truely democratic' or something stupid like that. But in the same measure it makes his own case against such action either unclear or contradictory.

Oh yeah, and welcome back Palingenisis.