Is Direct Democracy possible?

[RedMarxist]

We are all aware of the recent developments in Spain, Italy, Greece, etc. that are advocating real or direct democracy for Europe. Is this goal really a real possibility?

Already Greek People Assemblies have been setup across the nation, where people voice their opinions and everyone gets a say in national affairs. Demands have been made for the scrapping of the Greek constitution and for the creation of a People's Constitution, written by the people, for the people.

expect more protests/square occupations/assemblies nationwide as austerity measures have been increased despite the fact that Greeks say they will no longer take it. The government doesn't seem to give a shit, the IMF doesn't give a shit-so why should Greece be loyal to a bunch of representatives?

Is this the end of representative democracy in Europe? opinions?

[DaComm]

I don't see why Direct Democracy couldn't work. Keep in mind that Direct governance from the people, not a very small rich group, does not necessarily mean everyone has to live in small communities of 100 people for it to function. On a large scale; it could function by neighborhoods, communities, etc. assembling, determining the majority opinion and then selecting a delegate to represent their views. This delegate acts as a mouthpiece for that region in a large conference of other delegates from the surrounding area, the majority opinion on an issue would then be put into effect as a law. Given that the people who advocate Direct Democracy are also usually supportive of more of a Confederacy-type political structure where different "states" or communities or whatever are autonomous of some unitary government, I think said model would work very well. This is largely the idea of 'Council Communism' espoused by Left Communist Antone Pannekoekin.

[el_chavista]

Extreme democracy is also the proposal of the socialists of the 21st century to overcome the representative or parliamentary democracy which, in practice, creates oligarchic governments of the "best" (best educated, best wealthy). For instance, collective participation in the budgeting of the government expenses.

[Rowan Duffy]

Machover has an interesting article looking towards democratic structures which would be suitable for communism which contains a critique of councils:

http://www.zcommunications.org/FCKFiles/image/Machover_socdem5.pdf

[Jose Gracchus]

I don't like airy ahistorical arguments like that. It would have been nice had the soviet movement become better organized and uniform and transparent, but I don't think this critique of councilism really has much to do with what went wrong.

We need to actively and continuously involve the populace in the political functions of society, until they cease to exist as politics as such and we move toward democracy-as-social-practice. I agree at very high levels of layers you might just want to have short-term recallable candidate elections sponsored by council bodies and elected-at-large. I do think decisions need to be forced down to base assemblies and referenda often. I think his critique excessively conceives of councils as parliaments-elected-by-proxy, which they are not. Upper level delegates may be immediately subject to replacement via automatic referenda, I mean the technology could be available today by e-petition (something like Facebook "likes" conceptually, but actually dislikes or disfavors which can be given to one-per-candidate, by a deadline) or an e-referendum (certain announcement for vital matters can be alerted to all workers, asking them to participate in a referenda on such-and-such day or time.

The Bolshevik leadership were not fundamentally able to raise a single-party state because of councils: in 1918 they lost elections throughout major cities to soviets, and they could call for higher body elections; the now single-party Sovnarkom simply overthrew the soviets by military coup.

[Aspiring Humanist]

With Direct Democracy..
R.I.P. Interest of minorities

[Tablo]

With Direct Democracy..
R.I.P. Interest of minorities
I assume by minority you are referring to the bourgeoisie?

[Dunk]

Anytime I read or hear someone lamenting democracy as the oppression of the minority by the majority, I smile, because I'd rather build a real democratic society than giving up my life to work in an illusory one where the overwhelmingly powerful minority oppresses the majority.

Disproportionate power and wealth spring from private ownership, which negates democracy. The blueprint we need to build a better future will form in the struggle to build democracy, which is synonymous with the overthrow of capitalism.

[DaComm]

Anytime I read or hear someone lamenting democracy as the oppression of the minority by the majority, I smile, because I'd rather build a real democratic society than giving up my life to work in an illusory one where the overwhelmingly powerful minority oppresses the majority.

Disproportionate power and wealth spring from private ownership, which negates democracy. The blueprint we need to build a better future will form in the struggle to build democracy, which is synonymous with the overthrow of capitalism.

And any true democratic society would not negate minority rights but rather maintain a constitution that protects their rights. And not mention that a Socialist society would have no reason to neglect rights of gays, racial minorities, and gender minorities, etc.

[Old Mole]

I think that "direct democracy" in some of its forms are both possible and desirable (direct democracy can mean a variety of things, just like democracy, or representative democracy). But I also think that as a communist I must look beyond direct democracy, because direct democracy is meaningless if the state is abolished, and I want to abolish the state.

[Lunatic Concept]

Even if its just an email or letter every month "here are all the state proposals for this year tick Yes/No" with information provided about each proposal. Combine that with workplace democracy and you have a reasonable amount of direct democracy that would both serve the interests of the people and be quite efficient aswell.

[Zanthorus]

Let's assume for a second that 'direct democracy' is possible and imminently realisable. Why would we care? The problem with democracy as it currently exists is not that it isn't 'pure' enough but that it represents the illusory species-life of the abstract citizen, while for the real man in civil society his activity is not a direct affirmation of his own communal being, but rather his activity is alienated from him and opposes him in the form of capital. Political equality is not tainted by capitalism. The problem with capitalism does not consist in the fact that isn't 'truely equal' or 'truely democratic'. On the contrary, capitalism differentiates itself from prior societies in the fact that social differentiation is not based on political domination, but this differentiation is the result of the products of labour taking the form of commodities (Although granted, it develops this social form of the product from it's originally narrow basis into the all-encompassing form of wealth within society) which in turn presupposes the existence of independent commodity producers, equal before the law and exchanging their goods without political compulsion.

Democracy is not an eternal principle of abstract reason, it is a form of organisation which may or may not be appropriate to introduce into different social bodies at differing historical junctures. Within capitalist society it currently serves as the organisational veil for a fundamentally bourgeois content. The task of socialists is not to alter the form of organisation of bourgeois society, but to support the content of proletarian struggle, the working-class being the subject through which the content of socialism as freely associated, directly social labour, as opposed to wage-labour, is mediated. It might be objected that the struggles of the working-class involve forms of organisation which are superficially superior in terms of their adherence to the democratic principle than the class-organs of the bourgeoisie, and this is indeed the case, but this does not mean that the class-content of proletarian organs flows from the form of organisation. On the contrary, as examples from the 'ministry of labour' of the French Second Republic to the 'workers' councils' of Weimar Germany and even recently the communal councils in Chavez's Venezuela show, the bourgeoisie is infinitely capable of co-opting the organisational forms of proletarian struggle towards it's own ends. The character of workers' councils and similar organs that makes them revolutionary organs is not the outward form of organisation, but their role as combat organisations in the struggle of workers against capital.

[Old Mole]

Let's assume for a second that 'direct democracy' is possible and imminently realisable. Why would we care? The problem with democracy as it currently exists is not that it isn't 'pure' enough but that it represents the illusory species-life of the abstract citizen, while for the real man in civil society his activity is not a direct affirmation of his own communal being, but rather his activity is alienated from him and opposes him in the form of capital. Political equality is not tainted by capitalism. The problem with capitalism does not consist in the fact that isn't 'truely equal' or 'truely democratic'. On the contrary, capitalism differentiates itself from prior societies in the fact that social differentiation is not based on political domination, but this differentiation is in the result of the products of labour taking the form of commodities (Although granted, it develops this social form of the product from it's originally narrow basis into the all-encompassing form of wealth within society) which in turn presupposes the existence of independent commodity producers, equal before the law and exchanging their goods without political compulsion.

Democracy is not an eternal principle of abstract reason, it is a form of organisation which may or may not be appropriate to introduce into different social bodies at differing historical junctures. Withing capitalist society it currently serves as the organisational veil for a fundamentally bourgeois content. The task of socialists is not to alter the form of organisation of bourgeois society, but to support the content of proletarian struggle, the working-class being the subject through which the content of socialism as freely associated, directly social labour, as opposed to wage-labour, is mediated. It might be objected that the struggles of the working-class involve forms of organisation which are superficially superior in terms of their adherence to the democratic principle than the class-organs of the bourgeoisie, and this is indeed the case, but this does not mean that the class-content of proletarian organs flows from the form of organisation. On the contrary, as examples from the 'ministry of labour' of the French Second Republic to the 'workers' councils' of Weimar Germany and even recently the communal councils in Chavez's Venezuela show, the bourgeoisie is infinitely capable of co-opting the organisational forms of proletarian struggle towards it's own ends. The character of workers' councils and similar organs that makes them revolutionary organs is not the outward form of organisation, but their role as combat organisations in the struggle of workers against capital.
True, but what is the way to avoid that your struggle against Capitalism isnt integrated into Capitalism itself? (That the struggle of the workers against capital becomes beneficient to capital, after all the proletariat and its struggle is the engine in the development of capitalism)This seems to me to be somewhat of a Gordian knot...

[Book O'Dead]

We are all aware of the recent developments in Spain, Italy, Greece, etc. that are advocating real or direct democracy for Europe. Is this goal really a real possibility?

Representative democracy is no less real for being representative. Nor is direct democracy any more real for being direct. One is simply better than the other, for the majority.

My opinion about the possibility of direct democracy underwent a change with the advent of the personal computer and when I invented the Internet (just kidding; I discovered it one night hiding under my bed ).
But seriously, Direct workplace democracy is possible now more than ever thanks to the invention of PC's and the Internet which facilitate real time communications for the purpose of discussion and decision-making between large groups of people.

[Dunk]

Political equality is not tainted by capitalism.

Maybe I'm not understanding you correctly, and as intimidating as it is to try this, I totally disagree with you on the above.


...the term “democracy,”...refers very generally to a method of group decision making characterized by a kind of equality among the participants at an essential stage of the collective decision making. Four aspects of this definition should be noted. First, democracy concerns collective decision making, by which I mean decisions that are made for groups and that are binding on all the members of the group. Second, this definition means to cover a lot of different kinds of groups that may be called democratic. So there can be democracy in families, voluntary organizations, economic firms, as well as states and transnational and global organizations. Third, the definition is not intended to carry any normative weight to it. It is quite compatible with this definition of democracy that it is not desirable to have democracy in some particular context. So the definition of democracy does not settle any normative questions. Fourth, the equality required by the definition of democracy may be more or less deep. It may be the mere formal equality of one-person one-vote in an election for representatives to an assembly where there is competition among candidates for the position. Or it may be more robust, including equality in the processes of deliberation and coalition building. “Democracy” may refer to any of these political arrangements. It may involve direct participation of the members of a society in deciding on the laws and policies of the society or it may involve the participation of those members in selecting representatives to make the decisions.

I would argue that under this organizational form, even the concept of "one person, one vote" has been tainted by capitalism. Yes, according to bourgeois law, universal suffrage exists. But how much more political power is exercised by the bourgeoisie than by the working class when they can afford to bankroll their own campaigns or the campaigns of a fellow bourgeois politician? Or when the US Chamber of Commerce annually outspends any other lobbying group annually? When capitalists have at their fingertips the disproportionate wealth that enables them to affect current legislation and your average working class person is so discouraged by the political economy that she doesn't vote at all - even the bourgeois veil of representative democracy is only democratic in name. The gross inequality of the capitalist economy permeates the political sphere. It can't be "rule of the people" when more than half of the population doesn't vote. Even bourgeois democracies that require voting by law - it may be democratic in form amongst the bourgeoisie, but the working class is still offered candidates and occasionally referendums overwhelmingly from the bourgeoisie.

What I'm saying, simply stated, is that I believe political equality can only exist when productive property isn't privately owned, but commonly owned. If political equality did exist, we could simply vote socialism into existence.


Within capitalist society [democracy] currently serves as the organisational veil for a fundamentally bourgeois content. The task of socialists is not to alter the form of organisation of bourgeois society, but to support the content of proletarian struggle, the working-class being the subject through which the content of socialism as freely associated, directly social labour, as opposed to wage-labour, is mediated. It might be objected that the struggles of the working-class involve forms of organisation which are superficially superior in terms of their adherence to the democratic principle than the class-organs of the bourgeoisie, and this is indeed the case, but this does not mean that the class-content of proletarian organs flows from the form of organisation. On the contrary, as examples from the 'ministry of labour' of the French Second Republic to the 'workers' councils' of Weimar Germany and even recently the communal councils in Chavez's Venezuela show, the bourgeoisie is infinitely capable of co-opting the organisational forms of proletarian struggle towards it's own ends. The character of workers' councils and similar organs that makes them revolutionary organs is not the outward form of organisation, but their role as combat organisations in the struggle of workers against capital.

I agree with everything above, especially the text I've bolded.

[W1N5T0N]

Direct Democracy is a good concept, but i dont think they should scrap the constitution entirely. Also, i think rep democracy will be around for quite a while still in France, Britain, Germany, Poland...

[Tablo]

Direct Democracy is a good concept, but i dont think they should scrap the constitution entirely. Also, i think rep democracy will be around for quite a while still in France, Britain, Germany, Poland...
Why not scrap the constitution? Can't workers organize their own government better than some old rich white men from 200+ years ago? I would gladly wipe my ass with any of the current bourgeois constitutions and spit in the face of every founding father.

[W1N5T0N]

But you also have to see some of their decisions as products of their time and environment. Im not defending them, i just think that, as marx said, capitalist are equally in a coercive relationship as the proletariat, they just benefit more from it. Similar with these 'founding fathers': Some of their decisions are influenced by the time they lived in. And anyway, who would write this new constitution? If you write a new constitution, you also have to make an all new lawbook based on that. And admittedly, the ones we have now have many faults, but it would also be a long and complex process to write a totally new one. Maybe a transitional constitution could be used as a compromise?

[Tablo]

But you also have to see some of their decisions as products of their time and environment. Im not defending them, i just think that, as marx said, capitalist are equally in a coercive relationship as the proletariat, they just benefit more from it. Similar with these 'founding fathers': Some of their decisions are influenced by the time they lived in. And anyway, who would write this new constitution? If you write a new constitution, you also have to make an all new lawbook based on that. And admittedly, the ones we have now have many faults, but it would also be a long and complex process to write a totally new one. Maybe a transitional constitution could be used as a compromise?
I would completely agree the American Constitution was progressive for its time as Marx would have agreed too. The move from feudalism to capitalism and monarchy to bourgeois republic is clearly positive. The constitution is still not good enough and I believe socialism should strive for much much more than some racist rich white men's constitution from hundreds of years ago. We can in a historical context see them as being positive figures in some sense, but the consititution was written with a completely different economic reality in mind and was written by the most privileged members of that society to their own benefit.

Off topic: My browser tells me both "men's" and "mens" is the improper plural possessive form of the word. If any of you posters know the proper form I would greatly appreciate you letting me know. Thanks :)

[W1N5T0N]

Yeah, I think that a new constitution should be implemented, but the constitution of Germany, for example, is much newer than the American one, and their system of voting and ruling makes more sense than the USA model. Furthermore, there is much more activism in Germany which is definately not just smiled on by the govt. and the police, like in America where the police just say "ook fuck your opinion *bash*" For example, Reagan just overrode an article securing workers rights. This of course must be forbidden by law.
I think that the whole people/government relationship is fucked up across the world, and that the people should not elect great leading figures (which then just fuck them over), but have a but more councilist manner of doing things in the framework of a constiution guaranteeing fairness and equality. The system should be the government working for the people, not vice versa. I find myself torn between communism and An-Syn...

[Zanthorus]

Maybe I'm not understanding you correctly, and as intimidating as it is to try this, I totally disagree with you on the above.

I agree with what you say about the idealised version of political equality of liberal political theory being tainted by the continued existence of class divisions within society. But this isn't a result of the fact that political equality isn't pure enough. What it indicates is that political emancipation by itself is not enough. The fact that the remedy proposed is that of making the means of production common property shows that the problem is not with an impure form of political equality. If the problem was that political equality isn't pure enough then the remedy would be a change in the political system, not in the social relations of production.

[Tablo]

Yeah, I think that a new constitution should be implemented, but the constitution of Germany, for example, is much newer than the American one, and their system of voting and ruling makes more sense than the USA model. Furthermore, there is much more activism in Germany which is definately not just smiled on by the govt. and the police, like in America where the police just say "ook fuck your opinion *bash*" For example, Reagan just overrode an article securing workers rights. This of course must be forbidden by law.
I think that the whole people/government relationship is fucked up across the world, and that the people should not elect great leading figures (which then just fuck them over), but have a but more councilist manner of doing things in the framework of a constiution guaranteeing fairness and equality. The system should be the government working for the people, not vice versa. I find myself torn between communism and An-Syn...
Yeah, the American constitution is especially outdated and we do have an issue with police brutality worse than a lot of western nation, but law enforcement is more controlled by city, county, and state governments than the federal government. I still think we can do better than the German constitution. Bourgeois constitutions are for the bourgeoisie, not the rest of society.

[ZrianKobani]

In a community setting like a neighborhood or an apartment complex, I think direct democracy could work very well. It would have to be on a level small enough so that everyone's vote is countable and those elected are accountable. Needless to say, nation-wide direct democracy would be a disaster.

[Jose Gracchus]

As Marx wrote in reply to Bakunin's unfair polemic, the whole matter starts with the "self-government of the communities", so I don't think that is it unthinkable, but rather something that builds upon institutions of struggle.