Question on Representative Government

[jmpeer]

It seems to me a lot of people on this forum advocate relative statelessness, a state of local, direct democracies, as a form of government. I advocate representative democracy. Considering:
1. people are not fond of drastic change,
2. they wouldn't have any reason to care for, and thus would probably not want a government in which they are forced to change to care,
3. a smaller region of governance could only impede in certain tasks like surveyal of resources and people,
4. and most importantly, representatives would no longer be able to be corrupted by anything related to money,
what other source of major corruption would there be to make you consider else wise?

(Revised)

[Book O'Dead]

Since I've seen a lot of people on this forum put forward a rather conservative view of government and advocate things like direct democracy, I'd like to know, for a communist state, why would you not support the idea of representative government, when so many people don't care to participate? If there were no money, ownership, or major industries that politicians could exploit or with which be bribed, what other major source of corruption would there be? Even with the corruption today, I will say I think it is ultimately a benefit.

Your questions rely on the assumption that under socialism the political state would continue to function. Whereas socialists maintain that under socialism the political state would no longer exist and the government would emanate directly from the workplaces, organized democratically.
Under this scheme there would be few good reasons for people not to participate in governance. Moreover, some socialists advocate a combination of direct, participatory democracy and representative democracy to the extent either or both are useful and necessary.

Also, keep in mind, that the present models of democracy under capitalism are mostly geared to geographic constituencies, whereas under a different, more egalitarian model they will be geared toward industrial constituencies.

[jmpeer]

Until I see a way in which statelessness can be derived from the term communism, I consider it only a characteristic of anarchism, Marx's ideology, and possibly others, but not necessarily communism. Like you said, "some socialists advocate... representative democracy." That element alone supports what I'm saying.

(Revised)

[Blake's Baby]

No, you haven't understood, your question presupposes a lot of things others don't suppose so the answer is fair, and you haven't responded to it.

1 - there is no socialist state, if you think 'conservatives' are anti-state and 'socialists' are pro-state, my guess is that you're from the USA. You have to realise that the particularities of American politics don't translate very well to the rest of the world. Communism is and always has been anti-capitalist and anti-state, from the mid-1800s onwards.

2 - people are not 'apathetic' or 'uncaring' about politics, though they may be apathetic or uncaring about politics under capitalism. You do not know how we'll react under socialism, which is freedom not tyranny, so your point is without any reference to reality. It's a bit like saying 'I can't see at night, so why will I be able to see in the day time?'

Representative democracy is a sham - in Britain it was described as 'elective dictatorship', the idea being that every 4 or 5 years we elect a new team that mismanages society. In that case, why be interested? On the other hand Communism (whether Marxism or Anarchism, they're both aiming for a classless communal society) supposes the end of the state. Your view seems to be support for the liberal bourgeois republic. It's got nothing to do with socialism, which is the self-conscious activity of the working class to restructure society. Difficult to do that if said working class is apathetic or uncaring.

But problem solved, because then we won't have a revolution, rendering the problem of what to do when the working class overthrows capitalism and the state internationally, but can't be arsed to put any systems in place to manage society, somewhat academic.

Why, in short, would we have a revolution in order to institute the same old crap?

[jmpeer]

None of that was really relevant to what I was asking, so I've rephrased my posts in hopes that you'll get a better understanding.

[Blake's Baby]

What you appear to now be saying is 'forms of communism other than Marxism and Anarchism have been hypothesised'.

Yes they have. But they are neither 'revolutionary' nor 'leftist' and therefore are only of marginal relevance to 'RevLeft'.

If you wish to discuss religious communes, or the ideas of the utopian socialists, or big up liberal democracy, I'm sure there are forums where you can do so.

Generally we'd reject points 1-3 of your revised first posting, partly on the grounds already outlined, which you consider 'irrelevant', even though the replies so far directly deal with the fallacies inherent in 1 & 2.

[Sensible Socialist]

It seems to me a lot of people on this forum advocate relative statelessness, a state of local, direct democracies, as a form of government. I advocate representative democracy. Considering:
1. people are not fond of drastic change,
It depends on their situation. Sure, someone in a solid upper-middle class lifestyle might not want drastic change, but if you asked the same question to someone living under a dictator, they would give a different answer.


2. they wouldn't have any reason to care for, and thus would probably not want a government in which they are forced to change to care,
They would have plenty of reason to care. It directly affects their lives. People in the United States don't have too much of an interest in official politics because either way, they get fucked. In a society where people have direct control over affairs, you can't say people won't care.


3. a smaller region of governance could only impede in certain tasks like surveyal of resources and people,
I don't completely understand your point here. Certainly smaller regions of governance would establish a larger organization dedicated to certain tasks, if they is what your worries are.


4. and most importantly, representatives would no longer be able to be corrupted by anything related to money,
what other source of major corruption would there be to make you consider else wise?
Is money the only source of corruption? No. Look around you. Ever item, every possession, is a possible source of corruption.

[RemoveYourChains]

It seems to me a lot of people on this forum advocate relative statelessness, a state of local, direct democracies, as a form of government. I advocate representative democracy.


The estate of the capitalists is replaced in the context of revolution by the "dictatorship of the proletariat" - which extends freedom to labor, but is utterly disinterested in the liberty of exploiters AS exploiters.

So long as there are mechanisms for maintaining a firm grip on representatives (ex. defining their role as delegates carrying their constituency's mandates, and not as temporary rulers), representation where convenient and appropriate is not a problem.

I suppose that is what is key - that such figures in FACT be "representative" of their communities, and not simply oligarchs of a different sort.

[Seresan]

I believe that Canada is a representative democracy, and I'm not so fond of how that works. Of course, it is still infused with capitalism and right wing advocates.

I personally think that the people should have more drect input, with a government only to organise, advise, and make sure that things are put in practice.

[Apoi_Viitor]

there is no socialist state,

According to Marx there is.


Representative democracy is a sham - in Britain it was described as 'elective dictatorship', the idea being that every 4 or 5 years we elect a new team that mismanages society.

Correction, Representative democracy under capitalism is a sham.

Your comment seems a bit like saying 'I can't see at night, so why will I be able to see in the day time?'

[Blake's Baby]

What is Marx's 'socialist state' then Apoi Viitor?

[Apoi_Viitor]

What is Marx's 'socialist state' then Apoi Viitor?

Examples:

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.

- The Communist Manifesto

Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.

- Critique of the Gotha Program

[Blake's Baby]

Neither of these are a 'socialist state', however, what you've given evidence for is 'the dictatorship of the proletariat'.

Firstly, Marx didn't posit a state of 'socialism' between 'capitalism' and 'communism', and secondly, for Marx, the phase of the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' was a transitional society not a stable one. It may therefore have been a 'stage' but not a 'state'. That second quote, though it says 'the state can be nothing but...' clearly shows that the period is one of a transformative process - the bourgeois state transformed into communism, throughout the period by the working class's revolutionary action, not 'bourgeois state >>> socialist state >>> communist state'.

So in short, you've failed to demnstrate that Marx's so-called 'socialist state' is either a) socialist or b) a state.

[Apoi_Viitor]

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.

- The Communist Manifesto

[Blake's Baby]

Hmm, have you read 'The Civil War in France' as well?

[Apoi_Viitor]

Hmm, have you read 'The Civil War in France' as well?

Yes.

[Blake's Baby]

So you know that the 'proletarian state' is not, in fact, a 'state' like the bourgeois state but a transitional period wherein the state apparatus is smashed by the revolutionary working class. Thus, it is neither 'socialism' nor 'a state' and your 'socialist state' is a mirage.

[Apoi_Viitor]

So you know that the 'proletarian state' is not, in fact, a 'state' like the bourgeois state but a transitional period wherein the state apparatus is smashed by the revolutionary working class. Thus, it is neither 'socialism' nor 'a state' and your 'socialist state' is a mirage.

When you refer to a "state", what do you mean?

[Blake's Baby]

A (relatively) stable social form corresponding to the rulership of one class over another (or others) for the purposes of upholding its property rights. 'Men armed in defence of property relations'.

Now, while for a brief period the working class will be in control of society and will institute its own property relations and indeed have a monopoly of force, the 'revolutionary state' is not really a state as we currently understand it because 1-it is only a transitional form, once all property is collectivised (ie, capitalist socialist relations have been overthrown) the 'state' itself will 'wither away' in Engels' phrase, as the classes that engender the state no longer exist, because the property relations that create the classes no longer exist; and 2-it is not a social frormation that exists for the purposes of suppressing the majority (as all previous states have been) but purely for the purposes of suppressing the tiny minority of capitalists during the revolutionary period.

Thus it's not a 'state'. Not as we understand 'state' anyhow.

[Apoi_Viitor]

A (relatively) stable social form corresponding to the rulership of one class over another (or others) for the purposes of upholding its property rights. 'Men armed in defence of property relations'.

Ok.


it is only a transitional form

it is not a social frormation that exists for the purposes of suppressing the majority

How do these two points contradict the definition of a state? Nothing in the definition suggests that a state cannot be transitional, or a social formation which exists for the purpose of suppressing the majority of the population.

[Blake's Baby]

All existing states have been social forms corresponding to the dominance of one minority class over other larger or majority classes. That might not mean a 'state' could be the domination of the majority over the minority, but if that's the case it's a state unlike any other (as I argued).

And the transitional nature of the revolutionary 'state' does contradict the idea of it being a stable form. It's either a transition between two things, or it's a thing in itself. That's what "...the bourgeois state transformed into communism, throughout the period by the working class's revolutionary action, not 'bourgeois state >>> socialist state >>> communist state'..." meant in post 13. There are not three stages, only two. There are not two transitions (revolutions), only one.

The period of the revolution is not a 'state' because it doesn't have the characteristics of a state. It isn't stable, it's transitional, and it isn't for the purposes of a minority class suppressing the majority; so even if if on this point it could be regarded as a state in that a class suppresses another class, that would still be a definition of a state unlike any state that has ever existed. So, a different type of state completely (and one let's not forget that also disappearing as a social form, unlike a 'state').

So if there are 2 characteristics of a state, it only maybe fulfills half of one of them.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Aren't all states transitional?

[Blake's Baby]

No, they are transitory or historically limited, not the same as transitional. A transition is what happens in the bits between the stable forms. Solid is a stable form, liquid is a stable form, melting is not, it's changing, transitioning between one form and another.

[Apoi_Viitor]

No, they are transitory or historically limited, not the same as transitional. A transition is what happens in the bits between the stable forms. Solid is a stable form, liquid is a stable form, melting is not, it's changing, transitioning between one form and another.

Melting is a verb. It's something a noun "does". The dictatorship of the proletariat isn't a verb or something that can be "done", it's a form.

Why would the dictatorship of the proletariat be a transition, while capitalism a transitory form? What are the distinctions between the two categories?

[Blake's Baby]

One is a thing, an actual 'state' (a state is a state, go figure) while the other is a process.

If you make a cake, you begin with 'the state of ingredients'. You have a lot of things that are entities in their own right. Flour, eggs, sugar, butter. These things exist in a stable form.

You end with a cake. This is something that also exists in a stable form (though it might go off eventually).

In the meantime, you may temporarily have a thing called 'cakemix' but 'cakemix' is merely a transitional form between 'ingredients' and 'cake'. No-one ever went out to make cakemix, it's only ever created by accident because of the process of making a cake. It's one thing in the process of becoming another. The only reason for the long-term existence of cakemix is if making cakes is interrupted.

The thing about cakemix of course is that it can't reform itself as 'ingredients'. The dictatorship of the proletariat can however become capitalism. It has to become something because it isn't an end result, it's a dynamic process. If it doesn't become socialism (through extension of the revolution and progressive destruction of capitalism) it becomes capitalism because it isn't stable in and of itself.

Capitalism can last for centuries, changing slowly but remaining capitalism. I'd hazzard that DoP can't. I don't think it lasted more than 4 years personally, some on Revleft think it lasted 70 years, some that it only lasted a few months, some may think it never existed at all, but there's no evidence that the DoP can last centuries and I think there's a simple reason for that - to whit, that it isn't a state, it's a process.

[Apoi_Viitor]

Capitalism can last for centuries, changing slowly but remaining capitalism. I'd hazzard that DoP can't. I don't think it lasted more than 4 years personally, some on Revleft think it lasted 70 years, some that it only lasted a few months, some may think it never existed at all, but there's no evidence that the DoP can last centuries and I think there's a simple reason for that - to whit, that it isn't a state, it's a process.

Ok, that's a pretty good point.