Multiple Parties Under Socialism?

[RedAtheist]

I've heard plenty of talk from socialists/communists about the need for a 'vanguard party'. I agree that there is a need for some type of government to be set up after the revolution (to prevent the capitalists from reinstating themselves as the ruling class) but if there is only one party which the proletarians can vote for, in what sense is that democracy?
-
Giving the workers control over the society, would mean giving them the ability to choose which political and economic policies their country pursues.
-
That is why I don't consider any country which has ever called itself 'socialist/communist' to be a true workers' state. None of them (as far as I know) allowed the proletariat to choose between different parties. The only 'representatives' they could choose from all belonged to the same party and carried out more or less the same policies. This seems to have been the case from the Russian Revolution, right through to Cuba today. Then again I could be totally wrong. I admit my knowledge of history is rather limited.
-
Are socialists opposed to having multiple parties compete for seats within workers' councils? On what ground would any of you defend these one-party dictatorships? Just because they throw the words 'proletariat' and 'vanguard' around does not mean they genuinely represent the people.
-

[00000000000]

An excellent question that I've often wondered about. Personally, I feel that there must be some way a multi-party democracy can be in place whilst at the same time putting mesaures in place that restrict / eliminate the power of capital.
Essentially, I feel the influence and power of corporations and the ruling class should be resticted to the point where it is non-existent and all power is given over to democratically elected worker's councils with any choice of candidate from any party.
The idea of a single party that speaks on behalf of all workers just never felt genuine or realistic to me.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I've heard plenty of talk from socialists/communists about the need for a 'vanguard party'. I agree that there is a need for some type of government to be set up after the revolution (to prevent the capitalists from reinstating themselves as the ruling class) but if there is only one party which the proletarians can vote for, in what sense is that democracy?A organized vanguard in the form of a party is not a form of government, but a way for revolutionaries to organize themselves to help build a revolution.

I don't think that in the future a workers revolution could or would result in a one party state (if it's a mass revolution of workers fighting for worker's power, that is) - even Russia did not begin as a one party state.

I think a lot of history has passed since 1917 and there would be a lot more people and formations arguing for direct democratic rule by workers through workplace councils or something similar. Maybe smaller parties and groups would work together and form a large single party as a revolutionary situation approached, but IMHO, it would probably be several different formations that just begin to head in the same direction.

This doesn't mean organizing the vanguard is irrelevant, I think it's very necessary, since it helps revolutionaries work out coordinated strategies and political analysis and helps organize radical workers in non-revolutionary times so that there is a better chance that there are militants with real connections to workplaces and movements when things do approach a real conflict over who should rule society.


-
Giving the workers control over the society, would mean giving them the ability to choose which political and economic policies their country pursues.
-Right, the revolution itself would, just by the nature of a worker's revolution, give a mandate for "socialism" in the broad sense of worker's control over society and so workers might choose to only allow parties that are dedicated to preserving this order (as opposed to forces that would want a return to capitalism or radical groups who want to replace worker's power with worker's party power). But within that framwork, I think we'd see many different formations begin to be created in a real democratic system. People might organize themselves into differnet parties based on what they think the most immediate priories should be - like the "Education Party" or whatnot. In some ways capitalist parties operate in this way with maybe one party representing more the interests of industrial capital over rural agricultural capital or finance capital. But they all agree on the unquestioned basics of the system: maintaining private property, a military to defend national interests (trade, dominance of other countries, securing resource etc), and keeping the masses toeing the line.

Parties in the DoP would probably be similar because with much more direct democracy and involvement in the running of society, there would undoubtedly be a lot of debate and exchange of ideas about the best way to do things.

[Stalin Ate My Homework]

[QUOTE=RedAtheist;2215297]
-

-
. This seems to have been the case from the Russian Revolution, right through to Cuba today.

I disagree, In Cuba multiple political parties are allowed to exist, but none are allowed to run in elections (including the communist party). Representatives are elected by their own merits rather than the vague promises made in bourgeois democracy.

[manic expression]

The way I see it, there are a few possibilities:

1.) The vanguard party is made the center of political activity. This was essentially the course the USSR took, and while it might be understandable in the context of the Civil War and its aftermath (the Bolsheviks were literally the only party that hadn't gone against Soviet power), I think it was a flaw that could have been fixed at a later time. In all, it's a system that can do OK so long as the party is dynamic and committed to defending and furthering socialism...otherwise there is a strong danger of the party becoming too formal in its role and letting careerists and reactionaries climb the ladder.

2.) The vanguard party is legally recognized as the leading political force of the country, but other (opposing) political associations are permitted. This is what Cuba has done, and I think it works very well. An important additional detail (rightly pointed out by Stalin Ate My Homework) is that no political party takes part in elections, so elections are first and foremost about workers deciding what's best for their communities. Opposing political organizations can form and engage in activism, but progressive workers are encouraged to vocalize their opposition to these activities. The strength of the PCC comes from the support it holds from its fellow workers, not merely from formal position.

3.) The vanguard party is not recognized at all. As far as I know, no one's ever tried this, so it's hard to say how it would work.

[Rooster]

Under communism, you shouldn't need any political parties. You also shouldn't just consider those countries to be unsocialist just because they only had one party. The main issue we have is that there is no democractic control over the means of production. You have that in capitalism, you had that in the old socialist countries. Also, after the revolution, you don't need to have a single party to keep the capitalist system from coming back. It would be a near impossibilty for national capitalists to come back over night. They would have to go through the whole process of accumulation, something that took centuries to achieve in the west (and decades in Stalinist russia). You don't need one central party to manage a revolutionary army for defence either.

[Die Neue Zeit]

None of them (as far as I know) allowed the proletariat to choose between different parties. The only 'representatives' they could choose from all belonged to the same party and carried out more or less the same policies. This seems to have been the case from the Russian Revolution, right through to Cuba today. Then again I could be totally wrong. I admit my knowledge of history is rather limited.
-
Are socialists opposed to having multiple parties compete for seats within workers' councils? On what ground would any of you defend these one-party dictatorships? Just because they throw the words 'proletariat' and 'vanguard' around does not mean they genuinely represent the people.
-

You're confusing the historical development of political parties with mere political platforms, tendencies, etc. The "First International," the International Workingmen's Association, was explicitly clear about workers not being able to become a class for itself without constituting into its own mass party-movement. Look at the pre-WWI SPD, for instance, with about a million members, and its rapid membership collapse to only a couple hundred thousand or less after backing the war! Anyway, the IWMA did not render this in the plural ("political parties") because it recognized that unity is strength.

Also, you're confusing the form of historically so-called "one-party states" with what historian Moshe Lewin more accurately called "no-party states." For most of its ruling history, the "CPSU" was a political fiction precisely because it wasn't politicized enough, particularly since the "cadres" filling the state bureaucracies were not detached from the organization's voting membership.

In short, I'm for a genuine one-party system, that of the very politicized worker-class party-movement:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/all-power-independent-t155105/index.html


A USPD single-party state would have meant class-conscious workers not being divided into too many fractious, bickering parties, each already with multiple tendencies, and if party-movements outside workers councils each with competing alternative cultures

[citizen of industry]

Well, parties organize along class lines. If socialism results in a classless society, theoretically there would be no parties or any need for them. Of course, people will always have dissenting opinions, but I imagine in a truly socialist society they will be around minor issues, and organs like city halls, trade unions, etc. would be able to address them. The problem with countries like Cuba, etc. is that they are in bad economic shape because they exist in a capitalist world, they can never aspire to a classless society. I'm not apologizing for their leadership, but socialism in one country will never be socialism. When there aren't any classes or economic disparity there is a whole lot less to complain about, and no need for parties.

[syndicat]

The vanguard party is made the center of political activity. This was essentially the course the USSR took, and while it might be understandable in the context of the Civil War and its aftermath (the Bolsheviks were literally the only party that hadn't gone against Soviet power), this is not true. the syndicalists, maximalists, many anarchists, and Left-Mensheviks never "went against soviet power".

the issue is whether the working class will control things. no "vanguard party" regime ever was based on authentic workers democracy. the soviets were not actually in control of Russia after Oct 1917. the Council of People's Commissars was not accountable to the soviets in any meaningful sense.

the working class can only run the society through mass democracy...workplace assemblies, neighborhood assemblies, freedom to elect and control delegates from these base assemblies to delegate bodies, such as city or regional councils or congresses.

diversity of political viewpoints within the class are inevitable. the only way this would not be expressed as divergent political organizations is if a Marxst-Leninist party (or some other authoritarian organization) creates a state power that allows it to suppress other viewpoints in the working class...what has always happened in revolutions controled by ML parties.

[runequester]

If workers democracy truly exists, there'd be little need for multiple parties to exist.
Democratic consensus will solve questions of direction, as they arise.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Rosa Luxemburg believed that the workers after the revolution occurred, should be able to vote for their socialist party/program of choice.

It would be likely that there would be one party with varying ideas/caucuses, maybe even numerous separate parties.

Even so, those against the vanguard aren't for hundreds of socialist parties involved in the revolution. I, for one, like Luxemburg, believe in a party that has no central committee, intelligentsia or "professional revolutionaries" leading it, but a party which is fully democratic and every member has a say in action, policy, organization, etc.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Rosa Luxemburg believed that the workers after the revolution occurred, should be able to vote for their socialist party/program of choice.

It would be likely that there would be one party with varying ideas/caucuses, maybe even numerous separate parties.

Voting for the implementation of the program of their choice is quite different from voting for the party of their choice. The former acknowledges reasonable diversity of tendencies, while the latter goes too far.


Even so, those against the vanguard aren't for hundreds of socialist parties involved in the revolution. I, for one, like Luxemburg, believe in a party that has no central committee, intelligentsia or "professional revolutionaries" leading it, but a party which is fully democratic and every member has a say in action, policy, organization, etc.

If a mass, worker-class party-movement is fully democratic with respect to its working-class voting membership, as you noted above, then there would be no need for a competing party-movement (which would threaten class unity). Heck, there would be no need for non-party councils or unions, either.

[manic expression]

the issue is whether the working class will control things. no "vanguard party" regime ever was based on authentic workers democracy. the soviets were not actually in control of Russia after Oct 1917. the Council of People's Commissars was not accountable to the soviets in any meaningful sense.
A war was being fought. I know you would have wanted them to lose, as anarcho-syndicalists seem to be very fond of losing, but they wanted to defend the revolution.


diversity of political viewpoints within the class are inevitable. the only way this would not be expressed as divergent political organizations is if a Marxst-Leninist party (or some other authoritarian organization) creates a state power that allows it to suppress other viewpoints in the working class...what has always happened in revolutions controled by ML parties.
Except if you read my post, you'd know that this hasn't happened in Cuba. Cheap stereotypes based on imperialist propaganda don't make for a decent argument.

[Rocky Rococo]

When I think of things I wouldn't want after a revolution, a whole bunch of politicians running around, smiling in our faces, stabbing us in the back, cutting deals for their cronies, accumulating power and wealth behind closed doors while spewing uplifting hot air when speaking in public...well, hell, politicians are one of the main reasons to have a revolution, to get rid of them, once and for all. The only way to get rid of politicians is to get rid of parties, and the only way to get rid of parties is to get rid of the state, so this is one topic I put in the "Win" column for the anarchists.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ The Paris Commune didn't have political parties, to the explicit detriment of the working class. More importantly:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/republic-and-social-t153855/index.html


As bad as the theoretical fragmentation and ignorance of the Parisian proletariat was, it was not so much damaged by this as it was by its lack of a uniform organisation. This was indeed partly caused by theoretical disjointedness and partly by the absence of the right to association and assembly, which had rendered the creation of any proletarian mass organisation impossible since 1794. We shall return to the latter point further on.