A Question Regarding Democracy

[AgressiveProgressive]

Hey there, I'm a 17 year old high school student who within the last few months, has been moving further and further left along the political spectrum, from that of a social democrat to a libertarian communist. In my core, I am fundamentally a libertarian, not in a dumb Ron Paul way, but simply in that I believe society should strive to maximize the freedom of individuals in whatever way possible. However, I believe that private property and class antagonism are threats to this liberty, and that if all had equal access to the products of their labour, true freedom would flourish, as people now no longer have to worry about surviving day to day life, or paying the bills.

So, as a newbie, I have a few questions regarding specifically democracy and individual rights in the ideal socialist society:

1. Why, throughout most of history, have socialist revolutionaries, including Lenin, who promised Democratic Centralism, and Fidel Castro, who promised free elections once Fulgencio Batista was overthrown, ended up as authoritarian dictators?

The bolsheviks were quick to develop the USSR as a single party state, waging civil war against the menshiviks, even though one of Lenin's most important ideas was that of Democratic Centralism.

Fidel Castro as well, promised free elections as soon as the revolution was won, and yet, he set himself up as a dictator over Cuba when he came to power.

This question isn't regarding the policies put in place by these leaders, but rather the fact that most communist revolutionaries, who I'm sure many of you look up to, never allowed elections so that the people could democratically choose their leader.

2. If all property was to be collectively owned, (I'm assuming by a democratic state, which would merely be an extension of the people) how would the media operate? It seems if the media were collectively owned, it might favour the opinions of the majority and the government, and it would be near impossible for independent, dissenting media outlets to operate, as private property is not allowed. I'm not saying the media in a capitalist nation is any better, as corporate sponsors ultimately control the press.

Thanks very much for your answers.

[The Idler]

1. Libertarian Socialists say Democratic Centralism is not truly Democratic let alone socialist.
2. The media could operate like Indymedia, Wikinews or Newsvine.

[Marxaveli]

I've always been a believer that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, which is why I fundamentally reject a Vanguard party for the proletariat. There is probably more to it than that, but when you have 1 person or even one party with that much power, things are bound to get sketchy. It is really the same problem we see in our capitalist society, except with authoritarian socialist revolutionaries, the power is held by the state alone for its own interests. It lacks the symbiotic relationship with a private bourgeois class like we have now, but otherwise it is the same problem. The proletariat must be their own vanguard if we are to ever obtain a truly socialist society as Marx and Engels described. Once you put power into a single or just a few hands, you have sown the seeds for disaster. If the proletariat shares power equally, both socially and economically, they can most likely self-govern, and any disputes or problems are solved through unions, civil councils and/or assemblies, that are created (and can be recalled) as a group of delegates through means of direct democracy.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

1. The state will never be democratic. It is a neutral arbiter (in terms of ideology) of repression (so perhaps neutral is slightly misleading, but i'm talking specifically ideology) against the ruled, by the rulers (in this instance, those who wield and control the state, or part of its repressive security/bureaucratic apparatus).

2. So, in a Socialist society, as a libertarian myself (I don't speak for all libertarians/left-coms etc.), 'collective ownership' would mean the sum total of individual ownerships, rather than ownership collectively centralised in one or a few people/groups, if that makes sense.

[Grigori]

I tend to think of Cuba as an example of a socialist version of the historical reoman dictatorship. When the republic was threatened, power would be placed in a dictators hands to ensure the survival of the state. Based on everyything uncle sam ha and continues to enflict on Cuba, i tend to give Castro a pass.