Should Trotskyites admit they hate democracy?

[getfiscal]

In John Molyneux's pamphlet "The Future Socialist Society", produced for the Socialist Worker's Party UK (Cliffite tendency), he says that parties that oppose what he considers socialism will be banned. Likewise, the Grant-Woods tendency has produced documents calling for only socialist parties should be legalized in Cuba. The many other Trotskyist tendencies have produced documents ridiculing existing democratic institutions and calling for the banning of parties they don't like.

Should Trotskyists admit they oppose democracy when it produces results they dislike?

[Crux]

Obvious troll is obvious.

[getfiscal]

Were my facts wrong? Both the IST and IMT oppose democracy in cases where it elects people they dislike, right?

[Prometeo liberado]

I almost went on a rant about "Parties in a Socialist Society" until I remembered the title of the post. Not even about to jump into this one.

[getfiscal]

Maj, you are a supporter of the CWI. Here is a selection from a Peter Taaffe book, where he quotes Tony Saunois approvingly as saying: "All parties which are opposed to imperialism and defend the idea of a socialist planned economy should be allowed to organise, conduct propaganda and stand candidates in elections."

So, via the negative, this means that parties that oppose the idea of a socialist planned economy (assuming that Taaffe or whoever gets to dream up what that means specifically) are banned. Why can't people who disagree with socialism have a say in their own society? Why does Taaffe hate democracy so much?

[Red 7]

Admit they hate bourgeois democracy, maybe. Aren't workers councils banned in Capitalist countries? They're even killing off the Unions these days - democracy, indeed!

[GoddessCleoLover]

Opposition to bourgeois democracy is one thing, the real debates involve its replacement. I favor a broad concept of workers' democracy that envisions a more than one party system of various revolutionary tendencies. The single vanguard model has repeatedly resulted in the substitution of the rule of the party for that of the working class. We must learn from this tragic history and devise a means for the working class to democratically choose its representatives.

OTOH I wouldn't see allowing the bourgeoisie to organize a counter-revolution through destabilization of a workers' government through bourgeois political parties. The broad majority of political groups tracing their lineage back to Trotsky have a deep understanding of the dangers of single-party rule, so IMO it would be inaccurate to portray Trotskyism as undemocratic. Unless of course one's goal would be the perpetuation of bourgeois class rule through bourgeois democracy.

[workersadvocate]

Maj, you are a supporter of the CWI. Here is a selection from a Peter Taaffe book, where he quotes Tony Saunois approvingly as saying: "All parties which are opposed to imperialism and defend the idea of a socialist planned economy should be allowed to organise, conduct propaganda and stand candidates in elections."

So, via the negative, this means that parties that oppose the idea of a socialist planned economy (assuming that Taaffe or whoever gets to dream up what that means specifically) are banned. Why can't people who disagree with socialism have a say in their own society? Why does Taaffe hate democracy so much?

When workers make our revolution, at that very instant, by our very democratic action, we are permanently ending the old order in order to establish workers' republics and socialist society.
If there is any bones to pick with left tendencies after that revolution, it will be because they attempt to usurp power from the working class itself. Needless to say, any such attempts will be an act of war against our class and our workers' republic, and workers will respond accordingly.

[Crux]

Maj, you are a supporter of the CWI. Here is a selection from a Peter Taaffe book, where he quotes Tony Saunois approvingly as saying: "All parties which are opposed to imperialism and defend the idea of a socialist planned economy should be allowed to organise, conduct propaganda and stand candidates in elections."

So, via the negative, this means that parties that oppose the idea of a socialist planned economy (assuming that Taaffe or whoever gets to dream up what that means specifically) are banned. Why can't people who disagree with socialism have a say in their own society? Why does Taaffe hate democracy so much?
In relation to Cuba, yes. I see nothing wrong with this. Stop trolling.

[getfiscal]

So far everyone else here seems to agree with the idea that democracy is only for socialists. What if people change their minds? As in, they create a worker's state or whatever, and then find it doesn't work that well to have a socialist planned economy, and want to have competing companies and such. Shouldn't those workers get a voice?

[blake 3:17]

Can't speak to Taafe. I respect that Labour Militant was able to build a strong base and carry out some very effective actions but can't respect the theory.

From the 1985 World Congress of United Secretariat of the Fourth International document The Dictatorship of the proletariat and socialist democracy:



IV. One-party and multi-party systems

Without full freedom to organise political groups, tendencies, and parties, no full flowering of democratic rights and freedoms for the toiling masses is possible under the dictatorship of the proletariat. By their free vote, the workers and poor peasants indicate themselves what parties they want to be part of the soviet system. In that sense, the freedom of organisation of different groups, tendencies, and parties is a precondition for the exercise of political power by the working class. "The democratisation of the soviets is impossible without legalisation of soviet parties." (Transitional Programme of the Fourth International.) Without such freedom, unrestrained by ideological restrictions, there can be no genuine, democratically elected workers’ councils, nor the exercise of real power by such workers’ councils.

Restrictions of that freedom would not be restrictions of the political rights of the class enemy but restrictions of the political rights of the proletariat. That freedom is likewise a precondition for the working class collectively as a class arriving at a common or at least a majority viewpoint on the innumerable problems of tactics, strategy, and even theory (programme) that are involved in the titanic task of building a classless society under the leadership of the traditionally oppressed, exploited, and downtrodden masses. Unless there is freedom to organise political groups, tendencies, and parties, there can be no real socialist democracy.

Revolutionary Marxists reject the substitutionist, paternalistic, elitist, and bureaucratic deviation from Marxism that sees the socialist revolution, the conquest of state power, and the wielding of state power under the dictatorship of the proletariat, as a task of the revolutionary party acting "in the name" of the class or, in the best of cases, "with the support of" the class.

If the dictatorship of the proletariat is to mean what the very words say, and what the theoretical tradition of both Marx and Lenin explicitly contain, i.e., the rule of the working class as a class (of the "associated producers"); if the emancipation of the proletariat can be achieved only through the activity of the proletariat itself and not through a passive proletariat being "educated" for emancipation by benevolent and enlightened revolutionary administrators, then it is obvious that the leading role of the revolutionary party both in the conquest of power and in the building of a classless society can only consist of leading the mass activity of the class politically, of winning political hegemony in a class that is increasingly engaged in independent activity, of struggling within the class for majority support for its proposals, through political and not administrative or repressive means.

Full document here: http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article921

Edited to add:
So far everyone else here seems to agree with the idea that democracy is only for socialists. What if people change their minds? As in, they create a worker's state or whatever, and then find it doesn't work that well to have a socialist planned economy, and want to have competing companies and such. Shouldn't those workers get a voice?

I disagree with those who say that only workers or socialists or revolutionaries should have the right to political representation or freedom of assembly or expression. Class society will not be abolished for a long long time. I'd say take a look at the document above.

The oppressed and exploited make up the vast majority of society. I don't see any very good reason to deny those with inherited or "earned" material advantages to be denied basic political rights.

[getfiscal]

You raise a good question, blake. What does the legalization of "Soviet" parties mean for Mandelites (4th International types)? Trotsky himself seemed to imply it meant only socialist parties would be legalized. But what if people consider themselves socialists but support a mixed economy, a sort of left-social democracy?

[Die Neue Zeit]

I disagree with those who say that only workers or socialists or revolutionaries should have the right to political representation or freedom of assembly or expression. Class society will not be abolished for a long long time. I'd say take a look at the document above.

The oppressed and exploited make up the vast majority of society. I don't see any very good reason to deny those with inherited or "earned" material advantages to be denied basic political rights.

You may wish to review this material:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/class-strugglist-democracy-t112390/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/workers-power-rule-t160796/index.html

Political representation and association should not be universal, yet whatever setup there is must have a political character.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

But what if people consider themselves socialists but support a mixed economy, a sort of left-social democracy?

Whatever social-democrats call themselves, they are not, and will not become, socialists. It is defined by their politic and not what they brand themselves. They are, and will remain, capitalists.

[getfiscal]

Whatever social-democrats call themselves, they are not, and will not become, socialists. It is defined by their politic and not what they brand themselves. They are, and will remain, capitalists.What method should be used to divide "non-socialists" from "socialists"? For example, "anti-revisionists" tend to say that only a specific form of physical planning regulated by value counts as socialist. Most people who consider themselves socialists probably think of socialism as something like the Brezhnev period, I would guess, where there are competing firms but they are owned by the government. "Anti-revisionists" would ban people who think the latter from being represented.

Would Trotskyists ban people who think that there should be full state ownership but competing firms?

[workersadvocate]

What's so hard to wrap your head around?
Workers' republic: a workers' democracy for working people only.
There is no "other" left...revolution will take care of putting an end to that.
You think there is still gonna be a middle class running around able to restore exploitative stratified society? Workers of the world aren't gonna put up with that shit anymore...the middle class will be history, going down with their bourgeois partners starting day one of our revolution. We'll figure our own way without them and their "help". Thankfully, the middle class has gone out of of its way to obviously readily distinguish itself in all sorts of set-apart class status indicstors such that it won't be hard for revolutionary workers to figure "who's who". We workers will just have to hunt using all the guides on what's trendy and cool that they published for themselves. What beautifully poetic justice it is in using their own class distinction elitism to condemn and annihilate them as a class. The workers' world will look, sound, and act so different from this current order once thousands of years of exploitative oppressive class stratified society is buried finally by international workers revolution. No one will dare mimic or revive any of that evil past lest they desire the wrath of the working class upon them.
Our world, under us, for us, forever. Sure, we workers may change how we do things as we find them more beneficial for ourselves and for the Earth. But we'll never go back, and we'll make sure there is no way to go back from the beginning.
In order to secure our better future, the past must be dead and buried without any hope of resurrection. Our revolution is no mere regime change, it is actually a decision about where humanity is going...toward communism and away from class society's march to the abyss of extinction.

[Crux]

So far everyone else here seems to agree with the idea that democracy is only for socialists. What if people change their minds? As in, they create a worker's state or whatever, and then find it doesn't work that well to have a socialist planned economy, and want to have competing companies and such. Shouldn't those workers get a voice?
I think the point relates in particular to cuba, in so far as we believe that all parties defending the revolution should be legalized. This is our present day demand, in a more general sense we subscribe to Lenin's idea that all parties should be legal, except those who take up arms against the worker's state and/or are fascists.

[getfiscal]

What's so hard to wrap your head around?
Workers' republic: a workers' democracy for working people only.
So, in a worker's democracy, all workers will naturally support only a physically planned society regulated by value? Counterpoint: the entirety of recorded history.

[getfiscal]

I think the point relates in particular to cuba, in so far as we believe that all parties defending the revolution should be legalized. This is our present day demand, in a more general sense we subscribe to Lenin's idea that all parties should be legal, except those who take up arms against the worker's state and/or are fascists.
So parties should only be legal when they pose no possibility of being elected in opposition to Peter Taaffe's wise leadership?

[blake 3:17]

What does the legalization of "Soviet" parties mean for Mandelites (4th International types)? Trotsky himself seemed to imply it meant only socialist parties would be legalized.

I wrote a longer response and realized I didn't have proper references or reference materials. A quickish summing up:

I'm not all that sure that Trotsky himself was such a great democrat on these issues. I cut him a lot of slack for his immense contributions to the world. By nature he was a rebel, and probably more democratic than most, but quite a bit bossy. You don't lead the Red Army against the Whites by endless deliberation.

Mandel was very strong on pluralism within soviet/council structures and seemed to think that was the obvious answer, although he is a bit subtler than Cliff. There's a great talk he gave in the early 70s on revolutionary workers democracy, and that revolutionaries didn't need to be afraid of reformist or bourgeois ideas or expressions. I, and I think most people in the Mandelite tradition, feel a bit suspect about how natural or necessary the soviet/council model is.

The document I linked to above is, I think, one of the most important pieces of writing for the revolutionary left. I think it is an important expansion of Marxist thinking, informed by the international crises of the 70s and early 80s, feminism, and the revolutions in Latin America.

One of the things that really attracted me to the USFI was it was genuinely internationalist in having member groups through out the world, largely in the Americas, Asia, the Middle East and Western Europe. Broader than most.


But what if people consider themselves socialists but support a mixed economy, a sort of left-social democracy?

I think most sincere revolutionary socialist would see left social democrats as allies. I'm not a reformist, but I dont mind working with reformists on political work.

Edited to add:
Political representation and association should not be universal, yet whatever setup there is must have a political character.

Hmmm? I looked at the links. But with respect, DNZ, too many details that aren't on the cards.


What's so hard to wrap your head around?
Workers' republic: a workers' democracy for working people only. So the unemployed or unemployable would have no rights? What counts as work? Would a factory worker have more rights than an artist? Would a bus driver have more rights than a cab driver?

[Crux]

So parties should only be legal when they pose no possibility of being elected in opposition to Peter Taaffe's wise leadership?
No. This is a waste of time, troll. Come back when you are actually interested in discussing.

[getfiscal]

I, and I think most people in the Mandelite tradition, feel a bit suspect about how natural or necessary the soviet/council model is.
Thanks for your response. I think I will spend some time reading through USFI documents after hearing that they are big on nuance. I will start with that document you posted.

[getfiscal]

No. This is a waste of time, troll. Come back when you are actually interested in discussing.
I'm a bit sharp with my questioning but I'm sincere and informed. You seem upset because your group supports democracy only for your supporters.

[workersadvocate]

What method should be used to divide "non-socialists" from "socialists"? For example, "anti-revisionists" tend to say that only a specific form of physical planning regulated by value counts as socialist. Most people who consider themselves socialists probably think of socialism as something like the Brezhnev period, I would guess, where there are competing firms but they are owned by the government. "Anti-revisionists" would ban people who think the latter from being represented.

Would Trotskyists ban people who think that there should be full state ownership but competing firms?
You are looking at all these left tendencies that are based in the middle class, as if they'll have power. I'll be that almost all of these middle class leftists will be right in front of or alongside the middle class rightwing fighters opposing working class revolutionary action.
They won't be playing vanguard and banning people...they will be dead counterrevolutionary scum buried in pits next to middle class Nazis, patriotards, holy warriors, and other enemy soldiers, all devisively defeated by the working people of the world. They will get banned "from below". Workers will be running the world ourselves from that point on, without middle class management and bureacratic castes over us.
Working people will BE our own workers' state....the state isn't some "other" lording it over us anymore. If you can't accept that, then you're not one of us and not on our side already.

[Crux]

I'm a bit sharp with my questioning but I'm sincere and informed. You seem upset because your group supports democracy only for your supporters.
:rolleyes: Except that's not really the case. Do you want me to quote relevant articles and documents? I suspect not.

[gorillafuck]

In John Molyneux's pamphlet "The Future Socialist Society", produced for the Socialist Worker's Party UK (Cliffite tendency), he says that parties that oppose what he considers socialism will be banned. Likewise, the Grant-Woods tendency has produced documents calling for only socialist parties should be legalized in Cuba. The many other Trotskyist tendencies have produced documents ridiculing existing democratic institutions and calling for the banning of parties they don't like.

Should Trotskyists admit they oppose democracy when it produces results they dislike?the impression I get is most orthodox style trotskyists don't have an interest in legalizing capitalist parties, because what they're interested in is political revolutions to turn deformed/degenerated workers states into healthy workers states by democratizing how the economy is run. not by legalizing capitalist parties.

I may be wrong.

[getfiscal]

You are looking at all these left tendencies that are based in the middle class
Ok. So let's say I'm a worker in a factory in The Worker's Republic of Oakland or whatever. I take a look at the planned economy we have and I say, hmm, it seems to have a lot of problems. Planning based on physical quantities and labour-value pricing doesn't seem to be working all that well. I'd like to maybe reorganize the economy so that it has worker-council run companies that take risks on a market socialist model within the context of full state ownership.

Personally, I don't think that that's "socialist" in a narrow sense, certainly not in your views. I think that a non-middle-class working leftist could reasonably support those views, though. Should that person be allowed to form a "market socialist" political party?

[getfiscal]

:rolleyes: Except that's not really the case. Do you want me to quote relevant articles and documents? I suspect not.
I quoted your leader saying he wanted to keep capitalist parties banned in Cuba. You said that he only wants capitalist parties banned because they might be able to influence the outcome. That's anti-democratic.

[Crux]

I quoted your leader saying he wanted to keep capitalist parties banned in Cuba. You said that he only wants capitalist parties banned because they might be able to influence the outcome. That's anti-democratic.
So I take it your answer to my question is "no" then? I see. Is there any reason why I should engage you any further if you are not actually interested in our position?

[getfiscal]

So I take it your answer to my question is "no" then? I see. Is there any reason why I should engage you any further if you are not actually interested in our position?
I just stated your position and you said that was your position. You then said that in other cases you might tolerate people who disagree with you. I'm not sure why I should trust you on that when you've admitted you pick and choose when you would tolerate dissent. Fortunately, the CWI's electoral coalition in the UK (TUSC) received 15,573 votes in the last election, out of approximately 30 million votes total, so you will probably have no chance to impose your views on dissent on anyone other than bewildered teenagers.

[blake 3:17]

They won't be playing vanguard and banning people...they will be dead counterrevolutionary scum buried in pits next to middle class Nazis, patriotards, holy warriors, and other enemy soldiers, all devisively defeated by the working people of the world. They will get banned "from below". Workers will be running the world ourselves from that point on, without middle class management and bureacratic castes over us.

This is not an attractive vision of socialism.

[Renegade Saint]

Hey OP, is the "Khmer Rouge saying" in your sigline supposed to be ironic? They weren't exactly democrats and that quote isn't either.

[getfiscal]

Hey OP, is the "Khmer Rouge saying" in your sigline supposed to be ironic? They weren't exactly democrats and that quote isn't either.
I have changed it to fit my democratic views.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

So parties should only be legal when they pose no possibility of being elected in opposition to Peter Taaffe's wise leadership?

Socialism is the self emancipation of the working class.The Trotskyist tradition works for worker's democracy, the economy democratically run by the working class themselves. During a revolutionary situation(which most likely would be extremely brutal, no ruling class has ever gone gently into that good night) of course there would be some suppression of people advocating the restoration of capitalist property relations.People would not look kindly upon anyone working to revive the chains of slavery.

Why is this so hard to understand? During the American Revolution, people and groups advocating rule by King George III were not looked on kindly. After the US Civil War, freed black slaves did not think too highly of people advocating the revival of slavery (and this was a life and death issue)

My guess is that after a socialist society has been established and is secure people advocating capitalist restoration will be tolerated.Why not? They will be regarded the way people today regard the Flat Earth Society.

Trotsky advocated the legalization of working class parties as an important part of worker's democracy.In the situation the SU was in, a restoration of capitalism was a distinct possibility and would have been a catastrophe, as it was in the 1990s (half of Russia sunk below the poverty level, while a small oligarchy became fantastically wealthy-one of the worst catastrophes in human history). A bourgeois democracy is different from a worker's democracy. A borgy democracy assumes that everyone is "equal" that class differences don't exist and deliberately ignores how official 'democracy" is subverted by capitalism. The goal of socialists is to do away with classes. In any transistion period the producers,in Russia the the workers and the peasants are "privileged", it is the dictatorship of the proletarian. Legalizing parties of the defeated reactionaries-feudal landowners, or pro-capitalists, gives the class enemy (and they are very definitely an enemy) a weapon against worker's rule.


I strongly suspect the OP is a cappie troll, although one who's done a bit of research on the Trotskyist movement.

Tim Wohlforth or one of his mates?

[Renegade Saint]

I have changed it to fit my democratic views.
Countdown to restriction...

[getfiscal]

Socialism is the self emancipation of the working class.The Trotskyist tradition works for worker's democracy, the economy democratically run by the working class themselves. During a revolutionary situation(which most likely would be extremely brutal, no ruling class has ever gone gently into that good night) of course there would be some suppression of people advocating the restoration of capitalist property relations.So, please be specific here. What constitutes "capitalist property relations"?

For example, the present government of China does not think that capitalism exists in China, but rather that a "socialist market economy" exists which allows "entrepreneurs" and so on.

So let's say you mean "complete state ownership." Okay then pro-capitalists will simply campaign for state property to be "leased" to individuals.

So you ban leasings and require "only state owned firms run by the people" and pro-capitalists say that's fine for now, but those firms compete on a sort of market, like the Kosygin reforms intended. You say "hey, that's state capitalism!" and ban those people from forming parties.

But don't you see how you've created some pretty narrow conditions of what constitutes socialism? Couldn't almost any policy be seen as "anti-socialist"? In fact, all of this is the chief argument of Stalinists against Trotskyism: Either you want to allow factions that oppose what you consider socialism or you don't.

[getfiscal]

Also, I am a member of an anticapitalist organization and I think socialism is both morally correct and the outcome of a historical process, so please stop calling for my restriction. I just also think that most socialists have terrible arguments and know almost nothing about economics or history. I don't know all that much either, which adds to my terror.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

In real life I have to confront a lot of pro-capitalists so I'm actually happy to have a chance to practice my arguments. Having said his, obvious troll is obvious, as the saying goes.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

So, please be specific here. What constitutes "capitalist property relations"?

For example, the present government of China does not think that capitalism exists in China, but rather that a "socialist market economy" exists which allows "entrepreneurs" and so on.

So let's say you mean "complete state ownership." Okay then pro-capitalists will simply campaign for state property to be "leased" to individuals.

So you ban leasings and require "only state owned firms run by the people" and pro-capitalists say that's fine for now, but those firms compete on a sort of market, like the Kosygin reforms intended. You say "hey, that's state capitalism!" and ban those people from forming parties.

But don't you see how you've created some pretty narrow conditions of what constitutes socialism? Couldn't almost any policy be seen as "anti-socialist"? In fact, all of this is the chief argument of Stalinists against Trotskyism: Either you want to allow factions that oppose what you consider socialism or you don't.

Okay, I would define capitalist property relations as the means of production being owned by the bourgeois , used solely for the reproduction and expansion of capital.The alternative is a society where the means of production are democratically owned and managed by the working class themselves. No bosses, no managers but workers themselves, and not based on the rule of capital over our lives.

China is a capitalist society. It is irrelevant what the Chinese ruling class publicly say they are.

"Market socialism" cannot work. Market exchange is based on and further fosters production for exchange value rather than use value. Capitalism itself has a ferocious ability to expand and literally engulf and absorb every other mode of production in its path.Socialism and capitalism cannot co-exist.

A transistion to a socialist society most likely will be an extremely bloody, volatile, messy struggle. It is difficult to say what revolutionaries could or should do in that situation.It is likely that groups advocating and working for the restoration of capitalism should be banned. Possibly this would include "market socialists" as well, but it is not possible to make a blanket statement.

Liberals often accuse Marxists of being "intolerant" and "bloody minded". they choose to forget that in revolutionary situations the violence and repression comes from the reaction-Chile, Argentina, Spain, Egypt today. If the Whites had won the Russian Civil War, I have little doubt that much of the working class of Petrograd would have been exterminated.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

It may be possible that after the working class has taken power that a market may be used in a transitional period. I don't know. The challenge will be to move towards pos-capitalist , non-market means of allocation and distribution as rapidly as possible.

As far as what parties would be banned in such a situation, I don;'t think we can say. The working class would certainly have a strong interest in depriving the class enemy of an important weapon though.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Also, I am a member of an anticapitalist organization and I think socialism is both morally correct and the outcome of a historical process, so please stop calling for my restriction. I just also think that most socialists have terrible arguments and know almost nothing about economics or history. I don't know all that much either, which adds to my terror.

Your previous posts came off as Trot baiting . If you are sincere about this I'd be happy to discuss, however.

[The Douche]

Maybe this thread took a positive direction after its obvious troll attempt inception but I don't know, because I won't be reading it right now.

The basis of this thread is trolling. OP, if you have a legit bone to pick, do it in a more mature manner.

I'm open to PMs to tell me to reopen this thread but unless I'm convinced...

(dun dun dun)

THREAD CLOSED.

(you're welcome you trots)