Is democracy central to socialism and communism?

[Lex Talionis]

I have various strong negative opinions on certain aspects of democracy (as a whole not just bourgeois democracy.) I was wondering if democracy is central to leftist thought, as I may find myself at a crossroads with some leftists if it's not.

Thank you for your responses.

[tuwix]

IMHO, direct democracy is only way to socialism. But there are Leninists and Stalinists who love some elite called vanguard party. IMHO it leads only to state capitalism instead of socialism.

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

IMHO, direct democracy is only way to socialism. But there are Leninists and Stalinists who love some elite called vanguard party. IMHO it leads only to state capitalism instead of socialism.

Actually, the Communist Left also have their own critiques of democracy. Bordiga even went as far as to say that "The dictatorship of the proletariat is the dictatorship of the Communist Party". While Mao on the other hand refused to ban other parties that participated in the government, and Stalin always spoke highly of the progressive nature of democracy.

The difference being between the two schools of thought is that they base their critique of "Stalinism" on it's perceived class basis. And although I disagree with these critiques I respect them because they are made on a Marxist basis, rather than on a liberal basis rooted in engligtenment ideology. Because to be quite frank, Even Stalin's USSR was more democratic in many ways that most capitalist countries at the time, and Mao's China was more democratic by far.

[Q]

It is through the fight for democracy that we can point out the lies and hypocrisy of the capitalist class, it is through democracy that we can build a genuine mass movement of millions where there can exist “unity in disagreement”, it is through democracy that the working class can be lifted out of its slave status and be educated as a potential ruling class and it is only through democracy that the working class can seize power and build towards a communist future.

You could read my whole blogpost about the subject here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=11278). "Bourgeois democracy" is a fundamental lie: We live in an oligarchic society with some (hard fought for!) democratic concessions. But capitalism is fundamentally anti-democratic.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

I have to agree with Q here (although i too agree somewhat with Tuwix).

Democracy is a difficult term. Which version are we talking about?
Are we talking about the pretended democracy that capitalism is holding in front of the people as a farce, so the people think they have rights too, or are we talking about the direct democracy of a truly communist society, ie. where everyone has a real say (not mandatory) and no leaders are pretending to listen.
Then there is the "direct democracy" so-called communists say they use. That too is nothing more than a farce. You get to do your say and the leaders will look at it and decide if that is right fore you.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

I have various strong negative opinions on certain aspects of democracy (as a whole not just bourgeois democracy.) I was wondering if democracy is central to leftist thought, as I may find myself at a crossroads with some leftists if it's not.



I don't know about other leftists but you're most certainly at a crossroads with me if you're against a democratic society.

What's your opinion on an alternative? Cult bonapartism or something? Even if in theory you would support such a group (which wouldn't really matter as you wouldn't have any say in their matters - isn't this the entire point), why do you believe that this elite would have your interests at heart?

You can't have 'workers control over the means of production' if all political control is vested in the hands of a detached elite, because the workers quite obviously wouldn't have control over the means of production.

[Lex Talionis]

My qualms with democracy are not really centered around bourgeois democracy, it's with democracy as a whole. I have multiple reasons for this, which I can give if asked to provide a list.

I do not want a totalitarian society where the elite rule, however. That's just switching ownership from capitalist to bureaucrat. I just see democracy has potential to be very antithetical to our goals (i.e, the overthrow of the bourgeoisie), especially in a nation like the US where there would be a heavy reactionary force if a communist revolution were to occur.

[egalitarian]

A lot depends on one's definition of democracy, as has been pointed out here. The definition I use is "rule by the people", with a preference towards consensus decision making. And it needs to be as small and local as possible, with all affected having an equal voice.

Democracy is much more than voting. It is information gathering, discussions, and then making decisions, which should be fluid and changeable, if needed.


Are any of your concerns not covered here?

[Brutus]

"We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy."_
Marx and Engels The Communist Manifesto Chapter two

"The proletariat too needs democratic forms for the seizure of political power but they are for it, like all political forms, mere means. But if today democracy is wanted as an end it is necessary to rely on the peasantry and petty bourgeoisie, that is, on classes that are in process of dissolution and reactionary in relation to the proletariat when they try to maintain themselves artificially. Furthermore it must not be forgotten that it is precisely the democratic republic which is the logical form of bourgeois rule; a form however that has become too dangerous only because of the level of development the proletariat has already reached; but France and America show that it is still possible as purely bourgeois rule."
Friedrich Engels to Eduard Bernstein In Zurich 24 March 1884 (Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Selected Correspondence (Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1975).

"But in England, where the industrial and agricultural working class forms the immense majority of the people, democracy means the dominion of the working class, neither more nor less. Let, then, that working class prepare itself for the task in store for it, -- the ruling of this great empire; let them understand the responsibilities which inevitably will fall to their share. And the best way to do this is to use the power already in their hands, the actual majority they possess in every large town in the kingdom, to send to Parliament men of their own order"
"Moreover, in England a real democratic party is impossible unless it be a working men's party."

Articles by Engels in the Labour Standard 1881 A Working Men's Party No. 12, July 23, 1881,

"The dictatorship of the proletariat, i.e., the organization of the vanguard of the oppressed as the ruling class for the purpose of suppressing the oppressors, cannot result merely in an expansion of democracy. Simultaneously with an immense expansion of democracy, which for the first time becomes democracy for the poor, democracy for the people, and not democracy for the money-bags, the dictatorship of the proletariat imposes a series of restrictions on the freedom of the oppressors, the exploiters, the capitalists."
"The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class shall represent and repress them in parliament."
Lenin The State and Revolution (1917)

"A nationalized planned economy needs democracy, as the human body needs oxygen."
Leon Trotsky in a statement of 1936

Engels: “As, therefore, the state is only a transitional institution which is used in the struggle, in the revolution, to hold down one’s adversaries by force, it is sheer nonsense to talk of a ‘free people’s state’; so long as the proletariat still needs the state, it does not need it in the interests of freedom but in order to hold down its adversaries, and as soon as it becomes possible to speak of freedom the state as such ceases to exist ....

----
Democracy is pretty important.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Democracy is central to socialism, but not this modern psuedo-democacy the western world has now.

[Q]

I have multiple reasons for this, which I can give if asked to provide a list.

That would be most helpful, because I have no idea where you're coming from.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

A communist revolution requires the organisation of the proletariat as the ruling class of society; how else can class rule be exercised if not through proletarian democracy, in the long term at least? Of course, given the uneven development of class consciousness, certain undemocratic measures might be necessary. One ought not to turn democracy into a fetish and make the success of the revolution subservient to following democratic norms. In the long term, however, proletarian democracy - soviet democracy - is the only plausible form of social organisation in the era of the dictatorship of the proletariat. What else could replace it? Various "adhocratic" schemes are unstable and arbitrary, market mechanisms and negotiations between federated units subvert the social basis of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and rule by various "benevolent and enlightened" board, committees and secretariats results in, at best, a bureaucratic case.

I think it would be best if you could outline your objection to democracy; unless you do so, all we can do is speculate, probably reading our own insecurities and past errors into your posts.

[Geiseric]

Democracy means "rule of the people" so obviously it's central to socialism.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Democracy means "rule of the people" so obviously it's central to socialism.

I disagree, if anything that is more of the reason it is not central to socialism.

Democracy, if we take it to mean "the rule of all people" means, within a society stratified by class differences, the rule of all classes. The state does not work this way, it works in the interests of only one class. We seek the rule of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie, which is not democratic but dictatorial.

If we are talking about democracy as the rule of the majority there is still a problem. For starters, the proletariat is made up of the majority of the population, so the "democrats" should be on our class side. It is also true that the majority is not always right (otherwise why are any of us fucking here). Extended debate will lead to the best decision, not a split decision based on populism, "I could have a beer with him", etc.

Of course, voting and majority rule is the best course when a decision needs made fast, otherwise it is really something to be "transcended" as Bordiga would put it.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

IMHO, direct democracy is only way to socialism. But there are Leninists and Stalinists who love some elite called vanguard party. IMHO it leads only to state capitalism instead of socialism.

Absolutely, if it wasn't for Lenin and Stalin's damned authoritarianism the revolution would have succeeded. Of course the failure of the revolution to spread, invasion of 14 capitalist countries, counter-revolutionary sabotage, civil war, famine, etc. etc. etc. and etc. had nothing to do with the success of counter-revolution in Russia.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Actually, the Communist Left also have their own critiques of democracy. Bordiga even went as far as to say that "The dictatorship of the proletariat is the dictatorship of the Communist Party".

This is a misconception and a distortion of Boridga's views. Bordiga thought that the proletarian dictatorship should be animated by one proletarian party, but not that only the party would rule. Bordiga believed that, before the revolution, the party was the most important organ of proletarian power. After the revolution, it's the soviets. To quote Bordiga,


The political Soviet represents the collective interests of the working class, in so far as this class does not share power with the bourgeoisie, but has succeeded in overthrowing it and excluding it from power. Hence the full significance and strength of the Soviet lies not in this or that structure, but in the fact that it is the organ of a class which is taking the management of society into its own hands. Every member of the Soviet is a proletarian conscious that he is exercising dictatorship in the name of his own class.

Is This the Time To Form "Soviets"? (http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1919/soviets.htm)


The Soviet system is a system of political representation of the working class; its fundamental characteristic is denial of the right to vote to anyone who is not a member of the proletariat. It has been thought that Soviets and economic unions were the same thing. Yet nothing could be further from the truth. It may well be that in various countries, in early stages of the revolution, Soviet-type bodies were set up with representation from the craft unions - but this was no more than a makeshift arrangement...But the fundamental political role of the network of workers' councils is based on the historical concept of dictatorship: proletarian interests must be allowed free play in so far as they concern the whole class over and above sectional interests, and the whole of the historical development of the movement for its emancipation.

The System of Communist Representation (http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1919/representation.htm)

[Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist]

This is a misconception and a distortion of Boridga's views. Bordiga thought that the proletarian dictatorship should be animated by one proletarian party, but not that only the party would rule. Bordiga believed that, before the revolution, the party was the most important organ of proletarian power. After the revolution, it's the soviets. To quote Bordiga,



Is This the Time To Form "Soviets"? (http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1919/soviets.htm)


The System of Communist Representation (http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1919/representation.htm)
Of course you are correct, I was simply trying to communicate that there are better theoretical justifications for "anti-stalinism" then appeals to democracy, and that Bordiga understood this.

[Lex Talionis]

That would be most helpful, because I have no idea where you're coming from.

I shall provide. *cracks fingers*

I. The majority of the populace is not class-conscious

A vast majority of people are not class-conscious, and are content with capitalism. Especially where I live, and I live in a pretty progressive state. In the process of, or after, a communist revolution, I can see the lack of class-consciousness being very detrimental to the efforts of a proletarian revolution. I can see it being utilized later on, when the majority become class-conscious, but especially in the beginning of a proletarian revolution democracy can be one of the most destructive forces to the efforts of the struggle and we should acknowledge that, at least in the beginning of the revolution, democracy may have to be put aside, and the liberation of the proletariat from capitalism and defense of the revolutionary state against the bourgeois reactionaries (which are probably a given, in the US especially) may have to be prioritized.

Democracy can especially be problematic in areas where reactionaries, pro-capitalists, petty-bourgeois nationalists, etc. can ruin the progress of a revolution.

II. People are not all completely rational, intelligent, etc.

This one is a given fact. People are born ignorant, and even in the information age, people are still ignorant. Look at all the FOXbots who say Obama is a Marxist, Kenyan Muslim, and a fascist too (like Marxists can be fascists.) Look at the people in America who aren't even FOXbots, they think voting every four years makes them free, they think you should be proud of this nation (even though our nation's very conception was based on the genocide of indigenous peoples, and the people who found the Americas intended on exploiting them for their economic interests too), and not to mention people are still fooled by Cold War propaganda (yes, the people who eat "freedom fries" and watch Red Dawn are still around.) These people should not be making decisions in a socialist/communist-ruled nation. I can see there eventually being more democratic reforms with time as we educate people on what communism actually is, eventually suppress the bourgeois reaction, etc. However, especially in the beginning of the conception of a leftist revolutionary state, there should not be a strong emphasis on democracy, we should be more focused on fending off the reaction of the bourgeois, and educating others on what socialism and communism actually is.

III. Democracy lowers decision-making to the lowest common denominator

Note, this is a personal qualm with democracy, doesn't have to relate to leftism.

In democracy, the FOXbot who takes Sarah Palin's and other right-wing pundits' words as absolute and infallible truth has the same amount of decision-making power as a person who has a doctorate in political science, and reads as many sources on a single event as possible in order to form an unbiased opinion on something rather than resort to emotional responses. It's antithetical to society to let uneducated people, who flippantly react to certain events and form opinions based upon emotion and bias rather than reason, logic, and facts.

Anyway, that's my beef with democracy.

[Lord Hargreaves]

All the problems above stem from the ideological manipulation of the masses under capitalism, thus one could argue that they are not problems with democracy per se. People are not by nature stupid, but they become stupid by watching Fox News. It isn't something you are born with.

In terms of #1 - yes, democracy in that sense clearly has the potential to water-down, or act as a ballast against, the revolutionary movement in progress. However there is no way around this problem, since there is no guarantee that an elite non-democratic leadership or vanguard party will be any less conservative or any less willing to make that final radical change in society. It is an intractable problem that can't be "solved" within theory, but only met head-on through practical class struggle.

In terms of #3 - no I don't necessarily think that democracy means decision making to the lowest common denominator. In fact, if anything, this sounds more like the caricature of those people - dare I say it, certain types of anarchist - who fetishize completely consensual decision making (and even then, building consensus doesn't have to mean that everyone gets what they want, but merely that the decision made is not objectionable to some). Majority-rule democracy only requires 51% to move forward, and is probably the most radical and destabilizing form of government precisely for that reason. And anyway, in a post-revolutionary society, there may indeed be less to disagree with one another about, since everyone will be living in conditions much freer and more equal than they are today.

[Sky Hedgehogian Maestro]

As much as I'd like to think it is, I'd say it has more to do with anarchism. That doesn't mean it's impossible under early socialist governments, but I haven't seen true democracy at work in any place but very small groups.

[Lex Talionis]

All the problems above stem from the ideological manipulation of the masses under capitalism, thus one could argue that they are not problems with democracy per se. People are not by nature stupid, but they become stupid by watching Fox News. It isn't something you are born with.

In terms of #1 - yes, democracy in that sense clearly has the potential to water-down, or act as a ballast against, the revolutionary movement in progress. However there is no way around this problem, since there is no guarantee that an elite non-democratic leadership or vanguard party will be any less conservative or any less willing to make that final radical change in society. It is an intractable problem that can't be "solved" within theory, but only met head-on through practical class struggle.

In terms of #3 - no I don't necessarily think that democracy means decision making to the lowest common denominator. In fact, if anything, this sounds more like the caricature of those people - dare I say it, certain types of anarchist - who fetishize completely consensual decision making (and even then, building consensus doesn't have to mean that everyone gets what they want, but merely that the decision made is not objectionable to some). Majority-rule democracy only requires 51% to move forward, and is probably the most radical and destabilizing form of government precisely for that reason. And anyway, in a post-revolutionary society, there may indeed be less to disagree with one another about, since everyone will be living in conditions much freer and more equal than they are today.

I'm guessing you have a point. However, while there is no guarantee that a party will make the desired radical changes possible, it is still in my opinion one of the best ways to organize and mobilize the masses. We should still show caution when using such parties. They can be destructive to the revolution. We should also be weary of the masses, for they can also be destructive to the revolution.

Regarding #3, that's why I've got a problem with democracy, it's extremely destabilizing, and this can be especially a problem when a revolution of the proletariat shows its head. However, I agree that in post-revolutionary society, people would become more and more accepting of one another and there would be less to argue about, so democracy can be steadily introduced there, but I still have a problem with instituting it in the early stages of the revolution.

[Geiseric]

The majority of the people are working class. So literally it applies as rule of the working class conscious party to establish democracy. Thats what marx said, look up the communist manifesto.

[Flying Purple People Eater]

I shall provide. *cracks fingers*

I. The majority of the populace is not class-conscious

A vast majority of people are not class-conscious, and are content with capitalism. Especially where I live, and I live in a pretty progressive state. In the process of, or after, a communist revolution, I can see the lack of class-consciousness being very detrimental to the efforts of a proletarian revolution. I can see it being utilized later on, when the majority become class-conscious, but especially in the beginning of a proletarian revolution democracy can be one of the most destructive forces to the efforts of the struggle and we should acknowledge that, at least in the beginning of the revolution, democracy may have to be put aside, and the liberation of the proletariat from capitalism and defense of the revolutionary state against the bourgeois reactionaries (which are probably a given, in the US especially) may have to be prioritized.

Democracy can especially be problematic in areas where reactionaries, pro-capitalists, petty-bourgeois nationalists, etc. can ruin the progress of a revolution.

II. People are not all completely rational, intelligent, etc.

This one is a given fact. People are born ignorant, and even in the information age, people are still ignorant. Look at all the FOXbots who say Obama is a Marxist, Kenyan Muslim, and a fascist too (like Marxists can be fascists.) Look at the people in America who aren't even FOXbots, they think voting every four years makes them free, they think you should be proud of this nation (even though our nation's very conception was based on the genocide of indigenous peoples, and the people who found the Americas intended on exploiting them for their economic interests too), and not to mention people are still fooled by Cold War propaganda (yes, the people who eat "freedom fries" and watch Red Dawn are still around.) These people should not be making decisions in a socialist/communist-ruled nation. I can see there eventually being more democratic reforms with time as we educate people on what communism actually is, eventually suppress the bourgeois reaction, etc. However, especially in the beginning of the conception of a leftist revolutionary state, there should not be a strong emphasis on democracy, we should be more focused on fending off the reaction of the bourgeois, and educating others on what socialism and communism actually is.

III. Democracy lowers decision-making to the lowest common denominator

Note, this is a personal qualm with democracy, doesn't have to relate to leftism.

In democracy, the FOXbot who takes Sarah Palin's and other right-wing pundits' words as absolute and infallible truth has the same amount of decision-making power as a person who has a doctorate in political science, and reads as many sources on a single event as possible in order to form an unbiased opinion on something rather than resort to emotional responses. It's antithetical to society to let uneducated people, who flippantly react to certain events and form opinions based upon emotion and bias rather than reason, logic, and facts.

Anyway, that's my beef with democracy.

Looks like you've got the same beefs as the propaganda that was circulated by European imperial monarch dictatorships against leftists during the french revolution.

And the idea of things likes the 'terrors of mob-rule' and the belief that 'working-class people are not intelligent' is actually a common excuse for the most brutal and polarised class-societies on the planet (i.e. Saudi Arabia) - they're simply silly things to make argument against: even if someone has a more biased opinion, does that opinion still not hold value. Not even regarding the fact that you're looking at this through the lense of modern capitalism (FOXbots? Fox News is complete apologism for conservative US interest - this will be a thing of the past in a socialist society), and the fact that you seem to equate democratic decisionmaking with - well - electoralism. Although I think it's a good idea to erect certain 'unalienables' (such as the right to democratic decision making itself), If ordinary people are not going to run their own lives, then who is? And why would this political organ which does not allow democratic decision-making or dissent have in it's interests the working class?

And why would this political bias that you have so kindly branded millions of 'stupid FOXbots' with not also apply to this autocratic form of government? Hell, one of the local ministers here appeared on television and started going on about how sexism was 'overstressed', and made a rebuttal to allegations made against him for being sexist by saying he gets called fat a lot - that's some real knowledgeable decisionmaking, right? Wrong. If anything, democratic decision making is the primary defense against this political blunder, solely because you have the opportunity to stand up, criticise and change it - as opposed to monsieur big-brother-knows-what's-good-for-you Mussolini-esque capitalist state, where opposition to these decisions would lead to political repression, imprisonment, torture, and slaughter.

I honestly mean no offence, Lex, but from what you've said in both this and the 'Fascist analysis of Capitalism' thread, you almost sound as if you're advocating a creepy autocratic white-man's-burden politico, except take out people of colour, put in human beings in general and slap 'working class society' on the bonnet.

[Sotionov]

Capitalist 'democracy' and Leninist (state-capitalist) 'democracy' are not democracies, but elective olygarchies. Democracy means "rule of the people" implying that there is no group ruling over the people, and yes- democracy is central to socialism and communism, being that classlessness- the absence of social stratification and hierarchy is cental to socialism and communism.

Whether the existence of elective olygarchies is the road to socialism and democracy- not neccessarily, being that we could establish socialism and democracy by a violent revolution, but if a not-so-much-oppressive elective olygarchy (freedom of speach, assembly, elections) exists it does gives the working people an option for revolution that is not insurrectory.

[Lord Hargreaves]

I'm guessing you have a point. However, while there is no guarantee that a party will make the desired radical changes possible, it is still in my opinion one of the best ways to organize and mobilize the masses. We should still show caution when using such parties. They can be destructive to the revolution. We should also be weary of the masses, for they can also be destructive to the revolution.

I'm saying that I don't see these as specifically organisational problems.

Leninists seem to think that as long as you have hierarchical discipline within a tight-knit party, then there will be no problem with revolutionary will; and anarchists think the same but as long as everyone has a say in making decisions. Neither is necessarily true and you can't solve these problems beforehand by looking in the textbook.

I'm an advocate for vanguardist organisations, but I don't believe that these would function better by excluding democratic participation. I think the contrary, in fact. As long as people working within them agree with revolutionary principles, then their input can only enhance the effectiveness of the organisation.

Whatever the agitation advantages of vanguardism, the point of the vanguard isn't to replace the democratic upheaval within society at large. Communism can only be the self-emancipation of the working class.


Regarding #3, that's why I've got a problem with democracy, it's extremely destabilizing, and this can be especially a problem when a revolution of the proletariat shows its head. However, I agree that in post-revolutionary society, people would become more and more accepting of one another and there would be less to argue about, so democracy can be steadily introduced there, but I still have a problem with instituting it in the early stages of the revolution.

No, by "destablizing" I meant destabilizing toward the existing regime. We only have stable political orders because the majority of the people are kept ignorant and excluded from making decisions. When there is democracy it takes the form of voting to choose between two slightly different corporatist programmes (to which the people themselves had no input).

The surest way of promoting radical change is the educate people, empower them, and ask them to decide for themselves. "Destablizing" is a very good thing in this context.

[Lord Hargreaves]

Notice the political centre of gravity here too. People who complain about "FOXbots" are usually liberals. You do notice these little tells.

[#FF0000]

words

yeah dogg i just don't think you're a "leftist", tbh.

And your second point about "humans being dumb" is a pretty fantastic argument against your weird, paternalistic ideas.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

I shall provide. *cracks fingers*

I. The majority of the populace is not class-conscious

A vast majority of people are not class-conscious, and are content with capitalism. Especially where I live, and I live in a pretty progressive state. In the process of, or after, a communist revolution, I can see the lack of class-consciousness being very detrimental to the efforts of a proletarian revolution. I can see it being utilized later on, when the majority become class-conscious, but especially in the beginning of a proletarian revolution democracy can be one of the most destructive forces to the efforts of the struggle and we should acknowledge that, at least in the beginning of the revolution, democracy may have to be put aside, and the liberation of the proletariat from capitalism and defense of the revolutionary state against the bourgeois reactionaries (which are probably a given, in the US especially) may have to be prioritized.

Democracy can especially be problematic in areas where reactionaries, pro-capitalists, petty-bourgeois nationalists, etc. can ruin the progress of a revolution.

II. People are not all completely rational, intelligent, etc.

This one is a given fact. People are born ignorant, and even in the information age, people are still ignorant. Look at all the FOXbots who say Obama is a Marxist, Kenyan Muslim, and a fascist too (like Marxists can be fascists.) Look at the people in America who aren't even FOXbots, they think voting every four years makes them free, they think you should be proud of this nation (even though our nation's very conception was based on the genocide of indigenous peoples, and the people who found the Americas intended on exploiting them for their economic interests too), and not to mention people are still fooled by Cold War propaganda (yes, the people who eat "freedom fries" and watch Red Dawn are still around.) These people should not be making decisions in a socialist/communist-ruled nation. I can see there eventually being more democratic reforms with time as we educate people on what communism actually is, eventually suppress the bourgeois reaction, etc. However, especially in the beginning of the conception of a leftist revolutionary state, there should not be a strong emphasis on democracy, we should be more focused on fending off the reaction of the bourgeois, and educating others on what socialism and communism actually is.

III. Democracy lowers decision-making to the lowest common denominator

Note, this is a personal qualm with democracy, doesn't have to relate to leftism.

In democracy, the FOXbot who takes Sarah Palin's and other right-wing pundits' words as absolute and infallible truth has the same amount of decision-making power as a person who has a doctorate in political science, and reads as many sources on a single event as possible in order to form an unbiased opinion on something rather than resort to emotional responses. It's antithetical to society to let uneducated people, who flippantly react to certain events and form opinions based upon emotion and bias rather than reason, logic, and facts.

Anyway, that's my beef with democracy.

First: all this is pre-revolutionairy stuff. It has nothing to do with a post-revolutionairy world. There are no more classes in communism. Socialism on the other hand (pre-revolution) is all about the conciousness of the people. So democracy is as important as in communism, because we cannot deny it now and take it back in later.

Second and Third: There is still a discussion going on democracy within the left. On the one hand we have supporters of the democratic system we have now: majority-decision.
On the other hand we have supporters of consensu-democracy: only when unanimity has been reached will a option become a decision. Some Native Americans still use this to make decisions. They will all come together and discuss the problem at hand until they reach full unamity. Sometimes they are at it for days.

So i think you'd like the consensus-version better.

[#FF0000]

"consensus democracy" is the worst thing ever.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

"consensus democracy" is the worst thing ever.

Please tell us why you think that.

[Q]

Please tell us why you think that.

Consensus and democracy are opposites, despite the claims of consensus advocates. What needs explaining (http://stavvers.wordpress.com/2011/03/16/the-trouble-with-the-consensus-model/)?

[Rafiq]

Democracy in the sense of aristotle is indeed an essential goal communists should strive for to the dotp. However due to the ideological and rhetorical weight carried by democracy today, due to it's existing material context we should be wary of attempting to harbor the term for ourselves.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Rafiq]

Democracy means "rule of the people" so obviously it's central to socialism.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is essentially antithetical to any "rule by the people". It is only convenient that the proletariat is a majority.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Consensus and democracy are opposites, despite the claims of consensus advocates. What needs explaining (http://stavvers.wordpress.com/2011/03/16/the-trouble-with-the-consensus-model/)?

So i've quickly glanced over the article you're reffering to. I see a couple of flaws.

This is what the writer says:

1. Incomplete survey of alternatives
2. Incomplete survey of objectives
3. Failure to examine risks of preferred choice
4. Failure to reevaluate previously rejected alternatives
5. Poor information search
6. Selection bias in collecting information
7. Failure to work out contingency plans.

I don't get why the points mentioned above would exist only in consensus-democracy. It might just as well exist in a majority-vote democracy.

Furthermore, if we look at the number of people making the decision in a group of 100 persons we could say this:

- 1% votes decision == monarchy
- 10% votes decision == oligarchy
- 51% votes decision == majority vote (aka democracy)
-100% votes decision == consensus

Now tell me why you think that consensus is the opposite of democracy. Is it not the "rule of all the people"?

[Jimmie Higgins]

I have various strong negative opinions on certain aspects of democracy (as a whole not just bourgeois democracy.) I was wondering if democracy is central to leftist thought, as I may find myself at a crossroads with some leftists if it's not.

Thank you for your responses.

I think working class democracy is fundamental for socialism, as in a period of working class self-emancipation and transformation of society.

If society is administered by millions of people, how else but through some kind of democratic method could people decide on collective priorities or decisions? If workers don't decide, then who does? And if workers don't collectivly make decisions, who makes decisions for them?

But I don't think wide-scale democracy is necissary for communism. If society was not organized into classes, then there isn't really a need for a majority to protect themselves, decisions could be done more ad-hoc and informal.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Regarding #3, that's why I've got a problem with democracy, it's extremely destabilizing, and this can be especially a problem when a revolution of the proletariat shows its head. However, I agree that in post-revolutionary society, people would become more and more accepting of one another and there would be less to argue about, so democracy can be steadily introduced there, but I still have a problem with instituting it in the early stages of the revolution.

What's the point of democratic-processes if people don't have anything to argue about?

I can't really imagine a worker's revolution where millions of people aren't "on-board" and have the basic consiousness that it is better for workers to run society than for the rich to run it for profit. Workers may not initially institute full democracy depending on the circumstances, democracy might just be within the worker production and distribution and administration networks if there is a civil war type situation. But if workers mostly are not consious, then who will take over and run the factories and services and militias?

Revolutionary periods are defined in part by huge changes in mass consiousness. The French revolutionaries didn't start struggling for a republic by and large - most wanted a consitutional monarchy of some kind.


- 51% votes decision == majority vote (aka democracy)
-100% votes decision == consensus

Now tell me why you think that consensus is the opposite of democracy. Is it not the "rule of all the people"? Yeah I don't think it's opposed to democracy, it's just a method of collective decision making other than majority rule or stranger more beurocratic forms.

Aside from small groups, personally I don't think consensus works well at all. In my experience in Occupy, (where it wasn't full consensus even) it led to people either making their proposal more general and ("lowest common denominator") to be something that liberals or radicals might get behind which meant that debates between these factions were sort of obscured and couldn't really be worked out; it also led to people not even bothering with the democratic consensus process and just doing their own thing under the name of "diversity of tactics" which meant that, again, debates were never actually had-out and nobody learned anything and groups began to just kind of splinter off into smaller occupies.

[#FF0000]

I don't get why the points mentioned above would exist only in consensus-democracy. It might just as well exist in a majority-vote democracy.

If you read the thing, he doesn't say that it exists only in a consensus-democracy, but that consensus-democracy is more susceptible to these problems.


Now tell me why you think that consensus is the opposite of democracy. Is it not the "rule of all the people"?

Could just as easily be "rule of the single contrarian douchebag", though, since you have to get everybody on board. And regardless, actual practice has generally shown (as in Occupy, like Jimmie Higgins said) that consensus decision making seems to lead to weaker groups that have a harder time dealing with internal disagreements.

[Geiseric]

The dictatorship of the proletariat is essentially antithetical to any "rule by the people". It is only convenient that the proletariat is a majority.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

Fine fine just nitpick and try to find nuances so you can look smart. The majority of the world is poor and has nothing to sell but labor on a farm factory or Mine so that majority being in hegemony constitutes de jure and de facto "rule of the majority of people". Landowners and pretty bourgeois are as small a Minority as esquetarians and Patricians, they are the undemocratic force currently in hegemony.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

Yeah I don't think it's opposed to democracy, it's just a method of collective decision making other than majority rule or stranger more beurocratic forms.

Aside from small groups, personally I don't think consensus works well at all. In my experience in Occupy, (where it wasn't full consensus even) it led to people either making their proposal more general and ("lowest common denominator") to be something that liberals or radicals might get behind which meant that debates between these factions were sort of obscured and couldn't really be worked out; it also led to people not even bothering with the democratic consensus process and just doing their own thing under the name of "diversity of tactics" which meant that, again, debates were never actually had-out and nobody learned anything and groups began to just kind of splinter off into smaller occupies.



Could just as easily be "rule of the single contrarian douchebag", though, since you have to get everybody on board. And regardless, actual practice has generally shown (as in Occupy, like Jimmie Higgins said) that consensus decision making seems to lead to weaker groups that have a harder time dealing with internal disagreements.

I know. Now, i'm not advocating for it, but i am only defending it for truth's sake.

I personally think it will seriously slow down decisionmaking and might weaken support for the group, because persons opposed to the conclusion of the majority might hold things up.

[Slavic]

@ Lex Talionis

Your gripes about democracy seem to indicated that you just don't trust other people. You state that the majority of people are ignorant, unintelligent, and non-class conscious. These attributes are systemic and desirable in western democracies because these "democracies" want an uninformed and unorganized working class. An ignorant worker is a worker that will not demand or seek to change his lot in life. An ignorant worker is easier to convince that capitalism is not only just and fair, but good for him.

The main issue I think you have is your understanding of what a socialist revolution actually entails. There is no such thing as a socialist revolution that not class-conscious. A revolution that is not class-conscious is frankly misguided. This is were the role of the party steps in. The party provides a vector to raise class-consciousness, educate the proletariat, and organize the masses.

Post-revolution, the masses will be more educate, class-conscious, and willing to effect a positive change in their lot in life and those of their brothers and sisters. In such a society real democracy can actually flourish.

[Ceallach_the_Witch]

well, there's nothing I was going to say that Slavic didn't say perfectly well just before me, haha.

In any case, i quite agree. I'm a great believer in democracy - and that's one of the many reasons I want to see the current system wiped away, because if we're being honest it really doesn't favour allowing people to make decisions. We can argue that some states are more democratic than others, and that's true, some states are run relatively democratically. Here's the thing though, that is increasingly irrelevent to the running of a country these days. Big multinational corporations wield a hell of a lot of power over governments - they lobby, make big donations and often control a lot of jobs in a given countries. If a government does something to upset them (like force them to pay their damn taxes or not treat employees like dirt) they usually make a lot of noise and say the government is interfering in their profit-making - and if that doesn't work they'll move operations to somewhere cheaper.


this looked a lot tidier in my head, I promise. Tl:dr I think true democracy goes hand-in-hand with socialism and communism, and I think democracy is limited and being eroded in the capitalist system that currently exists

[G4b3n]

yes, socialism can not exist without direct democracy.
If you are a "socialist" that denounces democracy, you are probably a Stalinist or you could adhere to some form of Marxism-Leninism.