Does communism work better in a single party state or a multi party system?

[ANTIFA GATE-9]

Total dominance of the proletarians would be achieved by a single party state but that would be in some cases greating a totalitarian state which many communists oppose.

On the other hand avoiding totalitarianism would mean a multi party state but even if there were few opposition parties wouldn't they seek to dominate by the same way communism came to power, through a revolution, but this time of the bourgeoisie?

There are difficulties with both but which one would be more suitable for Communism than the other?

[Comrade Jacob]

To achieve communism you mean? Single-party; in the simplest explanation is that with multi-party will slow things down but if there is one party there will be less conflict distracting progress. Also with a multi-party state there is the chance that you won't have majority control for votes on policy and there is the risk of not being the ruling party.
The only true way to do it is through a Marxist-Leninist (possibly Maoist) revolution.

[Brutus]

Communism has no state, as there are no classes. The state, as an organ of class rule, ceases to exist when classes cease to exist.

[Fourth Internationalist]

Total dominance of the proletarians would be achieved by a single party state but that would be in some cases greating a totalitarian state which many communists oppose.

On the other hand avoiding totalitarianism would mean a multi party state but even if there were few opposition parties wouldn't they seek to dominate by the same way communism came to power, through a revolution, but this time of the bourgeoisie?

There are difficulties with both but which one would be more suitable for Communism than the other?

Communism requires the abolition of the global state system. Therefore, neither a multi-party state nor a single-party state can exist in communism.

In the dictatorship of the proletariat (rule of the working class), the transitional phase between capitalism and socialism, a state does exist. In this case, I believe a multi-party system should be in place. That is especially because not all socialists are the same tendency, and socialists should be able to democratically decide how to move forward, not necessarily based on one tendency/party or another. Others who disagree with me usually state the a party should represent a class, and that justifies single-party rule. However, not all parties that claim to be the representative of the working class are the same. Many of them are very different from one another, and there should be room for workers to choose which one represents them best.

[Brutus]

“Against the collective power of the propertied classes the working class cannot act, as a class, except by constituting itself into a political party, distinct from, and opposed to, all old parties formed by the propertied classes. This constitution of the working class into a political party is indispensable in order to insure the triumph of the social revolution and its ultimate end -- the abolition of classes. The combination of forces which the working class has already effected by its economical struggles ought at the same time to serve as a lever for its struggles against the political power of landlords and capitalists. The lords of the land and the lords of capital will always use their political privileges for the defense and perpetuation of their economical monopolies and for enslaving labor. To conquer political power has therefore become the great duty of the working [class].”
- Resolution by the Hague Congress on the Establishment of Working-Class Parties by the International Workingmen’s Association http://www.marxists.org/history/inte...e/parties.htm

Marx and Engels declared the need for organising into a political party. They did not say 'many political parties', they said, and were quite clear about the necessity of, a single party-movement.

[Fourth Internationalist]

- Resolution by the Hague Congress on the Establishment of Working-Class Parties by the International Workingmen’s Association http://www.marxists.org/history/inte...e/parties.htm

Marx and Engels declared the need for organising into a political party. They did not say 'many political parties', they said, and were quite clear about the necessity of, a single party-movement.

There weren't as many Marxist tendencies as their were in those days. Also, a movement and a future state are very different. Even if they did support a single-party state, then they would be wrong.

[BIXX]

I believe the working class should represent itself. Whether they are unified or not is up to them. But each member of the working class ought to be able to at least say "that is a stupid idea" if they do t like something. I don't know if this would count as a single party, or a bunch of "parties of one".

Of course, I'm talking about if we were to have a state during socialism/the DotP, rather than going the anarchist route.

[Sea]

Communism requires the abolition of the global state system. Therefore, neither a multi-party state nor a single-party state can exist in communism.

In the dictatorship of the proletariat (rule of the working class), the transitional phase between capitalism and socialism, a state does exist. In this case, I believe a multi-party system should be in place. That is especially because not all socialists are the same tendency, and socialists should be able to democratically decide how to move forward, not necessarily based on one tendency/party or another. Others who disagree with me usually state the a party should represent a class, and that justifies single-party rule. However, not all parties that claim to be the representative of the working class are the same. Many of them are very different from one another, and there should be room for workers to choose which one represents them best.I would argue that such a political party need not exist in this sense, and that the party needs to be nothing more than the representation of a proletariat as a class. Thus, its organization is extremely different from capitalist parliamentarian or party politics (see State and Revolution by Vladimir Lenin and From Wildcat Strike to Total Self-Management by Raoul Vaneigem for more on these differences). There would be no voting of parties into power as such would not be needed, and is only an inconvenience.

I would argue that being able to vote on and recall on a peron-by-person basis within the apparatus of the DOTP and thus eliminating petty party politics in that sense not only has the advantage of eliminating the bickering of party politics in which the matters at hand get thrown aside for the sake of the party, but also eliminates the possibility of the scrooge of the despotic single-party state which we hear so much about.

Instead of voting on parties (which ends up forcing people to conform to a party, since there is never going to a party or even person that that many (enough to vote them in) people just happen to agree with 100%), it is a much better idea to vote on the priority of issues and the steps to be taken directly, and only entrust power to individuals on the basis of their ability and willingness to carry out this will of the people even when they might not agree themselves.

This also eliminates another problem of parties in which the power to make decisions is placed in the hands of the party and not of the people. Such problems arise, mind you, weather the state in question is a single-party dictatorship or if there are plenty of parties to choose from.

Keep in mind that I'm critiquing parties as interest groups, parties that would resemble "proletarianized" parliamentary parties, or any party in which it would necessary for workers to pick one. Your concept of the party seems to retain the essence of this. The concept of the vanguard party (In light of conventional political parties, it's almost deceptive and insulting to call the vanguard a "party") would be closer to what I described in the third paragraph of this post.

[Zutroy]

Why should the proletariat need more than one party?

[drunken-radicalism]

The conditions of your country, and area, should determine how worker's represent themselves. So long as the working class can represent itself as a class who cares how they do it: one party, many parties, some even believe it could be done through trade unions.

Totalitarianism didn't rear it's ugly head in Russia because there was a single party state. Rather the civil war created the conditions where, believing it was the best way to protect some form of democratic process, the bolsheviks outlawed other parties, and even tendencies within their own party. The bureaucracy exploited these conditions to protect their privileges and the rest is history. (i'd go into more detail but that's probably deserving of it's own thread.)

[Brotto Rühle]

A) Communism has no state. I believe you are trying to refer to the dictatorship of the proletariat, the political transition period that oversees the transformation of capitalism into communism.

B) We don't know, because we don't know which parties, if any, will exist at the time a revolution occurs, or when a proletarian state is established.

[Solarstone]

In communism the state withers away. You are getting confused with a workers state which would need to be set up in the days of the initial takeover from capitalism, but this would still be democratic and multi-party.

[Rural Comrade]

You guys know that in topics like these the user means building to communism. AS for the topic itself there must be a single party to keep the movement going and to keep the ideals of the revolution.

[Brotto Rühle]

You guys know that in topics like these the user means building to communism. AS for the topic itself there must be a single party to keep the movement going and to keep the ideals of the revolution.

Didn't work for Russia.

[Brutus]

Didn't work for Russia.

How insightful. It wasn't world war one, civil war, 14 foreign imperialist armies invading, the growing bureaucratisation, isolation, and destruction of industry that caused the Russian revolution to degenerate- it was the one party state!

You do know that one liners are generally frowned upon in learning, don't you?

[Flying Purple People Eater]

There weren't as many Marxist tendencies as their were in those days.

Are you crazy? Yes there bloody were! More than today!


You think Stalinist-Trotskyist polemics are bad? Imagine the shit ton self-designated bourgeois 'anarchists', Bakuninists, anarchists, proudhonists, 'guild socialists', 'yellow socialists', reformists, nationalist socialists (not Nazis) and other socialist-labelled currents that were big in Marx's era. a large chunk of his work is obsolete today solely because it focused on criticizing these widespread socialist branches that existed in bulk throughout leftist politics back in the day.


Didn't work for Russia.
Did the Russian revolution 'not work' because it's leading political body was organizationally flawed or because there were other forces at play? For example, between 1917 and 1940, around 25 million Russian citizens were killed as a result of the Civil war (6 million), and World War 2 [16-20 million - 26-30 million according to a recent study of slaughtercamps for Slavs during the Nazi invasion, with casualties numbering at least 10 million]. In a country of what was then around 70 million people with a working class centered in the big cities to the west, try to imagine just how devastating this would be to the Russian proletariat!

Even though there's much to be criticized in the early Bolshevik government, this is a really simplistic argument that you'd expect from an apolitical person who learnt about the dangers of communism in history class, or Glenn Beck. It's similar to saying that a lot of African-Americans are poor solely because they're African-American, rather than a lot of African-Americans are poor because of institutional discrimination rising from their economic conditions staying the same after slavery, Jim Crow and the capitalist economic system, which exacerbates this.

A bit of a stretch for an analogy but you catch my drift.

[Brotto Rühle]

How insightful. It wasn't world war one, civil war, 14 foreign imperialist armies invading, the growing bureaucratisation, isolation, and destruction of industry that caused the Russian revolution to degenerate- it was the one party state!

You do know that one liners are generally frowned upon in learning, don't you?

My apologies for the one liner, I was unaware that it would anger you so, my fine friend. Of course the immense material conditions caused the failures of the October revolution, but that doesn't mean a ban on other parties and factions was a result of that. Again, I'm no fan of the Left SRs or anything, but it was a display of power concentration into a single parties hands. Not that multiple parties stopped the armed coups of non Bolshevik Soviets.

[Luís Henrique]

Total dominance of the proletarians would be achieved by a single party state but that would be in some cases greating a totalitarian state which many communists oppose.

On the other hand avoiding totalitarianism would mean a multi party state but even if there were few opposition parties wouldn't they seek to dominate by the same way communism came to power, through a revolution, but this time of the bourgeoisie?

There are difficulties with both but which one would be more suitable for Communism than the other?

Why does a class need a single party to rule? The bourgeoisie certainly has many different parties; it doesn't seem to hamper their ability to rule society. Much on the contrary, it seems to be very expedient for them, allowing them to discuss different ideas and chose the ones that are more fit to attain their class goals.

**************

In a really communist society, there are no classes, so if there are different organisations that propose society pursues different goals, they won't be linked to social classes. Whether such things would be called parties, or would have a different name, and whether their organisational form would be radically different, or rather very similar to that of nowadays existing parties, whether they would be permanent or merely eventual, etc., is a different issue, that probably can only be answered in practice, by making a classless society and seeing what kind of organisations would thrive in it.

Luís Henrique

[StringsofG]

For the sake of leading up to a communist society, the one party system will allow more potent progress.

I would prefer that both exist in a different way, however. Why not have a vanguard who guides the revolutionary progress combined with autonomous workers councils. Each industry is different, the councils or cooperatives would be given the guidance of the vanguard (IE what society as a whole needs), while determining for themselves the best way to accomplish the goals.

I believe that the revolution should react in much the same way as Hive intelligence. There will be a queen (or king or whatever) bee, guiding the hive in the direction it needs to go. But the individuals decide upon the best ways to accomplish the goals. Each able to create input. And with the vanguard (queen bee) dependent on the Proletariat (Hive) for it's survival.

[Lokomotive293]

I would say the reason why capitalism needs a multi-party-system in order to be democratic (for the bourgeois) is that there are different, competing factions of capital, whose interests also need to be represented by the state. You can see that, whenever a capitalist state doesn't have such a multi-party system, violence will increase not only against the working class, but also among the ruling elite itself.

The working class doesn't have competing interests, so there is no reason why it should need more than one party. Of course, what socialism will look like in a certain place at a certain time will depend on very specific circumstances.

[Point Blank]

Marx and Engels declared the need for organising into a political party. They did not say 'many political parties', they said, and were quite clear about the necessity of, a single party-movement.

In Marx and Engels' time political parties in the modern sense (disciplined, hierarchical mass organisations, specialised in political struggle) did not exist so, even if we consider their opinion still valuable, what they meant with party and how they thought it should be organised is open to interpretation.

[Lokomotive293]

In Marx and Engels' time political parties in the modern sense (disciplined, hierarchical mass organisations, specialised in political struggle) did not exist so, even if we consider their opinion still valuable, what they meant with party and how they thought it should be organised is open to interpretation.

Have you ever read the Rules of the Communist League? It's pretty interesting how much of an idea of how a political party should be organized Marx and Engels already had back then.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-league/rules.htm

[Jimmie Higgins]

The working class doesn't have competing interests, so there is no reason why it should need more than one party. Of course, what socialism will look like in a certain place at a certain time will depend on very specific circumstances.Not having competing economic interests doesn't exclude other sets of interests. If there's no state, then yeah things would most like have progressed to a situation where structures exist on an ongoing basis to make a bunch of decisions; things would probably be done more as needed. But in the aftermath of a revolution as workers are reorganizing society, I'm almost certain part of what this would look-like is workers grouping together to advance certain strategies over others. With a massive participatory democracy I think certain tendencies or "interest groups" would organize something like parties. It could be over all sorts of matters from how we construct our communities, to advocating certain environmental goals.

There would be huge problems and questions and debates initially and our numbers and diversity, I think, would make people organizing around certain parties or factions based on certain revolutionary or social or economic or aesthetic priorities more or less inevitable.

[G4b3n]

I would say the reason why capitalism needs a multi-party-system in order to be democratic (for the bourgeois) is that there are different, competing factions of capital, whose interests also need to be represented by the state. You can see that, whenever a capitalist state doesn't have such a multi-party system, violence will increase not only against the working class, but also among the ruling elite itself.

The working class doesn't have competing interests, so there is no reason why it should need more than one party. Of course, what socialism will look like in a certain place at a certain time will depend on very specific circumstances.

They may not have separate interests, but there are separate notions on what ought to be done.

Unless of course you believe the all knowing hand of Marxism-Leninism should rob the workers of their liberty and assert itself as the God of labor, in which case I would disagree.

[Fakeblock]

Not having competing economic interests doesn't exclude other sets of interests. If there's no state, then yeah things would most like have progressed to a situation where structures exist on an ongoing basis to make a bunch of decisions; things would probably be done more as needed. But in the aftermath of a revolution as workers are reorganizing society, I'm almost certain part of what this would look-like is workers grouping together to advance certain strategies over others. With a massive participatory democracy I think certain tendencies or "interest groups" would organize something like parties. It could be over all sorts of matters from how we construct our communities, to advocating certain environmental goals.

There would be huge problems and questions and debates initially and our numbers and diversity, I think, would make people organizing around certain parties or factions based on certain revolutionary or social or economic or aesthetic priorities more or less inevitable.

I think the best way to debate interests would be within the party, expressed as factions or something similar. Unlike with the bourgeoisie, there is no competition within the working class. Policy should advance not one section of the working class, but the working class as a whole. I'd say that if you encourage open discussion within the party and avoid competition between organisations, you avoid both despotism and opportunist, electoral politics.

[Lokomotive293]

Not having competing economic interests doesn't exclude other sets of interests. If there's no state, then yeah things would most like have progressed to a situation where structures exist on an ongoing basis to make a bunch of decisions; things would probably be done more as needed. But in the aftermath of a revolution as workers are reorganizing society, I'm almost certain part of what this would look-like is workers grouping together to advance certain strategies over others. With a massive participatory democracy I think certain tendencies or "interest groups" would organize something like parties. It could be over all sorts of matters from how we construct our communities, to advocating certain environmental goals.

There would be huge problems and questions and debates initially and our numbers and diversity, I think, would make people organizing around certain parties or factions based on certain revolutionary or social or economic or aesthetic priorities more or less inevitable.

To me, the difference between bourgeois democracy and socialist democracy is this: While bourgeois democracy is all about voting, socialist democracy is all about discussion.
In bourgeois democracy, discussion is more of a show than anything, and its goal is to get the audience to vote for you.
In socialist democracy, discussion is the real democratic process, where people don't only state their opinions, but really talk to each other, and share their knowledge and experience with each other, and the goal is finding the best solution that the largest number of people can agree with, and that all of them together can put to practice. Voting, then, is the show.

Such a process of democratic discussion doesn't need political parties as we know them today, it needs neighbourhood councils and mass organizations, it needs to organize people where they live and work, it needs a form of government that is based on those structures, and it needs the Communist Party to oversee the path to socialism, to give ideological guidance.

I'm not sure why anyone would feel the need to organize anything like an "opposition party" under such a system, unless, of course, they are against the system as a whole.

I know, it's hard to imagine a system other than multi-party to be democratic if you've grown up learning that "many competing parties exist" is the definition of democracy. However, just as the working class is different from the bourgeoisie, its form of political organization will be different.

[Luís Henrique]

Unlike with the bourgeoisie, there is no competition within the working class.

It would be good if that was true, but unhappily it isn't. Starting with competition for jobs, proletarians compete against each others all the time.

Luís Henrique

[Fakeblock]

Yeah you're right. I was thinking of the revolutionary society. Though I think the role of the party should be to undermine these competitions and work towards the unity of the whole class. Taking state power means that the class has united for the realisation of common interests. Once that is done, I think most contradictory interests between sections of the class will start to be eliminated.

[Jimmie Higgins]

To me, the difference between bourgeois democracy and socialist democracy is this: While bourgeois democracy is all about voting, socialist democracy is all about discussion.
In bourgeois democracy, discussion is more of a show than anything, and its goal is to get the audience to vote for you.
In socialist democracy, discussion is the real democratic process, where people don't only state their opinions, but really talk to each other, and share their knowledge and experience with each other, and the goal is finding the best solution that the largest number of people can agree with, and that all of them together can put to practice. Voting, then, is the show.Yes, but with the numbers of people and the level of decisions, don't you think that just on the level of having some clarity and being able to try and win people to a position that on major questions, people would rally around certain positions? On some of the longer-standing questions that workers have to deal with, don't you think then that some of these formations would resemble something like a party?


Such a process of democratic discussion doesn't need political parties as we know them today,Yes I am not arguing for parties as we know them today, but I think for some questions, trends and positions will emerge and people will likely rally behind some.


it needs neighbourhood councils and mass organizations, it needs to organize people where they live and work, it needs a form of government that is based on those structures, and it needs the Communist Party to oversee the path to socialism, to give ideological guidance.I've agreed to this point, however I'm confused by this argument. We have one party in which all decisions are debated in a participatory manner through mass democratic institutions -- but then the party also gives ideological guidance? How can a democratic debate be guided by the institution of democratic debate as if it was outside itself? Was that sentence too convoluted?


I'm not sure why anyone would feel the need to organize anything like an "opposition party" under such a system, unless, of course, they are against the system as a whole.The way I was speculating things is that the mass democratic institutions, councils of workplaces and working class neighborhoods, etc, would be the field in which decisions are played out in a mass way. The fact of the revolution would mean that support for the worker's power and socialism are in effect conditions of participation for any organized formation. The revolutionaries could set this in writing at the height of insurrection as a requirement if they felt it was needed, but likely a mass working class revolution would legitimize those aims and make forces opposed to class power obvious and exposed and excluded by decree or just in a de-facto way.


I know, it's hard to imagine a system other than multi-party to be democratic if you've grown up learning that "many competing parties exist" is the definition of democracy. However, just as the working class is different from the bourgeoisie, its form of political organization will be different.No doubt, for one thing problems could be solved whereas in capitalism many problems are systemic and, even the ones which are not inherent problems in capitalism, generally have to be ultimately "solved" in the interests of the ruling class (or revolution - but that's more rare).

So I doubt there would be the sort of entrenched parties or whatnot, but more practical formations around this or that specific interest or advocacy within the context of worker's power for the purpose of eliminating class. So the arguments might be around this plan of how we create sustainable energy vs. other plans; prioritizing fixing the environment first or increasing access to education for workers or groups that want to prioritize creating new communities vs. people who think the priority should first be re-organizing existing communities.

I think in a way they would be parties that "wither away" as problems get solved and practical questions overcome and production is reorganized so that we don't have to prioritize this over that as much.

If all these questions are to be solved by factions within one party, then what is the purpose of that party? Couldn't you equally say then that there is no party? If there are soviets and a party, what's that party's relation to the mass participatory democratic process of workers and why are they two different things?

[Lokomotive293]

1) About different "interest groups". I wouldn't see such kind of loose networks of people who come together on a specific issue (which I think is what you have in mind) as "political parties", not even as "factions". Also, here, I think, the mass organizations play an important role, as their job is to give a voice to certain groups of society (e.g. women, youth, students, farmers, workers, etc.), who may have specific interests that are, of course, not in contradiction to those of society as a whole, but nevertheless need to be thought of. But, I don't really think there is that much disagreement between us on that issue, actually. Correct me if I'm wrong.

2) About the role of the party. Well: The party organizes the most class conscious and most revolutionary parts of the working class, it is the most consequent force in the struggle for socialism, it is the student of class struggle and the teacher of the masses, it is the vanguard of the working class.
Of course, what that will look like in a specific situation will depend on the historical circumstances, but I think in many cases in the past it was a mistake that the party and the state were so intertwined (Talking about a few decades after the revolution, now) - I imagine it to be a lot better to have the mass democratic process, the decision-making in society run kind of independently from the party - The role of the party would then be to give ideological guidance, to educate the workers, and to be a part of the discussion process, i.e. to make proposals on what the best thing to do is, always keeping in mind the longterm goal (-> Socialism).

[emilianozapata]

What about the state withering away many years after the communist revolution like Marx predicted? I think their is a need for a dictatorship of the proletariat to keep out counter-revolutionaries, foreign invaders, and bourgeois influence.