Democracy Discussion Thread

[the debater]

Let us discuss the pros and cons of the system of government known as democracy. Hopefully we can have a serious discussion about this topic, let's try not to get into any arguments, no matter how petty. Once our discussion progresses far enough, perhaps then we can finally decide whether democracy is the best form of government for a leftist society, or whether we need to explore other options. Let the debate begin in 1..... 2..... 3.....

[Remus Bleys]

What stage of "leftist society" are we talking about exactly?
And isn't a discussion and debate an argument?

[the debater]

What stage of "leftist society" are we talking about exactly?

Hmm, "after" the revolution, whether it be a peaceful one, or violent one, or one in between.


And isn't a discussion and debate an argument?

It does seem like that now that I looked at this thread a second time. Time to be moved. My mistake.

[Remus Bleys]

Hmm, "after" the revolution, whether it be a peaceful one, or violent one, or one in between.
If we are defining the revolution the way i would, i would say that the first phase of communism would be somewhat like some sort of mass participatory democracy that is purposefully trying to destroy itself, leading into free access communism, i.e. the higher stage, where there isn't democracy or governance of people, whereby we just have the scientific administration of things.

If you mean revolution is over when the dotp is established (besides saying you are wrong) i wouldn't classify that as a democracy if the word is to mean anything.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Let us discuss the pros and cons of the system of government known as democracy. Hopefully we can have a serious discussion about this topic, let's try not to get into any arguments, no matter how petty. Once our discussion progresses far enough, perhaps then we can finally decide whether democracy is the best form of government for a leftist society, or whether we need to explore other options. Let the debate begin in 1..... 2..... 3.....What do you mean by democracy? I don't know if it's really a "system of governance" as much as a method of decision-making. It means one thing if you mean "bourgeois democracies" where there is a parliamentary system which involves some level of "democratic" input in representatives or some policies; it means another if you mean "should things be decided by popular democratic means verses some council of smarties.

But in general, I agree with Remus: mass working class democracy would be necessary for people to make collective decisions after a revolution and before communist social relations are generalized throughout society (i.e. while there are still some structural inequalities and remnants of class society). But as people collectively organize society, then democracy becomes increasingly redundant.

So, for example, day one after the revolution, people (on a mass scale) would have to work together to figure out, say, how to organize existing unequal housing so that people have places to live that are decent, they would have to organize new housing... but pretty quickly as profit-driven real estate and housing developments have been replaced, this will not be such an urgent question that needs to be hotly debated - various communities will have been arranged how people in those communities want it and so no votes will need to be made to detrmine how to house homeless people or deal with inequalities of mcMansions on the one hand and falling down buildings on the other. People might still use democratic decsion making, but it would be ad hoc and more on just a mutual basis.

[RedSunrise]

Personally any government is bad government :)

But this is interesting:
http://zesty.ca/voting/sim/

And I think it proves Condorcet method is the best.

[the debater]

What do you mean by democracy? I don't know if it's really a "system of governance" as much as a method of decision-making. It means one thing if you mean "bourgeois democracies" where there is a parliamentary system which involves some level of "democratic" input in representatives or some policies; it means another if you mean "should things be decided by popular democratic means verses some council of smarties.

I basically was thinking at the time of a system similar to America's current set-up. Basically three branches, a Supreme Court, a Congress, a Presidential administration, yada yada yada.


But in general, I agree with Remus: mass working class democracy would be necessary for people to make collective decisions after a revolution and before communist social relations are generalized throughout society (i.e. while there are still some structural inequalities and remnants of class society). But as people collectively organize society, then democracy becomes increasingly redundant.

So what happens once democracy becomes completely redundant? Is that when the DOTP kicks in?

Going off to a side note, I personally think the best revolutionary strategy regardless of whatever countries we are talking about would be for ordinary people to run for the position of city mayor in their respective cities. Imagine a bunch of socialist mayors getting elected at the same time across all of the United States. Los Angeles, Chicago, Detroit, Miami, etc, etc. Being a city mayor does seem as if one has more freedom to do what they want, policy wise. Plus, it's easier to "experiment" with socialist principles on a small local scale rather than at a large scale. I would imagine that there is far less hyper-partisanship at the local level rather than at the provincial or national level. If socialism works well at the local level, then eventually, it will spread out farther and farther until it gets to the state level, the province level, and eventually the national level. So basically, socialism starts out small, but eventually gets bigger and bigger and more widespread. This is a very rough envisioning I have of how socialism could eventually become successful, so once again, it's by no means a final opinion. I could still change my mind on this topic.

[Remus Bleys]

Their is no president or seperation of powers.
The adminstration of things is free access communism. The dotp ends with capitalism.
I know you have college, but my semsester is coming to an end. So, I would highly suggest during your freetime you read the critique of the gotha program and state and revolution.

[Venas Abiertas]

Many thinkers and activists believe that the major source of alienation in modern societies is a lack of protagonism on the part of the average person. Capitalism removes from people's hands control over the fruits of their own labors, and this same lack of control is mirrored in the political systems of a capitalist society. An extremely bureaucratic state socialist society can have the same result. Basically, everyone wants to have a part in making decisions that affect their lives. Childhood and adolescent rebellion are a manifestation of this yearn for autonomy and independence of action and thought. Many mental and social disorders such as substance abuse and suicide stem from the frustrating feeling of helplessness that so many of us experience today.

The only political system that provides a chance for everybody, not just a select few, to freely express themselves and have a say in their own destiny is democracy. There are many different kinds of democracy and we can debate which kind is most suitable for a given situation, whether that be a home, a workplace, a club or place of worship, a town or big city. What seems obvious to me though is that any form of authoritarianism will sooner or later breed discontent and breakdown of society.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I basically was thinking at the time of a system similar to America's current set-up. Basically three branches, a Supreme Court, a Congress, a Presidential administration, yada yada yada.well then no, in the big picture, this kind of Democracy... Well it isn't very democratic, it's limited popular input into the managing of the capitalist system. It's better than an autocracy and I think bourgeois Democracy creates some openings for workers to struggle in different ways, but largely the states economic power and repressive power are totally untouched by voting and often even elected representatives. People and organizations that wield billions of dollars have tons of social power which is completely isolated from electoral and policy matters... Not to mention that if you are 1%er, buying an election is probably in relative terms the same as me buying a DVD player, so the super rich would have to be stupid NOT to subvert popular demands in favor of their own interests. Then there's the military and so time and again, if democracy really becomes a threat, the military steps in... Allende, Egypt today, etc.


So what happens once democracy becomes completely redundant? Is that when the DOTP kicks in? no, the way I see it, the dotp is the democratic post revolution time where people collectively - through some sort of popular democratic decision-making - organize society. It seems strange from a present perspective, but I think theoretically as people dismantle present inequalities and class divisions, then democratic methods on a mass scale will be increasingly redundant. For example, if you are on a boat and there's not enough water for all the people, then you need to decide how to divide it up, ration it, etc... But if you are in a house with a tap, you just go get some water and if someone's already at the sink you can even say, "hey, mind pouring me some too?"

Democratic methods on a regular and mass basis wouldn't have much of a use once communist social relations are second nature. This is an imperfect analogy, but crudely, when capitalism was first becoming the dominant method of society, there were laws for vagabonds and so on that mandated that people not tied to a feudal estate have a "master" that they work for as an apprentice or in a mill or whatnot, people who did not have a job (and were therfore illegally trying to make their own living in formerly common lands) were detained and then made to work. Today, capitalists don't need to really force people to seek wage labor, the commons have been privatized and capitalist social relations are dominant to the point that it's second nature for us to seek wage labor to survive. No legislation needed for the most part.

[Remus Bleys]

no, the way I see it, the dotp is the democratic post revolution time where people collectively - through some sort of popular democratic decision-making - organize society.

Eh - I disagree with you here. And I should like to add that my categorization of socialism being democratic is more like a guess than a principle because i can't think of another way to organize it.

[consuming negativity]

True democracy is only possible in a communist situation. Bourgeois "democracy" isn't worth the keystrokes it took to write that out.

[tuwix]

Let us discuss the pros and cons of the system of government known as democracy. Hopefully we can have a serious discussion about this topic, let's try not to get into any arguments, no matter how petty. Once our discussion progresses far enough, perhaps then we can finally decide whether democracy is the best form of government for a leftist society, or whether we need to explore other options. Let the debate begin in 1..... 2..... 3.....

The real democracy which is direct democracy has nothing to do with government.

But so-called "deomocracy" is just vehicle for rule of bourgeoisie.

[bad ideas actualised by alcohol]

That is of course when you confuse state and government. In capitalism they are closely connected, if not the exact same. But with the disappearing of the state things would still need to be organised. We are not ants who don't need decision-making and thus a form a governing. That this governing would be very different from how things are governed right now goes without saying.

The ones who say things like "any government is bad" have no clue how complicated a society is and I really can't take anyone who thinks this will all just magically work out after the revolution without any form of government seriously.

Recently, I wrote an article for the website Marxist Center about the issue of democracy. It is by no means the last word on the subject but perhaps it is of interest: http://marxistcenter.com/2013/08/13/to-win-the-battle-of-democracy/

[the debater]

no, the way I see it, the dotp is the democratic post revolution time where people collectively - through some sort of popular democratic decision-making - organize society. It seems strange from a present perspective, but I think theoretically as people dismantle present inequalities and class divisions, then democratic methods on a mass scale will be increasingly redundant. For example, if you are on a boat and there's not enough water for all the people, then you need to decide how to divide it up, ration it, etc... But if you are in a house with a tap, you just go get some water and if someone's already at the sink you can even say, "hey, mind pouring me some too?"


Whoa, this definitely is weird for me to imagine!