Democracy and Communism?

[Diirez]

Where does democracy fit in Communism? Does it fit?

[Remus Bleys]

No

[Brotto Rühle]

Democracy, as in "direct proletarian democracy", such as that of workers' councils and factory committees are a likely course to be taken. These councils and committees aren't the only form we can take, and I think it's a utopian dream to think that the proletarian class will 100% organize in that fashion, or that we can predict what will occur.

Bordiga's point, from what I recall, is that democracy should not be a principle, not that we should abandon it altogether as a decision making process. Though, Bordiga's abandonment of party democracy, and adoption of Stalin like party centralization, known as "Organic Centralism", was certainly a problem.

[motion denied]

Communism is the overcoming of democracy. There existing no classes, politics cease to exist.


Asine! This is democratic twaddle, political drivel. Election is a political form present in the smallest Russian commune and artel. The character of the election does not depend on this name, but on the economic foundation, the economic situation of the voters, and as soon as the functions have ceased to be political ones, there exists 1) no government function, 2) the distribution of the general functions has become a business matter, that gives no one domination, 3) election has nothing of its present political character.

Though it doesn't mean that proletarian democracy is not a means to communism.

[Brotto Rühle]

Communism is the overcoming of democracy. There existing no classes, politics cease to exist.



Though it doesn't mean that proletarian democracy is not a means to communism.

Democratic decision making* is what I'm referring to.

[Ember Catching]

Where does democracy fit in Communism? Does it fit?

See for yourself:


"It is clear that the principle of democracy has no intrinsic virtue. It is not a "principle", but rather a simple mechanism of organization, responding to the simple and crude arithmetical presumption that the majority is right and the minority is wrong."

— Amadeo Bordiga, The Democratic Principle, 1922




"Democracy and parliamentarianism are indispensable for the bourgeoisie after its victory by force and terror because the bourgeoisie want to rule a society divided into classes."
('Battaglia communista' no. 18, 1951.)

"It required conciliation to be able to dominate for it was impossible that domination should endure solely through terror. After its conquest of power by violence and terror, the proletariat does not need democracy, not because classes disappear from one day to the next, but because there must no longer be any masking or mystification. Dictatorship is required to prevent any return of the opposing class. Moreover, the accession of the proletariat to the State, is its own negation as a class, as well as the negation of the other classes. It is the beginning of the unification of the species, of the formation of the community. To demand democracy would imply the need for conciliation between classes and that would amount to doubting that communism is the solution to all antagonisms, that it is the reconciliation of man with himself."

— Jacques Camatte, The Democratic Mystification, 1969

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

Democracy under communism would certainly work via workers' councils and central committees governing each region. Also, regular public forums could be set up for the masses to voice their opinions to the central committees. It can definitely work pretty easily. It seems utopian and ridiculous but it's been done before, granted not for long and in only select places.

[Ele'ill]

Democracy under communism would certainly work via workers' councils and central committees governing each region. Also, regular public forums could be set up for the masses to voice their opinions to the central committees.

obviously because contention would arise at various points (frequently(?)) between central committees and central goals vs what folks need?

[Psycho P and the Freight Train]

obviously because contention would arise at various points (frequently(?)) between central committees and central goals vs what folks need?

Of course it would. That's why the forums are needed. When people feel that their opinions are not even being heard, they are rightfully rebellious. This way, even if a complete consensus cannot be reached, people will be much more satisfied and feel they are able to voice their opinions directly to the people doing the main economic organizing.

[Ele'ill]

so basically it allows for a feel of accountability but not really accountability kind of like what we have now with police and their 'report abuses' hotline/town hall meetings/ etc..

[#FF0000]

To demand democracy would imply the need for conciliation between classes and that would amount to doubting that communism is the solution to all antagonisms, that it is the reconciliation of man with himself.

hahaha this is so dumb. does that mean that modern bourgeois democracy isn't actually a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie as a class then? lol

[#FF0000]

I like a lot of the left-com stuff I read but the whole "blarrgh democracy not as principle gubgubugb revolutionary totalitarianism" stuff seemed like hella cheap and shallow contrarianism meant to make liberals mad rather than anything of actual substance. I think the whole "gub gub gub the structure of the party isn't a political question" stance is such a dumb stance to take because clearly the structure of the party/organization/movement does have a whole lot to do with what it's gonna leave in its wake.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

I think the whole "gub gub gub the structure of the party isn't a political question" stance is such a dumb stance to take because clearly the structure of the party/organization/movement does have a whole lot to do with what it's gonna leave in its wake.

I agree, it does have to do with it; and it is exactly why, no democracy.

[#FF0000]

I agree, it does have to do with it; and it is exactly why, no democracy.

except that democratic decision making and class dictatorship are clearly not mutually exclusive so I don't understand the 'no democracy' thing and I'm curious as to the alternative. How does the proletariat impose its will in a proletarian dictatorship? I know you aren't gonna say "through the enlightened leadership of the vanguard party", so what's the alternative if not democratic decision making?

[tachosomoza]

Bourgeois democracy where those who buy labor pay money to rule under a constitution made by rich white slave owning men in the 18th century, no. True workers' democracy, yes.

[TheWannabeAnarchist]

It will not be democracy as we know it, but it'll still be democracy--and it'll be better. Read up on the differences between direct democracy and indirect democracy.:grin:

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

Democracy cannot bring about communism. It can, at best, bring about a reformist socialism-lite.

That's not to say that democracy in-and-of-itself is worthless. It allows the proletariat to control their own destiny and to make their own decisions by their consensus.

But democracy, as it stands right now, is incapable of bringing about socialism. Modern democracy is completely controlled by the bourgeoisie, and serves only to further their interest.

But the Dictatorship of the Proletariat is not only radical, it is also radically democratic. Research the Paris Commune of 1871, or the Shanghai Commune of 1927, or the Hungarian Revolution of 1956. All of these were worker's democracies, made by the workers and for the workers. All of them were examples of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

Communism is the product, the end-result of socialism at its completion. It is something that comes naturally from socialism.

[#FF0000]

I think we need to make a distinction here between "Liberal Democracy" and democracy/democratic decision making. When I was a little baby communist, I saw socialism as (and still do, to an extent) the radical extension of democracy into economic life. Of course this doesn't mean that I think the ballot box is the path to socialism, though.

[Bala Perdida]

Accidentally cited my post instead of editing it. The real post is below this one! Sorry! :confused:

[Bala Perdida]

From what I see most people here are against democracy as a form of reaching communism. I agree with that the system today is to rigged and corrupt to bring about a real people's democracy. We obviously have to steer people in the right direction by campaigns, propaganda, and education. Give these people a chance to feel the necessity of socialism instead of forcing it through them in with a "one party revolution". Then when we, the proletariat/people in general, take control we split things up into communes. Then democracy can be wide spread, within the individual communes, as a form of decision making. Although I hate to think that democracy is the best way to make decisions, I mean the whole concept of "majority rules" is just menacing to think of. Like a 9 people out of 10 choose to steal the 10th guys wallet scenario, it's still democracy but it's unjust. If anybody could help me in thinking of how to fix democracy to avoid tyranny that would be helpful. I think I just got an idea for a new thread, but its 2:26 a.m. so I'll post it tomorrow.

[Brutus]

My copy of The Critique of the Gotha Programme has Lenin's notes, which are kind of handy.

Capitalist Sociey: Democracy only for the rich and for a small layer of the proletariat [it is not for the poor man!]

Transition [DotP]: democracy for 9/10 of the population, crushing of the resistance of the rich by force

Communist society: democracy complete, becoming a habit and for that reason withering away, giving place to the principle: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

[ckaihatsu]

except that democratic decision making and class dictatorship are clearly not mutually exclusive so I don't understand the 'no democracy' thing and I'm curious as to the alternative. How does the proletariat impose its will in a proletarian dictatorship? I know you aren't gonna say "through the enlightened leadership of the vanguard party", so what's the alternative if not democratic decision making?


This question of (democratic) decision-making came up in a recent thread -- here's my position:





[T]his method of prioritization is *far more* democratic than any system of political representation could ever be. That's because not only is it *issue*-based, but it also allows for people's inputs *on a gradient*, relative to each other, through the action of ranking them.





4. Ends -- Flat, all-inclusive mode of participation at all levels without delegated representatives




[In] this day and age of fluid digital-based communications, we may want to dispense with formalized representative personages altogether and just conceptualize a productive entity within a supply chain network as having 'external business' or 'external matters' to include in its regular routine of entity-collective co-administration among its participants.




Given that people make *points* on any of a number of *issues*, which may comprise some larger *topics* -- and these fall into some general *themes*, or *categories* -- wouldn't this very discussion-board format of RevLeft be altogether suitable for a massively parallel (ground-level) political participation among all those concerned, particularly workers, for *all scales* of political implementation -- ?

I think there's conventionally been a kind of lingering anxiety over the political "workload" that would confront any regular person who would work *and* wish to have active, impacting participation in real-world policy, along the lines of the examples you've provided for this thread's discussion.

But I'll note that, for any given concrete issue, not everyone would *necessarily* find the material need to individually weigh in with a distinct proposal of their own -- as I think we've seen here from our own regular participation at RevLeft, it's often the case that a simple press of the 'Thanks' button is all that's needed in many cases where a comrade has *already* put forth the words that we would have said ourselves, thereby relieving us from the task of writing that sentiment ourselves.

Would concrete issues at higher, more-generalized levels be so different, so inaccessible to the regular, affected person on the ground? Wouldn't the information gathered within such an appropriate thread of discussion "clue everyone in" as the overall situation at that level -- say, from the participants of several different countries -- ?

I'll ask if delegated representatives *are* really required anymore when our current political vehicle, the Internet-based discussion board, can facilitate massively participatory, though orderly and topic-specific conversations, across all ranges of geography and scales of populations.




tinyurl.com/ckaihatsu-concise-communism


[17] Prioritization Chart

http://s6.postimage.org/jy5fntvcd/17_Prioritization_Chart.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/jy5fntvcd/)

[Ember Catching]

does that mean that modern bourgeois democracy isn't actually a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie as a class then?
Of course it isn't: bourgeois democracy is the negation of bourgeois dictatorship, and all claims to the contrary are necessarily democratist historical revisionism. The "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" has never been a developed concept analogous to the oft-theorized revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat — indeed, Marx's only ever reference to bourgeois dictatorship is found in his 'Eighteenth Brumaire', in which he describes General Cavaignac's repressive rule over France from the declaration of a state of siege in Paris during the June Days until the election of Louis-Napoléon in December 1848 after a new constitution was drafted as "the dictatorship of the bourgeois republicans". The term dictatorship here and everywhere else in Marx and Engels' works retains an implicit definition faithful to the original Roman dictatura — the dictatura being an unaccountable and usually temporary office generally exercising power for the purposes of combating enemy armies — and the pair never conflated it with bourgeois democracy, no matter what innovations arose by necessity to influence the will of the majority proletariat.

[#FF0000]

The claim that bourgeois democracy constitutes bourgeoisie dictatorship is necessarily democratoid historical revisionism.

Yeah but these bourgeois democratic societies are still dominated by the bourgeoisie, and so democracy and the domination of society by one class are still clearly not mutually exclusive.

Either way, I feel like this entire discussion is really useless because of how abstract it all is -- what does revolutionary totalitarianism actually mean and how does the proletariat enforce its dictatorship? Because it would seem like the alternative to democracy would be the rule of the "vanguard" in the name of the proletariat.

[Remus Bleys]

what if it was democracy keeping you out of the CU. Would it be a principle then?

[#FF0000]

what if it was democracy keeping you out of the CU. Would it be a principle then?

yo to hell with democracy i want my blue name goddammit

[Ember Catching]

Yeah but these bourgeois democratic societies are still dominated by the bourgeoisie, and so democracy and the domination of society by one class are still clearly not mutually exclusive.

Either way, I feel like this entire discussion is really useless because of how abstract it all is -- what does revolutionary totalitarianism actually mean and how does the proletariat enforce its dictatorship? Because it would seem like the alternative to democracy would be the rule of the "vanguard" in the name of the proletariat.
That class rule in general doesn't necessarily exclude democracy is unquestionable — this fact is the basis for Camatte's comments in the passage quoted above, which is paraphrased as: the extent to which democracy is permitted in capitalist society is the extent to which it reconciles class antagonisms — but in the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat — that period of state organization of labor and suppression of market competition, private accumulation and the law of inheritance¹; of armed expropriation of all infrastructure, land, etc. in commercial use worldwide; of shortening of working hours and abolition of all commodity production and the conditions of non-manual, unproductive and alienated labour² — demands for voting mechanisms necessarily constitute demands for political representation for the counter-revolution, i.e. appeasement of the expropriated classes. The absolute rejection of democracy in the period of proletarian dictatorship refers solely to decisions consequential to the course of the revolution, so the administration of essential services, infrastructure and planning — insofar as it's unconcerned with the property question — may be conducted as democratically or as technocratically as desired.

The term revolutionary totalitarianism appears in the International Communist Party's document 'What Distinguishes Our Party', relevant section of which basically asserts that an intimate relationship exists between petty-bourgeois and purportedly "communist" versions of "anti-totalitarianism" (the former responds to capitalism's historically inevitable inroads on small production, and the latter consists in the dogma of "bottom-up" workers' self-management and direct democracy) in their mutual fetishization of less concentrated forms of production and the basic productive cells of the capitalist economy i.e. the business — the document denounces these ideological currents as ahistorical and thus necessarily reactionary. The return to revolutionary "totalitarianism" mentioned in the document is a reaffirmation of the integral position of the abolition of small production as well as bourgeois production in the proletarian historical mission, as well as the necessity of the one party as the centralizing and guiding organ of the proletariat — the only organ which — by its advanced revolutionary theory, intervention, organization and agitation — can surmount the problem of establishing a revolutionary proletarian dictatorship and ensure the fulfillment of the proletarian historical mission.

Skepticism about the leading role of the communist party immediately strikes one as a sort of historical revisionism, according to which organizational form precedes economic and social content³ and the historical failure of the world revolution is thus attributed chiefly to the party-form, when the facts themselves tell a different story: the success of the 1917 October Revolution was dependent on the ability of the expected revolution in Germany to spread substantially beyond German borders and engulf Europe. However, the long-anticipated 1918 November Revolution was quashed by the reformist Social-Democratic Party of Germany and Freikorps terrorist paramilitaries, which contributed to the isolated and desperate position of the revolution in Russia and compelled the Bolsheviks to put various expedient mitigation strategies into practice which ultimately kept commodity production and the condition of alienated labor — in a word: capitalism — intact, and later circumstances would compel the necessarily reactionary Bolsheviks to turn the Comintern into a tool of Russian foreign policy. It was the counter-revolutionary economic and social content embodied in the SPD and the Freikorps, and not the not the party-form of the RSDLP(B), which spelt initial doom for the world revolution — "vanguardism" was not at fault this time, nor indeed was it ever at fault anywhere else at any other time.

References
Friedrich Engels in 'The Communists and Karl Heinzen' (1847)"]

But Herr Heinzen also promises social reforms. Of course, the indifference of the people towards his appeals has gradually forced him to. And what kind of reforms are these? They are such as the Communists themselves suggest in preparation for the abolition of private property. The only point Herr Heinzen makes that deserves recognition he has borrowed from the Communists, the Communists whom he attacks so violently, and even that is reduced in his hands to utter nonsense and mere day-dreaming. All measures to restrict competition and the accumulation of capital in the hands of individuals, all restriction or suppression of the law of inheritance, all organisation of labour by the state, etc., all these measures are not only possible as revolutionary measures, but actually necessary. They are possible because the whole insurgent proletariat is behind them and maintains them by force of arms. They are possible, despite all the difficulties and disadvantages which are alleged against them by economists, because these very difficulties and disadvantages will compel the proletariat to go further and further until private property has been completely abolished, in order not to lose again what it has already won. They are possible as preparatory steps, temporary transitional stages towards the abolition of private property, but not in any other way.
Jacques Camatte in 'Capital and Community' (1976)"]

The essential point is the destruction of the valorization process. The dictatorship of the proletariat attacks it with two closely linked measures:

a) Everyone has to work, he who does not work, does not eat; this is the generalization of the condition of the proletariat, of manual labour.

b) Shortening of the working day.

Thus the new society affirms that only the person who works is a man. Therefore work reassumes its fundamental position, and man returns to being the subject of production. Capital, on the contrary, especially in its form as fixed capital, eliminates him, making him superfluous.

The dictatorship of the proletariat has no constitution, institutions or rules to define man, contrary to the case of the bourgeois revolution. Instead it is the productive act, participation in human production, that defines man in the society, the communist revolution. Man, however, cannot be imprisoned in a definition, nor in a determined act, nor in the production process, especially when it is still not free of the limits and deformed character inherited from capitalism (communist society has barely begun its emergence and rejection of the old society). It recognizes only the worker and rejects the idler as nonhuman, inessential for its transformation.

There is, in a certain sense, the formation of a community based on work. In capitalism, man's existence was mediated by capital, now it is mediated by work. To arrive at this stage means inflicting a decisive blow on capital's community, even if the foundations are not yet destroyed, since work itself bears the stigma of the previous class society. Work must no longer have an antagonistic character, it no longer contains the opposition necessary labour - surplus labour, if we are to arrive at this result. Even if mystification has been destroyed, what appears is still, for the moment, alienated and contradictory in its process. But starting from the shortening of the working-day and the generalization of work, it is possible for labour to lose its forced, antagonistic character.
Amadeo Bordiga in 'The Democratic Principle' (1922)"]

... This is translated into a fundamental Marxist thesis: the revolution is not a problem of forms of organization. On the contrary, the revolution is a problem of content, a problem of the movement and action of revolutionary forces in an unending process, which cannot be theorized and crystallized in any scheme for an immutable "constitutional doctrine".
Amadeo Bordiga in 'Towards the Establishment of Workers' Councils in Italy' (1920)"]

Only the party can embody the dynamic revolutionary energies of the class. It would be trivial to object that socialist parties too have compromised, since we are not exalting the virtues of the party form, but those of the dynamic content which is to be found only in the communist party. Every party defines itself on the basis of its own programme, and its functions cannot be compared with those of other parties, whereas of necessity all the trade unions and even, in a technical sense, all the workers' councils have functions in common with one another. The shortcoming of the social-reformist parties was not that they were parties, but that they were not communist and revolutionary parties. These parties led the counter-revolution, whereas the communist parties, in opposition to them, led and nourished revolutionary action. Thus there are no organs which are revolutionary by virtue of their form; there are only social forces that are revolutionary on account of their orientation. These forces transform themselves into a party that goes into battle with a programme.

[Comrade #138672]

This question of (democratic) decision-making came up in a recent thread -- here's my position:














[17] Prioritization Chart

http://s6.postimage.org/jy5fntvcd/17_Prioritization_Chart.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/jy5fntvcd/)Hey, would you mind if I shared some of your charts on social media? If not, then how do you want me to credit you?

[ckaihatsu]

Hey, would you mind if I shared some of your charts on social media? If not, then how do you want me to credit you?


Yeah, not at all -- 'ppreciate it. My name's already on all my works, so no additional effort required.

Here's all of them:

tinyurl.com/ckaihatsu-diagrams-revleft

[Marshal of the People]

I would think that a socialist or communist society would use council democracy (also known as soviet democracy).

All citizens would be organised into local councils where they manage local affairs and elect a delegate (or delegates) to go to the next level council (say district council) who will then manage the local councils and the district and elect a delegate (or delegates) to the next level council and the pattern goes on until you get to the highest level council (say the supreme council or another similar name) which then acts as a sort of government (for example controlling the economy, health, education, etc and making laws and regulations.) All delegates are instantly recallable by a majority vote from their councils.

[#FF0000]

The term revolutionary totalitarianism appears in the International Communist Party's document 'What Distinguishes Our Party', which basically asserts that an intimate relationship exists between petty-bourgeois and purportedly "communist" versions of "anti-totalitarianism" (the former responds to capitalism's historically inevitable inroads on small production, and the latter consists in the dogma of "bottom-up" workers' self-management and direct democracy) in their mutual fetishization of less concentrated forms of production and the basic productive cells of the capitalist economy i.e. the business — the document denounces these ideological currents as ahistorical and thus necessarily reactionary. The return to revolutionary "totalitarianism" mentioned in the document is a reaffirmation of the integral position of the abolition of small production as well as bourgeois production in the proletarian historical mission, as well as the necessity of the one party as the centralizing and guiding organ of the working class — the only organ which — by its advanced revolutionary theory and its intervention, organization and agitation before and during the dictatorship — can surmount the problem of ensuring the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat fulfills its historical mission.

Okay, this is fair, but I'm struggling to see how this is different from the "proletarian democracy" people are talking about, though. I think we might all be talking about different things entirely, even. The suppression of the bourgeoisie and counter-revolutionaries is (I would hope) a given for us. What I think most folks in this thread are talking about when it comes to "democracy" is either 1) decision making in a communist society, post-DOTP or 2) Decision-making within the party. I'm not skeptical of communist party rule per se, but I'm skeptical of a party that is run by the cadre on behalf of the proletariat without working class people within the party having a say in it. What would you say about that?

[Rurkel]

Decision-making within the party.Sounds more like "dictatorship of the democratic party" then "proletarian democracy" as in stuff like "democracy for 9/10 (or even 8/10) of the population" Brutus quoted, unless your party is all-encompassing like that. So I don't think that the disagreement is purely linguistic. There also seems to be an implicit disagreement on the exact nature of workers' political rights in the DoTP, though I may be wrong in the last statement...

Not to mention that when it comes to party organization, many leftcomms prefer the concept of "organic centralism", criticising the "democratic centralist" formulations as inadequate.

[Q]

No
Infraction for one word post spam.

[SensibleLuxemburgist]

Yes, democracy does fit into communism albeit not in the form of defeatist social democracy but workers' councils implementing democratic choices through mass participation that would benefit the general path of society in general through communism. In addition, the idea of "parties" should be abolished as they often bureaucratize and turn into your typical Stalinist's fantasy as many other "communist" countries have fallen into.

[the debater]

I honestly want to know what is everyone's opinion on the strategy of running as many socialist candidates as possible for city mayor positions across the world? It would be like if socialism is a fire, and the cities where the socialist mayors are based are like sparks for the fire. The forest floor on which the fire gets started is like Planet Earth. If we start off at the local level, and work our way up to the state, provincial, and federal levels, we should be unstoppable. If people see socialism succeed at the city level, no amount of bourgeois money poured into TV ads and stolen elections is going to be able to change people's minds back to their original opinions.

Cities are like playgrounds, like laboratories. You have much more freedom to do what you want, without getting bogged down by special interests or opposing political parties. We should start small, and go big.

[Taters]

I honestly want to know what is everyone's opinion on the strategy of running as many socialist candidates as possible for city mayor positions across the world? It would be like if socialism is a fire, and the cities where the socialist mayors are based are like sparks for the fire. The forest floor on which the fire gets started is like Planet Earth. If we start off at the local level, and work our way up to the state, provincial, and federal levels, we should be unstoppable. If people see socialism succeed at the city level, no amount of bourgeois money poured into TV ads and stolen elections is going to be able to change people's minds back to their original opinions.

Cities are like playgrounds, like laboratories. You have much more freedom to do what you want, without getting bogged down by special interests or opposing political parties. We should start small, and go big.

This is wishful thinking; idealism in every meaning of the word.

[the debater]

This is wishful thinking; idealism in every meaning of the word.

Please elaborate.

[Taters]

Please elaborate.

:rolleyes:

First of all, where will your money to fund these campaigns come from? Will you financially outcompete every bourgeois party in the world?

[PC LOAD LETTER]

I like a lot of the left-com stuff I read but the whole "blarrgh democracy not as principle gubgubugb revolutionary totalitarianism" stuff seemed like hella cheap and shallow contrarianism meant to make liberals mad rather than anything of actual substance. I think the whole "gub gub gub the structure of the party isn't a political question" stance is such a dumb stance to take because clearly the structure of the party/organization/movement does have a whole lot to do with what it's gonna leave in its wake.
My only issue with 'democracy', and I'm quoting you because we agree on a fuckton of stuff I'm not necessarily disagreeing or taking issue with your posts in this thread, is that in its colloquial definition, what most people think of as 'democracy', is just deciding what to deprive other people of. Ex, let's make pot illegal then legal again 70-something years later. Let's decide on when women can get abortions. Let's decide on how much money we can spend keeping people locked in prison.


Most of this would go away, leaving the democratic decision making process only really applicable in situations like city planning and resource management, which would be weighed against other options with empirical data, meaning in my view, democracy would take on more of a "let's weigh the options and build either a bridge here or a a bridge there, and a hydroelectric dam there or a nuclear power plant over there" type of form and function, with engineers and maybe the people who would be affected by a flooded valley that would take away cattle grazing land or something and whomever else is necessary to chime in and make their say.


So, in a nutshell, I'm not against democracy, but I just don't think it will be applicable in a lot of situations any more post-revolution. Where it is necessary, it will be used and arise as a natural, easy way of decision making that utilizes the input of all affected parties.


And really, we could all endlessly debate the issue of how the DotP will function as a political body, but the OP asked about what I'm assuming is the post-DotP upper/lower communism.

[Rurkel]

is that in its colloquial definition, what most people think of as 'democracy', is just deciding what to deprive other people of. Ex, let's make pot illegal then legal again 70-something years later. Let's decide on when women can get abortions. Let's decide on how much money we can spend keeping people locked in prison.
This sounds more like specifically conservative populist definition of the world.

[PC LOAD LETTER]

This sounds more like specifically conservative populist definition of the world.
We're not necessarily from the same part of the world, I'm sure there are colloquial differences, but my specific examples don't negate the rest of the post ...

[Ember Catching]

Okay, this is fair, but I'm struggling to see how this is different from the "proletarian democracy" people are talking about, though. I think we might all be talking about different things entirely, even. The suppression of the bourgeoisie and counter-revolutionaries is (I would hope) a given for us. What I think most folks in this thread are talking about when it comes to "democracy" is either 1) decision making in a communist society, post-DOTP or 2) Decision-making within the party. I'm not skeptical of communist party rule per se, but I'm skeptical of a party that is run by the cadre on behalf of the proletariat without working class people within the party having a say in it. What would you say about that?The demand for "proletarian democracy" expresses a historical tendency whose reactionary theoretical conclusions were drawn from the fetishization of economic forms which was denounced by the proclamation of a "return to revolutionary totalitarianism". It is a demand diametrically opposed to what I demand.

In response to your point about decision-making post-DOTP, the presence of democratic methods in scientific communism — the society born of "the political economy of the labouring class" — is completely inconsequential, as no democratic organs which are ascribed any degree of historical relevance will endure the revolution.




The communist parties must achieve an organic centralism which, whilst including maximum possible consultation with the base, ensures a spontaneous elimination of any grouping which aims to differentiate itself. This cannot be achieved with, as Lenin put it, the formal and mechanical prescriptions of a hierarchy, but through correct revolutionary politics.

The repression of fractionism isn’t a fundamental aspect of the evolution of the party, though preventing it is.
Organic centralism addresses the failings of democratic centralism as the organizing principle of the one communist Party: it achieves the centralization — i.e. unity of revolutionary action — of the Party not by successively fostering and then putting a stranglehold on internal dissension, but by preventing it right from the outset with correct communist politics. It repudiates internal democracy and discipline, these necessarily being, and having always been, exclusively the requirement of parties which allow themselves to fracture along the points of their programmatic content (and the programme of the one communist Party must necessarily fulfill the proletarian historical mission) — i.e. parties which cannot organically achieve centralization on account of their accommodation to opponents of the revolutionary doctrine. It is the necessary form the Party will take upon the negation of internal compromise and opportunism.

[the debater]

:rolleyes:

First of all, where will your money to fund these campaigns come from? Will you financially outcompete every bourgeois party in the world?

It's either running for mayor, or running for president or governor or senator. Running mayoral campaigns would be far less costly than running socialist candidates for governor or president. You honestly think running for president would be cheaper than running a few dozen candidates for mayor across major world cities?

When I say cities, I mean somewhat large cities like Milwaukee Wisconsin, or Columbus Ohio, or Toronto. I'm not talking about small cities, if that's where you're getting confused.

[Remus Bleys]

To answer your question #ff000 I interpret revolutionary totalitarianism as being the idea that proletarian interests dominate the whole of society, in all political, social, and economic levesl. Therefore I think all communists are revolutionary totalitarians, but the ones who identify as such typically don't hold democracy as a principle and thus don't care if a majority agrees with this or not.

[newdayrising]

I agree with the principle, but it's a terrible choice for a term isn't it?

[Oenomaus]

I honestly want to know what is everyone's opinion on the strategy of running as many socialist candidates as possible for city mayor positions across the world? It would be like if socialism is a fire, and the cities where the socialist mayors are based are like sparks for the fire. The forest floor on which the fire gets started is like Planet Earth. If we start off at the local level, and work our way up to the state, provincial, and federal levels, we should be unstoppable. If people see socialism succeed at the city level, no amount of bourgeois money poured into TV ads and stolen elections is going to be able to change people's minds back to their original opinions.

Socialism can't "succeed at the city level" because the notion of "socialism in one city" is reformist nonsense. "At the city level", the class-for-itself can't seize state power (because state power is not located at the municipal level except in the most inconsequential forms), smash the bourgeois state apparatus, let alone completely socialise the means of production and abolish classes. What can "succeed at the city level" is sewer "socialism", petit-bourgeois reformism that leaves the structure of capitalist society intact while emphasising public utilities. Such "socialists" are a dime a dozen, and they haven't accomplished anything lasting, nor can they.

[Remus Bleys]

I agree with the principle, but it's a terrible choice for a term isn't it?

No I don't think so. It's an honest view and the phrase nicely explains the view. If you are referring to the negative view of the word totalitarian or the association with fascism think of the negative view of the word communism or is association with state capitalism.

[newdayrising]

No I don't think so. It's an honest view and the phrase nicely explains the view. If you are referring to the negative view of the word totalitarian or the association with fascism think of the negative view of the word communism or is association with state capitalism.

I don't think the analogy applies here. The term communism has indeed been associated with all kinds of fecal matter. But despite that, it is a long existing tradition with coherent principles, a theory and so on. There's always been people arguing for "true" communism.

Totalitarianism, however, as far as I know, is a term that was created in the 1920s to describe the fascist state (in a positive sense, nonetheless) and was then popularized when bourgeois intellectuals began applying it to leftist regimes as well in order to make democracy look good. Mass murder is therefore, not a sin of capitalism, but of "totalitarianism".

Therefore, I don't see much of a reason to use it in this sense when it's not difficult to pick another term people will actually understand without having to log in on revleft and ask about it on the Bordiga Literatti group :)

[Remus Bleys]

I don't think the analogy applies here. The term communism has indeed been associated with all kinds of fecal matter. But despite that, it is a long existing tradition with coherent principles, a theory and so on. There's always been people arguing for "true" communism.

Totalitarianism, however, as far as I know, is a term that was created in the 1920s to describe the fascist state (in a positive sense, nonetheless) and was then popularized when bourgeois intellectuals began applying it to leftist regimes as well in order to make democracy look good. Mass murder is therefore, not a sin of capitalism, but of "totalitarianism".

Therefore, I don't see much of a reason to use it in this sense when it's not difficult to pick another term people will actually understand without having to log in on revleft and ask about it on the Bordiga Literatti group :)

Well yes this is true but how about the use of the term Dictatorship? I doubt the "common man" understands that the dotp is a state which destroys itself, and instead thinks of some capitalist dictatorshop, whaer the state is presumed to be eternal. True communism is also likewise hated.
I think the term totalitarian explains the concept accurately . Do you have another word for it?
ql and about that true communism thing. Does the use of the word by some irrelevant sect of the left really have any affect on pulsar opinion on a word?

[the debater]

Socialism can't "succeed at the city level" because the notion of "socialism in one city" is reformist nonsense. "At the city level", the class-for-itself can't seize state power (because state power is not located at the municipal level except in the most inconsequential forms), smash the bourgeois state apparatus, let alone completely socialise the means of production and abolish classes. What can "succeed at the city level" is sewer "socialism", petit-bourgeois reformism that leaves the structure of capitalist society intact while emphasising public utilities. Such "socialists" are a dime a dozen, and they haven't accomplished anything lasting, nor can they.

I guess you're not a fan of Seattle's mayor? Do you believe running for state government or national government is a better option? Do you believe socialism should be achieved through violence, even in rich countries?

[Remus Bleys]

I guess you're not a fan of Seattle's mayor? Do you believe running for state government or national government is a better option? Do you believe socialism should be achieved through violence, even in rich countries?
well duh violent revolution is needed.
"the proletariat cannot simply lay hands of the ready made state machinery" or however that quote goes (i can't be arsed)
also are you refering to Kshama Sawant, who is a council member, not a senator (and im no fan).

[#FF0000]

Organic centralism addresses the failings of democratic centralism as the organizing principle of the one communist Party: it achieves the centralization — i.e. unity in theory and practice — of the Party not by successively fostering and then putting a stranglehold on internal dissension, but by preventing it right from the outset with correct communist politics. It repudiates internal democracy and discipline, these necessarily being, and having always been, exclusively the requirement of parties which allow themselves to fracture along the points of their programmatic content (and the programme of the one communist Party must necessarily fulfill the proletarian historical mission) — i.e. parties which cannot organically achieve centralization on account of their accommodation to opponents of the revolutionary doctrine. It is the necessary form the Party will take upon the negation of internal compromise and opportunism.

Yo I really hope I am reading this wrong but this sounds like you are literally saying "we'll avoid dissent within the party by being right".

edit:


In response to your point about decision-making post-DOTP, the presence of democratic methods in scientific communism — the society born of "the political economy of the labouring class" — is completely inconsequential, as no democratic organs which are ascribed any degree of historical relevance will endure the revolution.

Aight cool how will decisions re: production and distribution be made? What part do actual working people have in a society born of the political economy of their class?

[#FF0000]

I guess you're not a fan of Seattle's mayor? Do you believe running for state government or national government is a better option? Do you believe socialism should be achieved through violence, even in rich countries?

Even if one does engage in "parliamentary politics", it's naive to think that violence won't be present as soon as a party tries to assert working class control -- because no one with power is going to just give it up

[Ember Catching]

Yo I really hope I am reading this wrong but this sounds like you are literally saying "we'll avoid dissent within the party by being right".
Avoiding internal dissent is not an end for the Party, but a means: this means is constituted in "every last member eliminating from his ideology any concession to democratoid, pacifist, autonomist or libertarian trends", [Amadeo Bordiga, When the Party's General Situation is Historically Unfavourable, 1965] or more broadly, any revision of the revolutionary doctrine and thus scientific socialism and history; it can organically achieve its end — i.e. unity of action around a programme which expresses the revolutionary doctrine, the proletarian historical mission — because the revolutionary doctrine — i.e. the necessary theoretical conclusions of scientific socialism, of history — itself, affirmed by each and every Party member, instructs each and every Party member to do so. The revolutionary doctrine thus declares that any Party characterized by internal democracy or hierarchy — insofar as they constitute means of suppressing internal dissent — necessarily accommodates underminers of a pure and invariant communist programme.


Aight cool how will decisions re: production and distribution be made? What part do actual working people have in a society born of the political economy of their class?
In place of social production for surplus-value, there will be "social production regulated by social prevision" — I cannot predict the precise fashion in which production will be regulated, but I can tell you that the formal structure of scientific communism will express the historical, social and economic conditions inherited from the overthrow of capitalist production under the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat. In any case, the fretting over the administrative role of workers in scientific communism (as opposed to those who will not work? Who are they?) generally belies a broader dogma which I will respond to here: workers' control is not a principle of the communist movement — its only principle is aligning itself with the proletarian historical mission, and to this end it excludes no means.

[Rurkel]

Simplifying it somewhat to the level of a direct answer to #FF0000's question, "we'll avoid dissent because all party members are unflinchingly dedicated to the invariant revolutionary doctrine". Does organic centralism in practice mean not admitting anyone capable of causing dissent in the party in the first place (and not allowing anyone who is not a member to influence the party policy)?

[Ember Catching]

Simplifying it somewhat to the level of a direct answer to #FF0000's question, "we'll avoid dissent because all party members are unflinchingly dedicated to the invariant revolutionary doctrine". Does organic centralism in practice mean not admitting anyone capable of causing dissent in the party in the first place (and not allowing anyone who is not a member to influence the party policy)?
As organic centralism has always been counterposed to democratic centralism, in-depth explanations must emphasize this context, with special reference to the role of internal dissent, but your post is more or less how I would explain it if I were trying to be succinct.