Good Dictatorship or Democracy?

[Dorian]

If you had to choose, which one would you pick and why?

[Q]

Moved from /philosophy to /learning.

[Sinister Intents]

If you had to choose, which one would you pick and why?

The only dictatorship we want is the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the only democracy allowed is direct democracy

[Jimmie Higgins]

Hello and welcome,

I don't think there's really any good dictatorships or good (capitalist) Democracy. Or at least the question is too abstract to answer. The important thing in regards to rights or whatnot is always a question of how well people can organize themselves to wrest power or create "rights" for themselves in their interests. So in a general sense it's usually easier for workers to force concessions in bourgeois democracies than in dictatorships, but there are different difficulties in either situation. One of the reasons that under more or less stable circumstances capitalist societies tend to favor liberal democracy is because it allows for more room to manuver and create escape valves for class anger. It might be easier to organize in a liberal democracy compared to, say, Egypt under Mubarak/military rule where trade unions and opposition parties are illegal and repressed, but then on the other hand when there is mass militancy, the centralization of power also creates a more central target for the whole system potentially. So, for example, if the militant worker struggles in China really organized and became a generalized movement, a connection between state power/repression and economic power/exploitation is more automatic. If a militant workers movement developed in the US, however, it might be less clear that the question of state/economics are actually part of the same thing. This is probably a way oversimplified explanation, but in broad strokes I think it holds.

[AnaRchic]

None of the abovr. Dictatorship is always oppressive, and democracy threatens individual freedom by subordinating individual will to majority sentiment. To these forms I counterpose free association; individuals uniting together on the basis of affinity to realize their individual goals through cooperation. Free association is the only truly libertarian method of social arrangement.

[Ocean Seal]

The notion is good dictatorship is an inherently flawed one b/c it rests upon a dictator being well loved and taking care of his people. This generally leads to a cult of personality, and the belief that populism equals people's power.

However, the notion of democracy is quite flawed so long as there are severe economic disparities between the people and as a result systematic power gaps.

[DDR]

All class based societies are dictatorships, so I think you should rephrase your question better.

[Jimmie Higgins]

All class based societies are dictatorships, so I think you should rephrase your question better.I think it's plain as to which connotation of dictatorship. If someone asked if you wanted either an apple or a banana, they're not giving you a computer :lol:

[DDR]

I think it's plain as to which connotation of dictatorship. If someone asked if you wanted either an apple or a banana, they're not giving you a computer :lol:

In revleft one never can be sure :laugh:

[Q]

Little fact: In the entire Marx & Engels archive of what they've written, the phrase "dictatorship of the proletariat" is used a dozen times and only in a polemical (read: edgy) context towards others. On the other hand, I know of no counts for the phrase "democracy", presumably because every time it was tried, they lost count.

Point here: What Marx and Engels meant with "dictatorship of the proletariat" was a counterposition to the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" we live under today, an expression of a class hegemony. It is in fact much freer and democratic than what is possible under capitalism, exactly because, it is the majority that rules, which can only be done when society governs itself i.e. democracy.

Having said that, we do not live under a democracy today (that is, for those of us living in a Western country with parliamentary rule and elections). Elections have little to do with democracy in the first place. What we live under can best be described I think as an oligarchy with some democratic concessions, won through massive class struggles. Elections are quite good at keeping elites in control and is therefore perfectly compatible with capitalism.

[reb]

Having said that, we do not live under a democracy today (that is, for those of us living in a Western country with parliamentary rule and elections). Elections have little to do with democracy in the first place. What we live under can best be described I think as an oligarchy with some democratic concessions, won through massive class struggles. Elections are quite good at keeping elites in control and is therefore perfectly compatible with capitalism.

Is this you are harping on about how you are trying to participate in such elections? The problem isn't so much that the bourgeois democratic state is axtually democratic or not, the problem is the whole notion of a state in the first place. You could have the most democratic state in history, but the fact of the matter is, it is still a state and as a result, a society of irresolvable class differences. The DotP doesn't have to be democratic either, because it's sole historical mission is to end the state and class society.

[Q]

Is this you are harping on about how you are trying to participate in such elections? The problem isn't so much that the bourgeois democratic state is axtually democratic or not, the problem is the whole notion of a state in the first place. You could have the most democratic state in history, but the fact of the matter is, it is still a state and as a result, a society of irresolvable class differences. The DotP doesn't have to be democratic either, because it's sole historical mission is to end the state and class society.
Since this is quite something to take apart, as it is packed with so many problems, I'm only now replying to this. Sorry for the delay.


Is this you are harping on about how you are trying to participate in such elections?
I'm not entirely sure where you took from my post how I'm harping on elections. Elsewhere I've mentioned elections as a tactic that must be taken within a certain context (like here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/parliamentary-democracy-undemocratici-t184283/index.html?p=2679431#post2679431)). If you're referring to my blogpost, which I think you are, then that must be taken within that context.


The problem isn't so much that the bourgeois democratic state is axtually democratic or not, the problem is the whole notion of a state in the first place. You could have the most democratic state in history, but the fact of the matter is, it is still a state and as a result, a society of irresolvable class differences.
The point I'm making is that a genuine democracy is actually incompatible with bourgeois rule. Vice versa, a genuine democracy would be the start of proletarian rule in any country where the working class is the majority of society. In fact, it can be the only form in which our class can rule collectively and, as such, lay the basis to overcome class society.


The DotP doesn't have to be democratic either, because it's sole historical mission is to end the state and class society.
This part is the most problematic. As I mentioned in the post you partly quoted, Marx and Engels only used the term "dictatorship of the proletariat" a few times in their six decades of political life and only in a few very certain contexts.

As I mentioned elsewhere (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=11278):

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

5a. The true democratic form has, as an aside, nothing to do with elections (which is an oligarchic form of rule, not a democratic one), but has everything to do with ancientAthens, where lottery decided which people ruled for a short amount of time. This was the form Aristotle once despised as the “rule of the poor”, since it was the masses that swayed the scepter. This is nowadays more commonly known as demarchy (as it would just confuse everyone if we kept the name of “democracy”, despite the bourgeois lie).

5b. Since the actual “revolutionary moment” is the toppling of the capitalist constitutional order and since the party-movement is the actual constituded working class as a class-collective, this implies that the party-movement comes to power as a whole. So, demarchy has to be an integral part of the party-movement. Every party member has to be able to rule and be ruled.

Since, in your scenario, it is not the proletariat that rules collectively (excluded as a possibility when you're rejecting democracy), I wonder how else the working class will end the state and class society. Is it through the dictatorship of the party? If so, how do you differ from the Stalinists you so despise?