Whats so great about democracy? [Archive]

Brandon's Impotent Rage

6th February 2014, 00:39

The Encyclopedia at Marxists.org has this to say about democracy:

Democracy
A political system of rule by the majority. Democracy is a much-abused term however, with even the most stunted, abstract and limited forms of suffrage going by the name of democracy.

“... in capitalist society we have a democracy that is curtailed, wretched, false, a democracy only for the rich, for the minority. The dictatorship of the proletariat (http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/d/i.htm#dictatorship-proletariat), the period of transition to communism (http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/c/o.htm#communism), will for the first time create democracy for the people, for the majority, along with the necessary suppression of the exploiters, of the minority. Communism alone is capable of providing really complete democracy, and the more complete it is, the sooner it will become unnecessary and wither away of its own accord. ...”

“Democracy for an insignificant minority, democracy for the rich – that is the democracy of capitalist society. If we look more closely into the machinery of capitalist democracy, we see everywhere, in the “petty” – supposedly petty – details of the suffrage (residential qualifications, exclusion of women, etc.), in the technique of the representative institutions, in the actual obstacles to the right of assembly (public buildings are not for “paupers"!), in the purely capitalist organization of the daily press, etc., etc., – we see restriction after restriction upon democracy. These restrictions, exceptions, exclusions, obstacles for the poor seem slight, especially in the eyes of one who has never known want himself and has never been in close contact with the oppressed classes in their mass life (and nine out of 10, if not 99 out of 100, bourgeois publicists and politicians come under this category); but in their sum total these restrictions exclude and squeeze out the poor from politics, from active participation in democracy.” [Lenin, State and Revolution (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm), Chapter 5]

Communism (http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/c/o.htm#communism) means, in the first place, a step far above the limited democracy found under capitalism, by the most thoroughgoing proletarian democracy (http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/p/r.htm#proletarian-democracy); and after that, the withering away of democracy as the majority less and less finds it necessary to overrule the will of any minority, because the majority is neither threatened nor damaged by the minority; in other words, without classes, conflict will be on a personal level not on a social level.
In order to understand the breadth and strength of proletarian democracy, the working class (http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/p/r.htm#proletariat) must first recognise the limitations of bourgeois democracy (http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/b/o.htm#bourgeois-democracy):

“While the merely repressive organs of the old governmental power were to be amputated, its legitimate functions were to be wrested from an authority usurping pre-eminence over society itself, and restored to the responsible agents of society. Instead of deciding once in three or six years which member of the ruling class was to misrepresent the people in Parliament, universal suffrage was to serve the people,...” [Civil War in France (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/ch05.htm), Chapter 5]

Generally speaking, bourgeois democracy develops in proportion to the growing maturity and strength of the working class:

“In capitalist society (http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/c/a.htm#capitalism), providing it develops under the most favourable conditions, we have a more or less complete democracy in the democratic republic. But this democracy is always hemmed in by the narrow limits set by capitalist exploitation, and consequently always remains, in effect, a democracy for the minority, only for the propertied classes, only for the rich. Freedom (http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/f/r.htm#freedom) in capitalist society always remains about the same as it was in the ancient Greek republics: freedom for the slave-owners (http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/s/l.htm#slave-society). Owing to the conditions of capitalist exploitation, the modern wage slaves (http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/w/a.htm#wage-labour) are so crushed by want and poverty that “they cannot be bothered with democracy”, “cannot be bothered with politics”; in the ordinary, peaceful course of events, the majority of the population is debarred from participation in public and political life.” [State and Revolution (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm), Chapter 5]

It may appear that universal suffrage provides the opportunity for the working class to elect socialists to government and overthrow capitalism peacefully and constitutionally. The capitalist state would never allow this. The repressive nature of bourgeois democracy becomes clear however, only when the working class has outgrown bourgeois society and is ready to go beyond it:

“Universal suffrage is thus the gauge of the maturity of the working class. It cannot and never will be anything more in the modern state; but that is enough. On the day when the thermometer of universal suffrage shows boiling-point among the workers, they as well as the capitalists will know where they stand. [Origin of the Family (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ch09.htm#3.1), Chapter 9]

“... the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.

“The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degree, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total productive forces as rapidly as possible.” [Communist Manifesto (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm), Chapter 2]

Marx and Engels’ worked out how the working class could transcend bourgeois democracy by observing the action of the Parisian workers in the Paris Commune of 1871:

“The Commune was formed of the municipal councillors, chosen by universal suffrage in the various wards of the town, responsible and revocable at short terms. The majority of its members were naturally workers, or acknowledged representatives of the working class. The Commune was to be a working, not a parliamentary body, executive and legislative at the same time.” [Civil War in France (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/ch05.htm), Chapter 5]

That is to say, proletarian democracy was not just representative democracy, but participatory democracy. Class society is founded upon the division of labour (http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/d/i.htm#division-labour) between mental and manual labour. Corresponding to this, the form of democracy which best suits the maintenance of class society is the separation of executive and legislative powers: i.e., one class of people decide what should be done, while another class of people do it. In order to transcend class society, the working class must introduce a mode of life in which everywhere the people doing something decide amongst themselves, by consensus what and how it should be done. Workers get little opportunity to learn about running the country or even their own workplace, because that work is done by politicians, capitalists and managers. Even politicians are kept in the dark and manipulated by the unelected people that run the businesses and government departments. Real power is in the board rooms and elite clubs for the rich. All positions of authority in Socialist society must be elected solely by workers and subject to recall at any time.
The separation of executive and legislative powers in bourgeois, parliamentary democracy means that even if workers’ representatives gain a majority in parliament, they find that in reality they control nothing.

“The highest form of the state, the democratic republic, which in our modern social conditions becomes more and more an unavoidable necessity and is the form of state in which alone the last decisive battle between proletariat and bourgeoisie can be fought out – the democratic republic no longer officially recognises differences of property. Wealth here employs its power indirectly, but all the more surely. It does this in two ways: by plain corruption of officials, of which America is the classic example, and by an alliance between the government and the stock exchange, which is effected all the more easily the higher the state debt mounts and the more the joint-stock companies concentrate in their hands not only transport but also production itself, and themselves have their own centre in the stock exchange.” [Origin of the Family (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1884/origin-family/ch09.htm#3.1), Chapter 9]

Furthermore, the state (http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/s/t.htm#state) – the police-military organisation built by the bourgeoisie for the sole purpose of protecting private property – is not elected, and cannot be legislated into something else:

“Democracy means equality. The great significance of the proletariat’s struggle for equality and of equality as a slogan will be clear if we correctly interpret it as meaning the abolition of classes. But democracy means only formal equality. And as soon as equality is achieved for all members of society in relation to ownership of the means of production, that is, equality of labour and wages, humanity will inevitably be confronted with the question of advancing father, from formal equality to actual equality, i.e., to the operation of the rule “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”. ...

“Democracy is a form of the state, it represents, on the one hand, the organised, systematic use of force against persons; but, on the other hand, it signifies the formal recognition of equality of citizens, the equal right of all to determine the structure of, and to administer, the state. This, in turn, results in the fact that, at a certain stage in the development of democracy, it first welds together the class that wages a revolutionary struggle against capitalism – the proletariat, and enables it to crush, smash to atoms, wipe off the face of the earth the bourgeois, even the republican-bourgeois, state machine, the standing army, the police and the bureaucracy and to substitute for them a more democratic state machine, but a state machine nevertheless, in the shape of armed workers who proceed to form a militia involving the entire population.” [State and Revolution (http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm), Chapter 5]

Thus bourgeois democracy, which supports the interests of capitalists above all else, is a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. Democracy and freedom (http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/f/r.htm#freedom) goes only so far; and as soon as the majority people decide that majority rule should apply – not only in the parliament, but also in the workplace, the factories and offices, in the army, in the schools and universities – then suddenly the capitalist state machine will without fail raise its head and say “Enough is enough!” and restore by whatever it takes the rule of the minority of wealthy capitalists over the majority of workers. Having “won the battle of democracy”, the workers must now make a revolution. The dictatorship of the working class majority replaces the dictatorship of the minority of big capitalists. The unelected police-military hierarchy of violence is dismantled to make way for genuine, unqualified, proletarian democracy.

Contrariwise, socialism (http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/s/o.htm#socialism), in which majority rule applies everywhere, can only be a dictatorship of the proletariat (http://marxists.org/glossary/terms/d/i.htm#dictatorship-proletariat) which suppresses the right of the minority of capitalists to exploit workers. The dictatorship of the proletariat simply means the most thoroughgoing democracy, where money and privilege are no longer able to lay down the law to the working class majority, and free associations of people work out their lives in collaboration.

Rugged Collectivist

6th February 2014, 01:03

Many members here say that we should have direct democracy, and democratically managed workplaces and a democratically managed economy. I am wondering what's so great about democracy if it can lead to a variety of problems such as minorities having there needs not met, abuse of power by the majority, reduced incentives to work, stupidity of the majority, people voting for capitalism, fascism, people supporting sexism, racism, suppressing LGBT rights? I say that there are reduced incentives to work because you can just vote for free stuff. I support a system where educated individuals make decisions about the subjects that there educated in with a central authority that regulates and monitors what they can do to prevent them from abusing there powers. This central authority would be made up of educated and dedicated communists.

What's worse, "tyranny of the majority" or oligarchy?

You're essentially falling into a liberal trap and retroactively prescribing the quack cure of democracy against the abuses of power of the Soviet capitalist bureaucracy. With capitalism abolished, democracy would be pointless. You're also begging the question.

When the capitalist state oversteps the bounds that it has set for itself (ie, abuses power) it does so as capital requires. So-called abuses of power in capitalism are nothing more than the inevitable and brutal triumph of the market over the desires of reformers and liberals who cry out against such abuses. The concept of abuse of authority is utopian liberal hogwash that implies that capitalist rulers should be adhering to some code of "justice" under which everything would be okie-dokie. While we cry out against the exploitation inherent in capitalism and advocate the abolition of capitalism, liberals cry out about abuses of power and completely ignore the fact that their arbitrary idealist notions of justice against which they judge whether or not power is being abused completely sidestep the class contradictions that determine how power is to be played out in the first place.

Democracy is the quack cure that liberals prescribe against abuses of power, to save themselves from the trouble of realizing that the sickness if caused by capitalism itself. Remember what Engels and Lenin wrote on the overcoming of democracy. When capitalism is abolished, the problems that democracy doesn't even solve would not exist any more in the first place.

What exactly are you referring to when you talk about democracy?

Illegalitarian

6th February 2014, 01:28

yeah, Sea is correct. The idea of "democracy in a vacuum" is just as silly at the ideal of freedom of speech in a vacuum, or any other silly liberal conception of rights.

Why should reactionaries have a voice? Why should they get to participate in the process of deciding how to advance the interests of the working class, and other oppressed classes? Why would we allow those who directly fly in the face of our class interests get foot in the door using the process of working class decision making processes?

Communism is a mode of production for the *working class, by the working class. Period.

If we're simply talking about the democratic process, ie workers councils, community decision making, etc, of course this is what we strive for, as these are the most logical and best vehicles for the revolutionary class to express and advance their interests, but this is nothing like the liberal bourgeois idea of Democracy.

*not just the working class, any exploited class falls under this category. More specifically, I reject the notion that lumpens are not our allies, or the notion that toiling peasants are not part of the working class.

Sabot Cat

6th February 2014, 01:33

I never understood the tendency to jump to the worst possible definition or conclusion and then act fiercely in opposition to a point of view almost no one else is actually arguing in the thread. When a communist says "democracy" they usually don't mean a bourgeois republic.

Remus Bleys

6th February 2014, 01:41

Ding ding ding ding.
Democracy has no place in socialism.

Creative Destruction

6th February 2014, 01:58

Ding ding ding ding.
Democracy has no place in socialism.

what do you mean by "democracy" when you say this?

motion denied

6th February 2014, 02:00

There is no place for politics in socialism. Democracy implies political power.

Halert

6th February 2014, 02:07

We need democratic process for the working class to have a say in decision making. Democracy for the working class you could says.
The bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeoisie should obviously be kept out of the process.

Remus Bleys

6th February 2014, 02:12

what do you mean by "democracy" when you say this?
If democracy is to mean the will or rule of the majority, then I oppose democracy as a deciding factor. If a decision needs to be made, I think we can find a better solution. However, don't take this to be some caricature that means that I would oppose something simply because the majority agreed with it.

Halert

6th February 2014, 02:21

There is no place for politics in socialism. Democracy implies political power.

What do you mean with that? Obviously there will be conflicting opinions on various issues under socialism. Shouldn't the majority of the workers decide? if not how should a decision be made according to you?

Crabbensmasher

6th February 2014, 02:33

Creative Destruction

6th February 2014, 02:37

I say that there are reduced incentives to work because you can just vote for free stuff.

this is an especially strange reason to oppose "democracy" on a forum where the ideology of most people ideally culminates with a society that has a free access to goods.

in fact, the entire OP smells of trolling.

Remus Bleys

6th February 2014, 02:38

http://libcom.org/library/a-contribution-critique-political-autonomy-gilles-dauve-2008
http://www.marxists.org/archive/bordiga/works/1922/democratic-principle.htm
http://www.marxists.org/archive/camatte/demyst.htm
these are all really good links. I implore you all to read them.

Ele'ill

6th February 2014, 02:38

I am wondering what's so great about democracy if it can lead to a variety of problems such as minorities having there needs not met, abuse of power by the majority

A lot of the users here on the forum stand by what you say here and not the first part of your post necessarily.

incentives to work,
by incentive do you mean coercive ultimatums?

I say that there are reduced incentives to work because you can just vote for free stuff.

I certainly hope all the stuff is free.

I support a system where educated individuals make decisions about the subjects that there educated in with a central authority that regulates and monitors what they can do to prevent them from abusing there powers. This central authority would be made up of educated and dedicated communists.

But don't you think there is a very likely chance that these highly educated individuals making decisions and a powerful central authority of regulation would at some point fuse together in one combined interest that does not work for vast swaths of people?

Geiseric

6th February 2014, 02:41

You're essentially falling into a liberal trap and retroactively prescribing the quack cure of democracy against the abuses of power of the Soviet capitalist bureaucracy. With capitalism abolished, democracy would be pointless. You're also begging the question.

When the capitalist state oversteps the bounds that it has set for itself (ie, abuses power) it does so as capital requires. So-called abuses of power in capitalism are nothing more than the inevitable and brutal triumph of the market over the desires of reformers and liberals who cry out against such abuses. The concept of abuse of authority is utopian liberal hogwash that implies that capitalist rulers should be adhering to some code of "justice" under which everything would be okie-dokie. While we cry out against the exploitation inherent in capitalism and advocate the abolition of capitalism, liberals cry out about abuses of power and completely ignore the fact that their arbitrary idealist notions of justice against which they judge whether or not power is being abused completely sidestep the class contradictions that determine how power is to be played out in the first place.

Democracy is the quack cure that liberals prescribe against abuses of power, to save themselves from the trouble of realizing that the sickness if caused by capitalism itself. Remember what Engels and Lenin wrote on the overcoming of democracy. When capitalism is abolished, the problems that democracy doesn't even solve would not exist any more in the first place.
I think you want to become a Stalinist bureaucrat more than your desire to institute democracy, which literally means rule of the people. If you weren't so full of shit and read Marx you'd know that he stated the FIRST task of the proletarian dictatorship is to CREATE democracy because we live in an anti democratic class society.

Geiseric

6th February 2014, 02:44

If democracy is to mean the will or rule of the majority, then I oppose democracy as a deciding factor. If a decision needs to be made, I think we can find a better solution. However, don't take this to be some caricature that means that I would oppose something simply because the majority agreed with it.

A better solution like YOU making decisions for the unenlightened, ignorant proles? Now I understand left communism.

Remus Bleys

6th February 2014, 02:50

I think you want to become a Stalinist bureaucrat more than your desire to institute democracy, which literally means rule of the people. If you weren't so full of shit and read Marx you'd know that he stated the FIRST task of the proletarian dictatorship is to CREATE democracy because we live in an anti democratic class society.

Umm not really. We can't discern seas true intentions because this is an Internet forum but if you read his post it becomes clear that what he is saying (he is also arguing it quite well why don't you debate that instead of flaming ) socialism kills bureaucracy because it destroys the material base of democracy (edit: meant bureaucracy, but democracy works too I guess), meanwhile liberals think democracy can make capitalism better.
If you actually read Marx you would realize that his view is much more complicated and nuanced.

Creative Destruction

6th February 2014, 02:57

If democracy is to mean the will or rule of the majority, then I oppose democracy as a deciding factor. If a decision needs to be made, I think we can find a better solution. However, don't take this to be some caricature that means that I would oppose something simply because the majority agreed with it.

what, then, do you think would be a good alternative?

Remus Bleys

6th February 2014, 03:01

A better solution like YOU making decisions for the unenlightened, ignorant proles? Now I understand left communism.

God your such a flame bait. The class is dynamic and it must act. The proletariat can only be seen when it is in motion. The proletariat will be organized in such a way that it will develop the organs that will find the most effecient way to make decisions and carry on the Revolution. These several and necessary organs, FORGED BY THE PROLETARIAT, are the organs that can discern the next move and will not put the Revolution on hold to see if the majority agrees or not. Would you have the Revolution betrayed because of devotion to statistics? To be frank, I probably wouldn't be a cell of one of those organs.
and not all Leftcoms even have this view.
Also, not that I agree with this view but didn't Lenin say something about socialist democracy and one man leadership not contradicting eachother.
On the whole geis I think you have made yet another excellent Contribution to a thread.

Le Socialiste

6th February 2014, 03:02

Geiseric

6th February 2014, 03:02

Umm not really. We can't discern seas true intentions because this is an Internet forum but if you read his post it becomes clear that what he is saying (he is also arguing it quite well why don't you debate that instead of flaming ) socialism kills bureaucracy because it destroys the material base of democracy, meanwhile liberals think democracy can make capitalism better.
If you actually read Marx you would realize that his view is much more complicated and nuanced.

He said Engels and Lenin wrote that "democracy has to be overcome" which is something he made up. He's a stalinoid so I expect people like him to make that case. Bourgeois democracy isn't what the OP was talking about.

Geiseric

6th February 2014, 03:05

God your such a flame bait. The class is dynamic and it must act. The proletariat can only be seen when it is in motion. The proletariat will be organized in such a way that it will develop the organs that will find the most effecient way to make decisions and carry on the Revolution. These several and necessary organs, FORGED BY THE PROLETARIAT, are the organs that can discern the next move and will not put the Revolution on hold to see of the majority agrees or not. Would you have the Revolution betrayed because of devotion to statistics? To be frank, I probably wouldn't be a cell of one of those organs.
and not all Leftcoms even have this view.
Also, not that I agree with this view but didn't Lenin say something about socialist democracy and one man leadership not contradicting eachother.
On the whole geis I think you have made yet another excellent Contribution to a thread.
No lenin never said anything like that.

Remus Bleys

6th February 2014, 03:05

what, then, do you think would be a good alternative?

Do I look like a prophet to you?
The organized class will create the best tools to facilitate its take over (these tools consequently become an embryo of communism's organization), however history has shown us this organizational form will not be democracy.

Geiseric

6th February 2014, 03:09

Do I look like a prophet to you?
The organized class will create the best tools to facilitate its take over (these tools consequently become an embryo of communism's organization), however history has shown us this organizational form will not be democracy.

What history? The Paris commune or the Russian workers soviets? Those were examples of direct democracy at its finest.

Remus Bleys

6th February 2014, 03:12

He said Engels and Lenin wrote that "democracy has to be overcome" which is something he made up. He's a stalinoid so I expect people like him to make that case. Bourgeois democracy isn't what the OP was talking about.

Jesus fucking Christ
in State and Revolution Lenin says that democracy will wither away.

*“Democracy is, as I take all forms of government to be, a contradiction in itself, an untruth, nothing but hypocrisy (theology, as we Germans call it), at the bottom. Political liberty is sham-liberty, the worst possible slavery; the appearance of liberty, and therefore the reality of servitude. Political equality is the same; therefore democracy, as well as every other form of government, must ultimately break to pieces: hypocrisy cannot subsist, the contradiction hidden in it must come out; we must have either a regular slavery — that is, an undisguised despotism, or real liberty, and real equality — that is, Communism.”
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/10/23.htm

do you think the ussr just needed more democracy
also your reply to me was so elaborate. You have shown your debate skills wonderfully.

Creative Destruction

6th February 2014, 03:13

Do I look like a prophet to you? ... however history has shown us this organizational form will not be democracy.

that sure sounds prophetic to me. history has "shown" quite a few things but you seem to know, without qualification, what it will exclude.

Remus Bleys

6th February 2014, 03:16

What history? The Paris commune or the Russian workers soviets? Those were examples of direct democracy at its finest.

I'm not going to go through and list everything for ya as I am on my phone so just read some of this

http://libcom.org/library/a-contribution-critique-political-autonomy-gilles-dauve-2008
Dauve lists examples of times when strikes would be prevented if democracy were followed
also killing sacred cows but those events where failures

Geiseric

6th February 2014, 03:20

Jesus fucking Christ
in State and Revolution Lenin says that democracy will wither away.

*“Democracy is, as I take all forms of government to be, a contradiction in itself, an untruth, nothing but hypocrisy (theology, as we Germans call it), at the bottom. Political liberty is sham-liberty, the worst possible slavery; the appearance of liberty, and therefore the reality of servitude. Political equality is the same; therefore democracy, as well as every other form of government, must ultimately break to pieces: hypocrisy cannot subsist, the contradiction hidden in it must come out; we must have either a regular slavery — that is, an undisguised despotism, or real liberty, and real equality — that is, Communism.”
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1843/10/23.htm

do you think the ussr just needed more democracy
also your reply to me was so elaborate. You have shown your debate skills wonderfully.
Lenin said "the state will wither away" which is the opposite of what you just said. Thishappens when socialism, borne by direct democracy worldwide, crushes the enemies of the majority. I'm not debating you, I'm telling you you're wrong. Also its obvious that the USSR needed more democracy, if that happened the opportunist bureaucrats wouldn't of strangled the most revolutionary generation of the world's working class.

Remus Bleys

6th February 2014, 03:21

that sure sounds prophetic to me. history has "shown" quite a few things but you seem to know, without qualification, what it will exclude.
So if something has repeatedly shown itself to be potentially counterrevolution and when used by revolutionaries it wad only in name, something fetishized by all, the calling card of the reactionaries, something abandoned by the Revolution, something shown to result in reactionary deeds had it been followed through (Dauve talks about strikes) something that can be replaced with something more effecient, is the form that the revolution will take then? Or do you think that anarcho Syndicalism is a good tactic because anything can happen?

Remus Bleys

6th February 2014, 03:25

Lenin said "the state will wither away" which is the opposite of what you just said. Thishappens when socialism, borne by direct democracy worldwide, crushes the enemies of the majority. I'm not debating you, I'm telling you you're wrong.
This is not a debate. You are wrong. You are in the Learning forum purposefully giving bad information and should be infracted. How many times have you done this.
Thanks for replying to the rest of my post btw.

And only then will democracy begin to wither away, owing to the simple fact that, freed from capitalist slavery, from the untold horrors, savagery, absurdities, and infamies of capitalist exploitation, people will gradually become accustomed to observing the elementary rules of social intercourse that have been known for centuries and repeated for thousands of years in all copy-book maxims.
That's from state and Revolution. Maybe you should read it

Remus Bleys

6th February 2014, 03:33

Take the majority right now and ask them ask to vote on whether they want communism or not. This should be proof enough that at the very least democracy cannot be a principle for us.

Remus Bleys

6th February 2014, 03:47

No lenin never said anything like that.

Read before you taint the Learning forum with your falsities

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/apr/07.htm

"Dictatorial powers and one-man management are not contradictory to socialist democracy."

Geiseric

6th February 2014, 03:53

One man management is different than one man decision making in the political sphere. If one man manages the carrying out of the decision made by the majority that is still direct democracy. If you ask the world working class if they support a respectable living for everybody in the world they will say yes, which is a democratic decision made by and for the majority.

Creative Destruction

6th February 2014, 03:55

So if something has repeatedly shown itself to be potentially counterrevolution and when used by revolutionaries it wad only in name, something fetishized by all, the calling card of the reactionaries, something abandoned by the Revolution, something shown to result in reactionary deeds had it been followed through (Dauve talks about strikes) something that can be replaced with something more effecient, is the form that the revolution will take then? Or do you think that anarcho Syndicalism is a good tactic because anything can happen?

i don't necessarily have an issue with the working class taking an anti-democratic form in the process of a revolution, if that's what is to be done. democracy is my ideal, but there are different circumstances that arise.

my issue here is that you are predicting something and then doing a turn about and saying "it'll be up to the working class, but i know for absolutely sure that it won't be democracy!" what if, then, the working class chooses to incorporate proletarian democracy? if the bordigists didn't necessarily exclude democracy, absolutely, their position would be much less problematic... for me, anyway.

as it turns out, history is full of surprises! and guess what? "revolution" has shown itself to be a failure in history, as well otherwise we wouldn't be talking about how Russia is a capitalist country nowadays. i guess that should be proof that revolution cannot be a principle for us.

Remus Bleys

6th February 2014, 04:01

Rednoise the bordigists don't absolutely disregard democracy in a totality (well some of them do) in that there might be a situation where a democratic form can be used, but this is seen as extremely unlikely for reasons that a post from a phone on a forum cannot properly express (hence my links) and if it is to be used them it still wouldn't be called democratic not being praised thereof.
Nice strawman towards the end. You beat me, hope your proud of yourself.

Geis do you honestly think that the majority of workers, right now, are in favor of communist revolution?
and you did not contradict what I said one the Lenin quote.

Geiseric

6th February 2014, 04:09

Remus Bleys

6th February 2014, 04:12

Have you ever thought that people could support communism without ever reading about politics? That they could believe in social equality without arguing with you about abstract political ideals which maybe several thousand people have been exposed to?

Don't jump around the question. Of course the majority will eventually support communism, as social condition determines consciousness (another thing showing democracys idealism). I am asking about right now though. If not then will a majority agree with communism (this means they d find it attainable and possible as well)

Creative Destruction

6th February 2014, 04:20

if it is to be used them it still wouldn't be called democratic not being praised thereof.

this doesn't make any sense. it's democracy, except it's not called democracy...?

Nice strawman towards the end. You beat me, hope your proud of yourself.

not really a strawman because i didn't ascribe it to you. i just think that's a logical extension of your argument.

Sabot Cat

6th February 2014, 04:23

Don't jump around the question. Of course the majority will eventually support communism, as social condition determines consciousness (another thing showing democracys idealism). I am asking about right now though. If not then will a majority agree with communism (this means they d find it attainable and possible as well)

Why does it matter if the proletariat right now wants communism as far as vindicating or refuting democracy as the operating model for a post-revolutionary government?

Jimmie Higgins

6th February 2014, 04:24

If democracy is to mean the will or rule of the majority, then I oppose democracy as a deciding factor. If a decision needs to be made, I think we can find a better solution.how would we find a better solution? By having people discuss it back and forth and then taking some kind of tally to figure out the collective agreement on it?

Take the majority right now and ask them ask to vote on whether they want communism or not. This should be proof enough that at the very least democracy cannot be a principle for us.so socialism is to be handed to an unwilling working class... By someone/thing?

You're right that Lenin talked about overcoming democracy, but you are wrong in how you are presenting that argument, at least based on what he talks about in state and revolution on this matter. He makes a dialectical argument about how workers need democracy to organize their expropriation of the capitalists, to subjugate experts and beurocrats to the new rule of the revolutionary workers and soldiers and create the basis for communist relationships to generalize which would in turn negate the need for democracy (or anything resembling a state).

Democracy is of enormous importance to the working class in its struggle against the capitalists for its emancipation. But democracy is by no means a boundary not to be overstepped; it is only one of the stages on the road from feudalism to capitalism, and from capitalism to communism.

Democracy is a form of the state, it represents, on the one hand, the organized, systematic use of force against persons; but, on the other hand, it signifies the formal recognition of equality of citizens, the equal right of all to determine the structure of, and to administer, the state. This, in turn, results in the fact that, at a certain stage in the development of democracy, it first welds together the class that wages a revolutionary struggle against capitalism--the proletariat, and enables it to crush, smash to atoms, wipe off the face of the earth the bourgeois, even the republican-bourgeois, state machine, the standing army, the police and the bureaucracy and to substitute for them a more democratic state machine, but a state machine nevertheless, in the shape of armed workers who proceed to form a militia involving the entire population.

Remus Bleys

6th February 2014, 04:29

how would we find a better solution? By having people discuss it back and forth and then taking some kind of tally to figure out the collective agreement on it? Why would I argue to take a vote on it? Discussion is fine, but it is the correctness of the theory that is important, not statistical opinion (which is liable to change)

so socialism is to be handed to an unwilling working class... By someone/thing?No. The proletariat organizes the tools within it to "establish" socialism. I have said that in this thread before. Not sure where I implied that some godly force is going to come down and bless the proletariat with Communism after it has spent long years in sacrificial subordinance. The revolution will surpass all, including democracy, it will, as I have said in this thread several times, in other threads, and in things apart from revleft, develop the organs necessary for decision makings.

You're right that Lenin talked about overcoming democracy, but you are wrong in how you are presenting that argument, at least based on what he talks about in state and revolution on this matter. He makes a dialectical argument about how workers need democracy to organize their expropriation of the capitalists, to subjugate experts and beurocrats to the new rule of the revolutionary workers and soldiers and create the basis for communist relationships to generalize which would in turn negate the need for democracy (or anything resembling a state).I am not arguing that I am in line with Lenin.

Remus Bleys

6th February 2014, 04:33

this doesn't make any sense. it's democracy, except it's not called democracy...?
Because it isn't democracy as some godly force, it is recognized as some form that can be gotten ridden of (and will be gotten rid of) but for the time (i really cannot see a circumstance that requires democracy, but just say one happens) is used.

not really a strawman because i didn't ascribe it to you. i just think that's a logical extension of your argument.
If i am judging things based on how it benefits proletarian self-emancipation, why would i reject proletarian self-emancipation?

Why does it matter if the proletariat right now wants communism as far as vindicating or refuting democracy as the operating model for a post-revolutionary government? to show that democracy is not a determining factor. Ideas change with social condition, democracy is a reflection of a change of social condition and to fetishize it as something different, as a principle. I wanted to show geiseric that thinking that all we need is more democracy is idealist, it obviously did not work.

Sabot Cat

6th February 2014, 04:41

to show that democracy is not a determining factor. Ideas change with social condition, democracy is a reflection of a change of social condition and to fetishize it as something different, as a principle. I wanted to show geiseric that thinking that all we need is more democracy is idealist, it obviously did not work.

Although democracy is dead-letter without a material basis, even on paper republics are favored over true democracies by the bourgeois because it would only take a class-conscious majority to overturn the old order; thus representatives are 'needed' in order "to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority", in the words of James Madison.

Remus Bleys

6th February 2014, 04:44

Sabot Cat

6th February 2014, 04:52

Why are you quoting a bourgeois-revolutionary on a communist forum? There are tons of marxists that fetishize democracy, why not quote them to drive behind your point that democracy=socialism. The fact that you used the ideology of the bourgeoisie to back up your point indicates to me that the "socialist" view of democracy is the inversion (and not the negation) of bourgeois ideology (and society)

I don't think you quite grasped that I was quoting him to show that republics exist to oppress the proletariat through "representatives" who "protect" the bourgeois and carry out their class interests.

Remus Bleys

6th February 2014, 04:56

I don't think you quite grasped that I was quoting him to show that republics exist to oppress the proletariat through "representatives" who "protect" the bourgeois and carry out their class interests.
I still don't understand what you are arguing. IF democracy is the solution to all, then shouldn't direct democracy, if implemented right now, be the thing that brings communism? Leaving aside the impossibility and absurdity of that, do you thing this will happen? Why do you think the majority will always go for socialism? This is not the case. You can say "fine then democracy will be created somewhere along hte lines" but the direct democratic line is just a decentralization fetish (as if we don't need strict centralization!) and the view that democracy is the cure to all things.

Sabot Cat

6th February 2014, 04:59

I still don't understand what you are arguing. IF democracy is the solution to all, then shouldn't direct democracy, if implemented right now, be the thing that brings communism? Leaving aside the impossibility and absurdity of that, do you thing this will happen? Why do you think the majority will always go for socialism? This is not the case. You can say "fine then democracy will be created somewhere along hte lines" but the direct democratic line is just a decentralization fetish (as if we don't need strict centralization!) and the view that democracy is the cure to all things.

I'm saying that a direct democracy would circumvent the need for a revolution because all it would take is a majority of people becoming class conscious. That's why the bourgeois will never allow for such a government.

Remus Bleys

6th February 2014, 05:01

I'm saying that a direct democracy would circumvent the need for a revolution because all it would take is a majority of people becoming class conscious. That's why the bourgeois will never allow for such a government.
I know you are saying that. I am criticizing that. I have asked this question several times, yet none have answered. Do you honestly think that if we had direct democracy, the majority of people, nay the majority of workers, would vote for socialism to be "established"?

Sabot Cat

6th February 2014, 05:05

Geiseric

6th February 2014, 05:06

I know you are saying that. I am criticizing that. I have asked this question several times, yet none have answered. Do you honestly think that if we had direct democracy, the majority of people, nay the majority of workers, would vote for socialism to be "established"?

There would only be a movement for direct democracy if the working class pushed for it, so yes. They would only come to that conclusion if bourgeois republicanism is bankrupt by its inability to deal with social crisis as pushed for by guess who? Communists.

Remus Bleys

6th February 2014, 05:10

No, but it would become a viable goal for communists with fewer significant obstacles than a true revolution.
Howso?

There would only be a movement for direct democracy if the working class pushed for it, so yes. They would only come to that conclusion if bourgeois republicanism is bankrupt by its inability to deal with social crisis as pushed for by guess who? Communists.
So you want a minority to make it possible for a majority to make decisions. Okay that totally doesn't contradict itself.

AnaRchic

6th February 2014, 05:20

Democracy (participatory) will be necessary so long as large-scale permanent social organization is necessary. In the course of social revolution, amidst invasion and civil war, the risen people will need to organize their own defensive force and exercise military power over reactionary forces.

Rather than seeing a state as necessary in this task, anarchists advocate a confederation of workers and community councils. This confederation would call forth and organize a voluntary revolutionary militia, able to be assembled and organized to repel invasion and reactionary insurrection.

This organizational control of revolutionary violence can be dangerous to anarchist goals, which is why a confederated structure of participatory units utilizing elected, mandated, rotating and recallable delegates is essential. Consensus and direct democracy will be used as appropriate, ensuring that ultimate decision-making power remains at the base level.

Basically, though I don't particularly care for democracy, it is an essential means of preserving freedom during the horribly violent and turbulent period of open class warfare. As soon as reactionary resistence is decisively defeated, and libertarian communism becomes the norm, permanent formal organization can increasingly give way to truly free associations, creating a more spontaeous, organic, and adaptive mode of human social interaction.

I look forward to a day when democracy as a concept is irrelevant; when people will associate together because they want to, for as long as they want to, always free to leave and join or form new associations with others, with human social networking eventually reaching a point of spontaneous and cooperative interconnection on a global scale.

Sabot Cat

6th February 2014, 05:21

Howso?

It's a lot easier to convince a bunch of people to tick a mark on a ballot than to give their lives in a war. Direct democracy would also absolve most of the differences between reformists and revolutionaries, because you could simply vote in radical communism with no parliamentary body acting as a diluent or agent carrying out the class interests of the bourgeois.

Creative Destruction

6th February 2014, 05:25

I know you are saying that. I am criticizing that. I have asked this question several times, yet none have answered. Do you honestly think that if we had direct democracy, the majority of people, nay the majority of workers, would vote for socialism to be "established"?

no, not necessarily, but that doesn't preclude the development of a democratic organization in a revolutionary setting. and just because a majority of workers wouldn't vote for communism at this moment doesn't mean that the concept of democracy is itself terminally flawed.

but speaking of strawmen, when has anyone ever argued that if we get direct democracy, then that would automatically bring about socialism?

Remus Bleys

6th February 2014, 05:37

no, not necessarily, but that doesn't preclude the development of a democratic organization in a revolutionary setting.and just because a majority of workers wouldn't vote for communism at this moment doesn't mean that the concept of democracy is itself terminally flawed.
No where did I argue this. I bring this up to show the idealism of democracy. Democracy pressuposes the will of the majority, which is itself simply a reflection of the social conditions of the majority. Even at democracy's own terms, Communists can do away with democracy.

but speaking of strawmen, when has anyone ever argued that if we get direct democracy, then that would automatically bring about socialism?
redrose basically did when she gave that nonsense about making communism easier with direct democracy.

It's a lot easier to convince a bunch of people to tick a mark on a ballot than to give their lives in a war. Direct democracy would also absolve most of the differences between reformists and revolutionaries, because you could simply vote in radical communism with no parliamentary body acting as a diluent or agent carrying out the class interests of the bourgeois.
See this is the kind of shit I am arguing against when I argue against democracy. Yes, I know most democratists do not think this way, but this is the type of stuff that is logically derived from when one speaks of democracy as a principle.

Democracy (participatory) will be necessary so long as large-scale permanent social organization is necessary. In the course of social revolution, amidst invasion and civil war, the risen people will need to organize their own defensive force and exercise military power over reactionary forces. Why is democracy necessary for this? Is it to satisfy an ideological fetish?

Rather than seeing a state as necessary in this task, anarchists advocate a confederation of workers and community councils. This confederation would call forth and organize a voluntary revolutionary militia, able to be assembled and organized to repel invasion and reactionary insurrection. Ignoring the fact that a state can be democratic, how is not this armed confederation of councils that exists to absolve class struggle (absolving class struggle in a proletarian way, ie negation of classes) not a state?

This organizational control of revolutionary violence can be dangerous to anarchist goals, which is why a confederated structure of participatory units utilizing elected, mandated, rotating and recallable delegates is essential. Consensus and direct democracy will be used as appropriate, ensuring that ultimate decision-making power remains at the base level. Why would democracy prevent violence towards anarchists? Why do anarchsits need to be protected from the masses?
You seem to think that centralization causes bureaucracy. This is not so. IF I may quote the ICC "Contrary to what the anarchists think, centralisation is not synonymous with bureaucratisation. On the contrary, in an organisation inspired by the conscious, passionate activity of each of its members, centralisation is the most efficient way of stimulating the participation of each member in the life of the organisation. What characterises bureaucracy is the fact that the life of the organisation is no longer rooted in the activity of its members but is artificially and formalistically carried on in its ‘bureaux’, in its central organs, and nowhere else."

Basically, though I don't particularly care for democracy, it is an essential means of preserving freedom during the horribly violent and turbulent period of open class warfare. As soon as reactionary resistence is decisively defeated, and libertarian communism becomes the norm, permanent formal organization can increasingly give way to truly free associations, creating a more spontaeous, organic, and adaptive mode of human social interaction.How? How does democracy do this? How in the world can democracy all by its self insure these freedoms? Democracy does not ensure these freedoms, in democracy's own framework these freedoms are only kept if the majority wills it so. Furthermore a spontaneous association? So communism will be in continuous re organization, the form changing daily? That sounds like a hassle.

I look forward to a day when democracy as a concept is irrelevant; when people will associate together because they want to, for as long as they want to, always free to leave and join or form new associations with others, with human social networking eventually reaching a point of spontaneous and cooperative interconnection on a global scale.Well, apart from your spontaneous fetish (which I cannot help but feel is associated with your opposition to centralization, a remnant of the idea that democracy is supposedly necessary) I mostly agree with this sentiment.

Rurkel

6th February 2014, 05:48

people will associate together because they want to, for as long as they want to, always free to leave and join or form new associations with othersDunno, this sounds like "democratic freedoms" bullshit to me. :mad: For more Bordigist intransigence, I suggest "people will associate together because International Communist Organically Centralist Party wants them to" ;)

Sabot Cat

6th February 2014, 06:02

redrose basically did when she gave that nonsense about making communism easier with direct democracy.

See this is the kind of shit I am arguing against when I argue against democracy. Yes, I know most democratists do not think this way, but this is the type of stuff that is logically derived from when one speaks of democracy as a principle.

I missed the part where you refuted what I said. It seems as though you just kind of skipped to trumpeting your own position as superior without the crucial middle step wherein you dispense with the notion that a direct democracy could carry out the interests of the proletariat better than a republic. I also didn't argue that socialism would automatically come about from this "basically"; I said it would be easier for communists in such circumstances.

Remus Bleys

6th February 2014, 06:11

I missed the part where you refuted what I said. It seems as though you just kind of skipped to trumpeting your own position as superior without the crucial middle step wherein you dispense with the notion that a direct democracy could carry out the interests of the proletariat better than a republic. I also didn't argue that socialism would automatically come about from this "basically"; I said it would be easier for communists in such circumstances.
I didn't waste my time. I don't want to argue the notion think that direct democracy under bourgeois domination, even abstractly, could result in communism or that reformism and revolutionism would become one in the same. It wouldn't happen regardless of the level of class consciousness.
I am only going to argue so much, and then I am going to stop because the difference in our thinking is too vast for me to bother.

AnaRchic

6th February 2014, 06:15

Why is democracy necessary for this? Is it to satisfy an ideological fetish?
The participatory democratic exercise of power by the working class is absolutely essential if our goal is to abolish the domination of man over man. If power is either taken or delegated to some centralized state with the power to make and enforce laws over the population, you will have the emergence of a new ruling elite which will kill the revolution.

If by "ideological fetish" you mean a principled commitment to see the end of oppressive social relationships, then hell yes. One major distinction between marxism and anarchism, is that the later holds a principled embrace of and commitment to, human freedom.

how is not this armed confederation of councils that exists to absolve class struggle (absolving class struggle in a proletarian way, ie negation of classes) not a state?
Marxists tend to always define the state in terms of its function rather than its structure. It is indeed a means of securing class domination, but it is more than that. A state is a centralized apparatus of violence able to impose laws on all within its sphere of control. It is internally hierarchical, separating the masses from the decision-making process, either through autocracy or the delegation of power to "representatives". It exists, and always has existed, to secure the interests of the ruling minority class. Rule by a majority class does not require a such a structure.

A confederation of participatory communes is not a state, it is nothing more than the coordination of assemblies of people over a larger area for purposes of collective action. It is self-organization. We propose that the working class self-organize the defense of the social revolution, rather than delegating that to a new political caste.

Why would democracy prevent violence towards anarchists? Why do anarchsits need to be protected from the masses?
I don't see where I implied that anarchists need to be protected from the 'masses'. The working class needs to defend the revolution against reactionary forces, making military organization necessary; my argument is that participatory democracy within an association of communes is our most effective means of preventing the emergence of a new hierarchy in the form of a new commanding political class.

Furthermore a spontaneous association? So communism will be in continuous re organization, the form changing daily? That sounds like a hassle.
Libertarian communism, the kind of communism I aim for, would be a whole new kind of society, without an imposed social order. It would be a voluntary communism characterized by voluntary associations of free and equal human beings, cooperating together to realize mutual benefit. Should people not be free to leave and form associations as they see fit?

Keep in mind that we tend to like regularity, so economic associations are quite likely to be rather stable, changing only as required to adapt to material conditions. The kind of social structures I earlier discussed would likely have a lot less to talk about, as people form their own economic/artistic/recreational associations and go about their lives without having to worry about violent reactionaries waging war. Eventually these kinds of "communal councils" and other such forms would only come together when there was a concrete issue to handle, rendering them informal impermanent associations formed to directly accomplish something.

To sum up Libertarian Communism proposes the absence of an imposed social order, seeing communism as voluntary and created and upheld by the free associations of the working people.

Sabot Cat

6th February 2014, 06:17

I didn't waste my time. I don't want to argue the notion think that direct democracy under bourgeois domination, even abstractly, could result in communism or that reformism and revolutionism would become one in the same.

No, that's not what I said. I'm kind of getting frustrated because you're consistently misrepresenting what I'm saying. Direct democracy would not basically, not abstractly, not essentially, etc. etc. cause communism. What it would do is facilitate circumstances wherein a class conscious proletariat could vote something like that in directly, the stipulating circumstance being if they are class conscious. That isn't the case now, and isn't likely to be the case for decades no matter if the aforesaid proletariat is living under a republic or a democracy. Nonetheless, it would be easier for us to push for a mass vote in a democracy than a mass revolution in an oligarchy.

It wouldn't happen regardless of the level of class consciousness.

It wouldn't happen because the bourgeois are not going to allow such a threat to materialize, thus preserving their republics.

I am only going to argue so much, and then I am going to stop because the difference in our thinking is too vast for me to bother.

If my errors in thinking were so obvious to you, I would think that you could at least identify them in some basic way.

Creative Destruction

6th February 2014, 06:22

redrose basically did when she gave that nonsense about making communism easier with direct democracy.

i hope you can see why this isn't the same as saying that bringing direct democracy will automatically bring about communism.

Remus Bleys

6th February 2014, 06:25

I'm omitting the parts I don't want to waste time on. For instance, this bit on the state, doesn't make any sense to me. You cannot define anything you like as the state, it has to have a real class meaning, The workers will be centralized, as my quote from t he ICC (a democratic organization even) about centralization holds true. Also, I get what you mean (your sentences that started with "Keep in mind")

The participatory democratic exercise of power by the working class is absolutely essential if our goal is to abolish the domination of man over man. If power is either taken or delegated to some centralized state with the power to make and enforce laws over the population, you will have the emergence of a new ruling elite which will kill the revolution.
How? Why? Do you not realize that this "centralized state" is a tool of the working class? Things do not become corrupt because of power, things become corrupt because of their being a material basis for that corruption.

If by "ideological fetish" you mean a principled commitment to see the end of oppressive social relationships, then hell yes. One major distinction between marxism and anarchism, is that the later holds a principled embrace of and commitment to, human freedom.Oh go cry me a river. Im as committed to the unification of the species as you are.

We propose that the working class self-organize the defense of the social revolution, rather than delegating that to a new political caste.
I have not argued differently/.

my argument is that participatory democracy within an association of communes is our most effective means of preventing the emergence of a new hierarchy in the form of a new commanding political class.
You have yet to make this argument. This is your point, but you have just said this, providing no reason to back yourself up.

Libertarian communism, the kind of communism I aim for, would be a whole new kind of society, without an imposed social order.
It would be a voluntary communism characterized by voluntary associations of free and equal human beings, cooperating together to realize mutual benefit. Should people not be free to leave and form associations as they see fit?
Lol. Communism is not some ideas that we implement, it is a real movement. Neither you or I have any right to posture on how they will be exactly organized. We can make general ideas, sure, but it would certainly depend on the needs of broader society. However, I have not argued the idea that communism has to be imposed, or that communism is not a society of mutually benefitting free associations.

To sum up Libertarian Communism proposes the absence of an imposed social order, seeing communism as voluntary and created and upheld by the free associations of the working people.
So I guess Libertarian Communism proposes nonviolence, etc?

Remus Bleys

6th February 2014, 06:31

No, that's not what I said. I'm kind of getting frustrated because you're consistently misrepresenting what I'm saying.
I'm really not. But okay, whatever.

What it would do is facilitate circumstances wherein a class conscious proletariat could vote something like that in directly, the stipulating circumstance being if they are class conscious. I KNOW YOU ARE ARGUING THIS, AND I AM ARGUING AGAINST THIS. OKAY REDROSE? OKAY REDNOISE?

That isn't the case now, and isn't likely to be the case for decades no matter if the aforesaid proletariat is living under a republic or a democracy. Nonetheless, it would be easier for us to push for a mass vote in a democracy than a mass revolution in an oligarchy. I know this is your argument. I am saying your argument is wrong.

It wouldn't happen because the bourgeois are not going to allow such a threat to materialize, thus preserving their republics. It wouldn't happen because the nature of the state causes bureaucracy to occur. The state is not working in hte interests of the proletariat, and thus the worker would not work with it, causing the center to have no base to work with, to act in harmony and would artificially uphold and implement all decisions. This bureaucracy occurs in the most benevolent of democracies and the most violent of dictatorships.

If my errors in thinking were so obvious to you, I would think that you could at least identify them in some basic way.Well, Im gonna start with the absurd idea that Hawaii had a Revolution in 1954

i hope you can see why this isn't the same as saying that bringing direct democracy will automatically bring about communism.I didn't argue she was doing this. Cmon.

AnaRchic

6th February 2014, 06:32

So I guess Libertarian Communism proposes nonviolence, etc
Assuming there is no other recourse, violence in defense of one's freedom is not authoritarian. That is akin to arguing that self-defense is authoritarian. If someone seeks to enslave or oppress you, is it authoritarian to resist that? No, it is the defense of your freedom. Likewise, the revolutionary destruction of reactionary forces is an act of defense of free people against those who wish to destroy our freedom.

Creative Destruction

6th February 2014, 06:34

I didn't argue she was doing this. Cmon.

are you fucking kidding me here? that is what you said. here:

i said: "but speaking of strawmen, when has anyone ever argued that if we get direct democracy, then that would automatically bring about socialism?"

you replied: "redrose basically did when she gave that nonsense about making communism easier with direct democracy."

not even much of an equivocation. do you have a short memory?

Remus Bleys

6th February 2014, 06:38

are you fucking kidding me here? that's almost exactly what you said you were doing.

i said: "but speaking of strawmen, when has anyone ever argued that if we get direct democracy, then that would automatically bring about socialism?"

you replied: "redrose basically did when she gave that nonsense about making communism easier with direct democracy."
lets read my sentence shall we?
when did anyone argue? Well, she "basically" did. She really didn't but it was the same framework, same mindset. It was so close. The idea that we can ignore the class nature of the state if we have a "better democracy" is not that far away from the idea that it would be "automatic." Now, I didn't say she thought socialism would be automatic. On the contrary, I recognize it would take some time and would be hard, but on the whole feasible. Hence, my use of the term "basically." Because she didn't "literally" argue that it would be automatic, but time constraints aside, the nature of the argument is the same. I really don't understand what you two's problems are.

Creative Destruction

6th February 2014, 06:40

lets read my sentence shall we?
when did anyone argue? Well, she "basically" did. She really didn't but it was the same framework, same mindset. It was so close. The idea that we can ignore the class nature of the state if we have a "better democracy" is not that far away from the idea that it would be "automatic." Now, I didn't say she thought socialism would be automatic. On the contrary, I recognize it would take some time and would be hard, but on the whole feasible. Hence, my use of the term "basically." Because she didn't "literally" argue that it would be automatic, but time constraints aside, the nature of the argument is the same. I really don't understand what you two's problems are.

jesus christ. now, this is some equivocating bullshit. nice try at backpeddling, i guess.

they're not the same. redrose's argument is actually significantly different than if they were to have said "yup, direct democracy will automatically bring socialism."

Remus Bleys

6th February 2014, 06:40

Assuming there is no other recourse, violence in defense of one's freedom is not authoritarian. That is akin to arguing that self-defense is authoritarian. If someone seeks to enslave or oppress you, is it authoritarian to resist that? No, it is the defense of your freedom. Likewise, the revolutionary destruction of reactionary forces is an act of defense of free people against those who wish to destroy our freedom.
Then how in the world is a centralist state in which the proletariat organizes in order to free itself from the shackles of capital and reaction and establish a cooperative society of free asociation authoritarian?

Sabot Cat

6th February 2014, 06:42

I'm really not. But okay, whatever.
I KNOW YOU ARE ARGUING THIS, AND I AM ARGUING AGAINST THIS. OKAY REDROSE? OKAY REDNOISE? I know this is your argument. I am saying your argument is wrong.

It wouldn't happen because the nature of the state causes bureaucracy to occur. The state is not working in hte interests of the proletariat, and thus the worker would not work with it, causing the center to have no base to work with, to act in harmony and would artificially uphold and implement all decisions. This bureaucracy occurs in the most benevolent of democracies and the most violent of dictatorships.

I'm glad you finally delved into why you think I'm wrong; however, a direct democracy, being what it is, would have its policies directly dictated by the majority of the people within it and not by bureaucracies that it may or may not be a party to. Your argument would be more applicable to the actual republics that exist today though, and in that respect I agree with you.

Well, Im gonna start with the absurd idea that Hawaii had a Revolution in 1954

Er, what the fuck does this have to do with anything...?

I didn't argue she was doing this. Cmon.

You said that I was, "basically". EDIT: I... guess you addressed this already..?

Remus Bleys

6th February 2014, 06:42

jesus christ. now, this is some equivocating bullshit. nice try at backpeddling, i guess.
Great contribution. This is the exact mindset I have had throughout the thread. You really want to sit down and tell me what I think and have thought?
Well, I guess democracy for you. Only works if the majority agrees with you, right?

Creative Destruction

6th February 2014, 06:44

Great contribution. This is the exact mindset I have had throughout the thread. You really want to sit down and tell me what I think and have thought?
Well, I guess democracy for you. Only works if the majority agrees with you, right?

all i need to do is quote the bullshit you've been putting up here, which i have. good lord.

Remus Bleys

6th February 2014, 06:48

I'm glad you finally delved into why you think I'm wrong; however, a direct democracy, being what it is, would have its policies directly dictated by the majority of the people within it and not by bureaucracies that it may or may not be a party to. In my post, I stated that bureaucracies formed because the rank and file, the base, does not see their interests in this organization. A direct democracy in a bourgeois-dominated society would have the rank and file know their interests are not represented in these organizations, and thus this direct democracy (unless it is spread so thin it is useless) would necessarily have a bureaucratic body form that would artificially control everything, making such an endeavor useless.
To refute this, you ignored what I said.
If you keep it up, Im gonna stop trying and just stop responding.

Er, what the fuck does this have to do with anything...?

Err, your entire mindset results from basic liberalism that fetishizes direct democracy, fighting for what little reform we have, and a liberal version of decentralization. The idea that revolution can be avoided because of direct democracy is from this exact same mindset that thinks that Hawaii had a Revolution in 1954. The mere fact you think that Hawaii had a Revolution in 1954 shows an extreme disconnect between you and revolutionary politics, so it is no wonder you are arguing what you are arguing on this thread.

You said that I was, "basically".Okay Im bad at english, my bad. The word basically means "close enough" to me.

all i need to do is quote the bullshit you've been putting up here, which i have. good lord.
k

Geiseric

6th February 2014, 07:06

Remus Bleys

6th February 2014, 07:22

But liberals dont fetish direct democracy. You just made that up! They fetish representative, bourgeois democracy, aka the rule of the capitalist class.
So youve never met any liberal who would sit and whine about the need for referendums? I am, quite frankly, jealous.

AnaRchic

6th February 2014, 07:46

Then how in the world is a centralist state in which the proletariat organizes in order to free itself from the shackles of capital and reaction and establish a cooperative society of free asociation authoritarian?
Would you mind explaining in brief what you mean by 'centralist' in this context? What would this 'centralist state' look like? How is it in any way preferable to what I have outlined?

Joseph Stallion

6th February 2014, 08:12

Who monitors the central authority. You want another Soviet style bureaucracy? Well If the central authority is made of communists like the people on this forum then I think we can monitor our selves. Even this forum has a central authority. If this forum was ran democratically then any random person from the internet could come and ruin it. Anti-communists and other people who hate us and random trolls will start making decisions against us and run this place to the ground. Now image that happening in real life.

this is an especially strange reason to oppose "democracy" on a forum where the ideology of most people ideally culminates with a society that has a free access to goods.

in fact, the entire OP smells of trolling. Free Access to goods is not possible if nature limits the amount of goods that can be produced. If there is scarcity then we need to carefully plan the use of resources. We need Incentives to encourage people to work. We can provide incentives by paying them according to there contribution. The only exception to this is when a worker unable to work or when work is unavailable.

I certainly hope all the stuff is free. All stuff can not be free if there is a limited amount of stuff. Again, If people vote for free stuff then where do you think the free stuff is coming from. The free stuff comes from workers who are not being paid to work. With these workers not being paid to work, they may slack off. If they slack off then the only way to have free stuff is to force them to work, which would be slavery.

But don't you think there is a very likely chance that these highly educated individuals making decisions and a powerful central authority of regulation would at some point fuse together in one combined interest that does not work for vast swaths of people? Not if the central authority is made of dedicated communists like the people on this forum. We we all cared working people then why would we abuse our power.

Criminalize Heterosexuality

6th February 2014, 09:05

I think you want to become a Stalinist bureaucrat more than your desire to institute democracy, which literally means rule of the people.

"Rule of the people" and "the party of the entire people" are "Stalinist" slogans...

Take the majority right now and ask them ask to vote on whether they want communism or not. This should be proof enough that at the very least democracy cannot be a principle for us.

Of course, democracy as such can not be a principle for us given its cross-class nature. Democracy restricted to the proletariat also can not be a principle for us given the differentiation between the vanguard the the centrist or reactionary layers of the proletariat. But within the vanguard, the class-for-itself which I think we can all agree needs to carry the dictatorship of the proletariat, how are decisions to be made? I think the social weight of the proletariat, the ideas that arise from its material condition and militant consciousness, are more important than idealist debates etc. - and how is this social weight to prevail if we don't "count hands", so to speak?

Likewise, democracy, even across the entire class, remains important at the local level as a source of information for planners, I think. How else would the proletarian authorities ascertain, for example, whether City 17 needs a new kindergarten? It's not an engineering problem - there is no possibility of someone closing themselves in their room, doing some sort of calculation and when they're done, everyone recognizes that the solution is correct.

Although democracy is dead-letter without a material basis, even on paper republics are favored over true democracies by the bourgeois because it would only take a class-conscious majority to overturn the old order; thus representatives are 'needed' in order "to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority", in the words of James Madison.

Distinguishing republics from democracies is something peculiar to American constitution-fetishists and people who are influenced by them; it's not something the rest of the world even does.

I'm saying that a direct democracy would circumvent the need for a revolution because all it would take is a majority of people becoming class conscious. That's why the bourgeois will never allow for such a government.

Why are you trying to circumvent the need for a revolution? And no, you can't vote communism in because communism requires that the bourgeois state apparatus be smashed, not used by some kind of democratic government.

Sabot Cat

6th February 2014, 12:04

In my post, I stated that bureaucracies formed because the rank and file, the base, does not see their interests in this organization. A direct democracy in a bourgeois-dominated society would have the rank and file know their interests are not represented in these organizations, and thus this direct democracy (unless it is spread so thin it is useless) would necessarily have a bureaucratic body form that would artificially control everything, making such an endeavor useless.
To refute this, you ignored what I said.
If you keep it up, Im gonna stop trying and just stop responding.

I suppose I see what you mean. They way in which the laws would actually be drafted, enforced, etc. would probably be a dilutent in a direct democracy as well.

Err, your entire mindset results from basic liberalism that fetishizes direct democracy, fighting for what little reform we have, and a liberal version of decentralization. The idea that revolution can be avoided because of direct democracy is from this exact same mindset that thinks that Hawaii had a Revolution in 1954. The mere fact you think that Hawaii had a Revolution in 1954 shows an extreme disconnect between you and revolutionary politics, so it is no wonder you are arguing what you are arguing on this thread.

Well, that's what the Hawaiians called it, and they may have had limited aims but there's no mistaking that most of the workers were engaged in revolutionary tactics at the time.

Distinguishing republics from democracies is something peculiar to American constitution-fetishists and people who are influenced by them; it's not something the rest of the world even does.

No, it's something that's been done since there's been a Roman Republic to contrast with Athenian democracy although the differences are well, different, today.

Why are you trying to circumvent the need for a revolution?

Because the means (a probably bloody conflict) are an unfortunate way to get to the ends (a communist society), although I don't think there ever will be a pure democracy allowed by the bourgeois or run in such a manner that would facilitate a peaceful transfer of power. There will be war, and that's a sad reality.

And no, you can't vote communism in because communism requires that the bourgeois state apparatus be smashed, not used by some kind of democratic government.

In all probability, yes; there are no direct democracies and almost certainly never will be until there is a revolution. I also concede that the principal actors of a direct democracy could act as a force to water down the will of the proletariat being expressed in the government.

Halert

6th February 2014, 13:31

Red Rose you speak of direct democracy, after the revolution do you want democracy cross-class? I think that would not be a good idea, we shouldn't give the bourgeoisie any power in post-revolutionairy society.

Remus do you oppose democracy restricted to the proletariat like we saw in the russian soviets or the paris commune? if so why?

Sabot Cat

6th February 2014, 13:33

Red Rose you speak of direct democracy, after the revolution do you want democracy cross-class? I think that would not be a good idea, we shouldn't give the bourgeoisie any power in post-revolutionairy society.

There would be no bourgeois in a post-revolutionary society, because the material conditions for their class would be dissolved.

I support democratic assemblies of workers, and a federation of these autonomous proletarian organizations with recallable delegates.

Halert

6th February 2014, 13:38

There would be no bourgeois in a post-revolutionary society, because the material conditions for their class would be dissolved.

I support democratic assemblies of workers, and a federation of these autonomous proletarian organizations with recallable delegates.

Further down the road yes, but i mean short after the revolution during the Dictatorship of the proletariat. I mean former bourgeoisie who's private property has just be expropriated should they be involved in democracy?

Sabot Cat

6th February 2014, 13:44

Further down the road yes, but i mean short after the revolution during the Dictatorship of the proletariat. I mean former bourgeoisie who's private property has just be expropriated should they be involved in democracy?

If they're working in a commune or revolutionary industrial union like any one else, sure, they should be able to participate in the decisions of that organization. I'd keep a close eye on them though.

motion denied

6th February 2014, 15:27

What do you mean with that? Obviously there will be conflicting opinions on various issues under socialism. Shouldn't the majority of the workers decide? if not how should a decision be made according to you?

As I said, democracy implies political power, which is the power of one class over another, an individual over another. If there ano no classes, there is no alienation (politics are a form of alienation), over whom does the political power rule?

(Sorry for the wall of quotes)

All Socialists are agreed that the political state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and will be transformed into the simple administrative functions of watching over the true interests of society.

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.

Does this mean that after the fall of the old society there will be a new class domination culminating in a new political power? No.
The condition for the emancipation of the working class is the abolition of every class, just as the condition for the liberation of the third estate, of the bourgeois order, was the abolition of all estates and all orders. [*2] (https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/poverty-philosophy/ch02e.htm#3)
The working class, in the course of its development, will substitute for the old civil society an association which will exclude classes and their antagonism, and there will be no more political power properly so-called, since political power is precisely the official expression of antagonism in civil society.

Queen Mab

6th February 2014, 15:30

There is no place for politics in socialism. Democracy implies political power.

This this this. Socialism is the abolition of politics.

Oh, Scab just returned to this. :)

Halert

6th February 2014, 15:45

So what you say is that political conflict is another form of class conflict and with the abolition of classes political conflict will also disappear and therefor politics. I think i understand.

But, there will still be conflicting opinions on what the best interest of society. There are no longer conflicting interests but still conflicting opinions. How would a decision be reached about what is best for society?

Criminalize Heterosexuality

6th February 2014, 15:53

No, it's something that's been done since there's been a Roman Republic to contrast with Athenian democracy although the differences are well, different, today.

The Kingdom of England used to be called "a republic", and the Polish-Lithuanian monarchy was named on the pattern of the Roman res publica. Times change, though. In modern English, "republic" refers to states other than monarchies.

As for the Roman state (which was never called the Roman Republic, n.b.), it also had direct "democratic" institutions analogous to the Athenian Ekklesia - the Comitia Curiata, Centuriata etc. In fact, unlike the Athenian Boule, the Roman Senate had no legislative power until the imperial period.

Because the means (a probably bloody conflict) are an unfortunate way to get to the ends (a communist society), although I don't think there ever will be a pure democracy allowed by the bourgeois or run in such a manner that would facilitate a peaceful transfer of power. There will be war, and that's a sad reality.

[...]

In all probability, yes; there are no direct democracies and almost certainly never will be until there is a revolution. I also concede that the principal actors of a direct democracy could act as a force to water down the will of the proletariat being expressed in the government.

Our concern is the revolution, not "the will of the proletariat". The proletariat is composed of numerous layers, of which some form the vanguard and others are entirely reactionary. The proletariat need not be the majority in any given society - and the proletariat-for-itself will certainly not be. Will we put the revolution on hold, then, until we get the mythical 50% + 1 vote? That's rank nonsense.

Your analysis is blatantly liberal. It's not a matter of "the principal actors" (?) "watering down" some "will of the proletariat" of the sort Rousseau might have talked about, but the nature of the state as a class dictatorship. You can have the purest democracy, composed of nothing but referenda and general wills, but unless you smash the bourgeois state apparatus, there will be no proletarian dictatorship.

Tim Cornelis

6th February 2014, 16:03

Further down the road yes, but i mean short after the revolution during the Dictatorship of the proletariat. I mean former bourgeoisie who's private property has just be expropriated should they be involved in democracy?

After the revolution there is no dictatorship of the proletariat. The revolution is not an event, and is only finished after the proletariat as well as its dictatorship is dissolved and communism established.

There's been a lot of semantic maneuvering to insist that socialism is apolitical and cannot be democratic. First, I support socialist democracy post-revolution and workers' democracy in revolution. The workers' democracy involves a deliberative and participatory process amongst the workers whom act as revolutionary agents. Insisting that democracy means "rule by the majority" in a narrow sense is unsatisfying. What majority then? Contemporary liberal democracy does not take into account the global majority, and neither will the workers' state take into account the non-revolutionary workers. If 33% of the population acts in support of the revolution, 33% is passive, neutral, or undecided, and 33% acts against the revolution then the revolutionary organs of the 33% would still operate on the basis of democracy internally, but exclude "the majority." Similarly, if 40% of the population votes in a liberal democracy it does not cease to be a liberal democracy because democracy, its meaning, has evolved beyond the narrow interpretation of "rule by the people" (if it ever meant that at all).

Similarly, the Landless Workers' Movement is organised democratically even though it does not encompass even 10% of the population. Democracy is not simply majoritarianism.

Post-revolution, in socialist society, when can still call it socialist democracy as the decision-making process for collective affairs (i.e. politics, I don't agree with the narrow definition of politics as one class ruling over another, which is class rule, not politics) is deliberative and participatory through the free association of equals, and hence democratic, but qualitatively different from liberal democracy and therefore is called socialist democracy.

Democracy is additionally a method of ensuring that decisions are not imposed from above which can recreate or reproduce class dynamics. The purpose of democracy is not ensuring that the majority gets his way (I don't really care about that), but that oppressive social institutions are abolished. In that sense, democracy is a means and not an end in itself, and therefore not a principle per se.

Creative Destruction

6th February 2014, 16:32

Free Access to goods is not possible if nature limits the amount of goods that can be produced.

if you believe scarcity is always going to be a condition of society, then you can't have communism. sorry, dude. there'd be no point in having a Communist Party direct this if there is no end goal for communism. you're basically proposing some sort of utopian/technocratic socialism or something.

Sabot Cat

6th February 2014, 16:32

Our concern is the revolution, not "the will of the proletariat".

The revolution is to be proletarian, or it will be bourgeois. You are correct in saying that all workers aren't revolutionaries, but to advance our collective class interest as workers is the purpose of the revolution. Hence, the revolution is and must be the will of the proletariat as a class, even if may not be the exact aggregate of their individual opinions.

The proletariat is composed of numerous layers, of which some form the vanguard and others are entirely reactionary. The proletariat need not be the majority in any given society - and the proletariat-for-itself will certainly not be. Will we put the revolution on hold, then, until we get the mythical 50% + 1 vote? That's rank nonsense.

http://evidencemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/straw-man.jpg

Your analysis is blatantly liberal. It's not a matter of "the principal actors" (?) "watering down" some "will of the proletariat" of the sort Rousseau might have talked about, but the nature of the state as a class dictatorship. You can have the purest democracy, composed of nothing but referenda and general wills, but unless you smash the bourgeois state apparatus, there will be no proletarian dictatorship.

If the majority of the people in the purest democracy were communist, the bourgeois state would cease to exist. Again this is incredibly unlikely, but it's one of the points I've been arguing.

Criminalize Heterosexuality

6th February 2014, 22:34

The revolution is to be proletarian, or it will be bourgeois. You are correct in saying that all workers aren't revolutionaries, but to advance our collective class interest as workers is the purpose of the revolution. Hence, the revolution is and must be the will of the proletariat as a class, even if may not be the exact aggregate of their individual opinions.

But the proletarian character of a revolution, the interests of the proletariat and some sort of "will of the workers" - these are all distinct things.

Bourgeois revolutions are, I think, quite impossible in the present period. Of course - and I'm not trying to be a jerk (I don't have to try, I suppose), I'm just underlining how different our notion of revolution is - if you think there was a Hawaiian revolution, you would probably disagree.

But the really interesting distinction is, I think, that between the interest of a group and the will of a group - a group has an interest by virtue of its function in the broader social structure, specifically the relations of production in this case, but a will, to the extent that it makes sense to talk about groups having a will, by virtue of conscious political acts. The proletariat in general can't have a will because it is not a cohesive political actor, and this lack of cohesion is not simply a problem of consciousness, but is also due to the material existence of special, bought-off layers of the proletariat - the labor aristocracy and bureaucracy.

If the proletariat is to have a will, it must be a sort of will that is hidden from the majority of the proletariat - I'm sorry, but I don't see how this is anything other than Rousseau's general will.

http://evidencemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/straw-man.jpg

Wasn't he the British Foreign Secretary what made all those racist comments?

If the majority of the people in the purest democracy were communist, the bourgeois state would cease to exist. Again this is incredibly unlikely, but it's one of the points I've been arguing.

But it isn't true. First of all, the proletariat organized as a class-for-itself will be a minority in any society. And revolutions are not made by bourgeois, petit-bourgeois or cop "communists", they are made by the organized proletariat. Second, the bourgeois state apparatus would not cease to exist because of the results of one vote - to claim this is to completely miss the point of the state being an instrument of class dictatorship. The apparatus of bourgeois society exists, not because it was democratically decided that it will exist, but because it is necessary for the defense of private property. What do you expect, that the cops will give up and go home to cry because of a parliamentary vote? You might as well say that communism will happen if we elect Remus Bleys as king. It'd make just as much sense.

Remus Bleys

6th February 2014, 22:40

I think the social weight of the proletariat, the ideas that arise from its material condition and militant consciousness, are more important than idealist debates etc. - and how is this social weight to prevail if we don't "count hands", so to speak?
I really liked your post until this one. The ideas of the "Vanguard" (and I insist that the Vanguard is merely the theoretical leader of the party, and that the party is the organization of the entire class) are in fact something that arise from its mass concentration of militant consciousness (and is only possible through the internal contradictions of capital) but I do not think that something like democracy can or is the most effecient way to determine what the Vanguard must be.

motion denied

6th February 2014, 23:23

But, there will still be conflicting opinions on what the best interest of society. There are no longer conflicting interests but still conflicting opinions. How would a decision be reached about what is best for society?

In all honesty, I think it's impossible to know for certain. I, for one, believe councils are a mean to social management. But the decision would have a mere administrative character.

Post-revolution, in socialist society, when can still call it socialist democracy as the decision-making process for collective affairs (i.e. politics, I don't agree with the narrow definition of politics as one class ruling over another, which is class rule, not politics) is deliberative and participatory through the free association of equals, and hence democratic, but qualitatively different from liberal democracy and therefore is called socialist democracy.

I don't believe such a definition of politics is narrow. Politics lie in the contradictions of civil-society (for ex. particular interests x universal interests, or bourgeois x citoyen as seen on young Marx). If we're talking about socialist society, we're talking about a society where the individual interests are reconciled with the interests of humanity. Free from obstacles to the plain development of the social being.

Democracy is political power, it's always been.

The overcoming of politics is a marxian rupture from, I don't know, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Hegel, hell... even Aristotle.

In a socialist society, decision would be imposed by whom? Through what means? From what above? Property is social, political power is no more.

Sabot Cat

7th February 2014, 00:14

But the proletarian character of a revolution, the interests of the proletariat and some sort of "will of the workers" - these are all distinct things.

How?

Bourgeois revolutions are, I think, quite impossible in the present period. Of course - and I'm not trying to be a jerk (I don't have to try, I suppose), I'm just underlining how different our notion of revolution is - if you think there was a Hawaiian revolution, you would probably disagree.

Every nationalist revolution is a bourgeois revolution because it promotes their class interests above all others; so there's been quite a few of them in the modern period.

But the really interesting distinction is, I think, that between the interest of a group and the will of a group - a group has an interest by virtue of its function in the broader social structure, specifically the relations of production in this case, but a will, to the extent that it makes sense to talk about groups having a will, by virtue of conscious political acts. The proletariat in general can't have a will because it is not a cohesive political actor, and this lack of cohesion is not simply a problem of consciousness, but is also due to the material existence of special, bought-off layers of the proletariat - the labor aristocracy and bureaucracy.

The proletariat can act as a unified body, a political actor, if it has class consciousness and a revolutionary will to overturn the bourgeois oppressors. The labor aristocracy can be fought through the promotion and empowerment of the proletariat through revolutionary industrial unions.

If the proletariat is to have a will, it must be a sort of will that is hidden from the majority of the proletariat - I'm sorry, but I don't see how this is anything other than Rousseau's general will.

Why must it be hidden...? Or are you saying that it is obscured by the diffuse nature of the proletarian class?

Wasn't he the British Foreign Secretary what made all those racist comments?

No no, that's Jack Straw; the resemblance is uncanny, however.

But it isn't true. First of all, the proletariat organized as a class-for-itself will be a minority in any society. And revolutions are not made by bourgeois, petit-bourgeois or cop "communists", they are made by the organized proletariat. Second, the bourgeois state apparatus would not cease to exist because of the results of one vote - to claim this is to completely miss the point of the state being an instrument of class dictatorship. The apparatus of bourgeois society exists, not because it was democratically decided that it will exist, but because it is necessary for the defense of private property. What do you expect, that the cops will give up and go home to cry because of a parliamentary vote? You might as well say that communism will happen if we elect Remus Bleys as king. It'd make just as much sense.

This is a spot-on analysis of the flaws of attempting to vote in communism in a republic.

BornDeist

7th February 2014, 02:15

A better solution like YOU making decisions for the unenlightened, ignorant proles? Now I understand left communism.

I do agree what he's saying is foolish but he's cleary some sort of marxist-leninist. Left Communist support a dictatorship of the proletariat as they are even against the idea of a Vanguard Party.

Os Cangaceiros

7th February 2014, 09:12

Many members here say that we should have direct democracy, and democratically managed workplaces and a democratically managed economy. I am wondering what's so great about democracy if it can lead to a variety of problems such as minorities having there needs not met, abuse of power by the majority, reduced incentives to work, stupidity of the majority, people voting for capitalism, fascism, people supporting sexism, racism, suppressing LGBT rights? I say that there are reduced incentives to work because you can just vote for free stuff. I support a system where educated individuals make decisions about the subjects that there educated in with a central authority that regulates and monitors what they can do to prevent them from abusing there powers. This central authority would be made up of educated and dedicated communists.

What you're suggesting is not so different from various capitalist theories of administration, for example is basically what Walter Lippman's argument was for in "Public Opinion", that the average person didn't have nearly enough knowledge about issues about which she or he was voting on, and therefore democracy was deeply flawed by it's very nature. While there is a grain of truth to that, his solution was really naïve and dumb (he suggested a system in which supposedly impartial "experts" evaluated situations and then made suggestions to leaders, as it these people would be somehow immune from the same prejudices and shifting political winds that often drive the public).

Democracy is not perfect, it's very far from perfect. It is deeply flawed. But I don't really see any better options for making decisions involving large groups of people. Maybe when we all are in a free association of producers and the "government of persons is replaced by the administration of things" (Engels) we'll be able to move away from democracy, but we're still a long way from that point.

Remus Bleys

7th February 2014, 13:13

I do agree what he's saying is foolish but he's cleary some sort of marxist-leninist. Left Communist support a dictatorship of the proletariat as they are even against the idea of a Vanguard Party.

Do not think you know what you are talking about. Left communists recognize people like gorter, damen, and Bordiga as left communists. (Granted gorter had a different view of vanguardism but still saw a centralized party as necessary).
In fact Bordiga (who was even mentioned in Lenin's pamphlet) said, and I agree with this, the dictatorship of the proletariat is the same as the dictatorship of the party. Obviously not all Leftcoms agree with Bordiga when he said that and several disagree with the Leninist and bordigist theories on the Vanguard, but no left Communist is against a Vanguard per se.

TheSocialistMetalhead

7th February 2014, 13:20

Ding ding ding ding.
Democracy has no place in socialism.

I beg to differ.

Liberal democracy and parliamentarism have no place in socialism.

Remus Bleys

7th February 2014, 13:28

I have no idea why you disagree with me, as you have yet to give reasons, so I guess we must agree to disagree!

Criminalize Heterosexuality

7th February 2014, 18:01

I really liked your post until this one. The ideas of the "Vanguard" (and I insist that the Vanguard is merely the theoretical leader of the party, and that the party is the organization of the entire class) are in fact something that arise from its mass concentration of militant consciousness (and is only possible through the internal contradictions of capital) but I do not think that something like democracy can or is the most effecient way to determine what the Vanguard must be.

Probably - but I have never implied that the vanguard is to be elected. That sounds preposterous - as if there could be some general assembly of the class that would elect the vanguard of the proletariat. Rather, the vanguard will distinguish itself as that layer which drags the other layers along. Whether a party can be said to be of the entire class (in fact, don't some Left-Coms say that it is the class?) is, perhaps, a question for another time. I certainly do not think the backward layers of the proletariat should have the option of voting down the communist program of the party.

Assuming, however, that an organized vanguard party exists, how are decisions within the party to be made? You say that the ideas of the vanguard arise from the concentration of militant communists - alright, but how are they to be recognized? Who is to interpret them? I think the only realistic options are internal democracy, or administration by some sort of committee that is not responsible to the full members of the party. But how is degeneration to be prevented in the latter case?

I think the early fight of the Bolsheviks and the Mensheviks is an excellent example of the need for internal democracy - the Mensheviks included noted party theoreticians who had proven themselves in the fight against the economists, but were now blocking with them - and they had the support of the majority on the Central Committee. The Bolsheviks were only able to win by calling a party conference and removing the Menshevik leadership - the consciousness of militant workers prevailed over the declamations of the Mensheviks.

How?

Most workers supported the French Revolution, and it was in the interest of the proletariat, but it wasn't a proletarian revolution.

Most workers opposed the revolution in Slovakia after WWI but it was in the interest of the proletariat and a proletarian revolution.

And so on, and so on.

Every nationalist revolution is a bourgeois revolution because it promotes their class interests above all others; so there's been quite a few of them in the modern period.

What revolutions would you classify as bourgeois? There were quite a few revolts and "national-liberation struggles" under the explicit leadership of one section of the bourgeoisie, but these were not revolutions since they did not change the social basis of society - the semi-colonial states in question remained semi-colonial.

The proletariat can act as a unified body, a political actor, if it has class consciousness and a revolutionary will to overturn the bourgeois oppressors.

Why hasn't it, then, in over a century?

The labor aristocracy can be fought through the promotion and empowerment of the proletariat through revolutionary industrial unions.

How? Are these revolutionary unions - "red unions" that usually consist of five people and their picture of chairman Mao - to fight for lower wages for part of their membership? Now that is a notion worthy of a Monty Python sketch.

Super-profits and the structure of the labor movement lead to these strata - the labor aristocracy and bureaucracy - arising in the metropole, as well as various color- and race-based strata, precarious workers etc. It would be pretty dumb to try to homogenize the proletariat before the revolution - in fact the material basis for the inhomogeneity could only be removed by a revolution.

Why must it be hidden...? Or are you saying that it is obscured by the diffuse nature of the proletarian class?

I mean that most workers do not have the sort of revolutionary consciousness that makes one a communist militant. This was also true in the period of the October revolution and subsequent communist revolutions. There is no general proletarian will - the average soldier fighting for the Bolsheviks might have had Menshevik or Kadet sympathies for example.

This is a spot-on analysis of the flaws of attempting to vote in communism in a republic.

'Ere we go again. Are you saying that a direct democracy would not be a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie?

Remus Bleys

7th February 2014, 18:16

Criminalize Heterosexuality

7th February 2014, 18:20

Decisions are to be based on their correctness. The party would look at the validity of this theory and if knowing if this is correct or not will accept or reject. The opinion of the party militants would probably be known and the party organize itself in such a way as to prevent degeneration (anyway bureaucracy is a sign of a problem with praxis which is a result of a theoretical era).
When I said be I didn't assume that you thought anything by it. It was an allusion to Camattes while communism is not doing but being.

Ha, well that was certainly not an invariant usage of the verb "to be".

Anyway, I don't want to turn this into an abstract criticism of bureaucracy. I think that many times people don't even know what they mean by that term, to be honest.

But to press the point further - who would look into the validity of the theory in question? How would this body be constituted? What sort of criteria would it use?

consuming negativity

7th February 2014, 19:52

That was a fun discussion to read but I feel as though it was all superfluous. A situation of direct democracy with a capitalist economy will never exist because it cannot ever exist due to material factors. Any society with private property will see power become concentrated in the hands of the few, as we see it around the world today. So there is no chance of people "voting for communism" in this manner - not only because the direct democracy would decay, but because it could never exist in the first place. It's a nice idea, but reality prevents it.

Remus Bleys

8th February 2014, 01:34

But to press the point further - who would look into the validity of the theory in question? How would this body be constituted? What sort of criteria would it use?
This organization is itself the party that would look at this theory. Will they make errors? Yes, history is chalk full of errors - Bordiga had his with unions, Marx and Engels had theirs with the class, Lenin had his with democracy, - but lets not make this a discussion on the inevitable errors of communists (even if they are few. We all are products of our times, are we not?).

But what criteria do you know that your theories and ideas are correct? They are internally consistent, coherent, and actually line up with what is actually happening.

Criminalize Heterosexuality

8th February 2014, 11:24

This organization is itself the party that would look at this theory. Will they make errors? Yes, history is chalk full of errors - Bordiga had his with unions, Marx and Engels had theirs with the class, Lenin had his with democracy, - but lets not make this a discussion on the inevitable errors of communists (even if they are few. We all are products of our times, are we not?).

But what criteria do you know that your theories and ideas are correct? They are internally consistent, coherent, and actually line up with what is actually happening.

Alright, but still - how would the party look into the theory? Obviously this task needs to be delegated to, or at least overseen, by one of its organs. How is this organ to be formed? Bordiga's writing on this point is rather vague - it's composed of denunciations of voting mechanisms, sovereign congresses, exhortations to organic development etc. etc., but as far as I know - it is possible that I missed something, of course - it contains little in the way of positive organizational guidelines. In the end, any collegial body is to be selected either through election, through appointment "from above" (by who? who is to appoint the political center, then?), or through some sort of permanent cooptation scheme, whose weaknesses are, I think, demonstrated by the early history of the RSDLP. Likewise, collegial bodies can only make decisions by vote or by some sort of consensus process - and consensus decision-making is terrifyingly ineffective.

#FF0000

8th February 2014, 12:35

G4b3n

8th February 2014, 15:10

Well, LGBT rights were pretty fucked by the Stalinist homophobes, and they managed that all by themselves with no pesky democracy needed. They also managed to protect capitalism quite well, without democracy. Democracy is the only means by which the workers can assert their authority as a class and properly express their class interests, not some pseudo-proletarian intellectual who has dedicated his life to the central committee.

Fuck your "educated communists", they are not comrades of mine.

fear of a red planet

8th February 2014, 15:44

It doesn't really matter whether we are for or against democracy.

The issue is that any unit of 2 or more people needs to be able to make decisions about what to do. It has been demonstrated time and again in all sorts of society that a clear majority of people need to feel that they have some sort of engagement with the outcomes. Clearly a good way of feeling engagement is being part of the decision making process.

However the form of participation may be different in different societies.

Remus Bleys

10th February 2014, 13:40

Alright, but still - how would the party look into the theory? Obviously this task needs to be delegated to, or at least overseen, by one of its organs. How is this organ to be formed? Bordiga's writing on this point is rather vague - it's composed of denunciations of voting mechanisms, sovereign congresses, exhortations to organic development etc. etc., but as far as I know - it is possible that I missed something, of course - it contains little in the way of positive organizational guidelines.
I'm not really going to go ahead and give some in depth thing on how every little specific thing in the party would function - that would be utopian. The organs would form not on a democratic bases, but on a more "natural" bases: the organs form because they are necessary, the people join because they are necessary cells. This is a process that happens through a healthy relation between the base center and top, one that shows that all of them act in a harmonious manner towards eachother and results in the base being able to simply come together under the guidance of the top and form these necessary organs. The people are appointed by the Center, because these people are able to be "cells" of the organs of the party.

Likewise, collegial bodies can only make decisions by vote or by some sort of consensus process - and consensus decision-making is terrifyingly ineffective.
Consensus is terribly ineffective. The center and the other party organs must be composed of people able to submit themselves to the party program, that these decisions are not made on the basis on what everyone thinks of them, but on the correctness of the theory - its consistency, its coherence, and its application to the real world. To oppose a theory one would not vote against it but would demonstrate said theory's incorrectness.

what role does the actual working class play in any of these decisions Proletarian Dictatorship is not the mass will of the proletariat, but rather the radical transformation of capitalism into communism (which would after a certain time be the mass will of the proletariat). In order to properly function, however, the class must be organized into a class - that is, into a political party. The class's actions are one which organically arise as a sort of "reaction" to capitalism, and this action by the class cannot be held back by artificial organizational forms such as democracy, but one which must be itself the work of the proletariat, under the guide of its Vanguard.

It has been demonstrated time and again in all sorts of society that a clear majority of people need to feel that they have some sort of engagement with the outcomes. Proof?