Just plain democracy?

[bropasaran]

This is a question for libertarian socialists, that is- people supporting truly democratic organization of society, so not for "vanguardists" who accept hierarchical ways of organization, because I supposse they would just reject this idea.

So, how would you feel about introducting just one single 'reform' in the current system, namely- establishing direct democracy in politics.

Just one change- abolishing the parliament as the legislative body, with constitution and laws being voted on by the people in referenda, the referendum questions being suggested by popular initiatives (petitions).

So, the people would directly decide on how they want the political sphere (like judiciary and executive) to function, on what kind of economy do they want, media, education, both about the general kind of system they want in those spheres, and the specific laws governing the functioning of those systems.

If such a thing were to be done, what do you think the results would be? Would people vote to abolish capitalism, what do you think that they would do?

[Skyhilist]

I think things would be slightly better but still not great. For example, some countries are very homophobic, so homophobic laws would persist. The reason I think it would be at least somewhat better though is that if the people are reactionary, then their "leaders" (politicians) are generally even more reactionary and selfish.

But honestly, there's a reason for the phrase "educate, agitate, organize". If there's not a class conscious majority, progress on a lot of issues will be quite slow or even stagnant depending on how reactionary the populace is.

[tuwix]

If such a thing were to be done, what do you think the results would be? Would people vote to abolish capitalism, what do you think that they would do?

I think that pretty soon there would happen referendum to take excessive wealth from rich and give to the rest. It would mean certain amount of equality.
IMHO a word 'socialism' that has its origin in word 'society' but in Latin form means exactly direct democracy. And dogmatic Marxists would argue with that but I don't care about dogmatic ones.

Nonetheless, direct democracy would be tough lesson for humanity. Now it's very sweet to be ignorant in terms of macroeconomics but such ignorance will give troubles inevitably. But such troubles will teach. And finally people will learn that only way to maintain stable equality is to abolish private property.

[Q]

This is a question for libertarian socialists, that is- people supporting truly democratic organization of society, so not for "vanguardists" who accept hierarchical ways of organization, because I supposse they would just reject this idea.

So, how would you feel about introducting just one single 'reform' in the current system, namely- establishing direct democracy in politics.

Just one change- abolishing the parliament as the legislative body, with constitution and laws being voted on by the people in referenda, the referendum questions being suggested by popular initiatives (petitions).

So, the people would directly decide on how they want the political sphere (like judiciary and executive) to function, on what kind of economy do they want, media, education, both about the general kind of system they want in those spheres, and the specific laws governing the functioning of those systems.

If such a thing were to be done, what do you think the results would be? Would people vote to abolish capitalism, what do you think that they would do?
Marxists actually put the battle for democracy at the forefront of their politics as an actual democracy would put the vast majority, the working class, in power*.

However, 'direct democracy' is a very vague term, which could mean anything. I'm a proponent of a system which is most commonly known as sortition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition) which was the form of democracy practised in ancient Athens and could be very helpful for communist purposes.

As for this 'vanguard' thing: As Skyhilist pointed out, democracy in and by itself only creates a potential for moving forward, it's not the solution. Current society has a lot of backward and reactionary ideas which need to be tackled. Marxists therefore came originally with the strategy that our class needs to organise itself as a class, with its own political agenda which, consequently, is anti-sexist, anti-homophobic, etc and focuses on democracy, internationalism and an independent position for our class.

This is what a communist party does: It's a mass movement which organises our class politically. This then spurs a movement that is broader and entails cooperatives, unions, community centers, etc within which the party acts as a political compass, showing the way forward to another society. This is the original meaning of 'vanguardism', which has nothing in resemblance to the current sects which inherited the state of organisation of the civil war Comintern.

* This only goes for countries where the working class is the majority of society. That is, all 'westerns' countries. The third world is another scenario.

[Q]

Also moved this from /politics to /learning given that this is more of a question.

[Bala Perdida]

I feel like countries in worse off situations are likely to vote in bills in favor of socialism. However, most of the so called "developed" countries would have a clash between liberal right wing and right wing views. Specifically the USA and UK. It all comes down to brainwashed ignorance, and hunger driven desperation.

[The Idler]

Many libertarian socialists make this mistake but Democracy is essential but not sufficient.

Capitalist parties are returned in democracies as things stand, so why anything should change with more democracy I don't know. Workers support capitalism, whether 'socialists' like it, deny it, pretend otherwise (as often happens) or don't like it.

Vanguard socialists just dispense with the democracy and use formulas like democratic decision but unity in action etc.

[Thirsty Crow]

Marxists actually put the battle for democracy at the forefront of their politics as an actual democracy would put the vast majority, the working class, in power*.

...while other Marxists insist that this battle for democracy has ended in universal suffrage and liberal democracy, without anything like putting the working class in power. Rather, the social and political forces that spearheaded this tendency had at the same time functioned as an effective counter-revolutionary force.

So it must be that the real issue is how one defines democracy.

[The Idler]

...while other Marxists insist that this battle for democracy has ended in universal suffrage and liberal democracy, without anything like putting the working class in power. Rather, the social and political forces that spearheaded this tendency had at the same time functioned as an effective counter-revolutionary force.

So it must be that the real issue is how one defines democracy.
Parties promising capitalism are returned on turnouts higher than for socialist parties as things stand. Where's the counter-revolutionary activity? Workers are regularly and consistently voting to keep capitalism.

[Thirsty Crow]

Parties promising capitalism are returned on turnouts higher than for socialist parties as things stand. Where's the counter-revolutionary activity? Workers are regularly and consistently voting to keep capitalism.
The counter-revolutionary activity is clearly in the history (the concrete activity I'm addressing here, mind you), since that's what I was referring to as the already won battle of democracy, i.e. universal suffrage and the liberal democratic institutions. The activity of the SPD is exemplary here.

The problem I'm trying to raise is with the same vague, horribly vague notion of the battle for democracy (meaningful for Marx and Engels in relation to Germany of their time and with clear content; but really incomprehensible if taken in its original form and applied to the conditions facing proletarians today) which can only result in ad hoc redefinitions which would go along the lines of "but yeah that's not the democracy we have in mind".

This approach (ad hoc redefinitions of inherited politics and terminology) can be seen in:


Marxists actually put the battle for democracy at the forefront of their politics as an actual democracy would put the vast majority, the working class, in powerEmphasis mine.

[Rurkel]

So, the people would directly decide on how they want the political sphere (like judiciary and executive) to function, on what kind of economy do they want, media, education, both about the general kind of system they want in those spheres, and the specific laws governing the functioning of those systems.


Yeah, most pro-democracy people here would probably say that your proposal is not the only way democratic organization of the working class can take (it doesn't mention such an important thing as workers' councils, for instance), and that considering what you say in the abstract, without any class content, isn't especially productive.

And I'm eagerly licking my lips in anticipation of what Bordigists would say to the OP.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

If such a thing were to be done, what do you think the results would be? Would people vote to abolish capitalism, what do you think that they would do?

"Voting to abolish capitalism" without smashing the apparatus of the bourgeois state is impossible - that should be clear to anyone who understands that states are class dictatorships. Socialism isn't an economic policy to be instituted like a tax break or tax hike; it's a new mode of production.

[Q]

...while other Marxists insist that this battle for democracy has ended in universal suffrage and liberal democracy, without anything like putting the working class in power. Rather, the social and political forces that spearheaded this tendency had at the same time functioned as an effective counter-revolutionary force.

So it must be that the real issue is how one defines democracy.


The counter-revolutionary activity is clearly in the history (the concrete activity I'm addressing here, mind you), since that's what I was referring to as the already won battle of democracy, i.e. universal suffrage and the liberal democratic institutions. The activity of the SPD is exemplary here.

The problem I'm trying to raise is with the same vague, horribly vague notion of the battle for democracy (meaningful for Marx and Engels in relation to Germany of their time and with clear content; but really incomprehensible if taken in its original form and applied to the conditions facing proletarians today) which can only result in ad hoc redefinitions which would go along the lines of "but yeah that's not the democracy we have in mind".

This approach (ad hoc redefinitions of inherited politics and terminology) can be seen in:

Emphasis mine.
The line below that which you quoted does address this question. I wonder why you choose not to cite it?

Elsewhere I've quite often pointed out the problems regarding what we call 'democracy', which in fact have very little to do with democracy. I've quite often put an explicit contradiction between dempcracy and elections, I've quite often called this electoral system an 'oligarchy with some democratic concessions'. So again, I'm a little at a loss here.

[Criminalize Heterosexuality]

Vanguard socialists just dispense with the democracy and use formulas like democratic decision but unity in action etc.

What's the alternative, exactly? Democratic decision and then every member does whatever they want, ignoring the democratic decision? Not to mention that this conflates two things: democratic centralism (sectional bodies are fully subordinate to the center, and decisions are made by democratic means) and "vanguardism", which is liberal-speak for the Leninist recognition that the proletariat is not a homogeneous pro-revolutionary blob but contains distinct layers, of which some are advanced and some reactionary.

[Thirsty Crow]

The line below that which you quoted does address this question. I wonder why you choose not to cite it?
I somehow managed to miss that. Or didn't connect it to the idea of the battle for democracy which as far as I know, in the political tradition of Marxism, had nothing to do with sortition. That's what I think is problematic and could breed confusion. Apart from the viability of such a change within the confines of capitalism (in other words, the condition for even the possibility of this mechanism is the destruction of the bourgeois state; forms of delegation - as I regard delegation as something different from and opposed to representation - could be based on this, I suppose; but to me any productive idea of the battle for democracy is completely synonymous with the battle for the dictatorship of the proletariat)

Though, I have to admit that the wikipedia entry on sortition definitely leaves an impression of that mechanism being a formal procedure disconnected from class politics and the advocacy of political forms of delegation appropriate to the dictatorship of the proletariat. I suppose the idea itself was modified elsewhere to account for that, especially this:


Unlike elections, where members of the elected body may stand for re-election, sortition does not offer a mechanism by which the population expresses satisfaction or dissatisfaction with individual members of the allotted body. Thus, under sortition there is no formal feedback, or accountability, mechanism for the performance of officials.

[Jimmie Higgins]

This is a question for libertarian socialists, that is- people supporting truly democratic organization of society, so not for "vanguardists" who accept hierarchical ways of organization, because I supposse they would just reject this idea.

So, how would you feel about introducting just one single 'reform' in the current system, namely- establishing direct democracy in politics.

Just one change- abolishing the parliament as the legislative body, with constitution and laws being voted on by the people in referenda, the referendum questions being suggested by popular initiatives (petitions).

So, the people would directly decide on how they want the political sphere (like judiciary and executive) to function, on what kind of economy do they want, media, education, both about the general kind of system they want in those spheres, and the specific laws governing the functioning of those systems.

If such a thing were to be done, what do you think the results would be? Would people vote to abolish capitalism, what do you think that they would do?

Hmm, interesting. My first thought is that there are practical issues with this. It would essentially require a revolution to achieve it, so why not then just take over production directly at that point? If somehow it was handed down to us by magic or a benevolent pro-democracy dictator (?) then consciousness of workers would still be more or less the same as now (not developed through actual experience and struggle) and so whoever has the most money would still be able to have the biggest voice and influence. Second, there are ways that the ruling class can use their economic power and the existing capitalist relations to undermine popular legal attempts to weaken their power. So, for example, even if there is a revolution in one place, capitalists will immediately pull out their capital and try and sabotage any property they are forced to leave behind. This happens even with the specter of large reforms such as when the Popular Front in France or other more or less electoral Socialist/workers movement victories. Reformers like Allende or like the reformist victory in pre-civil war Spain could also just lead to the ruling class backing a completely non-legal means of maintaining their power, coups, dictators, etc.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

A caveat before I jump into this - I'm not particularly fond of the word democracy, and I think there's a lot to problematize with it. For simplicity sake, however, I'm going to run with it for now. If the thread warrants it, maybe I'll elaborate a bit later.

In any case, I think the issue with this isn't so much that any communist would be against such a reform per se, but I think most would argue against the possibility of such a reform taking place. After all, I think any sort of "authentic democracy" necessarily implies the power to realize democratic decisions. So, for example, if existing society were more-or-less unchanged except for the abolition of parliament, would local assemblies actually have the power to impose their democratic will on transnational corporations?
I think there are telling examples from the third world, where democratic and popular movements have taken on, for example, Canadian mining corporations (http://www.coha.org/hidden-hegemony-canadian-mining-in-latin-america/): Mining companies are quite happy to unleash death squads on non-subservient populations in contravention of whatever local laws.
So, really, what we need to talk about is not so much a "reform" to establish democracy, but a strategy to build the power to make such democracy practically capable of realizing itself.