Your opinion about democracy

[jullia]

What is your opinion about democracy and direct democracy.

I think it's necessary to have it to protect the right of everyone, just it's sad that the media have a so big influence on it.

[The Idler]

democracy is essential but not sufficient

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

What is your opinion about democracy and direct democracy.

I think it's necessary to have it to protect the right of everyone, just it's sad that the media have a so big influence on it.

I think the issue is that democracy doesn't protect the "right of everyone" - it protects majorities (who, in practice, are not necessarily more correct or just by force of numbers).

This is particularly damaging in revolutionary organizations. A striking example comes from Solidarity Halifax's short-sighted endorsement of the NDP (http://solidarityhalifax.ca/2013/09/statement-the-provincial-election-voting-and-organizing/) - a democratically made decision that was come to despite significant - though distinctly minority - internal opposition. Following the election, in which the NDP was thoroughly routed, SolHal, to put it bluntly, looked stupid. Had the diversity of positions within the organization been permitted to see light of day, perhaps they might have done better than this pathetic admission of defeat (http://solidarityhalifax.ca/2013/11/the-struggle-is-in-the-streets-toward-a-common-front-for-justice/). Alas, democracy meant that (ultimately correct) minority positions were silenced.

[Zhi]

Its legitimacy as a political system relies on too many external factors such as the electorates' knowledge of political issues. It also reduces class conciousness by a lot; epitomised by European politics the working class no longer view politics as class politics now because they view and value this as the highest political and economic concession. Democracy is a lie, and it only perpetuates capitalism more through the illusion of the state as improving the material conditions of the working classes.

[jullia]

I think direct democracy is necessary to improve the world. I know it sounds naive but still :)

[RedKobra]

Democracy is explicitly populist and only really works toward a more egalitarian end when those who vote are politically educated. In times of political backwardness democracy becomes a tool of the opportunist, the scaremonger and the used carsalesman.

So its a chicken and egg situation. Without direct democracy how do you educate the vast swathes of the public? With uneducated democracy change is always delayed and distorted. Round and round we go.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

Democracy is in best case a form of decision- making which is appropriate in many cases. In it's worst form however, namely modern parliamentary democracy, it's a despicable farce and the worst possible form of government.

I don´t think democracy should be elevated as a principle for revolutionaries. Our goal should be to transcend it instead.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I think direct democracy is necessary to improve the world. I know it sounds naive but still :)

I think it depends what you mean - I think directly participatory decision making is absolutely necessary. I don't think that 50%+1 rule making is necessarily any better if it is "direct".
Which isn't to say that voting on things is never useful - but I think it's a poor framework for making many if not most decisions.

[RedWorker]

I think the issue is that democracy doesn't protect the "right of everyone" - it protects majorities (who, in practice, are not necessarily more correct or just by force of numbers).

Enlighten us, then. Should the minority have made the decision?


Alas, democracy meant that (ultimately correct) minority positions were silenced.

Democracy implies the right of all to give an idea, and then the right of everyone to choose which idea. How is anyone silenced?


Democracy is in best case a form of decision- making which is appropriate in many cases. In it's worst form however, namely modern parliamentary democracy, it's a despicable farce and the worst possible form of government.

Worse than absolute monarchy? Is this what passes as 'communist discourse' these days? It's not a literal farce. It's exactly what it promises. You directly or indirectly manage the bourgeois state.


I don't think democracy should be elevated as a principle for revolutionaries. Our goal should be to transcend it instead.

Empty phrasemongering.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Enlighten us, then. Should the minority have made the decision?

Well, it depends what you mean by your question. In terms of "Would the organization have been more correct if the minority had decided?" the answer is certainly yes! Of course, that's a pretty useless question, so I assume what you're actually getting at is something to the effect of, "If not by position of the majority, how should an organization take a position?"

I think there are a few answers, and not a "one size fits all" always applicable solution. One answer might be that, failing to reach consensus, it is simply better to do nothing at all. After all, if an organization of dedicated anti-capitalists united around a common project can't seem to agree to an answer, why is it out of the question to simply not take a position, especially on such a fleeting issue as a particular provincial election?

Alternatively, an organization could publish majority and minority positions, since, obviously, the disagreement wasn't sufficient to cause a parting of ways, it seems to me that presenting the reality of a diversity of opinions existing within an organization could be advantageous.

I'll stop there, but I'm sure you see my point.


Democracy implies the right of all to give an idea, and then the right of everyone to choose which idea. How is anyone silenced?

Of course, it may give "everyone the right to choose which idea", but it doesn't give anyone the right to choose which idea. The distinction is important.

[Mr. Piccolo]

I don't think meaningful democracy is possible as long as the means of production (and therefore wealth) are in the hands of a relatively small number of people, with everyone else forced to sell their labor power to live.

Essentially, I don't think we can have political democracy until we have economic democracy. Economic power precedes and dominates political power. Under capitalism, the capitalists and the rich are always going to be in the driver's seat because they can just buy off the politicians.

[Bala Perdida]

As usual it's necessary to mention that democracy is a tactic and not a system. Most parties, even in dictatorships, use democracy to make decisions. My feelings are about the same as TGU's, the majority view is important to try to balance it out. I don't like calling it democracy, because that word has a lot of negativity connected to it as I see it. My political view is mixed, so if I felt strongly enough against a democratic decision I would agitate against it. I guess that's the natural solution against it, although not always the best. Definitely good to use popular decision making, as inclusive as possible. Conflict, well I just can't answer that. That's usually where splits happen too.

[Mad Frankie]

Idealist Enlightenment idol. The Party ought to be organised in the manner of democratic centralism for rational reasons, not because of 'human freedom' or whatever.

[Sabot Cat]

Idealist Enlightenment idol. The Party ought to be organised in the manner of democratic socialism for rational reasons, not because of 'human freedom' or whatever.

Human freedom is a rational reason.

[Asero]

Idealist Enlightenment idol. The Party ought to be organised in the manner of democratic socialism for rational reasons.

Democratic Socialism? You mean the Party should be organized by bourgeois reformists?

[Asero]

The economy of the new society should be managed by democratic workers' councils, and major economic decisions by a congress of elected officials from the soviets.
The Party should be organized under the principle of democratic centralism during the period of the consolidation of the proletarian dictatorship, but should be slowly transformed towards something similar along the line of organic centralism when the dictatorship has been solidified and the threat of foreign invasion becomes minimal.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

It's not a literal farce. It's exactly what it promises. You directly or indirectly manage the bourgeois state.


A process which seeks to make those oppressed and marginalised by capitalism and it´s state responsible (if indirectly) for it's management is a farce and a distasteful one at that. Also, how is voting for a bunch of shills now and then managing the bourgeois state anyway?
What makes bourgeois democracy so intolerable is exactly how it seeks to involve those whom the system works against in it's management and making them responsible for the whole shebang.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I don't think the question can be answered in the abstract. One needs to take the class content of democracy into account. Bourgeois democracies are the most widespread form of bourgeois rule, and as such, communists should be hostile to them. (And in particular it's important to not fall into the trap of seeking a more perfect bourgeois democracy.)

Socialist democracy is important in the transitional period, but it is not the most important thing. The content is more important than form (although I don't want to go all-out-quasi-Bordigist here; the content and form are not isolated but are in a dialectical relationship and so on). If we have to violate democratic norms to preserve the revolution, so be it.

In socialism, democracy, as a form of state, is gone. It has withered away. There will probably still be voting and consultation, consensus-seeking etc., but this will be on purely technical matters relating to the administration of the production processes.

[Mad Frankie]

Democratic Socialism? You mean the Party should be organized by bourgeois reformists?

Obvious lapsus, come on, it is clear I referred to democratic centralism. The bourgeois reformist ideology of left-social democrats isn't about the internal organisation of the Party.

[Mad Frankie]

Human freedom is a rational reason.

How so? It's an ethical principle, it's in the realm of Ideology.

[Sabot Cat]

How so? It's an ethical principle, it's in the realm of Ideology.

Freedom can be an empirical description of conditions in a society, without an ideological character. For instance, Marx characterizes freedom as such in his Critique of the Gotha Program: "Freedom consists in converting the state from an organ superimposed upon society into one completely subordinate to it".

[RedWorker]

How so? It's an ethical principle, it's in the realm of Ideology.

By this rule, so is supporting socialism in any way. You can say that socialism is technically the best for the proletariat, but it's still your opinion that the best for the proletariat is what should be done. One may as well say that human freedom is the best for the full enjoyment granted by freedom, and this could still be based in reality and facts, in a rational principle. Additionally, ethics are rational principles... and rational principles can also be part of ideology.

[Creative Destruction]

Democracy is a cornerstone to any socialist project, but that shouldn't be confused with the idea that the majority is always right. It's an imperfect political value, but a necessary political value. And, as a political value, we should look forward to it disappearing in a later communist society.

[jullia]

I still thinking that democracy and direct democracy is a strengh for the worker. They can change the society by their vote and counter the bourgeoisie power.

[DAN E BOY]

Personally, i think it's probably the best that's out there. At least with the democratic system you get a choice what party governs the country.

[cyu]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

The term originates from the Greek δημοκρατία (dēmokratía) "rule of the people", which was found from δῆμος (dêmos) "people" and κράτος (krátos) "power" or "rule" in the 5th century BC to denote the political systems then existing in Greek city-states, notably Athens; the term is an antonym to ἀριστοκρατία (aristokratía) "rule of an elite".

Democracy doesn't necessarily mean the same thing to everyone. Ask a Mormon, a Quaker, and a Jehovah's Witnesses what Christianity means, and they'll also tell you different things. Ask RevLeft what communism means, well, you get the picture.

To someone who lives in a nation that claims to be a democracy, if they have "mainstream" political views, then their vision of democracy will probably be pretty much exactly how their own political system works. If they have a president, then they'll imagine democracy to have a president. If they have a parliament, then tney'll imagine democracy to have a parliament.

If it's just a choice between either rule by the people or rule by an elite, the choice for anarchists is clear. But are those the only choices? If you're not ruled by the people or ruled by an elite, then who rules?

Consider the situation in which the world breaks up into billions of nations - each person becomes his own nation. Are these nations democracies? Yes. Are these nations dictatorships? Yes.

[flouPOWER]

Democracy is necessary for socialism.
If the power will be held in a minority, the minority therefore will be a class of it's own, controlling the means of production. Therefore they will compose an elit and their new class' interests will be intergrated in the choices they will take for the commune.

I don't know, it's just my opinion/theory.

[fearthebeard]

If you take a majority rules definition of democracy, and assume that 50%+1 versus 50%-1 become the impasse that the democracy ideal serves to solve, it creates a divide and two classes. One class, the 50%+1 class dominates and controls the means of production. This is synonymous to current society just with a larger ruling class. Still approximately half of the population is subjugated under the other half's rule and we are back to a class-conflict pre-revolution society. In short democracy is a progressive ideal in this world, a world without progress, but as soon as revolution grabs hold permanently, democracy will become as much of an evil as most people consider monarchies today.

[Vogel]

Democracy is a great thing. In the US, the way we set it up, is 'Majority rule, Minority rights'. Of course RNC and Dems are unbelievably corrupt, but it still applies.
Without Democracy, there is no such thing as communism.

[contracycle]

If you take a majority rules definition of democracy, and assume that 50%+1 versus 50%-1 become the impasse that the democracy ideal serves to solve, it creates a divide and two classes. One class, the 50%+1 class dominates and controls the means of production.


No this is nonsense. That 50%+1 does not represent a CLASS, because is nothing that defines or unites them apart from this one vote. It is entirely possible that people who were members of the winning side in Monday will be members of a losing side for the next issue discussed on Tuesday.

[Terror]

IMO, one of the major problems with democracy is inclusion. This problem will arise even though "direct democracy" is the method of decision-making, since the knowledge and interest that a person have in a certain issue will be different from person to person. People will still resort to following the "experts" lead while deciding on which alternative to vote for, even though they don't understand how they will benefit/not benefit from this alternative.

Another problem with democracy is the tendency to vote about every little single decision that has to be made. Some decisions are best placed in the hands of the experts (as in experts in that specific field of knowledge).