Democracy and demokratia as rule by the poor: is unequal suffrage needed?

[Die Neue Zeit]

On democracy, Aristotle wrote that demokratia is rule by the poor. In that case, is unequal suffrage necessary?

I'm not referring to the unequal, disproportionate weighting between urban soviets and rural soviets by the Bolsheviks. I'm also not referring, more hypothetically, to two inherent problems within a council democracy based on workplaces or working groups, unequal sizes of councils and people voting twice or more based on belonging to at least two workplace and/or working group councils at the same level (such as pensioners' councils, tenants' councils, and consumers' councils).

I am referring to the socioeconomic strata distinction between the working poor and the precariat, on the one hand, and more well-off workers (including the "labour aristocracy") on the other. Combining universal suffrage with Aristotle's definition of demokratia would mean that, while a more well-off worker would get one vote, someone from the working poor or the precariat would get, say, two votes.

Should worker-class rule introduce such stratification of voting power as an extreme form of affirmative action policy based on socioeconomic strata?

[Armchair Partisan]

Huh? I don't understand. How is it determined who belongs to the precariat and who belongs to the more "well-off" strata? Who will determine it? Also, I thought we were fighting for a classless society, not "affirmative action" or other policies generally associated with left-liberalism and the welfare state? Or is this supposed to be some temporary reform measure within capitalism? Honestly, to me this looks like a nice way to "divide and conquer" the working class and drive the more well-off layers of the proletariat into the waiting arms of the capitalists as far as political alignment goes.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Huh? I don't understand. How is it determined who belongs to the precariat and who belongs to the more "well-off" strata? Who will determine it?

Individuals themselves already determine it when the file their tax returns. Relevant information in those returns can be shared with the electoral registration authorities who then distribute the extra votes.

In legislatures themselves, already disclosed would be who is of the precariat or of the working poor, and who is not. Those who are would be able to cast extra votes.


Also, I thought we were fighting for a classless society, not "affirmative action" or other policies generally associated with left-liberalism and the welfare state? Or is this supposed to be some temporary reform measure within capitalism? Honestly, to me this looks like a nice way to "divide and conquer" the working class and drive the more well-off layers of the proletariat into the waiting arms of the capitalists as far as political alignment goes.

This is no temporary reform within capitalism. This is a question about a measure within the DOTP itself, just like the recallability of all public officials.

The extra votes should give extra incentives to those without them to eliminate any working-poor or precarious conditions that haven't been eliminated by more progressive capitalist development.

[Sasha]

Remember me how you are a revolutionary leftist in any shape or form?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

No. This is idiotic in theory and would be impossible to roll out in practice. We are all workers and on the same side. There's no need to try and divide us any more than the bourgeoisie has already been successful in doing. This is completely reactionary.

[Sasha]

Also, stop making up new definitions to established terms, in communism/socialism there is no poorer and richer part of the population, there is no money nor wages and there are certainly no tax forms...

[Sasha]

i guess dictatorial social-democracy would be a accurate description of your politics and the fact that you probably would actually confirm that and take pride in that proofs how bonkers your crap is.

[Die Neue Zeit]

in communism/socialism there is no poorer and richer part of the population, there is no money nor wages and there are certainly no tax forms...

First, this is about the DOTP, not beyond. Second, what I asked was only a possibility, not a principle. I am aware of the counter-argument that this could be very misconstrued as "class privilege."


i guess dictatorial social-democracy would be a accurate description of your politics

What part of "dictatorship of the proletariat" don't you get from my posts?

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

I mean, I think the issue is less number of votes (and anyway, who says a given stratum's vote is necessarily an expression of anything coherent?) than real distribution of power. If there's a static distinction between the labour aristocracy and the destitute, then you're probs doing it wrong, no?

[Die Neue Zeit]

I mean, I think the issue is less number of votes (and anyway, who says a given stratum's vote is necessarily an expression of anything coherent?) than real distribution of power. If there's a static distinction between the labour aristocracy and the destitute, then you're probs doing it wrong, no?

Those are cognizant points to consider for the "dictatorship of the proletariat." Indeed, who's to say that the working poor and the precariat would be a homogeneous political bloc during such time? Also, keeping in mind that the labour aristocracy is still part of the working class proper, and neither part of the coordinator class nor part of the "functional capitalist" strata of the bourgeoisie, the real distribution of power within the working class itself is a heavy point.

[tuwix]

I'm also not referring, more hypothetically, to two inherent problems within a council democracy based on workplaces or working groups, unequal sizes of councils and people voting twice or more based on belonging to at least two workplace and/or working group councils at the same level (such as pensioners' councils and consumers' councils).


Consumers' councils? Who will give them right to decide anything? Yes, if they existed, there would be a conflict. But they shouldn't have separate rights. Certainly, in regional councils workers (outside work places) could have opinions broader including consumer issues. But I don't know why there should be separate consumers' councils at all?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Consumers' councils? Who will give them right to decide anything? Yes, if they existed, there would be a conflict. But they shouldn't have separate rights. Certainly, in regional councils workers (outside work places) could have opinions broader including consumer issues. But I don't know why there should be separate consumers' councils at all?

That was just an example from the top of my head. I've added tenants' councils as another example to pose the problem of unequal suffrage.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Those are cognizant points to consider for the "dictatorship of the proletariat." Indeed, who's to say that the working poor and the precariat would be a homogeneous political bloc during such time? Also, keeping in mind that the labour aristocracy is still part of the working class proper, and neither part of the coordinator class nor part of the "functional capitalist" strata of the bourgeoisie, the real distribution of power within the working class itself is a heavy point.

Sure - and it's an interesting thing in that the labour aristocracy tends to function as more of a political bloc by virtue of its organizational strength within capitalism (in the Canadian context through the CLC, NDP, the constellation of "left" thinktanks, etc.).
I guess my point is just that a DoP situation (and I'm trying to adopt your terminology here - DoP isn't one I really go in for) seems, to me, to only be possible at that point in which the labour aristocracy as such has been overcome - when the unions and social democracy cease to exercise their function of constituting the labour aristocracy as a political bloc.
Dunno. Dunno.

[Slavic]

If there was enough mass support to implement a DotP, then why would a distinction between working poor and labor aristocracy even exist?

Isn't the point of the DotP to implement reforms to dismantle capital and reduce the power of the bourgeoisie? If this is the case, wouldn't removal of capital and the institution of say a wage credit completely erase the distinction between working poor and labor aristocrat; since the classification of both of these groups is based entirely on wages.

[#FF0000]

sounds like "progressive stack" except practically unworkable.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

sounds like "progressive stack" except practically unworkable.

It's interesting in that I think progressive stack - in which voices are prioritized - makes more sense than extra votes which don't really serve to express the same nuance. Or, like, there is useful stuff to be distilled from people speaking of their direct experiences, even if they themselves draw poor "big picture" conclusions. Voting, in comparison, is worse on both counts (one learns nothing, but any shitty political conclusions are given expression).

[Die Neue Zeit]

If there was enough mass support to implement a DotP, then why would a distinction between working poor and labor aristocracy even exist?

Isn't the point of the DotP to implement reforms to dismantle capital and reduce the power of the bourgeoisie?

Implementing reforms to reduce the power of the bourgeoisie isn't something to be left to the DOTP.


If this is the case, wouldn't removal of capital and the institution of say a wage credit completely erase the distinction between working poor and labor aristocrat; since the classification of both of these groups is based entirely on wages.

That is assuming that the hourly compensation for these wage credits is equal all across the board from the get-go.



sounds like "progressive stack" except practically unworkable.

It's interesting in that I think progressive stack - in which voices are prioritized - makes more sense than extra votes which don't really serve to express the same nuance. Or, like, there is useful stuff to be distilled from people speaking of their direct experiences, even if they themselves draw poor "big picture" conclusions. Voting, in comparison, is worse on both counts (one learns nothing, but any shitty political conclusions are given expression).

Now this conversation is getting really, really interesting! :thumbup1:

Having just read about progressive stack online, couldn't both methods be used somehow? The fundamental weakness of progressive stack alone is that it can easily be seen as a stepping stone towards consensus decision-making, and fetishes of consensus only entrenches the "rule" of minorities. If any existing DOTP-era precariat wants some aggressive policies pushed forward immediately in order to discard the condition of precarity, consensus decision-making would likely water down those policies.

As for your comments on extra votes alone, I do stand corrected. I guess the whole framework could be referred to as socioeconomic strata-based affirmative action in participation and deliberation (progressive stack) as well as in voting and candidacy (i.e., within statistically or otherwise representative organs of worker-class power).

[Slavic]

Implementing reforms to reduce the power of the bourgeoisie isn't something to be left to the DOTP.

I don't understand where you are going with this. Are you saying that this isn't in the best interest of the DotP or that the DotP shouldn't be the only entity fighting against the bourgeoisie?



That is assuming that the hourly compensation for these wage credits is equal all across the board from the get-go.

Why would it be anything other than equal? We are seeking a communist society are we not? If a wage credit system is needed during the early years of the revolution, then what would be the point to maintain the differential in pay?

[Die Neue Zeit]

I don't understand where you are going with this. Are you saying that this isn't in the best interest of the DotP or that the DotP shouldn't be the only entity fighting against the bourgeoisie?

I interpreted your post to mean that bourgeois capitalism can somehow afford no radical, structural, pro-worker reforms. You did write DOTP and "implement reforms," after all.


Why would it be anything other than equal? We are seeking a communist society are we not? If a wage credit system is needed during the early years of the revolution, then what would be the point to maintain the differential in pay?

I don't think such wage credit system should be implemented that early. Even Marxist authors Paul Cockshott, Allin Cottrell, and Dave Zachariah wrote about such.