Democracy [Archive]

LSD

8th July 2005, 15:20

We all know that the average citizen in the west today has been brainwashed and made to believe that the only good, kind hearted things to do in life are evil.

Which "good, kind hearted things" are you referring to?

For example you could allow freedom of speech but not a free media and the privalige (it's not a right) to vote.

Surely you realize how ludicrous "freedom of speech" is if there's no way to mass express that "speech"!

so maybe a compramise of democracy and totalitarianism is the way forward.

The problem with bourgeois "democracy" is not that it is "too free", but not free enough.

Instead of actually serving the interests of the people, it sublimates those interests in the favour of the rulling elite, while pretending to "represent" everyone.

Crossing this "democracy" with "totalitarianism" is an astoundingly bad idea. You're talking about taking a system who's crucial flaw is that it privileging the elite ...and "compromising" it with a system predicated on privileging the elite!

You're making a bad thing worse!

Instead, we must make society actually "representative"; make decision making actually serve the interests of everyone and not merely of a rulling class, whether it claims to be "kind-hearted" or not.

This cannot be done in any "state", certainly not a "totalitarian" one!

If you give that kind of power to any group, even on a "transitional" basis, you will quickly find that they are not quite as willing to give it up as they were to accept it. They might even honestly believe that they are "[changing] this world for the better without ignorant brainwashed people getting in [their] way", but they're not.

Communism isn't about charity, it's abour liberation. From wage-slavery, from exploitation, from oppression.

...any oppression!

h&s

8th July 2005, 16:36

There is no need for 'democracy' for the working class to take power.
The very act of the working class realising that they have no say in society yet run the whole thing, and taking that power into their own hands is the most democratic way of ruling I can think of.
Democracy after the revolution is vital, as without it the working class is no longer in power. This democracy will, however, be different from current 'democracy.' In a worker's state workers will be actively involved at every stage, with the ability to change anything they want to through democratic means.

jamieaskew

8th July 2005, 18:49

Firstly i would just like to say i wasn't expressing my oppinion i was just weighing up scenarios. My personal oppinion is that the people of today are unable to make a decision that is best for them and the people around them. They instead only make decisions regarding their own self interests and alot of the time these decisions are not the best decisions they could have made. On this basis i do not agree that democracy (or our current definition of it) is the right way to get towards Marx's definition of communism.
If you say to the people that you are allowing them freedom of speech then this will keep them happy and loyal to the government. You can still, however, control what they say by controlling the media. This is not a facist or un-communist way it is the only way (Marx and Lenin both agree) to true communism.

lucky71777

8th July 2005, 21:08

What we need is REVOLUTION not comprimise- the only way the people have gotten their way throughout history is a complete overthrow of the current state machine. It worked with feudalism, colonialism, and in time it will do the same with capitalism...

viva le revolution

9th July 2005, 20:26

Lenin proposed that any revolution should be carries out with precision and effectiveness with professionals at the helm of a people's vanguard. Since lack of co-ordination will only lead to chaos, therefore the need for a guiding vanguard of the masses is needed.
i tend to agree with him that a lasting revolution can only carried out by a vanguard. There is going to be no sudden outburst of revolution, it will only come through meticulous preparation and co-ordination. in the initial stages, there is no room for democracy since democratic systems will only hinder and slow the actions of the vanguard and lead to schisms within the party when actually unity is needed.
After the revolution, then comes democracy. After the revolution has been secured and the communist state safe from the resulting counter-revolution, then and only then can democracy work and should be introduced.

bolshevik butcher

9th July 2005, 21:06

You make me sick. Socialism's all about freedom of speech. And if we take power all power will be democratic andd all postitions recallable. A comparamsie between totalitariamnism and free speech? :blink: We're all about free speech. It's people like you pretending to be communists that have given us our bad name.

viva le revolution

9th July 2005, 21:10

Are you referring to me?

bolshevik butcher

9th July 2005, 21:23

sorry, no the guy that first posted. I think you make a fair point, but don't you feel that things like soviets need to be established form the begginging?

viva le revolution

9th July 2005, 21:26

After the revolution, then comes democracy. After the revolution has been secured and the communist state safe from the resulting counter-revolution, then and only then can democracy work and should be introduced

This is my exact words on my second-last post. Democracy is an intrinsic part of communism, otherwise there is no difference between what we have achieved and what we oppose.
However, my position is that through the revolution and the counter-revolutionary peroid democracy in a truly communist sense cannot function.
if democracy is introduced during the counterrevolutionary stage then the counterrevolutionary opposition will form parties and lobby proving to be a hindrance to any development during that transitional peroid. A return to bourgeois democracy is then only a matter of time.
Once the counter-revolution is crushed and development is fully underway then democracy can function and actually help in the development of a true communist state.
To sum it all up, the REVOLUTION needs a vanguard not a democracy, but the COMMUNIST state Needs a democracy and cannot function without it.
As for revolution through democracy, that is just a fallacy, participating in bourgeois democracy through election is justifying that system and justifying it in the eyes of the working class. the impotent social democrats are an example.
Capitalists pretending to stand for socialism, just counter-revolutionary.

viva le revolution

9th July 2005, 21:30

sorry didn't see the reply there.

Of course soviets should be established from the beginning and the revolutionary government should work towards it, but the state needs to oversee the formation and establishment of the soviets and protect them from counter-revolutionary onslaught.
Thus the vanguard is only a transitionary phase.

bolshevik butcher

9th July 2005, 21:55

But soviets are all about democracy aren't they? I mean popular assemblies are often waht starts reovlutionsm so tehy will remain in place, so there will be democracy?

viva le revolution

9th July 2005, 22:04

i am sorry, i dont think i understood the question.Can you be a little clearer please. with the typing i mean.

bolshevik butcher

9th July 2005, 22:16

Sorry, my typing is appaling. My point was that a lot of revolutions are born out of popular assemblies or soviets. So you cannot stop democracy, these will make the decisions and act as the vanguard? So then the revolution will be fully democratic no?

Rockfan

9th July 2005, 22:25

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 9 2005, 08:06 PM
You make me sick. Socialism's all about freedom of speech. And if we take power all power will be democratic andd all postitions recallable. A comparamsie between totalitariamnism and free speech? :blink: We're all about free speech. It's people like you pretending to be communists that have given us our bad name.
You hit it on the head, if we don't set in place real democracy then we might as well have just said fuck the revolution, all the sacrifice people made for there freedom would be a waste.

viva le revolution

9th July 2005, 22:40

Of course, the main course of the struggle will be directed by popular assemblies. In case of an armed revolution involving a proper vanguard army,cuba style, then this democracy will not be practised. If it in the russian style then of course democracy will play a part in the popular assemblies. What i am trying to say is that there wont be democracy in it's present sense involving elections and referendums until the counter-revolution is crushed.
As regards the soviets, they will function internally as democracies after such stage is reached where the vanguard is no longer needed eventually negating the need for a state, save for the markation of international borders.

viva le revolution

9th July 2005, 22:44

In any case until the counter-revolution is crushed, democracy will not be availible for the general public but will be made use of within the vanguard party for major decisions and guidance of the revolution.

LSD

10th July 2005, 03:47

Firstly i would just like to say i wasn't expressing my oppinion i was just weighing up scenarios. My personal oppinion is that the people of today are unable to make a decision that is best for them and the people around them.

Then how could they revolt?

What you seem to be failing to realize is that if a popular revolution is underway then, by definition, the workers have become aware of their material conditions and are striving to end them.

Once such a revolution is complete, you're damn right that the workers are able to "make decisions that are best for them and the people around them".

It's for the freedom to do just that, that they've just been ostensibly fighting. Do you really think that they're going to let you stop them from enjoying it?

If you say to the people that you are allowing them freedom of speech then this will keep them happy and loyal to the government.

"if you say"?

Who are "you"?

...and why the hell would anyone listen to "you"?

I think if "you" say this to the people, they'll have you executed within a day...and rightly so!

We are not fighting to replace one boss with another. We don't want "happy and loyal" workers, we want angry and revolutionary workers. Workers who are willing to rise up and demolish capitalism. That's what makes a revolution possible.

If you tell these workers who have just battled for their freedom that you're going to only "allow them" limited "free speech", I think you'd find your sorry ass thoroughly "dumped".

If they're willing to rise up against capitalism, they're sure as fuck willing to rise up against "you"!

To sum it all up, the REVOLUTION needs a vanguard not a democracy

Because that's always worked so well in the past. :rolleyes:

In any case until the counter-revolution is crushed, democracy will not be availible for the general public but will be made use of within the vanguard party for major decisions and guidance of the revolution.

Sorry, but that won't fly in a first-world revolution.

These workers won't be fighting against oriental despotism or western monarchism, they'll be fighting against bouregois republicanism, with all the trappings of "democracy" that go with it.

Such a revolutionary class is well-aware of the nature of power politics and political power. They will have just cast off a rulling elite that claimed power in "their name". A system of oppressive government that declared itself the "represention" of the people.

...they will not be so quick to turn to another "representative".

If they reject bourgois elections for being undemocratic, and they will, they will reject "vanguardism" without a second thought.

Bourgeois "representation" is corrupt, "vanguard" "representation" is worse!

Rockfan

10th July 2005, 04:18

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 10 2005, 02:47 AM

Firstly i would just like to say i wasn't expressing my oppinion i was just weighing up scenarios. My personal oppinion is that the people of today are unable to make a decision that is best for them and the people around them.

Then how could they revolt?

What you seem to be failing to realize is that if a popular revolution is underway then, by definition, the workers have become aware of their material conditions and are striving to end them.

Once such a revolution is complete, you're damn right that the workers are able to "make decisions that are best for them and the people around them".

It's for the freedom to do just that, that they've just been ostensibly fighting. Do you really think that they're going to let you stop them from enjoying it?

If you say to the people that you are allowing them freedom of speech then this will keep them happy and loyal to the government.

"if you say"?

Who are "you"?

...and why the hell would anyone listen to "you"?

I think if "you" say this to the people, they'll have you executed within a day...and rightly so!

We are not fighting to replace one boss with another. We don't want "happy and loyal" workers, we want angry and revolutionary workers. Workers who are willing to rise up and demolish capitalism. That's what makes a revolution possible.

If you tell these workers who have just battled for their freedom that you're going to only "allow them" limited "free speech", I think you'd find your sorry ass thoroughly "dumped".

If they're willing to rise up against capitalism, they're sure as fuck willing to rise up against "you"!

To sum it all up, the REVOLUTION needs a vanguard not a democracy

Because that's always worked so well in the past. :rolleyes:

In any case until the counter-revolution is crushed, democracy will not be availible for the general public but will be made use of within the vanguard party for major decisions and guidance of the revolution.

Sorry, but that won't fly in a first-world revolution.

These workers won't be fighting against oriental despotism or western monarchism, they'll be fighting against bouregois republicanism, with all the trappings of "democracy" that go with it.

Such a revolutionary class is well-aware of the nature of power politics and political power. They will have just cast off a rulling elite that claimed power in "their name". A system of oppressive government that declared itself the "represention" of the people.

...they will not be so quick to turn to another "representative".

If they reject bourgois elections for being undemocratic, and they will, they will reject "vanguardism" without a second thought.

Bourgeois "representation" is corrupt, "vanguard" "representation" is worse!
A men brother.

10th July 2005, 05:46

Firstly i would just like to say i wasn't expressing my oppinion i was just weighing up scenarios. My personal oppinion is that the people of today are unable to make a decision that is best for them and the people around them.

You're right. People of today aren't able to make a decision about what is best for them and the people around them. That is why capitalism still exists! They don't know what's best for them because they are uneducated. So go educate people! If you want to help the cause go educate people. It's what is needed most right now.

A vanguard is NOT NECESSARY. What needs to happen is that a territory must be taken over. A socialist government must be set up (a communist government doesn't work with capitalism and thus can't be implemented). The government would be democratic. There is no need for a vanguard. Reactionaries can be weeded out without a vanguard. There will be freedom of speech, but once a crime is committed they will be treated as criminals. The people of this society will recognize reactionary talk and won't listen because they will realize that the society they live in is better than capitalism. A VANGUARD IS NOT NEEDED; IT IS A BAD IDEA.

Camarada

10th July 2005, 06:03

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 02:05 PM
Many could argue that to create a Marxist paradise in the 21st centuary that democracy is vital. With democracy you can win over the support and the trust of the people.
However this causes problems. We all know that the average citizen in the west today has been brainwashed and made to believe that the only good, kind hearted things to do in life are evil. Without democracy it would be alot easier to do what we all know is right and change this world for the better without ignorant brainwashed people getting in our way at the polls.
Over time we have seen countries fall apart because of the lack of freedom (e.g. The USSR) so maybe a compramise of democracy and totalitarianism is the way forward. For example you could allow freedom of speech but not a free media and the privalige (it's not a right) to vote.
What do you all think?
NO COMPROMISE....

democracy and totalitarianism are polar opposites stupid..

voting is a right! how can you say it's not a right?

And yes there will be a free press or "free media", when government controls the press it's called propaganda..

And yes there will be freedom of speech..

10th July 2005, 06:32

voting is a right! how can you say it's not a right?

Currently it is a privilege. Felons in the US, for example, cannot vote. It should be a right, but generally it isn't.

viva le revolution

10th July 2005, 10:26

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 10 2005, 02:47 AM

To sum it all up, the REVOLUTION needs a vanguard not a democracy

Because that's always worked so well in the past. :rolleyes:

In any case until the counter-revolution is crushed, democracy will not be availible for the general public but will be made use of within the vanguard party for major decisions and guidance of the revolution.

Sorry, but that won't fly in a first-world revolution.

These workers won't be fighting against oriental despotism or western monarchism, they'll be fighting against bouregois republicanism, with all the trappings of "democracy" that go with it.

Such a revolutionary class is well-aware of the nature of power politics and political power. They will have just cast off a rulling elite that claimed power in "their name". A system of oppressive government that declared itself the "represention" of the people.

...they will not be so quick to turn to another "representative".

If they reject bourgois elections for being undemocratic, and they will, they will reject "vanguardism" without a second thought.

Bourgeois "representation" is corrupt, "vanguard" "representation" is worse!
I am apeaking from the point of a third-world revolution. In the past, all my posts have clearly stated my firm belief in potential third world revolution and revolutionary spirit. any revolution that will occur will occur in the third world.
A revolution through democracy, you are right can only occur in the first world, it's called social democracy. That's the only kind of revolution that can take place there given their historical antagonism towards the communist system thanks to the cold war era.

To complete my quote:To sum it all up, the REVOLUTION needs a vanguard not a democracy, but the COMMUNIST state Needs a democracy and cannot function without it.

LSD

10th July 2005, 11:26

revolution through democracy, you are right can only occur in the first world, it's called social democracy.

How is social democracy a revolution? :huh:

Changes through reform are called reformism.

any revolution that will occur will occur in the third world.

Doubtful.

A truly successful communist society will need a certain level of technological development. This is not found in the third world.

While anti-imperialist revolutions in the third world are to be expected and encouraged, these are highly unlikely to result in a communist or "socialist" societies.

As we can see from looking at previous third-world revolutions, inevitable, capitalism makes a return.

It would appear that Marx was indeed correct, and capitalism is a prerequisite for communism.

In most of these third-world countries, they have not even achieved capitalism. They are still operating under a sort of neocolonialist pseudo-feudalism. Until they develop a "free market" and an independent bourgeoisie, not to mention an independent proletariat, true communist revolutions are almost certainly impossible.

"Bad press" or not, the first world is where it's at.

To sum it all up, the REVOLUTION needs a vanguard not a democracy

Why?

Because of the vast historical record of "vanguard" successes? :lol:

viva le revolution

10th July 2005, 13:13

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 10 2005, 10:26 AM

revolution through democracy, you are right can only occur in the first world, it's called social democracy.

How is social democracy a revolution? :huh:

Changes through reform are called reformism.

any revolution that will occur will occur in the third world.

Doubtful.

A truly successful communist society will need a certain level of technological development. This is not found in the third world.

While anti-imperialist revolutions in the third world are to be expected and encouraged, these are highly unlikely to result in a communist or "socialist" societies.

As we can see from looking at previous third-world revolutions, inevitable, capitalism makes a return.

It would appear that Marx was indeed correct, and capitalism is a prerequisite for communism.

In most of these third-world countries, they have not even achieved capitalism. They are still operating under a sort of neocolonialist pseudo-feudalism. Until they develop a "free market" and an independent bourgeoisie, not to mention an independent proletariat, true communist revolutions are almost certainly impossible.

"Bad press" or not, the first world is where it's at.

To sum it all up, the REVOLUTION needs a vanguard not a democracy

Why?

Because of the vast historical record of "vanguard" successes? :lol:
It's not a revolution. There will be no armed struggle in the first-world, thus any changes that will be brought about will be through social democracy, hence my point that any revolution will only occur in the third world.
Ant revolution needs a vanguard. to guide the masses in a co-herent and effective way, otherwise there will be chaos, and is soviets are set up right away without a vanguard there to protect it, how will it stand up to the resulting counter-revolution?
If you abolish the state at once without a vanguard there to oversee the transition, then all will be lost to the ensuing counter-revolution.
Hence my point that a temporary vanguard is needed until such time as the communist state is safe from the ensuing counter-revolution, after the defeaty of which democracy must be set up to create a true communist society.

LSD

10th July 2005, 14:22

There will be no armed struggle in the first-world

There will, just not in the immediate future.

hence my point that any revolution will only occur in the third world.

I have already addressed this:

Originally posted by Me!
Doubtful.

A truly successful communist society will need a certain level of technological development. This is not found in the third world.

While anti-imperialist revolutions in the third world are to be expected and encouraged, these are highly unlikely to result in a communist or "socialist" societies.

As we can see from looking at previous third-world revolutions, inevitable, capitalism makes a return.

It would appear that Marx was indeed correct, and capitalism is a prerequisite for communism.

In most of these third-world countries, they have not even achieved capitalism. They are still operating under a sort of neocolonialist pseudo-feudalism. Until they develop a "free market" and an independent bourgeoisie, not to mention an independent proletariat, true communist revolutions are almost certainly impossible.

"Bad press" or not, the first world is where it's at.

Ant revolution needs a vanguard. to guide the masses in a co-herent and effective way

And what does this "vanguard" know that the rest of us do not?

What higher wisdom have they tapped into that the revolutionary proletariat is unable to?

Workers that are capable of recognizing their material condition and rising up against capitalism are more than capable of organizing themselves.

I certainly trust them a whole lot more than self-proclaimed "leaders" who claim to have all the answers.

If history has taught us one thing, it is to be warry of those who seek power. Personally, I would be skeptical of anyone who felt they deserved to be "in the vanguard". I think that they'd be the last person I'd ask for revolutionary advice!

Anyone who thinks that they should "lead" is not thinking with class consiousness, they're thinking with their ego!

The workers are quite capable of making decisions themselves, thank you. Your "professional" revolutionaries will not be needed this time around. And, honestly, all indications are that most historical revolutions would have done bette without them!

without a vanguard there to protect it, how will it stand up to the resulting counter-revolution?

And how long does such a period last?

A year?

Two?

Ten?

A hundred?

You see, there will be counterrevolutionary sentiments for probably a long time to come. Certainly any "vanguard" worth it's salt will be able to "scare up' a few "traitors to the people" whenever the proles get agitated.

After all, they need to "protect us from them", right?

Oh, we can't have democracy yet, our secret intelligence shows that a BIG counterrevolution is in the works...
Can we see some evidence?
No! It's SECRET.
But...shouldn't we have a say?
No. I told you, we can't have democracy yet, our secret intelligence shows that a BIG counterrevolution is in the works! Don't you listen?

Once you give absolute power to anyone, they are mighty reticent to give it up. The key is to not give it to them in the first place!

If you abolish the state at once without a vanguard there to oversee the transition, then all will be lost to the ensuing counter-revolution.

Why?

The counterrevolution will be undoubtable weaker than the initial resistance against the revolution. So why can't the wokers fight the counterrevolution (if it happens) like they fought the revolution?

Why is a "leadership" suddenly needed?

What "novel" problems does the counter-revolution pose that the people themselves will not be able to resolve?

In short what's so damn special about the counterrevolution?

viva le revolution

10th July 2005, 14:57

That is quite the point i am making.
NO revolutions in the first-world in the immediate future. Maybe decades later. But the struggle in the third world is taking place NOW.
You seem to assume that 100% of the workers will support our struggle and each will be versed in marxist knowledge. No, education is needed and a guiding hand to make the workers uprising all the more effective. the job to educate the workers lies in the hands of the vanguard.
All the leftist parties all over the world serve as vanguards for the revolution in their own way. It won't be that the workers will one day say "fuck it" and rise up simoultaneously and overthrow capitalism. the revolutiopn wont be spontaneous but will come through hard work and effort. The workers will have to be organized to prevent chaos, their efforts will have to be channeled to strike the maximum blow to capitalism, some organization will be needed. That's where the vanguard comes in.
My position on this is that temporarily the vanguard will be needed. after the revolution, soviets will have to be set up immediately. to establish these and protect them in their initial stages, some semblance of government will be needed to organize, that's the job of the vanguard. Once the soviets are established, democracy will have to follow and the vanguard will no longer be needed.
Your point that the third world is incapable of communism and revolution is incorrect. Revolution occurs out of dire circumstances and bad conditions. no where is this worse than the third world, where naked exploitation takes place and the exploitation is in it's Naked form, withourt any welfare system to serve as a safety net. That's where the revolutionary sentiment is strongest. To deny them that is just saying that sorry, you are not developed enough and need to be exploited for a while longer. Despite the failures of the prevoius revolutions, it cannot be doubted that all those countries they took place in were third-world ones. this suggests a pattern.All the mass actions etc. on a major scale have taken place in the third world without any pretensions.

LSD

10th July 2005, 15:30

NO revolutions in the first-world in the immediate future. Maybe decades later. But the struggle in the third world is taking place NOW.

Perhaps, but all indications are that such struggles inevitably lead to the introduction of capitalism, not communism.

No, education is needed and a guiding hand to make the workers uprising all the more effective.

Education is certainly needed, but a "guiding hand" is not!

Of course, organization is required to make a revolution successful, but the workers need to organize themselves!

the job to educate the workers lies in the hands of the vanguard.

NO!

The "job to educate the workers" lies with everyone. Anyone who understands capitalism, who realizes the nescessity must go out and inform.

We don't need an "elite" to spread the word, we just need communists!

the revolutiopn wont be spontaneous but will come through hard work and effort.

No one knows what makes revolutions happen when they do.

Certainly there seem to be underlying conditions that must be present, oppression, exploitation, disenfranchisement...

But as to what makes that day, that year the time the revolution starts...we don't know.

The revolution in Russia started in a bread line in Petrograd. There were no Bolsheviks there.

Lenin was in Switzerland, Trotsky was half a continent away.

Why did this riot lead to a revolution when a hundred before didn't? ...who knows.

What we do know is that it is not the "revolutionaries" that make revolutions. It is often they who lead, or sometimes hijack, them, but it is rarely they who make them.

Revolutions are started by people. Masses of people.

We cannot concern ourselves with starting a a revolution, only with informing and laying the groundwork.

When the revolution happens it will not be because some "vanguard" picked that day, it will be because the workers are ready, the circumstances are correct, and...something is right.

History, I suppose...

My position on this is that temporarily the vanguard will be needed. after the revolution, soviets will have to be set up immediately. to establish these and protect them in their initial stages, some semblance of government will be needed to organize, that's the job of the vanguard. Once the soviets are established, democracy will have to follow and the vanguard will no longer be needed.

But, again, how do you ensure that the vanguard so willingly cedes its authority?

There is far to strong an element of "trust" in your model.

We must "trust" that the vanguard is benevolent, "trust" that they will allow Soviets to be formed, "trust" that they will allow the Soviets to operate, and "trust" that they will step down when the time is right.

Frankly, I don't have that much trust in anyone, let alone "professional" revolutionaries.

Granting absolute power to those who want absolute power strikes me as one of the most suicidal things a free society can do.

Fidelbrand

10th July 2005, 17:03

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2005, 11:05 PM
so maybe a compramise of democracy and totalitarianism is the way forward. For example you could allow freedom of speech but not a free media and the privalige (it's not a right) to vote.
What do you all think?
If the "compromise" you spoke of is democratic socialism, I'll be the first one to support it.

However, as for the media, I think government should allow as much freedom as possible to the media. It is because the media "checks" the state and is an indispensible element for people to air their griefs and opinions.

As for voting, i think if mass discussion forums are held to pave the way for universal suffrage, then , voting... should not be restricted to the priviledged fews/manys, it should be open to all; it should be established as soon as the socailist government is set up, say 3 years as the maximum for preparation and education.

what do you think?

Fidelbrand

10th July 2005, 17:05

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 02:32 PM

voting is a right! how can you say it's not a right?

Currently it is a privilege. Felons in the US, for example, cannot vote. It should be a right, but generally it isn't.
Well said. I concur.

Fidelbrand

10th July 2005, 17:07

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 02:03 PM
democracy and totalitarianism are polar opposites stupid..
take care of your language, clever. We are bros and siss here and flaming is highly self-inflammable in this site. ;)

Fidelbrand

10th July 2005, 17:19

Originally posted by rockfan+Jul 10 2005, 06:25 AM--> (rockfan @ Jul 10 2005, 06:25 AM)
Clenched [email protected] 9 2005, 08:06 PM
You make me sick. Socialism's all about freedom of speech. And if we take power all power will be democratic andd all postitions recallable. A comparamsie between totalitariamnism and free speech? :blink: We're all about free speech. It's people like you pretending to be communists that have given us our bad name.
You hit it on the head, if we don't set in place real democracy then we might as well have just said fuck the revolution, all the sacrifice people made for there freedom would be a waste. [/b]
I have a hypothetical thought:

1. Say a revolution is stired up by a bunch of elites with prescience and knowledge of the exploitative system of capitalism (some of you may say the mass as a whole should stir the revolution up, but not the educated few, .... but....... do you really mean it when you say "the mass as a WHOLE"?) the mass will automtically listen to them. And given the elites are true leftists, democracy will in the short run be implemented......... so....... is there / should there be an urgent need to make democracy possible right at the nascent of the success of our revolution?

2. Say Redstar2000 is our chairman or somethin' ( :P ). A whole bunch of capitlaist kiddies stirs a counter-capitalist-revolution in democratic way (some really reminscent the capitalist-consumerist way of living.... the vaunted sacredness of liberal ideologies...etc). Should Redstar2000 and his statesmen (Anarchists will hate this word, but , oh well....) suffice to this "democratic movement"?

share me your 2 cents.... :)

10th July 2005, 17:22

LSD, didn't Marx say that underdeveloped countries have a chance to skip capitalism all together beacuse they can learn from other countries? Someone said that, I don't remember who.

viva le revolution

10th July 2005, 18:56

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 10 2005, 02:30 PM

Perhaps, but all indications are that such struggles inevitably lead to the introduction of capitalism, not communism.

No, education is needed and a guiding hand to make the workers uprising all the more effective.

Education is certainly needed, but a "guiding hand" is not!

Of course, organization is required to make a revolution successful, but the workers need to organize themselves!

the job to educate the workers lies in the hands of the vanguard.

NO!

The "job to educate the workers" lies with everyone. Anyone who understands capitalism, who realizes the nescessity must go out and inform.

We don't need an "elite" to spread the word, we just need communists!

the revolutiopn wont be spontaneous but will come through hard work and effort.

No one knows what makes revolutions happen when they do.

Certainly there seem to be underlying conditions that must be present, oppression, exploitation, disenfranchisement...

But as to what makes that day, that year the time the revolution starts...we don't know.

The revolution in Russia started in a bread line in Petrograd. There were no Bolsheviks there.

Lenin was in Switzerland, Trotsky was half a continent away.

Why did this riot lead to a revolution when a hundred before didn't? ...who knows.

What we do know is that it is not the "revolutionaries" that make revolutions. It is often they who lead, or sometimes hijack, them, but it is rarely they who make them.

Revolutions are started by people. Masses of people.

We cannot concern ourselves with starting a a revolution, only with informing and laying the groundwork.

When the revolution happens it will not be because some "vanguard" picked that day, it will be because the workers are ready, the circumstances are correct, and...something is right.

History, I suppose...

My position on this is that temporarily the vanguard will be needed. after the revolution, soviets will have to be set up immediately. to establish these and protect them in their initial stages, some semblance of government will be needed to organize, that's the job of the vanguard. Once the soviets are established, democracy will have to follow and the vanguard will no longer be needed.

But, again, how do you ensure that the vanguard so willingly cedes its authority?

There is far to strong an element of "trust" in your model.

We must "trust" that the vanguard is benevolent, "trust" that they will allow Soviets to be formed, "trust" that they will allow the Soviets to operate, and "trust" that they will step down when the time is right.

Frankly, I don't have that much trust in anyone, let alone "professional" revolutionaries.

Granting absolute power to those who want absolute power strikes me as one of the most suicidal things a free society can do.
1. I disagree, Cuba and Venezuela seem to be going the opposite way and hopefully Bolivia will follow suit.
2. The workers need to organize themselves. All with a common outlook. I am supposing with an umbrella organization or front to accomodate all the factions toward that goal. or at least a ceremonial head. That's a vanguard. Petty groups all splintered without a united stance will lead to nothing, if not more infighting.Thus the need for a supra-organizational party, or in other words the vanguard.
3. Once that knowledge is secured then what? that mass collection of discontent must be turned into collective action, not through individual action, but through mass action.Thus the need to co-ordinate and organize it into mass action.
4. yes but in imperial Russia it wasn't only the Bolsheviks in opposition to the monarchy, there also were republicans and those who wanted to transform Russia into britain's parliamentary system. The fact that the party existed allowed the people to view it as a legitimate alternative and bring it to power.Otherwise there were many others to scoop up the spoils.
5. when did i deny that it is the people who make revolution? That's why mass action is preferred. The vangurd is not there to hijack the revolution, but only to ensure that it is effective.
6. What makes you certain that after the revolution, without any co-ordination or the broader picture of the state and government planning in the initialm stages of setting up the soviets, everybody will co-operate smoothly and everything will run smoothly without any infighting or conflict. Lets look at everything at perspective, the people won't automatically be converted to communism, they won't give up religious belief either, thus there will be conflict and chaos without a vanguard there to make sure the transition goes smoothly. There is no way of knowing what will happen. this is just a hypothetical situation and what should happen. better have a vanguard than everybody running around implementing his own version of communism.

10th July 2005, 19:13

1. I disagree, Cuba and Venezuela seem to be going the opposite way and hopefully Bolivia will follow suit.

Cuba doesn't have a "vanguard". In the past cuba started to close down because of state-sponsored (USA sponsored) terrorism. Luckily, this only happened to an extent. Does Cuba have a ruling party? Yes, but they aren't the vanguard.

6. What makes you certain that after the revolution, without any co-ordination or the broader picture of the state and government planning in the initialm stages of setting up the soviets, everybody will co-operate smoothly and everything will run smoothly without any infighting or conflict. Lets look at everything at perspective, the people won't automatically be converted to communism, they won't give up religious belief either, thus there will be conflict and chaos without a vanguard there to make sure the transition goes smoothly.

The people are their own vanguard. When a crime is committed they will be punished. No vanguard is needed. People don't need to give up religious belief, and I'm sure the majority of religious people will understand that forcing their beliefs on others infringes on others rights and will be illegal.

viva le revolution

10th July 2005, 19:19

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 06:13 PM

Cuba doesn't have a "vanguard". In the past cuba started to close down because of state-sponsored (USA sponsored) terrorism. Luckily, this only happened to an extent. Does Cuba have a ruling party? Yes, but they aren't the vanguard.
This point was in response to Lsd's point that any revolution in the third world will only bring in capitalism, not socialism.
Sorry for being unclear.

viva le revolution

10th July 2005, 19:29

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 06:13 PM

The people are their own vanguard. When a crime is committed they will be punished. No vanguard is needed. People don't need to give up religious belief, and I'm sure the majority of religious people will understand that forcing their beliefs on others infringes on others rights and will be illegal.
The people come first, the vanguard is not there to supress but to serve. Tell me are you a member of any organization? That's a vanguard! Organizing etc.
That's just fatalistic thinking to think that soviets can be set up by individuals or established, some planning is needed, that's why it's called a planned economy!
I was not saying that people need to give up religious beleifs, just that without co-ordination, all these factors will not unify but divide.

LSD

10th July 2005, 20:55

I disagree, Cuba and Venezuela seem to be going the opposite way and hopefully Bolivia will follow suit.

We don't really know where Venezuela is heading.

Certainly it appears to be in a leftist direction, but at the momment even calling it a social democracy would be a bit of a stetch. We're a long way from communism.

Insofar as Cuba, there are definite signs of resurgent capitalism. If Cuban socialism is "transitional", I'd like to know what it's transitioning to, because I haven't seen any "movement towards communism" in decades.

The workers need to organize themselves. All with a common outlook. I am supposing with an umbrella organization or front to accomodate all the factions toward that goal. or at least a ceremonial head. That's a vanguard.

I think you may be confused on what a "vanguard" means.

If all the revolutionary workers are a part of a "vanguard", then, by defitnition, it's no longer a vanguard.

A vanguard is a minority elite group which organizes and manages a revolution. It is, definitionaly, select.

And what does "ceremonial head" mean?

Do you mean a person or a name?

If the latter, then you may be correct, if the former then you are most definitely not. We do not need a "ceremonial" leader; we don't need "leaders" of any kind!

...but at least you'd be clear on what vanguard means.

It means "leadership", it means self-appointed "managers" of the revolution who believe themselves to be solely capable, and solely responsible, for the revolution.

You seem to feel that such people are needed for a revolution to speak with one voice, but they are not.

Out of discussion and debate will come the true voice of the people, not what some "professional revolutionary" claims it to be.

A revolution is stronger when it's participants are active in shaping it, not weaker!

Once that knowledge is secured then what? that mass collection of discontent must be turned into collective action, not through individual action, but through mass action.Thus the need to co-ordinate and organize it into mass action.

Of course, but, again, that organization and co-ordination can be done without the need for an elite "leadership"!

yes but in imperial Russia it wasn't only the Bolsheviks in opposition to the monarchy, there also were republicans and those who wanted to transform Russia into britain's parliamentary system. The fact that the party existed allowed the people to view it as a legitimate alternative and bring it to power.

Which was, frankly, one of the worst things that could have happened.

Russia is a perfect example of the danger of the "vanguard".

Durring and after the revolution, most workers had already begun arranging themselves in collectives and soviets and starting forming egalitarian interrelationships. It was the nucleus of a true workers state ...until the Bolsheviks stopped it.

It was central leadership that crushed the emerging workers state.

Political power is simply incompatible with communism. Communism can stand no elites, whether they call themselves "vanguard" or not.

The vangurd is not there to hijack the revolution, but only to ensure that it is effective.

...or so it claims.

It also claims that it alone is capable of doing so. That without it, the revolution can't possibly succeed.

Well, I dispute this.

I don't think that the "bennefits" of an elite "revolutionary" class outweigh the harm. I think that the cost of absolute leadership is simply too damn high.

If we expect a class to liberate itself we must allow that class to liberate itself.

We can't expect it to be liberated by a spunky band of plucky revolutionaries.

the people won't automatically be converted to communism

If they've just fought a revolution for it, you'd damn better believe that they're "converted"!

And besides, while some post-revolutionary resitance is to be expected, why can't the people handle it themselves?

Is it really that hard to identify reaction?

And once identified, what can the "vanguard" do that the people cannot?

better have a vanguard than everybody running around implementing his own version of communism.

Yes, because clearly the vanguard's "version of communism" is the superior one.

Clearly only the Leninist masters are capable of deciphering The Holy Marx. The rest of should oooh and awww, but not speak up. Our "version of communism" is obviously ignorant.

...or maybe that's not communism at all.

Communism means everyone participating in shaping the new society. It means meetings and arguments and endless debate on where things go because, frankly, none of us know!

We all have theories and dreams, but until the revolution actually happens and we can see material conditions on the ground, none of us know how things will work...not even the "vanguard".

So we want as many voices as possible in the debate!

We want everyone to participate because, as it goes, a million heads are better than 5 ...and for this project we're going to need a lot of heads.

pastradamus

10th July 2005, 22:25

What is 'NEO MARXISM'? Dont tell me its connected with this Neo-idealist left that Blair speaks of

viva le revolution

10th July 2005, 22:49

Well actually a vanguard is not by definition a narrow group of "elite revolutionaries". A vanguard is a front or a collection of various leftist parties all under a common party name and with a similar goal.
A vanguard is a "ceremonial head" in the sense as a party not a single person.
I don't think that a vanguard is needed for the masses to speak with one voice. just how to convert that voice into collective action. Without a mass struggle united and organized to fight with maximum effect a united vanguard party is needed.
I am sorry but i disagree, leadership to some extent is required during the revolution to keep the masses focused and to prevent splintering and infighting. a common vanguard party gives it's members a platform to raise those issues through dialogue instead of isolation of a certain group through splintering.
No matter if they failed in the long run at least the vanguard mode of revolution has succeeded in overthrowing the systems in place. nowhere ever has splintered groups ever been able overthrow their governments and establish a coherent and uniform system in it's place. The kind of revolution you are referring to is a utopian one. not realistically possible given the strength of the capitalist enterprise and the need for uniform and coherent struggle.
I am sorry but i do not see millions rising up simoultaneously, all out of the blue and overthrowing capitalism, then proceeding to peacefully and without incident forming a utopia on earth. No, organization will be needed. any romantic notions about utopic revolution should be dismissed because the revolution will involve a lot of hard work and thought and effort,and, it will take time.
Not the sudden outburst, but through perseverance and focus towards a definite goal without any pretensions or distraction. for that you NEED some form of organization and planning.
Thus the need for a vanguard party.

LSD

10th July 2005, 23:36

I think we may be at cross-purposes here, especially with the meaning of "vanguard".

Well actually a vanguard is not by definition a narrow group of "elite revolutionaries".

Actually...it is.
van·guard:
n.
1.The foremost position in an army or fleet advancing into battle.
a) The foremost or leading position in a trend or movement.
b) Those occupying a foremost position.

from www.Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=vanguard).

In the context of revolutionary politics, a "vanguard" refers to an elite party which makes all revolutionary decisions "on behalf" of the working class.

A vanguard is a front or a collection of various leftist parties all under a common party name and with a similar goal.

No, that's called a united front.

nowhere ever has splintered groups ever been able overthrow their governments and establish a coherent and uniform system in it's place.

Who said anything about "splintering"?

Obviously we need a united revolution. I am only arguing that such organization does not require elite "leadership".

No, organization will be needed.

Of course.

Not the sudden outburst, but through perseverance and focus towards a definite goal without any pretensions or distraction. for that you NEED some form of organization and planning.

Of course.

Thus the need for a vanguard party.

WHY?

Why can't the workers democratically arrange, organize, and manage themselves?

Why is the need for "professionals" so great?

I am sorry but i disagree, leadership to some extent is required during the revolution to keep the masses focused and to prevent splintering and infighting

"Infighting", to some degree, is inevitable.

There will and should be discussions and debates on the tactics and policies of the revolution.

Obviously some means should be devised such that such disagreements must be decided, preferable by a vote, by a certain time.

It seems to me that oppening decision making like this, having a wider range of views, actually improves the chances of revolutionary success rather than hurting it.

When you limit power to a small group, you limit the available choices. In simplest terms, more people, more ideas. More ideas, more correct ideas.

Not to mention that the best way for a revolutionary population to demonstrate to those workers who are "on the fence" that their way is better is by demonstrating it!

Severian

11th July 2005, 00:03

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 10 2005, 04:36 PM

Well actually a vanguard is not by definition a narrow group of "elite revolutionaries".

Actually...it is.van·guard:
n.1.The foremost position in an army or fleet advancing into battle.a) The foremost or leading position in a trend or movement.
b) Those occupying a foremost position.from www.Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=vanguard).

I don't see anything about "narrow" there.

In the context of revolutionary politics, a "vanguard" refers to an elite party which makes all revolutionary decisions "on behalf" of the working class.

Speak for yourself. That's what opponents of "vanguardism" are typically referring to.

Leninists, however, use the term vanguard differently. Often, when we say "vanguard of the working class", we're not referring to a party at all, but to the most class-conscious and militant workers.

At present in the U.S., no party can accurately claim to be the vanguard of the working class, since a lot of workers who should belong to such a party, don't.

It is, however, possible to try to build a Leninist party, which will include the vanguard of the working class. And for an existing organization to be a potential nucleus of such a party.

I disagree with "viva le revolution", though...if there's more than one revolutionary party (revolutionary in reality not just name) in the vanguard, they should merge. A united front between parties is needed...because some are not revolutionary, nor representatives of workers' interests, but some workers don't see that yet. Those other parties, then, are not part of the vanguard of our class.

LSD

11th July 2005, 00:12

Leninists, however, use the term vanguard differently. Often, when we say "vanguard of the working class", we're not referring to a party at all, but to the most class-conscious and militant workers.

Really?

So were "class-conscious and militant" workers who were not part of the Bolshevik party part of the "vanguard" in 1917?

...or do you define "class conscious" as being a member of the party. <_<

I'm genuinely curious, though. I didn't realize that there was an alternate Leninist definition.

viva le revolution

11th July 2005, 00:35

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2005, 11:03 PM

I disagree with "viva le revolution", though...if there's more than one revolutionary party (revolutionary in reality not just name) in the vanguard, they should merge. A united front between parties is needed...because some are not revolutionary, nor representatives of workers' interests, but some workers don't see that yet. Those other parties, then, are not part of the vanguard of our class.
That has essentially been my position throughout, that all revolutionary parties(when i say that i mean those in actions) should unite under a common banner against capitalism. Sorry i did not really emphasize this clearly. By leftist parties i did not mean the mainstream or reformist ones. sorry for the confusion.

Severian

11th July 2005, 06:04

Originally posted by Lysergic Acid [email protected] 10 2005, 05:12 PM

Leninists, however, use the term vanguard differently. Often, when we say "vanguard of the working class", we're not referring to a party at all, but to the most class-conscious and militant workers.

Really?

So were "class-conscious and militant" workers who were not part of the Bolshevik party part of the "vanguard" in 1917?
Not all, no. Perhaps not most, at the beginning of 1917. Most did belong to the Bolshevik party by the end of 1917. Not by definition, but by recruitment. For example, see Rex A Wade's book on "Red Guards and Workers Militia in the Russian Revolution" for stats on the fighting workers who belonged to those groups, and especially the leaders among them, joining the Bolsheviks.

Also during 1917 and 1918, other groups merged with the Bolsheviks, including the "Mezdurayonny" group headed by Trotsky and splitoffs from the Mensheviks and SRs, later merged with the Bolsheviks. As a result of this process, almost all vanguard workers (defined by their actions) belonged to the Bolshevik Party. (That's why its degeneration was such an irresistable blow to the revolution.)

The Bolshevik Party earned its position as the vanguard party, and didn't just proclaim itself the vanguard, as some pseudo-Leninists sometimes seem to think they can do. I admit that anti-Leninists didn't entirely make up the position you're arguing against. It just wasn't Lenin's position.