Limiting the power of the state

[ioncannon152]

During the dictatorship of the proletariat (socialism),

How do Marxists plan to ensure that the state doesn't gain too much power and forms a new ruling class? (such as what happenned in Russia)

Perhaps by removing legislative power from the state and placing it in democratic councils?

Or is Socialism doomed to failure? (as anarchists suggest)

[More Fire for the People]

The creation of a quasi-class from the Communist Party was a result of two things. The government failed to execute its own policies of the dictatorship of the proletariat by establishing a rule that all representatives receive workmen's wages and all representatives are recallabe by their electors.

However their is a fault with the Leninist paradigm because they based their state solely on the Paris Commune. What we can learn from their mistakes is that no representative should serve very long. I suggest that a socialist state operate under two principles of mass rule : term limits democracy and demarchy. No one would have time to get "cozy" at their job because they couldn't hold it very long. This would be enacted at all levels from the local police to the planning commission.

[Red Leader]

Term limits is a very good idea. It prevents any state from growing too corrupt, giving it time to basicly disolve into the masses, however a problem I see with it is it may just lead to prolonged American style elections. The usa obviously has term limits, and this results in a lot of debate, conflict and ruthlessnes to stay in or get into power. The problem with the american four year term is that most governments spend the last half of thier term preparing for the upcoming election campaign. If I was controlling the state in a newly formed proletarian dictatorship, I would simply drill it in the citizens from birth to revolt aginst the state as soon as it shows signs of corruption. it would be a nation wide oath, if you will, to destroy elitist policies within the government as soon as they arise. that way, each citizen is kept on thier toes, and the cause of the revolution is never lost.

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 28 2005, 05:04 PM
Term limits is a very good idea. It prevents any state from growing too corrupt, giving it time to basicly disolve into the masses, however a problem I see with it is it may just lead to prolonged American style elections.
The nature of elections in the United States or any other bourgeois democratic republic would not be the same as in a proletarian dictatorship. In the US, representatives represent the bourgeois and special interest groups — with the interest of their constituents in the back of their mind or not on their mind at all!


The usa obviously has term limits, and this results in a lot of debate, conflict and ruthlessnes to stay in or get into power. The problem with the american four year term is that most governments spend the last half of thier term preparing for the upcoming election campaign.
This too has to do with the nature of bourgeois democracy. The rich elite compete amongst themselves using endless rhetoric. A proletarian state would most likely elect leaders based upon public or anonymous nomination at a local level.


If I was controlling the state in a newly formed proletarian dictatorship, I would simply drill it in the citizens from birth to revolt aginst the state as soon as it shows signs of corruption. it would be a nation wide oath, if you will, to destroy elitist policies within the government as soon as they arise. that way, each citizen is kept on thier toes, and the cause of the revolution is never lost.
Sounds like anti-authoritarian totalitarianism. People will have learned by the proletarian revolution that it is right to rebel and revolt.

[Red Leader]

This too has to do with the nature of bourgeois democracy. The rich elite compete amongst themselves using endless rhetoric. A proletarian state would most likely elect leaders based upon public or anonymous nomination at a local level

However, this may not always work out to elect the best/fairest leader, as proven with any election, majority rule yealds closer to a fifty fifty split than anything. A limited term may result in the compitition that you have just described. In canada, as I am writing this, the current government has just been overthrown by a vote of non confidence in the house of commons. The government was in power for barely a year, however did not gain the confidence of opposition members so they have been removed and an election will follow. If Paul Martin (the current Prime Minister who has just been defeated) had stayed in power for four more years, things would be a lot worse. Now citizens have a chance to vote on a newer, fairer government. My point is that limiting the term of the leader may eventually lead to the curruption you have discribed in your counter arguments, where a more liberal way of electing these leaders would allow the immediate overthrow of corrupt parties.


Sounds like anti-authoritarian totalitarianism. People will have learned by the proletarian revolution that it is right to rebel and revolt.

Yes, however history has proven that citizens, although taught that it is right to rebel, don't do so only until its too late. Take china for instance. Mao taught the people the concept of rebeling against elitists, however as inter-party corruption grew, the people went along with it until the party grew so massive that it just crushed any rebellion against it.( tragedy of tianenmen square). Having the people know from the beggining that there is a high chance party officials will grow corrupt, then they are ready to react before it is too late, a sort of security measure to keep things in order.

[ioncannon152]

Thanks for the replies,

Demarchy seems to me to be an interesting concept, however i would like to know a few things,

How do we select the random decision-makers? Using a computer?

If a particular person abuses his/her power and/or is ineffecient in doing the job, is that person instantly recallable and replaced?

Is everyone allowed to govern? Or must the person meet certain specifics?

[ioncannon152]

Thanks for the replies,

Demarchy seems to me to be an interesting concept, however I would like to know a few things,

How do we select the random decision-makers? Using a computer?

If a particular person abuses his/her power and/or is ineffecient in doing the job, is that person instantly recallable and replaced?

Is everyone allowed to govern? Or must the person meet certain specifics?

If a person chooses not to govern, does he have the right to choose? Or must he govern even if he doesn't want to?

[More Fire for the People]

How do we select the random decision-makers? Using a computer?

Probably. I believe a simple PHP program could do it.


<?php
$rsdnt_wrkr = 2;
$demarchy = rand(0, rsdnt_wrkr);

if ($demarchy == 0){
echo "The representative is Jane Doe.";
elseif($demarchy == 1){
echo "The representative is John Doe.";
elseif($demarchy == 2){
echo "The representative is Jon Jon.";
else{
echo "Reset the lotto.";
}
?>


If a particular person abuses his/her power and/or is ineffecient in doing the job, is that person instantly recallable and replaced?
Recalled most definetly by the Commune or committee her or she represents.


Is everyone allowed to govern? Or must the person meet certain specifics?
I suggest two rules:
1) Must be a worker or student.
2) Must be at least sixteen years of age.

[Bolshevist]

What about making the state merely an administrative apparatus, as Lenin suggested?

icqx, you should read "The state and the revolution" by Lenin (you'll find it free on Marx.org) and to add on to that, read the 'Russiabook' avalible here: http://www.marxist.com/russiabook/index.asp
It is biased in the sence that it is written by some Trotskyists, but nevertheless quite good.