Multi-Party Socialism?

[Cooler Reds Will Prevail]

I'm assuming I'm not the first person to come up with this idea, but following Trotsky's quote, "Socialism needs democracy like the human body needs oxygen", couldn't a modern Socialist state have a multi-party system? I'm not proposing a mix of Communist/Capitalist parties, but to have a variety of Leftist parties within the system. As we all know, there is a very significant amount of diversity within the Communist/Socialist community, and I think that this needs to be adequately considered in order for a modern Socialist state to be successful. One of the problems I find with the Soviet Union was that the CPSU became so entrenched in their own bureaucratic permanence that they lost all their revolutionary spirit, a spirit that I feel can best be kept up through displays of differences of opinion within the Left community. Obviously, the constitution of this state would prohibit the liberalization of the people and their resources in order to restrict capitalist subversion. With success, this party apparatus will dissolve itself sooner than later, but while the system transitions into a more direct-democratic system, wouldn't this concept be a little bit better than a single-party structure? Ideas, criticisms?

This is just something I thought up recently and I'm very open minded about it, don't hesitate to call me out if you see good reason against it.

[redstar2000]

I believe there was a Trotskyist group in the U.K. back in the 70s or 80s that proposed a "multi-party socialism"...but I do not recall the details.

You might want to do some "google searching" on this one.

As to the merits of the idea, I really can't comment fairly because I maintain that "political parties" are a bourgeois invention and thus irrelevant to proletarian revolution.

A "proletarian party" is an oxymoron...like a "proletarian church" or a "proletarian fiefdom". It's taking an organizational form that developed as a consequence of one period of class society and just mechanically transferring it to an entirely different historical era.

Like if you tried to use your car to go sailing. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Cooler Reds Will Prevail]

Good point RedStar, well taken. Perhaps the concept of political parties themselves are a product of the bourgeoisie, however I think it is still definitely necessary to have all schools of Communist thought expressed fairly. We cannot allow more one-party states to take place under the Communist banner, and I'm afraid that a party-less Socialist state in its earliest, transitional stage from Capitalism will consolidate under one conformed party, similar to the one we saw in the Soviet Union. Given some time to adjust, I can agree that parties become inefficient and pointless, but in order to restructure the country and ensure that power does not get consolidated, I think that divisions of Communist thought should possibly be expressed in party form. Perhaps you can steer me in the right direction about this if I am missing something.

[celticfire]

This is an interesting and important question. Though rs2000 raises some good points - eventually parties will be useless and counterproductive, I don't think we've outlives their historical epoch just yet.

The Maoists in Nepal have called for contested multiparty elections in Nepal - and this is very controversial among Maoists/communists around the world. You can read a little about it here:

Nepal—The Most Significant Popular Struggle for Freedom and Democracy in the World Today (http://www.monthlyreview.org/0605singh.htm)

Dr. Baburam Bhattarai on the Royal Dictatorship and the Need For a Democratic Republic in Nepal (http://www.monthlyreview.org/0305commentary.htm)

As pointed out in Nepal—The Most Significant Popular Struggle for Freedom and Democracy in the World Today, by Randhir Singh Monthly Review Press, November 2005:


As the movement has progressed, the struggle today has come to be specifically focused on the question of democracy. The Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) is today fighting for democracy—of course a democracy that takes care of the interests of the oppressed people, particularly ‘the oppressed (minority) nationalities, oppressed regions, and the women, and the Dalits’. In terms of their theory what they are fighting for is ‘a completion of the democratic process’ in Nepal. The immediate demand is for the election of ‘a Constituent Assembly which will draft a new democratic Constitution’. They are committed to ‘a multiparty system in the future state set-up’.

I know some Maoists on other boards who think after a revolution, it is more then likely there will be several revolutionary "centers" (not just one - the CP!) and many "counter-centers." - which means we need multiparty democracy. Of course I agree we should not let the bourgeois participate in our elections. But there is of course more then one progressive force at any given time, all varying in degree and maturity - but it has also been that sometimes the CP is more backwards then other trends (take the U.S. the Communist Party here could be called the Conservative "Communist" Party)

In contrast, most U.S. Maoists like the RCP think the Party should have a formalized leading role while allowing other parties to participate in elections (this translates into: elective posts are up for grabs; but the Party gets all beuracratic functions it wants).

I've gone back and forth on this issue and honestly I haven't made up my mind entirely. I see positives and weakness' in both...but I would like to see a multiparty system, but I don't know thats the best thing for achieving socialism and ultimately communism.

[drain.you]

I've thought about this before. I'm still not exactly well educated on how communist society should be run after the revolution but in my opinion, like mentioned, there are many types of leftist theory and equally many followers of each and therefore each should be represented in any governing body. What annoys me about leftists is how they focus on the divisions between our schools of thought so much, surely we just need to get the revolution rolling, once its complete then we vote on things, just like we would now. We don't have to focus on our differences so much, we will just decide things on how the majority vote.

[celticfire]

We Leninists in my opinion deserve criticism in this. I think the idea of a formalized leading vanguard party is a formula for revisionism and even some of the mistakes of Stalinism.

I believe the vanguard has a responsibility to lead - but in conjunction with the mass line. Redstar2000 has pointed out many of the real errors that has come about from vanguardism. And I am disappointed Avakian's approach is "we'll do better next time." (Don't get me wrong, I am still a Maoists and supporter of the RCP and Avakian)

We will do better next time because we won't make the same mistakes!

I agree with what was posted on another board about (AWIP) agency. The proletariat needs it to establish its dictatorship. It needs to feel room to disagree with others and struggle things out. We should NEVER however allow capitalists to run for elections. But I do like Avakian has argued for the works of some open reactionaries to be published, that way the people can decide for themselves about things.

I think that agency is important and that there will be mulitple revolutionary centers in a revolutionary society. Agreed, unity is important but what good is it if its around a revisionist line anyway?

Socialist democracy needs to show the WHOLE world that capitalist democracy is piece of vile shit compared to proletarian democracy.

Also the CPN(M)'s chairman Prachanda made a position paper arguing for multi party elections, in it he quotes Lenin:

“ …if the working people are dissatisfied with their party they can elect other delegates, hand power to another party and change the government without any revolution at all...” (Lenin, Collected Works, Vol.26, Moscow, p.498).

Deep and big questions...

[Lamanov]

Simple question: political parties, as a product of bourgeois parliametarism, do they have any place in woekers' direct democracy? Can they fit into such mechanism -- at all ?? How do they get created in such a system? ...


The answer is always negative. Parties have no relevance to the proletariat, and they cannot fit into the mechanism of direct democracy.

[Cooler Reds Will Prevail]

What is you proposal then for allowing all Communist/Socialist thought to be represented? I'm not saying there aren't other alternatives, because I'm sure that there are, I just haven't gotten around to formulating an alternate idea. Suggestions?

[encephalon]

Parties develop when conflicting interests arise between two or more groups of people, and, in order to increase the chances of implementation for their common cause, individuals will vote in accordance with one another despite possible disagreements in other issues. When it boils down to the essentials, party systems are based on solidarity.

This issue arises, then, when you consider at what point the proletariat will practice solidarity as a whole rather than conflict with one another over basic issues. You can't force it, and I don't see any way to get rid of any such acts until the system plays itself out. The same thing will happen under a direct democracy: people will still group together based on how strongly they agree on subject x or y.

I think the only solution would be to prevent party rule rather than party formation.

[celticfire]

Direct democracy sounds great. But as my grandma always said, if it sounds too good to be true - it probably is. Direct democracy now will lead to immense factionalizing and would shatter any class unity. It&#39;s not a great system. <_<

We need a balance of democracy and centralism, and unity and struggle. Direct democracy lacks that. As I&#39;ve said before formalized Party leadership roles attract revisionism like flies to shit, direct democracy does the same.

I think you can go too far either way -- we can&#39;t have an open "perfect" classless democracy -- for many reasons (as Lenin pointed out) it would be bullshit anyway, and we can&#39;t have real socialism if the masses don&#39;t have the right to agency.

Anarchism is not the answer to any problem, it&#39;s just ignoring real questions.

[WUOrevolt]

I really believe that all parties regardless of ideology should be able to operate legally. If you don&#39;t agree, than you cant complain about the outlawing of communist parties throughout history.

[More Fire for the People]

Multi-party socialism does exist in North Korea and did exist in the Warsaw Pact states.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by I chicorazon I+--> (I chicorazon I)What is you proposal then for allowing all Communist/Socialist thought to be represented?[/b]

Communist/Socialist??? It&#39;s about representing the workers.


celticfire
We need a balance of democracy and centralism, and unity and struggle. Direct democracy lacks that.

You have no clue, do you?

As a real communist I look at things through perspective of revolutionary proletariat and it&#39;s historic mission. No one here cares about "perfect" democracy. We advocate reality and unrestricted dynamics of social change, an the only way is the self-active mass action which only real expression is through unrestricted direct democracy

When we get a victorious proletarian revolution it will not take down only the bourgeoisie, but any "communist" scum which tries to restrict its "natural" flow (read: RCP).

I don&#39;t give a flying fuck about what your grandmother and Lenin have to say.

[Entrails Konfetti]

Right-on DJ-TC&#33;

[celticfire]

DJ-TC: Did you pull that shit of a comic book? You might as well have, it&#39;s all fantasy. Even if you did carry through building a system of direct democracy, at best all you&#39;d end up with is UNACCOUNTABLE and secret leadership. And there&#39;s a lot more to democracy than formal rights.

"As a real communist I look at things through perspective of revolutionary proletariat"

And you speak for all of us? Sounds like good ol&#39; Stalinism to me&#33; :)

"...only real expression is through unrestricted direct democracy."

It is an expression of your class, the petit-bourgeoisie.

Your dogma is really off-putting and your narrow minded bullshit pushes me further away from your ideology. Immature individuals like yourself reinforce to me why "direct" democracy won&#39;t work. It "talks" about democratic rights - in the same Bush does -- it "talks" about expression of the masses.

If you are drawing from the Paris Commune, I would agree it was an amazing event in human history. But why do you think it failed in two months?
:blink:

[Entrails Konfetti]

Although this maybe superflous to say, since DJ-TC pretty much said everything.

If your really talking about direct democracy; before the revolution all organizations should work together, there should be a federation of all councils within this organization. This federation and its councils SHOULD NOT be subordinate to the organization, and it would be impossible for them to be.

All should be in the organization who want Communism, and a revolutionary overthrow of the pre-existing order.

There shouldn&#39;t be a strict party-line, membership would and should be unecessary. Disargreement should be encouraged. Dogmatism discouraged.

I know alot of people will disagree with me here: But the only condition to be in this organization is that you are working-class, or that you wish to decend into the prolitariat and take up its lifestyle.

I forgot to note that all representetives of the councils and the organization should be ACCOUNTABLE&#33; They should only act as the mouth piece.

[Lamanov]

Well, since you&#39;re pointing out that I&#39;m a petty-bouirgeois (and by heritage, I am), I suppose that you&#39;re a proletarian. Fair enough.

But here&#39;s a catch: we&#39;re both traitors to our class. :lol:


Originally posted by celticfire
And you speak for all of us? Sounds like good ol&#39; Stalinism to me&#33;

An RCP supporter is accusing me of &#39;Stalinism&#39; ?

Is there anywhere in your post an actual proof or a fact, or a real argument?? Is there any way that you even try to support your "criticism" of my "dogma" and "ideology"?? Do you even know what we are discussing here?? Do you understand the dynamics of it? Judging by your comments I fail to acknowledge that.

Go on and type your Maoist bullshit, with accusations of "ideology" and "dogma".

In the mean time, the rest of us will watch how the workers themselves turn that "dogma" into actuality.

[barista.marxista]

One interesting point I&#39;d like to make is this: just because a vanguard party is the only in its state, doesn&#39;t mean groups with interests can&#39;t exist within it. For example, for every contendable party in the US, capitalism is a given. Essentially, it can be viewed that the US is a Capitalist party with different groups advocating how to run it better, more efficiently, etc. Countries like Cuba have one party, but different lobbying groups underneith it. One group may be environment-based, saying that there needs to be a focus of resources in this area, while another may be transit-based. While capitalism&#39;s antagonisms pit groups against eachother for their individualistic interests, socialism negates this, because the interest of the workers is put first. So having a politically multi-partied system is not only unnecessary, but it&#39;s also inefficient in comparison to the vanguard party model.

[Hopes_Guevara]

Originally posted by Diego [email protected] 14 2005, 01:57 AM
Multi-party socialism does exist in North Korea
Oh, really? Indeed I didn&#39;t know this. So, how many parities there&#39;re in DPRK and what are their names?

[Hopes_Guevara]

Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2005, 08:44 AM
I believe there was a Trotskyist group in the U.K. back in the 70s or 80s that proposed a "multi-party socialism"...but I do not recall the details.

You might want to do some "google searching" on this one.

As to the merits of the idea, I really can&#39;t comment fairly because I maintain that "political parties" are a bourgeois invention and thus irrelevant to proletarian revolution.

A "proletarian party" is an oxymoron...like a "proletarian church" or a "proletarian fiefdom". It&#39;s taking an organizational form that developed as a consequence of one period of class society and just mechanically transferring it to an entirely different historical era.

Like if you tried to use your car to go sailing. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
So, do you think that at best no party should exist in countries? OK. I can understand that in communism. But in the transition to communism (we call it socialism), how does the proletariat establish its own distatorship? Or you suppose that no need to build the distatorship of the proletariat? Moreover, I can&#39;t imagine how effectively a nation is led by no party nowadays, indeed.

[Cooler Reds Will Prevail]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 04:24 AM
One interesting point I&#39;d like to make is this: just because a vanguard party is the only in its state, doesn&#39;t mean groups with interests can&#39;t exist within it. For example, for every contendable party in the US, capitalism is a given. Essentially, it can be viewed that the US is a Capitalist party with different groups advocating how to run it better, more efficiently, etc. Countries like Cuba have one party, but different lobbying groups underneith it. One group may be environment-based, saying that there needs to be a focus of resources in this area, while another may be transit-based. While capitalism&#39;s antagonisms pit groups against eachother for their individualistic interests, socialism negates this, because the interest of the workers is put first. So having a politically multi-partied system is not only unnecessary, but it&#39;s also inefficient in comparison to the vanguard party model.
But what is the advantage to having a single fractioned party instead of various parties?

Maybe "party" is the wrong word to use, because true enough, it seems to advocate this "lie-and-cheat-to-get-elected" idea that we see in Capitalist states. But certain organizations advocating a certain form of Socialism should each be represented proportionally throughout the decision making process. I&#39;m not advocating a "party" structure for the entire existence of Socialism, simply long enough to adapt the people to a more decentralized system where political differences become trivial and parties become unnecessary. These organizations would still consist of members elected directly from within their constituent base who are recallable at any time and must report back to their constituents on a much more regular basis than U.S. politicians do, and there would be no "running for office", only appointments by the constituency.

[barista.marxista]

Originally posted by I chicorazon [email protected] 14 2005, 05:19 AM
But what is the advantage to having a single fractioned party instead of various parties?

Maybe "party" is the wrong word to use, because true enough, it seems to advocate this "lie-and-cheat-to-get-elected" idea that we see in Capitalist states. But certain organizations advocating a certain form of Socialism should each be represented proportionally throughout the decision making process. I&#39;m not advocating a "party" structure for the entire existence of Socialism, simply long enough to adapt the people to a more decentralized system where political differences become trivial and parties become unnecessary. These organizations would still consist of members elected directly from within their constituent base who are recallable at any time and must report back to their constituents on a much more regular basis than U.S. politicians do, and there would be no "running for office", only appointments by the constituency.
There are two benefits to the groups within a vanguard party: one, it continues centralization required during the early stages of the dictatorship of the proletariat; and two, it promotes solidarity and prevents factionalism in politics, a point that is necessary for socialism to continue. This groups within a vanguard are not organizations in and of themselves, because that, again, becomes factionalistic. Often and overwhelmingly they are representatives from local municipalities, workers councils, etc. This seems to be what you&#39;re voicing, or am I wrong?

[kurt]

So, do you think that at best no party should exist in countries? OK. I can understand that in communism. But in the transition to communism (we call it socialism)
And what exactly do you mean by socialism? Working class power, or a political elite running things for the masses? This term must be clarified.


how does the proletariat establish its own distatorship?
By ruthlessly oppressing all reactionary elements (bourgeois, fascists, religion), by themselves. Workplace level councils would be a great start.


Or you suppose that no need to build the distatorship of the proletariat?
There is no need for a political elite to "guide" us to communism. The dictatorship of the proletariat should be taken at face value. The proletariat themselves will exercise their power over reaction, without the help of an elite.


Moreover, I can&#39;t imagine how effectively a nation is led by no party nowadays, indeed.
Many people have trouble seeing past the constraints of class society, especially in times of reaction.

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by Hopes_Guevara+Dec 13 2005, 10:26 PM--> (Hopes_Guevara @ Dec 13 2005, 10:26 PM)
Diego [email protected] 14 2005, 01:57 AM
Multi-party socialism does exist in North Korea
Oh, really? Indeed I didn&#39;t know this. So, how many parities there&#39;re in DPRK and what are their names? [/b]
Workers Party of Korea - "Juche-style" Marxism-Leninism
Korean Social Democratic Party - Social democratic
Chondoist Chongu Party - Korean nationalist, semi-religious, and peasant-oriented

[DisIllusion]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 10:42 PM

how does the proletariat establish its own distatorship?
By ruthlessly oppressing all reactionary elements (bourgeois, fascists, religion), by themselves. Workplace level councils would be a great start.

Well, if you try to take away religion from those who aren&#39;t ready to give it up, you&#39;re just going to have underground churches, like in the Soviet Union. Lenin meant to speed up the path to Communism by taking away religion, thinking that people would be able to adapt to it and begin to maybe even embrace atheism, but the people definitely weren&#39;t ready to give up their comfortable little illusions. This ended with the government giving religious freedoms back to the people, though somewhat grudgingly.
What i&#39;m getting at is, what do you mean by oppressing them by themselves?

And Council Communism is a good idea if you can find only the good people to represent you. There will always be those who will look out for their own personal interests when put in a higher plane than the others. What do you propose to take care of that?

[kurt]

Well, if you try to take away religion from those who aren&#39;t ready to give it up, you&#39;re just going to have underground churches, like in the Soviet Union. Lenin meant to speed up the path to Communism by taking away religion, thinking that people would be able to adapt to it and begin to maybe even embrace atheism, but the people definitely weren&#39;t ready to give up their comfortable little illusions.
It won&#39;t happen overnight, but I contend that the years leading up to a major proletarian revolution will go a long way in destroying the illusion that is religion.

And Russia is alot less religious now than it was in 1905. Suppression of reaction helped this.


What i&#39;m getting at is, what do you mean by oppressing them by themselves?
Well, I don&#39;t know the exact course it will take, I&#39;m simply a member of the proletariat, not it&#39;s representitive or vanguard. However, I know I&#39;d be pushing for summary executions of all religious leaders, and destruction/confiscation of church property. I think by the time proletarian revolution comes, alot of people will be thoroughly disgusted by religion, and many won&#39;t be oppossed to it&#39;s destruction.


And Council Communism is a good idea if you can find only the good people to represent you. There will always be those who will look out for their own personal interests when put in a higher plane than the others.
I never mentioned anything of representives, nor anyone having any sort of ability to put themselves on a "higher plane than others". That&#39;s not what direct-democracy is about.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Not to get off topic, but:


Workers Party of Korea - "Juche-style" Marxism-Leninism

This is the party that rules in the DPRK. In practice it&#39;s the only party.


Korean Social Democratic Party - Social democratic

This was a petit-bourgeois party that was born out of the resistance against Japan. While it still exists formally, it&#39;s numbers are miniscule (and all members are also members of the Workers Party) and it&#39;s forced to follow the leadership of the Workers Party.


Chondoist Chongu Party - Korean nationalist, semi-religious, and peasant-oriented

"In 1954 the government subsidies to the party were cancelled. By 1956 there were approximately 1700-3000 members left (out of 10-50,000 remaining Ch&#39;ôndogyo believers). At the same time about 200 persons were full-time employees of the party. In order to finance the party, it ran an iron foundry and a printing house.

In September 1957 Kim Tal-hyôn became a minister without portfolio.

In 1958 the party was purged. In November that year sources alleged that it had, together with the Democratic Party, conspired against the DPRK leadership. Kim Tal-hyôn and his closest associates were arrested. By February they had pleaded guilty, and on February 16 their parliamentary immunity was revoked. Most probably they were excuted, but the exact fate of them is not known.

By this time the party had effectively ceased to function as an independent entity. No provincial organization of the party existed, just a formal central nucleus. Pak Sin-dôk, previously the head of the Organizational Department of the party, took over the party leadership. The party still exists, but has been reduced to a letter-head. It but conducts no activities except for those directed by the government and takes no independent positions on any political matters."

Source: Lankov, Andrei N., The Demise of Non-Communist Parties in North Korea (1945–1960)

Not the greatest source, but unless you have something to refute that with, it&#39;ll have to do.