A socialist democracy

[norwegian commie]

Most people here argue that democracy will determine everything. It will be all four cornerstones, and socialism will have a better democracy than Capitalism ever can.

And i agree on the most part. BUT how will this ultra democratic be organised and how will it be adapted to socialism?

I mean. We cant have Party democracy can we? Socialism is a process and in that democracy there is a high risk of loosing it all. Try to see my point. Partyes always get support in wawes right? Say we had had the power in 12 years, we have given the recourses bac to our people by nationalisating it. We have almost eliminated the difference between poor and rich, socialism is spreading. Almost ready for communism. But then a spokesman for the socialist movement, cheats on his wife, or yells at a jewish person or gets drunk (you get the picture) Accordingly the other side gets lots of votes and in 4 years they tear down everything we have managed to do.

Is that the system we want?

My question is can we allow the bourgise ideology on our democratic table?
We have to focus on democracy. Well what is more democratic than the ability to change your daylife. By the means of lokaldemocracy, workers democracy and so on.

Can we do it another way? can we allow the bourgise on our table? Mabye Cuba has the right democracy after all i wonder.

[Whitten]

And i agree on the most part. BUT how will this ultra democratic be organised and how will it be adapted to socialism?

This question seems to be aimed at marxists so i'll answer from a marxist perspective. We dont know. To focus to much on these issues before we even know the material conditions underwhich the revolution will be taking place would be unscientific and utopian. You cant apply the same model to Vietnam, Cuba, and the US, and to try would just cause problems. We can only speculate and suggest ideas which COULD be applied, given the right circumstances.


I mean. We cant have Party democracy can we? Socialism is a process and in that democracy there is a high risk of loosing it all. Try to see my point. Partyes always get support in wawes right? Say we had had the power in 12 years, we have given the recourses bac to our people by nationalisating it. We have almost eliminated the difference between poor and rich, socialism is spreading. Almost ready for communism. But then a spokesman for the socialist movement, cheats on his wife, or yells at a jewish person or gets drunk (you get the picture) Accordingly the other side gets lots of votes and in 4 years they tear down everything we have managed to do.

Is that the system we want?

Do we want such an event to happen and for the pro-capitalists to stage a counter revolution? No, ofcourse not. We must also, however, make sure we dont go down the slippery slope of accusing every minor action taken and decision made that differs from our own wishes to be a sign of anti-revolution and start purging everyone we disagree with from positions of power.


My question is can we allow the bourgise ideology on our democratic table?

I would say no, but it would be important that we establish a proper proceedure for handling the removal of such people, see slippery slope.

I think a grass roots system of democracy would be most desirable (although it wouldnt work everywhere). Such a system would minimise the effects a capitalist reformer, or just a stupid decision maker, could have on people if he somehow got into power. Cuba has an interesting system in which workers councils, students/womens organisations are appointed to electoral commissions, who nominate candidates for the votes to approve, as opposed to the corporate media and the people with the most financial support deciding the election.

[RGacky3]

Your talking about Democratic Socialism, i.e. changing the system electorally, through parlimentary democracy. I don't think thats the best way to Socialism. The way Socialism would work is that no one would have enough authority or power to where if he messed up (i.e. got cought tea bagging a hooker) it would matter. Part of the Socialist agenda should be to not only decentralize wealth but also power. Of coarse you MUST allow bourgiousie ideology on a democratic table, because thats what democracys all about, you must allow them a voice, but hopefully the people will stick to Socialism. The problem with Democratic Socialism, is that its a Political Party, a Vanguard, that has to win the trust of the working class, other than the working class itself being active.

As An Anarcho-Syndicalist however I don't think electoral politics is the way to change things, only a ground up workers movement can. If its a workers movment its the workers deciding for themselves (Rather than Politicians), the only way they would loose it is if they collectively decide, to give power back to the Capitalists, which is'nt going to happen.

Cuba does'nt have a real Democracy, (although I would say its as good as the United States), because of the fact that no dissent is allowed.

[Whitten]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 04:58 pm
Cuba does'nt have a real Democracy, (although I would say its as good as the United States), because of the fact that no dissent is allowed.
Care to provide evidence for that assertion?

[norwegian commie]

-"Your talking about Democratic Socialism, i.e. changing the system electorally, through parlimentary democracy."

Not nesecarily. I am a revolutionary, and am found of marx and lenins theories. And belive that the bourgise must be blown off with a swift stroke. However, i am talking about the governing of our socialist state, that has to be demoratic of course. But in what sence?

I am raising the question if we can allow the rightists poltic to influence the society of the future. Will we allow them an own place in politics or will the politics be socialism and then the people can govern in democracy from there?

That is the conclution i anyways have reached.

-And yes Cuba is a real democracy. At least on the most part.
They have a parlament, and a national assembly, pluss a strong lokal democracy. All democratic through and through.

[StartToday]

If you decentralised power wouldn't you get rid of the party system (and those damned electoral colleges)? Then everybody's vote would be equal, and the millions who benefited from socialism and the decentralisation of wealth and all that other nice stuff would logically not vote for the right-wing dinosaurs who wanted to undo progress.

[Dimentio]

Theoretically, a technocratic and democratic sector could be combined. As for technology and infrastructure, it would be managed by technocratic means, while the social issues should be managed by people on the local level, without intervention from the politicians.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by norwegian [email protected] 06, 2007 03:44 pm
We cant have Party democracy can we?
Of course we can. What we can't have is parliamentary democracy.


Socialism is a process and in that democracy there is a high risk of loosing it all.

Socialism is a process and there is no magical way to suppress the risk of loosing it all.


Partyes always get support in wawes right?

Not that I know.


Say we had had the power in 12 years, we have given the recourses bac to our people by nationalisating it.

We, who?

We cannot give resources back to people by nationalising them. The State, even a commune-State, is still a different thing from people. People will only truly reappropriate the resources whence classes are effectively abolished.


But then a spokesman for the socialist movement, cheats on his wife, or yells at a jewish person or gets drunk (you get the picture) Accordingly the other side gets lots of votes and in 4 years they tear down everything we have managed to do.

A workers democracy cannot be about voting between personalities, it must be about voting about issues. Nevermind how stupid one socialist spokesperson can be - and I am sure their stupidity is as unlimited as human stupidity in general - nobody is going to vote whether s/he is more or less stupid (or ugly, or bad-tempered, or (wo)maniser) than his/her counterpart in other party. People will have to take decision on issues, and the issue, in this case would be, are we going to continue in the line we have been following until now, or are we going to turn back the means of productions into the hand of capitalists?


My question is can we allow the bourgise ideology on our democratic table?

Most certainly, they won't sit at our democratic table. Capital must make profit now; it cannot wait until democratic debates conclude about that. It wil then be invested in more or less open attempts to forcibly overthrow the table.

Of course, there will always be bourgeois intellectuals that will play the game. Unless we are very unable to conduct things, though, those people will always lack mass support, and, yes, we can safely keep them as representatives of dissent. If we are able to learn, their criticism will eventually help us to prevent or correct mistakes.


We have to focus on democracy. Well what is more democratic than the ability to change your daylife. By the means of lokaldemocracy, workers democracy and so on.

We don't want to be the rulling class in order to rule our labour shift, we want to be the rulling class in order to rule the world. So - who are you proposing should rule the world, while we are busy ruling our workplace?


Can we do it another way? can we allow the bourgise on our table? Mabye Cuba has the right democracy after all i wonder.

The main discussion on Cuba is factual, not theorical.

Luís Henrique

[Democratic Socialist]

Marxists honestly talk out of their ass half the time, claiming they have a plan but they don't know how to do it until they get there. Lame.

Democratic socialists actually have a good plan for instituting true socialism as seen through democracy. I'm going to address the question in terms of America.

First, we make the government more democratic. This can be done by eliminating the electoral college (huge infringement on the voice of the people) and extending voting on important bills and amendments (as opposed to Senators and Congressmen voting) to the people. Congress though, will probably still exist to vote on smaller issues, strictly for convenience sake. In that sense, a reduced form of representative democracy is maintained.

Second, we nationalize all major industry. This one is tough, because it cannot occur at one time. Most democratic socialists believe that health care will be the first industry nationalized. Energy will follow (see my blog at a later date for my thoughts on the energy crisis and socialism). From there, the food and beverage industry will be nationalized also, as well as any other remaining major industries.

Third, major industrial decisions will be voted on by all workers in particular industries (syndicalism, or workplace democracy). Industries for convenience sake will be broken down into smaller, more specific divisions. The workers in these divisions will vote on more specialized decisions too. In this sense, workers get the final say in what their respective industries do and so corporatism is eliminated (administrative positions, primarily).

The question remains: revolution or reform? The answer is both. Either a predominantly socialist Congress or a socialist President is necessary to initiate revolutionary changes. However, the party should never take precedence over the people. It's the people's revolution once it has been set in motion.

What I mean by this is that once the law has been amended so people can voice their opinions louder and vote on larger national decisions, it will be their responsibility to continue the revolution until final victory.

Since America is a major player in the world economy, nations with strong economic ties to the U.S. will be forced to consider democratic socialism after such radical changes occur in America. From there, Trotsky's theory of the permanent revolution is actualized.

As much as leftists hate to admit it, America is where democratic socialism and the true revolution begins.

[Democratic Socialist]

Oh, and I also want to point out that the media will have to remain privately owned. The government should have no say in what is reported. That is the problem with modern day Russia, North Korea, and other totalitarian states.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Democratic Socialist

You say that marxists talk out their ass half the time, but you are the one who sounds like a reformist.


Either a predominantly socialist Congress or a socialist President is necessary to initiate revolutionary changes.

In America, that will never happen.

Or they'll be social democrats who call themselves socialists.

No socialists will enter any of the main political institutions in the US.

[Democratic Socialist]

I think that Marxists get so caught up in their diction and theories that they forget what they're really fighting for; liberty and justice for all. What makes democratic socialists more practical is that we recognize there are multiple paths to this end; democratic socialism just seems to be the most pertinent one at the moment.

Marxists though are so entrenched in their own little world that the possibility that we might achieve some noble ends through reform is too hard to possibly grasp.

There's nothing wrong with reformation. There's nothing wrong with revolution through reform. There's nothing wrong with revolution. It's all based on practicality and circumstances.

I agree social democrats have misguided goals because they don't immediately call for an end to capitalism but, NEWSFLASH, we're not social democrats.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

There's nothing wrong with reformation.

Reformism is not possible in a society where bourgeois culture is so strong, it is not possible because all the institutions are set up to keep the working class from having political power.

The actual institutions, the military, the media, civil society etc. all would act against any workers movement that decided to take the reform route.

Britain has a long history of reformist socialists, so does the rest of Europe.

The Labour party up until 1997, had the nationalization of industry and progress towards socialism in it constitution, but it is now fully bourgeois.

the reason why Marxists reject reformism is because its never worked and because of the nature of the societies workers movement are in.

Revolution is the only option.

[Democratic Socialist]

But see, this begs the question of who you really intend to help through communism. If you desire to make like better for the people by extending democracy to all, then you must go with the will of the people, even when they vote against what you believe in (i.e. voting for more capitalist policies).

However, this is the reason that we need a socialist President or socialist Congress; we need the law changed in such as way that socialism is easier to at least be presented to the public. As it stands right now, no one cares about socialism because Marxist parties are either too intellectual for the common man (Socialist-Worker's Party) or absolutely, A1 insane (RCP).

No, the reason that reform hasn't worked in the U.S. or in Europe is that no socialist party has ever done their job in educating the masses. If they were able to appeal to the common man, no bourgeois institution could stand in our way.

Again though, the difference between you and me is that I believe that direct-action revolution is necessary sometimes and can work. I'm willing to consider alternatives because I care more about people having a better life than instituting down to the tee a political theory which has, by all accounts, failed.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

As it stands right now, no one cares about socialism because Marxist parties are either too intellectual for the common man (Socialist-Worker's Party) or absolutely, A1 insane (RCP).


Well i know little about either of those parties so i cannot comment on them directly.

But, you will find that most socialist and revolutionary organisations are propaganda based.

They disseminate information to the workers.

Socialist parties in countries where economic conditions are okay for the workers.

When they have shit lives, but nothing really is too bad, then there is no reason for them to listen to socialist parties.

When there is economic turmoil, the whole of society starts raising questions about everything in their country. Then they will join socialist parties in the thousands, they will read every leaflet, they will themselves become so radical, the idea of reforming capitalism wont be left-wing enough for them.


No, the reason that reform hasn't worked in the U.S. or in Europe is that no socialist party has ever done their job in educating the masses.

In Britain, socialists have done this extensively for the past 100 years. Revolutionaries
have worked inside and outside of labour. they have become teachers, union leaders, journalists, everything you can imagine to try and "educate the masses"

But the truth is, not amount of educating will work.

People on the whole don't vote for socialism, because they don't feel they need it.

A radical reformist, called Tony Benn, a good comrade, became leader of the labour party in the 1980's, and for the general election the party manifesto included things like workers control and nationalization, loads of goodies.

But, the business managers, trade unions officials, mass media, made it impossible for the labour party to convince people.

The working class, in effect, voted AGAINST their class interests, because Bourgeois culture was so strong.

[Janus]

BUT how will this ultra democratic be organised
By those who are going to participate in it i.e. the people. That is how direct democracy works.


I mean. We cant have Party democracy can we?
No, representative "democracy" is counter-productive to our goals and is one of the things that we are seeking to abolish.


Socialism is a process and in that democracy there is a high risk of loosing it all
Revolution is a risky matter.


Partyes always get support in wawes right? Say we had had the power in 12 years, we have given the recourses bac to our people by nationalisating it.We have almost eliminated the difference between poor and rich, socialism is spreading. Almost ready for communism. But then a spokesman for the socialist movement, cheats on his wife, or yells at a jewish person or gets drunk (you get the picture) Accordingly the other side gets lots of votes and in 4 years they tear down everything we have managed to do.
That's why we reformism and bourgeois politics aren't going to bring us into communism. At the very most, it can seek to establish some sort of welfare minded socialist state.


My question is can we allow the bourgise ideology on our democratic table?
No, we are seeking to abolish capitalism. Allowing it to become part of our own ideology is just ridiculous.

We have to focus on democracy. Well what is more democratic than the ability to change your daylife. By the means of lokaldemocracy, workers democracy and so on.


Can we do it another way? can we allow the bourgise on our table?
No, other methods such as reformism and alliances with the progressive bourgeois have failed in the past. The industrial proletariat has gotten to the stage in which no further conciliation between it and the bourgeois is possible except on very small matters.

[La Comédie Noire]

There's nothing wrong with reformation. There's nothing wrong with revolution through reform. There's nothing wrong with revolution. It's all based on practicality and circumstances.

Well from a Marxist's perspective thats a crock of shit. What does reform mean? It's asking the current construct of society, the burgeoise power structure, for favors. What's revolution? Over throwing the current ruling class in favor of a better society. Who is the current ruling class? The Burgeoise. Why the hell would they want to overthrow their own rule? :blink:


Again though, the difference between you and me is that I believe that direct-action revolution is necessary sometimes and can work. I'm willing to consider alternatives because I care more about people having a better life than instituting down to the tee a political theory which has, by all accounts, failed.

Now your the one talking out of your ass, elaborate. What do you mean, by all accounts failed? When I think of the USSR & China, I don't think of Marxism trying to be followed down to a tee. No, these places didnt try very hard at all.

You need to think of society as class structured to really get why democratic socialism won't work. All through out history people have forfited their "freedom" to protect their class interests. Look at the middle class and Facism.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by Democratic [email protected] 06, 2007 10:42 pm
extending voting on important bills and amendments (as opposed to Senators and Congressmen voting) to the people. Congress though, will probably still exist to vote on smaller issues, strictly for convenience sake.
How is plebiscitarism even remotely related to "democratic socialism"?


Second, we nationalize all major industry. This one is tough, because it cannot occur at one time. Most democratic socialists believe that health care will be the first industry nationalized. Energy will follow (see my blog at a later date for my thoughts on the energy crisis and socialism). From there, the food and beverage industry will be nationalized also, as well as any other remaining major industries.

You are talking out of your ass; there is no "democratic socialist" movement that holds such views.


Third, major industrial decisions will be voted on by all workers in particular industries (syndicalism, or workplace democracy). Industries for convenience sake will be broken down into smaller, more specific divisions. The workers in these divisions will vote on more specialized decisions too. In this sense, workers get the final say in what their respective industries do and so corporatism is eliminated (administrative positions, primarily).

That's just plainly wrong. "workplace democracy" is just a grand sounding phrase to mean, "technical decisions may be handed down to workers, as long as You-Know-Who keeps the important, political decisions to its own.

If the economy is a commodity producing economy, "workplace democracy" will be as subdued to the market and to capital as anything else. Yes, we are going to vote on who is going to be our boss. and, yes, our boss, whomever s/he is, is going to implement policies that boost the company competitivity over other companies.


The question remains: revolution or reform? The answer is both. Either a predominantly socialist Congress or a socialist President is necessary to initiate revolutionary changes. However, the party should never take precedence over the people. It's the people's revolution once it has been set in motion.

What I mean by this is that once the law has been amended so people can voice their opinions louder and vote on larger national decisions, it will be their responsibility to continue the revolution until final victory.

Since America is a major player in the world economy, nations with strong economic ties to the U.S. will be forced to consider democratic socialism after such radical changes occur in America. From there, Trotsky's theory of the permanent revolution is actualized.

As much as leftists hate to admit it, America is where democratic socialism and the true revolution begins.

Sorry, Brain, you are alone on this; good old Pinky isn't going to try to conquer the world with you tomorrow...

Luís Henrique

[La Comédie Noire]

As much as leftists hate to admit it, America is where democratic socialism and the true revolution begins.

Not really. I imagine the revolution begining in third world countries where most of the well off nations' infrastructures are. Political change will just occur within the context of a Burgeoise super structure until we change the infrastructure.

[Matty_UK]

Democratic Socialist, many countries have seen elected socialist parties betraying their voters by not making any real moves towards socialism. Fact is, since universal suffrage was granted political power has operated more and more outside the sphere of elected politicians and even if they are true socialist parties it is very difficult for them to do anything as they are not going to be given any funding.

Secondly the working class have no use for the state as it exists today. A new state of a decentralised nature must be established by the producers; a vast federation of workers assemblies must render the current state impotent.

[Democratic Socialist]

Well from a Marxist's perspective thats a crock of shit. What does reform mean? It's asking the current construct of society, the burgeoise power structure, for favors. What's revolution? Over throwing the current ruling class in favor of a better society. Who is the current ruling class? The Burgeoise. Why the hell would they want to overthrow their own rule? :blink:
I never advocated complete reform. In fact, I believe if you look at my original post I specifically said that both need to be applied in conjunction with one another. From my post:


The question remains: revolution or reform? The answer is both. Either a predominantly socialist Congress or a socialist President is necessary to initiate revolutionary changes. However, the party should never take precedence over the people. It's the people's revolution once it has been set in motion.


Now your the one talking out of your ass, elaborate. What do you mean, by all accounts failed? When I think of the USSR & China, I don't think of Marxism trying to be followed down to a tee. No, these places didn't try very hard at all.
Again, you're misrepresenting what I'm saying. I never claimed China or the USSR followed Marxist theory to a tee. Here's my point: If somehow the leftists got a revolution together tomorrow, I would support it, perhaps even join in because I care about making a better world through any means possible, even if it's not in the manner I believe is right.

Most Marxists, however, couldn't possibly conceive the thought of supporting revolution through reform.

I look at our ends and say "Let's get there with whatever means we can, so long as they are just" and at the moment I believe that means is democratic socialism. However, Marxists ignore the end and block out the thought that perhaps life could be made better through reformist revolution. They're more focused on the means then the end.


You need to think of society as class structured to really get why democratic socialism won't work. All through out history people have forfited their "freedom" to protect their class interests. Look at the middle class and fascism.
I understand what you're saying... I just don't agree with it. Again, if everyone was prompted to get out to the polls because there was a marketable socialist candidate who offered change, no law office, military, or corporation could stop it. The reason reform hasn't worked is because no such candidate has ever emerged. My guess though, is that Euegne Debs would have been elected President had he been ten years younger and gotten another bid at the Presidency.

[Democratic Socialist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 02:39 pm
Democratic Socialist, many countries have seen elected socialist parties betraying their voters by not making any real moves towards socialism. Fact is, since universal suffrage was granted political power has operated more and more outside the sphere of elected politicians and even if they are true socialist parties it is very difficult for them to do anything as they are not going to be given any funding.

Secondly the working class have no use for the state as it exists today. A new state of a decentralised nature must be established by the producers; a vast federation of workers assemblies must render the current state impotent.
I agree but we have also seen democratic socialist parties make life so much better for workers, case in point the Socialist Party of America in the early 1900's. Men like Eugene V. Debs and Upton Sinclair accomplished a lot without betraying the workers.

It is my belief that a Democratic Socialist party in the U.S. could potentially win a major election without the campaign funds the Republicans and Democrats rely on based on how the energy crisis plays out in the next decade, Bernie Sanders' actions, and the demand for better living conditions/universal health care.

I agree that the state should be kept only in the name of order and distribution. That's part of the reason why I believe in workers managing industries democratically rather than the central planning that social democrats desire. The goal of socialism is to give the people the most power possible while still maintaining order so everyone's needs can be met.

[RedLenin]

we have also seen democratic socialist parties make life so much better for workers
But they didn't bring about socialism did they?


It is my belief that a Democratic Socialist party in the U.S. could potentially win a major election
That is incredibly unlikely to ever happen in the US. Even if it did it would not fundamentally change anything. The socialist party would end up become a reformist social democratic party and end up embracing some "third way" bullshit.

Why? Because the American state is structured to defend the rule of the bourgeoisie. Once the socialist party steps over the line, there will be problems. Look at what happened to Chavez in 2002. There was a coup! In such a situation there are two options: propagandize to the masses and urge them to have a revolution from below, or degenerate into reformist social democracy. Socialism cannot ever be acheived by electoral means. Revolution from below is the only way.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Democratic Socialist should answer whether or not he thinks liberal democracy (like the US and UK forms) are actually democratic.

The majority of the people at RevLeft, will say they are not real democracy.

I think this will inevitably lead to the conclusion that Democratic Socialism stems from Liberalism in its analysis.

[Democratic Socialist]

I don't consider U.S. or U.K. democracy to be real democracy but I do believe change is possible. After all, we have a freedom of speech and that is a powerful tool.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Well the UK doesnt have freedom of speech, but i know what you mean.

[norwegian commie]

Il start with Luís Henrique.
In your first arguments, you dont really even present a good point. Or contradict me. Not to be harsh but no point in arguing if you just are going to bend my words. Rediculus.

My point is that in socialism, we cannot have an electionsystem thats has an own branch to the bourgise. Like for example todays party-democracy. If you observ election statistics in almost every country, you will see that it comes in waves. Norway, a large social democratic wave, then a blue on then a red again. Same in sweden. I have no doubt hat itl happen in venezuela.

Events can and will make an outcome on the election.

And democratic socialist-

Anti marxism automatically falls on my bad side. And you critisese marxist for being dogmatic, for not seing several ways to approach a problem. Well, if you read marx you will se that not having several solution to a problem i anti-marxist. All in all you bashing towords marxists is pretty low, if you cant come up with anything better then just leave it there.

My point is that the democracy has to be socialistic from the beginning. people can govern the society, but not choose ideoligy. Obviusly we need the majority from the beginning. But our democracy must be socialistic. And our alternatives must be socialism or socialism. And then eventually communism.

[RGacky3]

Why can't there be a Private Property Opposition? How can you stop people from choosing ideology? How is that Democracy?

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 02:15 am
Why can't there be a Private Property Opposition? How can you stop people from choosing ideology? How is that Democracy?
The material base for "private property ideology" is private property. People think private property is a good thing because they own, or expect to own in the future, private property.

Once private property is abolished, such material base disappears. Of course, "private property ideology" does not disappear as quickly; I would expect some nostalgia to be around for some time. But given time, it would disappear as well.

How many people are there left today to make for a "Feudal Opposition"? A "Slaveholder Opposition"? What is stopping people from choosing such ideologies?

Luís Henrique

[norwegian commie]

agreed.