ZX3
25th February 2007, 01:41
Originally posted by Lenin's Law+February 23, 2007 09:14 am--> (Lenin's Law @ February 23, 2007 09:14 am)
Originally posted by
[email protected] 23, 2007 12:24 pm
[email protected] 21, 2007 11:14 am
Peopl have different views as to what socialism is, but I fail to see why you think this should stop democracy. Democracy is the way to resolve these differences. If people want revolutionary socialists, they can vote for them (and vote for their ideas, representative democracy doesn't go far enough), if they want reformist ones they can vote for them. That's how to resolve the difficulty.
I refer you tot he period in which capitalism was emerging, nobody could agree how progress was to be made. The only think the reformers agreed on was they didn't like the feudal monarchies. Yet huge change did happen.
I don't see why you think we all have to agree with one another for change to happen.
Not really. Because again, socialism is generally perceived by the eye of the holder; "Socialism is X, because I believe socialism is X. The community is not X, therefore it is not socialism." Democracy does not solve that problem. It simply allows for others to claim, after the fact, that when things don't quite according to plan, it was due to deviating from socialism.
You have not addressed Demo's key point: Despite great differences in what capitalists and people living under capitalism want "democracy" still exists. The same would go under socialism: there would be differences over what socialists want but real democracy, proletarian democracy would exist instead.
There is a concrete definition of socialism, basically the workers taking over the means of production (dictatorship of the proletariat, rising the proletariat to the point of the ruling class, etc. All basically making the same point.)
From that view, it is easy to see which country is socialist or not:
Who controls the means of production?
In whose interests does that society work for?
How is the wealth distributed in that society?
As for all this "debate" over democracy and socialism: First of all, most socialists are agreed that democracy is a form of state (thus there can be no real freedom; one class or another is the ruling class, and thus is the dictator of that state) If you believe otherwise, you are being naive.
Marxists want the "dictatorship of the proletariat" meaning rising the working class, the vast majority, to the position of the ruling class to work in the interests of the working class, the vast majority. Unlike the capitalist dictatorship we have now where "every few years, the masses get to decide which member of the bourgeoisie is to misrepresent them in parliament" in today's terms, you could translate this to say: "every few years, we get to decide whether Yale graduate A or Yale graduate B is to the run the affairs of capitalist and wealthy more effectively"
The dictatorship of the proletariat is real democracy but we are not idealists or utopians in believing that as long as a state exists, it can work to the interests of everyone; as long as there is state a specific class is in charge AND a specific class is being suppressed. Today: that is the bourgeois over the workers; socialism: the workers over the bourgeois.
How will dissent be tolerated? Well, as you can imagine there are differences of opinion on this. Mine and I think most socialists of all stripes here would agree that as long as the opposition is non-violent, their ideas will be tolerated. When they seek violence or threaten the revolution, then the workers have every right to repress such action by "any means necessary."
So finally, when you ask if socialism is compatible with democracy, you have to be clear what kind of democracy you are speaking of: present-day, false bourgeois "democracy" (where a tiny, wealthy elite hold power, hold a disproportionate amount of wealth and rig the system where it is nearly impossible if not impossible for the working class to take power) or real proletarian democracy where workers are now in the position of the ruling class , have control of the MoP and can make society do its bidding; the bidding of the vast majority as opposed to a tiny minority.
Which is of course, real democracy if the word has any meaning: "rule by the people" The vast majority of "people" are the workers, so democracy without the workers, without the majority in charge would not be democracy at all, which is the current situation in today's world. [/b]
I would agree that democracy is defined as "the majrity ruling the minroty." The dictatorship of the proleteriat is indeed democratic, providing that the proleteriat are the majority of the population.
But the standards presented are terribly vague and subjective. "Controlling the means of production" can mean anything from outright ownership (such as the communists advocate) to creating institutions which tell the owners how to dispose of the property (as the National Socialists proposed). In whose interests would be the majority of the population, the minorities views are irrelevent (which is why it is a puzzle when socialists say socialism will end things like "homophobia"). Again socialisst can deissagree on thes eissues. But we already know that socialists often dissagree with themselves. Phrases like "true socialism" or "authentic socialism" mean the other fellow is considered a pretender. The Stalinists argued this way, and added that the pretenders were a threat to the revolution. The repression one saw in the USSR was a logical result, and there is no reason to suppose anything different, considering that you yourself say crushing threats to the revolution is allowed. That one socialist might disagree that Stalin represented "true socialism" is irrelevent; such a voice is a minority, and thus, based upon socilaisms own argument, not in the best interest of the majority, the only people who matter ina socialist community.