1 Party state vs. multi-party

[TXsocialist]

hi, I'm new to Che-Lives.

In another forum, it was discussed between I, a Leninist, and "Libertarian Communist" who believed that the state should allow multiple parties representing varying interests(reaction,progress...), the question of reactionarty-party supression versus openness to, say, a republican-like Party.

This led me to the question of Proletarian Ditatorship and "allowing" a 'voice' of reaction to continue its existance.

I personally favor the former, after Workers' revolution, the Proletarian Party would obviously run things ; but, does this mean automatically the end of Democracy, and the lack of an allowed reactionary resistance?

[redstar2000]

There's a remark attributed to Lenin (truthfully or not, I don't know). Supposedly, he was asked about the possibilities of multi-party democracy after the civil war and he replied "I don't care if there are two parties then, as long as both of them are communist."

As bizarre as it might seem to some, it seems to me that a political system featuring half-a-dozen or more communist parties would be a good thing. These parties would compete with each other in free and fair elections on a regular basis.

After all, what IS the best way to "do" communist society? Opinions differ drastically; to cram them into one party, particularly under the draconian rules of "democratic" centralism, seems to me to be folly.

Such elections would be VERY different from the ones we now have. No "image" strategies, no 30-second attack ads, no photo-ops, no spin, etc. Just get up in front of people (or a tv camera) and talk for 30 minutes or an hour about why your party should be trusted with the task of building communism and then answer tough questions from the audience. And, it should be added, proportional representation would obviously be the way to allocate seats in the legislative body.

I think we would end up with tremendous diversity WITHIN the context of a communist consensus...and that would be ENORMOUSLY fruitful for our cause.

Oh yes, the pro-capitalists. Frankly, I see nothing to be gained by giving our class enemies any political rights at all. Let them piss and moan on the internet about "communist tyranny" along with Nazis, racists, religious fundamentalists, homophobes, sexists, etc., but keep them OUT of public life.

I think Fidel put it rather well: "Within the revolution, EVERYTHING. Outside the revolution, NOTHING!"

:cool:

[Blasphemy]

i have to disagree with redstar. i think that by only allowing communist parties to be represented in the legislative authority, you are forcing communism upon the people. the people must be given a choice, if they want communism, they will vote for a communist party. if they want capitalism and neo-liberalism to reign, you must give them the option to elect a party that will represent those views. you cannot force people to believe in a certain ideology.

[redstar2000]

Blasphemy, communists do not "come to power" in the first place as a result of a conspiracy by an elite minority (that was Lenin's thesis...he was wrong).

Communists "come to power" because of a MASSIVE insurrection of the working class...so there is NO QUESTION of "forcing" the majority into supporting communism.

And, there's nothing in what I offer to suggest that individual pro-capitalists will be "forced" to support communism...they will merely be prevented from public activity in support of counter-revolution. Privately, they can believe whatever they want and they can yap about it freely on the internet. What MORE do they DESERVE?

:cool:

[Blasphemy]

what about those who don't support communism? will they're voice be left unheard? everybody deserves to say what he thinks. there is no reason why they shouldn't be represented in the parliament. if the majority supports communism, there is no reason to ban them, because they will be very unpopular. but if the majority decides that capitalism is the way to go, you must give them the option to elect a capitalist party.

[Iepilei]

I would make the gesture that many wouldn't advocate a capitalist system, considering they just took up arms to extinguish them.

However, I agree with the concept of multiple communist sections creating parties that advocate certain actions. Libs, Mods, and Auths.

[canikickit]

I think what Redstar has outlined is possibly as close to ideal as possible. More ideal yet would be if there was no need for multiple parties because everyone agreed, but that's not going to happen.

[truthaddict11]

there sorta is a one party state in america- Republocrats
i think their should be multiple parties because with a one party state, you have no other alternative choice, if that party advocates the death penalty, you have no party agaist it. and so on

[Iepilei]

but there are varying intensities of republicrats in the US. The proclaimed "democrats" tend to be a little bit lighter on the reigns than the republicans - however, the basic underlying concept is there.

Money = The World.

[TXsocialist]

Yea, and this has proven a successful formula for the capitalists in power - make the people think we have true democracy.

I actually like the idea of multiple 'intensitied' communist parties, when I heard it.

[Anonymous]

the multi communist party democracy has also onething good, it is harder to corrupt, while one party only state is a good target to corruption, expecially stalinism, the most perverted of corruptions, multi-communist democracy is verygood, or bether...

yet i still prefer direct democracy instead of representative democracy, so instead of severall partys eager for power we would have one party, that was there only to serve the people, andthe chairmans and other political workers should have like 4 years of power available... this ofcourse is only possible in socialism, for in capitalism there is not direct democracy, only representativce, elitist democracy...

or elected fascism wahtever you decide to call it....

[Umoja]

All parties should be allowed, otherwise your restricting freedom of association. After awhile we'll all know what's best, and the system could be like you'd want to force it to be.

[Anonymous]

huuuu how do you expect to najke a socialist state when you alloow fascists and capitalists to speak? give education and bread to the people, and bullets forthe fascists.....(go ahead call me radical..)
the direct democracy alredy allows you to implement more or less liberal policys, well it wount allow you to be too authoritarian wich is a good thing, yet how do you expect to make planed economy if you allow free market and capitalist suporters? it would be one major step back....

[redstar2000]

the anarchist is right; direct democracy is clearly the best way to make important political decisions.

It may be possible to use the internet for that purpose...both to ratify any decisions that a revolutionary parliament may make and to initiate new political and economic proposals.

The MORE individual workers take part in the administration of a communist society, the MORE communist it will be.

:cool:

[RGacky3]

Direct democracy can only work in small socialist communes, it can never work large scale.

[Umoja]

With current technology it can't.

Parties are associations of like minded people anyway. This won't be like the pre-constitution untied states, parties are always going to exist as an effective front towards common goals.

[Exploited Class]

I don't know why we would even consider having capitalist parties involved in a communist society. Private property would be gone, money as we know it should be gone, we would control the means of productions for all. What would capitalists even contribute at this point? The proposed theft of that which is all ours? Remember Communism is the economic model any type of parties still around should be for politics the battling of liberal and conservative views. The playground of static vs. dynamic ideals. Perhaps it would play "What do we need?" "What we are going to build." "What is most important, how many hospitals are we lacking, how old are our schools, why is the gym falling apart at the rec center. Why aren't our internet connections getting faster, why is nobody watching entertainment?"

When you get down to it, the parties we do have will all be jocking for resources to their goals, SPACE PARTY, EDUCATEICANS, LABOUR SAFETY PARTY, RESOURCE PROTECTION PARTY, RELIGION FIRST PARTY.
I'll give capitalists the same amount of political time as they have given us in their system.

"I hold in my hand a list of 200 hundred known capitalists", "Are you or have you ever been a card carrying capitalist?" They can speak all they want from the street corner, and when they have their Eugene Debs, I will be sure to lock him up everytime he speaks. Their is more ways to remove the voice of the opposition without removing the opposition and barring them, and capitalist fascists have taught me every single trick in the book.

Fuck 'em and their greed.

[fightthepower]

I picture a multi- party communist state having many parties, all communist, but all trying to achieve different things. Some may be Stalinist, others Marxist, Maoist, etc.

[workingpoor]

Quote: from TXsocialist on 3:04 am on Jan. 10, 2003


I personally favor the former, after Workers' revolution, the Proletarian Party would obviously run things ; but, does this mean automatically the end of Democracy, and the lack of an allowed reactionary resistance?



I have to disagree with this it is my very firm belief that a true model of socialism from below is ultimately democratic. this is very utopian idea but i believe that true socialism is democratic

[Anonymous]

socialism HAS to be democratic in order to be socialist...

i agree with EC, why allow capitalist partys when we want to destroy it?

[Umoja]

You allow Capitalist parties, because otherwise your coming from a posistion of arrogance and saying that Socialism is the completely correct no-question asked way, and anything opposed to it is completely wrong, which seems to be a type of "superstition" most of you want to get rid of.

[Weatherman]

I agree with having multi-communist partys. But we shouldnt kill and lock up the capitalist or we will take on some of their brutal aspects. We will convert them through education. All of their attacks on us will allowed to be made public, but so will our defense; and because our cause is true he will be shown to be wrong. If he still will not submit because he is too brainwashed, I doubt anyone will have been converted by his speech that was gracefully rebuttled. Think of the current situation. The capitalist who are in power keep our ideas out of the mass media or they distort them. The only reason we arent converting in mass, is because we arent speaking to mass; we're not allowed to by the oppresors. We have nothing to fear from their words. The openness of our new society will make it so we can better ourselves with having to be overthrown. They are taught to be capitalist and they can be untaught!

[Weatherman]

In that second to last sentence on the above reply its supposed to say "without having to be overthrown"