Revolutionary Democratic Socialism

[Pogue]

In my outlook on the world, I have a revolutionary perspective, i.e., I see a world full of shit caused by capitalists and bureaucrats which needs to be radically reshaped.

However, I have some misgivings with revolution. These are the fact that its so, well, vague. The masses will rise up with their minds full of socialist englightenment and will work towards a socialist future? I don't know about that. Certainly it has happened, like in Spain, and for a while, Russia, but as we know it's never been completed. And of course it could happen. But there seems to be som many variables and things in the way, such as the revolutoin being hijacked, people not wanting full communism/socialism, people seing no need for socialism, etc.

I also have a problem with the violence and seizure of power in a revolution. Is violence justified? Of course, it is in self-defence, but then we'd have to assume that the right wingers had attacked us first, and our response was violent revolution. Of course, they do harm us, through their exploitations of us, but you know, as of yet, they're not shooting at us in the streets. So at what point does the violence in our revolution become justifiable?

The revolution, as we talk of it, aims to create a fairer, more democratic society with the working class in control.
Now, I am passionately supportive of property/wealth seizure (from the rich, not just the bourgeoisie (so I include rich sportspeople, musicians etc), but when it comes to seizing control, this is where I see the potential for hijacking of the revolution, by a vanguard or just a group of authoritarian pricks. Anarchism could be said to be the answer to this fear, in that theres no workers state transitional phase in the Marx-Leninist sense, but theres stil the issue of violence and the seizing of control.

My other fears in regards to democracy in the revolution is how we will determine what the people want. What if at some stage the overwhelming opinion amongst the masses, that is to say those people who are involved in the revolution but have not been lifelong revolutionaries (in the sense that Che Guevara was a revolutionary but the people who he sought to help, all the masses, were not actively revolutionayr in action/thought) was that they didn't actually want socialism or communism, just mild social democracy, or they indeed for some reason decided they wanted capitalism back. I know one answer to this is that pre-revolution the vanguard/revolutionaries would build up reovlutionary thought amongst the people so they knew what was needed and what they wanted when the time came, but again, people change their minds, and not everyone of the proletarians would want what the revolutionaries want.

The thing with Parliamentary Democracy in Liberal Democracys like here in the UK is that its very hard for the politicians to just seize absolute power because in Parliament their is always oppisition, and a party has 4 years in power before they can be voted out, meaning that there is not enough time for theme to seize absolute control. Plus, we have laws protected by the police (and ultimately the army) which would prevent such things happening. I understand these laws can be broken or not protected, say with an illegal and unpopular war in Iraq, where Tony Blair went against UN law and the will of the people, but radical tyranny is preventable. Thatcher was scum, a tyrant, but for some reason she was democratically elected and democratically removed, so effectively, alot of what she did was done by the will of alot of the people who voted for her, which, if she is in power, under our system of democracy, is suposedly the majority, and obviously the majority of the vote. The real power seizure comes from the capitalist corporations, who act multinationally outside of the law in many cases. The problem is that right wing governments tolerate them. So the problem is capitalism here, both in private companies and in parliament, where right wingers (but democratically elected ones) will support and benefit the capitalists.

I'd then ask, the problem is not parliament in and of itself, but right wingers inside of it. Right wingers who are dmeocratically elected.
What I'm saying here is that these people could be combatted if we elected, democratically, into our parliamentary system, left wingers, people like Tony Benn, Jeremy Corbyn and George Galloway, that is to say genuine left wingers, self-proclaimed socialists. The reasons this is good is because we control who is in power here, if they go back on their socialist promises we can recall them, etc. Plus, electing them does make a difference. For example look at the Quarter Revolution, post WW2, when a left wing Labour government created the NHS, amongst other left wing actions.

If we managed to build strong feeling for socialism in the UK, then we could have our revolution by basically, and simply, electing a Commons full of socialists. This would be a revolution because it would mean that the power was in the hands of socialists, who were elected by the people, thus were there on the peoples will. If these politicians then implemented the socialist change they were elected on, say, like abolishing bosses in work places, lets say in Sainsbury's supermarkets, in favour of the workers having direct control of the work places, then this would be revolutionary socialist change.

Now, we'd need this to happen in every country of the world. World revolution. Because if it happened in one country, how revolutionary the change would be would be limited by what other countries and the big corporations allowed. So once more, capitalists are the enemy, not reformists and parliamentary democracy, because, as in revolution of the Marx-Leninist/Trotskyist/Anarchist kind, the change is being prevented by the counter-revolutionaries, the capitalists and the fascists.
Capitalism is a world wide problem, so it would need a worldwide response. So all of the socialist parties in the world would be united in one big international group (as parties are at the moment), like the Socialist International which exists at the moment, except obviously this International would actually be socialist as opposed to a bunch of neo-liberals and other strange groups who hijacked left winger parties with their own strange right wing agendas. Also, we'd have an International Trade Union congress. The parliamentary socialist party would have strong ties with the Unions, like the Labour Party has (although this has been eaten away at by the neo-liberals like Blair and Brown, and obviously union power was taken away by Thatcher so the unions are weaker now anyway), and so the workers would have a strong voice beyond just the elected parliamtnary officials. The unions could keep the party in check, almost like how the FAI made sure the CNT remained Anarchist in its nature, and these unions would also help create more radical change in workplaces, and would serve to defend and fight for the changes the socialist parliamentarians would strive for and implement.



As such, here you have revolutionary socialism, in that its not social democracy, its much further left wing than that, except the revolution happens in a different way, a way which could get rid of the problems associated with a revolution in the traditional sense. This revolutoinary socialism would then advance how the people wanted it, to some form of communism, or wherever else the will of the people wants it to go, with their will be wielded through the power of the left wing unions and parliamentary party.

Your thoughts comrades?

[BobKKKindle$]

Is violence justified? Of course, it is in self-defence, but then we'd have to assume that the right wingers had attacked us first, and our response was violent revolution.Capitalism is a system which systematically generates and is supported by violence, in the form of police violence used against workers who take strike action to extract concessions from the ruling class, the abstract violence of millions of people living in poverty and not having enough money to purchase basic goods such as food, and the use of state violence overseas to enhance and secure imperial interests, through wars of expansion, and espionage against governments which aim to improve the conditions of vulnerable social groups. To claim that capitalism can exist without violence or that the ruling class has not used violence against the working class ignores the way capitalism operates in the real world. There is no reason to object to a violent seizure of power on philosophical grounds - because any violence resulting from the revolutionary transformation of society would be minor in comparison to the violence which occurs every day under the capitalist system.


If we managed to build strong feeling for socialism in the UK, then we could have our revolution by basically, and simply, electing a Commons full of socialists.The parliament is a component of the bourgeois state apparatus, and so is structured in a way which is suited to the need to defend the ruling class and so preserve the existing class structure of capitalism, such that, for the proletariat to exercise control over the economy and manage the way society is organised in its own interests, a different state structure is required, which allows for extensive democratic participation, and overcomes the existing division of physical state power from the general population by establishing a system of proletarian councils to defend the revolution against the danger of capitalist restoration. This was recognized by Marx in The Civil War in France (1871) as he wrote:

"...the working class cannot simply lay hold of ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes..."

[Pogue]

Some further points:

So you say the Commons is "a component of the bourgeois state apparatus", yet if the feeling amongst the people is great enough it can be changed. You also fail to back up the claim that the Commons is "a component of the bourgeois state apparatus" so thats an opinion, not fact. As I mentioned, in cases such as the Quarter Revolution, it has been used to help the working class.
And just because Marx came to one conclusion about something, doesn't make it true. Thats one man's opinion, an opinion he came up with 137 years ago!

----------------------------------Additional Points-----------------------

We can talk of how futile parliamentary democratic gains are, but they actually bring about chage. The revolutionary left in the UK is a number of small, sectarian groups with the same goals but different groups. Theres no real revolutionary movement to join to strive for gains, and people have goals more immediate meaning they may become frustrated by debating endlesly about what Trotsky said about subject x or person y.=, and would rather push for the gains the democratic socialist (what many here would call 'reformist') strive for, or what the unions strive for, i.e. pay increases.
Perhaps if we had a strong united revolutionary left of the traditional sense, criticisms of the 'reformists' would become more relevant.

[trivas7]

Thoughtful post, H-L-V-S.

My few thoughts are:

I share your fear that we don't live in revolutionary times, but we must be prepared for when those time comes.

We can always hope that revolution will not violent but can't guarantee this. Whatever our politics, it looks as if in the future our species is in for some very rough times ahead.

I agree with Bobkindles, Communists don't engage in bourgeois parlimentary politics.

[Pogue]

Thoughtful post, H-L-V-S.

My few thoughts are:

I share your fear that we don't live in revolutionary times, but we must be prepared for when those time comes.

We can always hope that revolution will not violent but can't guarantee this. Whatever our politics, it looks as if in the future our species is in for some very rough times ahead.

I agree with Bobkindles, Communists don't engage in bourgeois parlimentary politics.

Thanks, alot of tohught went into it :)

I think that us communists should engage in parliamentary politics though, when it appears it would serve the interests of the poor.
If our help could get a socialist like Tony Benn elected to parliament over some Conservative, and we refuse to help, we're making things worse for the working class, and if we refuse to support a party with a progressive agenda, i.e. nationalisation of key resources in the UK, then we're acting contrary to the interests of the working class.

[BobKKKindle$]

So you say the Commons is "a component of the bourgeois state apparatus", yet if the feeling amongst the people is great enough it can be changed.The fact that a "socialist" government may be able to exercise a majority within parliament does not mean the government commands state power, because state power rests not in the composition of the legislature, but in the ability to command armed groups of men, especially the armed forces. As long as these armed groups remain loyal to capitalism and are willing to fight in defense of the interests of the bourgeoisie, the ruling class will be able to use state power to prevent any peaceful negation of private property and destroy workers organizations. This is demonstrated by the case of Salvador Allende in Chile (1973) who came to power by using the electoral process as part of a coalition government and enjoyed popular support, and yet was later overthrown by the military (with the support of the CIA) after the government took control of major firms and refused to provide sufficient compensation. Even if a socialist government is able to secure the loyalty of these armed groups within the borders of one state, other states where capitalism has not been overthrown will be able to provide military support and so restore capitalism by force.


As I mentioned, in cases such as the Quarter Revolution, it has been used to help the working class.The bourgeois state often choses to make limited concessions because this is an effective way of preserving social cohesion and prevent the emergence of a more radical political movement, even though these concessions may also be the result of popular pressure and agitation. However, social reforms are increasingly difficult within the framework of capitalism, as the integration of every country into a global capitalist system and the elimination of regulations which limit the movement of capital have undermined the ability of governments to manage the economy without the risk of firms moving production overseas or withdrawing investment capital.


We can talk of how futile parliamentary democratic gains are, but they actually bring about chage.Parliamentary struggle can bring about change - as shown by the historic victories which have been won through reform, but there is also a limit to how far change can go without encountering the limits imposed on democracy by private capital. Parliamentary struggle cannot abolish private property (which would signify the negation of capitalism) because the ruling class is able to depend on the armed groups which exercise state power to defend property rights against government intervention, as explained above. Even reforms which are partially radical and do not directly pose a threat to capitalism (for example, increasing the rate of profit tax, or taking control of a group of major enterprises) can lead to the downfall of a "socialist" government because the resulting rapid exit of capital from the national economy causes a sudden depreciation in the value of currency and a subsequent increase in the price level, and hence an economic collapse, which would, in turn, destroy the legitimacy of the government and allow a conservative party to gain power.


I agree with Bobkindles, Communists don't engage in bourgeois parlimentary politics.Communists do participate in parliament, because parliamentary representation gives communists a platform to show how the existing political institutions of capitalist society are incapable of providing full human liberation and economic security for the working class. This is why Lenin distinguished between parliament being "historically" but not "politically" obsolete in Left Wing Communism.

[trivas7]

Communists do participate in parliament, because parliamentary representation gives communists a platform to show how the existing political institutions of capitalist society are incapable of providing full human liberation and economic security for the working class. This is why Lenin distinguished between parliament being "historically" but not "politically" obsolete in Left Wing Communism.
But the best they can do is a push a reformist agenda, no? This is the domain of progressives. What makes you think the general public cares how the existing political institutions are incapable of providing anything for their benefit? Unless you have a stake in the political process apathy is the rational response to politics.

[BobKKKindle$]

What makes you think the general pubic cares how the existing political institutions are incapable of providing anything for their benefit? Apathy seems the common rational response to politics.

Parliament is used as a platform to make transitional demands. This is a demand which, if implemented, would not directly negate capitalism, but is, at the same time, a demand, which, owing to the practical constraints imposed by the logic of capital accumulation, the ruling class is unwilling or unable to provide. For example, full employment is technically obtainable under capitalism, but unemployment is needed by the ruling class to put downwards pressure on wage levels by threatening to hire people who are desperate for employment when workers go on strike. This type of demand bridges the gap between the present political conditions of capitalism (the lack of revolutionary class consciousness and the fragmentation of the working class) and the possibility of overthrowing capitalism in the future by demonstrating how capitalism is incapable of meeting human needs.

[Pogue]

So according to Bob Kindles, Tony Benn abd Nye Bevan were not genuinely socialists who cared about the working class, but were capitalists who wanted to pacify people?
Both of these men were socialist heroes of our age, and great men who did care a great deal about the working class. What you said was clearly wrong, if you look at the wriitngs and actions of such people as there two.
And pelase read what I said. I said it would have to be a worldwide democratic revolution to prevent other countries/TNCs fighting to crush our revolution.

[Devrim]

So according to Bob Kindles, Tony Benn abd Nye Bevan were not genuinely socialists who cared about the working class, but were capitalists who wanted to pacify people?
Both of these men were socialist heroes of our age, and great men who did care a great deal about the working class.

Tony Benn cared about the working class so much he sent troops in to break a strike.

Devrim

[Pogue]

Tony Benn cared about the working class so much he sent troops in to break a strike.

Devrim

Proof? Do you even know who or what you're talking about?

[Die Neue Zeit]

However, I have some misgivings with revolution. These are the fact that its so, well, vague. The masses will rise up with their minds full of socialist englightenment and will work towards a socialist future? I don't know about that. Certainly it has happened, like in Spain, and for a while, Russia, but as we know it's never been completed. And of course it could happen. But there seems to be som many variables and things in the way, such as the revolutoin being hijacked, people not wanting full communism/socialism, people seing no need for socialism, etc.

I also have a problem with the violence and seizure of power in a revolution. Is violence justified? Of course, it is in self-defence, but then we'd have to assume that the right wingers had attacked us first, and our response was violent revolution. Of course, they do harm us, through their exploitations of us, but you know, as of yet, they're not shooting at us in the streets. So at what point does the violence in our revolution become justifiable?

There is a recent trend called "revolutionary reformism," to which you belong (not really "revolutionary" because of the exclusion of the possibility of extralegality, and not really "reformist" because of a commitment to "anti-capitalism" and knowing that yellow "reformism" tends to limit its own "reformist" schemes). I can even work with "revolutionary reformists" like yourself, Kagarlitsky, etc. within the same organization.


What if at some stage the overwhelming opinion amongst the masses, that is to say those people who are involved in the revolution but have not been lifelong revolutionaries (in the sense that Che Guevara was a revolutionary but the people who he sought to help, all the masses, were not actively revolutionayr in action/thought) was that they didn't actually want socialism or communism, just mild social democracy, or they indeed for some reason decided they wanted capitalism back. I know one answer to this is that pre-revolution the vanguard/revolutionaries would build up reovlutionary thought amongst the people so they knew what was needed and what they wanted when the time came, but again, people change their minds, and not everyone of the proletarians would want what the revolutionaries want.

Why didn't even the partially restored aristocrats want to go back to feudalism?


* Parliamentary democracy stuff *

Bull-s***! Think outside of the box! There are calls outside of the mainstream for "participatory democracy," which goes well beyond the archaic idiocy of representative electoralism (bourgeois "democracy"). Also consider demarchy as an alternative form of selection than elections.

[BobKKKindle$]

And pelase read what I said. I said it would have to be a worldwide democratic revolution to prevent other countries/TNCs fighting to crush our revolution.

So, even assuming that every country in the world elects a socialist parliament at the same time, how would it be possible to safeguard the "revolution" against the threat of capitalist restoration, by internal revolt or external forces? The spontaneous election of a socialist parliament will not allow the government to exercise state power, because the power of the state rests in the ability to project physical violence and establish a monopoly on the use of force - and so is exercised by the armed forces, which exist outside the scope of parliament, and cannot be controlled solely by attaining a parliamentary majority, as clearly shown in the example of Chile, where a "socialist" parliament was overthrown by the military. It is also possible that the bourgeoisie may support the violent suppression of democracy and the elimination of all proletarian organizations by authoritarian methods before the election of a socialist parliament can take place, in anticipation of the danger of social revolution - as occurred in Germany in 1933.

Understanding socialism as something which can be achieved solely through existing political institutions changes the meaning of what socialism is, because limiting political activity to these institutions imposes limits on the extent of change.


Tony Benn abd Nye Bevan were not genuinely socialists who cared about the working class, but were capitalists who wanted to pacify people?

There are individuals who have supported the struggles of the proletariat by using parliament as a platform - but the idea that a peaceful transition to socialism can take place by electing a parliament full of such individuals is illusory, because elections do not challenge the base of state power - the armed forces.

[Devrim]

Proof? Do you even know who or what you're talking about?

Benn sent in armed police (my mistake not troops) to break picket lines at Windscale during a strike in the late 1970s when he was Secretary of State for Energy.

Devrim

[Niccolò Rossi]

The spontaneous election of a socialist parliament will not allow the government to exercise state power, because the power of the state rests in the ability to project physical violence and establish a monopoly on the use of force - and so is exercised by the armed forces, which exist outside the scope of parliament, and cannot be controlled solely by attaining a parliamentary majority, as clearly shown in the example of Chile, where a "socialist" parliament was overthrown by the military.

How would you respond to this claim:


Way to totally ignore the fact that, in the U.S. at least, the commander of the army is a publicly elected office.

(What, there's an 800 pound gorilla in the living room? Where? I don't see it!)

How could a Marxist *not care* whether, on the day that the workers are seizing the means of production, the army looks to receive its orders from a commander who happens to be a capitalist or from a commander who happens to be a Marxist ?!?

There are enough people in this forum who are confused about political strategy that - this is my doctor prescription for all my brothers and sisters - everyone here should read "As to Politics" by Daniel De Leon.

Not that I agree with it, I'd be interested to see your take on this matter.

[Hit The North]

Probably still the best defense of revolutionary politics and its relation to reform can be found in Rosa Luxemburg's 'Reform or Revolution' http://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/intro.htm

[Pogue]

I don't see how defending parliamentry socialism would be any harder than defending socialism brought about by violence. I'm also assuming in this take over that we have the support of most of populace (as we've been democratically elected). These people could defend the revolution, perhaps organise din the trade unions, like the CNT in Spain. And we could work on getting the armed forces on our side prior to the revolution. If comrades see this as absurd, I'd refer them to the Portugese Carnation Revolution.

[Led Zeppelin]

However, I have some misgivings with revolution. These are the fact that its so, well, vague. The masses will rise up with their minds full of socialist englightenment and will work towards a socialist future? I don't know about that.

That's not what Marxists believe, that is idealist.

We don't believe that the people will suddenly "see the light" and "move towards building socialism".

Class-consciousness doesn't come that way, we can't "talk the workers into socialism".

The working-class is bourgeoisified at its conception, this is due to the fact that they are brought into existence in a world where the ruling ideas reflect the ideas of the ruling class, which is the bourgeoisie.

This in turn is due to the fact that the ruling class owns the tools of "mass consciousness forming", such as the media and the education system.

Only when those tools are in the hands of the working-class can we make start working on spreading class-consciousness on a mass-scale.

Revolution itself comes through organization on the part of the vanguard (the section of the working-class which is already class-conscious and organized), and through a mixture of favorable economic and political conditions which compel the people towards a new economic system.


Certainly it has happened, like in Spain, and for a while, Russia, but as we know it's never been completed. And of course it could happen. But there seems to be som many variables and things in the way, such as the revolutoin being hijacked, people not wanting full communism/socialism, people seing no need for socialism, etc.

The vast majority of the working-class did not "believe in socialism" in either Spain or Russia, or any other revolutionary situation.

They probably didn't even know what socialism was.

Yet still a socialist revolution happened in Russia, but this was due to the conditions created out of the First World War, it had nothing to do with the working-class suddenly "seeing the light" because they were "persuaded" by the communists.

Lenin said this often:


But what if the situation, which drew Russia into the imperialist world war that involved every more or less influential West European country and made her a witness of the eve of the revolutions maturing or partly already begun in the East, gave rise to circumstances that put Russia and her development in a position which enabled us to achieve precisely that combination of a "peasant war" with the working-class movement suggested in 1856 by no less a Marxist than Marx himself as a possible prospect for Prussia?

[Hyacinth]

Communists do participate in parliament, because parliamentary representation gives communists a platform to show how the existing political institutions of capitalist society are incapable of providing full human liberation and economic security for the working class. This is why Lenin distinguished between parliament being "historically" but not "politically" obsolete in Left Wing Communism.
‘Communists’ who do participate in bourgeoisie parliaments are sending mixed signals to the working class: on the one hand they are calling for revolution and denouncing bourgeoisie elections and parliaments as shams, on the other hand they are running in those elections trying to persuade people to vote for them as though it could make a difference. I’m afraid that one can’t have it both ways: either bourgeoisie parliaments are a legitimate means by which *real* reforms can be implemented and hence there is no need for revolution, or alternatively they are a sham upon which the working class has no real influence upon. If the intention is merely to use the bourgeoisie parliament as a platform by which to spreads the communist message you end up sending mixed signals, as I mentioned before. Moreover, why is there a need for communists to participate in parliaments to get their message out? It really isn’t as though people actually watching CSPAN or question period in the first place, there are better means by which to get your message across.

[Die Neue Zeit]

‘Communists’ who do participate in bourgeoisie parliaments are sending mixed signals to the working class: on the one hand they are calling for revolution and denouncing bourgeoisie elections and parliaments as shams, on the other hand they are running in those elections trying to persuade people to vote for them as though it could make a difference. I’m afraid that one can’t have it both ways: either bourgeoisie parliaments are a legitimate means by which *real* reforms can be implemented and hence there is no need for revolution, or alternatively they are a sham upon which the working class has no real influence upon. If the intention is merely to use the bourgeoisie parliament as a platform by which to spreads the communist message you end up sending mixed signals, as I mentioned before. Moreover, why is there a need for communists to participate in parliaments to get their message out? It really isn’t as though people actually watching CSPAN or question period in the first place, there are better means by which to get your message across.

Game. Set. Match (especially that last part, recalling the original "tribune of the people" purpose behind the parliamentary TACTIC).

In terms of "degrees of reforms" (yellow, orange, and red) parliamentary tactics can, at best, only achieve PURELY "yellow" reforms. The demand for basic participatory democracy - not mentioned in my list but implied as being on the next "dynamic minimum" level after the level for the shortened workweek - is somewhere in between "yellow" and "orange."