Change through Democracy or Force?

[daxoy]

So, sorry that my first post here has to be of this quality, but I've still got a lot of homework to do, not to mention sleep to attempt.

Anyway, I just wanted to bring up this question, since it was discussed briefly in one of my classes today.

Do you think that communism can ever be brought about through a democratic process? Or is a violent, sweeping revolution necessary? Moreover, if both are possible, is one perhaps more expedient?

As I thought about it today, it seemed to me that democratic institutions will never succeed in bringing about class equality, since they are designed specifically to give voice to every rival group - in Marx's case namely the capitalists and the workers.

Therefore, any electoral victory by the Workers would be resisted and undermined by a significant minority formulated by the Capitalists. The two are positioned to naturally oppose one another, therefore a system that represents both is impossible, even if one has the power of the majority behind it.

Furthermore, the Capitalists naturally hold the strings to their puppets of media, industry, etc. So financially and logistically, success on the part of a united Worker's Party (were such a thing possible) would be pretty slim.

But assuming that democratic victory could be achieved, it seems to me unrealistic that an entire class of individuals could be eliminated quickly, or that even this effort would be beneficial to a progressive movement towards the implementation of solidarity under a Marxist government. So perhaps the democratic route, although flawed and lethargic, is the only certain and safe one?

Anyway, share your opinions - I'm interested in hearing them. And if you know what Marx has to say about this himself, please post some quotes. I'm still trying to get through his prolific body of works...

[BobKKKindle$]

You hold the correct position. Capitalism can only be overthrown through revolution (led by the proletariat, which is the only class capable of building a socialist society even though the proletariat may be forced to create an alliance with other classes when the proletariat is not strong enough to conduct the revolution on its own) because the ruling class will never be willing to peacefully surrender their privileges and will always use the state apparatus to try and maintain capitalism and prevent any kind of radical social transformation. This is shown by historical experience, especially the case of the Russian Revolution, as the Bolsheviks were faced with counter-revolutionary forces, including the armies of foreign imperialist powers who recognized that the revolution could inspire workers in other countries to rise up against the bourgeoisie, and so needed to be crushed to ensure the survival of capitalism throughout the world. As for the issue of parliamentary struggle, it is unlikely that a workers party would ever be able to secure a majority in a bourgeois political institution, because when the bourgeoisie is faced with growing radical sentiment and support for a revolutionary party, they often turn to authoritarian forces who are willing to destroy parliamentary democracy and create a regime based on the violent suppression of political dissent and the illusion of class unity, as occurred in Germany where the popularity of the KPD forced the bourgeoisie to give support (often in the form of financial aid) to the NSDAP which was previously a marginal political force.

Lenin's State and Revolution is the best Marxist work on the state, as Lenin identifies the state as a product of class division, whereas other political theorists have traditionally portrayed the state as a neutral institution which exists above society and does not represent the interests of any particular class, but of society as a whole.

[Die Neue Zeit]

There's a lot of confusion surrounding the word "democracy." Most often this word is reduced to the very non-participatory parliamentarism by pseudo-reformists, by radical reformists, and by "broad economists" amongst revolutionaries. This parliamentarism, which is no legitimate road to socialism, combines the democratic principle of universal suffrage with the aristocratic principle of selection.

[black magick hustla]

Communists shouldn't base themselves on democratic principles because we are clearly the minority and we have and always be the minority. Marxists who get entrenched in democratic princples generally end up backing different factions of the ruling class. Concepts like national liberation and universal suffrage may be democratic in as much as they are generally accepted by the general population, but we do not represent the will of the population, we represent what we think of as the objective interests of the proletariat and humanity. While in the name of democracy, bourgeois liberals and bourgeosified marxists might rally behind different nationalisms and democracies- in the end these are just flags used to justify the hundreds of millions dead in the name of progress.

[Hyacinth]

When you say "democracy" (and when most people say it) what they really have in mind is parliamentary participation; there's nothing inherently democratic about bourgeois parliaments. Given that the participation in bourgeois parliaments isn't equivalent to democracy, we need not contrast the use of force with democracy. That is to say, a violent revolution can itself be democratic, if it is carried out by the working class (which composes the majority).

That linguistic point aside, as others have already said, I think that it is indeed impossible to achieve communism through parliamentary means. The cessation of oppression and exploitation cannot be brought about via institutions of the oppressing class, it can only be done so via the overthrow of such institutions altogether. Which isn't to say that we are revolutionaries are committed to violence as a matter of principle, we'd love for the revolution to come about non-violently, but the fact of the matter is that the ruling class is not about to simply roll over and hand over power. Their resistance to revolution is what necessitates violence.

[mikelepore]

The question is phrased wrong. Violent isn't the opposite of democratic. Violent is the opposite of peaceful. Democratic (majority rule) is the opposite of oligarchic (minority rule).

I think you meant to ask whether peaceful revolution is possible. It is one occasion at a time, here and there, that will be either peaceful or violent. Former capitalist 'A' says "Oh, hell, the socialist mandate was enacted by the population. But we capitalists were outvoted fair and square" -- and abides by the mandate. Society welcomes this individual to be a full participant in the new system. Former capitalist 'B' refuses to abide by the people's decision and resorts to hitting a group of workers with a stick. Society sentences this person to forty years on a prison chain gang, assuming that he can be apprehended alive. Both of these scenarios come under the descriptor "democratic" because on the previous day the majority of the people enacted a political mandate to institute socialism.

[Yehuda Stern]

I like mikelepore's comment here - it's useful to understand that a revolution can be incredibly democratic but very violent. This can be true even from a non-Marxist point of view: a violent revolution against a bloody dictator is without a single doubt democratic, even if it isn't carried through the institutions of the state.

daxoy, what you say is quite correct, although the problem is somewhat different. The problem is that in a capitalist state, the role of the army and police, i.e. the armed forces of the state, is to protect private property and the ruling class. These forces would never allow the workers to peacefully take over the state and transform into a tool of the workers. The history of the 20th century is filled with examples of failed attempts to that effect, especially in Latin America (Allende in Chile is probably the most prominent).

[Ratatosk]

I don't understand what the two should be mutually exclusive. Indeed, without any force to back it up, progressive social changes are likely to be crushed by the ruling class, and vice versa, if most people disagree with the change, then it's not likely to work in the end, anyway.

[mikelepore]

People should realize that it's a figure of speech when we say that the capitalists "possess" the industries. The working class physically occupies the every part of the industries and operates them entirely. The capitalists are absentee owners who possess only legal pieces of paper which allow them to remotely send their instructions to the industries. These remote instructions from the capitalists are mainly about who shall be appointed to management positions, the central directive that management's job description shall be to maximize profits by any means necessary, and, to a lesser extent, some direct stockholder resolutions to set policies. Then the workers who physically occupy and run the industries habitually obey that capitalist-appointed management.

A socialist reconstruction would involve the workers establishing their own administrative system and regarding only this as the official management. Therefore, the workers' most important preparation would be an organization with the right structure than can be abruptly snapped into place as a management system, and continue production without any interruption in the flow of goods. When put in place, it will operate according to the workers' collective plans, ignoring instructions received from any other sources.

No political party can establish socialism. It must be carried out by a workplace-based organization. However, this workplace organization can only move in and declare workers' control after receiving the signal of a political mandate, which could take the form of the election of a socialist to the public office of commander of the army (national president), or a constitutional amendment, a socialist majority having been elected to the national legislature, or some other kind of political signal. This is necessary because control of the violent power of the state must be taken away from the property-owning class. If the propertied class were to legally control the state powers on the day that the workers move in to take and hold the means of production, the state would massacre millions of workers and establish fascism.

So this is the necessary sequence. Build a political party that has only one plank in its platform, the transfer of the industries to the workers' organizations. Simultaneously organize the workers in every sector of the economy into an integral workplace structure with the proper form to be abruptly switched in place as a new management system. As soon as the majority of the people deliver the political mandate to authorize socialism, within hours or minutes, the workplace organization announces that it is now the official management in all industries and services. Due to the political mandate having been adopted through the democratic constitutional method, socialists would control the legislatures, police, courts and the army. This method deposes the ruling class in an instant. The worst the deposed rulers or their thugs could do would be to commit disconnected acts of violence, which could be prosecuted as ordinary street crimes, deprived of any counterrevolutionary potential.

By the way, the technical name of this program is socialist industrial unionism, or SIU. It was the proposal of Daniel De Leon (1852-1914). Marxism-De Leonism, as contrasted with Marxism-Leninism, is another popular designation.

[Red Anarchist of Love]

that is chosen by the oppesseres not the revolutionaries

[Comrade Wolfie's Very Nearly Banned Adventures]

move forward at first democratically until the powers that be move against the communists then armed struggle begins!

[Die Neue Zeit]

No political party can establish socialism. It must be carried out by a workplace-based organization.

Did you not read my point about the revolutionary party encompassing the majority of the working class?


However, this workplace organization can only move in and declare workers' control after receiving the signal of a political mandate, which could take the form of the election of a socialist to the public office of commander of the army (national president), or a constitutional amendment, a socialist majority having been elected to the national legislature, or some other kind of political signal.

Even though you're too inclined not to consider extralegal options, I would suggest, in the American scenario, that constitutional amendment proposals be made by Conventions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_to_propose_amendments_to_the_United_Sta tes_Constitution


Against oppressive government of any kind, the authors of the United States Constitution sought to establish institutional checks and balances. In framing the Constitution as the fundamental embodiment of such safeguards, the "Grand Convention" (assembled in Philadelphia, 1787) anticipated that, at some point, amending the basic law of the land might become necessary and yet be squelched by an unresponsive Congress. Foreseeing a day when the long-term health of the nation could depend upon a process that empowered states to secure amendments over the opposition of the national government, the delegates to the grand convention made provision for a future convention.

Essentially, this is the same as the central political demand in Lenin's draft programme of the RSDLP (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1902/draft/02feb07.htm), which found its way into the original program of the RSDLP. :)


If the propertied class were to legally control the state powers on the day that the workers move in to take and hold the means of production, the state would massacre millions of workers and establish fascism.

I posted the question of "democracy" on your board because participatory democracy facilitates "Dual Power" over the violent organs.


Due to the political mandate having been adopted through the democratic constitutional method, socialists would control the legislatures, police, courts and the army.

Ever heard of Pinochet? :(

[mikelepore]

If the majority of the people were to support socialism, there's no reason why the socialist reconstruction couldn't take place in a generally peaceful and civilized way. Those revolutionaries who call for violence, scratch the surface and we will usually see that they just don't want to wait for the majority of the people. Of course it's discouraging for all of us to think that our task is to persuade most people to reverse their habits of thought. Could anything be more of an uphill climb? But there is no other way available. The result of a radical reconstruction won't be democratic and preserve civil liberties, i.e., it won't be socialism in the first place, unless it is the do-it-yourself project of the majority of the working class. Since the goal itself requires waiting for the majority, there is no additional burder for the implementation strategy also to be based on waiting for the majority. Therefore, the pending revolution has to be a war of ideas. The revolutionary weapons must not be the lethal kind, but the printing press and the internet and the microphone. Our goal is to establish the most civilized way of living ever conceived, and so the methods of inaugurating it must be the most civilized methods ever developed.

[JimmyJazz]

Duncan Hallas' book about the Comintern (http://www.marxists.org/archive/hallas/works/1985/comintern/index.htm) helped me with the question of an electoral versus a revolutionary socialist strategy. It covers how, prior to the Russian Revolution, most national Marxist parties were attempting to go the electoral route. It was circumstances--not ideology--that more or less forced them to either become revolutionary (as in Russia and Hungary), abandon socialism for a social democratic/mixed economy platform, or splinter between these two positions (as in Germany, where Marxists split into the reformist SPD and revolutionary KPD).


And if you know what Marx has to say about this himself, please post some quotes. I'm still trying to get through his prolific body of works...

Beyond the Manifesto? I'm pretty sure that's his definitive statement on WC revolution; most of the rest of it is political economy or philosophy.

[Die Neue Zeit]

If the majority of the people were to support socialism, there's no reason why the socialist reconstruction couldn't take place in a generally peaceful and civilized way.

And what if the military and police decide to engage in unconstitutional activity? The US military and police do this all the time!


Those revolutionaries who call for violence, scratch the surface and we will usually see that they just don't want to wait for the majority of the people.

That depends, comrade, on the organizational model one subscribes to in terms of extralegal political revolution. They prefer an organizational model comprised of cadre-turned-mass-but-not-mass-enough parties that are leveraged by not-as-organized, conscious-but-not-really-conscious-enough workers' movements.


Of course it's discouraging for all of us to think that our task is to persuade most people to reverse their habits of thought. Could anything be more of an uphill climb? But there is no other way available.

Well, my suggestion is ever more of an uphill climb. It is even more discouraging for all of us to think that our second task, beyond what you've said, is to have the vast majority of workers organized in a specifically party mode - in order to be in the best position to take power as a class, whether through initial legal attempts or through the more likely extralegal ones (whether such attempts are peaceful or violent depend on the bourgeois reaction).

Think of how the Soviets were really organized en masse in WWII, but replace the bureaucratic control with workers' control.

[Rosa Provokateur]

Neither democracy nor force, both have been tried and both have failed.

[Herman]

Read my signature.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Could you please translate? :confused:

[mikelepore]

And what if the military and police decide to engage in unconstitutional activity? The US military and police do this all the time.

Do you know of any occasion in American history when the President and the Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and five-star general all gave the army the order that there's no conflict going on so just relax, but the troops rebelled against that order and spontaneous began marching and using weapons? It never happens.

Do you know of any occasion in American history where the law makers and courts ruled that some property rightfully belongs to someone in particular, but the police rebelled against that policy and tried to make the property belong to someone else? It never happens.