Democracy & Parliament

[Pogue]

Could people give me their best arguments against this being a legitimate way to change society (electing leftist reformist parties to power/social democrats) so I have a strong theoretical basis to oppose this which will stand up to argument.

[BobKKKindle$]

Could people give me their best arguments against this being a legitimate way to change society (electing leftist reformist parties to power/social democrats) so I have a strong theoretical basis to oppose this which will stand up to argument.Militant argued in favour of a parliamentary approach and believed that passing an enabling act would allow the government to rapidly take control of the largest and most powerful monopolies. In reality, it is idealistic to assume that the bourgeoisie will be wiling to give up their political power and control over society's economic resources without some form of armed struggle, and history has shown that whenever a government with a commitment to radical social reform and changes in social relations has been elected, the government has often been faced with opposition from the most conservative sections of the state (which is not the same as the government, as the government does not have guaranteed control over the bodies of armed men which exercise the coercive power of the state) as in the case of Salvador Allende, who was murdered by Augusto Pinochet shortly after coming to power in Chile. However, the idea of a parliamentary road to socialism is based on the premise that parliamentary institutions and electoral procedures will still be in place once a party has gained sufficient mass support to get legislation passed, but history also suggests that as soon as any radical party begins to pose a threat the bourgeoisie will transfer their support and financial resources to fascist parties in an attempt to destroy democracy and all independent workers organizations. This is exactly what happened in Germany in 1933 as well as Italy in the 1920s.

Capitalism can only be overthrown through armed confrontation with the bourgeoisie and the destruction of the bourgeois state.

[Decolonize The Left]

Could people give me their best arguments against this being a legitimate way to change society (electing leftist reformist parties to power/social democrats) so I have a strong theoretical basis to oppose this which will stand up to argument.

The first point to note is the definition of democracy. A democracy is "a government for, of, and by, the people." As such, it is incompatible with representation for representation cannot be "of/by the people" as it is a minority of the people. Hence your first argument is to force your opponent to concede that they do not live in a democracy. This will cause them to doubt the legitimacy of the institution itself as it is obviously lying by calling itself a democracy.

The second point to note is you are dealing with reformists. These people believe in the underlying values of the system and wish to change it for the better. They do not wish to change the system itself - merely to modify it. Hence you must address the problems present in the system, not within the current form. You must go straight to the root: economic and political oppression and exploitation. How do you do this?

An easy way is to attack capitalism. Almost everyone acknowledges, to some degree, the problems in the world today. The key is to associate these problems with their causes, namely, capitalism and imperialism. The second point is to note how these two are intertwined - they facilitate one another as they attempt to justify one another.

The next easiest way is to note how the government cannot possibly represent the people. Why? Simple: the most prominent interest of all elected officials is to remain in office. If this is the case, then at some point they will be confronted with a conflict of interest - 'represent my constituents or remain in office?' They will always choose the latter (usually with some form of lame justification). Furthermore, it is fundamentally impossible for a representative to accurately represent their constituents due to the class system. We are familiar with the fact that the capitalist class and the working class have different interests, yet we also know that representatives must represent both classes. This is impossible as these two interests cannot be synthesized.

In short:
1) Define democracy - note the reality of the situation.
2) Remember to stay at the root; you are dealing with reformists. You must convince them that it is the whole system which is problematic.
3) The root: capitalism and government. Attack capitalism for its many faults, attack government for its inability to perform its task of representation.

Hope this helps.

- August

[JimmyJazz]

I'm convinced there's no silver bullet one can use against social democracy. The inadequacy of reformism simply becomes clear as you spend a lot of time studying (1) socialist history and (2) present conditions (the corporate media, etc.)/the present legal system.

But I will recommend two things that, probably more than anything, pushed me in a revolutionary direction when I was more of a reformist socialist:


The Comintern (http://www.marxists.org/archive/hallas/works/1985/comintern/index.htm) by Duncan Hallas


related: Second International (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_International)


The Myth of the Rule of Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_International) by John Hasnas


The history of the betrayal of the international proletariat by the Second International, and the subsequent forming of the Third International (aka the Comintern), gives a historical picture for why a sudden, qualitative break with capitalism is needed.

The essay by Hasnas goes a long way to undermine the supposed fairness and non-ideological nature of our legal system. The system is class-based, it is an instrument of class rule, and to think that the proletariat can use it to overthrow class society is the height of naivete. It belongs to their class enemy--in fact, it came into being for no reason other than to protect private property on a huge scale.

[Tatarin]

I guess one could say that parlimentary democracy does work, but only for some. In the end, the best capitalist democracy is probably the US - two big parties, both having huge amounts of financing by the ruling class, and the "politics" of it being more of choosing the "best person", or the most charismatic one or something like that, rather than the party itself, let alone the party's politics.

I think this trend is growing in the world. If there are not already two major parties, then blocks are created, one "left" and one "right". Politics then become choosing what seems to be the best choice right now - just like with Barack Obama. Sure, it's probably better him than McInsane (who once suggested nuking Vietnam), but remember Clinton and his endless campaign of "change" before he became president?

Activists, fighting for all kinds of betterment are then put in check. They can either choose to join some small, outsider party with 10,5 people, or join the big one that has a large chance of winning the elections. The problem is, the "big party" won't tolerate radical change, or in the end, the radicals put their ideas at side to fight for small change, and eventually it comes down to what taxes to raise or cut down (i.e. small changes "no one really cares about").

But the thing is also, and especially in the US, that the president doesn't really have that much of a choice. Was it in Clinton's campaign to bomb an already starving and blocked-out Iraq? Before he even got president? Or was it his financial backers who pushed him to?

In addition to this, let's take Sweden as an example. In the beginning, the Left Party called themselves communists (it was even in their official party name so that it would be clear to everyone). But later they dropped this. They began going closer to the "middle", and now they are planning to run as a block with the social democrats and the greens. They still talk of socialism, but they describe it more as changing some tax policies, rather than a genuine change itself. They are more like "social democrats plus", basically what the social democrats were during the 60's and 70's.

One can also change the steak and see the right-wing "conservatives" (the Sweden democrats). When they began, they were openly racist. Some would vote for them, probably the one or two nazis around. Later on, they dropped racism, and instead became "culturalists", that is, anyone can come but they have to learn the language, writing and culture in order to stay. They are still racists, but they are now on the line of entering parliment (they need 4% of the total vote).

Another example is the moderates (right-wing neoliberals). They became the new "worker's party" and promised a lot of new jobs. They won with the help of 3 other parties, with a small marginal.

The point here is that parlimentary politics are more of a power game than anything real. The sides are already chosen, everything is done. The only thing left voting for is "yes, keep the government" or "no, change it". Then if it is better or worse, that really depends on where you live.

[Enragé]

aside from all the points brought up about it not being realistic (cappies won't let it happen) there is a much bigger problem. Parliamentary democracy is passive, people vote once every four years.

Revolution is people reaffirming themselves, fighting their oppressors, gaining confidence in their own abilities along the way, taking back their lives, putting it under their control. There is a complete transformation of social relations, a complete reckoning with the divisiveness of racism, sexism, homophobia etc since it's simply counterproductive to the struggle. It's self-liberation, and no parliament can do it for us.. in other words "Only the proletariate can free itself"

[Charles Xavier]

combining economic struggle(ie trade union struggle) with political struggle (ie parliamentry struggle) is important, the trade union movement should direct government for worker's needs.

[zimmerwald1915]

Here’s one:

Parliament is effectively powerless. The need for the state to manage the economy during crises (and even “normal” “healthy” times are low-level crises in the present period) necessitated the migration of state power out of parliament and into the executive. Appointed bodies like the Federal Reserve—for Americans—or the boards of other central banks simply have much more power and influence over the living conditions of the proletariat than parliaments. Furthermore—and again, this only applies to the United States, since I’m unfamiliar with the laws of other countries—it is very difficult to fire low to mid-level bureaucrats, so electing a different President (who, in the United States, appoints bureaucrats when there’s vacancies and who appoints different high-level bureaucrats each term except when there’s a stipulated term for the bureaucrat, such as the Fed Chairman’s fourteen years) doesn’t serve to change basic bureaucratic policy. That much you don’t have to be a revolutionary to understand; any high school government textbook will tell you that.