The ambiguous relationship between political democracy and socialism

[JimmyJazz]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_suffrage

-Soviet Russia introduced suffrage for women in 1918, two years before the United States.

-In modern Cuban elections, from what I gather, people can only vote for members of the CP, and there are stipulations about a certain number of seats in the National Assembly must be filled by certain kinds of people (trade unionists, students, etc.).

-Engels wrote that universal suffrage is a "thermometer" and that when it "registers boiling point among the workers, both they and the capitalists will know what to do."

-The idea of the dictatorship of the proletariat, as I understand it, involves disenfranchising the bourgeoisie in the transitional period before their capital can be entirely expropriated.

So what exactly is the relationship between democracy (universal voting) and socialism (classless economy)? I'm looking for a theoretical answer, although perhaps with historical examples.

Has a good book ever been written on this?

I know there is a book called The Right to Vote (http://www.amazon.com/Right-Vote-Contested-History-Democracy/dp/0465029698/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1231630267&sr=1-1) by Alexander Keyssar which neatly destroys the myth that the United States is the "oldest democracy in the world"--universal suffrage was not actually introduced until 1920, when women were first allowed to vote. Blacks weren't able to vote for almost the first 100 years, and property restrictions existed at the time of the founding. So American "democracy", such as it is--and representative democracy arguably is not very much--is a scant 89 years old.

However, while these facts can be used as a pretty effective way of dispatching with the stupid view that America stands for democracy (and always has), doing so inevitably leads to the discussion of where socialism stands with regard to democracy. What kind of answer can I give, other than my own personal opinion?

[JimmyJazz]

Would a mod move this to OI? No reason not to open it up to a wider audience.

[gilhyle]

This is a very difficult question. In essence, Marxism recognises that democracy must be judged along at least two axes, breath and depth. Capitalism, at least in the 20th century, has a very broad suffrage, but the depth of the democracy is very limited. If both depth and breath are not practical, then breath perhaps should be sacrificed to protect depth - this approach is similar to that of the bourgeoisie, who sacrificed breath of democracy for depth in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Furthermore, Marxism recognises that it is legitimate to suspend democratic decision making - this is also common coin between all classes.

The character of the third element is unclear. Lenin clearly believed that the separation of powers as between legislature, executive and judiciary did not need to be maintained, but whether that is part of the temporary suspension of the appropriate constitutional structures or something more long term is a matter of debate.

[JimmyJazz]

This is a very difficult question. In essence, Marxism recognises that democracy must be judged along at least two axes, breath and depth. Capitalism, at least in the 20th century, has a very broad suffrage, but the depth of the democracy is very limited. If both depth and breath are not practical, then breath perhaps should be sacrificed to protect depth - this approach is similar to that of the bourgeoisie, who sacrificed breath of democracy for depth in the 18th and 19th centuries.

Of course. (That's not to insult your post, which is very well written).

But you are using democracy in the broad/true sense of "rule of the people", whereas I'm more interested in the relationship between political universal suffrage and socialism. In the sense you are using the word "democracy", socialism is democracy--not the whole of it, but certainly a part of it. IOW, wherever you replace capitalism with socialism, you have made a society more democratic, regardless of its political structure. But, universal political suffrage is also an element of democracy, and to the extent that you violate it you make a society less democratic.

In Marxist terms, basically I'm curious about what will replace the capitalist superstructure under socialism. I would think, and hope, that in a classless society we could turn political participation into something meaningful, rather than mere superstructure for economic class rule. (Even if temporarily we must make it a mere superstructure for working class rule).


Furthermore, Marxism recognises that it is legitimate to suspend democratic decision making - this is also common coin between all classes.

You mean suspending it for the bourgeoisie, right? No doubt it is common to all classes (when the ruling class does it, it's called fascism), but try telling this to a liberal. To them, saying that suspension of democratic decision making is "common coin to all classes" will merely confirm what they've been thinking/saying all along, that fascism and communism are two sides of the same coin.

I think it would work much better if, instead of simply pointing out that modern "democracy" is in fact class rule, we could present a vision of what meaningful political participation in a classless society might look like. And of course most communists do have some suggestions, such as recallable delegates, etc., but I mean something really comprehensive.

[PoWR]

Socialism is the lower stage of communism, when classes no longer exist. The state has withered away. There is no organized institution of violence to repress and coerce people any more. In such a system there can only be democracy in the fullest and realest sense of the term.

[PoWR]

In modern Cuban elections, from what I gather, people can only vote for members of the CP

Not true at all. The party doesn't even put forward candidates (though of course some of the candidates do belong to the party).

Have a look at the Cuba Truth Project. There is a section that explains the electoral process in Cuba.

Also keep in mind that period elections aren't the end-all of democracy. Real democracy involves everyday participation and playing a real role in the shaping of the future.

[mikelepore]

This is the first time I've ever heard of "disenfranchising the bourgeoisie in the transitional period." I've heard some socialists predict that most of the bourgeoisie will abide by the socialist mandate and they can be welcomed in the new system right away. I've heard other socialists predict that the bourgeoisie will put up such reactionary resistance that it will be necessary to incarcerate or perhaps massacre all of them. I've also heard of the various shades between these two extremes. But this is the first time I ever heard of the concept of disenfranchising them.

[ZeroNowhere]

I've heard other socialists predict that the bourgeoisie will put up such reactionary resistance that it will be necessary to incarcerate or perhaps massacre all of them.
"Oh no! They're such a tiny minority! We can't cope with this!" :laugh:

[davidasearles]

I think it would work much better if, instead of simply pointing out that modern "democracy" is in fact class rule, we could present a vision of what meaningful political participation in a classless society might look like. And of course most communists do have some suggestions, such as recallable delegates, etc., but I mean something really comprehensive.

The fewer things of the structure that must be changed the faster will come socialism.

I would propose that in the United States (the political structure that I am most familiar with) the entire structure could remain the same (including the dreaded electoral college) if the workers' collective of the industrial means of production supplanted the private owners of the industrial means of production and distribution. And at that point workers could start thinking about altering the structure of the political government as slow or as fast as deemed prudent.

[redguard2009]

I tend to agree, to a degree. Many of the institutions of modern bourgeois democracy are valid. The main point is in who's holding the reigns, and how they're holding the reigns. Abolishing the throne would go a long way to enacting immense changes throughout the system, with further changes coming in on the wave of intellectual, social and economic emancipation.

[Tower of Bebel]

Furthermore, Marxism recognises that it is legitimate to suspend democratic decision making - this is also common coin between all classes.Luxemburg however doesn't. She believes that a proletarian dictatorship "consists in the manner of applying democracy, not in its elimination, but in energetic, resolute attacks upon the well-entrenched rights and economic relationships of bourgeois society, without which a socialist transformation cannot be accomplished".

[davidasearles]

Socialism is the lower stage of communism, when classes no longer exist. The state has withered away. There is no organized institution of violence to repress and coerce people any more. In such a system there can only be democracy in the fullest and realest sense of the term.

One more example of why I don't advocate an "ism." If one is in favor of the elimination of class division between the workers and owners it would seem that the thing to do would be to advocate something specific that would accomplish that.

[ComradeOm]

This is the first time I've ever heard of "disenfranchising the bourgeoisie in the transitional period."Really? That's the real crux of the arguments put forward by Lenin in State & Revolution and the defining aspect of his take on the dictatorship of the proletariat. Lenin goes on a fair bit about "the subordination of the minority to the majority" and explicitly mentions "the exclusion from democracy of the exploiters and oppressors of the people"

This was fully apparent in practice with the Russia bourgeoisie effectively disenfranchised by the closure of the Constituent Assembly. Naturally they were not welcome in the soviets of workers or peasants. This is captured in the Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government (1918) (http://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/lenin/works/1918/mar/x03.htm) which states that "The socialist character of Soviet, i.e., proletarian, democracy, as concretely applied today, lies first in the fact that the electors are the working and exploited people; the bourgeoisie is excluded"

Both works (particularly S&R) also serve as a broadside to those who feel that bourgeois parliamentarianism can somehow be adapted to a socialist society

[Die Neue Zeit]

Lenin also noted in The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky, however, that this exclusion of the bourgeoisie was a specifically Russian measure:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/prrk/equality.htm


It should be observed that the question of depriving the exploiters of the franchise is a purely Russian question, and not a question of the dictatorship of the proletariat in general. Had Kautsky, casting aside hypocrisy, entitled his pamphlet Against the Bolsheviks, the title would have corresponded to the contents of the pamphlet, and Kautsky would have been justified in speaking bluntly about the franchise. But Kautsky wanted to come out primarily as a “theoretician”. He called his pamphlet The Dictatorship of the Proletariat—in general.

[...]

We know the example of the Paris Commune, we know all that was said by the founders of Marxism in connection with it and in reference to it. On the basis of this material I examined, for instance, the question of democracy and dictatorship in my pamphlet, The State and Revolution, written before the October Revolution. I did not say anything at all about restricting the franchise. And it must be said now that the question of restricting the franchise is a nationally specific and not a general question of the dictatorship. One must approach the question of restricting the franchise by studying the specific conditions of the Russian revolution and the specific path of its development. This will be done later on in this pamphlet. It would be a mistake, however, to guarantee in advance that the impending proletarian revolutions in Europe will all, or the majority of them, be necessarily accompanied by restriction of the franchise for the bourgeoisie. It may be so. After the war and the experience of the Russian revolution it probably will be so; but it is not absolutely necessary for the exercise of the dictatorship, it is not an indispensable characteristic of the logical concept “dictatorship”, it does not enter as an indispensable condition in the historical and class concept “dictatorship”.

The indispensable characteristic, the necessary condition of dictatorship is the forcible suppression of the exploiters as a class, and, consequently, the infringement of “pure democracy”, i.e., of equality and freedom, in regard to that class.




This is the first time I've ever heard of "disenfranchising the bourgeoisie in the transitional period." I've heard some socialists predict that most of the bourgeoisie will abide by the socialist mandate and they can be welcomed in the new system right away. I've heard other socialists predict that the bourgeoisie will put up such reactionary resistance that it will be necessary to incarcerate or perhaps massacre all of them. I've also heard of the various shades between these two extremes. But this is the first time I ever heard of the concept of disenfranchising them.

This disenfranchisement can be but the first step in the aggravation of dem Klassenkampf along with the transition to socialism, to correct Stalin. My position on your previous board - gulag labour for the former ruling classes - would be the next step, doing the "massacre" work more slowly.

[JimmyJazz]

Some interesting replies, but no real suggestions about how to build a system of meaningful political participation in a classless society.

PoWR's reply is the exception, however, the fact that I made this OP kind of goes to show that I think it is much too simplistic an answer. You may believe the state will eventually wither away without classes (I don't; you will always need some organized apparatus for administering justice), but no one believes it will wither away the day following the revolution. So, no matter what, a plan is clearly needed for what to replace capitalist democracy with. And it should involve a form of political participation that is indisputably more democratic than capitalist parliamentarism, otherwise the huge bulk of mainstream liberals will continue to oppose socialism on the grounds that it is "anti-democratic". Basically, it is easier to criticize something when you have a suggestion of how to do it better.

[GPDP]

Simply put, society as a whole, at the political as well as at the economic level, needs to become thoroughly participatory. The voice of the people needs to be heard, and their needs satisfied. But what better way to have your say than to get out and say it?

However, there must be structures in place to allow for such participation in the fairest way possible. In terms of decision-making, I would say that whenever a decision that affects somebody is in the process of dispute, that person should have a say on that decision directly proportional to the degree that he or she is affected by said decision. How this proportion is to be quantified should be left up to individual communities.

This is but the start, of course. Obviously at higher levels decisions would have to be relegated to recallable delegates or something of the sort.

[eyedrop]

The fewer things of the structure that must be changed the faster will come socialism.

I would propose that in the United States (the political structure that I am most familiar with) the entire structure could remain the same (including the dreaded electoral college) if the workers' collective of the industrial means of production supplanted the private owners of the industrial means of production and distribution. And at that point workers could start thinking about altering the structure of the political government as slow or as fast as deemed prudent.

Won't there be a constant powerstruggle between the workers' collective of the industrial means of production and the government. The government will also have the support of the rest of the world on their side as it happened in Catalonia, when they tried almost what you are describing. (As I understand your proposal) Most of the industry and distrubution was in the hands of CNT and UGT (which also had decent direct democrazy in the union controlled shops), but they left the government marginalised but intact. Then the government proceded to work against the unions at every possibility and practically won before the civil war was over.

I'll see if I can dig up some sources since my memory is a bit faulty.

[JimmyJazz]

How this proportion is to be quantified should be left up to individual communities.

I like your post, but it seems that with this quote you sort of brush aside the meat of the question. This is, in fact, where the real power would lie in the society you describe. Witness the modern abortion debate, which is entirely an argument over who is affected by a certain decision.

Even answering this, however, your post is still pretty general. I think what we need to do is to suggest exactly what kind of structures and/or processes might hew closer to this standard of "participatory" democracy than parliamentarism does. What kind of changes do you suggest? And I mean fundamental changes.

[GPDP]

First off, I know my post was quite general, and it was meant to be. Even so, I suppose I should've gotten down to the nitty gritty a little bit more.

My ideas on participatory democracy were actually somewhat shaped through my readings of Parecon theory and other related subjects. Though I no longer think of myself as a diehard pareconist, I do think some of what I got out of that phase is relevant to the question of democracy. Specifically, the idea that one should have a say in all decisions to the degree they are affected by them.

Parecon theory deals a lot with the kind of structures necessary to foster five basic milestones for a truly participatory economy: solidarity, equity, diversity, efficiency, and self-management. These values can also be extrapolated to a working polity, a Parpolity if you will (yes, these are the actual names for the theories). Parpolity theory, though incomplete, has basically taken the milestones of Parecon, and modified them in a suitable way. These milestones are solidarity, freedom, tolerance, justice, and self-management.

Now, what structures would allow these values to prevail, and thus bring democracy to the utmost personal level politically, economically, socially, etc.? Well, like I said before, it would be up to communities to figure out a solution that works for them, but I have a few personal positions myself.

Firstly, I should say that economically, central planning, though perhaps superior to the chaotic market in output, especially with cutting-edge technology at our disposal, would not deliver in this regard. To me, economic democracy is very important, and I am not sure central planning would encourage it sufficiently, if at all. If there is to be meaningful democratic input, planning must be decentralized, and issues of production, consumption, and allocation handled at the appropriate levels (the plan for local production at the city level, for instance, could go to the city council, with input by the affected ward councils and neighborhood councils of the city, for instance).

Similarly, politics should be handled in a similar fashion. I mentioned recallable delegates before, and I believe these delegates can serve in nested councils, as Parpolity theorist Stephen Shalom advocates. Again, issues pertaining a "higher" level in society would gain input from the lower levels, but these levels would not function as a hierarchy a la democratic centralism (if I am applying the concept correctly, that is), but rather as a federation of sorts.

Anyway, those are some ideas. Sorry if this post is kind of of jumbled. It made sense going into it, but I guess as I typed it out, it came out piecemeal. :(

[JimmyJazz]

It's cool. I was more or less interested in traditional socialist answers to this question anyway, not original ones. But some good ideas there.

[gilhyle]

Of course.

Im not at all sure its possible to go very far beyond that without going into fantasy - its cookbooks of the future stuff.


I think it would work much better if, instead of simply pointing out that modern "democracy" is in fact class rule, we could present a vision of what meaningful political participation in a classless society might look like.

See this is where you loose me. A socialist movement built on the ideal of more democratic society will never commit to the kinds of butchering of bourgeois democracy which the working class may require when newly in power.


universal political suffrage is also an element of democracy, and to the extent that you violate it you make a society less democratic.


This is where 'domocracy' as a concept has to be treated carefully....I society which looses universal suffrage as part of a process of deepening working class involvement in political decision making becomes, arguably more democratic.....except that 'more' / less are quantitative concepts applied here to an intagible concept ('level of democracy') and therefore close to useless as political ideas.


Luxemburg however doesn't. She believes that a proletarian dictatorship "consists in the manner of applying democracy, not in its elimination,

Because 'democracy' an intangible idea left to itself, if Luxembourg believed that she would, in my opinion, have fallen into waffle, instead of facing up to the issue of class rule. Marxism says its not about more or less democracy....its about which class rules.


in a classless society we could turn political participation into something meaningful, rather than mere superstructure for economic class rule.

Sorry to bew so basic, but actually I think we turn the superstructure in a classless society into the mere administration of things within which decision making becomes increasingly uncontentious and therefore democracy becomes redundant. The more interesting question is what the form and substance of democracy is in the early stages of socialist society, when class struggle continues. No ?


when the ruling class does it, it's called fascism

I was thinking more of the fact that there were no general elections in the UK during either World War.

[JimmyJazz]

I was thinking more of the fact that there were no general elections in the UK during either World War.

I see.

As for the rest of your post, I really think you underestimate the danger of dismantling things without at least an outline of what is to replace them. I'm not suggesting we need to have all the laws and bylaws written out, but a few major planks of the political constitution would be advisable.

I'm not really sure how to convince you of this; it's just something I feel absolutely certain about in my gut. To tear down what we have--which is admittedly not democratic--without an idea of something which would be more democratic seems foolish.

I don't think one can possibly argue, on the basis of previous experiments at creating a socialist state, that socialism is bound to be accompanied by democracy. For instance, the typical socialist revolution has resulted in leaders who are more long-standing and powerful than any elected parliamentarian executive. See Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Fidel, and all the rest--they pretty much occupied office until they died or were no longer were physically capable of serving as heads of state. In an ideal socialist society, through mechanisms like delegates (instead of representatives) and recallability (instead of impeachment), heads of state would be given less power/time, not more. Yet for some reason socialist societies have found it necessary to give their heads of state even more power than capitalist heads of state have in order to build and defend socialist gains. At least, that is the impression I get, and it seems pretty intuitive that the time spent in office does correlate to the power of that office.

And it's impossible to argue that any socialist country has adequately solved the problem of the transfer of power--indeed, this has to be the single greatest disaster of socialist revolutions worldwide. There is always uncertainty over who will succeed the current head of state, and often the ultimate successor is simply the most Machiavellian of the contenders (e.g., Stalin). That's not democracy. It also doesn't make socialist gains very stable or secure, as we can see by looking at Gorbachev or the current Chinese leadership.

[Eddie]

Google 'communists against democracy.'

[JimmyJazz]

I'm still curious about this question. Anyone who didn't reply the first time wanna take a shot at it?

[Blake's Baby]

Well since 1905 the 'traditional socialist' idea has been the workers' councils, hasn't it? I'm not sure what the question actually means to be honest. There will be workers councils in the factories and on the land, there will territorial delegate councils to administer areas, there will be direct democracy wherever it's practical (there's no reason for me in the UK to vote on whether some community in Brazil builds a health centre before a school for instance).

Or have I missed something fundamental about the question? Apologies if I have, it's late.

[Nwoye]

The best illustration of the relationship between democracy and socialism that I can think of can be found in Luxemburg's The Russian Revolution:

But socialist democracy is not something which begins only in the promised land after the foundations of socialist economy are created; it does not come as some sort of Christmas present for the worthy people who, in the interim, have loyally supported a handful of socialist dictators. Socialist democracy begins simultaneously with the beginnings of the destruction of class rule and of the construction of socialism. It begins at the very moment of the seizure of power by the socialist party. It is the same thing as the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Yes, dictatorship! But this dictatorship consists in the manner of applying democracy, not in its elimination, but in energetic, resolute attacks upon the well-entrenched rights and economic relationships of bourgeois society, without which a socialist transformation cannot be accomplished. But this dictatorship must be the work of the class and not of a little leading minority in the name of the class – that is, it must proceed step by step out of the active participation of the masses; it must be under their direct influence, subjected to the control of complete public activity; it must arise out of the growing political training of the mass of the people.
I think first off, "the dictatorship of the proletariat" has to be understood as the rule of the working class over the capitalist class - or the majority over the minority. The only socio-economic system compatible with this goal is a system of radical, decentralized democracy - a system where all power is derived from and all decisions made by the working majority.