Using liberal democratic concepts in order to prevent oppression within socialism?

I'm trying to note some ideas i was struggling recently.Since the fall of the soviet union the idea that the most successful form of government is liberal democracy have become dominant.The personality which socialism had during the 50 s or 60 s in the last century does not exist any more.Most commonly people refer to socialism as something which is an authoritative form of governence.In this debate what the liberals usually point out is the autocracies committed under various regimes which were lead by communist parties in the 20th century.

Therefore the challenge is to reestablish the political personality of socialism in the 21st century.

Here one of the basic problems we face is - How are we going to avoid political authorization following a socialist revolution?Both in the Soviet union and PRC - generally we witnessed that political freedom or the status of human rights were not satisfactory.I'm not referring to the word "political freedom" in the traditional bourgeoisie sense but it's clear that many basic rights a citizen has even within a liberal democracy was not there under those regimes.In a liberal democracy - though the press is been governed by the rich bourgeoisie class still there is a space to reveal misconducts of the state.But under ex - socialist regimes no such space was there as the press/media was governed by the state.

The problem was, as i see is there was no proper check and balance system within those socialist regimes.I know this check and balance term is a liberal term but what i propose is we can use this concept in order to prevent a dictatorship within a socialist atmosphere.As an example if there was a strong independent judiciary in the Soviet union then Stalin would hardly get a chance to commit the autocracies he made,even he wanted to do so.Then the unjust trials against his political opponents ( Bukharin/kamanev) - they should have prevented this.When the people who are in office act against the rights of the citizens the judiciary - which is relatively independent from the political establishment - should interfere on behalf of the citizens - this liberal concept was alien to the soviet union/PRC.Liberalism has some valuable aspects and I believe We can use these aspects in order to avoid unjust oppression within a socialist regime
( Im not talking about the class oppression against the class enemy during a revolution - I think you'll understand)

Any thoughts?

Liberals are stupid. Otherwise they would be socialists.

Doesn't make it any more true. ;)

While relying in most cases on blatant anti-communist propaganda lies they conveniently manage to conceal/ignore/"forget" the autocracies committed by states under the leadership of various liberal parties.

It's also clear that under those regimes citizens had many basic rights they don't enjoy anymore under their capitalist successor states. What's more important? Your basic rights to food, shelter and work or "your" "basic right" to freedom of press? Always ask yourself: can we have both at the given moment?

The bourgeoisie is not a homogenous body, they have an overall class interest which makes them work together in times of danger but they also have internal factions and internal strifes. If misconduct is revealed most of the time one bourgeois faction is trying to oust another faction. That may have positive consequences for "the average man" sometimes but his well-being is not the reason why scandals are made public. The average working man and woman has effectively little means to reveal the many examples of misconduct they are faced with everyday.

What about Soviets, i.e. Workers' Councils? There are enough leftist concepts, including Marxist-Leninist concepts, aimed at preventing the rise of a "new bourgeoisie". If we had to look to the liberals for help we'd be pretty much doomed.

Why? They weren't unjust.

Concept fine and well but a) the judiciary most of the time isn't independent from the political establishment and b) it rarely does interfere on behalf of the citizens.

Why should we use some lame liberal concepts which obviously don't work even now instead of coming up with something new? Also, liberalism, like any ideology, represents certain class views.

There will still be enemies of the proletarian state after the revolution.

I don't think this is the point.There is no question about crimes commited under capitalist regimes.That is the obvious reason we oppose it.But if the same thing happens within a socialist regime I see no use in that.One just cannot ignore everything by just saying that those are anti communist propaganda.Yeah the propaganda part is there but still didn't Stalin misused his power?Were there any institution to balance communist party hierarchy making wrong actions?Absolute power with out any balance gathered around one institution will obviously lad to corruption and misuse of power.That's what we witnessed in the soviet union and the PRC.

So what do you suggest?Do you reject political freedom or freedom of expression?Yes I agree right for food is basic but that doesn't make other seconder y rights unnecessary.Why did the people in countries like east Germany so hated the then regimes?Because the state - continuously involving in their day to day lives became a headache,even though the system made advancements in economic lives.can we have both at the given moment?I beleive that's we should fight for.

Again I don't say that bourgeoisie liberalism is the best.I agree that it has a class nature and it acts according to the needs of the class in power.But still there are things that can be appreciated.If you take the revealing of misconducts issue,now we see that Arundathi Roy of India goes here and there raises her voice on issues such as displacement and environmental pollution which has been caused by the government development policies.There is a space for her.As every media is not owned by the state there is an alternative sphere in order to raise those issues.But was such an attempt possible regarding any development work carried out under ex socialist regimes?This is something we should focus on.

I agree.Soviets is a good innovation.Direct democracy in the local government level is a productive way of preventing bureaucracy.But will that be enough?Why did the system did not work in Soviet union?How did the so called new bourgeoisie captured power?Why couldn''t anyone prevent them doing so?Again if there was a system of balance and check then many of those incidents should have been prevented.

I was referring to the infamous moscow trials Anyway many senior Bolshevik leaders got murdered on conspiracy charges,during Stalin's rule.Were all they counter revolutionaries?What about the policy they took on Trotsky?Was he deserved to be murdered?He got banished just due to political differences,not because he was a counter revolutionary.In a liberal democracy it's hard to commit such an act even a leader wants to do so.Obama cannot banish his rival candidate just because he is politically opposed to him as an example.There is an mechanism to balance such acts.There was no such mechanism in the SU or PRC.That is my point.

I talk in a relative sense.I propose you to go through fundamental right cases which are been heard around the world.Again those are not IDEAL but comparatively the involvement on human rights are much better than what was there in ex socialist states.

Historical development does not completely exclude the past.We should move forward from capitalism but remember liberal concepts such as Voltaire's were progressive achievements of the man kind.We should extend these achievements to the future context.

Again I'm not talking about the enemies of the revolution.No liberal democracy will treat a revolutionary in a "just" manner.In the same way there is no need to treat a counter revolutionary in a mild form.I'm talking about the relationship between the state and the citizen.Soviet union failed to democratize the relationship between the state and the society.We should learn from the past if not the history will repeat itself.

So what you are proposing, basically, is to make our system more liberal-friendly. We do not need that. Socialism has its own ways to make sure leaders don't get out of control.

What are these own ways?Why didn't they work in any of the ex socialist regimes?forget the liberal label and let us focus on the concept.An independent judiciary - is it productive or not

I think by "socialist regimes" you mean to say state capitalist, at least if you consider the law of value Marx explicated in his mature economic works such as Capital and the Grundrisse.

Honestly i think you're missing the point, those of us who are socialists don't have to account for the regimes you're referring to because they were not socialist regimes and this is not even controversial.

If you want to talk about how the soviet union could have been better i would suggest socialism.

I think that essentially the problem is: "how to stop the dictatorship of the proletariat from becoming bureaucratic"?.

The point that you're describing would be after a workers' party took power. The minds at the head of that party would have to overcome the desire to let intellectual leadership slip into actual leadership, i.e. power. No theory of revolution to date provides for easy answers to this problem.

Doing something like establishing an independent judiciary would be giving authority to those judges. Soon enough they would be extending their own reins as well.

If I'm wrong, I'm kind of interested to see how other people here might interpret the problem. And I don't think it's enough to say "well, if it were really socialist we wouldn't have these problems"; the question is how to get to a place where no abuse of power is possible.

If a revolution only serves to replace one form of repression with another then nothing has been gained and all of the pain endured in the name of revolution will have been wasted.

The problems is that many on the left have no problem with the "good" kind of oppression that targets the people you don't agree with.

In the end, you cannot seperate political freedom and economic freedom. What good is a vote when you are starving? What good is food if you have no say in the way you live your own life? We use economic power to obtain political power and vice versa.

In the end there is only one answer to any form of oppression: power to the people. The more say that you have over your own life (economic, political, and cultural) the less likely you are to be victimized.

Yeah that's what I meant.

Completely agreed.Unfortunately many of the answers I had on my thread was a similar kind of reply.We can simply say that soviet union was a state capitalism PRC is another etc etc - then one obvious question arise.Were there anything ever on the surface called SOCIALISM?My point is that concepts like human rights have came into a wide recognition within last few decades,which was something did not exist in the beginning of the 20th century.A worker's state should focus on this development rather than rejecting them as liberal nonsense.

Independence here is been mentioned in a relative sense.As far as I know England has a long tradition of an independent judiciary which keeps it's distance from the political establishment.Existence of such a judiciary has not put the bourgeoisie state out of balance.Why cannot a worker's state focus on developing a check and balance system?When the complete authority is with the party decision makers and when there is no mechanism to balance or check their decesions on the basis of social welfare/human rights then authorization is inevitable.

The socialist state, and I hesitate to call it a state, will be a nonpartisan, decentralized, and extremely democratic entity to guide society's path to communism. It will barely even exist before it withers away completely. Authoritarianism is simply not true socialism, but the liberal and conservative "democrats" like to say it is.

The best historical examples of socialist countries are the Paris Commune, the Petrograd Soviet, and the German Socialist Republic. There are other countries like these, but these are some of the most historically significant. The socialist state should be modeled after these countries.

You know this is just for show, right?

What is?

What I quoted him as saying liberal democracy provides? That is to say an "independent judiciary". It only exists as far as can be tolerated by convenience as a way for the ruling class to solve some disputes and create a false air of respectability.

Regardless, a legal system cannot and should not be politically independent. The decisions made are political no matter what absurd attempts at abstraction are made where it is placed in some sphere of its own. Independent judiciaries only exist insofar as the ruling class wants to try and lie people in the face.

The structure of a democracy can work within socialism. Socialism only entails abolishing capitalism. A republic/democracy and capitalism aren't mutually exclusive.

Except "liberal democracy" is in no way actually democratic, if you swing that way.

In some ways democracy can also be contrary to working class rule, though this depends on interpretation of the term.

The reason I don't see such a thing happening is that I don't know how it is possible right now to achieve a system that not only restrains those holding power at the time of implementation but also closes enough loopholes such that those in authority don't find a way to pervert it later.

I hate to cite a founder of the US, but Franklin was entirely correct to say "you've got a republic, if you can keep it" seeming somehow to know the difficulty inherent in such an effort. One of the so-far unavoidable problems in history is that we have not on any level found a way to "keep it", no?

I can see a checks and balances system in a socialist country, of course with peoples elected judges, peoples elected assemblies, and basically people that the people trust and want to have power expressed through soviets, or basically super-unions. but the checks and balances thing is just for governmental structure and organisation, the whole ''one branch becoming too strong'' is insignificant because all branches support the same thing in the end, which is capitalism. However if there is workers democracy and not a post lenin style of beurecratic appointment for positions in government, the human rights thing won't be a problem. Workers appendeges of authority won't naturally turn against the workers, if they do then that would be the case for a peoples judiciary to review that official. Just switch around the bourgeois elections with proletarian elections, and we should be fine. I would however get rid of the executive, or at least make it so cant control the military. AGAIN JUST TEMPORARY STATE STRUCTURE