Democracy in a Socialist Society - How should the Government

In a socialist society how would our government be elected (if they are)? There are many so called 'democratic' systems ranging from 'first past-the-post' single member electrets to multi member proportional representation. The 'seats' are based on population, land area and other methods. The representatives are elected for fixed terms of one to many years or else for a maximum or minimum of x years. In some places there is only one house in others two (I don't know of any place with three houses). In some places there is an elected president with executive power in other places the head of state is purely a figurehead.
My question to you is what is the best system, in your opinion, for electing a government and would it work in a socialist society on the scale of Earth?

I think Marx meant for communism to be a participatory democracy, not a representative one.
In other words, the people all vote on issues, instead of electing a rep. to do it for them.
There's talk of doing this via the internet, I think redstar made a post about it awhile back.

I think about this a lot, too.

Personally, I'm in favor of a one-party or no-party system. This, of course, depends on how the party relates to the state. I like what they do in Cuba, where political parties aren't involved in the election process.

In countries like the USSR, though, they couldn't do that because in their system the party was essentially a part of the state. The way I understand the soviet system, the state had two main bodies - the government and the communist party.

In neither example do political parties play the role they do in western bourgeois democracies, and that's the way it should be. I think the idea of having several political parties that each nominate a single candidate and compete with eachother has no place in a truly socialist society. It is just another flaw of the capitalist socio-economic system: the party with the most money will always win. I think political parties as we know them need to be destroyed, and all candidates should be given an equal X ammount of resources with which to campaign.

Society after the revolution would not consist of party politics and governments. Governments are designed to keep capitalism as a global system. It protects big business and allows meglamaniacs to have lots of power. The party politics and eleciton process and governments and all that crap is integrated into the profit making and consumer world we live in.

Society has to be run, economically at least to cater for all the needs of society. The worlds economy can be managed so that everyone is provided for and not in this crazy system where we over produce stupid things so we can buy them. Therefore society has to be organized into communities. Each community has an elected committee of people who are incharge of coordinating that areas tasks. They are accountable to that community. Each area, nationally and globally co orindate between each other so that things get done.

We are all intelligent people. There is no need for party politics, just an administrative body which co ordinates the social and economic work of an area.

There would be no state, no government, no political parties, no political celebtraties, no election campaigns and flashy gimics, and no funds for these campaigns and fancy gimics. everyone would be the equal, work the same amount and be provided for, with everything and anything they needed.

In my opinion the only role of the government in a Marxist society is to overthrow the ruling class with a centralized power, or the 'dictatorship of the proletariat'. This shall be the "government", but it works in a tricky way. For example, the government in a Marxist-Leninist society's only role is to bring the proletariat to power and to end capitalist exploitation by collectivizing all forms of land, and giving it back to peasants/workers/proletariat. The way this works is that the peasants that work on these collectivized lands democratically make all the decisions.

Once the peasants/workers/proletariat are firmly in place, and smoothly democratically running all collectivized land that they work on, the state simply withers away.

Of course that is just theory, I personally don't believe the state will 'wither away' as Lenin put it, in the near future. Especially with all the aggressive imperialist powers in the world that will jump at the chance of attacking another nation.

I agree with Jjack though, the government in Cuba is very impressive and probably one of the best alternatives to the "withering away".

The problem with anarchism is that it has no plan for the defense after a revolution, although it has laid ideas down which probably would fall apart under pressure. Anarchism and communism have the same ends: abolition of the state, its how to get there that's the problem. An Anarchist revolution will lead to enemies taking over after you've pushed the former authorites out, A Communist revolution will lead to tyranny. Lenin laid plans for recallable officials, elected all that, but it didn't work. Something must be done to the theory in order for the revolution to be kept from betrayal by would-be-tyrants. Anarchists, which I used to be, have plans of decentralization with communal federations operating. The trouble with that is that if a serious attack was ever made upon the revolution, some of the communes might no go along with the defense, the struggle for resistance against the invasion would be hard to come by, as it happened in the Spanish Revolution. You had people some "Anarchists" joining with the fascists, and many of the people who were suppose to be fighting surrendering.

Democracy? It depends. The defense of the revolution is likely to take some time, which would have require some kind of state to defend the revolution. Afterwords, which would be far off, you would need to have people working in an anarchist manner, no state, etc. Keep in mind that this would be a long way coming, many deaths would occur between the start and completion of the revolution.

Ok, I asked if it would work on the scale of Earth. From what I understand of anarchism and communism (lack of centralised government or lack of government) they don't work for large scale populations. If you were given 6 Billion (6000000000) people and were told to organise them so that they didn't kill each other over resources or race or whatever, could you do that, with out an efective central government and with out an effective police force.
I am talking socialism on a world scale, not communism on a world scale with only a few million or a billion people.

Communism or Anarchism, or any society lacking a state, is a long way down the road. Possible? Yes, I think so, I think you have to if you consider yourself either one of those titles. This has never been tried, all the past communist revolutions were state socialist at best, that is not communism, it is along the road though. There is something you have to understand about these things which will allow you to decide if it could in fact work, which is how the actual society will be organized. Without centralization means you need federations of decentralized communities. For this to work you need direct democracy, without it you've got nothing. This is the alternative to the present. Capitalism leads to extinction, Communism and Anarchism offer a slim chance of survival. Survival, that is the key, that is why communism is plausible. Survival is the one key element of all life: the will to power, the will to push on, only until victory. If we don't try, we curse our world to extinction. If we do try, we have a slim chance of survival.

I think the only way the world will be able to work without a state is when we:
1) Eliminate religion
2) Re-educate capitalists
3) Eliminate borders

I don't know if pulling this kind of thing will be bloody or not, but it sure as hell is necessary. Somethings we should work on when we install a socialist state.

We have to define first of all what exactly the State is. Before the industrial revolution the state was simply a feudal system. The King was incharge, the Lords han the land and the peasents worked. It was not capitalism in the sence that individuals can own global companies and exploit people to make profit. No, feudalism was far mroe blatant. The peasents worked or they where forced too and the lords reaped the benifits. After the industrial revolution, the need for a state became absolutly necessary. Capitalism became more subtle. The police state was created, along with secret service agencies, laws against consumers and for producers. The state became a creation for the bourgeoisie to keep hold of power and make sure that capitalism operated at a profit making pace.

So we have to first agree that that is what the state is, a tool used by the exploiters to exploit and to make sure they can keep exploiting.

The point of a revolution, we must also agree, is too over throw capitalism and emancipate the proletariate into a position of economic and social freedom, so that human consciousness can develop. ´

However, what Leninism whishes to do is retain the very thing, the working class has jsut struggled and fought to over throw. Giving reasons like, 'the defence of the revolution' which is completely illogical.

I think you take your antagonism from the spanish revolution. I do not know alot about the spanish revolution, but I am under the impression that it was not born out of a class consciousness, meaning it was not the proletariat who awoke from their oppression and cast of their mighty chains of exploitation and rid themselves of capitalism...in fact spain was barly even industrialised, therefore it was doomed to failure, regardless of Franco.

A revolution, can only happen through class consciousness. The mass of the workers must realise there material position on the planet and fight to change it.

So when you say that "The problem with anarchism is that it has no plan for the defense after a revolution..". to me seems based on little fact, except on a revolution that did not have the right material conditions to succeed in the first place.

It is not logical to simply sumise that Anarchism does not have plans for the defence of the revolution, becasue that somehow implies that Anarchists are incapable of organizing anything, or indeed that the workers are incapable of organizing.

Anarchists differ from Communists on two levels.

1) [Leninists] Communists whish to create a revolution using a political party, whom will act as a vangaurd to organize and lead the revolution in the "interests" of the workers.

2) [Leninist] Communists believe that the state is a necessery part of the revolution in order to saf guard the "interests" of the working class (which includes a secret police as in Russia after october 1917) and allow the transition into true communism happen smoothly.

1) Anarchists dispute fundamentally the very notion of an elite. There can be no party, with a leadership, but a movement, of workers, educating themselves, politcising themselves, with the guidance of intellectuals. Within this mass movement the workers must organinze themselves in the possibility of revolution. If the time comes, the workers must know what to do. Which leads to the second point...

2) Anarchists dispute fundamentally the notion of a state. The revolution, which was born out of this mass movement has no need for a state. The planning, the organizing has been done. Anything that happens is coordinated between area, communitites, who can operate independantly of each other, while still continuing to be a coimbined force.

some of the communes might not go along with the defense, the struggle for resistance against the invasion...

Why? Why would the workers have fought so far only to stop. it makes no sense. If the revolution came from the mass movement, who had politicised each other, then each commune would fight until the death to preserve the revolution.

The defense of the revolution is likely to take some time, which would have require some kind of state to defend the revolution.

Why? And in what form? The state is our enemy. I think people have to be careful when using the word state. A state is a bourgeois concept, and it is the bourgeois we are fighting. The revolution needs organized active communes, with volunteer workers who are trained and equipped and who can coordinate themselves with other areas.

, I asked if it would work on the scale of Earth. From what I understand of anarchism and communism (lack of centralised government or lack of government) they don't work for large scale populations.

This is an interesting question. Revolution will take along time, and alot of organizing. Each area operates within itself. Even now, in towns there is a town hall with a local government, they are contained so to speak within there own existance. Therefore any nation with a mass of people will organise within there own sphere of existance. London will organize the revolution and their subsequent survival both political and economic as New York will. They may operate in different ways but the priniples will remain the same.

Do not look at it on a global level, look at it as areas. The revolution has to be global, but it is communities all over the world which will make it global.

I, like several others it seems, struggle to accept that Anarchists have thought through the basic practicality of either getting to it, or maintaining it on a large scale. I've been trying to find a way to think more favourably of it on a practical level for many many years. I've always loved the promises and the visions and the natural atrractiveness of the idea, but cannot, no matter how I try, see them as much more than wishful thinking daydreams held together by the most tenuous of hopes.

Sorry.

You ask why would one collective (or many) perhaps not go along with others? Please, there are all too obviously any number of reasons (a different assessment of risk or need, powerful and popular voices with revisionist tendencies, Bribery, etc). You are stating the position as it would be if everyone had become a fully committed Anarchist with many years of practise at it behind them. Thats not the time that is at issue; the question is how do you get to that time? To the extent of questioning whether you can get there even possibly in the face of opposition?

The second huge flaw in Anarchist arguments is founded upon their notion of 'the state' being an oppressive device. A state is a tool. Like all tools it operates according to how you handle it. But it isn't a pointless tool or one that has evolved because it lacks usefulness. Quite the reverse a state has served Kings, Liberal republics, Oligarchies, and capitalists very well. To lump these things in as being all pretty much the same really does grossly oversimplify.

A state (whether it be a world government or a national one) essentially co-ordinates. This is something Anarchists seem to think just happens naturally. It does not. We are not automatons following a predictable path and all ready to agree with each other at the drop of a hat. We have different desires and priorities and will fight our corner. A state is a mechanism for achieving co-ordination, compromise, and ongoing strategic direction. Without it Anarchists can pretty much forget co-ordinated road standards, pollution standards, rail standards, communication, entertainment, policing; in fact almost all the large scale things which benefit everyone. They can forget large scale investment or muti site projects too.

In fact most Anarchist arguments are not against coordinating bodies (which is what a state is) at all. They are against particular uses of government machinery. To obviate those uses (which almost all non stalinist socialists oppose too) one needs to bring the executives of government more clearly under the control of the general population. It isn't too hard to concieve how this could be done through direct democracy and instantly dismissable officials. The fact is that if you believe it would be possible to organise communes to defend mutual outside threats there is no sensible reason at all to think the same people could not defend themselves against those seeking dictatorship from within. If you wont accept that any standing security force can be trusted then you can flat forget ever establishing anarchy at less than a world wide level. By the time you had got together, trained your defence force, built your weapons, etc. you'd all have been under the invaders thumb for years.

Maybe you think an anarchic society would be left alone unmolested? If you do I just differ. I reckon it would be very high up someones axis of picking off list.

Which leaves you relying upon a simultaneous workers uprising all over the world. Do you honestly see this as likely ?

Sorry again but most anarchist writings look somewhat like yours when it comes to talking about anarchism rather than dismissing other systems. They are full of rhetorical phrases like 'mass movement, of workers, educating themselves, politcising themselves, with the guidance of intellectuals' when of course what anybody outside of anarchist circles is going to ask is 'O yeah, and how exactly is that going to happen, whats going to make them want to get educated in that way'. Anytime you hear that a system will work because 'ABC will orgainse itself' alarm bells ought to start ringing, it means 'errrrr I dont really know'.

Sorry mate. I actually want to be convinced, but you cannot do it by citing slogans. I know that this is not what you think you are doing, but thats how it comes across.

best wishes from a wannabe anarchist.

It isn't a slogan mate it's an oppinion. So tell me, how would you wish a revolution to be organized? Through force? How do you expect the working class to suddenly decide one day that there has to be a revolution. Because some party bureaucrat who studied classical philosophy and calls himself a leader said so. Is it suppose to be a spontanous occasion which derives from a moment of rebellion. Which can not be the beginning of a succesful revolution. Organization can not come after the revolution now can it.

Marx talked about consciounsess, class consciounsess, social and political consciounsess. For me, it is as clear as day, but for some people, including some so called communists, the notion of consciounsess is about as easy a concept to grasp as quantum machanics. I do not think I can explain it too you. It is something that jsut comes through education (of Marx etc)

People rant on about the state being a necessary tool, but do not go further to explain why it is a necessary tool. You say that

...Anarchists can pretty much forget co-ordinated road standards, pollution standards, rail standards, communication, entertainment, policing; in fact almost all the large scale things which benefit everyone. They can forget large scale investment or muti site projects too.

But you do not explain why a state is any better than independent federations. You do not explain why Anarchism will not be able to have all these things. You simply keep reinforcing that the state is a necessary tool. Are human beings that stupid that they need a whole mechanism of administrative and bureaucratic branches of government to tell them how to organize their lifes? Again this understanding comes down to the level of consciounsess you understand, and it is something that you must learn.

This goes onto the very boring argument that people keeping giving, that somehow the revolution will collapse because it is an anarchist one...again, it comes down to your confidence in humanity. For me, the mass movement will want to fight, and as long as you want to fight, you can corodinate quite easily, without the need of a centralised government...although I understand people dont agree. They havent explained why yet, but we always live in hope.

O yeah, and how exactly is that going to happen, whats going to make them want to get educated in that way'. Anytime you hear that a system will work because 'ABC will orgainse itself'

It is a difficult question and one Anarchists and Communists must debate, but it is irrelevant here. First we must convince those who will attempt to organize such a movement that it is a worthy cause to be fighting for. At the moment, you Leninists seem hell bent on using a party newtwork and a "vangaurd" of leaders.

This debate is not deep enough, and people keep repeating themselves (including me) so can we take this a little bit further please, and can people explain to me in detail, because im intrigued to know...why a state is so necessary to organize our lives and defend the revolutiuon?

Well in socialism there are no national governments, as there are no nations, its workers councils and every member of said council, commune, society whatever u wanna call it, participates in this democracy, as comrade kg put it, it isnt a representative democracy but a particitipary democracy