Democracy: For or Against

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I am really enjoying the discussion so far, but I just wanted to make a quick comment on this:



This poses a serious problem, because workers councils are made up of just that, the working class in its entirety; the issue with leaving certain decisions up to the workers councils is that there will always be backwards and reactionary sections of the proletariat. This is why I am of the opinion, that in certain material conditions, the soviets must be subjugated to the proletarian mass party. Far be it from being a condescending view towards the working class, it is simply the view that class conscious workers will be able to best express their class interests through the mass party of the proletariat (which will have membership controls, thus ensuring only the class conscious proletarians have political say over important decisions) as opposed to the soviets where backwards and reactionary sections of the class can gain political sway.

Ah horseshit, this is the old 'i'm not being condescending, but...' style of argument.

This is precisely the way in which democracy, of the proletarian kind, gets a bad name, and why we have to work so damned hard to wrestled democracy back from the bourgeois form, and the national level 'peoples' power' form.

If there are so many workers on so many councils that have reactionary views, then you're not going to have Socialism. If you only trust those in your mass party with executive decision making, then you'll keep centralising and centralising in the name of ideological purity until you end up with a dictatorship, not a democracy.

Seriously, i'm sick of all this 'we need more democracy, centralising is the answer' type of condescension. It's so dis-honest.

[Art Vandelay]

A mass party cannot be created without allowing non-revolutionary elements in it, no. One of the main things that led to the degeneration of the Second International was the admittance of reformist elements into it. Of course, the revivalists of classical social-democracy will tell us that it was the result of petite-bourgeois influences and the allowance of the petite-bourgeoisie into the party that sparked its degeneration, but that is quite demonstrably nonsense unless one accepts the ridiculous premise that by virtue
of being a proletarian one either automatically has revolutionary socialist politics or has acceptable politics, no matter what the hell they are, so long as they are the politics of a member of the working class.

I think it would be accurate for me to say that I fully respect your initiative to not use the term vanguard party and instead opt for the use of the term mass party for the same reason that I choose to use the term vanguard party and opt not to use the term mass party. The reason this is is because I support the formation of a vanguard party of the most politically advanced sections of the working class and I do not support the formation of a mass party that seeks to integrate the whole of the class just because they are workers.

Then just own up to the fact that it is of your opinion that the majority of workers cannot become class conscious socialists. I don't see any other conclusion to draw from what you are saying here. And if this is indeed the case, as your post implies, then what are the ramifications of this on your belief in the workers councils.

[Art Vandelay]

Ah horseshit, this is the old 'i'm not being condescending, but...' style of argument.

This is precisely the way in which democracy, of the proletarian kind, gets a bad name, and why we have to work so damned hard to wrestled democracy back from the bourgeois form, and the national level 'peoples' power' form.

If there are so many workers on so many councils that have reactionary views, then you're not going to have Socialism. If you only trust those in your mass party with executive decision making, then you'll keep centralising and centralising in the name of ideological purity until you end up with a dictatorship, not a democracy.

Seriously, i'm sick of all this 'we need more democracy, centralising is the answer' type of condescension. It's so dis-honest.

It isn't condescending, I am simply of the belief that in certain situations (generally only after the immediate expropriation of the bourgeoisie and in the face of capitalist reaction), that a degree of centralization will be necessary to preserve the gains of the revolution. The highest amount of federation and autonomy to workers councils will be present, given the material conditions.

[l'Enfermé]

A mass party cannot be created without allowing non-revolutionary elements in it, no. One of the main things that led to the degeneration of the Second International was the admittance of reformist elements into it. Of course, the revivalists of classical social-democracy will tell us that it was the result of petite-bourgeois influences and the allowance of the petite-bourgeoisie into the party that sparked its degeneration, but that is quite demonstrably nonsense unless one accepts the ridiculous premise that by virtue
of being a proletarian one either automatically has revolutionary socialist politics or has acceptable politics, no matter what the hell they are, so long as they are the politics of a member of the working class.

I think it would be accurate for me to say that I fully respect your initiative to not use the term vanguard party and instead opt for the use of the term mass party for the same reason that I choose to use the term vanguard party and opt not to use the term mass party. The reason this is is because I support the formation of a vanguard party of the most politically advanced sections of the working class and I do not support the formation of a mass party that seeks to integrate the whole of the class just because they are workers.

Revivalists of classical Social-Democracy? Like Lenin? Wait, do you think we are inventing all of this stuff? We're just unoriginally parroting Lenin and his comrades.

Of the hundreds of thousands of Bolsheviks on the eve of October, how many were "non-revolutionary elements"? What about the VKPD in 1920, a Comintern member-party. They had what, half a million members? How many were non-revolutionary according to you? I ask because you say that a mass party is impossible without non-revolutionary elements. Hundredsof thousands of active members is not a mass-party?

This view, by the way, promotes the fiction that communism cannot be embraced by the vast majority of the working class and will always remain a domain of the minority. An unacceptable view, comrade.

[vanukar]

Revivalists of classical Social-Democracy? Like Lenin? Wait, do you think we are inventing all of this stuff? We're just unoriginally parroting Lenin and his comrades.

Even if you aren't "inventing" anything at the moment, you will be in the instance of a revolution. No one will care about how to best formulate the mass party if the intelligentsia are struggling to keep up with the moving masses.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

It isn't condescending, I am simply of the belief that in certain situations (generally only after the immediate expropriation of the bourgeoisie and in the face of capitalist reaction), that a degree of centralization will be necessary to preserve the gains of the revolution. The highest amount of federation and autonomy to workers councils will be present, given the material conditions.

That is meaningless and thoroughly generalised; where's the historical specificity there?

You're saying that, regardless the country, regardless the material conditions, regarding the time, regarding the world political situation, you want to centralise, centralise, centralise. That is unabashed ideology there.

[Art Vandelay]

That is meaningless and thoroughly generalised; where's the historical specificity there?

You're saying that, regardless the country, regardless the material conditions, regarding the time, regarding the world political situation, you want to centralise, centralise, centralise. That is unabashed ideology there.

This isn't what I am saying at all.

[Red Enemy]

Just because it is against the fetishism of the majority? I don't think so. He isn't saying the rank-and-file are incompetent, or that the leaders are always right, or that the majority is always wrong. He is saying that, regardless of where the rank-and-file and the leadership stand on an issue, the majority isn't necessarily right, just because it is the majority. Claiming it to be something else is demagogy.

Of course the majority isn't "necessarily right", nor is it necessarily wrong. The problem lays with who is going to act in the revolution? An all knowing and powerful CC with a subordinate rank-and-file, or the working class itself?

You, and Bordiga, are suggesting that the rank-and-file play a subordinate role to the Central Committee. A sort of pseudo-blanquism.

So does Bordiga. He just doesn't sanctify the process of voting, or the opinions of the majority.

Nor should they be demonized.

Oh, does he? Then why did he not feel the need to specify? He is talking about democracy as a form of government in general.

If you read the article, he is talking about the rise of democracy in France. Nowhere does he mention party organization, or democracy in relation to a proletarian state.

It's quite obvious he is talking of bourgeois democracy.

Where has this been suggested at all?

It was a question posed to your, and Bordiga's, idea of party organization.

Bordiga isn't against applying majority rule in decision making - he is saying that this isn't a principle, quite the contrary it is a limitation which should be transcended in the future. When writing the democratic principle, he didn't pose an alternative and he certainly didn't say a minority should make all the decisions.

That's fine, that we shouldn't hold it as principal. However, he offers no solution to what is to transcend it, nor can he.

Consensus decision-making, for instance, is a much more desirable model compared to the democratic rule of the majority - however suggesting it as an ultimate solution to majority rule simply isn't effective in the present conditions of struggle against capitalism, where at times there is a need to take decisions rapidly.

Consensus decision-making is absurd, as it can make a decision making process last much much longer than it should. In a revolutionary situation, the party doesn't have weeks to debate to get the last few people to vote in favour.

However we shouldn't make a virtue out of necessity. Even when applying the majority rule i.e resorting to a vote to take a decision, we should keep in mind that the majority might well be wrong, the discussion should continue and the minority should be given the opportunity to keep arguing for its case as much as all this is possible to do so while taking the action related to the decision. Obviously one can't keep discussing while charging against an enemy. Nevertheless, continuing a debate after the vote is obviously an undemocratic practice, as it doesn't acknowledge the divine righteousness of the holy majority.

This is ridiculous, it isn't "undemocratic" to continue to argue against the vote, not at all.

If the minority has a case, it should be able to explain and change the minds of those in the majority. In the event they can't, it goes to show they are either wrong, or the party has some serious flaws and issues with it's membership.

Again, the same concept you apply of "the majority isn't necessarily right", goes the other way: THE MAJORITY ISN'T NECESSARILY WRONG.

You're little line about the majority not always being right is true, but stop using it as if the class conscious communist members of a revolutionary party are going to be so completely stubborn and dumb they will choose incorrectly all or most of the time.

If they do, then my concern isn't "democracy is failing us!", so much as the party in totality.

Your mindset is almost Blanquist.

Not seeing majority rule into a principle but as a last resort when a vote is, for whatever reason, an absolute or urgent necessity means being on guard against perfectly democratic maneuvers, such as rendering the debate meaningless or empty by making all the debates about voting or ending the debate by forcing a premature vote. Both are common democratic manipulations. Besides, it is easier to buy votes than opinions and arguments.

I hate using the term, but you can have what we call CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY.

I.e., certain agreed upon rules are laid out that format the democratic process in such a way to PREVENT these "democratic manipulations".

Organic centralism as practiced by the post-WW2 Bordigist organizations. Yes, there were similarities.

Organic centralism in general is what Damen talks about, not just post-WW2 Bordigists.

If you want me to stop quoting people, then you should try not to misrepresent their positions. Here's what Damen said: "Lenin, at his most personal and most decisive, by which we mean the Lenin of the “April Theses” had a desperate determination to “go to the sailors,” beyond the formal organisation of the Bolshevik Party’s Central Committee whose positions which were based on misunderstanding and compromise. Lenin was not operating on organic or even democratic centralism here, but acting as the chief pillar of the coming revolution, the only one who had understood and endorsed the demands of the working class and this is because his feet were firmly on a class terrain (...) In this constant dialectical relationship between the membership and leadership of the party, in this necessary integration of freedom and authority, lies the solution of a problem to which professional objectors have perhaps paid too much attention (...) The elementary tactical principle of the revolutionary party in action, is that it must take into account the characteristics of the terrain on which it works and that its members are adequately prepared for their tasks. We do not believe there needs to be disagreements on the question of centralism. These only begin when we talk in “democratic” or “organic” terms. The use, or worse, the abuse, of the term “organic” can lead to forms of authoritarian degeneration which break the dialectical relationship that must exist between the leadership and the members. The experience of Lenin is still valid, and it is vital to be able to fuse together, in a single vision, the seeming contradiction between “democratic” and “organic” centralism."

For those who are allergic to quotes, Damen basically opposed "dialectical centralism" to both organic and democratic centralism.

"[FONT=Times New Roman]The revolutionary party does not ape bourgeois parties, but [/FONT]obeys the need to adapt its organisational structure to the objective condition of the revolutionary struggle."- O.D.

When he talks about Lenin here, he talks of material conditions shaping what he did.

We aren't in Tsarist Russia.

--------------------------------------------------------

I'll continue to argue that a democratic centralist method of the rank-and-file electing the central committee is necessary. Organic centralism, where the central committee is unmoveable creates nothing but the presence of bureaucratic deformity and opens the party up to stalinization.