Politics, Democracy and Socialism
- This topic has 11 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 11 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I think this is an interesting subject being discussed on the WSM forum.
Does democracy disappear with the State? No State, no democracy.
Perhaps someone could point out the accuracy or otherwise of my post.
When the reformist talk of democracy they totally ignore economic democracy. The basics in life; the production of society's sustenance is owned and controlled by the ruling class; a tiny, minuscule minority – no democracy there.
As for political democracy? Socialism will abolish politics. There will be no capitalist political democracy, with its inherent violence in socialism. Instead production will be organised democratically by free individuals and without politics and violence.
Socialism-communism is not going to be an economical system. Democracy will not be abolished in socialism, on the contrary, a real democratic society will be established
Vin Maratty wrote:As for political democracy? Socialism will abolish politics.I've come across this formulation before from Anarchists. It seems to see 'politics' as synonymous with 'parliamentary politics', and see political sovereignty as residing in the 'individual'. Under Communism, political sovereignty will reside in the commune, and democracy is the method to ensure that all the members of the commune determine collectively and equally the policies of the commune.Personally, I don't understand how 'politics' can be 'abolished'. There will always be disagreements within society, which have to be dealt with. I think that a better way of conceiving this issue is to regard Communism as 'the democratic control of the economy'.Or,Capitalism in politics is 'one person, one vote', but in economics is 'one pound, one vote'.Communism in both politics and economics will be 'one person, one vote'
I know what you mean. Of course "politics" in the sense of arguments over what "policies" should be pursued or decisions taken will continue in a socialist/communist society. The objection to applying the word to such a society is that it is associated with the state and what policies it should pursue whereas there will no longer be any state. Just semantics perhaps, but I can't think of an alternative singe word for this at the moment.I think there's been some discussion here before on applying the word "economy" to socialism/communism. I'd be more opposed to this since the words "economy", "economics", etc are too linked to the concept of exchange and the study of the impersonal forces that arise and determine people's decisions about the production and distribution of wealth when there is production for sale.When production for the market with a view to profit has been replaced by production solely and directly to need people's needs, as will be the case in socialism, there will no longer be such impersonal forces to study and "economics" will cease to exist. So, on this definition, socialism is not an economy, not even a planned or a democratic economy. I'd be more insistent on this one in view of the fact that there are so many groups advocating democratic control of production for sale who imagine that that would be socialism. This, of course, is not what you mean, so there's no need to fall out over this (we know what we mean because we've defined our terms). It's others who might be misled.Better, then, to speak of socialism/communism as "the democratic control of the production and distribution of wealth" or simply "the democratic control of production".
I don't hink this is going too off topic as it indicates the mass misunderstanding of the subject. Is it possible to correct this entry? http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/political/bldef_communism.htm
ALB wrote:This, of course, is not what you mean, so there's no need to fall out over this (we know what we mean because we've defined our terms). It's others who might be misled.Better, then, to speak of socialism/communism as "the democratic control of the production and distribution of wealth" or simply "the democratic control of production".Of course, the problem of workers 'being misled' is the central problem, because the ruling class constantly 'misleads' them with ruling class ideas. Personally, I'm always in favour of trying to present Communist ideas, which oppose ruling class ideas, in as simple and immediately accessible way as possible (you'll remember my attempts on the Pannekoek thread to illustrate the scientific method by reference to 'a baker making pies', etc.). This isn't to argue that workers can't understand or shouldn't proceed to read and discuss Communist ideas in a more sophisticated form, but that, given that Communists are in a tiny weak minority, as are their ideas, we should present anti-ruling class ideas in as simple a form as possible. Once workers begin to even see that there are oppositional ideas to those that they've been force-fed all their lives, only then is the beginnings of a conversation even possible between Communist workers and non-Communist workers.So, since most workers already 'know' that 'economics is not politics', to me it makes sense to try to stress the similarities within the bounds of their existing 'knowledge'. Thus the formulation…
LBird wrote:Capitalism in politics is 'one person, one vote', but in economics is 'one pound, one vote'.Communism in both politics and economics will be 'one person, one vote'…in my opinion lends itself to an easily understood starting point for further discussion, because it begs as many questions as it answers, and also falls within the experience and current understanding of workers who are not yet Communists, but are already asking questions in search of answers different from those they've been given so far in their lives.I'm not of the 'Read Capital, read Hegel, now!' school of tactics, when someone in the pub asks me about capitalism.So, I ask, if democracy is so good within 'politics', why not extend it to 'economics'? Or if democracy shouldn't be extended to 'economics', why not remove it from 'politics', too. The contradiction is exposed, as most workers in bourgeois society are totally in favour of democracy, but have never been led to ask the questions above. Discussion will follow.As you say, none of this tactical opinion of mine leads to any disagreement whatsoever about our longer-term strategy: the end of the market and money, and free access for all.
LBird wrote:So, I ask, if democracy is so good within 'politics', why not extend it to 'economics'?This is actually a good way to introduce the idea of socialism. It is simple and easily understood; and difficult to argue against.I would accept that in many cases it is simply a matter of semantics.There is politics in the Greek definition, there is Niccolò Machiavelli
Vin Maratty wrote:LBird wrote:So, I ask, if democracy is so good within 'politics', why not extend it to 'economics'?This is actually a good way to introduce the idea of socialism. It is simple and easily understood; and difficult to argue against.I would accept that in many cases it is simply a matter of semantics.
Don't forget the other half of the couplet, though!If I was a Leninist Dialectical Materialist, I'd simply stress the the 'removal of democracy from politics' is the correct dialectical answer.What with the initial intricacies of 'interpenetrating opposites' and the development of 'quantities into qualities', 'democracy' is the succeeding negation of 'economics and politics', so that it's negation means 'Party Rule' and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.The 'negation of the negation' was described to me by an unconscious rock, so it must be objectively true, since I'm conscious and we come from rocks.Simples!
That's actually one of the approaches we used to adopt when speaking at Speakers Corner in Hyde Park on a Sunday. We told the listeners that it was true that every 4 or 5 years they were free to elect MPs and councillors to fill certain political posts but that, come Monday morning, as soon as they passed through the doors of the office or the gates of the factory where they worked they stopped being "free citizens" and became subjected to the dictates of whoever was acting on the authority of those who owned where they worked. In other words, that democracy stopped at work, whereas in socialism it would be different, etc.
LBird wrote:The 'negation of the negation' was described to me by an unconscious rock, so it must be objectively true, since I'm conscious and we come from rocks.ALB wrote:That's actually one of the approaches we used to adopt when speaking at Speakers Corner in Hyde Park on a Sunday.Errr…. I might have uncovered one of the reasons for the slowness in growth of the SPGB!
Even 'western' political 'democracy' is a sham;a front. Morsi, who is now on trial in Egypt, received 51% of the vote, while Cameron received 36%.Cameron gives pay rises to Royalty while there are 80,000 homeless children in the UK this Xmas.Perhaps if he lived in Egypt he may be on trial himself. In a sense it could be said that there is more 'political democracy' in Egypt.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.