true democracy

[admice]

If it's a true democracy, you can't guarantee it wil be or remain socialist. ^^

[alanjjohnstone]

A true democracy can exist if the population has free access to all goods and services because it is the power to give or deprive people of the necessities and luxuries of life that allows dictators and bureaucracies to impose their power. If we have free access then we do not need to obey them and they cannot enforce their control. 

[Anonymous]

How can we even talk of democracy when a tiny minority owns the world and its resources and has the power to employ or sack the rest of us.   

[rodshaw]

admice wrote:

If it's a true democracy, you can't guarantee it wil be or remain socialist. ^^

Hmmm…a post-socialist society…Class-divided society cannot be a true democracy.A truly socialist society would be democratic by definition – nobody would be able to monopolise the means of production and distribution. Everybody would have the same shared access to the world's resources (but, of course, that's not to say they would all be the same or have or want the same – far from it).So think about your own statement – would a socialist society elect to end this state of affairs? If so, why, and what would they replace it with?

[HollyHead]

admice wrote:

If it's a true democracy, you can't guarantee it wil be or remain socialist. ^^

 Please note — we are not in the business of issuing promises of fulfillment (guarantees). Socialism requires majority agreement and understanding. We cannot underwrite the success of the socialist project.In socialism people will be free to organise to change those decisions made with which they disagree.Socialism will be established to deal with problems which capitalism throws up but which it cannot resolve.I personally cannot envisage any circumstances under which a majority would want to revert to capitalism. Whose interests would this serve? And what mechanisms would they have at their disposal?

[LBird]

admice wrote:

If it's a true democracy, you can't guarantee it wil be or remain socialist. ^^

If we define 'bourgeois democracy' to be 'in politics, one person one vote; in economics, one dollar, one vote'and we define 'proletarian democracy' to be 'in both politics and economics, one person one vote'and, furthermore, regard your 'true democracy' as the latter, then I think we can 'guarantee it will remain socialist'.Once 'true democracy' has been achieved, why would a majority of people then choose to return to minority power? That is, to again allow the rich to determine how our wealth, which is produced in common by us all, should be spent on their private interests, rather than on our public interests?I think you'd be forced to argue, admice, that this could only happen if most people were stupid.This is precisely what conservatives do argue. Ask Boris Johnson.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

'proletarian democracy'

Shouldn't this be "socialist" or "communist" democracy as by then the "proletariat" will have disappeared or, more precisely, will have abolished itself and all other classes by having made the means of production the common heritage of all?

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

LBird wrote:

'proletarian democracy'

Shouldn't this be "socialist" or "communist" democracy as by then the "proletariat" will have disappeared or, more precisely, will have abolished itself and all other classes by having made the means of production the common heritage of all?

As a contrast to 'bourgeois democracy' in an explanation tailored for admice's question, I think it'll do.Furthermore, what would we call our political method this side of the 'glorious day'?'Proto-communist democracy'?Nah, 'proletarian democracy', as a contrast to the current lie of 'parliamentary democracy', is easily understood by workers first coming to our Communist politics. It clearly separates us, too, from the Soviet Union, Maoist China and Castro's Cuba.'Democratic Kampuchea' might cause some confused comment, though!Ahhhh…. the essential fragrance of Pol Pot Pourri…

[ALB]

Fair enough it's only words, but I'm still not convinced that "proletarian democracy" is the best way of describing the opposite to "bourgeois democracy" (still because there will no longer be a proletariat when it's achieved).In fact, I'm not even convinced that "bourgeois democracy" is the right word either (too dismissive, as one person, one vote is an important gain for workers). The contrast is between limited, "political democracy" and full, dare I say it, "social democracy".

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Fair enough it's only words, but I'm still not convinced that "proletarian democracy" is the best way of describing the opposite to "bourgeois democracy"…

Yeah, I'm trying to use 'words' to explain – if there is a better way than mine that gives a suitable explanation, I'm ready to learn! Really, in this context, it will take admice to say whether my explanation was useful or confusing.

ALB wrote:

… (still because there will no longer be a proletariat when it's achieved).

Surely there'll be 'democratic organisation' within the proletariat prior to the 'glorious day'? I think we should contrast the two forms of 'democracy' which to some extent will be operating together for some period during the class struggle.

ALB wrote:

In fact, I'm not even convinced that "bourgeois democracy" is the right word either (too dismissive, as one person, one vote is an important gain for workers).

Well, it's not 'dismissive' of the 'one person, one vote' concept, but of the fact that it only applies to 'politics' and not 'economics'.

ALB wrote:

The contrast is between limited, "political democracy" and full, dare I say it, "social democracy".

Once more, perhaps a matter of 'only words', but I prefer the term 'economic democracy', because all workers can understand that they'll be running their workplace. 'Social democracy', in contrast, sounds a bit hippy-ish, let's be 'social' and nice to each other.At the end of the day, we all want the best explanations to help develop the consciousness of the proletariat. And ourselves.

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

Surely there'll be 'democratic organisation' within the proletariat prior to the 'glorious day'?

Of course, but now you're changing the meaning of the word "proletarian". Originally, you used it to refer to the sort of democracy that would obtain in a classless, socialist/communist society (extending beyond administration to the workplace). Now you are using it to refer to working-class organisation within capitalism. In which case "proletarian democracy" simply means workers organising democratically. Good idea.This opens another discussion (probably for another thread) on the usefulness of using the word "proletariat" and "proletarian" to describe the working class. We never have and any writer for the Socialist Standard who uses either of them risks getting it edited out. The same goes for "bourgeois" and "bourgeoisie" in relation to the capitalist class. We've got to be able to put over the case in simple everyday language, not as if we are 19th century French revolutionists.

LBird wrote:

Once more, perhaps a matter of 'only words', but I prefer the term 'economic democracy', because all workers can understand that they'll be running their workplace. 'Social democracy', in contrast, sounds a bit hippy-ish, let's be 'social' and nice to each other.

It doesn't sound hippyish to me. It means that socialism/communism would be a "democratic society" in which democracy would apply beyond both administration and work to other aspects of society too, e.g. science. "Economic democracy" has its drawbacks too as it could suggest "one person, one vote" in enterprises producing for the market, e.g. co-operatives.We'll get it right in the end. Society-wide participatory democracy? Or even "true democracy"?

[rodshaw]

What about 'full democracy'?We definitely don't want to be talking about the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. People will really think we're stuck in the past. In any case people relate 'bourgeois', if anything, with well-to-do 'middle class', so it's yet another term we'd have to start redefining. Let's not go there.

[LBird]

ALB wrote:

Of course, but now you're changing the meaning of the word "proletarian".

Couldn't it be that you are misunderstanding my use of the word?

ALB wrote:

Originally, you used it to refer to the sort of democracy that would obtain in a classless, socialist/communist society (extending beyond administration to the workplace). Now you are using it to refer to working-class organisation within capitalism. In which case "proletarian democracy" simply means workers organising democratically. Good idea.

Yes?Surely the political methods we develop during the class struggle will prefigure socialist/communist society? In the context of an answer for admice, doesn't this suffice? So, 'originally' and 'now' are the same concept?

ALB wrote:

We've got to be able to put over the case in simple everyday language…

Yes.Who's complicating matters?

ALB wrote:

"Economic democracy" has its drawbacks too as it could suggest "one person, one vote" in enterprises producing for the market, e.g. co-operatives.

Yes, every explanation 'has its drawbacks', but if admice asks for clarification, we can give it.'Economic democracy' as a constrast to mere 'political democracy' is an easy way of explaining Communism to those workers who are starting to ask questions. It 'deepens' democracy, which workers are in favour of (and are opposed to the Stalinists, as are we), but shows that mere 'democracy' once every five years is not good enough. We want democracy every day of our lives. Detailed commentary and criticism about pre- and post-revolutionary methods can come later, when the questioner wants to move onto that.

ADM wrote:

We'll get it right in the end. Society-wide participatory democracy? Or even "true democracy"?

Yeah, but now we need the input of admice, and other newcomers, to enter the conversation with their opinions. 'Getting it right' is a task for all of us.

[Anonymous]

LBird wrote:

'Economic democracy' as a constrast to mere 'political democracy' is an easy way of explaining Communism to those workers who are starting to ask questions. It 'deepens' democracy, which workers are in favour of (and are opposed to the Stalinists, as are we), but shows that mere 'democracy' once every five years is not good enough. We want democracy every day of our lives. Detailed commentary and criticism about pre- and post-revolutionary methods can come later, when the questioner wants to move onto that.

  I agree. It could be used by  the party at elections. 'Voters' may be interested in the idea of extendining democracy to their day to day and work activities then a clear explanation of common ownership. 

[ALB]

LBird wrote:

now we need the input of admice, and other newcomers, to enter the conversation with their opinions.

Of course, but since she seems not too keen on "working class" and "comrade" I doubt if she's going to like "proletarian" !

[Author]

Posts