true democracy
- This topic has 25 replies, 8 voices, and was last updated 11 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Just addressing the noun part how about 'adult humans'. If socialism's established, there won't be a further distinction. But to be catty, or maybe I'm being a troll, tho not intentionally, I did not necessarily mean a socialist democracy.
"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?And this is one of the crucial issues and why I and many others thinks some kind of market would develop. Not capitalism, necessarily, but a market. There was trade long before exploitation. I didn't get a satisfactory answer yet about how socialism will address me wanting a different kind of house, a friend wanting chocolate with lavender. How does it not become dicatated what you can and can't have? I sculpt. What if 1000 people want my sculptures? How do we decide distribution? Or pick your own example, hopefully you get the point.
'how about 'adult humans'. Hummmffff…Ageist… 'I did not necessarily mean a socialist democracy.,When it comes to true democracy, it can only be a socialist Democracy, anything less than decision- making free from wage-slavery is just a form of partial democracy. I'm not being pedantic but that is the reality…democracy transcends just the political process and involves control and a say in our means of living.
"When it comes to true democracy, it can only be a socialist Democracy, anything less than decision- making free from wage-slavery is just a form of partial democracy."K, I'll think (and maybe research) about this more. Ok, lets allow the kids to vote too, then my friend would get his varieties of lavender chocolate and maybe I'd get a house painted in primary colors. Hmm, maybe we should allow ONLY young people to vote.
The problem of rationally allocating productive resources in an economy is common to all human societies at least as long as these resources remain relatively limited compared to needs. However, there is no need to assume that this allocation could be effected only through the exchange of resources taking the price form. If people cannot change their behaviour and take control and responsibility for their decisions will socialism will fail. If people didn't work society would fall apart. If people want too much(more than is sustainably produced) and over-consume then socialism cannot succeed. There is no getting around these facts. But we don't share this pessimism about the human character. Humans behave differently depending upon the conditions that they live in. Human behaviour reflects society. Capitalism requires consumption drives us to consume and there is a very large advertising industry devoted to creating what is described as false needs. Also in capitalism there is a tendency for individuals to seek to validate their sense of worth and seek status through the accumulation of possessions. In socialism when you can freely take what you need the only way in which individuals can command the esteem of others is through their contribution to society. How can the status of conspicuous consumption be used as a reward as it is now for a privileged elite when everybody has equal free access. Hopefully, admice, by now, you have learned that we envisage that for the establishment of socialism we expect the existence of a mass socialist movement and a profound change in social outlook. We know that to build socialism the vast majority must consciously decide that they want socialism and that they are prepared to work in socialist society so the question is, having struggled and strived to reach that new stage in society, we will then proceed to undermine what we helped to create by making too heavy demands upon it. For sure, we will still be concerned primarily with ourselves, with satisfying our needs, our need to be well considered by others as well as our material and sexual needs. No doubt too, we will want to “possess” personal belongings , and to feel secure in our physical occupation of the house we live in, but this will be just that – our home and not a financial asset. Such “selfish” behaviour will still exist in socialism but the acquisitiveness encouraged by capitalism will no longer exist. Socialism doesn't require people to be any more altruistic than they are today. The coming of socialism will not require great changes in the way we behave, essentially only the accentuation of some of the behaviours which people exhibit today (friendliness, helpfulness, co-operation) at the expense of other more negative ones which capitalism encourages. Priorities can be determined by applying Maslow’s “Hierarchy of Needs” as a rough guide. We are talking here about our basic needs for food, water, adequate sanitation and housing and so on. High priority end goals would take precedence over low priority end goals such as your friends personal whims. We have to always remind ourselves that we are not starting from a blank sheet of paper , that there already exists various ways of distribution and nor is it one size fits all, different cultures and communities have their own traditional means of decision making. You need to change accommodation , then the neighbourhood council will have a list of available housing and will allocate according to individual need. If there is a shortage then the type and design will be chosen by consultation, all the more easier with the internet and online voting. Oh, by the way, it is your sculptures, a personal not a social possession …you decide and i am sure your own manner of picking who gets it will resemble the wider one. The real question is who and how your raw materials for the sculpture will be decided. Chocolate with lavender? No idea what that is. But she can only make a request to the Willy Wonkas Chocolate Factory and if there are others desiring it , then the factory will re-format the technology to satisfy the demand. If she is the only person she will have to garner people of similar tastes to make it efficient for the factory to manufature. Or she can learn how to make it herself! If you want detailed answers you are going to be disappointed. All sorts of variances exist between local regional and more wider decision making bodies. What your village or town does might be not the approach of mine. Socialism is not about imposing uniformity in democracy. Often the easiest form of rationing of non-essentials if things come down to that is the easiest…first come first served, as it is in a show of democracy…a mass assembly and all those in favour, raise your hands…
LBird wrote: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.
Proletarian democracy was a term erroneously used by Lenin, and Kaustky cleaned the floor with Lenin argumentations,( and Martov too ) because Kautsky had the correct definition of democracy, he said that democracy was the rule of the majority Lenin called proletarian democracy, the democracy of the poor, which also shows that Lenin was confused about the definition of being poor , because proletarian and poor in essence they are the same. In our society poor means without means of production, or proletarian.In a real socialist society the proletarian will free itself and will not exist as proletarian any longer, because it would be the elimination of the law of buying and selling, and the elimination of wage slavery, therefore the concept is totally incorrectTo return to the capitalist mode of production after a socialist society has been established was the same false argument of the Leninist and the Stalinist when Lenin was alive, and after the death of Stalin. It was also the argument of the Maoists and the Hoxhaists. They were all mistaken I do not think that workers are going to change his own ruling for the ruling of the minority, the argumentation is also erroneous because the capitalist will not longer exist either, a new ruling class must be created, are we going to have another primitive accumulation of capital and a new form of expropiation ? . Socialism-communism will be the end of all ruling classhttp://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1920s/1920/no-191-july-1920/russian-dictatorship
admice wrote:And this is one of the crucial issues and why I and many others thinks some kind of market would develop. Not capitalism, necessarily, but a market.The real 'crucial issue', admice, is what 'you and many others think' that a market is actually for.Put simply, liberals focus on individual choice and distribution, and see the market as a fair way of ensuring that individuals get what they want. The extreme libertarians argue that 'markets' can be separated from capitalism, but that is (as usual for the right) an ahistorical analysis, which ignores the commodification of labour-power.On the contrary, communists focus on socio-economic structures, and see the market as a mechanism for transferring wealth from the producers to the rich.It's your choice, about which ideology you choose to use to help you understand the world in which you live.Although, if you think that 'markets' lead to free choice for consumers, why not stick with what we've got now? On our part, we think that the evidence shows that wealth is flowing to the rich through the market mechanism.All forms of 'market' must be smashed, and democracy introduced into the economy.
admice wrote:I didn't get a satisfactory answer yet about how socialism will address me wanting a different kind of house, a friend wanting chocolate with lavender. How does it not become dicatated what you can and can't have? I sculpt. What if 1000 people want my sculptures? How do we decide distribution? Or pick your own example, hopefully you get the point.Aren't you and your friend, together with all your other co-producers of our wealth, like us, able to discuss and decide, as a community?Plus, the word 'dictated' shows worrying signs of extreme individualism. Don't you think democracy is a suitable system of decision-making?If you want the 'freedom' to ignore the wishes of your comrades, why not just become a billionaire? That's the 'freedom' you already have now. Billionaires always stress 'freedom of choice'; I wonder why you'd repeat their ideological views?
admice wrote:Stop being a trollI'm asking you to reveal your ideology, admice.Do you believe in 'markets' as a means of distributing goods?If you do, then you'll misunderstand the position of Communists. We're opposed to 'markets'. We want democracy, not 'one dollar, one vote'.
LBird wrote:admice wrote:If it's a true democracy, you can't guarantee it wil be or remain socialist. ^^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.
You are right. Only idiots, stupids, imbeciles, and the zombies would like to re-establish the rules of a minority. Why peoples would want to restore capitalism, or any other form of class society when they are going to have free access, such as free foods, free electrical services, free medical services, voluntary work, real freedom, and majority possession and control of the means of production ?Why peoples would want to re-establish discrimination, frontiers, borders, patriotism, wars, and the stupidity of the national flag and national hymn ? Why mankind would want to comeback to a reactionary and backward economical system, and to restore reactionaries leaders, politicians, and political caves controlled by senators and political gangsters ? We are not going to need them, they could be used as toilet paper, even more, at the present time we do not need them, this is a society run by the working class, the only problem is that we do not have possession of the means of productionWith the influence of the bourgeois ideology in the minds of the peoples in this capitalist society, we can find workers who support their own rulers, and they are even willing to die for them, spy for them, and kiss their assess, and some want to become exploiters, or some admire their world, , but in a socialist society where workers have already rejected the capitalist ideology, it would be very difficult to return to the old and backward system, on the contrary, those that were exploiters and members of the ruling class would be forced to support the cause of majority of the peoples of the whole world, and it would be difficult to have a coup d'tat because we are not going to have any army and police forces
LBird wrote:admice wrote:Stop being a trollI'm asking you to reveal your ideology, admice.Do you believe in 'markets' as a means of distributing goods?If you do, then you'll misunderstand the position of Communists. We're opposed to 'markets'. We want democracy, not 'one dollar, one vote'.
I don't think you are a troll, you are just describing the social reality, In order to uindestand socialist theories, first , we must remove from our brains the capitalist ideology, we can not be holding two lions by the tales
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.